Slashdot Mirror


Air Force Cyber Command General Answers Slashdot Questions

Here are the answers to your questions for Major General William T. Lord, who runs the just-getting-off-the ground Air Force Cyber Command. Before you ask: yes, his answers were checked by both PR and security people. Also, please note that this interview is a "first," in that Generals don't typically take questions from random people on forums like Slashdot, and that it is being watched all the way up the chain of command into the Pentagon. Many big-wigs will read what you post here -- and a lot of them are interested in what you say and may even use your suggestions to help set future recruiting and operational policies. A special "thank you" goes to Maj. Gen. Lord for participating in this experiment, along with kudos to the (necessarily anonymous) people who helped us arrange this interview.

How do we prevent "mission creep" (Score:5, Insightful)
by Jeremiah Cornelius (137)


It appears that the military is increasingly involved in areas who's jurisdiction was once considered to be wholly in the civil domain. Use of jargon like "cyberspace" seems only to obfuscate and distract from the core issue. This appears an effort to recruit public opinion and defuse the deeper questions that strike at the heart of a free and civil society. I think that if we had a statement that "The private mails are a warfighting domain" would generate a fair amount of debate on the role of the military as opposed to the police, the function of constitutional protection of liberties, and the question of what actually constitutes a state of war.

What are the limits on this jurisdiction? Who enforces these limits, and how is the public informed of that status? How are efforts to extend being safeguarded from creating mission creep that threatens all civil discourse in the United States and abroad form targeting, suppression, propaganda and extra-legal surveillance?

ANSWER:

A very good question. It's a complex issue, but bottom line is that we won't need new laws to be able to fly and fight in cyberspace. The DoD's role in protecting cyberspace is governed by domestic and international law to the same extent as its activities in other domains. Other U.S. agencies, such as the Department of Justice and the FBI, have important and, in many cases, leading roles to play.

Attacks on the US and its Allies by China (Score:5, Interesting)
by Yahma (1004476)


There have been several recent news reports that China has and is engaging in a nationally funded effort to hack into and attack US government computer systems. The German government recently announced that they traced recent aggressive cyber-attacks back to the Chinese government. What, if anything, is being done against this type of cyber-terrorism against us and our allies? Why do we still confer most-favored nation trading status onto a Nation who is actively engaged in efforts to spy on and attacak our government and corporate computer systems?

ANSWER:

Yes, there are lots of news reports on that, but I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that there are other branches of the U.S. government that must answer your foreign policy questions. I can tell you that securing cyberspace is difficult and requires a coordinated and focused effort from our entire society - federal government, state and local governments, the private sector and the American people. The Air Force is working to improve our ability to respond to cyber attacks, reduce the potential damage from such events, and to reduce our vulnerability to such attacks.

Accept, Retain, Solicit good people? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Lally Singh (3427)


General,

Some of the most talented people in computer security tend to have the sort of records that prevent them from getting clearance. Maybe nothing heavily criminal, but enough of a colored background that traditional security clearance mechanisms would throw them out of the room before they get started. Often the same types of minds that are really good at computer security are also the rebel types, who'll have some history. Will you work to get these people in, or are we looking at a bunch of off-the-shelf programmers/admins who've taken a few simple courses in computer security?

Also, how do you plan to attract/retain them? Again, rebel types are some of the best hackers, and they're not likely to go in without incentives. Not due to any lack of patriotism per se, but an unexplored understanding of it. More importantly, they're likely to be anti-establishment types who aren't comfortable in the strict traditional chain of command. Finally, usually the outside industry pays quite well for the good ones. Are you prepared to financially compete for the best?

Finally, will there be any connections back to the research/academic community? You may find academics more happy to help than usual, as cyber warfare can often be nonviolent. Also, will the existing (and immense) capability within the NSA be properly leveraged?

ANSWER:

I believe even the most unlikely candidate, when working for a cause bigger than himself, turns out to be a most loyal ally. Young men and women come into the military for any number of reasons - education, health care, etc. - but end up staying because they believe what they're doing matters. We know money doesn't create loyalty--a sense of purpose does. We'll take what they have to offer, and in turn they might be surprised by what they get back. It's not just our military members either, it's all those who partner with us . . . academia and private industry, our civilians and contractors, too. In the cyber command, there is a purpose and sense of urgency to be ready. You can bet that we leverage all the expertise out there to help us do our job.

Older recruits? (Score:5, Interesting)
by rolfwind (528248)


It seems that in the military traditionally it was always looking for people fresh out of highschool for EMs and if you wanted to get anywhere in the military you had to be either college educated or, to really have a high end military career, start really young in something like the Valley Forge Military Academy and work from there.

In a traditional branch of the army/navy/airforce that is probably as it should be.

But in this area people have to be trained for years, still not know as much as the older hands in the private industry, and before they really know enough their enlistment would be over. Also, it would be unacceptable for an older IT person to join but take a pay cut to a Private's level or perhaps even a Lieutenant's -- so I imagine this branch would have to be somewhat different.

Is the military going to do to reach out toward the older folks who have extensive experience and knowledge outside the military?

ANSWER:

As I work alongside today's Airmen, many with very specialized skill sets in great demand outside the Air Force, I find them to be incredibly well trained and up-to-speed on current technologies. We bring them in from a general practitioner level and take them to expert level in reasonable time ... and well before retirement age indeed! We train them with specific technical skills as well as overarching abilities required to lead in today's environment. You're right in that we couldn't compete in the cyber world without the experts in the civilian industries who give us the technology in the first place, provide the architectures we use, and even the software we need. People don't have to enlist or take a pay cut to help us out. Certain skill sets can also be brought on board as civilians or contractors, and in many cases we do offer compensation competitive with the commercial sector.

Which acts of war should be illegal in cyberspace? (Score:5, Interesting)
by cohomology (111648)


War is never clean.

In conventional warfare, certain actions such as hiding among civilian populations are forbidden. These actions are considered war crimes because of the collateral damage they are likely to cause. What actions in cyberspace do you think should be outlawed? How about intentionally bringing down hospital IT systems, or destroying undersea cables without regard to the effects on civilian populations?

ANSWER:

The U.S. military complies with all applicable domestic and international laws, and that will certainly apply equally within cyberspace. The Law of Armed Conflict, for example, arose from a desire among civilized nations to prevent unnecessary suffering and minimize unintended destruction while still waging an effective war. It would be possible, as you mentioned in your scenario, that some who ignore the laws of civilized nations could conduct operations in cyberspace that may have unlawful negative consequences on civilian populations. For us, abiding by these laws, being good at we what do and maintaining a technological advantage over our adversaries provides us a first line of defense. Those who commit unlawful acts would certainly face potential criminal liability for war crimes.

Physical Fitness (Score:5, Interesting)
by spacerog (692065)


General, You were recently quoted in Wired as having said "So if they can't run three miles with a pack on their backs but they can shut down a SCADA system, we need to have a culture where they fit in." Is this an accurate quote? As a former member of the US Army I must say that passing a PT test is not very difficult and the suggestion that some soldiers should be exempt from basic minimum requirements is rather upsetting. Are you actually advocating the relaxation of military physical fitness standards for 'cyber warriors'? Would this not create a double standard and animosity between the cyber command and other sections of the military? Surely there must be other recruitment incentives that can be applied to attract the talent you need.

ANSWER:

I don't disagree with you . . . and I am not advocating changing our PT test. What I am saying is that we, as a military culture, need to look beyond what we've traditionally recruited. The very nature of our military requires that we be able to work in combat conditions and be able to establish and protect our cyber/communications structures and networks in remote, even austere conditions. As anyone who has worked in these austere locations will tell you, being fit is critical to mission success, so I don't foresee or advocate for a relaxation of standards just to bring in this specific type of talent. But, as we know, some of what we do in cyber can be done at home station as well, so what will our force look like in the future? This is something we need to look at and evaluate as we progress in this area.

It is good war is so terrible... (Score:5, Insightful)
by MozeeToby (1163751)

A wise man once said "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it". If cyberwarfare ever becomes a reality, how do we respond to the fact that is isn't "terrible"?

The direct damage from such warfare would be primarily economic or data security related (rather than a cost in human lives) how do you feel we can prevent it from becoming a monthly, yearly, or daily occurance?

ANSWER:

The fact is we are dealing with this on a daily basis and it won't be going away anytime soon. Not for any of us. The way to shield ourselves from these attacks is to be at the forefront of technology, tactics and procedures relating to operating in cyberspace. We have systems and software that are protected by multiple layers of security and functional redundancy. We train our people to be on the cutting edge of this technology, and we find ways secure our information. We have to take this very seriously because we rely on our networks to conduct military operations all around the world. The person who hates war the most is the warrior who has to go to it ... we want to prevent that.

Criminal vs Warlike Actions (Score:5, Interesting)
by florescent_beige (608235
)

General Lord,

Does the AFCC have a mandate to pursue criminals that use information infrastructure to commit crimes, or is your group intended to defend against warlike attacks only?

If the latter is true, how would you distinguish between criminal activity and warlike activity in cyberspace?

ANSWER:

The speed and anonymity of cyber attacks makes it very hard to distinguish what actions would be those of terrorists, criminals, nation states or just some lone prankster. Our command coordinates with government partners such as the DoD's Cyber Crime Center staff, who work with law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute criminal acts if necessary. A "war-like activity" can also include presenting misleading information to our battlefield commanders. So, we've got to be spot on about authenticating the trusted source of that information in the first place. But, generally speaking, if something is a coordinated attack that would cause disruption or an attack that required a high level of technical sophistication to carry out, that would cause us to take a closer look and recommend a proper response.

Legal Hacking... (Score:5, Funny)
by JeanBaptiste (537955)


Just post a list of the stuff you want hacked and the more patriotic hackers will enjoy doing it for free.

Due to the nature of hacking and what many people do to acquire such skills, they may not want to 'join up' and all that.

But if you post a list of IP's that are okay to bring down, and networks you want information stolen from, with the understanding that the US will not condemn any attacks, and I'm sure more than enough people would do it for free.

Is there anything like this already in place? Cause I got nothing better to do this weekend. Or most any weekend.

ANSWER:

YGTBKM! LOL! I like your enthusiasm, but you know the Air Force neither encourages nor condones criminal activity.

Could a Cyber Attack Trigger a Real War? (Score:5, Interesting)
by florescent_beige (608235)


General Lord,

I'm curious to know if you have have any criteria that would enable you do decide when a cyber attack is an act of war. Would it be possible for some kind of action inside a network to lead to a shooting war without some kind of overt physical threat occurring first?

ANSWER:

Within the Department of Defense, we are careful not to speculate about what would be considered an act of war. Our nation's elected officials are the ones who will decide what threats to, or actions against our national security will constitute an act of war against the United States. These same leaders will likewise determine what an appropriate response would be, and that could be diplomatic, economic or involve the military to demonstrate the nation's resolve. That's why it's my responsibility to oversee the building of a command that will provide our leaders, through the appropriate chain of command, with many options with which to deter threats in the first place or respond when necessary.

Why was the Air Force tasked with this? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Isaac-Lew (623)


Why should the US Air Force be tasked with this, instead of DISA or NSA, neither of which is tied to a specific branch of the military?

ANSWER:

Don't confuse the fact that we are standing up the Air Force Cyber Command to mean we are the lead for the nation, or the primary command to respond to a particular incident. We are just one part of a combined effort. Our first priority is to work with DoD to defend AF military resources, but many of those resources rely on civilian entities, so we obviously have a keen interest in protecting those items as well. We thought it was the right thing to do to consolidate our efforts and to align all the Air Force cyber-related resources so we can have better command and control. This command will be able to respond better to the needs of our commanders and be the focal point within the Air Force for cyber security and defense missions, as well as respond to emergencies and natural disasters. Make no mistake, we are partners with the other sister services--the Army, Marines, Navy--as well as with DISA, NSA and Homeland Security to name a few. We're all in this together.

Question about Existing Contractors (Score:5, Interesting)
by tachyon13 (963336)


General Lord, I currently work as the exact type of 'cyber warrior' you intend to recruit. But I already have a Top Secret clearance, already familiar with DoD systems, etc. The dynamic with what we call 'Information Assurance' is that of a constant struggle with our contractor management (stay within the contract, the budget, etc) and with our 'warfighter' higher ups (educating them on why they can't have full access from their home in the spirit of "operations are a priority, to hell with security"). So assuming you can get the type of expertise that are eligible for clearances, and that are willing to relocate to Offutt/etc, how are you going to address the core issue of security in the DoD: Operations/budget/schedule will always trump security. Or alternatively, security will always be back burner to 'hot' issues. Thank you for your time.

ANSWER:

Certainly the balance between having access to do our mission and having robust security is an issue where not everyone agrees on just how much to restrict or how much to allow. The Air Force takes the security of its computer networks very seriously and has taken several measures to educate our users and to provide secure means for them to operate. As with many other issues, the Air Force through its commanders, must assess the risks and make a decision. I don't agree or I maybe I just haven't seen where security is always a back burner item.

CyberCommand Location (Score:5, Interesting)
by Mz6 (741941)


General,

Can you explain some about the situation developing between Barksdale AFB and Offutt AFB as they try to fight over the eventual final location for CyberCommand? My thoughts are that finding and recruiting talent, and laying the foundation for such a large wired infrastructure in the Omaha, Nebraska area may be easier to accomplish than in and around Shreveport, LA. What types of things is the DoD looking for when they choose the final location for this new Command?

ANSWER:

The government actually has a regulation that covers the whole process for choosing a location for a command and it's a very defined, thorough process. The bases must meet certain criteria -- existing infrastructure would be just one aspect of many items along with communications or square footage requirements, but there are other considerations, such as the impact to the environment that the Pentagon will consider. I would hope that no matter where it was located, we would still be able to attract the talent needed to work in this exciting command and that all communities see the need to protect this domain.

30 of 543 comments (clear)

  1. The questions are interesting... by swm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and the answers are content-free.

    Oh, well. At least they tried.

    1. Re:The questions are interesting... by thrillseeker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Although I didn't expect much from a military man.

      That's ok - he'll still put his life on the line to protect your right to continue to whine.

    2. Re:The questions are interesting... by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Informative

      I learned:

      - that they don't believe they need new laws to "fight" in cyberspace.
      - "People don't have to enlist or take a pay cut to help us out."
      - "Within the Department of Defense, we are careful not to speculate about what would be considered an act of war."

    3. Re:The questions are interesting... by florescent_beige · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a whole science to reading speech that is attempting to balance many competing interests.

      In this case I'd list some of the competing interests as:

      Don't want to actually lie.
      Don't want to say anything your worst enemy shouldn't know.
      Don't want to be *perceived* to be doing either of the preceding.
      Want to appear receptive to questions.
      Want to remain politically neutral.

      I'm sure there are many more.

      I did manage to tease out one interesting tidbit from two questions of mine the General was kind enough to answer:

      Question #9: When asked if a cyber-attack could lead to a shooting war, the General replies (to paraphrase) that the response to any given scenario is up to elected officials, not the DoD. Fair enough. But...

      Question #7: When asked about the difference between criminal and military-like actions online, the General replies that, depending on the nature of the attack, his group would "recommend a proper response".

      So, while the ultimate decision is always to be up to the CinC, the DoD isn't without an opinion as the answer to #9 might imply. The real answer would get into operational planning which, of course, can't be revealed.

      Actually I find the answers interesting to parse, knowing that they must have been massaged by so many experts.

      None of which is meant to belittle the fact that the General actually took time to go though this exercise. Very refreshing.

      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    4. Re:The questions are interesting... by pitonyak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I considered some of the answers insightful, for example: "We know money doesn't create loyalty--a sense of purpose does".

      Yes, some answers lacked deep content in that they were the expected carefully worded answer. Unfortunately, these questions almost required such an answer. For example, "Why do we still confer most-favored nation trading status onto a Nation who is actively engaged in efforts to spy on and attack our government and corporate computer systems?" Although this is a very good question, General Lord seems like the wrong person to even attempt that question. The probable complaint is that the answers lacked detail. For example, from the same question "What, if anything, is being done against this type of cyber-terrorism against us and our allies?" The answer lacks detail, but it would be difficult to add detail to his answer without discussing a specific threat. I would have enjoyed that discussion, BTW, and use his answer as a start: "working to improve our ability to respond to cyber attacks, reduce the potential damage from such events, and to reduce our vulnerability to such attacks."

      Thank you General Lord for your time!

    5. Re:The questions are interesting... by qortra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      he'll still put his life on the line to protect your right to continue to whine. Point taken. However without detracting even a modicum from the sacrifices that servicemen make, I can sympathize and agree with the grandparents statement that earned this scathing response from you.

      I'm not sure I would really classify these as true answers...Although I didn't expect much from a military man. I think this statement was not designed to demean military men as people, but merely as people who can provide new, interesting, and true information to Slashdot. Military people have a responsibility not to divulge important information and a responsibility to "toe the line" with regard to military standards and expectations. Thus, it would be reasonable to not expect much from these answers: it is nearly guaranteed that they would be neither new, nor entirely true (if truth means the entire truth).
    6. Re:The questions are interesting... by DCFC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most black hat hackers are self taught and/or doing it for fun.
      Currently...
      They may have been formally taught various bits of programming and networking, but in some respects are a sort of Davy Crockett with a sharp eye rather than a West Point education.

      But CC will no doubt be giving its staff a full rounded training, based upon a growing institutional memory, and experts from other parts of the US government, and academics.
      Being a military outfit, I assume it is configured so that if something awful happens, the organisation still survives, and tries to learn from the setback, even if there are losses.
      Most of its opponents have a shallow resource base, and actually need to be quite risk averse, since they could not survive a serious problem. CC staff will benefit from this expensively gained experience, and of course often be able to learn things that you could not try if you knew than any error would mean terribly bad personal experiences.

      All good news.

      But of course, even with careful screening of backgrounds, and various forms of peer review, some will go bad.

      These people will be orders of magnitude more dangerous than the random "background noise" hackers.
      Although sadly some former servicemen go bad this is typically "retail" level damage, often to themselves. Rarely does this get to a level that is beyond local law enforcement, partly because they no longer have access to the infrastructure of the army. A military pilot who once commanded a bomber armed with nuclear weapons is no more dangerous than his civilian counterpart, and so on.

      But in cyberwarfare the playing field is much more even. Outside of the 'A Team', the idea that former servicemen could even survive an attack on substantial conventional forces, much less win is plain dumb. So it is a new type of personnel challenge.

      But 5 years from now there will be former Cybercommand veterans, complete with a (very discreet) badge and maybe even reunion parties. Mostly their path will be like former pilots, or other specialists who have a ready market in civilian life. But not always...

      They will outclass the current generation of hackers, indeed if they did not, then CC would have not have done it's job properly. That to me is a possible issue.

      I don't seriously expect an answer in a public forum, but I wonder if plans are yet in place to somehow manage the risk of this, without seriously impacting their utility whilst in the service.

      --
      Dominic Connor,Quant Headhunter
    7. Re:The questions are interesting... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's ok - he'll still put his life on the line to protect your right to continue to whine.

      Yawn. This is the stock answer to any criticism of the military, and it's crap. Yes, the military is important. Yes, military personnel take risks that most civilians don't, and should be honored for their service. But this does not mean that civilians -- you know, the people the military exists for -- shouldn't be able to criticize the military in general, and certainly doesn't mean that they shouldn't criticize individual military personnel when they retreat into bureaucratic doublespeak instead of giving a straight answer to a question. There's a lot that's right with the military. There's also a lot that's wrong. It is the right and duty of the people to call bullshit when they see it, WRT the military or any other part of the government.

      There are countries where this isn't the case, of course. I doubt you'd want to live in any of them.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    8. Re:The questions are interesting... by Triv · · Score: 5, Insightful
      no one comments yet on a General's usage of "YGTBKM! LOL!"?

      Okay. I will. That line was added as a blatant pandering move to the way it's assumed we communicate. He (or rather whoever he showed this to before it got to us) obviously thought that he could get in with us that way without realizing that we, as a whole, aren't anything like the cast of a Verizon commercial. It's as offensive to me as a white guy speaking "black" to a black coworker out of the blue and just as effective.

      There was no content in the questions at all, but he absolutely lost me when I got to that line.

    9. Re:The questions are interesting... by couchslug · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'll help translate one bit:

      For example, the USAF (pilots and Rambo types excepted) doesn't need to do PT except for military image reasons.
      The jobs that require it have always done it one way or the other.

      For most of my career (81-07) we avoided it (it is a HUGE non-work-related time suck!) and did important stuff like generating sorties instead. Ways can be found to use useful people and sort out the PT bullshit, but talking about it is verboten because various non-workers and jocks think we need it. It offends people that need PT (or worship "sports PT") to say that those on the working end of maintaining and deploying aircraft do just fine (Gulf War, anyone?) without it. Granted, we had a couple of large folks who had to squeeze to fit down an F-16 intake, but that was merely amusing. There is room for rule adjustment for geeks as a custom if management wants that.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    10. Re:The questions are interesting... by TigerPlish · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If anything, being in airforce is less honorable than being a marine, a firefighter, a cop, a paramedic, a janitor even. How much risk do they take bombing cavemen from 20,000 feet? HOw about when he's doing 400 kts with a MiG behind him, so close the Russkie can see the grease stains on the American's bird? What then?

      Or how about when a dogface on some beach or mountain or something calls frantically, that they need steel on target NOW dammit? Is the aviator who responds to that frantic call for help less honorable than the dogface who placed it?

      How about when some Marine pilot gets his ride shot out from under him, and an USAF rescue jumper has to go in to retrive? Is he any less honorable than the aviator he's rescuing? The USAF PJ's motto is "...so that others may live." I knew a few. These men never have to buy their own drinks.

      And you assume that we always bomb from FL200 and drop on cavemen. Hah. Ever seen a SAM? It's the size of a freakin' telephone pole, and it comes at you so fast you can't even think. The heaviest bomber lossess were never to other aircraft, it's *always* been the ground fire, be it small-arms, FLaK, or SAMs. The fighters are a bother, but that's why you fly with little friends around (or make your plane invisible.)

      Flyboys earned my respect. I worked with USAF flyboys (and flygrrls!) for 7 years. They may be whiny prima donnas (that's rock star to you punks), but when they put on that jet, they put their lives on the line.

      Just so wankers like you have the right to whine about wankers like them.

      Freakin' groundpounder. Y'all are all the same. All you know about .mil is the pap fed to you on TV.

      I'll tell you this -- there's more honor in the USAF than in Corporate America. not much more, but there's more. They still teach Integrity in the USAF. I think that was dropped in US schools during the "Greed is Good" era. Instead of Integrity, now US schools teach Mediocrity. It's Good Enough, yes?

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  2. Obligatory by linux+pickle · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our William T. Lord overlord.

  3. Right General? by esocid · · Score: 5, Funny

    YGTBKM! LOL! I like your enthusiasm, but you know the Air Force neither encourages nor condones criminal activity.
    Are you sure this is a general and not some 14 year old girl?
    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    1. Re:Right General? by PatrickThomson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, my first response when I read that line was "His PR team are trying to look hip." Like when you see TV ads that try to use street jargon, and miss the mark. Of course, I'm probably being a bit harsh, the truth will be somewhere between the two.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    2. Re:Right General? by timster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Honestly, I kind of felt like the response was a subtle jab at how silly and stupid the question was.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
  4. Security clearence dodged... too bad by ajs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The security clearance question was dodged. That's too bad. I would love to work for such an organization, and might even have signed up with the Air Force if I thought I could make it into that group when I was younger. However, I know that for silly reasons that have to do more with red tape than any actual wrong-doing on my part, a security clearance is out of the question. If he'd given people some hope that the typical rules regarding security clearances would be relaxed in favor of a more "are you a potential threat" based analysis, he might have won some hearts and minds.

    1. Re:Security clearence dodged... too bad by juuri · · Score: 5, Informative

      A security clearance of Secret is much easier to obtain than many expect. Top Secret can also be obtained somewhat easily, even given a set of questionable actions in the past, based on good interviews with people from your sphere of influence. Special allowance cases are made all the time for either. Many people assume (wrongly) that a past arrest or drug use immediately rule out either. The important parts here are complete honesty, showing a changed "nature" if needed and that your versions of past events match up with other witnesses.

      --
      --- I do not moderate.
  5. Answer #5 about hacking sites by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    YGTBKM! LOL! I like your enthusiasm, but you know the Air Force neither encourages nor condones criminal activity.

    p.s. and we know where you live.

    p.p.s. and we told the FBI, DHS and your state and local PD where you live.

    p.p.p.s. and we all have guns.

    --
    The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
  6. "Cyber Command"? What time is it on Disney? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Cyber Command"? What time does that show air on the Disney channel?

  7. Well what did you expect? by wsanders · · Score: 5, Funny

    Q: Please g3ve u5 r00t to m133ile l3nche5!
    A; No.

    Q; You suxx0r!
    A; I love my job! { must ... control ... fist .. of .. death ...]

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
    1. Re:Well what did you expect? by initialE · · Score: 5, Funny

      Q: Please g3ve u5 r00t to m133ile l3nche5!
      A: No.

      Q: Sudo Please g3ve u5 r00t to m133ile l3nche5!
      A: Ok.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
  8. AGREED by rutledjw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But I think your second point is most important - they tried. Assuming (hoping?) they really are reading feedback we can hope they will adjust their filters accordingly. being vague on questions such as roles and responsibilities between government agencies will only create a general sense on unease in the general population.

    Furthermore, we should remember as a group of large agencies, there's bound to be politicking and may not be the level or coordination desired. Of some of this vague area may reflect reality, they don't really know where lines actually exist...

    --

    Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
  9. Legal Hacking by mikeee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is actually quite a traditional thing; what we used to call Letters of Marque were issued to pirates to 'legalize' their attacks on the enemy. While these were banned by the 1856 Declaration of Paris, the US is not a signatory to that treaty, and theoretically Congress could issues these permissions (it's a power specifically granted them in the Constitution).

  10. Urgent Message by florescent_beige · · Score: 5, Funny

    From: Joint Chiefs
    To: General Lord
    Encoding: S00per Seekrit COd3 #5

    Ixnay on the LOL-ay, mkay?

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
  11. Major General Lord? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    My God, how many stars is that?

  12. Re:As A Retired USAF Senior NCO All I Can Say Is by RobertB-DC · · Score: 5, Funny

    WTF?

    Don't you mean, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot"?

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  13. Re:AGREED, but some caveats: by ThousandStars · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The general's answers were also interesting because they demonstrate the gap between what we're used to reading on blogs and in /. comments: unfiltered, highly opinionated pseudo-anonymous people who speak only for themselves. There are no or few repercussions for most people if they make a foolish statement or unfairly lay into someone or whatever. But public officials -- and a general is at the very least a semi-public official -- don't have that luxury. So what such a public official will say will be different in tone and content than what we're used to.

    This indicates something of a culture gap between the kind of hackers who the general presumably wants to recruit and the generals themselves. Paul Graham states it well:

    Most imaginative people seem to share a certain prickly independence, whenever and wherever they lived. You see it in Diogenes telling Alexander to get out of his light and two thousand years later in Feynman breaking into safes at Los Alamos. Imaginative people don't want to follow or lead. They're most productive when everyone gets to do what they want.

    Such "prickly independence" is the opposite of the stereotype of the military that's lodged in my mind. Now, I know that stereotype is somewhat inaccurate, but nonetheless the rebel/renegade streak that runs through many -- though by no means all -- of the creative, intelligent people who often know technology well. I'm not sure I'd go as far as Paul Graham's "most," but I'm definitely going to use "many."

    Finally, regarding the tone of the answers, remember too that it's easier for an individual speaking for himself (Neal Stephenson, anyone?) to answer candidly than it is for someone who represents millions, especially because the military sometimes has PR problems. If the general says anything forceful, it will be spun around the Internet, quoted -- perhaps out of context -- in newspapers, and generally leave the military open to the PR of others.

    I'm not sure how to solve such cultural problems between hacker types who need direct unvarnished honesty ("Where is the mistake in this?") versus PR types in public ("How do I make sure my words won't be used against me?").

  14. Re:Time to change your sig by Nail · · Score: 5, Funny

    Whew! *wipes forehead* Dodged that bullet...

    --
    ...yellow number five, yellow number five, yellow number five...
  15. Culture problems by claytongulick · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've found that military/government culture is generally about a decade behind corporate culture. For example, when I was in the Navy they were pushing this "TQL" stuff, which was a bad rehash of the popular 80's TQM "Total quality management" initiatives. Corporate culture had moved past that particular management flavor of the week, but the military was just getting into it.

    I see a similar thing with hiring practices. I'm a vet, and a talented senior developer and quite patriotic (in a libertarian/contstitutionalist sense). I decided a couple years ago to try to offer my services to the government.

    I went to the usual places, such as usajobs and looked at or applied for various development positions. Most of the jobs were such a hassle to apply for, I didn't even make it past the first stage. You couldn't even talk to a human being until you had filled out a bunch of different forms, put together a "package", submitted it, had it rejected for some minor error, resubmitted it etc...

    Many of the jobs had degree requirements and wouldn't even talk to me.

    After going through all this for weeks, I didn't get a single response back. Nothing. So I figured "oh well, I gave them a chance" and I accepted one of the multitude of positions head hunters were clamoring for me to take, for a much better salary than was being offered by any of the government positions.

    The punchline to this story is that about four months after all this (and after I was happily settled into my new job), I got a couple calls from those agencies saying that my package had finally passed review and asking if I was available for an interview. Four months!

    With a process like that, how is the government supposed to hire talented people?

    --
    Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
  16. Translation from PR Flakspeak by nehril · · Score: 5, Informative
    Translated Text.

    Here are the answers. Before you ask: yes, his answers were checked by both PR and security people.

    Warning, he will sound like a robotic overlord because his management folks don't understand how much this site's visitors value a genuine personal tone. So deal and try to extract the meaning on your own.

    How do we prevent "mission creep" (Score:5, Insightful)
    by Jeremiah Cornelius (137)

    ANSWER:

    A very good question. It's a complex issue, but bottom line is that we won't need new laws to be able to fly and fight in cyberspace. The DoD's role in protecting cyberspace is governed by domestic and international law to the same extent as its activities in other domains. Other U.S. agencies, such as the Department of Justice and the FBI, have important and, in many cases, leading roles to play.

    Existing laws are fine. theres like a million of them. If there's a problem, we will hook up with Legal over in DOJ and the FBI, just like we do for everything else. It's not Different if it's Just On The Internet Now.

    Attacks on the US and its Allies by China (Score:5, Interesting)
    by Yahma (1004476)

    ANSWER:

    Yes, there are lots of news reports on that, but I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that there are other branches of the U.S. government that must answer your foreign policy questions. I can tell you that securing cyberspace is difficult and requires a coordinated and focused effort from our entire society - federal government, state and local governments, the private sector and the American people. The Air Force is working to improve our ability to respond to cyber attacks, reduce the potential damage from such events, and to reduce our vulnerability to such attacks.

    You can't honestly expect me to start slinging mud at other governments. that's what you elect politicians for. We're just trying to keep our computing house clean, and be ready if a mission calls for something all hackery.

    Accept, Retain, Solicit good people? (Score:5, Interesting)
    by Lally Singh (3427)

    ANSWER:

    I believe even the most unlikely candidate, when working for a cause bigger than himself, turns out to be a most loyal ally. Young men and women come into the military for any number of reasons - education, health care, etc. - but end up staying because they believe what they're doing matters. We know money doesn't create loyalty--a sense of purpose does. We'll take what they have to offer, and in turn they might be surprised by what they get back. It's not just our military members either, it's all those who partner with us . . . academia and private industry, our civilians and contractors, too. In the cyber command, there is a purpose and sense of urgency to be ready. You can bet that we leverage all the expertise out there to help us do our job.

    I know that a lot of folks think hax0ring is way anti military/establishment/uniform. But many times you can get real quality people from unexpected places. We can't pay the big bucks usually but we find that lots of people will do it anyway because they want the pride that comes with Protecting the Motherland. Lots of people work in nonprofits for less pay because they believe in the mission, too.

    Older recruits? (Score:5, Interesting)
    by rolfwind (528248)

    ANSWER:

    As I work alongside today's Airmen, many with very specialized skill sets in great demand outside the Air Force, I find them to be incredibly well trained and up-to-speed on current technologies. We bring them in from a general practitioner level and take them to expert level in reasonable time ... and well before retirement age indeed! We train them with specific technical skills as well as overarching abilities required to lead in today's environment. You're right in that we couldn't compete in the cyber world without the experts in the civilian industries who give us the technology in the first place, provide the architectu