Slashdot Mirror
Congress Seeks To Outlaw Cyber Intel Sharing With Russia (onthewire.io)
Trailrunner7 shares a report from On the Wire: A group of House Democrats has introduced a bill that would formalize a policy of the United States not sharing cyber intelligence with Russia. The proposed law is a direct response to comments President Donald Trump made earlier this week after he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. After the meeting, Trump said on Twitter that he and Putin had discussed forming an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit" to prevent future attacks, including election hacking. The idea was roundly criticized by security and foreign policy experts and within a few hours Trump walked it back, saying it was just an idea and couldn't actually happen. But some legislators are not taking the idea of information sharing with Russia as a hypothetical. On Wednesday, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), and Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) introduced the No Cyber Cooperation With Russia Act to ensure that the U.S. doesn't hand over any cybersecurity intelligence on attacks or vulnerabilities to Moscow. Recent attacks such as the NotPetya malware outbreak have been linked to Russia, as have the various attacks surrounding the 2016 presidential election. "When the Russians get their hands on cyber intelligence, they exploit it -- as they did last month with the NotPetya malware attack targeting Ukraine and the West. It is a sad state of affairs when Congress needs to prohibit this type of information sharing with an adversary, but since we apparently do, I am proud to introduce the No Cyber Cooperation with Russia Act with my friends Brendan Boyle and Ruben Gallego. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to join us in sending a clear message that Congress will not stand for this proposal to undermine U.S. national security," Lieu said in a statement.
Are people actually falling for this shit? And you thought Trump was the bottom of the barrel? You poor souls!
So the world is now safe for spam, malware and
Equation Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Stuxnet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Want some more Magic Lantern with vendor cooperation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Thats why a global understanding of what is trying to enter, stay on and communicate from systems and networks is so vital.
Malware is often very different to normal OS functions and the more nations and skilled people looking for such changes the better.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Does this mean they can prosecute Open Source programmers and security experts for publishing Security vulnerabilities to Bugzilla, or LinuxSecurity.com?
The bill is trying to cut funding to a russia/us cyber security group in the future, that doesn't even exist. It would be unconstitutional from the legislative branch to prevent executive from sharing information for national defense. Better summary directly from politicians http://dearcolleague.us/2017/0... and the text https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
It isn't "Congress" which is trying this, it's a small group of the minority party. In fact, a small group even of the minority party. Basically nothing but gesture politics.
Why is this being covered as if it's real, again?
The only plausible answer is that it's BS click-bait.
> When the Russians get their hands on cyber intelligence, they exploit it
As opposed to Americans, who handle information in a way that benefit the greater good ? (/Sarcasm) (Do i really need to provide links ?)
Get off your moral high horse already. You don't want to cooperate with anyone, you want to do things that are in your own interests, and get whoever you can to support your own interests (read: spineless Europeans vassal states). Cooperating with Russia would undermine common American interests and hence it's not good for America, because the Russians, have their own interests.
Has nothing to do with the already stupidly boring narrative "Russians are Evil" that is constantly being rammed into minds of commoners through the popular media channels. By the way, if you going to talk evil, talk about your own politicians and foreign policies that turn at least one country to dust and cause 50 years of political instability in the region every ~ 10 years. I see more evil committed by USG than in Stalin's wildest dreams. You just pack it better, hollywood style, a polished turd for ready for people to eat up and feel better about themselves at next election.
Freakin' hypocrites, the lot of you.
Proposing a cyber security cooperation group may have not been a clever idea today, but having a law making it unlawful is terminally stupid as you pose obstacle to it WHEN it could become a clever idea. And we all know that such laws may take time to repell.
The attack vector for russia and china is porn, has been for the last 12 or so years.
Whenever Trump bursts out with another one of his brilliant ideas, immediately pass legislation to outlaw whatever it was he proposed. Yes, I can see some wisdom there.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Can we be honest with ourselves for a moment?
This is a fundraising bill. It is designed to look good on a letter sent to Democrats in a couple of districts in hopes that they will send money to the reelection campaigns of the bill's sponsors.
It is functionally identical to the "questions" asked by Democrats during confirmation or committee hearings, or the statements made by Democrats during bill debates. The questions aren't seeking information, the statements aren't swaying votes, and this "bill" isn't intended to ever become a law.
See that "Preview" button?
The hilarious thing is that Bill Clinton was famous for his line "I feel your pain," talking openly and honestly about working class workers feeling the effects of the recession that was happening at the time.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand? "We're going to put a lot of coal miners out of work!"
You'd think she could have talked to her husband about connecting with voters, but - nope!
If I try to behave like the Fonz, it only makes me extra dorkier.
Hillary never had the televangelism gene. She couldn't channel Bill if she tried. You'd get about as far suggesting the average televangelist channel Richard Dawkins.
Most of her debate prep was spent mastering that ghastly almost amused-looking smile when Donald went off on one of his many ridiculous riffs. Unfortunately, her best shot at running America was being born long before the invention of television.
With the same intensity of prep as The King's English she might have managed to sound charismatic over the radio.
But really, I'd have advised she broadcast a series of fireside radio chats with Bertrand Russell.
Get a room.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Norton isn't even in the same league as Kaspersky. That's like trying to outlaw a MLB team to give your son in the little league a leg up.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Keep calm and blame Russia
We have always been at war with eur-russia
Silly question for you USAians, but...why, exactly, do so many Americans consider Russia to be an enemy? I mean, sure, there was a decades-long "cold war", but that was the USSR, and those days are (or ought to be) past. Why not treat Russia as a friend, make common cause where possible?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
because they were always fakers. They were never good people. Lip service to liberal values, and then installing fascist dictators in countries were were sworn to protect via treaty.
"His name was James Damore."
"And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years. " Barack Obama
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
"a group of House Democrats"
The Russia Democrats obsession is reaching levels of group paranoia obsession. Future psychiatrists will have a new field of study.
hackers are smarter - if assume that you're usually right...
nothing to see here - move along
I see little evidence that the Republicans are pro-Russian at all. Yes, Trump clearly is, but that hasn't translated into support from Congressional Republicans. Realpolitik means they can't usually come out and openly defy their own President (with the exception of McCain, who clearly stopped caring what his party thought a long time ago), but that doesn't translate into them being pro-Russian. At the moment they're trying to navigate the potential scandal in a way that doesn't sink their own electoral fortunes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Great rant, but none of that actually happened. Even CNN got caught agreeing there's no evidence to back any of it up. It's all based on "unnamed sources" that don't actually exist.
BTW, if we're going to enact laws to refuse to work with other nations, why not go after a country like Saudi Arabia which actually should be considered an enemy of the US and is a credible threat to western nations?
It's kinda funny that's you're posting as AC.
Did you see the video with the guy from CNN saying it was a narrative, that there was no real evidence? Straight out of the horse's mouth. Did you see the New York Time's retraction?
Nothing came out of that meeting with the "Russian lawyer" which is probably why Jr didn't think to mention it. If I tell someone I bought a new car, I don't usually go on talking about the ones I didn't buy. He didn't collude with the Russian government, that's still a fact that has yet to be proven false. Next the media is going to tell us that one of the Trump kids withdrew money from a bank that had a Russian cashier.
Slav != white
They look white enough to me.
They're just not Anglo-Saxon.
I agree! Liberal press! Liberal press! Liberal press! I mean, they're probably right, but... liberal press!
Trump wasn't chosen because he's a useful idiot. Do you seriously think that Manasfort, Junior, Cohen, Strone, Kushner.... all of the people arround him knew, yet he didn't??? What did they tell him when they disappeared on trips to Moscow? Holidays in the Algarve??
Are you seriously going for the 'plausible deniability' angle? Because he saw all this surveillance information that we see now. Those emails didn't come as a surprise to him, he had them as part of the CIA surveillance package he was shown.
He even said that his only contact with Russians was through the Miss Universe pageant, and that he once sold a mansion to a Russian oligarch, despite most of his money from the 1990s (after he nearly went broke) came from Russians who would buy his condos as a way to launder money.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand? "We're going to put a lot of coal miners out of work!"
Another lie.
It's a common tactic -- give a line that someone actually said, but strip all context off of it so you can distort the actual meaning.
"let's reunite around policies that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these underserved poor communities. So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right? And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.
Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on."
But yeah, keep pretending that this was something Hillary was gleefully shouting as if she thought coal miners were assholes who deserved what they got.
Good lord, I don't even like Hillary, but was she wrong? Not really. As non-coal sources of energy grow cheaper, coal becomes more troublesome, and coal jobs are lost forever. That's the changing nature of technology.
A lot of people thought she had plenty of charisma (not you obviously)
Even Hillary said (during a debate, I think), that she knows she just doesn't have the type of charisma that Bill had.
My idea from seven years ago: ...
""The need for FOSS intelligence tools for sensemaking etc."
http://web.archive.org/web/201...
"This suggestion is about how civilians could benefit by have access to the sorts of "sensemaking" tools the intelligence community (as well as corporations) aspire to have, in order to design more joyful, secure, and healthy civilian communities (including through creating a more sustainable and resilient open manufacturing infrastructure for such communities). It outlines (including at a linked elaboration) why the intelligence community should consider funding the creation of such free and open source software (FOSS) "dual use" intelligence applications as a way to reduce global tensions through increased local prosperity, health, and with intrinsic mutual security.
As with that notion of "mutual security", the US intelligence community needs to look beyond seeing an intelligence tool as just something proprietary that gives a "friendly" analyst some advantage over an "unfriendly" analyst. Instead, the intelligence community could begin to see the potential for a free and open source intelligence tool as a way to promote "friendship" across the planet by dispelling some of the gloom of "want and ignorance" (see the scene in "A Christmas Carol" with Scrooge and a Christmas Spirit) that we still have all too much of around the planet. So, beyond supporting legitimate US intelligence needs (useful with their own closed sources of data), supporting a free and open source intelligence tool (and related open datasets) could become a strategic part of US (or other nation's) "diplomacy" and constructive outreach.
Now, there are many people out there (including computer scientists) who may raise legitimate concerns about privacy or other important issues in regards to any system that can support the intelligence community (as well as civilian needs). As I see it, there is a race going on. The race is between two trends. On the one hand, the internet can be used to profile and round up dissenters to the scarcity-based economic status quo (thus legitimate worries about privacy and something like TIA). On the other hand, the internet can be used to change the status quo in various ways (better designs, better science, stronger social networks advocating for some healthy mix of a basic income, a gift economy, democratic resource-based planning, improved local subsistence, etc., all supported by better structured arguments like with the Genoa II approach) to the point where there is abundance for all and rounding up dissenters to mainstream economics is a non-issue because material abundance is everywhere. So, as Bucky Fuller said, whether is will be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race to the very end. While I can't guarantee success at the second option of using the internet for abundance for all, I can guarantee that if we do nothing, the first option of using the internet to round up dissenters (or really, anybody who is different, like was done using IBM computers in WWII Germany) will probably prevail. So, I feel the global public really needs access to these sorts of sensemaking tools in an open source way, and the way to use them is not so much to "fight back" as to "transform and/or transcend the system". As Bucky Fuller said, you never change thing by fighting the old paradigm directly; you change things by inventing a new way that makes the old paradigm obsolete."
Anyway, still working towards that in my very limited spare time....
http://twirlip.net/
Hope sharing and cooperation to build a better world is not outlawed now... But I guess I should not be surprised when insane people vote for making sanity a crime...
https://en.wikipe
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
He didn't meet with a Russian government official, he met with someone who happened to be Russian. He didn't have to disclose it.