Now what does the UN do?
I have long advocated for a “NORAD” like capability that allows the signals intelligence gathering for the detection of hostile internet recon and action. In fact, I tried to get the NSA interested in the idea back in 2001 but was rebuffed by the NSA legal department.
This smacks of our big brother govt enacting a mechanism to shut the Internet down.
OooooOOOooOOoo. More gubment jobs. Yippee!
Just imagine the porn withdrawal for many Americans.
No Facebook? I mean, would you even want to live?
Q: What is the name of the largest, conventional, internet weapon?
A: The Mother of all Beavers.
in other words, they will shutdown the net, ie: cut communications, when they see fit
yea... this won’t be abused
DoD, contractors and reseachers should have thier own secure network.
The military considers their network a “Weapons System”, in that unauthorized use may be considered a threat, and informatoin gathered could be used to create a loss of life situation. There are separate networks for ‘Secure’ and ‘non-secure’; with firewalls installed. How well they work - well, that is a topic for another discussion.
But, the internet at large; is the source of many attempts to gather intelligence from govermental agencies. Many attacks are from China, and other ‘unfriendly’ countries; as well as many American citizens who wish to make a ‘statement’. As these attacks are anonymous and regularily concentrated on specific targets; doesn’t this conclusion seem the only logical conclusion you can make?
Not every Afghan wants to kill our soldiers. There are some Afghans that are very happy to see us, and realize the potential that is available to them. However, mixed in the crowd are the terrorists, almost indisquishable from the ‘friendlies’ - hence, the term for Afghanistan is ‘war zone’; just like the internet.
Make sense?
Pentagon: Hack attacks can be act of war
************************EXCERPT*************************************
31st May 2011 19:44 GMT
For the first time, the Pentagon has formally concluded that computer sabotage carried out by another nation can constitute an act of war that warrants a response of traditional military force, according to published media reports.
The determination, included in the Pentagon's first ever “formal cyber strategy,” represents an attempt to address the growing reliance on computers and computer networks by military and civilians alike, according to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported on the circulation of the 30-page classified document. The policy is in part intended to act as a deterrent by showing other countries there could be serious consequences for attacks that target gas pipelines, military networks and other infrastructure considered critical to national security.
“If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks,” the WSJ quoted an unnamed military official as saying.
According to NBC News, not every attack would lead to military retaliation. To qualify, hacks would have to be carry the same kinds of threats to American lives, commerce, or infrastructure as traditional military attacks. And even then, because it's often impossible to detect the true origins of so-called cyber attacks, commanders would have to present indisputable evidence that a particular country was behind a specific incident.
One idea under consideration is known as “equivalence.” It holds that a computer attack that results in the same level of death, destruction or high-level disruption produced in a traditional military attack could be grounds for “use of force,” under established military doctrines.
Earlier this month, the Obama administration released its own policy that put the world on notice that hack attacks directed against US assets might be met with military action.
The reports come as a UK military official admitted his country is developing a toolbox of offensive hacking weapons that could be used against other countries. A few days earlier, China admitted that it has poured huge amounts of resources into an elite hacking team dubbed the Blue Army. ®
Doesn't anybody recognize the term "ARPANET", as in "(Defense) Advanced Research Projects Agency Network" -- the original name of the internet???
Doesn't anyone remember that the original purpose of the internet was to be a communications network between the military, government, selected research institutions, and selected businesses -- SPECIFICALLY IN TIME OF WAR???
And that its very design was robust and self-healing in order to withstand nuclear attack, including on critical nodes???
And that its explosive commercial growth in the last 15 years takes advantage of, but has nothing to do with, the basic operation of the internet???
Of course the military also have their own private networks, in part because their ARPANET internet was populated by a bunch of unfriendly interests and it would be rather silly to expose critical military systems to the modern internet at large. But that was always the case to some degree -- the internet cannot be effectively "policed", by intentional design (see above).
So why is this "news" a surprise to anyone older than 15 years old???
Sheesh. Whadda buncha noobs.
Present company excepted, of course. :)