Collateral Damage From Cyber Warfare?

theodp writes "If you're thinking about applying for that open US cyber warfare czar position, Robert X. Cringely points out that you will have to effectively function as a world cyber warfare czar, a fact that neither Republican nor Democratic Administrations have yet been willing to embrace, at least in public. The international nature of today's outsourced-and-offshored IT business has big implications for US security. Try to do a security audit of your company's technical resources in Argentina or Bangladesh, suggests Bob, and see what nightmare is unveiled. Toss some random Code Gods into the mix, says Cringely, and it's really too tough to predict who might win in a game of US vs. Albania."

Comments

Hmmm...

[jo42]

Maybe it is time to end this man-made idiocy of nations and borders?

Re:Hmmm...

[mcgrew]

Having a real free world market is the rich's wet dream, and they've effectively accomplished it. You have H1-B visas so the rich can hire Indians, who don't have the high prices we do. They use Mexicans here illegally to do jobs that Americans would do if they were paid appropriately.

How is a worker to "move where they pay the most" when he as no job? No job means no money for most people.

In a world you describe it would be a lot easier for the rich to hold their power and privelege. Why do you think the rich lobby for things like NAFTA?

Re:Hmmm...

[gringofrijolero]

Don't you understand the one way nature of those regs? They don't want a free market at all. They want control, under the guise of "freedom". That "freedom" is for them only, and we get American Idol. You're not getting it. No borders means freedom for everybody to live where they please, not where the authorities grant you permission for somebody else's profit. Right now you are property of the state.

Re:Hmmm...

[drinkypoo]

You have H1-B visas so the rich can hire Indians, who don't have the high prices we do.

Actually, free trade means you can ship the work off to be done, so you don't even have to hire anyone, just contract.

They use Mexicans here illegally to do jobs that Americans would do if they were paid appropriately.

That's not really free trade either, it's slavery-plus. You underpay the workers, it's actually cheaper than housing them and trying to keep them healthy, and make a return on your investment. At the end of their period of employment you can just deport them and even skip a payment. You don't even have to whip anybody.

In a world you describe it would be a lot easier for the rich to hold their power and privelege. Why do you think the rich lobby for things like NAFTA?

NAFTA is not a free trade agreement, name to the contrary.

The importance of NAFTA clauses that keep out foreign goods came to light as U.S. clothing manufacturers railed against the import of wool suits from our NAFTA partner Canada. The suits in question were made from third-country wool not covered by NAFTA rules of origin. Since Canadian tariffs on foreign wool were lower than U.S. tariffs (10 percent vs. 34 percent), Canadian suits sold for less and soon claimed a large share of the U.S. market. The fact that the entire discussion of this issue centered on closing this loophole in NAFTA rather than on lowering the injurious U.S. tariff on wool should prove how devoted NAFTA's supporters are to free trade.

If you can come up with some actual examples of large-volume free trade in the USA, I'll be interested. I don't think you can.

Re:Hmmm...

[dave562]

Are you sure that we aren't suited to being the world police? Our police state techniques are pretty damn good. We have a higher percentage of our population incarcerated or otherwise caught up in the penal system (parole and probation) than any other developed country. I'd say that when it comes to disenfranchising huge portions of the population, we're doing pretty darn well.

How do you prevent change in a political system? Strip the rights of everyone who runs afoul of it and might be inclined to change it.

Re:Hmmm...

[mcgrew]

I have 9,826,630 square km (3,794,066 sq mi) I can hypothetically live in. But I don't have the freedom to live anywhere in that three million square miles, as I can't live without money. I'm living in Springfield because that's where I found work 20 years ago when I'd been out of a job for a while; I'd rather be living in the St Louis area, where I grew up. Maybe I'll move back there when I retire in a few years, but then again it will depend on money, too. Will I be able to sell my house? Will I be able to afford to buy one there?

Only independantly wealthy people have freedom to live where they want; the homeless do in theory, but in practice they don't have the money needed for travel.

I'm not the property of the state, I'm the property of my employer. The state is also the property of my (and your) employer. The world is and has always been owned and ruled by the very rich.

Re:how many fallacies can we count?

[spun]

1.) Nationalism is an invention of the rich intended to make the poor support the interests of the rich. To the poor, one lord is much the same as the next, why should they care who rules them?

2.) Ah, I see. Rules on paper make a free market. Rules that let the rich move their business wherever labor is cheapest, but does not let labor move where the pay is the best.

3.) You've just described how the free market is supposed to work.

Why the hell do we accept Cringley articles?

[jollyreaper]

The man is a tremendous douche who always writes ridiculous articles so that people get their dander up and drive traffic. He's nothing more than a journo-troll.

And this whole cyber-crap thing misses the mark. First off, nix the cyber. Nothing makes you sound less knowledgeable than using cyber when talking about computers. Second off, computer warfare is just another way of fucking with the enemy's infrastructure. If anything, you could classify it a subset of cold warfare. That's anything that's indirect, doesn't involve the acting killing of others, but is a true struggle between nations. Economic warfare is the usual manifestation with trade wars, resource wars, and political maneuvering. It's not some crazy new thing that's all black leather and sexy computer chicks.

Did you steal info from a poorly-secured computer system? Great, that's just digital espionage. You could have sent a guy in with a camera to photograph stuff 30 years ago but you did it with a computer now. Same idea, different tools. Did you crash his telcom system? Great. Could have been done with a saboteur 30 years ago (generally poor luck with that sort of thing) but you managed it from your desk. Excellent.

While there will always be security holes in software, most of this exposure can be mitigated against with simple, sensible procedures. The thing we tend to forget is real life ain't like Hollywood. It may be cool in Chuck to think that a guy with a supercomputer armband can hijack a Predator whenever he feels like it but that's not reality. It may be cool to think that a hacker could pick any target he wants and break in but it's usually more a matter of running scripts and finding holes where you can get them, very luck of the draw.

When it comes to infrastructure attacks, I'm far less concerned with computer attacks. Throughout this country, we have a number of single points of failure that would be difficult to replace. Any civil engineer could draw up a hitlist in five minutes far more knowledgeable than I'm going to suggest here.

1. Long-haul transmission lines. It wouldn't take that much explosive to bring a tower down and they're often running through isolated areas. Knock a few towers down, then we're stuck spending billions to guard the rest.

2. While everyone is preoccupied with towers, hit the ...crap, I'm forgetting the name. My memory is wonky here but there's some expensive stuff used in electrical distribution that has very long lead times for ordering replacements. Blow up one of these, it could be a year before the new one arrives.

3. While everyone is preoccupied with that, send a few Lee Malvo teams to randomly snipe people around the country. Doesn't matter that the average commuter is ten times more likely to die in a crash that day than get sniped, everyone will panic.

4. While everyone is preoccupied with snipers, one of the other soft targets can be hit. Seriously, one electrical line failing took out New York. Making that happen again would have to be easier than plots like blowing up tanker trucks in the tunnels.

By all means, let's protect the computers but it's attacks like I've outlined above that I think would prove far more deadly. Of course, if I were the terrorist, I'd rather fart around with computer attacks from the safety of my cave than risk entering the target country but that's just me. I think people should be ridiculed for their political views, not killed. I'd make a lousy terrorist.

Re:Why the hell do we accept Cringley articles?

[drinkypoo]

There are very many easy-to-destroy terrorist targets all over the USA which would kill many people or cripple infrastructure for long periods of time. The fact that this doesn't happen continually is a testament to just how few real terrorists there are out there.

Re:nationalism is an invention of the rich?

[spun]

Who benefits from nationalist sentiment in China and Russia? The rich. Oh, sure, not EVERY rich person, some get skewered by it, but it is still part of the owning class game, a manipulation of the populace, to get them to cheer on their own oppressors.

"He may be a greedy, oppressive bastard, but he's OUR greedy, oppressive bastard!" is the sentiment that nationalism encourages. Really, it's a means of getting the oppressed to lay down their lives defending their oppressors from other oppressors.

Re:how many fallacies can we count?

[spun]

Cooperation is no less natural than domination. What's your point? Tribalism evolved from peeing on bushes?

There are two cultures in the world. The culture of feast and the culture of famine. You don't even know what the first one looks like, do you? Read 'The Continuum Concept' for a look at what non starvation oriented human societies look like. Look at the bonobo chimpanzees of South Africa for an animal example.

Everything does NOT try to get as big as it can. The universe is NOT total war of all against all, that is a culture of famine concept. And it is a self reinforcing, self fulfilling concept.