Now they want to direct all the spy agencies on the new "terrorist" the American citizen. They want to bug our houses, tap our phones, point satellites and drones at us, have informants stalk us, and feed the information back to the local police so that if we break even the slightest most esoteric arcane law we get raided, arrested etc.
Replace "Obama" with "Bush" and it's "Bush Wants Broader Internet Wiretap Authority." and the reason is to help law enforcement? Privacy and civil liberties should be given up to help the police put us in jail easier? They have to do a better job justifying the unlimited surveillance powers they claim to need. There aren't that many terrorists, unless they plan on going back to the 60s and raiding all the anti war movement hippy types and Alex Jones listeners who happen to know what encryption is.
There is an FBI already. There is an NSA already. If it's a national security concern the NSA already can crack the encryption so why do we have to make it so easy that any 2 bit local cop can do it? If it's about national security I'm sure they already can crack most of it if not all of it. If it's about law enforcement then it's not worth the sacrifice. There aren't enough criminals to justify it and most criminals aren't using encryption.
The only way they can justify this that I can see is with the "It's more efficient, it saves money", unfortunately even if it does save money it doesn't offer anything to the citizen. It doesn't make us feel safer and probably doesn't actually make us safer either. For a lot of us it will make us feel less safe because whenever a person feels under the microscope they usually feel less safe.
Just a few days ago they raid the anti war movement and now right before the election they want to discuss this? This is a politically stupid time to talk about broader wiretap authority!
Jim Bell has some ideas that might work in theory. He has proven that he is pretty competent with a computer, and with accessing data on the internet. But, what has Jim Bell accomplished? I mean, aside from pissing off the government, and spending time in federal prison? What has he accomplished?
Granted, he may be a dangerous person, who is capable of causing damage - but the 9/11 hijackers are PROVEN dangerous persons who were demonstrably capable of causing damage.
I only bring up Jim Bell to point out that intellectuals are the most dangerous warriors, not the guy with guns, not the kamikaze suicide bomber. Yes these people can kill 3000 people in a single act but thats really not the future of war or the kind of war the USA has to worry about. It's not the urban guerilla information cyberwar.
Jim Bell is the prototypical cyber terrorist.He could have been working with the US government as his idea of information warfare would have worked against China, Iran or any nation state. The problem is the US government feared him and took his theories as threatening because of his political views. Jim Bell was the most dangerous hacker in America. There are probably thousands of Jim Bells and if the US government does not co-op them or enlist them then they have to worry about China or Russia taking them.
Also lets be realistic. The kind of damage caused by information warfare is not the kind of damage which would easily be seen. It's not the same as a big explosion that destroys a bunch of buildings on national TV. It's a bunch of people having accidents, being blackmailed, or just being intimidated in such a way that it would never reach the media.
Ultimately what Jim Bell was doing was terrorism only on a much grander more sophisticated scale. If Jim Bell's ideas had taken off, and really we still don't know how many other Jim Bells are out there, it's the kind of idea which would be nearly impossible to stop due to the greed and free market effects.
Yeah, I know who John Nash is, and about his research. I was just pointing out that it was a bad example of a civilian who was a willing "warrior" for the US army. His research into game theory may have had military application, but that's not why he did it.
In fact, in real life he fled to Europe and tried to seek political asylum in East Germany. A true patriot. Though he did have schizophrenia, so I wouldn't exactly call the act "treasonous", just disturbed.
On the other hand, you would like to contribute directly, which is great. But that doesn't mean just because you can't enlist that you can't contribute to the field - there are plenty of civilian jobs that work with the military!
Like what? And working with the military without having status or authority usually means taking orders from the military rather than working with them. It's really simple, if they want cyberwarriors and all that jazz then they need to figure out how to enlist civilians. Civilians aren't going to want to work with the military and possibly risk their lives and wellbeing and not get the same honor, the same medals, the same level of status and respect as anyone in the military would get.
And if the pay isn't going to be fair and if theres unequal honor between the uniformed enlisted officers and the civilian roles, what is the point?
A warrior is defined by attitude and conduct, not by effect. The guy who pushes a button to launch a nuclear holocaust is not a warrior. The guy who storms a beach only to be cut down with machine gun fire before he can fire a single shot, is. There's a big difference between the two categories, and if you don't intuitively understand it then you probably fall into the former.
So war is only physical? you have the assumption that geeks cannot have attitude and conduct. That is an incorrect assumption. You have the assumption that geeks cannot be brave, another incorrect assumption.
The only difference you can make is one kind of warrior requires more athleticism than the other, but if you are going by this then you could say anyone who isn't athletic by definition cannot be a warrior. This is incorrect because you said yourself it's attitude and conduct which is based upon mental attributes.
Launching a nuclear holocaust? Thats not what I was talking about at all. Hacking into the system and disrupting communications, or creating an drone which can use EMP based weaponry, these sorts of tactics are necessary to help the infantry actually storm the compound if thats even necessary as the war on terrorism is unconventional anyway and probably involves assassinations and hacking computers more than it would involve armed soldiers raiding the training camp.
So if you wear glasses and have asthma (typical geek), how do you join the military? You'd get screened out.
Seriously? Notwithstanding the entire point of my post of "geek" being a stupid and mostly mythical stereotype, that is not true either. Wearing glasses/contacts does NOT exclude you from the military. Asthma, maybe, but who cares, as I said, find another job. Honestly, the military doens't even pay that well, otherwise there would be tons of smart, fit, technically competent people applying every day. Overall, I think you may base too much of your assumptions on movies.
And Eintein didn't know what he was working on, but he did know he was working on a top secret project so he had an idea that it was for the government and...
What the heck are you talking about? Seriously, read what you wrote, it sounds like a conspiracy theorist. Not sure what movie you got your information from, but I guess it didn't even set up the fake plot well enough to comprehend it. If you are interested in the life of Albert Einstein, read a biography, don't guess...
ohn Nash did consider himself to be a warrior, despite the fact that he was paranoid he did a lot of intellectual work which has military application.
Another movie that was SO far off from the reality. Jeesh...
You are correct that the military does not pay well. You are incorrect if you think that the only thing people care about is money. And in this economy I don't think anyone would complain about the military pay.
The only thing that keeps me form joining is the medical screening. If they weren't so strict on that I'd enlist tomorrow.
As for John Nash I wasn't talking about his movie at all, I'm talking about his life. He worked on game theory for real. He worked on models which have military application for real, such as the Nash equilibrium for which hes famous for, and several other theories more directly involving governing. In specific his theories were used to plot out the strategic movements and reactions during the cold war.
"just as easily cause massive damage with a computer as you can with weapons of other sorts."
Your ass. I've yet to read of serious, real world damage inflicted by use of a computer. On the other hand, the damage caused by flying a few jet airliners into strategically important buildings has been immense. Come back with your claim when you have real citations to offer, alright?
Thats because you haven't the technological expertise to understand how it can be inflicted. Google the name "Jim Bell" and see what you find.
Pray tell, what Conspiracy theory can I not search for in America? In fact, there is no such government censorship on the internet, only against Warez and child porn basically. You really fail at thinking things though if you think Americans have censored internet searches like the Chinese.
I said they are in the process of doing so, not that they are doing it without a fight. What do you think they are trying to build the internet kill switch for?
Please do not throw phrases like that around applying it to China when it can just as easily apply to the USA. Our country is just as power hungry and authoritarian, perhaps more so if you look around the globe.
So while there is a mock election, there is no way to know who really won. Probably the winner is whichever side has the best hackers. How is that any better or worse than China?
See how you're able to talk about those events, write books and songs about them, and view photographs? Those isolated incidents are views as public black marks on American history and are not standard operating policy, nor are they hidden by the government. In fact, many politicians have ridden to office on their outspoken criticisms of America's past.
The only reason the US government allows him to talk about it is because the FBI is probably tapping his phone and watching his every move. China might not be as efficient at spying on it's citizens but the USA is efficient enough to do it and if people speak out then they just watch you even more closely.
Theres a time to defend the US government, this isn't the time. Morally the US government cannot be defended. In fact morality and government don't even belong in the same sentence. Governments fight and win wars, if you want morality go to church.
China won't let you speak at all. Honestly what difference does it make? Or did you not hear about the raids on anti war protesters around the country? Or have you not heard about Cointel Pro?
The USA has no moral high ground over any other developed nation. The moral high ground was lost when the USA started torturing people.
And then you won't be able to search for conspiracy theories in the USA. It's really no different from China in terms of how government acts. All modern governments generally act the same. Yes North Korea may be the exception, but capitalist governments generally are similar.
Individuals don't matter anymore in any government that I know of. You are either a tax payer or a consumer.
You assumed but did not say that warriors could be trained to be geeks. I do not believe that to be the case. If either could be the other, then how do you train, say, my father to be a geek? He's had numerous lessons, manuals, and 800 helplines and has never successfully gotten a VCR to stop flashing 12:00. But he was drafted, back when there was a draft, and considered a warrior by the US government. He was a history major at the time and ended up a lawyer, and no one would have considered him a warrior if you ran across him on the street. But "Warriors can be geeks. It's just a matter of training" seems to be much less possible than the other way. "Geek" requires an interest, a desire, and an innate ability. A grunt, in the old army at least, required holding a gun and not shooting your own troops in the back (optional).
The reason the government prefers to train from within its own ranks (veterans) is because the veterans probably have top secret clearance. In this level I think it makes sense to look at veterans and other people who can be trusted. On the other hand if they don't let geeks enlist at all, then the only people who will enlist will be the physically strong athlete types (which a lot of geeks aren't, which is why many became geeks in the first place), so it rules out virtually everybody except the really rare person who has 20/20 vision, good physical fitness, no diseases of any sort etc.
On this level it does not make any sense. If it's infantry then it makes sense that the geek soldier should be as fit and as skilled as all the other soldiers. For this specific kind of warfare I don't think there is any advantage or disadvantage but it does not change the fact that the majority of geeks if they enlisted tomorrow would be screened out. Also you have the age limits, what if the geeks are over the age of enlistment but they happen to be the most skilled or talented programmers in the country?
Once again they could be fat, old, I'm sure we can all think of some programmers who are like this, but they still are the best programmers in the country. The way their program is set up, none of us seems to know anybody who is actually a cyber warrior. All of us knows someone or many people who want to be cyber warriors. We see the government complaining about nobody having the skills or they can't find anybody.
The truth is theres geeks all over the internet. All the government would have to do is create cyberwarrior.gov and tell them to sign up. Then take them all to boot camp, and then you have a cyber army. It's really not that complicated.
It's complicated if they all need top secret clearance because now your pool gets smaller but even still there are plenty of geeks who would be able to pass that too.
"I consider myself a warrior geek. My intellect is a deadly weapon."
C'mon, out of the basement! dinner's in the table, lad.
The government says encryption is a munition and certain numbers are illegal. So anyone who understands information technology on that level according to the governments own interpretation is by definition a warrior or dangerous civilian, however you want to look at it.
Would I be willing to fight? Absolutely. Am I enlisted as a warrior? No I'm not. But the fact is that you can just as easily cause massive damage with a computer as you can with weapons of other sorts.
An example if you launch a DDOS attack or you infect a mainframe with a virus that encrypts the vital components on the harddrive and then wipes the key from the system. These sorts of activities don't require you to run miles, or bench press 200lbs, or to be able to be a sniper or any of the crap associated with orthodox warfare.
So what we would be talking about is specialized units. If they are specialized then they should be recruited and not held to the same enlistment standards. Make them official soldiers, treat them as official soldiers, put them through some form of boot camp for geeks, with lax physical standards so most geeks can actually get in.
I don't see why it would be a big deal. If it were done right I'd sign up, but the way it's being done currently, nobody is going to sign up and the only people they will have are people who are veterans, and while some veterans are also geeks, the majority of geeks and probably the most skilled, are not going to be veterans. Veterans make up maybe 1% of the population, do you really think this is the only pool the government should look at?
"Sure - if you want to work for the military, join the military. Then, yes, you too can be a veteran. If you can't make it through the training, no big deal, find another job, right?"
So if you wear glasses and have asthma (typical geek), how do you join the military? You'd get screened out.
"Sorry, but you are wrong on both statements. Einstein was one of the most brilliant minds of the century, but beyond general relativity he did almost nothing to invent the atomic bomb, and would have been mortified to be called a warrior."
It doesn't change the fact that it was his function. And Eintein didn't know what he was working on, but he did know he was working on a top secret project so he had an idea that it was for the government and probably for the military. Anyway if Einstein was the wrong example theres John Nash. John Nash did consider himself to be a warrior, despite the fact that he was paranoid he did a lot of intellectual work which has military application.
The fact is that even in the past, not all intellectuals were pacifists. And they aren't all pacifists today. You offer enough money and you'd have geeks from all over the country doing cyber warfare. It's a matter of them not wanting to train geeks, it's as simple as that. Geeks could enlist in the military right now and they'd probably be screened out because they have poor vision or asthma or are obese, none of which has anything to do with cyberwarefare.
I think that the mentality for geek and military doesn't have a massive overlap, so the military would rather have the certainty of military over the fluency of geek. No military or para-military organization likes integrating civilians. And the whole premise of every other job in the military is they hire, identify traits, then train for a job. They don't seek people with any skills at all, just aptitudes, then they train for the desired skills. Hiring experts is the opposite of the normal recruiting process.
What I don't understand in the slightest is why the article or/. responses are making a distinction between "veteran" and "techie"?? A veteran is someone with military training and experience. A "techie" (another stupid vague term) is someone with technical training. It seems obvious to me that the right person for this job is someone who falls into both categories, and given the technology used today in the military, there should be plenty of those.
While the quote from the office was pretty stupid, it was also the only real mention of the term "geek" in the article. His point was he wanted competent technical people who also had military training, not "techie" civilians. And if I go in for laser eye surgery, I'd prefer the experienced ophthamologist perform it, not the guy who built the laser.
Thats sensible, so why don't they just take techie civilians and train them? Not everybody can be a veteran. Eintein wasn't a veteran and he helped invent the atomic bomb. To say he isn't a warrior is absolutely insane.
Enlist the geeks. I don't see whats so difficult or why there is a need for stereotyping an entire profession of people. If someone is a geek they can be trained to be a warrior just as easily as anybody else.
The real reason probably has a lot more to do with the fact that we're even sitting around here on a Saturday afternoon questioning the decision. Geeks tend to think they're smarter than everyone else (just because its usually true, doesn't mean it always is), tend to question authority, and hate to be told what to do. If you give a geek a little bit of authority, they tend to get extremely dictatorial over their small little domain.
How likely is it that "true geeks" would really be able to fit into a military command structure and obey the orders of officers and the President without a million back-talking questions and suggestions about how things "should" be done?
Training people who learn the technical aspects of the job is probably easier than training people who already know (or think they know, more likely) about network security to just shut up, do what their told, and wear the clothes they're supposed to wear. There are plenty of smart people who didn't spend all their childhood fucking around with computers who are more than capable of being taught how to do what we do, and who also haven't yet developed mini god complexes or root syndrome.
I was medically disqualified from service (allegedly i have some mild bit of asthma that makes me barely fail a PFT), and spent my childhood being a geek. Not going to say I like being told what to do or that I don't have root syndrome, but that's why I'm in the group of people not suited to that sort of gig, and that's fine because I don't really want it.
If you are a geek and you don't like authority then you wont sign up to be a cyber warrior. If you sign up to be a cyber warrior then you want to win the war and you'll accept authority. I don't think the problem is necessarily authority, it's unjustified authority. It's authority without being paid for the trouble. It's authority without honor or respect.
Yes you have some geeks who are psychological misfits. Those geeks should not be selected for the cyber warrior program. But there are plenty of geeks who have what it takes to be cyber warriors and just wouldn't make it through the physical training aspects. These sorts of geeks would have the mind but would lack the body to get through military screening. An example being a geek who has asthma and who is partially blind, or something like that. The fact is these sorts of issues don't really matter much when you aren't fighting the physical war.
There are snipers and trainer killers in the military, this is correct. However this is just one aspect of the total war effort. To imply that geeks cannot be warriors is to ignore the intellectual aspects of war, the strategic aspects, the tactical aspects. Fighting takes place on every level of existence by all organisms.
So to say only the delta force or special forces sniper war hero is a warrior is absolutely ridiculous. Yes those individuals are the most physically gifted, so they have specific well defined roles. Geeks on the other hand don't benefit from being physically gifted. Whether or not you can run 20 miles in the desert, or whether or not you can snipe someone from a mile away, is completely irrelevant to how dangerous you are behind the keyboard.
A person can be as dangerous behind the keyboard as a sniper can be.
Slashdot Mirror
Now they want to direct all the spy agencies on the new "terrorist" the American citizen. They want to bug our houses, tap our phones, point satellites and drones at us, have informants stalk us, and feed the information back to the local police so that if we break even the slightest most esoteric arcane law we get raided, arrested etc.
Replace "Obama" with "Bush" and it's "Bush Wants Broader Internet Wiretap Authority." and the reason is to help law enforcement? Privacy and civil liberties should be given up to help the police put us in jail easier? They have to do a better job justifying the unlimited surveillance powers they claim to need. There aren't that many terrorists, unless they plan on going back to the 60s and raiding all the anti war movement hippy types and Alex Jones listeners who happen to know what encryption is.
There is an FBI already. There is an NSA already. If it's a national security concern the NSA already can crack the encryption so why do we have to make it so easy that any 2 bit local cop can do it? If it's about national security I'm sure they already can crack most of it if not all of it. If it's about law enforcement then it's not worth the sacrifice. There aren't enough criminals to justify it and most criminals aren't using encryption.
The only way they can justify this that I can see is with the "It's more efficient, it saves money", unfortunately even if it does save money it doesn't offer anything to the citizen. It doesn't make us feel safer and probably doesn't actually make us safer either. For a lot of us it will make us feel less safe because whenever a person feels under the microscope they usually feel less safe.
Just a few days ago they raid the anti war movement and now right before the election they want to discuss this? This is a politically stupid time to talk about broader wiretap authority!
Jim Bell has some ideas that might work in theory. He has proven that he is pretty competent with a computer, and with accessing data on the internet. But, what has Jim Bell accomplished? I mean, aside from pissing off the government, and spending time in federal prison? What has he accomplished?
Granted, he may be a dangerous person, who is capable of causing damage - but the 9/11 hijackers are PROVEN dangerous persons who were demonstrably capable of causing damage.
I only bring up Jim Bell to point out that intellectuals are the most dangerous warriors, not the guy with guns, not the kamikaze suicide bomber. Yes these people can kill 3000 people in a single act but thats really not the future of war or the kind of war the USA has to worry about. It's not the urban guerilla information cyberwar.
Jim Bell is the prototypical cyber terrorist.He could have been working with the US government as his idea of information warfare would have worked against China, Iran or any nation state. The problem is the US government feared him and took his theories as threatening because of his political views. Jim Bell was the most dangerous hacker in America. There are probably thousands of Jim Bells and if the US government does not co-op them or enlist them then they have to worry about China or Russia taking them.
Also lets be realistic. The kind of damage caused by information warfare is not the kind of damage which would easily be seen. It's not the same as a big explosion that destroys a bunch of buildings on national TV. It's a bunch of people having accidents, being blackmailed, or just being intimidated in such a way that it would never reach the media.
Ultimately what Jim Bell was doing was terrorism only on a much grander more sophisticated scale. If Jim Bell's ideas had taken off, and really we still don't know how many other Jim Bells are out there, it's the kind of idea which would be nearly impossible to stop due to the greed and free market effects.
Yeah, I know who John Nash is, and about his research. I was just pointing out that it was a bad example of a civilian who was a willing "warrior" for the US army. His research into game theory may have had military application, but that's not why he did it.
In fact, in real life he fled to Europe and tried to seek political asylum in East Germany. A true patriot. Though he did have schizophrenia, so I wouldn't exactly call the act "treasonous", just disturbed.
On the other hand, you would like to contribute directly, which is great. But that doesn't mean just because you can't enlist that you can't contribute to the field - there are plenty of civilian jobs that work with the military!
Like what? And working with the military without having status or authority usually means taking orders from the military rather than working with them. It's really simple, if they want cyberwarriors and all that jazz then they need to figure out how to enlist civilians. Civilians aren't going to want to work with the military and possibly risk their lives and wellbeing and not get the same honor, the same medals, the same level of status and respect as anyone in the military would get.
And if the pay isn't going to be fair and if theres unequal honor between the uniformed enlisted officers and the civilian roles, what is the point?
A warrior is defined by attitude and conduct, not by effect. The guy who pushes a button to launch a nuclear holocaust is not a warrior. The guy who storms a beach only to be cut down with machine gun fire before he can fire a single shot, is. There's a big difference between the two categories, and if you don't intuitively understand it then you probably fall into the former.
So war is only physical? you have the assumption that geeks cannot have attitude and conduct. That is an incorrect assumption. You have the assumption that geeks cannot be brave, another incorrect assumption.
The only difference you can make is one kind of warrior requires more athleticism than the other, but if you are going by this then you could say anyone who isn't athletic by definition cannot be a warrior. This is incorrect because you said yourself it's attitude and conduct which is based upon mental attributes.
Launching a nuclear holocaust? Thats not what I was talking about at all. Hacking into the system and disrupting communications, or creating an drone which can use EMP based weaponry, these sorts of tactics are necessary to help the infantry actually storm the compound if thats even necessary as the war on terrorism is unconventional anyway and probably involves assassinations and hacking computers more than it would involve armed soldiers raiding the training camp.
So if you wear glasses and have asthma (typical geek), how do you join the military? You'd get screened out.
Seriously? Notwithstanding the entire point of my post of "geek" being a stupid and mostly mythical stereotype, that is not true either. Wearing glasses/contacts does NOT exclude you from the military. Asthma, maybe, but who cares, as I said, find another job. Honestly, the military doens't even pay that well, otherwise there would be tons of smart, fit, technically competent people applying every day. Overall, I think you may base too much of your assumptions on movies.
And Eintein didn't know what he was working on, but he did know he was working on a top secret project so he had an idea that it was for the government and...
What the heck are you talking about? Seriously, read what you wrote, it sounds like a conspiracy theorist. Not sure what movie you got your information from, but I guess it didn't even set up the fake plot well enough to comprehend it. If you are interested in the life of Albert Einstein, read a biography, don't guess...
ohn Nash did consider himself to be a warrior, despite the fact that he was paranoid he did a lot of intellectual work which has military application.
Another movie that was SO far off from the reality. Jeesh...
You are correct that the military does not pay well. You are incorrect if you think that the only thing people care about is money. And in this economy I don't think anyone would complain about the military pay.
The only thing that keeps me form joining is the medical screening. If they weren't so strict on that I'd enlist tomorrow.
As for John Nash I wasn't talking about his movie at all, I'm talking about his life. He worked on game theory for real. He worked on models which have military application for real, such as the Nash equilibrium for which hes famous for, and several other theories more directly involving governing. In specific his theories were used to plot out the strategic movements and reactions during the cold war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
"just as easily cause massive damage with a computer as you can with weapons of other sorts."
Your ass. I've yet to read of serious, real world damage inflicted by use of a computer. On the other hand, the damage caused by flying a few jet airliners into strategically important buildings has been immense. Come back with your claim when you have real citations to offer, alright?
Thats because you haven't the technological expertise to understand how it can be inflicted. Google the name "Jim Bell" and see what you find.
Pray tell, what Conspiracy theory can I not search for in America? In fact, there is no such government censorship on the internet, only against Warez and child porn basically. You really fail at thinking things though if you think Americans have censored internet searches like the Chinese.
I said they are in the process of doing so, not that they are doing it without a fight. What do you think they are trying to build the internet kill switch for?
Can change someones status from civilian to domestic terrorists overnight.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/25/905259/-UPDATEDWheres-the-Change-FBI-Raids-Peace-Activists,-Confiscates-MLK-Photo
Did you forget about this: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html
Please do not throw phrases like that around applying it to China when it can just as easily apply to the USA. Our country is just as power hungry and authoritarian, perhaps more so if you look around the globe.
They got jailed for doing something similar. In fact it was exactly the same kind of thing, only slightly more organized and a bit more vocal.
So while there is a mock election, there is no way to know who really won. Probably the winner is whichever side has the best hackers. How is that any better or worse than China?
See how you're able to talk about those events, write books and songs about them, and view photographs? Those isolated incidents are views as public black marks on American history and are not standard operating policy, nor are they hidden by the government. In fact, many politicians have ridden to office on their outspoken criticisms of America's past.
The only reason the US government allows him to talk about it is because the FBI is probably tapping his phone and watching his every move. China might not be as efficient at spying on it's citizens but the USA is efficient enough to do it and if people speak out then they just watch you even more closely.
While you are hyping the "freedoms" of the USA, the FBI is busy raiding US citizens.
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/feds-raid-homes-in-chicago-minnesota-in-terror-probe-20100924
Theres a time to defend the US government, this isn't the time. Morally the US government cannot be defended. In fact morality and government don't even belong in the same sentence. Governments fight and win wars, if you want morality go to church.
China won't let you speak at all. Honestly what difference does it make? Or did you not hear about the raids on anti war protesters around the country? Or have you not heard about Cointel Pro?
The USA has no moral high ground over any other developed nation. The moral high ground was lost when the USA started torturing people.
And then you won't be able to search for conspiracy theories in the USA. It's really no different from China in terms of how government acts. All modern governments generally act the same. Yes North Korea may be the exception, but capitalist governments generally are similar.
Individuals don't matter anymore in any government that I know of. You are either a tax payer or a consumer.
You assumed but did not say that warriors could be trained to be geeks. I do not believe that to be the case. If either could be the other, then how do you train, say, my father to be a geek? He's had numerous lessons, manuals, and 800 helplines and has never successfully gotten a VCR to stop flashing 12:00. But he was drafted, back when there was a draft, and considered a warrior by the US government. He was a history major at the time and ended up a lawyer, and no one would have considered him a warrior if you ran across him on the street. But "Warriors can be geeks. It's just a matter of training" seems to be much less possible than the other way. "Geek" requires an interest, a desire, and an innate ability. A grunt, in the old army at least, required holding a gun and not shooting your own troops in the back (optional).
The reason the government prefers to train from within its own ranks (veterans) is because the veterans probably have top secret clearance. In this level I think it makes sense to look at veterans and other people who can be trusted. On the other hand if they don't let geeks enlist at all, then the only people who will enlist will be the physically strong athlete types (which a lot of geeks aren't, which is why many became geeks in the first place), so it rules out virtually everybody except the really rare person who has 20/20 vision, good physical fitness, no diseases of any sort etc.
On this level it does not make any sense. If it's infantry then it makes sense that the geek soldier should be as fit and as skilled as all the other soldiers. For this specific kind of warfare I don't think there is any advantage or disadvantage but it does not change the fact that the majority of geeks if they enlisted tomorrow would be screened out. Also you have the age limits, what if the geeks are over the age of enlistment but they happen to be the most skilled or talented programmers in the country?
Once again they could be fat, old, I'm sure we can all think of some programmers who are like this, but they still are the best programmers in the country. The way their program is set up, none of us seems to know anybody who is actually a cyber warrior. All of us knows someone or many people who want to be cyber warriors. We see the government complaining about nobody having the skills or they can't find anybody.
The truth is theres geeks all over the internet. All the government would have to do is create cyberwarrior.gov and tell them to sign up. Then take them all to boot camp, and then you have a cyber army. It's really not that complicated.
It's complicated if they all need top secret clearance because now your pool gets smaller but even still there are plenty of geeks who would be able to pass that too.
"I consider myself a warrior geek. My intellect is a deadly weapon."
C'mon, out of the basement! dinner's in the table, lad.
The government says encryption is a munition and certain numbers are illegal. So anyone who understands information technology on that level according to the governments own interpretation is by definition a warrior or dangerous civilian, however you want to look at it.
Would I be willing to fight? Absolutely. Am I enlisted as a warrior? No I'm not. But the fact is that you can just as easily cause massive damage with a computer as you can with weapons of other sorts.
An example if you launch a DDOS attack or you infect a mainframe with a virus that encrypts the vital components on the harddrive and then wipes the key from the system. These sorts of activities don't require you to run miles, or bench press 200lbs, or to be able to be a sniper or any of the crap associated with orthodox warfare.
So what we would be talking about is specialized units. If they are specialized then they should be recruited and not held to the same enlistment standards. Make them official soldiers, treat them as official soldiers, put them through some form of boot camp for geeks, with lax physical standards so most geeks can actually get in.
I don't see why it would be a big deal. If it were done right I'd sign up, but the way it's being done currently, nobody is going to sign up and the only people they will have are people who are veterans, and while some veterans are also geeks, the majority of geeks and probably the most skilled, are not going to be veterans. Veterans make up maybe 1% of the population, do you really think this is the only pool the government should look at?
"Sure - if you want to work for the military, join the military. Then, yes, you too can be a veteran. If you can't make it through the training, no big deal, find another job, right?"
So if you wear glasses and have asthma (typical geek), how do you join the military? You'd get screened out.
"Sorry, but you are wrong on both statements. Einstein was one of the most brilliant minds of the century, but beyond general relativity he did almost nothing to invent the atomic bomb, and would have been mortified to be called a warrior."
It doesn't change the fact that it was his function. And Eintein didn't know what he was working on, but he did know he was working on a top secret project so he had an idea that it was for the government and probably for the military. Anyway if Einstein was the wrong example theres John Nash. John Nash did consider himself to be a warrior, despite the fact that he was paranoid he did a lot of intellectual work which has military application.
The fact is that even in the past, not all intellectuals were pacifists. And they aren't all pacifists today. You offer enough money and you'd have geeks from all over the country doing cyber warfare. It's a matter of them not wanting to train geeks, it's as simple as that. Geeks could enlist in the military right now and they'd probably be screened out because they have poor vision or asthma or are obese, none of which has anything to do with cyberwarefare.
I think that the mentality for geek and military doesn't have a massive overlap, so the military would rather have the certainty of military over the fluency of geek. No military or para-military organization likes integrating civilians. And the whole premise of every other job in the military is they hire, identify traits, then train for a job. They don't seek people with any skills at all, just aptitudes, then they train for the desired skills. Hiring experts is the opposite of the normal recruiting process.
So make them soldiers of some sort.
What I don't understand in the slightest is why the article or /. responses are making a distinction between "veteran" and "techie"?? A veteran is someone with military training and experience. A "techie" (another stupid vague term) is someone with technical training. It seems obvious to me that the right person for this job is someone who falls into both categories, and given the technology used today in the military, there should be plenty of those.
While the quote from the office was pretty stupid, it was also the only real mention of the term "geek" in the article. His point was he wanted competent technical people who also had military training, not "techie" civilians. And if I go in for laser eye surgery, I'd prefer the experienced ophthamologist perform it, not the guy who built the laser.
Thats sensible, so why don't they just take techie civilians and train them? Not everybody can be a veteran. Eintein wasn't a veteran and he helped invent the atomic bomb. To say he isn't a warrior is absolutely insane.
Enlist the geeks. I don't see whats so difficult or why there is a need for stereotyping an entire profession of people. If someone is a geek they can be trained to be a warrior just as easily as anybody else.
The real reason probably has a lot more to do with the fact that we're even sitting around here on a Saturday afternoon questioning the decision. Geeks tend to think they're smarter than everyone else (just because its usually true, doesn't mean it always is), tend to question authority, and hate to be told what to do. If you give a geek a little bit of authority, they tend to get extremely dictatorial over their small little domain.
How likely is it that "true geeks" would really be able to fit into a military command structure and obey the orders of officers and the President without a million back-talking questions and suggestions about how things "should" be done?
Training people who learn the technical aspects of the job is probably easier than training people who already know (or think they know, more likely) about network security to just shut up, do what their told, and wear the clothes they're supposed to wear. There are plenty of smart people who didn't spend all their childhood fucking around with computers who are more than capable of being taught how to do what we do, and who also haven't yet developed mini god complexes or root syndrome.
I was medically disqualified from service (allegedly i have some mild bit of asthma that makes me barely fail a PFT), and spent my childhood being a geek. Not going to say I like being told what to do or that I don't have root syndrome, but that's why I'm in the group of people not suited to that sort of gig, and that's fine because I don't really want it.
If you are a geek and you don't like authority then you wont sign up to be a cyber warrior. If you sign up to be a cyber warrior then you want to win the war and you'll accept authority. I don't think the problem is necessarily authority, it's unjustified authority. It's authority without being paid for the trouble. It's authority without honor or respect.
Yes you have some geeks who are psychological misfits. Those geeks should not be selected for the cyber warrior program. But there are plenty of geeks who have what it takes to be cyber warriors and just wouldn't make it through the physical training aspects. These sorts of geeks would have the mind but would lack the body to get through military screening. An example being a geek who has asthma and who is partially blind, or something like that. The fact is these sorts of issues don't really matter much when you aren't fighting the physical war.
There are snipers and trainer killers in the military, this is correct. However this is just one aspect of the total war effort. To imply that geeks cannot be warriors is to ignore the intellectual aspects of war, the strategic aspects, the tactical aspects. Fighting takes place on every level of existence by all organisms.
So to say only the delta force or special forces sniper war hero is a warrior is absolutely ridiculous. Yes those individuals are the most physically gifted, so they have specific well defined roles. Geeks on the other hand don't benefit from being physically gifted. Whether or not you can run 20 miles in the desert, or whether or not you can snipe someone from a mile away, is completely irrelevant to how dangerous you are behind the keyboard.
A person can be as dangerous behind the keyboard as a sniper can be.