Senate Bill 773 & 778 (The End of the Internet)

[Copeland]

A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared "cyber emergency."

Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what's being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.

A working draft of the legislation obtained by an Internet privacy group also spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."

[gdill2]

This is an effort to make "legal" what is already...

George Dill

[BlackC70]

Perhaps we can name this set of bills the "Uber-Patriot Act".

But don't worry - since Obama is doing it and not Bush, I'm totally sure it is only being done for "good".

By coincidence, the quote for today on my tear-a-sheet calendar is:

"It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake." (H. L. Mencken)

[adp]

sounds like a good bill to me, not that they need many of the pwers the bill gives.

I was a fan of the Patriot Act. I have no problem with government surveillance. As long as the government is monitoring all the scary folks out there, from animal rights nutjobs to secessionist nutjobs.

They shouldn't monitor non-nutjobs, however. Drawing that line is difficult, of course.

[ukmatt]

Quote, originally posted by BlackC70 »

Perhaps we can name this set of bills the "Uber-Patriot Act". But don't worry - since Obama is doing it and not Bush, I'm totally sure it is only being done for "good". By coincidence, the quote for today on my tear-a-sheet calendar is: "It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake." (H. L. Mencken)

So do you disagree with these bills then?

UKMatt

[stev vanveit]

I'm not surprised with all the cyber and bot-net attacks lately.
Now the question is how will it be jammed? Probably through NORAD no doubt.

Now, maybe the UN will establish the Rules of Engagement (ROE).
Excellent counter President Obama.

[BlackC70]

Quote, originally posted by ukmatt »

So do you disagree with these bills then? UKMatt

I haven't read the details yet, enough to have a fully-informed opinion. From what I've read so far, however, I have significant concerns about them. So my prediction at this point is that I'll probably largely disagree with them, although there may be parts of them that I'd support.

My earlier post was primarily a comment on the irony of the situation. Frankly, mention of granting the Secretary of Commerce "access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."" seems to me to be an order of magnitude more invasive than anything done under the Patriot Act.

It's one thing for the government to take steps to protect its own networks from cyber-terror, and also to take steps to offer protection to certain private networks (e.g. those of utility companies, etc.) But the above sounds a lot like a blank check for "accessing" (seizing?) any network.

Since you asked, what's your take on these bills?

[adp]

Quote, originally posted by BlackC70 »

I haven't read the details yet, enough to have a fully-informed opinion. From what I've read so far, however, I have significant concerns about them. So my prediction at this point is that I'll probably largely disagree with them, although there may be parts of them that I'd support. My earlier post was primarily a comment on the irony of the situation. Frankly, mention of granting the Secretary of Commerce "access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."" seems to me to be an order of magnitude more invasive than anything done under the Patriot Act. It's one thing for the government to take steps to protect its own networks from cyber-terror, and also to take steps to offer protection to certain private networks (e.g. those of utility companies, etc.) But the above sounds a lot like a blank check for "accessing" (seizing?) any network. Since you asked, what's your take on these bills?

wait, so the government shouldn't protect private networks from what goes on over the internet? Seriously?

If a bot is hiding out in a private network, waiting to be unleased, you don't want the government to "enter" that private network and eliminate the criminal bot? That's like requiring the police to wait until a criminal goes on the highway rather than arrest him as he drives down the city streets. Seems like a silly approach, to me.

I want the government, as well as private industry, to do whatever it can to keep the internet safe. If you leave it up to individuals it simply will not happen.

I like a dose of reality with my utopian "Keep the Gubmint Out of Our Lives"-flavored Koolaid, eh?

[BlackC70]

Quote, originally posted by adp »

wait, so the government shouldn't protect private networks from what goes on over the internet? Seriously? If a bot is hiding out in a private network, waiting to be unleased, you don't want the government to "enter" that private network and eliminate the criminal bot? That's like requiring the police to wait until a criminal goes on the highway rather than arrest him as he drives down the city streets. Seems like a silly approach, to me. I want the government, as well as private industry, to do whatever it can to keep the internet safe. If you leave it up to individuals it simply will not happen. I like a dose of reality with my utopian "Keep the Gubmint Out of Our Lives"-flavored Koolaid, eh?

Why stop there? Why not let the police cordon off my house, so as to protect me from possible criminals? Actually, if they stationed some police IN my house, it would be even safer. Why not let the police take proactive action by arresting everyone who fits the profile of criminals, instead of waiting for them to commit a crime? The bills as written don't make any mention of warrants, nor other precautions and limitations, and seem to give tremendous discretionary power to the President, to do whatever is deemed "necessary". Maybe an amendment process will serve to make them more reasonable.

Actually, UKMatt had a good point (at least I think it was part of his point - I may be wrong). How someone feels about these bills DOES seem to depend on their political beliefs, and how they feel about who the power is being given to. It was fair to question me about being against these bills, if I didn't have a big problem with the Patriot Act. By the same token, it is fair to question those who have no problem with these bills, if they thought that the Patriot Act was dangerous. I don't dispute that a big part of my problem with these bills is underlying suspicion of the motives. And I suspect that if the bills had been introduced when George Bush was in office, there would have been much more of an outcry. But as currently written, I also think this set of bills goes way beyond anything in the Patriot Act, and also goes way beyond detection of bots, viruses, etc.

[adp]

Quote, originally posted by BlackC70 »

Why stop there? Why not let the police cordon off my house, so as to protect me from possible criminals? Actually, if they stationed some police IN my house, it would be even safer. Why not let the police take proactive action by arresting everyone who fits the profile of criminals, instead of waiting for them to commit a crime? .

yeah, you're right - that's the same thing

[adp]

Quote, originally posted by BlackC70 »

How someone feels about these bills DOES seem to depend on their political beliefs, and how they feel about who the power is being given to. It was fair to question me about being against these bills, if I didn't have a big problem with the Patriot Act. By the same token, it is fair to question those who have no problem with these bills, if they thought that the Patriot Act was dangerous. I don't dispute that a big part of my problem with these bills is underlying suspicion of the motives.

all good points

[adp]

Quote, originally posted by BlackC70 »

I don't dispute that a big part of my problem with these bills is underlying suspicion of the motives. .

so just what motives do you think Obama has that W didn't have?

Why do you question Obama's motives? Are yo uafraid that he'll only go after right-leaning bots and not left-leaning bots?

Do you think he won't use the Act to protect the country?

Why were you more comfy with W administering the Patriot Act than with Obama administering the Patriot Act?

I'm not disagreeing with your basic sentiments, as I am happy to have Obama administer the Patriot Act while I disliked W's (Cheney's, obviously) administration of the Patriot Act.

See, we KNOW W wanted to be a dictator (he told us he did) and we KNOW his daddy loved having more and more access to info about US citizens (Pappy ran the CIA and was a spook from Day One), but Obama has never suffered from either of those deficiencies. Just what is it that you are worried about? That he'll catch right-wing tax scofflaws by snooping on their PCs?

[Ocelot]

Quote, originally posted by adp »

so just what motives do you think Obama has that W didn't have? Why do you question Obama's motives? Are yo uafraid that he'll only go after right-leaning bots and not left-leaning bots? Do you think he won't use the Act to protect the country? Why were you more comfy with W administering the Patriot Act than with Obama administering the Patriot Act? I'm not disagreeing with your basic sentiments, as I am happy to have Obama administer the Patriot Act while I disliked W's (Cheney's, obviously) administration of the Patriot Act. See, we KNOW W wanted to be a dictator (he told us he did) and we KNOW his daddy loved having more and more access to info about US citizens (Pappy ran the CIA and was a spook from Day One), but Obama has never suffered from either of those deficiencies. Just what is it that you are worried about? That he'll catch right-wing tax scofflaws by snooping on their PCs?

I know the questions/answers weren't directed at me, but I'll interject anyways because I think you bring up some interesting points:

1) Why question Obama's motives/judgement/adminstrative abilities?
-First, where he stands in relation to W is a non-issue...what Obama does in administering any act has to stand up on it's own. A bad decision (or a good one, for that matter) is not tempered or enhanced by the track record of his predecessor...really, the "would you prefer Bush" line of questioning has never made much sense to me for this reason. Obama didn't oversee the Patriot Act, and Bush didn't oversee this proposed legislation.
-I do think that it's reasonable to question Obama's judement and/or motives. The guy has gone back on his word/radically changed his positions on multiple issues in the short time that he's been president. No, I'm not harping on Daschle. In the grand scheme of things, I hope that Turbo-Tax Tim doesn't matter either. BUT--all of his errors in judgement/sidestepping promises he made in this field don't give me great reason to trust the man's judgement or his promises. Then, try a far bigger issue: FISA+wiretapping: Obama has done a total 180 on this. (It's possible that he has ""seen the light"" and realized that he was "wrong" about his prior views. I'd love to think so. Frankly, I think he's more worried about maintaing executive priveledge than anything else, but that's for another thread) Reliable leaders with sound judgement don't do this sort of thing--or if they do, they have the good graces to say "I was wrong, and here's why I'm right this time." Just saying "trust me" doesn't inspire a lot of confidence when it comes from a guy with almost no experience or record.

Editorializing: Obama has shown himself to be no better than any other double-talking, sidestepping, slick politician. I don't trust him to make judgement calls about what surveillance is good/bad any more than I'd trust Bush to. Why should you? What has he proactively done to earn your trust, and how does this outweigh his actions to the contrary?

Sparknotes: I don't see why you trust Obama--just as you wouldn't trust a random shmoe with the keys to your car, why would you trust a politican with virtually no track record or executive experience with the keys to wiretapping all of our electronic communication?

[KillerB]

I'm so loaded with work right now that I don't have time for Swedespeed, but I would like to chime in on this one for a second. I’ve been watching this topic for a couple of years now.

The Bill is much bigger than what you're looking at. Next year, you might be required to pay for sites like Swedespeed. Bill 773 and 778 is just the start of it.

Battle over Net Neutrality is already happening in the UK with Virgin and idle bandwidth for certain sites.

The first major debate on net neutrality in the UK was held at Westminster on the 20 March 2006, sponsored by AT&T. It was attended by the Government and Opposition trade secretaries, telecommunications regulators, industry figures and other experts in the field. Google, a noted supporter of net neutrality, declined an invitation to the debate, and then called it "biased".[56] The conclusion was that Net Neutrality laws in the UK would be "extreme... unattractive and impractical" and that it was "an answer to problems we don't have, using a philosophy we don't share".

In Canada, Bell Canada and Telus are already moving this year to do the same... actually they are ahead of us.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/s....html

http://www.americanfreepress.n....html

Services would look like this:

Imagine what Swedespeed would be like if people had to start paying 49.00 a month for the site.

As far as censorship... Bush demonstrated how this would work here in the U.S. when they censored anti-bush comments on a broadcast of Pearl Jams concert in 2007.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9759184-7.html

This Bill is basically an invitation to let the government do what ever they what to do with out criticism. The OTF won't exist anymore, especially all the global / political topics that might pop up… all gone.

Currently the Bill is being quietly proposed while we are being flooded with Pirate stories. No one is talking about this topic. Something like this should be in the news… shouldn’t it? No matter if you think it’s proactive, protecting us from terrorist or just another big brother Socialistic Bill… it should be in the news. But it's not.

It's not written in Stone yet, but the government already knows it will go through. In fact, the government already started hiring the past week:

http://obambi.wordpress.com/20...uters/

The jobs were announced the same week as the Bill was introduced... Coincidence?...

If you want to know what the end result will look like. Look at China and what they do to the Internet. They are a great example because they are a Socialist State (Politically Correct term for Communism). I believe that is what everyone is so excited about lately… becoming a Socialist government (Stake in Banks, Corps and control of Information).

Further more, this isn’t a Bush or Obama deal. It’s much bigger than that. It’s not just the U.S. that is proposing ideas like this about the internet… every country is pushing it, so please get off the political finger pointing.

If anything, the internet should be left alone.

[stev vanveit]

Left alone is good. But does it reflect every day?

[KMK454]

Quote, originally posted by BlackC70 »

Perhaps we can name this set of bills the "Uber-Patriot Act". But don't worry - since Obama is doing it and not Bush, I'm totally sure it is only being done for "good".

HA, that was my first thought as well.

[adp]

that's it?

"I don't trust Obama's motives because he appointed Daschle, Geithner and changed his mind on issues"

??

and you're afraid of communism and you believe Obama is turning the country comunist

that a fair summary of why you don't trust Obama?

but you'd be OK if Bush was doing this.....

??

really hard for me to square that. Unless you are claiming you would have opposed this legislation if W was proposing it.

[Ocelot]

Quote, originally posted by adp »

that's it? "I don't trust Obama's motives because he appointed Daschle, Geithner and changed his mind on issues" ?? and you're afraid of communism and you believe Obama is turning the country comunist that a fair summary of why you don't trust Obama? but you'd be OK if Bush was doing this..... Not quite. I would not be ok with Bush doing it either. I don't trust Obama because he changes his positions at the drop of a hat. You can't count on anything he says. Not unique, but certainly a problem...the idea or not trusing politicians to do the right thing is a driving force behinds why I want less government involvment in my life, especially in surveillance/controlling computer stuff, but also (under normal circumstances) in healthcare, banking, etc. Back to Obama--obviously, I don't have much to go on (relative to most pols) with which to judge...which leads me back to the idiocy of electing a president with effectively no experience or track record. The base problem, though, is that it's a scary amount of power for anybody to have By the way, sorry if my formatting sucks here--working off of my phone here ?? really hard for me to square that. Unless you are claiming you would have opposed this legislation if W was proposing it.

[Ocelot]

Argh, I see that the quote block got messed up. Oh well, I presume you can pick out my thoughts.

[universityvolvoOSD]

Can you IMAGINE what this forum would look like if W had done this? OMG....SS would probably suffer a server overload

Get over it people. They have been monitoring the internet for years. This just makes it legal. I guess we will have to find a better way to communicate in private. How about face to face?

[RearWheelPaul]

Quote, originally posted by stev vanveit »

I'm not surprised with all the cyber and bot-net attacks lately. Now the question is how will it be jammed? Probably through NORAD no doubt.

NORAD stands for North American Aerospace Defense. It has no cyber role beyond its own force protection.

Quote, originally posted by stev vanveit »

Now, maybe the UN will establish the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Excellent counter President Obama.

The UN Charter doesn't give the international community power over that of sovereign states, except in very narrow and specifically defined cases. I suggest you read the UN Charter. It is a short document that outlines the organization's mandate and authorities in very clear terms.

Rules of Engagement describes individual states' authorities governing the use of force by its own troops.

So the notion of UN ROE to trump President Obama (or any other head of state) is a non-sequitur.

(All of which raises the question of where do you come up with this, Stev? From grocery store tabloids that speak of government conspiracies and two-headed alien babies?)

[RearWheelPaul]

Quote, originally posted by KillerB »

Battle over Net Neutrality is already happening in the UK with Virgin and idle bandwidth for certain sites.

That battle is over. Read the UK RIPA Act.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/ac..._en_1

[KillerB]

Quote, originally posted by RearWheelPaul »

That battle is over. Read the UK RIPA Act. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/ac..._en_1

I glanced over it. It protects info from A to B, from what I got out of it. But the thing Virgin wants to do in the UK is idle control. Totally wrong to block the info, but nothing say's they can't restrict some undesired sites to a crawling 46k speed while others get free flow of speed.

What are you more interested in when you click on a web page... something that loads in seconds or something that takes 5 minutes to load?

There are other means of getting rid of unwanted sites with out breaking the law or blocking info in the UK.

Virgins CEO already said in 2008 that he want to crush Net Neutrality. http://torrentfreak.com/virgin...80413/

So, the battle isn't over yet. In fact, there is a group out of Belgium that talks about this every month.

[adp]

Quote, originally posted by KillerB »

Imagine what Swedespeed would be like if people had to start paying 49.00 a month for the site.

I am not an expert on net neutrality, but wouldn't a site like Swedespeed be available under the "basic services" ($29.99/month) rather than the enhanced or nifty (i.e. YouTube) services ($49/month)?

for folks who want to simply use the web to chat, it would be cheap. for folks who want more entertainment, that would cost money

I don't have a problem with that aspect (but, again, I am reasonably uninformed on this)

[KillerB]

Quote, originally posted by adp »

I am not an expert on net neutrality, but wouldn't a site like Swedespeed be available under the "basic services" ($29.99/month) rather than the enhanced or nifty (i.e. YouTube) services ($49/month)? for folks who want to simply use the web to chat, it would be cheap. for folks who want more entertainment, that would cost money I don't have a problem with that aspect (but, again, I am reasonably uninformed on this)

It's hard to say, but there is a group called IPower that has been really vocal about this. According to them and the price example, posting sites like SS would fall under the 49.00 bracket. Their thought would be that simple e-mail services would fall under the 29.oo a day. You know, stuff that pertains your day to day business communications.

My opinion is that if something like this does happen, that the line is drawn over bandwidth. A site where people post pictures, videos and such eats up more bandwidth, so I would assume SS would fall under the higher bracket.

Looking at it with that perspective… you only have to ask yourself how many times you've seen **56k warning** in the title of the post here.

Some infrastructures in the U.S. ... and I know the UK has this problem, is bandwidth. Apd, you and I may not see this problem because we are on the west coast. We have great service here. Some area's here, especially in the Bay Area are using an Internet2 infrastructure with much, much more bandwidth than you and I see. I think it was the Berkley kids a couple of years ago that were getting into trouble because they were downloading boot leg 2 hour movies and entire music collections in about 2-5 minutes using the Internet2 infrastructure.

A good example of infrastructure problems that I see is, I use a National Verizon Broadband card. It works great everywhere I conduct business and it's very quick. Right now I'm working on 3 hospitals in Honolulu. The speed in every area here is great! Back home in O.C., it's great and when I go to San Fran it's great. However I went to Boston, last year, maybe the year before... can't remember how long, but anyways the service in that area sucked big time. I was only a few blocks from MIT and my service was like a 56k speed... or much slower. The Internet at the hotel was the same.

Do I feel that’s our problem, NO.

I think it will be one of many examples that congress will use to implement control. And, that’s just one of the things that I feel is unfair.

Another example maybe the Term coined War on Terrorism. I’m not failing for it anymore. I’m defiantly not worried when someone threatens me on the internet. Sorry to use you as an example, but when you had that temper attack and there was an exchange of words in the post… do you think anyone was terrorized? More than anything it made for good entertainment for the bystanders.

What constitutes the word terrorism or cyber attack? It’s not spelled out. It’s too generalized. I think it will be attached to almost anything… maybe someone might think your last outburst was a terrorist attack… or I was terrorized. Where to do we stop with the generalizations and put really meanings or examples behind the words or laws we create?

I’m headed out for dinner right now, so I leave with that. I have a bunch of meetings tomorrow but I’ll check back at the end of the day. I really, really think this bill is bad news or the start of it. As I said before, I’m jam packed with work, but I really don’t mind taking some time out to talk about this subject. The American people don’t like to be screwed all at once, but they defiantly don’t mind having it get handed to them in increments.

Here is a link to the Ipower guys: http://ipower.ning.com/ Just keep in mind that they are very passionate about what’s happening. Don’t look at it as weird or far fetched.


Modified by KillerB at 2:15 AM 4-23-2009

[stev vanveit]

Quote, originally posted by RearWheelPaul »

Rules of Engagement describes individual states' authorities governing the use of force by its own troops. So the notion of UN ROE to trump President Obama (or any other head of state) is a non-sequitur. (All of which raises the question of where do you come up with this, Stev? From grocery store tabloids that speak of government conspiracies and two-headed alien babies?)

I hope this works for you.

2k2S80t6
Swedespeed Member

Offline

9664 posts
Cyberspace Domain

Re: Cyber criminals breach US electrical grid (stev vanveit) » 9:06 AM 4-12-2009

Quote, originally posted by stev vanveit »
Geez I hope I didn't cross any boundary's here - seems okay.
Come on 2k2S80t6 cut me some slack.

No, I'm just saying.

Maybe reading this will shed some more light on my thought...
http://fedbd.blogspot.com/2009....html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.
~ John Adams

stev vanveit
Swedespeed Member

Online

1041 posts
carleton place on

Re: Cyber criminals breach US electrical grid (JRL) » 10:08 AM 4-12-2009

Yes, yes those cyber eye popping pics had me performing like a lemming. lol

Now what about Cyber Attacks & Warfare

Rules of Engagement (ROE)

They ROE do not currently exist like a conventional war. Apparently tracing the cyber attacks back to the aggressor has increased the difficulty of creating the ROE for cyber attackers

History has shown that ROE are often over controlled and regulated by politicians and military leaders. It is anticipated that this will also be the case as it relates to cyber attacks and warfare. Tracing and tracking cyber attacks back to those responsible is not an easy task. Usually this takes months or years not minutes and hours.

This is totally uncharted territory for policy makers.

The characteristics of cyber attacks coupled with the operational aspects of cyber weapons make this a unique challenge. Over 140 countries around the world have cyber weapons development efforts underway but lack a comprehensive doctrine and legal framework for responding to cyber attacks as well as using offensive cyber weapons against attackers and adversaries.

I don't see China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran -- the 4 main countries doing the attacks -- requesting a United Nations official ROE summit on Cyber Warfare & Terrorism. It's the last thing they want to do. In fact China and Russia have teamed up sharing expertise in software and hardware. Looks like President Barack Obama's National Security Team will have to rapidly establish the rules of engagement as they relate to cyber attacks and all out cyber warfare.

Time for the United Nations to step in and coordinate this new threat.

These definitions should help.

1. Definition - Cyber Warfare & Terrorism - "The premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives. Or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives." Source: This definition was published in the U.S. Army Cyber Operations and Cyber Terrorism Handbook 1.02. This definition was written by Kevin Coleman back in 2004 for an online article.

2. Definition - Rules of Engagement - Rules of engagement date at least to the Middle Ages in Europe. In military terms this refers to a directive issued by a military authority controlling the use and degree of force, esp. specifying circumstances and limitations for engaging in combat. The directive delineates the limitations and circumstances under which forces will initiate and prosecute combat engagement with other forces encountered. Source: This definition is based on multiple authorities' sources and combined to clearly articulate ROE.

stev vanveit
Swedespeed Member

Online

1041 posts
carleton place on

Re: Cyber criminals breach US electrical grid (2k2S80t6) » 11:37 AM 4-12-2009

I like your cross-reference to the home invasion - I would rather know the culprits and nail them in their pantry.
Which brings us to the weakest link theory.

The strategy requires the aggressor to identify and attack the weakest link on the network, and then use it as a cover to give the appearance of legitimacy and rapidly propagate the malicious code throughout the rest of the network.

The weakest link could be a system missing one of its security patches or an ill configured firewall. Remember our "Botnet" threads 2k2S80t6 seems another weak link is... "thumb drives, CDRs/DVDRs and floppy disks". They are entry points of attack when used within all organizations and home systems.

What is needed from my reading is a digital DNA component highlighting their "Strategic Intent" so as to be able to align all private and public organizations.

2k2S80t6
Swedespeed Member

Offline

9664 posts
Cyberspace Domain

Re: Cyber criminals breach US electrical grid (stev vanveit) » 6:42 PM 4-12-2009

In response to ROE, I will only say this:
If you were to attend a conference where leaders from the USG cyber arena were speaking and ask about such a topic you would get a response that they can't talk about it.

There is a current cyber "fight" taking place and rules are being applied. Infer what you like from those comments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.
~ John Adams

hastee
Swedespeed Member

Offline

1950 posts
a little east of sf ca

Re: Cyber criminals breach US electrical grid (2k2S80t6) » 6:55 PM 4-12-2009

i can only imagine a small bit of the complex issues at hand.
i wish you could say more, but i am also sure it is far too sensitive for a board like this.

when i worked for the military (25 Years ago!!!!), this would have been a very sensitive area of concern. i can only imagine what it is now, and i can do little more than turn on this damn computer.

well 2k thanks for helping keep this country safe and sound. it is a very difficult job, the system has to be hugely complicated.

stev vanveit
Swedespeed Member

Online

1041 posts
carleton place on

Re: Cyber criminals breach US electrical grid (2k2S80t6) » 1:22 PM 4-13-2009

Would you know if there is a ROE, G20 summit agenda item planned by the United Nations within 2009?

2k2S80t6
Swedespeed Member

Offline

9664 posts
Cyberspace Domain

Re: Cyber criminals breach US electrical grid (stev vanveit) » 6:53 PM 4-13-2009

Quote, originally posted by stev vanveit »
Would you know if there is a ROE, G20 summit agenda item planned by the United Nations within 2009?

I would say not to expect to hear any UN/G20 agenda re:Cyber ROE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.
~ John Adams




Modified by stev vanveit at 11:19 AM 4-23-2009

[adp]

Quote, originally posted by KillerB »

Another example maybe the Term coined War on Terrorism. I’m not failing for it anymore. I’m defiantly not worried when someone threatens me on the internet. Sorry to use you as an example, but when you had that temper attack and there was an exchange of words in the post… do you think anyone was terrorized? More than anything it made for good entertainment for the bystanders. What constitutes the word terrorism or cyber attack? It’s not spelled out. It’s too generalized. I think it will be attached to almost anything… maybe someone might think your last outburst was a terrorist attack… or I was terrorized. Where to do we stop with the generalizations and put really meanings or examples behind the words or laws we create?

if the government starts investigating people like me for saying the crap I do on the internets, then we've got a serious problem with how they are allocating resources.

But the government has a long history of wasting time investigating non-criminals, while missing the boat on real crime. There's no reason to expect them to use the internet wisely.

I do think it's funny that people think the government cares what people post on message boards. For the number of criminals who post openly in fora like this, there are probably 1,000 criminals sending criminial messages buried inside a period in a line of text. No doubt there is some crime on the web that could be viewed just by watching chat rooms. But I find it hard to believe that that is the main area criminal activity occurs via the net. ( I know you aren't arguing with me about this point - it's just sort of an aside about a different issue)

[RearWheelPaul]

Quote, originally posted by KillerB »

Another example maybe the Term coined War on Terrorism. I’m not failing for it anymore.

Good point. Anyone with a basic grounding in statecraft rejected it from the start.

War is defined using states as a referent. It exists when there is armed conflict between two or more states. The critical piece being "two or more states".

Historians frequently say that wars occur when other means, ranging from economics to politics (diplomacy) fail to induce actions on the part of a target state. This concept is important, as it situates war as a "last step". One which, by definition, is restricted to the use of coercive force.

So the notion of one state in armed conflict against a tactic (terrorism) or a thing (drugs) is a non-sequitur. Always has been.

The principal problem in framing nations' efforts against Terrorism or Drugs with the term "war" is that it tends to shape policy options in "kinetic terms". This is a fancy way of saying that restricting one's thoughts to war means that all means other than force are overlooked.

I'll let readers reflect on the futility of exclusively using use of force halt the spread of terrorism, the roots of which lie far deeper than simple acts of violence.

Quote, originally posted by KillerB »

What constitutes the word terrorism or cyber attack? It’s not spelled out. It’s too generalized.

I believe you're partly right and partly wrong.

Terrorism is defined internationally. There is a UN convention, which the US and many other states have ratified, that spell-it out.

In lay terms, terrorism is the use or threat of violence against a populace to achieve a political end. The operative terms are "violence" (actual or threatened),"populace", and "political end". It's the featured in most states' criminal codes and is a crime.

So a terrorism is pretty well defined.

I'll leave it to others more qualified to speak about what constitutes a cyber attack.

Hope this helps,

Modified by RearWheelPaul at 8:21 PM 4-24-2009

[RearWheelPaul]

Quote, originally posted by stev vanveit »

I hope this works for you.

Not really. There are some useful things there, but what you're posting is an incoherent mess.

I was hoping you'd put forward a logical article, instead of a bunch of ill-informed and poorly written (for the most part) blogosphere posts.

[stev vanveit]

Quote, originally posted by RearWheelPaul »

Not really. There are some useful things there, but what you're posting is an incoherent mess. I was hoping you'd put forward a logical article, instead of a bunch of ill-informed and poorly written (for the most part) blogosphere posts.

I new you were going to say something like that as you don't say nice things much.

In addition your rudeness such as this quote attacking me openly is just down right mean. (All of which raises the question of where do you come up with this, Stev? From grocery store tabloids that speak of government conspiracies and two-headed alien babies?)

So what I've decided to do is put the "blackball" in the box. You are a poison pill and I will just have to ignore you. This goes to all others as well who want to railroad me.

I only mean well, try to respond with interesting topics, don't claim to be perfect, try my darndest to help Volvo AND I don't attack others.

So bye, bye.

[RearWheelPaul]

Quote, originally posted by stev vanveit »

I new you were going to say something like that as you don't say nice things much.

Don't you mean knew?

As for nice things, you may have missed my previous post:

Quote, originally posted by RearWheelPaul »

Good point.

Quote, originally posted by stev vanveit »

So bye, bye.

Good-bye.

[adp]

guys

correcting people's spelling UNLESS THEY HAVE ASKED YOU TO is BAD MANNERS

it is rude

so now you are even

can we move on?

[Munin]

Quote, originally posted by adp »

correcting people's spelling UNLESS THEY HAVE ASKED YOU TO is BAD MANNERS it is rude

Quote, originally posted by adp »

by the way, it's "wannabe" it's "elitist" and it's "you're"

You were saying?

[1sttimevolvo]

Quote, originally posted by Munin »

You were saying?

ROFL

[Chilled Man]

Quote, originally posted by adp »

guys correcting people's spelling UNLESS THEY HAVE ASKED YOU TO is BAD MANNERS it is rude so now you are even can we move on?

Douchebag say what