WH Control of the Internet

[finebead]

The cyber-attack that prompted Google to threaten to remove its service in China was part of a concerted espionage campaign against American financial, corporate, defense and research institutions, the Washington Post reports. At least 34 companies, including Yahoo, Symantec and Dow Chemical, were hit, along with human rights groups and Washington-based think tanks that work on human rights issues in China.

Google said the Gmail accounts of human rights activists in the United States, Europe and China were compromised, igniting the search giant's threat to shutter services in China.

The attacks, presumed to be carried out by hackers working for the Chinese government or military, showed a new level of sophistication and highlighted what the Obama administration has called an intensifying cyber-threat. The standoff between Google and China touches on some of the most contentious issues between the United States and China, and the attacks are quickly creating a diplomatic rift.

Chinese Cyber-Attack Said to Be Part of Vast Espionage Campaign

We have seen the US used cyber warfare in Iraq, and now we know China has cyber attack capability and has used it. At least 34 companies were hit, we don't know how many others were hit, because sometimes you don't find out for months that you were hit. Sometimes you may not find out you were hit. Google is attacked frequently by hackers, and the Chinese military got through to them. If a tech savvy company like Google that is frequently attacked, is on its toes, can get hit, is industry ready to spend the kind of dollars to protect themselves and the rest of us? Not really, the best among them are failing to protect themselves. Cyber warfare is not the same as 20-something hackers.

I suspect this could be like sending out a platoon on patrol. Go out there, engage the enemy, assess their strength, see where their defenses are, don't give away any of our secrets, see how they react so if we decide to attack later we will know what to expect. It's standard warfare.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is absolutely NOTHING to do with controlling content.

From the article:


This has absolutely NOTHING to do with controlling CONTENT, PERIOD!!!

It further defines certain actions as a cyber crime, which is necessary given that old laws did not know about the internet, it defines what critical infrastructure is, and directs owners of critical infrastructure to develop cybersecurity measures, and it defines audit standards the owners must live up to, and requires a responsible person in the company to sign off that they are meeting the cyber security measures (just like the CEO has to sign off on financial reporting now under Sarbanes Oxley).

This is a most reasonable bill in light of the cyber attacks we have been victims of already, and what is expected in the future.

The threats are real, I have documented a few of them by showing actual attacks in this thread, and this is a good response to those and future threats.

And ObamaCare has nothing to do with taking over healthcare!

Don't you understand the technique yet????

Nothing but inuendo. Do you have any facts? I have shown the facts, if you won't believe them, there is nothing more I can say.

I can't believe that after the US launched and effectively used cyber warfare against Iraq, and we have been attacked by the russian mafia and chinese govt. at citibank and google, that anybody would irresponsibly think we DON'T need a national cyber defense plan. There is not one shred of fact to support govt. control of any content on the internet.

We allowed the govt. to shut down all commercial flight and all stock market trading for days following 9/11, because it made sense in light of the severe event that occurred. We may need to do that with the internet (although it is not provided for in this bill as far as I can see), depending on the breath of a cyber attack against banking and financial sites (cited in one of my posts as a major concern in the Bush administration).

Beady, I have seen your posts...you should be able to preceive the nuance...

What you have shown is the 'hook' that the statists point to to allow them to 'control' the dissemination of information.

I gave you the current and preeminent example of this administration using exactly that technique to gain control of the healthcare industry.

Past is prologue. Think about it.

 

[finebead]

Posted without additional comment:

Cyber attacks are growing in number and sophistication

It is no secret that modern warfare is increasingly dependent on advanced computers — and no country’s armed forces are more reliant on the digital age for information superiority than those of the U.S. This is both the American military’s greatest strength — and potentially its greatest weakness.

Today, the Pentagon uses more than 5 million computers on 100,000 networks at as many as 1,500 sites in at least 65 countries worldwide. Not surprisingly, potential adversaries have taken note of America’s slavish dependence on information technology.

The Defense Department suffers tens of thousands of computer network attacks annually. Although the department is understandably cautious about revealing the success of these attacks, some of the cyber assaults allegedly reduced the military’s operational capabilities. The Pentagon reportedly logged more than 79,000 attempted intrusions in 2005 — the most recent publicly available data. About 1,300 of the attacks supposedly were successful, including the reported penetration of computers linked to the Army’s 101st and 82nd Airborne and 4th Infantry divisions. Foreign cyberspace operations are a threat that is here and now — and cannot be ignored.

Cyberspace operations, which include computer network attack, exploitation and defense, are not a new national security challenge. Cyber warfare was all the rage in the late 1990s but has faded in importance since 9/11, not surprisingly, in comparison to the threat of terrorism and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cyber operations appeal to many state and nonstate actors, including terrorists, because they can be low-cost, low-risk and highly effective, and provide plausible deniability for the attacker, who can route operations through any number of surrogate servers across the Web en route to its target. Talk about “low-DNA” operations.

Malicious code can launch viruses, crash networks, corrupt data, collect intelligence, spread misinformation, and interfere with vital friendly military and intelligence operations, including command, control, communications, navigation and logistics. In essence, if it is wired to the Web, it is potentially vulnerable.

According to McAfee, an Internet security company, about 120 countries are involved in developing the ability to use the Internet as a weapon, not only against government networks, but also against soft targets such as financial markets and even critical civilian infrastructure. Although it is impossible to say how many raids go undetected, cyber attacks have grown increasingly sophisticated. The threat has grown from the work of curious hackers to premeditated government-sponsored operations that embrace a variety of security-related purposes.

No country is seemingly more active in cyberspace than China.

ARMY OF HACKERS According to Pentagon sources, most attacks on America’s digital Achilles’ heel originate from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), making Chinese cyber operations an issue that deserves close attention. The PRC is serious about cyberspace and has made the development of cyber capabilities a top national- security priority. China’s military planners recognize that the United States’ reliance on computers is a potential strategic weakness ripe for exploitation. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has reportedly incorporated cyber warfare tactics into military exercises and created schools that specialize in it. The Chinese military is also hiring top computer-science graduates to develop its cyber warfare capabilities, literally creating an army of hackers.

<snip>


Russia is believed to be developing significant cyberspace capabilities, too. Indeed, in April 2007, a massive cyber attack on the tiny Baltic state of Estonia by Russian hackers demonstrated how potentially catastrophic a pre-emptive digital strike could be on a developed nation. Pro-Russian hackers, some likely associated with the government, attacked numerous Web sites in neighboring Estonia — one of the world’s most wired countries — to protest the controversial removal of a Soviet war memorial located in the capital, Tallinn. The hackers brought down government and other Web sites, including the office of the president, the parliament, political parties, banks, news organizations and communications firms, using denial-of- service attacks, in which a server is bombarded with so many bogus requests for information that it overloads and crashes.

<snip>

The Russians see cyber dominance as central to warfare. At a recent conference, a senior Russian general said victory in future conflicts will be decided by suppressing the opponent’s military and state institutions through information technologies.

<snip>

The Internet offers terrorists a multitude of advantages in waging their unconventional warfare: mobility, flexibility (if hacked or shut down by an Internet service provider), world-wide coverage with huge potential audiences and high-speed communications. Some Islamist hackers have promoted the notion of carrying out electronic jihad against infidel civilian infrastructure, economic and military targets. Serious attacks in which cyber terrorists take innocent lives via the Web in an effort to advance their cause may become reality in the future.

In testimony to Congress in March 2007, Gen. James Cartwright, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, said: “America is under widespread attack in cyberspace. ... [T]he magnitude of cost, in terms of real dollars dedicated to defensive measures, lost intellectual capital and fraud, cannot be overestimated, making these attacks a matter of great national interest. Unlike the air, land and sea domains, we lack dominance in cyberspace and could grow increasingly vulnerable if we do not fundamentally change how we view this battle space.”

State-sponsored and terrorist cyberspace efforts provide a cautionary tale to U.S. and other policymakers. Although many governments have devoted significant resources to cyber security, recent intrusions clearly demonstrate cyberspace vulnerabilities.

A digital Pearl Harbor is by no means a certainty. But cyberspace is increasingly important to American national security — and complementary to the broad spectrum of modern warfare. The time to take heed of this challenge is now.

Flashpoint: The cyber challenge - March 2008 - Armed Forces Journal - Military Strategy, Global Defense Strategy

 

[Blagger]

Thought provoking stuff, PoliticalChic. Though I'm a bit confused. Are you alerting us to the possibility that the White House, and by extension, the western world, is trying to put in place mechanisms that will enable it to put in motion real-life consequences of any subversive or seditious internet activity, or it simply wants greater powers of online observation/surveillance?

Both instances are a reality. What I think you want to achieve through this thread is to reveal how intrusive government eavesdropping is and what it achieves.

My guess is that technologically advanced nations have a fairly good grip on what the majority of their citizens view and comment on online. All purchases are stored electronically by law. The UK's GCHQ monitoring station often listens-in on a whole host of nations' electronic communication, often at the behest of the CIA. But if you're not convinced, there's a simple proceedure that will confirm what I claim.

Write an email that's seeded with catch words such as explosives, al-qaeda, dirty bomb etc. and send it to yourself. Shortly after that, write a fairly mundane and innocent email such as a shopping list or a personal reminder and send it to the same email account as the one before. Wait for about an hour and I can almost guaruntee you that the second email you wrote will have arrived in your inbox before the first one you sent. This is evidence that the first email was intercepted for further examination. I tested this theory after the London tube bombings and it played out exactly like I've described.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thought provoking stuff, PoliticalChic. Though I'm a bit confused. Are you alerting us to the possibility that the White House, and by extension, the western world, is trying to put in place mechanisms that will enable it to put in motion real-life consequences of any subversive or seditious internet activity, or it simply wants greater powers of online observation/surveillance?

Both instances are a reality. What I think you want to achieve through this thread is to reveal how intrusive government eavesdropping is and what it achieves.

My guess is that technologically advanced nations have a fairly good grip on what the majority of their citizens view and comment on online. All purchases are stored electronically by law. The UK's GCHQ monitoring station often listens-in on a whole host of nations' electronic communication, often at the behest of the CIA. But if you're not convinced, there's a simple proceedure that will confirm what I claim.

Write an email that's seeded with catch words such as explosives, al-qaeda, dirty bomb etc. and send it to yourself. Shortly after that, write a fairly mundane and innocent email such as a shopping list or a personal reminder and send it to the same email account as the one before. Wait for about an hour and I can almost guaruntee you that the second email you wrote will have arrived in your inbox before the first one you sent. This is evidence that the first email was intercepted for further examination. I tested this theory after the London tube bombings and it played out exactly like I've described.

I appreciate that first sentence a great deal. Thank you for saying so.
I think it is why most of us visit here.

I think you understand why I posted it...I do not favor big government, but this particular big government more than others.

In the past I have tried to highlight links between this administration and totalist philosophies...and see this as the opening salvo in the attempt to obviate and marginalize opposition thought and access.

"...nations have a fairly good grip on what the majority of their citizens view and comment on online."
True.
But it is less the reading of same than the control of what can be written/read that I hesitate to endorse.
I see this administration as echoing the censorship of Wilson and FDR, but will less good reason.

 

[idb]

I'm constantly amazed and entertained on this site at how narrow the ideologies of so many of the posters are, and as a consequence how black or white their world view is without the ability to consider consequences.

As shown on this thread..."All government involvement in society is either inept or sinister, therefore there should be no question of the government having any ability to take charge when our security is under threat."

Personally, if I were to nominate one fundamental task of government it would be national security.

One other thing, you can no longer consider the internet as simply a telephone with a keyboard and screen as some of you are suggesting.

You lucky boy!

Historian Walter Laqueur: “Let us not lose our ability to be astonished.”

And here you are: " ...constantly amazed..."


Has it occurred to you that it may be due to you lack of understanding?

You see, I learned early on not to be amazed, or astonished by the superficiallity of some of the posts!
Sadly, you have not yet been able to incorporate the distal nor proximal history that goes into the posts of the more astute posters.

But, I trust that you will learn, and, in the words of Eliot:
"Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea."

Well cheers for that, my perpetual state of wide-eyed wonderment is a source of some pride and I appreciate your expression of joy on my behalf (and I'm sure Mr Laqueuer speaks the unvarnished truth).
You might be right though, it might be due to my lack of understanding .

To assist with my understanding, maybe you could suggest some of these 'astute posters' that are mixed up in the general poster populace so that I can continue my education safe in the knowledge that I'm not being led astray.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm constantly amazed and entertained on this site at how narrow the ideologies of so many of the posters are, and as a consequence how black or white their world view is without the ability to consider consequences.

As shown on this thread..."All government involvement in society is either inept or sinister, therefore there should be no question of the government having any ability to take charge when our security is under threat."

Personally, if I were to nominate one fundamental task of government it would be national security.

One other thing, you can no longer consider the internet as simply a telephone with a keyboard and screen as some of you are suggesting.

You lucky boy!

Historian Walter Laqueur: “Let us not lose our ability to be astonished.”

And here you are: " ...constantly amazed..."


Has it occurred to you that it may be due to you lack of understanding?

You see, I learned early on not to be amazed, or astonished by the superficiallity of some of the posts!
Sadly, you have not yet been able to incorporate the distal nor proximal history that goes into the posts of the more astute posters.

But, I trust that you will learn, and, in the words of Eliot:
"Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea."

Well cheers for that, my perpetual state of wide-eyed wonderment is a source of some pride and I appreciate your expression of joy on my behalf (and I'm sure Mr Laqueuer speaks the unvarnished truth).
You might be right though, it might be due to my lack of understanding .

To assist with my understanding, maybe you could suggest some of these 'astute posters' that are mixed up in the general poster populace so that I can continue my education safe in the knowledge that I'm not being led astray.

1. "...in the knowledge that I'm not being led astray."
Leading folks astray is one of the perks around here.

2. I once went into the local Border's Books and asked the cashier where the 'self help' section could be found....she said 'Now, that would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?'

I feel the same way about your request "maybe you could suggest some of these 'astute posters' that are mixed up in the general poster populace..."

3. Finding them is akin to getting the prize in the 'Cracker Jack's' box.

 

[idb]

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with controlling CONTENT, PERIOD!!!

man oh man, you gotta shake your head at Liberals today.

If this had been suggested by a Republican President they would be foaming from mouth.

but, because it's the Obama and his comrades in arms, they don't MIND rolling over and giving up their rights and turning all the POWER over to the Guberment.

But you're not.
It's for .gov sites...private agencies with government contracts!

 

[Si modo]

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with controlling CONTENT, PERIOD!!!

man oh man, you gotta shake your head at Liberals today.

If this had been suggested by a Republican President they would be foaming from mouth.

but, because it's the Obama and his comrades in arms, they don't MIND rolling over and giving up their rights and turning all the POWER over to the Guberment.

But you're not.
It's for .gov sites...private agencies with government contracts!

Government contractors do not have dot gov sites. ONLY the federal government has dot gov sites (not preceded by a state or municipality). There is little private about federal agencies (in the sense that one working there has any, and I mean ANY expectation of privacy) when using a server on a dot gov domain.

 

[idb]

man oh man, you gotta shake your head at Liberals today.

If this had been suggested by a Republican President they would be foaming from mouth.

but, because it's the Obama and his comrades in arms, they don't MIND rolling over and giving up their rights and turning all the POWER over to the Guberment.

But you're not.
It's for .gov sites...private agencies with government contracts!

Government contractors do not have dot gov sites. ONLY the federal government has dot gov sites (not preceded by a state or municipality). There is little private about federal agencies (in the sense that one working there has any, and I mean ANY expectation of privacy) when using a server on a dot gov domain.

That's even better isn't it?

So, what was the reference to private agencies in the report then?

 

[Si modo]

But you're not.
It's for .gov sites...private agencies with government contracts!

Government contractors do not have dot gov sites. ONLY the federal government has dot gov sites (not preceded by a state or municipality). There is little private about federal agencies (in the sense that one working there has any, and I mean ANY expectation of privacy) when using a server on a dot gov domain.

That's even better isn't it?

So, what was the reference to private agencies in the report then?

I just did a text search of the OP's article and I did not see any reference to "private agencies", so I don't understand your question.

 

[idb]

Government contractors do not have dot gov sites. ONLY the federal government has dot gov sites (not preceded by a state or municipality). There is little private about federal agencies (in the sense that one working there has any, and I mean ANY expectation of privacy) when using a server on a dot gov domain.

That's even better isn't it?

So, what was the reference to private agencies in the report then?

I just did a text search of the OP's article and I did not see any reference to "private agencies", so I don't understand your question.

I'm sorry, wrote that without looking, I meant 'Civilian Agencies'.

 

[Si modo]

That's even better isn't it?

So, what was the reference to private agencies in the report then?

I just did a text search of the OP's article and I did not see any reference to "private agencies", so I don't understand your question.

I'm sorry, wrote that without looking, I meant 'Civilian Agencies'.

Most of the employees at federal agencies are civilians. Dot mil domains contain mostly military.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

One can only be puzzled by the silence on the part of our Left-wing friends, who were quick to protest the alleged loss of freedom and liberty due to the Patriot Act, signing statements and supposed extra-Constitutional machinations by President Bush…yet view the attempts by President Obama to marginalize Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, but fail to see the direction the administration is taking by creeping regulation of the Internet.

1. Net Neutrality is an issue that is both obscure and complicated, but you might think of it as legal framework for regulating the Internet in order to solve a problem that does not exist- of Internet Service Providers blocking legal online content and applications. The only significant support for it comes from left-wing groups that were originally funded by one set of corporations (content providers) to fight another set of corporations (Internet Service Providers). John Fund: The Net Neutrality Coup - WSJ.com

2. And, if President Obama has pledged to uphold the laws of this nation, how can he direct his appointee to break the law? Which law? Well, in April 2010, a federal appeals court had struck down the panel’s first attempt to regulate the Internet. Comcast Wins in Case on FCC Net Neutrality Powers – BusinessWeek | raihan.us

a. “Scott, the Free Press policy director, said the decision leaves FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski “powerless to stop people from blocking Web sites, unless he acts to reassert his authority” by moving Internet service under telephone rules --a step Scott said could be taken with a simple majority vote at the Democrat-dominated agency.” Ibid. Be aware, ‘Free Press’ is a Soros-funded Marxist organization that works closely with President Obama’s administration.

b. So, even though the court specifically ruled that the FCC has no authority to regulate the Internet, Genachowski acted as though he had that authority anyway! Thug government in action!

3. FCC Commissioner Meredith Baker, who voted against the Internet power grab, said: “We have two branches of government—Congress and the courts—expressing grave concerns with our agency becoming increasingly unmoored from our statutory authority. By seeking to regulate the Internet now, we exceed the authority Congress has given us, and justify those concerns.” http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1209/DOC-303457A1.pdf

4. “The FCC’s power grab serves as a reminder that even without a friendly Congress, President Obama still can and will enact more of his agenda, with varying degrees of destruction to Americans’ freedom and property.” Freddoso, “Gangster Government,” p. 191.

 

[percysunshine]

They can have my mouse when they pry it from my cold dead hand.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They can have my mouse when they pry it from my cold dead hand.

They don't want to take your mouse away, Percy...just make sure it can only go where they want it to!

...you know, like that maze they force you through in the bank?

 

[percysunshine]

They can have my mouse when they pry it from my cold dead hand.

They don't want to take your mouse away, Percy...just make sure it can only go where they want it to!

...you know, like that maze they force you through in the bank?

I am going to start printing up bumper stickers with that phrase...I will make millions...

 

[PoliticalChic]

They can have my mouse when they pry it from my cold dead hand.

They don't want to take your mouse away, Percy...just make sure it can only go where they want it to!

...you know, like that maze they force you through in the bank?

I am going to start printing up bumper stickers with that phrase...I will make millions...

Cut of the royalties?

 

[Mr Liberty]

Remember, if your against the Government controlling the Internet, then you support Al Qaida. Like we do in Libya.

You, as a good American, should be willing to give up all your rights and freedoms in order to be safe, just as Ben Franklin advised.

The government having control of the internet? This is not a good idea. I was afraid of something like this when I heard Obama was in the Bay Area to meet with the facebook people.

 

[idb]

Remember, if your against the Government controlling the Internet, then you support Al Qaida. Like we do in Libya.

You, as a good American, should be willing to give up all your rights and freedoms in order to be safe, just as Ben Franklin advised.

The government having control of the internet? This is not a good idea. I was afraid of something like this when I heard Obama was in the Bay Area to meet with the facebook people.

Who's suggesting that the government have control of the internet?