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.
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
I guess that makes this the militarization of the Sneakernet.
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.
Sandalnet once it crosses the Iranian border.
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?
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
Then you don't understand war. What is limited is what doesn't really help to win battles or wars. If a church or a historical building is used as a defensive position you can atttack it, but if it isn't, it survivies. Regular ball rounds do plenty of damage. Chemical weapons mostly inconvinience trained troops. Who also breach minefields with little operational delay.
The rules help minimize the damage to property and society and between societies. You don't just have to win a war, you have to establish a stable peace. I knew a lot of veterans from the Calgary Tanks who because they defended the beach at Dieppe while the infantry was taken off became prisoners of war for 3 years. Under your "enlightened" philosophy I imagine they're no room for POW's either.
Well, better not exercize those views in a real war zone. With professional troops your side would likely throw you in jail. If captured, you're likely to be shot out of hand.