Slashdot Mirror
'Legitimized' Cyberwar Opens Pandora's Box of Dirty Tricks
DillyTonto writes "U.S. officials have acknowledged playing a role in the development and deployment of Stuxnet, Duqu and other cyberweapons against Iran. The acknowledgement makes cyberattacks more legitimate as a tool of not-quite-lethal international diplomacy. It also legitimizes them as more-combative tools for political conflict over social issues, in the same way Tasers gave police less-than-lethal alternatives to shooting suspects and gave those who abuse their power something other than a club to hit a suspect with. Political parties and single-issue political organizations already use 'opposition research' to name-and-shame their opponents with real or exaggerated revelations from a checkered past, jerrymander districts to ensure their candidates a victory and vote-suppression or get-out-the-vote efforts to skew vote tallies. Imagine what they'll do with custom malware, the ability to DDOS an opponent's web site or redirect donations from an opponent's site to their own. Cyberweapons may give nations a way to attack enemies without killing anyone. They'll definitely give domestic political groups a whole new world of dirty tricks to play."
" They'll definitely give domestic political groups a whole new world of dirty tricks to play."
As if they didn't have them before?
Where exactly has this been officially acknowledged? The only thing we have is a story in the NYT with an anonymous source. I would not call that "acknowledged." I would call that rumor.
Cyberweapons may give nations a way to attack enemies without killing anyone. They'll definitely give domestic political groups a whole new world of dirty tricks to play."
Your sense of 'military and collateral' damage is very skewed, there, article submitter. So 2-3% of military troops on the ground won't die, or any other native county civilians along the way, but you're ok with the vulnerability of a digital US infrastructure that has MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of US federal, contractor, civilian and citizen 'at risk.
This isn't a new pandora's box. What makes it shock value is that it's one thing to admit being behind Stuxnet, it's another to admit you're the United State Goverment and you're behind Stuxnet.
I grew up believing in the US as a beacon for freedom and fairness. Okay, so it was the 60's and 70's and given what was going down in South America it was probably all a lie then.
Thing is, just recently the US stated that they view a cyber attack as an act of war. Given how targeted Stuxnet was, by this admission they have clearly stated that it is okay for the US to commit an act of war on Iran, a country that has no history of aggression (although plenty of rhetoric, but that is not uncommon for the region).
How would you US citizens feel if you were on the receiving end of Predator drones, cyber attacks and Shock and Awe?
Hypocrisy. The very worst of human traits.
Hmm. This requires 30 seconds of thought.
The US loves the idea of using drones inside its own borders.
The US loves the idea of equipping drones with very fast, explosive missiles.
The US will, in time, find a way to patrol the interior with drones equipped with very fast, explosive missiles.
The US will come under a terrorist attack from its own weapon systems.
Reasoning -> I am fairly certain that a swarm of drones can have its firmware corrupted to follow orders from a non-legitimate source. I am also fairly certain that Hellfire missiles or some other ordinance likely to be equipped on said drones has enough destructive capacity to take out civilian aircraft, train bridges, or even make it inside the defensive perimeter of the White House.
One need only think what a dozen drones, equipped with air-to-air, could achieve if someone compromised them, and flew them to a nearby major airport, with programming to lock onto various targets. Assuming 2 missiles per drone, and 100% accuracy of unique targets, that comes out to 12 747s (which are not equipped with EM counter-measures) dropping out of the sky.
Assuming air-to-land ordinance, any bridge (train or otherwise) would make a fair target. Take out enough structural supports, and the deaths could be in the hundreds. This is, of course, assuming classical thinking. If we move off of that, than any skyscraper, chemical plant, etc. could become a target. This is, of course, assuming we are going for the most visibly destructive targets.
Assuming air-to-sea ordinance, any large tanker or cruise ship becomes a target.
As I recommended before, immediate termination of the drone programs would be in the best interest of the sane.
I am John Hurt.
Maybe I'm still too young and naive, but this idea seems more of a way for bad actions to be perpetrated by people claiming to be the good guys (which again 'good guys' is subjective). I understand secrecy during an operation, but the objective good guys should be able to own up to their deeds. If the intelligence organizations can't stand behind their deeds, then they deserve the disgust they have earned.
"Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest."
- Benjamin Franklin
As an American (I'm looking at you too Russia), I can't help but feel more and more responsible for tragedies in the present day. Most of the places lashing out (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Mexico, and South America) were armed and encouraged to fight by the US. Now the US is trying to put down it's 'dogs' of war.
It would be simple matter, except these 'dogs' are nations like us. What gives us the right?