Slashdot Mirror
How the Militarization of the Internet is Changing Warfare
puddingebola writes in with a link to a New York Times article about how the militarization of the internet is changing contemporary warfare. "The decision by the United States and Israel to develop and then deploy the Stuxnet computer worm against an Iranian nuclear facility late in George W. Bush's presidency marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual militarization of the Internet. Washington has begun to cross the Rubicon. If it continues, contemporary warfare will change fundamentally as we move into hazardous and uncharted territory. It is one thing to write viruses and lock them away safely for future use should circumstances dictate it. It is quite another to deploy them in peacetime. Stuxnet has effectively fired the starting gun in a new arms race that is very likely to lead to the spread of similar and still more powerful offensive cyber-weaponry across the Internet. Unlike nuclear or chemical weapons, however, countries are developing cyber-weapons outside any regulatory framework."
We have been at ware since early 2000's. It's not peacetime.
I thought Stuxnet was transferred via USB.
http://www.matrixgp.com/?page_id=760
Wasn't the original purpose of the Internet to serve the military?
"THE decision by the United States and Israel to develop and then deploy the Stuxnet computer worm against"
This hasnt been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Even though we all think US/Isreal are the curprits, all articles should start with an appropriate preface. This really needs to stop.
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual militarization of the Internet.
And all these attacks coming out of Chinese universities are what, game playing?
Military takes on all mediums so it was inevitable efforts would evolve. WW III (should it come) will certainly involve a lot of concentrated attacks over the web, to bring it down, because it's far faster communication than simple radio or Television and goes around the world in milliseconds.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
What complete and utter tripe! The Chinese, Russians and any number of other countries crossed the proverbial Rubicon many, many years ago. If the submitter is so naive as to think that this was the first example of state sponsored computer hacking against another state than the submitter needs to go to Defcon or any other security convention. Get real, get a clue.
Peacetime? The US has only been at "peace" for a handful of years in its history, the rest of the years it has been fighting people abroad such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. People within its own borders (Indian wars) or arming, training and supporting violence in other countries ("war on drugs"). By abolishing peacetime, the government is allowed to ransack our liberties, steal our income even more and stifle dissent. Keep in mind we are still under a state of emergency because of "terrorism" first enacted by Bush and then extended every year by Obama.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
It is a grossly inaccurate to state "Stuxnet has effectively fired the starting gun in a new arms race...". On the contrary, Stuxnet only makes a large percentage of the population aware of an arms race that started long ago.
Washington has begun to cross the Rubicon.
I thought Washington crossed the Delaware. When was he in Italy? Now I'm all confused.
--
.nosig
The Geneva convention is routinely ignored, the US constitution is routinely ignored, any UN "declaration" is always ignored, etc. What good is another set of "regulations" that will be ignored?
What needs to happen is people need to wake up and realize the constant theme of history, war creates war, violence creates violence. Only free trade and respect for human liberties create peace.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
...a significant and dangerous turning point.... If it continues, contemporary warfare will change fundamentally as we move into hazardous and uncharted territory....
You mean, just like when gunpowder was invented? Or when troops started using wheeled vehicles instead of horses?
Or when militaries started using... GASP!... aircraft?
Get a clue. Warfare is always changing fundamentally as it moves into "uncharted territory" made possible by new technology.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
I never understood 'rules' of war. If someone runs from (the symbolic) me into a church, I say nuke the church. If my bullets can mutilate instead of kill, and in the end bring victory, then I shoot mutilating bullets. If my biological weapon can be easily deployed into your water supply, why shouldn't they be?
The US started this war. And the rules of war, equivalent to laws, will only be followed by US law abiding citizens, not our enemy targets When we get another 9/11 level attack, don't be so naive this time, we started it (the same as last time).
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Someone should note that while everyone watches Stux and similar, the Chinese have been carrying out Cyberwar, and constructive espianage for many years now. Their aggressive war activity has netted, and continues to net them economic gains far far outstripping the silly games being played around the Iranian nuclear program.
And, further, unless its actually challenged, the price and cost of that makes the Iranian Nuclear issue peanuts.
We`re all equal
Technically, only Iran may possibly have violated the non-proliferation treaty. Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed on to it so were perfectly within their rights to develop nukes. North Korea formally withdrew before testing their nuke, though they probably did violate the treaty prior to that withdrawal.
Iran is probably violating it, since they are a signatory, have not withdrawn, and almost certainly are developing a nuclear weapon.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
So if the virus made the centrifuges explode and people died would you change your mind?
Part of the goals was a distributed network with no "head" could be knocked out in an attack. The 14 root name-servers are the closest thing to a head.
Step 2. Fire missiles.
Step 3. ?
Step 4. Profit!
Oh wait, Step 1 should buy 'Buy stock in defense contractors'.
The United States constantly declares war. There's been the "War on Drugs", the "War on Terror" - not to mention the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and undeclared wars in places like Somalia and Yemen - where military actions (or drone-bourne assasinations) take place regularly.
The thing is, wars are wonderful devices for a democratically elected government. They allow a "wartime" footing to be established where a lot of peacetime protections, rights and restrictions can simply be tossed aside. War is as much a state of mind as a military action. If a country considers itself at war, a lot of the things that its citizens would be permitted to do become criminalised, or at least subject to official scrutiny.
This is exactly what's happened since 2001. The problem is that now we have governments all over the world - previously responsible, western governments that were considered "enlightened" are now viewing all their citizens as potential enemies, criminals or terrorists - and are treating them according to that suspicion.
If you think that cyberspace is too abstract a place to have a war, just look out for all the critical infrastructure that is accessible on the internet. Facilities that any government would be mad to let people walk into unchallenged can (I'm told) be hacked. Whether it's by a script-kiddie or a Stuxnet wielding super-power is immaterial. It's a state of conflict and peoples' rights are being squashed in order to counter it. That sure sounds like a war - even if the enemy is us.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Almost certainly they are NOT developing nuclear weapon, as was repeatedly confirmed by Israel and US intelligence agencies, among others.
The article seems to think that the US is the first to pull the "Cyber Warfare" trigger. That is just silly. The only thing different here is that the US government was silly enough to ADMIT that they were partially responsible for Stuxnet virus, etc. The US civilian industry, and military assets have been under constant attack by various "actors" for over a decade. The only difference is those "actors" haven't admitted it or been caught red-handed. Most likely (and again they haven't been dumb enough to admit it like the US), the Chinese government has been one main Cyber Warfare protagonist that is constantly assailing US assets. So everyone get off their High Horses and face the real world.
The simple fact is we chose to fire bits at em, instead of nukes! Seems like an improvement in my mind!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Yes, the oil-rich state desperately needs to develop an extremely expensive form of alternative energy. And they need to enrich their uranium far beyond the 5% used in a typical commercial reactor. I'm sure it is all quite peaceful.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.