WH Control of the Internet

[The T]

We don't know what the specifics are, but this is probably necessary.

The internet in important infrastructure to the commerce of the nation. It is how we buy and sell stock, interact with our bank, buy merchandise, interact with govt. A cyber attack on the internet would be no different than bombing important bridges on the interstate highway system to halt movement of goods in our economy.

The US used cyber warfare in the Iraq war against Iraq. US banks have been hacked by the Russian mafia. Google was attacked by the Chinese govt., Chinese dissidents and all of their friends were outed plus the emails read.

Do you believe this initiative is unnecessary?

1. Yes...

this is a naked attempt at control of the dissemination of information.
Did you find yourself saying, " gee, I wish the government would control the internet..."?

2. "“Net neutrality” rules must be implemented while the government should quintuple federal funding for public and community broadcasting, argued Ben Scott, the State Department’s recently appointed policy adviser for innovation.

Scott was writing last year in a radical magazine in an article co-authored by Robert W. McChesney (left), an avowed Marxist activist who has called for the dismantlement, “brick-by-brick,” of the U.S. capitalist system, with America being rebuilt as a socialist society. McChesney is the founder of the George Soros-funded Free Press, which petitions for more government control of the Internet and news media.Scott and McChesney also recommended the U.S. impose ownership limits on local radio, TV, and cable channels while pushing for more control of the media by the FCC.

The duo were writing in the January/February 2009 edition of Tikkun Magazine, run by avowed Marxist Michael Lerner. Lerner has been accused of using the magazine to justify Palestinian terror and has written articles in which he suggested the 9/11 attacks were a response to U.S. policies.

“Whatever issue tops your list of priorities, real progress will be impossible unless we first change our media system,” wrote Scott and McChesney. “Currently, access to communications and control over media content are vested in the hands of corporate titans.”

“Net neutrality” refers to government interference to propose a principle for users’ access to networks participating in the Internet.

This past May, Scott was named a policy adviser for innovation at the State Department. He previously served as director of McChesney’s Free Press.

Free Press has ties to other members of the Obama administration. "
Klein: Look who wants to quintuple funding for government media. State adviser, Marxist also want more FCC control of airwaves « RBO

3. Are you certain you are willing to give up any of your of you access to information to government?

I note the word 'CONTROL' being used freely...

 

[NYcarbineer]

"We don't know what the specifics are, but this is probably necessary."

From time to time I find a poster who makes a statement, as above, that reeks of such sophomoric trust of big government, that my cynicism takes over, and I start to see the conspiratorial hand of a Ministry of Propaganda.

Was that statement authorized by the government seminar?

I'm guessing you didn't have nearly such a problem with warrantless wiretaps.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where is the change obama preached about in 2008?

 

[dilloduck]

Where is the change obama preached about in 2008?

Libya has more holes in it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"We don't know what the specifics are, but this is probably necessary."

From time to time I find a poster who makes a statement, as above, that reeks of such sophomoric trust of big government, that my cynicism takes over, and I start to see the conspiratorial hand of a Ministry of Propaganda.

Was that statement authorized by the government seminar?

I'm guessing you didn't have nearly such a problem with warrantless wiretaps.

Used against American citizens talking within the Untied Staes you bet I have something against doing that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where is the change obama preached about in 2008?

Libya has more holes in it.

Where's the change?

 

[finebead]

No, the REAL and PRESENT problem is the perceived gullibility of so many of our citizens.

No, the real problem is the ignorance of so many of our citizens of the real threats, and their unwillingness to adequately prepare for to defend ourselves against the threats we are actually enduring today, which is the tip of the iceberg.

I show a pattern of attack that business has failed to stem, they always call the govt. after they have been attacked to try and find out what happened, and you have NO SOLUTION. Fail.

Friend beady, something that just occurred to me...I wonder if you'd favor me with a response to what might be a personal question:

You've been accused, or at least it has been suggested, that- based on your easy acceptance of the benign designs of the government- you might be a tool, and agent, a dupe, and possibly paid or assigned to post pro-big gov polemics....

Don't you feel the need, or desire at least, to deny same? Unless, that is, the suggestions are true....


Or, possibly you see Hobbes, rather than Locke as your guiding light....you know, the idea that citizens should willingly surrender rights to an all-powerful sovereign?

What's the deal, beady? I'm curious.

I have programmed computers for my living. I have RUN computer centers for 3 fortune 500 companies, going back to 1979. The buck stops with ME. This is not a political game, this is my living. I vaguely recall Hobbes and Locke but I couldn't tell you their theory if my life depended on it.

I have to get the production out, on time and reliably. I take my job seriously.

There are threats to our business, and my business is to know if I can reliably avoid them, or if I need help to avoid them. My experience in the real world, watching companies like Google and Citibank and Guidance Security Consultants get hacked and robbed (and they spend more as a percent of datacenter expenses than any company I have worked for), is that we are all vulnerable and we need help.

Corporations run to make a profit. They assess risk and spend money prudently to mitigate the risk. But in all cases, if the cost of mitigating the risk is higher than all profits generated, we run the risk.

War is not a profit and loss game. It is a Win - Lose game. Cost is irrelevant (unless you are a terrorist and you have very little money, then how much damage you can do at the smallest cost is important). That is why cyber terrorists will defeat industry (it is why they have and will continue to, now that we WANT all of our computer systems online DIRECTLY to our customers, hence they are called "open systems" as opposed to the older mainframes I grew up on).

I happily answer your question, I am not a govt. tool.

You are going to make policy on hypothetical govt. overreach when there are REAL attacks going on today. That's nuts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, the real problem is the ignorance of so many of our citizens of the real threats, and their unwillingness to adequately prepare for to defend ourselves against the threats we are actually enduring today, which is the tip of the iceberg.

I show a pattern of attack that business has failed to stem, they always call the govt. after they have been attacked to try and find out what happened, and you have NO SOLUTION. Fail.

Friend beady, something that just occurred to me...I wonder if you'd favor me with a response to what might be a personal question:

You've been accused, or at least it has been suggested, that- based on your easy acceptance of the benign designs of the government- you might be a tool, and agent, a dupe, and possibly paid or assigned to post pro-big gov polemics....

Don't you feel the need, or desire at least, to deny same? Unless, that is, the suggestions are true....


Or, possibly you see Hobbes, rather than Locke as your guiding light....you know, the idea that citizens should willingly surrender rights to an all-powerful sovereign?

What's the deal, beady? I'm curious.

I have programmed computers for my living. I have RUN computer centers for 3 fortune 500 companies, going back to 1979. The buck stops with ME. This is not a political game, this is my living. I vaguely recall Hobbes and Locke but I couldn't tell you their theory if my life depended on it.

I have to get the production out, on time and reliably. I take my job seriously.

There are threats to our business, and my business is to know if I can reliably avoid them, or if I need help to avoid them. My experience in the real world, watching companies like Google and Citibank and Guidance Security Consultants get hacked and robbed (and they spend more as a percent of datacenter expenses than any company I have worked for), is that we are all vulnerable and we need help.

Corporations run to make a profit. They assess risk and spend money prudently to mitigate the risk. But in all cases, if the cost of mitigating the risk is higher than all profits generated, we run the risk.

War is not a profit and loss game. It is a Win - Lose game. Cost is irrelevant (unless you are a terrorist and you have very little money, then how much damage you can do at the smallest cost is important). That is why cyber terrorists will defeat industry (it is why they have and will continue to, now that we WANT all of our computer systems online DIRECTLY to our customers, hence they are called "open systems" as opposed to the older mainframes I grew up on).

I happily answer your question, I am not a govt. tool.

You are going to make policy on hypothetical govt. overreach when there are REAL attacks going on today. That's nuts.

Do you actually believe that governmental overreach is hypothetical?
Have you heard of ObamaCare?

You see, you perceive a cyber threat that might be a danger to America, and a government that has the right to do whatever it sees fit, to obviate the threat.

I see a government that will do what it wishes, and that is the end of America.

 

[finebead]

Friend beady, something that just occurred to me...I wonder if you'd favor me with a response to what might be a personal question:

You've been accused, or at least it has been suggested, that- based on your easy acceptance of the benign designs of the government- you might be a tool, and agent, a dupe, and possibly paid or assigned to post pro-big gov polemics....

Don't you feel the need, or desire at least, to deny same? Unless, that is, the suggestions are true....


Or, possibly you see Hobbes, rather than Locke as your guiding light....you know, the idea that citizens should willingly surrender rights to an all-powerful sovereign?

What's the deal, beady? I'm curious.

I have programmed computers for my living. I have RUN computer centers for 3 fortune 500 companies, going back to 1979. The buck stops with ME. This is not a political game, this is my living. I vaguely recall Hobbes and Locke but I couldn't tell you their theory if my life depended on it.

I have to get the production out, on time and reliably. I take my job seriously.

There are threats to our business, and my business is to know if I can reliably avoid them, or if I need help to avoid them. My experience in the real world, watching companies like Google and Citibank and Guidance Security Consultants get hacked and robbed (and they spend more as a percent of datacenter expenses than any company I have worked for), is that we are all vulnerable and we need help.

Corporations run to make a profit. They assess risk and spend money prudently to mitigate the risk. But in all cases, if the cost of mitigating the risk is higher than all profits generated, we run the risk.

War is not a profit and loss game. It is a Win - Lose game. Cost is irrelevant (unless you are a terrorist and you have very little money, then how much damage you can do at the smallest cost is important). That is why cyber terrorists will defeat industry (it is why they have and will continue to, now that we WANT all of our computer systems online DIRECTLY to our customers, hence they are called "open systems" as opposed to the older mainframes I grew up on).

I happily answer your question, I am not a govt. tool.

You are going to make policy on hypothetical govt. overreach when there are REAL attacks going on today. That's nuts.

Do you actually believe that governmental overreach is hypothetical?
Have you heard of ObamaCare?

You see, you perceive a cyber threat that might be a danger to America, and a government that has the right to do whatever it sees fit, to obviate the threat.

I see a government that will do what it wishes, and that is the end of America.

"You see, you perceive a cyber threat that might be a danger to America, and a government that has the right to do whatever it sees fit, to obviate the threat."

You are wrong, and wrong, and wrong. You are making things up that I never said, and attributing the projection of your fears onto me, and that's just wrong.

Re: the cyber threat, it is not the case that it MIGHT me a threat, I have posted article after article of real damage, it IS a threat that has been successfully exercised against US industry, and probably our military also, they just won't talk about it much. It is real and actual, there is no MIGHT about it, so you are wrong.

And I never said the govt. has the right to do whatever it sees fit, you just made that up, and that's wrong.

Now, do I think the govt. needs a defense policy against a wide scale cyber attack on the US, both commercial and military sites, carried out by our enemies using the internet as the facility by which to attack our web sites, yes, I believe we need to defend ourselves against a cyber attack, such as we have carried out, and such as the Russian Mafia has carried out against our banking system, and which we believe the Chinese govt. has carried out against Google. These attacks are real, they have occurred and are documented. We need a real defense policy against them.

 

[finebead]

The Cyberwar Plan
It's not just a defensive game; cyber-security includes attack plans too, and the U.S. has already used some of them successfully.
Nov. 14, 2009

In May 2007, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency, based at Fort Meade, Md., to launch a sophisticated attack on an enemy thousands of miles away without firing a bullet or dropping a bomb.

At the request of his national intelligence director, Bush ordered an NSA cyberattack on the cellular phones and computers that insurgents in Iraq were using to plan roadside bombings. The devices allowed the fighters to coordinate their strikes and, later, post videos of the attacks on the Internet to recruit followers. According to a former senior administration official who was present at an Oval Office meeting when the president authorized the attack, the operation helped U.S. forces to commandeer the Iraqi fighters'
communications system. With this capability, the Americans could deceive their adversaries with false information, including messages to lead unwitting insurgents into the fire of waiting U.S. soldiers.

Former officials with knowledge of the computer network attack, all of whom requested anonymity when discussing intelligence techniques, said that the operation helped turn the tide of the war. Even more than the thousands of additional ground troops that Bush ordered to Iraq as part of the 2007 "surge," they credit the cyberattacks with allowing military planners to track and kill some of the most influential insurgents. The cyber-intelligence augmented information coming in from unmanned aerial drones as well as an expanding network of human spies. A Pentagon spokesman declined to discuss the operation.

Bush's authorization of "information warfare," a broad term that encompasses computerized attacks, has been previously reported by National Journal and other publications. But the details of specific operations that specially trained digital warriors waged through cyberspace aren't widely known, nor has the turnaround in the Iraq ground war been directly attributed to the cyber campaign. The reason that cyber techniques weren't used earlier may have to do with the military's long-held fear that such warfare can quickly spiral out of control. Indeed, in the months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, military planners considered a computerized attack to disable the networks that controlled Iraq's banking system, but they backed off when they realized that those networks were global and connected to banks in France.

By early 2007, however, two senior officials with experience and faith in the power of cyber-warfare to discretely target an adversary stepped into top military and intelligence posts. Mike McConnell, a former director of the National Security Agency, took over as director of national intelligence in February of that year. And only weeks earlier, Army Gen. David Petraeus became the commander of all allied forces in Iraq. McConnell, who presented the request to Bush in the May 2007 Oval Office meeting, had established the first information warfare center at the NSA in the mid-1990s. Petraeus, a devotee of counterinsurgency doctrine, believed that cyberwar would play a crucial role in the strategy he had planned as part of the surge. In September 2007, the general told Congress, "This war is not only being fought on the ground in Iraq but also in cyberspace."

Some journalists have obliquely described the effectiveness of computerized warfare against the insurgents. In The War Within, investigative reporter Bob Woodward reports that the United States employed "a series of top-secret operations that enable [military and intelligence agencies] to locate, target, and kill key individuals in extremist groups such as Al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgency, and renegade Shia militias. ... " The former senior administration official said that the actions taken after Bush's May 2007 order were the same ones to which Woodward referred.

<snip>

Cyber-defenders know what to prepare themselves for because the United States has used the kinds of weapons that now target the Pentagon, federal agencies, and American corporations. They are designed to steal information, disrupt communications, and commandeer computer systems. The U.S. is forming a cyberwar plan based largely on the experience of intelligence agencies and military operations. It is still in nascent stages, but it is likely to support the conduct of conventional war for generations to come. Some believe it may even become the dominant force.

A New Way Of War

Senior military leaders didn't come of age in a digital world, and they've been skeptical of computerized attacks. Mostly younger officers, who received their early combat education through video games and Dungeons & Dragons, wage these battles. To them, digital weapons are as familiar and useful as rifles and grenades.

Over the past few years, however, the cyber-cohort has gained influence among the ranks of military strategists, thanks in large part to the ascendancy of Gen. Petraeus. The man widely credited with rescuing the U.S. mission in Iraq is also a devotee of "information operations," a broad military doctrine that calls for defeating an enemy through deception and intimidation, or by impairing its ability to make decisions and understand the battlefield. In past conflicts, the military has jammed enemy communication systems with electromagnetic waves or dropped ominous leaflets from planes warning enemy forces of imminent destruction. Today, cyber-warriors use the global telecommunications network to commandeer an adversary's phones or shut down its Web servers. This activity is a natural evolution of the information war doctrine, and Petraeus has elevated its esteem.

Computerized tools to penetrate an enemy's phone system are only one part of the cyberwar arsenal. And they are perhaps the least worrisome. Alarmed national security officials, and the president himself, are paying more attention than ever to devastating computer viruses and malicious software programs that can disable electrical power systems, corrupt financial data, or hijack air traffic control systems. In 2007, after McConnell got Bush's sign-off for the cyber campaign in Iraq, he warned the president that the United States was vulnerable to such attacks.

Then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr., who was present at the meeting, painted a chilling scenario for Bush. He said that in his former position as the CEO of Goldman Sachs, his biggest fear was that someone would gain access to the networks of a major financial institution and alter or corrupt its data. Imagine banks unable to reconcile transactions and stock exchanges powerless to close trades. Confidence in data, Paulson explained, supported the entire financial system. Without it, the system would collapse.

National Journal Magazine - The Cyberwar Plan

It is clear to me that most posters in this thread have no idea what is going on, what has gone on, the technology involved, and cannot assess the magnitude of the threat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have programmed computers for my living. I have RUN computer centers for 3 fortune 500 companies, going back to 1979. The buck stops with ME. This is not a political game, this is my living. I vaguely recall Hobbes and Locke but I couldn't tell you their theory if my life depended on it.

I have to get the production out, on time and reliably. I take my job seriously.

There are threats to our business, and my business is to know if I can reliably avoid them, or if I need help to avoid them. My experience in the real world, watching companies like Google and Citibank and Guidance Security Consultants get hacked and robbed (and they spend more as a percent of datacenter expenses than any company I have worked for), is that we are all vulnerable and we need help.

Corporations run to make a profit. They assess risk and spend money prudently to mitigate the risk. But in all cases, if the cost of mitigating the risk is higher than all profits generated, we run the risk.

War is not a profit and loss game. It is a Win - Lose game. Cost is irrelevant (unless you are a terrorist and you have very little money, then how much damage you can do at the smallest cost is important). That is why cyber terrorists will defeat industry (it is why they have and will continue to, now that we WANT all of our computer systems online DIRECTLY to our customers, hence they are called "open systems" as opposed to the older mainframes I grew up on).

I happily answer your question, I am not a govt. tool.

You are going to make policy on hypothetical govt. overreach when there are REAL attacks going on today. That's nuts.

Do you actually believe that governmental overreach is hypothetical?
Have you heard of ObamaCare?

You see, you perceive a cyber threat that might be a danger to America, and a government that has the right to do whatever it sees fit, to obviate the threat.

I see a government that will do what it wishes, and that is the end of America.

"You see, you perceive a cyber threat that might be a danger to America, and a government that has the right to do whatever it sees fit, to obviate the threat."

You are wrong, and wrong, and wrong. You are making things up that I never said, and attributing the projection of your fears onto me, and that's just wrong.

Re: the cyber threat, it is not the case that it MIGHT me a threat, I have posted article after article of real damage, it IS a threat that has been successfully exercised against US industry, and probably our military also, they just won't talk about it much. It is real and actual, there is no MIGHT about it, so you are wrong.

And I never said the govt. has the right to do whatever it sees fit, you just made that up, and that's wrong.

Now, do I think the govt. needs a defense policy against a wide scale cyber attack on the US, both commercial and military sites, carried out by our enemies using the internet as the facility by which to attack our web sites, yes, I believe we need to defend ourselves against a cyber attack, such as we have carried out, and such as the Russian Mafia has carried out against our banking system, and which we believe the Chinese govt. has carried out against Google. These attacks are real, they have occurred and are documented. We need a real defense policy against them.

Wow...glad to see you gettin' ramped up, there, beady!

But did you see this in the OP:

"The proposal would codify much of the administration's memo from July 2010 expanding DHS's cyber responsibilities for civilian networks."

Do you know what that means?

Do you know exactly what that means?

Do you see any limitations suggested in same?


I'm going to guess that there are large numbers of folks like yourself who are less concerned with how Progressive machinations have changed our great nation from the Founders' views, than I am, and that is why we are saddled with the current administration.

But the sleeping giant is awakening. Progressives beware.

 

[The T]

Friend beady, something that just occurred to me...I wonder if you'd favor me with a response to what might be a personal question:

You've been accused, or at least it has been suggested, that- based on your easy acceptance of the benign designs of the government- you might be a tool, and agent, a dupe, and possibly paid or assigned to post pro-big gov polemics....

Don't you feel the need, or desire at least, to deny same? Unless, that is, the suggestions are true....


Or, possibly you see Hobbes, rather than Locke as your guiding light....you know, the idea that citizens should willingly surrender rights to an all-powerful sovereign?

What's the deal, beady? I'm curious.

I have programmed computers for my living. I have RUN computer centers for 3 fortune 500 companies, going back to 1979. The buck stops with ME. This is not a political game, this is my living. I vaguely recall Hobbes and Locke but I couldn't tell you their theory if my life depended on it.

I have to get the production out, on time and reliably. I take my job seriously.

There are threats to our business, and my business is to know if I can reliably avoid them, or if I need help to avoid them. My experience in the real world, watching companies like Google and Citibank and Guidance Security Consultants get hacked and robbed (and they spend more as a percent of datacenter expenses than any company I have worked for), is that we are all vulnerable and we need help.

Corporations run to make a profit. They assess risk and spend money prudently to mitigate the risk. But in all cases, if the cost of mitigating the risk is higher than all profits generated, we run the risk.

War is not a profit and loss game. It is a Win - Lose game. Cost is irrelevant (unless you are a terrorist and you have very little money, then how much damage you can do at the smallest cost is important). That is why cyber terrorists will defeat industry (it is why they have and will continue to, now that we WANT all of our computer systems online DIRECTLY to our customers, hence they are called "open systems" as opposed to the older mainframes I grew up on).

I happily answer your question, I am not a govt. tool.

You are going to make policy on hypothetical govt. overreach when there are REAL attacks going on today. That's nuts.

Do you actually believe that governmental overreach is hypothetical?
Have you heard of ObamaCare?

You see, you perceive a cyber threat that might be a danger to America, and a government that has the right to do whatever it sees fit, to obviate the threat.

I see a government that will do what it wishes, and that is the end of America.

The ONLY ones that belive that Government overreach is hypothetical are those ON the proverbial DOLE, and don't want it disturbed...and by that reckoning, DON'T wish other opinions to muddy their waters...

 

[The T]

So therefore? They have NO PROBLEM with the abridgement of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

 

[finebead]

So therefore? They have NO PROBLEM with the abridgement of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

How would the first amendment be bridged? If you shut down the internet, you'd still have radio, TV, newpapers, magazines, local demonstrations, telephones.

The govt. stopped all air flight for a week after 9/11. Nobody complained an iota about that. It seemed prudent given the perceived level of the threat, although there was NO other attack planned, we had no way to know that at the time. We just halted stock market trading and air flight. Pretty drastic measures, but it was a drastic time. I don't see anyone criticizing Bush for those actions. Yes, I want my president to have the power necessary to deal with any situation that could come up. With cyber attack and cyber war, it is not a question of IF, we have been attacked in small scale, it is just a question of WHEN, HOW, and HOW WIDESPREAD.

In the event of a cyber warfare attack, I could see where it would be prudent to shut down the internet for a few hours or a day or a few days to ensure we understood the nature of the attack, and we had a plan to defend ourselves against the attack.

What's the difference?

When attacked, you have to be ready to defend yourself. Unless you'd rather go the Pearl Harbor route and "just be unprepared". Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face...

The key is we trust the govt. to use those measures only in time of severe problems, and as near as I can tell, those severe measures have be used pretty responsibly.

If you dislike our govt. so much, maybe you should go find another country to live in.

 

[dilloduck]

So therefore? They have NO PROBLEM with the abridgement of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

How would the first amendment be bridged? If you shut down the internet, you'd still have radio, TV, newpapers, magazines, local demonstrations, telephones.

The govt. stopped all air flight for a week after 9/11. Nobody complained an iota about that. It seemed prudent given the perceived level of the threat, although there was NO other attack planned, we had no way to know that at the time. We just halted stock market trading and air flight. Pretty drastic measures, but it was a drastic time. I don't see anyone criticizing Bush for those actions. Yes, I want my president to have the power necessary to deal with any situation that could come up. With cyber attack and cyber war, it is not a question of IF, we have been attacked in small scale, it is just a question of WHEN, HOW, and HOW WIDESPREAD.

In the event of a cyber warfare attack, I could see where it would be prudent to shut down the internet for a few hours or a day or a few days to ensure we understood the nature of the attack, and we had a plan to defend ourselves against the attack.

What's the difference?

When attacked, you have to be ready to defend yourself. Unless you'd rather go the Pearl Harbor route and "just be unprepared". Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face...

The government fucks up everything it touches. That outta be easy enough for you to understand.

 

[boedicca]

So therefore? They have NO PROBLEM with the abridgement of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

How would the first amendment be bridged? If you shut down the internet, you'd still have radio, TV, newpapers, magazines, local demonstrations, telephones.

Are you really serious? The internet is a communications and information medium. You really think the government power should have the ability to shut it down?

Wow.

 

[finebead]

So therefore? They have NO PROBLEM with the abridgement of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

How would the first amendment be bridged? If you shut down the internet, you'd still have radio, TV, newpapers, magazines, local demonstrations, telephones.

The govt. stopped all air flight for a week after 9/11. Nobody complained an iota about that. It seemed prudent given the perceived level of the threat, although there was NO other attack planned, we had no way to know that at the time. We just halted stock market trading and air flight. Pretty drastic measures, but it was a drastic time. I don't see anyone criticizing Bush for those actions. Yes, I want my president to have the power necessary to deal with any situation that could come up. With cyber attack and cyber war, it is not a question of IF, we have been attacked in small scale, it is just a question of WHEN, HOW, and HOW WIDESPREAD.

In the event of a cyber warfare attack, I could see where it would be prudent to shut down the internet for a few hours or a day or a few days to ensure we understood the nature of the attack, and we had a plan to defend ourselves against the attack.

What's the difference?

When attacked, you have to be ready to defend yourself. Unless you'd rather go the Pearl Harbor route and "just be unprepared". Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face...

The government fucks up everything it touches. That outta be easy enough for you to understand.

Should the govt. have had the power to shut down air travel for a week after 9/11? I didn't hear ANYONE bitch about that one.

Shut down the stock market for a few days, again, NOBODY bitched about it.

Why not?

Should the govt. NOT have that power? If not, why didn't anyone bitch about it?

And if the govt can shut down all air travel, and shut down the stock market, then why should they not have the power to shut down the internet while we are being attacked by our enemies in cyber space?

 

[boedicca]

When did the government shut down the stock market for a few days?

And how does shutting down air travel while inspections were made in the aftermath of 9/11 compare to shutting down a nationwide, distributed communications system that has not killed anyone?

 

[finebead]

So therefore? They have NO PROBLEM with the abridgement of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

How would the first amendment be bridged? If you shut down the internet, you'd still have radio, TV, newpapers, magazines, local demonstrations, telephones.

Are you really serious? The internet is a communications and information medium. You really think the government power should have the ability to shut it down?

Wow.

I guess you are not reading the whole thread. The internet is a communications medium, but it is also a strategic WEAPON in the hand of cyber warriors, and it has been used as a weapon by the US and others, notably the Russian mafia and Chinese govt. (against Google). Your view is simply naive.

For the rest of this post, see #30 on page 2.

In May 2007, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency, based at Fort Meade, Md., to launch a sophisticated attack on an enemy thousands of miles away without firing a bullet or dropping a bomb.

At the request of his national intelligence director, Bush ordered an NSA cyberattack on the cellular phones and computers that insurgents in Iraq were using to plan roadside bombings. The devices allowed the fighters to coordinate their strikes and, later, post videos of the attacks on the Internet to recruit followers. According to a former senior administration official who was present at an Oval Office meeting when the president authorized the attack, the operation helped U.S. forces to commandeer the Iraqi fighters' communications system. With this capability, the Americans could deceive their adversaries with false information, including messages to lead unwitting insurgents into the fire of waiting U.S. soldiers.

Former officials with knowledge of the computer network attack, all of whom requested anonymity when discussing intelligence techniques, said that the operation helped turn the tide of the war. Even more than the thousands of additional ground troops that Bush ordered to Iraq as part of the 2007 "surge," they credit the cyberattacks with allowing military planners to track and kill some of the most influential insurgents. The cyber-intelligence augmented information coming in from unmanned aerial drones as well as an expanding network of human spies. A Pentagon spokesman declined to discuss the operation.

Bush's authorization of "information warfare," a broad term that encompasses computerized attacks, has been previously reported by National Journal and other publications. But the details of specific operations that specially trained digital warriors waged through cyberspace aren't widely known, nor has the turnaround in the Iraq ground war been directly attributed to the cyber campaign. The reason that cyber techniques weren't used earlier may have to do with the military's long-held fear that such warfare can quickly spiral out of control. Indeed, in the months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, military planners considered a computerized attack to disable the networks that controlled Iraq's banking system, but they backed off when they realized that those networks were global and connected to banks in France.

By early 2007, however, two senior officials with experience and faith in the power of cyber-warfare to discretely target an adversary stepped into top military and intelligence posts. Mike McConnell, a former director of the National Security Agency, took over as director of national intelligence in February of that year. And only weeks earlier, Army Gen. David Petraeus became the commander of all allied forces in Iraq. McConnell, who presented the request to Bush in the May 2007 Oval Office meeting, had established the first information warfare center at the NSA in the mid-1990s. Petraeus, a devotee of counterinsurgency doctrine, believed that cyberwar would play a crucial role in the strategy he had planned as part of the surge. In September 2007, the general told Congress, "This war is not only being fought on the ground in Iraq but also in cyberspace."

Some journalists have obliquely described the effectiveness of computerized warfare against the insurgents. In The War Within, investigative reporter Bob Woodward reports that the United States employed "a series of top-secret operations that enable [military and intelligence agencies] to locate, target, and kill key individuals in extremist groups such as Al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgency, and renegade Shia militias. ... " The former senior administration official said that the actions taken after Bush's May 2007 order were the same ones to which Woodward referred.

That's great, much of the success of the "surge" was actually attributable to the first use of cyber warfare by the military against Al Qaeda in Iraq.

We were so good we could send them messages, make them think it came from their own people, and lure them to a particular location and kill them.

That is NOT simply a communication and information system, any more than an atomic bomb is "sort of like a nuclear reactor". Depending on how you use it, it can be benign, like a nuclear power plant, or it can be a weapon. It all depends what your intent and capabilities are.

 

[finebead]

When did the government shut down the stock market for a few days?

And how does shutting down air travel while inspections were made in the aftermath of 9/11 compare to shutting down a nationwide, distributed communications system that has not killed anyone?

Sept. 11-14, 2001 (Tue-Fri) Closed following the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/closings.pdf

I guess you don't trade much.

So, there are other systems the govt. shuts down for days at a time, at cost to individuals involved in those systems, and nobody was killed using that system.

The system was shut down to prevent panic trading, since there was an absence of information. After a few days, when people knew more about what had happened and been reassured that the sky's were safe again, trading was allowed to continue. I never heard ONE criticism of that action, not one. It was prudent given the situation.

And shutting down the internet for a little while, if it was being used to scramble financial data in our private industry systems, or to steal money from them on a wide scale, would be prudent as well.