FBI Warns Congress of Terrorist Hacking 243
An anonymous reader writes "Robert S. Mueller III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), yesterday warned Congress of terrorist hacking. He believes that while terrorists haven't hacked their way into the U.S. government yet, it's an imminent threat. Mueller said, 'To date, terrorists have not used the Internet to launch a full-scale cyber attack, but we cannot underestimate their intent. Terrorists have shown interest in pursuing hacking skills. And they may seek to train their own recruits or hire outsiders, with an eye toward pursuing cyber attacks.'"
Fear= More Funding (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism is already a funding black hole. This reeks of inter agency rivalry.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For good reason. I hear some of those haxors can whistle ICBM launch codes!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
{cue the former Y2K programmers pointing out that they saved the world}
The only logical response (Score:5, Insightful)
Congressman: How do you suggest we proceed in fighting this threat?
Mueller: We need to shut down all torrent sites and arrest anyone posting copyrighted clips on YouTube.
Congressman: Would my very generous constituents at Sony like to comment?
Sony: We think this is an excellent approach to fighting the muslim horde, Congressman. We'll wire the usual campaign contribution to your super PAC.
Congressman: Well, that settles it then. Would anyone like to offer an opposing view?
EFF: Uh, Senator, we would like to point ou...
Congressman: Well, since there is no opposition, looks like you have your funding Director. Happy hunting.
Re:The only logical response (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
...I have a very sad feeling its true.
When congress chooses to ignore a side of an issue they don't let the opposition into hearings at all, like the recent contraception hearing that only had men testify. So the EFF in the original post would never be present to be cut off by the congressman.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, oh, well...
The USFG owes me a couple new desks. Sometimes they make me headdesk so hard it just... breaks my desk.
Two things that I can't get out of my mind right now:
Somehow I feel Jean
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very nice. Reminds me of the scene from Animal House:
"You'll get your chance, smart-guy!"
"You can bad-mouth me and my fraternity, but I will not let you sit here and bad-mouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!"
The big boogeyman: the Terrorist! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another reason to give up all of our civil rights, privacy, and freedoms in the name of catching these "terrorists"!!!
Plus, over the past ten years, $500B/year on "black" programs to catch "terrorists".
And all because ten years ago 3000 people died (that's an average of 300/year) and two buildings were taken down: tragic, but a very small one compared to the 30,000 people who die every year in automobile crashes in the US - and we don't see $500B/year being spent on that!
Terrorism is just an excuse to usurp our freedoms and enable the government to take control of us. The threat is just not as big as they make it out to be - certainly not big enough to justify the massive reaction to 9/11 and the loss of all of our freedoms and privacy.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Can you provide a citation for that $500B/yr figure? The entire US national security budget is under $900B/yr, so I find it rather hard to believe that more than half that is spent on "black programs to catch terrorists".
You can make your points without lying to people. You should make your points without lying to people.
Re: (Score:3)
So let me get this straight. You think that the United States has spent FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS of unbudgeted, untraceable money over the past decade. Money that was not borrowed from anyone, but was just "printed out" and handed out to big corporations like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. Money that those corporations then kept off their own books, since it hugely exceeds the combined revenues of every major military contractor I know of.
Is this some sort of joke? You can't seriously believe this. Either
Re:The big boogeyman: the Terrorist! (Score:5, Informative)
$6.6 billion in hundred dollar bills literally "fell off a plane" and disappeared in Iraq [latimes.com]; and that's something they'll actually admit to. Five trillion dollars is probably a bit much, but really, who knows how many billions have been pumped into the black hole of "anti-terror" technologies?
Re: (Score:2)
IT's alla counted for, and rather tightly. You are suffering from the keyhole effect.
Re: (Score:2)
$6.6B is about one tenth of one percent of the amount claimed. Now come up with the remaining 99.9%.
Your insinuated "black hole of anti-terror technologies" doesn't account for it, because the money we spend researching such things is documented -- all of the research and development, plus all of the classified programs, come out to under $100B a year. And it would be quite a stretch to claim that all of those programs are designed for fighting terrorists. For example, we spend around $800M a year resear
Re:The big boogeyman: the Terrorist! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get 5 Trillion?
From the OP, combined with some extremely basic arithmetic.
Plus, over the past ten years, $500B/year on "black" programs to catch "terrorists".
$500B/yr, over ten years. A child could figure that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't really expect us to believe that they pay $400 for a hammer or $2500 for a toilet seat do you?
Re: (Score:3)
Over-zealous law enforcement, big media, and oppressive government isn't terrorism, it's fascism. Attacking countries at random is also not terrorism, it's more like imperialism or colonialism in the case of the US.
The problem is, it's pretty hard to tell the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. If a fascist, imperialist nation is invading your poor country with the intent to install their own puppet governors, what are you going to do to keep them out? It's going to look a lot like terror
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, over the past ten years, $500B/year on "black" programs to catch "terrorists".
What I find amusing about this thread, is your defense of this particular number. Would the US government tell me, if it were spending half a trillion a year on black programs to catch "terrorists"? Of course not. Hence, it must be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Three buildings: you forget "Building 7," which was not directly hit by any airplane, yet still collapsed in on itself. The owner got a nice insurance settlement for it.
Depends on definition of terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I actually have been on counter-terrorism ops back in my Army days.
The problem is the FBI has a tendency to label people who hack music as terrorists, in addition to the Dangerous Killing People terrorists who ARE the real threat.
Giving up your Rights and Freedoms won't make you safer, only less.
Re: (Score:2)
They play with the term "insurgent" kinda loosely, does the same thing happen with terrorism?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, think of all the freedom Ben Lost when the government forced him to give up slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
Ben Franklin was not alive during the Civil War, and towards the end of his life he gave his slaves freedom, and became an abolitionist.
Re: (Score:2)
So he wasn't perfect, but other than that, he was a great American.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Always get nervous when reading stuff like this - I'm sure they'll use it an excuse to regulate the Internet for everyone, not just so-called terrorists. Remember: freedom isn't free.
Also: war is peace, ignorance is strength, etc.
What do you want them to regulate? Just get everything through SSH and they'll get ... nothing.
A noun a verb and terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
How many dozens of 9/11's happen each year as a result of smoking and alcohol?
Where is the public outrage, political focus and trillions of dollars in ad campaigns and treatment to avert a 9/11 that more or less occurs on schedule every month of every year over the past century?
Stop wasting our money chasing boogymen and use a small fraction of it to help real people...
Hey man looks over there those Afghan poppy fields a plenty....sort of makes one wonder where all that funding for the taliban comes from now doesn't it...if only...oh nevermind...
Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like you understand the "War on Terrorism" is just a scam, after the cold war they needed a new "plot device" to keep people in line and feed the Military-Industrial complex (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY [youtube.com] ) and now they have it, the "Never Ending War on Terror (NEWT)", it can never be won because terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. " and that will never ever go away.
Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (Score:5, Interesting)
...terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. " and that will never ever go away.
Especially considering that is the US government's domestic stratagem, verbatim.
Funny how the feds see terrorists behind every door, save their own.
Re: (Score:2)
key issue is the US uses "violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" against governments. That's called foreign policy, when you do it against civilians, that's called terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a scam, but it has gained unreasonable power; something it has been slowly loosing over the last 3 years.
Terrorism is real, at it happens. Being prepared for it, and on the look out for it is a good thing.
Like the cold war. Did you do some stupid things in the name of the cold war? Yes. Where the Russians a threat? Yes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
obesity kills one hundred times as many people every year as osama bin laden did once. once.
mcdonald's is a bigger terrorist threat than china. china has learned that they don't need to invade us, just invite our corporations over to hand them technology and know how. the trade is that our companies profit from the hiring of communist slaves. seems like a sweet deal for the 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
How many dozens of 9/11's happen each year as a result of smoking and alcohol?
Careful you are treading on personal liberties (this comes to you on behalf of the alcohol and tobacco lobbies)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey man, on September 11, 2001, 18,000 children starved to death. [usatoday.com]
Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
Either someone failed reading comprehension or that is the WORST troll I've seen in a while.
War on Terror.
War on Poverty.
War on Drugs.
I'm glad we won the war on Poverty ("started" in 1960's)... and the war on Drugs? Well, glad we obliterated drugs... how long do you think it'll take to win the war on Terror?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
The ones who died in 9/11 are dead. How can you help a dead person exactly? By devaluing the word "terrorism" until it has no real meaning at all? Or until it just means anyone the government doesn't like?
Re:A noun a verb and terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
How are they heroes for getting murdered? I'm pretty sure not a single one of them was thinking, "Good, now I get to lay down my life for, um, something*...!"
* = coming to work that day? being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
You don't put someone on the 'hero' pedestal for those kind of reasons. A hero is someone you look up to and want to emulate, in common parlance anyway. What is there about those people that falls into those kind of categories?
Excepting the ones who had moments of selflessness trying to help others get out or were on the planes and could fight back, the bulk of those who died are simply victims. Using the term hero for anyone we feel connected to that has something bad happen to them is belittling to those who have genuinely earned it by standing on principle, willingly sacrificing themselves, etc.
And by the by, exactly how is fighting anyone going to help the dead in any fashion?
I'll take whining over senseless patriotic drivel any day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the argument could be said that the heroes on the day (police, firemen,etc) was the fact that they laid their lives down for their jobs to help others. However people forget that if they basically said "F that, I am not going in those buildings" they would have been charged as they fall under the first responder laws.
Sad thing is I really doubt the loss of lives of the rescue personnel was less than the ones rescued.
Re: (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP!
The Firefighters, Police and other First Responders, and the few people who stood up to them on the flights were the only "Heroes" of 9/11. The rest were senseless victims, as the OP said.
Calling everyone connected with the incident "heroes" cheapens the word, just like calling everyone the gov't doesn't like "terrorists" devalues that word.
Re: (Score:3)
Not meaning to be a contrarian- but- the ones that crashed the plane instead of letting it be used as a weapon... those were heros.
The vast majority of the victims of 9/11 were innocent victims- not heroes. Why do we call someone a hero for being unfortunate to be killed whilst going innocently about their life. It is a shame. They didn't deserve it. They wern't heroes.
If walking home tonight I get gunned down by a terrorist as I walk along the street- I won't be a hero- I'd be a victim.
Re: (Score:3)
The people who fought back on Flight 93 were heroes. They actually had a choice to be brave.
The firefighters and police who went UP the building to get more people out and didn't make it out themselves were heroes.
Even people that helped to talk overweight people down the stairs (keep going!), risking their lives were heroes.
Let's not say there were no heroes on 9/11. But to say everyone who died was a hero is as bad as saying every hacker is a terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
you've given yourself away, limey
Yes, I am British (or at least I was raised in Britain until my mid teen years... ethnically I'm Eastern European and have spent my adult-life in the US).
That said- I had already been living in the United States for almost a decade when 9/11 happened- so my perspective on it should not really be too much different from a natural born American.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you keep the number short for one, but then write it long form for another. Bias much?
Anyone else? (Score:2)
Tired of the word "terrorist and/or terrorism.
Re: (Score:3)
If you declare war on terror, then terror has already won. Because only a terrified society would declare such a war.
Which means (Score:2)
Hacking books (Score:3, Interesting)
I recently purchased some hacking books on amazon out of curiosity, half-realizing that this COULD put me on some watch lists I probably don't want to be on. I wonder whether I'm just being paranoid.... or if we actually got to that point already.
Re: (Score:2)
For your security, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I recently purchased some hacking books on amazon out of curiosity, half-realizing that this COULD put me on some watch lists I probably don't want to be on. I wonder whether I'm just being paranoid.... or if we actually got to that point already.
It depends -- are you affiliated with a research lab that does computer security work? If yes, nobody will both you, because you are "supposed" to be reading about those sorts of things. On the other hand, if you are just a middle class worker somewhere, you are not supposed to be reading about technical things, so you will stand out as a suspect. Welcome to the land of paranoia, stupidity, and lost privacy rights.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're fine.
Don't forgett the announced prefixes (Score:2)
However, it turn out that the ISP:s around the world don't give a shit about it.
Terrorist, every prefix is up for grab! Just announce whatever you like and use that when you are going to hack the U.S.
Here is my original thread on NANOG on this. Please remeber that NOBODY REPLIED.
do not filter your customers - part2 [nanog.org]
Pah! (Score:2)
The REAL threat is the terrorist sleeper agents that have infiltrated government itself! They want to destroy society and bring back serfdom! And they seem to be in the majority.
And also the bicyclists. (Score:2)
To date, < Terrorists/Drug Lords/Chinamen/Homeschoolers > have not used the Internet to launch a full-scale cyber attack, but we cannot underestimate their intent. <Terrorists/Drug Lords/Chinamen/Homeschoolers > have shown interest in pursuing hacking skills. And they may seek to train their own recruits or hire outsiders, with an eye toward pursuing cyber attacks.
Just insert your favorite boogeyman in between the angle brackets.
Oh no! (Score:2)
IMMINENT TERRORIST THREAT!
Must be an election year...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy it (Score:2)
all the government crackdowns on freedom, coupled with raids on freedom fighters like anonymous and wikileaks, means that these threats only serve as pleas for the government to suspend more of our rights. i don't think i'm down with that.
Not that frightening (Score:2)
If terrorists would start hacking instead of blowing up civilians, would it really be that bad?
Re: (Score:2)
To play the devil's advocate, yes. Hack into New York's water and sewage systems. Or a nuke reactor. Or even a power grid. The economic damage (and in some case, loss of life) could be quite large.
With this said, I fear that this sort of anti-terrorism effort will be all about stripping our rights to go after music pirates. And centralization of the 'net, which will actually make each of the above listed targets easier to hit in the end than a distributed defense.
Simple Solution (Score:2)
Don't have any sensitive machines connected to the Internet. Create a completely separate and independent network for government work with all of that tracking / authentication / identification that you want. Problem solved.
You can't hack an FBI server over the Internet if there's no connection to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Non-internet connectivness is a massive hurdle to overcome & keeps out most att
In Other News (Score:3)
The NOAA has alerted congress that air might contain invisible gasses. We cannot underestimate the threat from those gasses which in certain conditions can be accelerated in a way that will cause damage to the US infrastructure.
Terrorists are underachievers (Score:2)
The damage terrorists do, even when they have their greatest successes, is as nothing when compared to the damage done by regular for-profit criminals.
Whisky kills more people than terrorism, and we here in the USA have already decided (volstead act, anyone?) that it's really not that big of a deal.
Ignore terrorists. They are useless losers who are less dangerous to you than texting drivers. You are more in danger from wild dogs than you are from terrorists.
way to focus on the non-threat (Score:2)
FBI - Epic IT Fail (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda old. It mentions the replacement project, Sentinel, due "sometime in 2009". What happened to it? Why, it's been delayed multiple times, had severe contractor problems, including a stop work order, and has as of last word, been delayed to next May. [scribd.com] But it'll be done by then, you betcha.
How could terrorists make things worse? (Score:2)
Cybersecurity is already a lost cause. What could terrorists do that isn't already being done by vandals, hacktivists, spies, and criminals?
We are living the worst case now.
If it's possible for terrorists to take down a national power grid, some non-terrorist loser would already have done it for the lulz.
Not happening. (Score:3)
Terrorists may be poking around, but in the end, they aren't going to be very interested. Why? No visuals. Terrorists want great visuals that will make news and the blogs.
Terrorist Hacking (Score:2)
Give us more money.
Too late! (Score:2)
" He believes that while terrorists haven't hacked their way into the U.S. government yet,"
I dunno. Based on the way the 3 branches of government act, how can they be sure?
OH NOES! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Watching them chase after cyber-terrorists is a bit like watching Kung Pow (nuts to fist style):
[Chosen One kicks Wimp-Lo in the face. Wimp-Lo does a pose]
Wimp Lo: Ha! Face to foot style, how do you like it?
Chosen One: I'm sure on some planet your style is impressive, but your weak link is: this is Earth.
Wimp Lo: Oh yeah? Then try my nuts to your fist style!
They go about this whole thing the wrong way. But then, it's politics -> Divide & Rule.
Re:Read: (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Congress critters are trying to ruin the internet. Anonymous or not, anyone with a clue could see this coming from a mile away, it was only a matter of time.
Also, Anonymous has been around a while and my internet was never any different until corporations and congress people started fucking with it.
Re:Read: (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. They've been talking this up for years now, though the implied "enemy" is usually China. I'm not sure it's news though.
We've had this since 2009:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cyber_Command [wikipedia.org]
Not to mention the various NSA resources (etc) that have been dealing with this stuff since forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Anon. was not on the internet before corporations were.
Re: (Score:2)
"We can't keep up, and it looks like they do not like us in the least. They MUST be terrorists. Surely no patriot would hate their own country so much!"
Absolutely ridiculous. You know who else had a special police force that jailed their citizens for disagreeing with them? That's right. The Nazi party.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm calling Godwin's Exception. The Godwin's Corollary only functions when you mean it. You're clearly trying to short circuit the conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not splitting hairs to say there's a difference between hating our country and hating our government. I do care deeply for this country but, in fact, despise the assholes and their corporate pimps running the show in Washington - shameless bunch of bastards, to put it nicely - who have completely overlooked, forgotten, ignored, pissed on, what have you, our Constitution. If we got back to a mindset where the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, for all branches of the government, in all circ
Re:Read: (Score:5, Insightful)
And here i thought that was mostly Russian mob types.
I don't doubt that what you say is true to a point, I still fail to understand why that make them terrorists. And how far does it go, are we going to just keep going down the list of crimes until will get to something like writing your name on the sidewalks wet cement gets you labeled a terrorist.
How about this, we just say everybody's a terrorist and the constitution applies to nobody except those that you personally think it should apply to. how about that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they're terrorists because they make the FBI look like a bunch of assholes when their internal comms get hacked and leaked.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed.
On one hand, we have the FBI, who play politics the way dolphins can play Water Polo, carry guns, come from an Authoritarian mindset, and think their jurisdiction is the internet. They also think they can dominate anyone, and are unaware that their actions, even their gentle probings of Anonymous, are escalating things.
On the other hand, we have Anonymous, whose constituents change so rapidly and lack any amount of central structure, than they are more like a cell operation. They believe the internet
Re:Read: (Score:5, Insightful)
They are terrorist because they are a large organization that attack infrastructure, and the use fear as a form of coercion.
Wait a minute... You're talking about the USA military and police, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Why the last requisite? If it weren't for it, most of the powerful governments of the world would fit the bill nicely.
In other words, and more to the point, why do people insist on only calling terrorists to people who have no affiliation with governments? (Unless it's a government that the establishment does not like, such as the Palestinian Authority or Iran). That kind of discourse aims at demonizing unaligned interests while implicitly condoning similarly unsavory actions of powerful states.
Re: (Score:3)
"Terrorist" is the new word for "brigand". There is a substantive difference between an armed group with overt, recognized ties to a civilian government (even a former or wannabe government), and an armed group that's on it's own. Governments can negotiate, can form treaties, can surrender, can accept surrender, and can keep their armies in check.
Normal government-initiated violence is an extension of politics. It only happens when the sides in a negotiation can't agree who's stronger, and so neither is
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorist is the new word for cash cow in budget increases.
Anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)
They are terrorist because they are a large organization that attack infrastructure, and the use fear as a form of coercion.
Like or not, they fit the very definition of terrorist.
While the broader definition of terrrorize is debated, Anon is center, far away from the gray edges.
ineluctably political in aims and motives violent – or, equally important, threatens violence designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.
Unfortunately for your opinion, you haven't a bloody clue what you are talking about. Have you seen someone claiming to be a member of Anonymous? Have you ever talked to someone claiming to be a member?
OK, here's the primary piece of information that you either don't know or you don't want others to know: Anonymous is leaderless, unorganized, random and constantly shifting groups. No one is an official member of Anonymous. No one is a leader.
Anyone who wants to pretend that Anonymous is "dangerous" or "terrorist" simply logs into any site that accepts comments and makes the appropriately incendiary anonymous comment and signs it "Anonymous".
That "agent provocateur" is no more (and no less) Anonymous than you or I am. There is no membership. There is no leadership. There is no "agenda". There is no political agreement. If you don't understand those basics, then you do not understand "Anonymous".
At the most basic level, "Anonymous" is any temporary group of people who agree that "something must be done" about some problem, outrage, crime or whatever. They agree to take action and perhaps they carry it out. It may be peaceful, it may be destructive, it may be silly, it may be anything . They are probably not related to other "Anonymous" groups with other concerns.
Your whole screed is based on completely not understanding what "Anonymous" is. So learn. And, until you learn, don't make such stupid remarks.
Re: (Score:3)
The name for this is "Adhocracy" - An ad hoc association of people for getting a single task done. Note that home construction and film making work that way too. They pull together construction subcontractors, or directors, actors, and tech people, for a single project, then disband. What enables them to work is some kind of social network so they can gather for the next project.
Re: (Score:3)
Read all streams of news even if they are sometimes referred to or labelled as crazy. I would rather be over informed and make my own opinion than under informed and have my opinion made up for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever seen a news story about the CP websites they have helped bring down? Of course not.
Yes. Gawker, BBC, Ars, PC Mag, etc. covered it.
Re: (Score:2)
GP meant to say:
Have you ever seen a mainstream American news story about the CP websites they have helped bring down? Of course not.
For most of us on this side of the pond, the only news about Anonymous from evening news, the NYT, local papers, etc. pretty much don't cover Anonymous unless they take down CBS. As a result, most people who have even heard of Anonymous think that they're only cybercriminals... While some members may be, some aren't.
But I'm open to being wrong. If someone has a link, please share.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, you got me.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the Russian mob, not Anonymous.
Anonymous => 4channers (typically), pranks, occasional crimes of minor significance.
Russian mob => Botnets, stealing people's financial information, giving IT people the blood eye.
They're two completely different, and unrelated groups.
Re: (Score:3)
I worry less about Anon & friends (a slight annoyance, were I to come under their gaze), than I do about what heavy-handed things the boys in DC might do to 'fix' things.
Re: (Score:2)
'Tis easier to just de-elect any Congress member who supports such terrible actions.
Seeing as IT people are in the information trade, and a few photos / video of an incumbent congress member in an indefensible position showing up at an inopportune time might ruin his / her election...you know as well as I do that Congressman what's his name is deeply afraid of someone posting a copy of a furtive meeting.