"Cyber War" Is Just the Latest Grab for Defense Money 161
New submitter Curseyoukhan writes "The phrase 'cyber war' is being used to scare us into coughing up money and liberties, just like 'anarchist' once was, and 'terror' still is. To quote H.L. Mencken, 'The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.'"
Is this a US thing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Cause I've not heard the phrase "cyber war" being bandied about like the wars on terror/drugs/etc have been.
Everything in the USA is a "war". (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans are a very curious species. There are two things you should know about them:
1) Most Americans have never experienced real war of any sort. This includes those in the military, even those who have served in various conflicts, and even those who have killed during said conflicts. (Much of this killing has been done at great distances using missiles or munitions released by planes or drones, and was thus quite impersonal.)
2) Most Americans have a so-called "boner for war". This is especially true of those who self-identify as "Republicans", but many who identify as "Democrats" are equally afflicted.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of these people, and they have thus acquired much power within the American political system. To them, anything and everything they don't like needs to be crushed in a "war".
It doesn't matter whether their target is alcohol or drugs or Islam or homosexuality or affordable health care or free speech on the Internet. To them, "war" is the only solution possible, and they'll refer to "war" incessantly when discussing such topics.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you want to start a war on wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Now they want a war on drugs. A war on DRUGS! They ought to start a war on war! --Mojo Nixon, Burn Down The Mall
Re:Everything in the USA is a "war". (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent funny! "Liberal pinko!" Of course, Gingrich probably would call someone like him a liberal. He and Perry and Paul would probably be against the interstate highway, too.
Wonderful sarcasm.
We have a war on poverty too (Score:2)
Only we can't figure out a good excuse to shoot, bomb or jail poor people.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think the "War on Drugs" is for?
Re:Is this a US thing? (Score:4, Interesting)
They're doing it in the UK too : Web War II: What a future cyberwar will look like [bbc.co.uk] ; and on the BBC. I wonder if it's just a few select plants in their newsroom, whether they are just being fed this stuff unwittingly, or whether their legendary neutrality is being eroded at an institutional level.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's mostly a US thing (Score:2)
It's really about getting new funding for the US Military establishment and their friends in private-sector contracting businesses. It lets companies who don't make heavy iron or high-tech weaponry sell consulting and overpriced computer system designs, and lets military departments who don't have overpriced cool airplanes (or can't get their next generation of cool airplanes) get more money to hire people and buy shiny equipment from politically well-connected vendors.
That doesn't mean there aren't civil
Hobgoblins! (Score:3, Funny)
has anyone considered this latest Hobgoblin threat to the United States' civil security? We need to begin deploying elven rangers at our borders. It's the only way to be sure. I propose an Elven Archer High Command, taking pieces from DoHS, DOD, NSA, FBI, and other agencies which are clearly not as focused on the Hobgoblin threat as they need to be. We cannot allow American lives to be thrown away by caving into the Hobgoblin agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hobgoblins! (Score:5, Funny)
No.
No no.
No no no.
We must begin deploying DWARF (Designated Warfare Advance Recon Forces) to defend against the hobgoblin menace. The best part is that all we need to send seven of them out with just a pickaxe and an axe and they are quite adept at constructing fortresses to defend against the hobgoblin menace. With a little bit of oversight we can make sure to avoid the lava cataclysm events that DWARF is prone to causing.
Re: (Score:2)
A pickaxe and an axe? Just a piece of bismuthinite, a piece of cassiterite, a couple of pieces of tetrahedrite, a random rock. They can rip apart their wagon and build an axe from the wood in it.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, people used to bad-mouth the Bear Patrol back when it started too. But I submit to you that we haven't had a single person killed in a U.S. city by a bear since it began. You can't argue with success.
Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
While I do agree that it is in the military's best interests to keep things rolling financially, make no mistake in the fact that cyber criminals and foreign nations are actively penetrating and stealing sensitive information from the United States as well as other countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course that's true. But the cost of making defense networks secure is trivial compared to the cost of developing a new weapon system or surveiling the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Foreign nations are actively penetrating and stealing sensitive information from the United States
That fact that the sensitive info is on a public network, or networks connected to the internet, is reason enough to believe there is incompetence involved. Incompetence is the largest factor in a compromised network.
If you don't want your fruit picked, don't leave it so close to the ground.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't work that way. Outside of the DoD, just about everything is connected to the Internet these days; workers expect to have access to the Internet for research while they work, or so that they can take breaks during the day and read their personal email.
The fact that you can't make an inbound connection to those computers (because of firewalls,
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are. And leaving aside the fact that most of the world does care about this type of crime (but does not particularly care about the US, which still falsely thinks of it as the pinnacle of human existence), this is just a very conventional IT security problem. There are far too many organizations out there that will fall even to a moderately competent individual doing a targeted attack. Calling crime "war" either just exceedingly stupid, or exactly what the original story said. That said, one thing
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA we always hear the main aggressor is China.
Re: (Score:2)
For this aspect of things, that would be an accurate statement. They're responsible for a lot of state sponsored attacks on our digital infrastructure.
It is (Score:3)
First, a backdrop, beginning with the fact that China is on track to exceed US military spending by 2025 [economist.com]:
Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html [nytimes.com]
"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continu
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for saving some time. I'm bookmarking this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA we always hear the main aggressor is China.
It clearly is not. The Chinese can be happy if they match higher-competence individual hackers. But there are a lot of economic and political reasons to paint the Chinese as a threat. Because, in fact, they are to the US. Not so much to Europe, though.
All of the above (Score:3)
Can you imagine a world where it's possible for there to actually be ideals that are opposed to principles of freedom and democracy, and where the US isn't to blame for everything bad that happens? I know this would be a stretch from your comfortable worldview which probably holds that the only reason the US and/or West has any "enemies" is because we make them ourselves. I'm sure if the US didn't exist after WWII, Western European nations would all be in a happy place and the world would be a peaceful utop
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I do agree there are actual threats out there, sure. Yes, China potentially is a threat, as is Iran and N. Korea. Of those 3, I'd say China is potentially the largest threat just based on economic power and supply controls.
However, it is also very accurate to state that most of (the USA's) our "enemies" are primarily a result of foreign interventions. I use "enemies" loosely here, because we're not engaged in a traditional "war" with anyone (as defined by clear objectives competing against other Na
Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are preaching to the choir, sir.
Is the Information Superhighway in danger? (Score:1)
Maybe you're not worried about the safety of the Information Superhighway, but I sure am. When I go surfing in cyberspace, I want to know that I'm protected. The World Wide Web can be a dangerous place, but if you take some precautions it'll be safe sailing all the way.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You just to create some synergy by leveraging the Best Practices of both Open Source and Proprietary Technologies.
And wear a condom.
How about we taxpayers... (Score:3, Insightful)
...tell the government where to spend our taxes. Me regarding the taxes I pay, your regarding the taxes you pay. Extrapolate that out to realize what all else gets fixed. If you don't trust the people, then you probably support rigged elections. Does a politician who does not follow through with their campaign promises that people voted for them for, represent the people? No Taxation without representation. I'd rather realize results as being representative rather than some a person claiming to represent me.
The value of defense is more often to protect yourself from those you suspect of retaliation of the wrongs you've done against them. go figure what the cyper war crap is really about.
Re:How about we taxpayers... (Score:5, Insightful)
...tell the government where to spend our taxes. Me regarding the taxes I pay, your regarding the taxes you pay.
Only problem is what to do about things that nobody wants to think about paying for despite the fact that they have to be funded. Often these are things that don't require a lot of money (can you think of anyone who wants to fund the retirement plans of federal auditors?) but without them all sorts of things just fall apart over time.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you high? What smart ass remark? He made a valid point. One you don't want to hear, so you are getting all pissy because if goes against your gut \feeling of how things should be.
" its not all or nothing as he clearly insinuates"
he did no such thing. You are creating a strawman, the second to last vestige of an argument without merit.
"Try asking people randomly off the street if they would like to tell government where to spend their money if you want a real answer."
and most would say yes, and they woul
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason we don't have direct democracy is because it's never been tried because it's never been possible in the history of the world until now. The thundering herd would wise up after a few misteps at first. I'd way rather try direct democracy over the illusionist representative democracy we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
As a reminder, a lot of things were said about Free Open Source Software, that this or that would happen, that it needed this other or that other and of course "it'll never work" and plenty more. But against all these speculations... it works. And it provides a working model of how participatory democracy can work within this Republic of the United States. Also there is local, state and federal government where taxes are levied and collected, so things can be sorted out on the local levels in getting this
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, open software can work. This is not open software, it's a form of government. Have you ever even been in a large open source project? All of them have a person who makes the decisions, regardless of popular support. Now, with software you can spin off you own fork. I can't decide to go build roads because I don't like how it's being done.
Re: (Score:2)
google "crowd source iceland"
Re: (Score:2)
False, it's been tried many times. Lasts about 2 years then someone has to make rules regardless of popular support.
You are mistaking not seeing one right now with never been tried. You don't see one, because anything too large and it fails. Too large being more then 100.
Hell, get a group of 20 people together who want the same goal, and it gets hard to manage the how.
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation Needed]
Have you seen the Internet lately? (Score:3)
Have you seen the crap people vote for as cool? Do you really want the latest hot YouTube video, cheezburger meme or Twitter trend be the example for our nation's policy? Over and over, "man on the street" interviews show a huge number of people have no real idea what's going on, yet they'll be able to vote to directly to influence policy concerning it.
If we really want to kill ourselves, we can make voting mandatory, so the huge number of people who are uninformed or just plain old don't give a damn push
Re: (Score:3)
Your second paragraph is the most compelling for me, though. I grew up in northern Michigan, and the last thing the planet needs is for those ignorant, inbred rednecks to actually get off the couch and vote. (Yes, I'm including some relatives, though fortunately not many.)
Re:How about we taxpayers... (Score:5, Insightful)
That means that you should be calling your Congress person. Are you? The elected representative is the guy/gal who determines how the money is spent.
Re: (Score:2)
We can instruct government at the time of filing tax returns and the tax return processors can then allocate it.
We can remove congresses budgeting problem of, by us doing it instead.
This really is a very simple solution but some just don't know how to realistically extrapolate it all out to realize all the benefits and corrections. These are the one who might also think the way to do math is to memorize the times table and all other answers rather than understand the mathematical tool set from which extrap
Re: (Score:2)
Playing "can't see the forest for the trees" ?
Every goal starts out with a general idea that gets broken down into doable easy to do parts.
The complexity we have today didn't just appear and complexity reduction is certainly a worthwhile goal.
Complexity increase also increases error and abuses and can and has been done with intention of profiting off errors and ability to hide cheating in the complexity..
As I said else where, this core change can and should start out with local government, then state and ev
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No Taxation without Representation.... look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
haha. Another person who flips out some phrase they actually no nothing about.
Taxation with representation was a cute phrase whipped out by a group of men becasue ENgland was going to sell a large portion of the US to france. Thos emen had a vested interest in the land.
A) Colonist were barely taxed. Most didn't pay any taxes at all.
B) It was used to whip the ignorant masses into a frenzy.
Finally, that vast majority of people don't know what the fuck they are talking about. Listening to them is stupid.
Instea
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Boston Tea Party
Re: (Score:2)
Say what? We elect politicians because we WANT them to represent us. THAT is their DUTY.
Yes, we want them to do a better job than their predecessor. And, we want them to vote their conscience - provided that it is truly best for the people they are supposed to represent.
Problem is, for far too many, it becomes about money and power. They abuse the system and people they represent. They spend more time trying to get reflected and not enough time solving our real problems. They become corrupt.
Others try
Re: (Score:2)
The Declaration of Independence has instructions for the people, written by the experienced and wise founders of this country (Republic of the United States of America). They foresaw the probability of corrupt government and recognized the Peoples right and duty to put off such government and replace it with whet a system that adheres to the intents of the founders in protecting the interest of the people.
This thread.is really rather exposing of the corruption that has become of slashdot posters. I wonder h
Re: (Score:3)
Politician don't represent the people and they shouldn't
So tell me again why many of them have the job title of "Representative"? They're job is to give the people what they want - that's not "pandering" or "appeasement", that's democratic representation serving their constituents. They may have to balance several demands at once, and argue over how to make their demands a reality, but they are definitely supposed to be focused on doing what the voters want them to do.
Re: (Score:2)
You pointed to a source of our problems (Score:2)
You are correct, representatives are supposed to represent their constituents.
However, to counter the fickle population, we had another house with officials selected by the states. This was supposed to be the body that, not depending on popular support, could take a more level-headed view of things. It was a great balance that the 17th Amendment killed by allowing direct election of senators.
Re: (Score:2)
How about I when I tell the government that I'd like 100% of my taxes to be spent on a tax credit for me? Of course, I still expect everybody else around me to pay for roads and other government services I use every day, but that's not my problem, right?
The basic problem of government is that everybody wants services, but nobody wants to pay for them. You can see that in California's state government, where Prop 13 prevents the government from raising taxes for any reason, but other ballot issues require th
Re: (Score:3)
People, if given the chance, seem to vote for insolvent government.
It is better to have poor government and rich citizens than vice versa.
Poor government is a self-solving problem. No money? They have whole blocks of cities that are full of bureaucrats. Get rid of them. If the entire government of California disappears overnight nobody will even notice. People don't need the government to live; it's an add-on layer that provides fewer and fewer services every year for more and more money. Now they are
Re: (Score:2)
There's obviously a need to strike a balance to achieve high levels of growth. Too high or too low causes problems. These are based off of the size of government by %GDP:
Governments too poor to be effective: Afghanistan (9%), Turkmenistan (9%), Bangladesh (12%), Cambodia (13%)
Private sectors too poor to be dynamic: Iraq (87%), Cuba (81%), Slovakia (66%), Timor (65%)
G8 and permanent members of the UN Security Council: France (61%), Italy (55%), UK (50%), Germany (48%), Canada (48%), Japan (30%), China (22%),
Re: (Score:2)
As far as your example of losing your family home, you benefit from local and state services, so you should contribute in some way to the upkeep of your government.
It is lost on me how the square footage of my house, or the number of electrical lights, determine how much I should pay in property taxes. There is only one street, and only one driveway, and only one resident. I'd understand if property taxes were related to number of people who live there. But they are not.
Well, making the people who are
Re: (Score:2)
If you do not work you do not eat.
If people with more expensive property are expected to sell their homes then perhaps people with less expensive property should sell some of their organs?
So am I correct in boiling your argument down to the idea that my right to keep my property is more important than somebody else's right to remain alive? That seems more than a bit callous. If the government is Shylock (who is actually a pretty sympathetic character, upset because Antonio's pal stole his daughter and all his cash), you seem to be Ebenezer Scrooge ("Are there no workhouses?").
Losing one's home sucks. A lot. But it's a very different level of suffering from starving or living on the streets.
Re: (Score:2)
Because people are selfish and have no clue how to plan for decades? because most people can't even manage their own money? Because nothing would get done.
I don't support rigged elections because they usually deal with issues on a larger scale.
A voter may not like the economy, but they should be telling expert what we should specifically do.
And how so you determine what amount? is the person paying the higher percentage get a higher say? is it real dollars?
"Does a politician who does not follow through with
Arguably even worse than that... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not a merely theoretical problem [forbes.com].
VUPEN [vupen.com] is the crass, attention-whoring, bad-boy of the industry; but practically the entire who's-who of staid, tight-lipped, defense contractors has a division peddling bugs somewhere in the business.
Even if we were 100% warm and fuzzy about the use these exploits are being put to by these firms customers(Only the good guys, pinkie swear!), this situation is insane from the perspective of actual 'security'. Whose economies, financial systems, and infrastructure depend most heavily on complex IT systems? Ummm, mostly wealthy developed countries. Whose citizens are most vulnerable to electronic compromise of financial information and such? Countries with high rates of internet penetration and lots of computers. Who has the capability to deploy electronic attacks against unpatched vulnerabilities? Virtually everyone.
In addition to the usual grab for rights and money, this 'cybersecurity' industry begets insecurity, because of the demand for 'offensive capabilities', despite the fact that we are the ones with the most to lose in an insecure environment. At least classic corporate welfare military R&D is merely expensive, and once you hand over the money, Raytheon or whoever goes off to build some impractical toy that is largely useless; but at least largely harmless....
Re: (Score:2)
And they are overlooking a number of problems. One is that you can turn any type of malware around and use it against the attacker, unless the attacker is more secure than the attacked. Guess what, the whole world gets the same security patches. Until that changes, any offensive capability is highly problematic. Then there is the issue of how specific such a weapon is. The more specific, the easier any defense. The less specific, the larger the risk of unacceptable collateral damage.
Those that want an offen
Move along citizen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Arrr, yes! Eastasia and their terror-muslin-children-eating terrorists. Let's bomb them all!
We cannot allow (Score:3)
We cannot allow a cyber-war gap.
Corporatocracy (Score:3)
The truth is there *is* a cyber war issue, just as there is a terror issue and yes, even a drug issue that needs to be addressed (meth).
What get's confused is the border between appropriate action and sponsored action. What's appropriate today is spend billions on contractors hoping the problem will go away, and less smart allocation.
Bloat's always been a part of government, but today we're seeing an extremely stark privatization of public money, and externalization of corporate cost in public debt...
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is there *is* a cyber war issue,
You have data to support that hypothesis?
just as there is a terror issue
In the US? I've seen no indication of such for over ten years.
and yes, even a drug issue that needs to be addressed (meth).
Yes, they should just legalize the shit so I can get cold medicine without looking like a criminal. If an adult wants to thoroughly fuck his life up with meth, why should I or my government stop him? I know quite a few hopeless alcoholics, and you know how that prohibition
People do not want to hear that (Score:5, Interesting)
I recently gave a talk on Cyberwar, with the main conclusion that there is nothing new here or nothing more scary than the targeted attacks we have increasingly seen in the last few years. Defense against "Cyberwar" is the same as against any other targeted IT attack. Even Stuxnet is not impressive at all and the authors made several unnecessary mistakes that jeopardized its mission. (And in addition, it is in no way certain that the damage to the Iranian centrifuges was even caused by Stuxnet. The Iranis had started using their own parts in the centrifuges and "the devil USA did it" may just be politically more opportune than "we do not have the skills to make our own centrifuges" or "we are incompetent to operate centrifuges reliably".)
But guess what? Some people in the audience were offended! Seems to me some people are so in love with their own misconceptions, that they rather be afraid than admit that they were wrong (and that they are not experts on the subject in the first place...). As long as this stupidity continues, the immoral manipulators using these memes will continue to be successful.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who has watched, monitored, and designed specialized security systems for SCADA, and Financial institutions, you are wrong.
There are global coordinated attacks against many SCADA system, financial system. Other government agencies as well, but those are often much less professional.
"Cyberwar" is defense against large scale coordinated attacks. So, yes the technical merits are 'the same' but in practicability, it is not. We now over large groups buying systems, then using them to test attacks agai
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure I am right. I _know_ I am not ignorant.
But as you chose to insult me, I am too lazy to find my sources again. The hints that Stuxnet is not great are very, very obvious. The only thing that allowed the attack is gross incompetence on the Irani side. Just one hint: I guess they never heard of independent monitoring systems for mission critical hardware. There is quite a bit more. Requires some searching though, and some engineering knowledge.
As for coordinated attacks, you _can_ use cyberatt
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's not the "R" that makes them intransigent, but the "diehard" as you say.
Re: (Score:2)
I's an "R" all right, and that R is Religion. Believing that there is an infallible entity that controls the universe in all minutiae, and has laid down simple black and white laws to be followed, has a tendency to cause people to believe that, since they are on the side of unquestionable truth and goodness, any thought that passes through their mind obviously must have been placed there by the divine creator, and therefore who opposes it has certainly either made a mistake, or been led astray by the forces
Re: (Score:2)
You should ditch the "Republican"/"Democrat" line of thought. Flip sides of the coin, really. As for a "diehard 'R'" holding onto their mainstream-sensationalized beliefs, I think you'll find the other party's participants are quite more guilty of that than the 'R''s...
Re: (Score:2)
Historically(last 40 years) you would be wrong.
OTOH, I actually read up on the facts in these issue and not just crap out whatever my gut tells me. You should try it. I will warn you, slaughter sacred cows requires a certain level of opening yourself up.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all experts on IT-security (the "cyber" is still the mark of incompetence) have the will to resist the call of big money.
You mean the History Channel lied? (Score:3)
The whole WWII think was made up? Damn! I knew Granddad told some whoppers, but I swallowed that one hook, line, and sinker.
Pearl Harbor, Bataan (my great-uncle must have faked his death), Nazi's, and Holocaust were all imaginary. Go figure.
Next you're going to tell me the Great Depression was fake too.
You are mistaken (Score:2)
This [slashdot.org] is the latest grab for defence money. Cyberwarfare is getting old enough that some people will start to believe in it for the sole reason that they heard it so many times.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are exactly right. And "what I tell you three times is the truth" may exactly have been the strategy all along. Too bad it works nonetheless.
so just pay for it (Score:2)
The big difference that makes this silly is how cheap it is to fix these problems. We've got technical solutions for all security issues, but nobody uses them. Fire the programmers who get caught writing buffer overflow vulnerabilities. This is like firing building contractors who use substandard nails. After the roof blows off it's too late. Don't let your inspectors get away with being bribed. Don't tolerate substandard work. All these problems have been solved, we just have to fire the idiots who don't u
Re: (Score:2)
Close.
Before doing that, we should make it a requirement to get a professional Engineering certificate and sign off on projects.
That means people will have to sign off on projects, so if management pushes something, and the engineer doesn't sign off and t ships? it's the managers ass.
The engineering culture needs to be embraced, and the classic geek cowboy culture needs to be let go.
With out this, you will be next to impossible to even find the specific coder responsible for a bug, and it will be impossible
Big problems with that (Score:2)
1 it is likely that any certification legislation will be bought and paid for by Microsoft (or simlar companies) and will also legislate that that MS Visual Studio 2014* Enterprise will be required to be used and forbid the use of FLOSS tools.
2 this will make it impossible to use FLOSS tools on any business computer (can't have "uncertified" software running on a Business System)
3 it will not solve the problem since the Managers will force the Designated Engineer to "sign off" on whatever is needed when The
Cheaper than welfare (Score:2)
If it gives all the WoW kiddies a job, I'm all for it.
Re: (Score:2)
The largest demographics of WoW players is women ion their 40s.
The more you know.
Also, welfare isn't as expensive as you think.
Re: (Score:2)
You got a source for that demographic data? That doesn't match with sources I've seen (like the often referenced Daedalus Project).
Welfare is INCREDIBLY expensive when you consider the impact it has on society and the creation of a class of of people raised on a culture of entitlement. Government assistance should be either a short-term bridge or part of a long-term solution for the disabled. You are not entitled to a standard of living paid for by other people, and there should be NO type of work you wi
From one end of the spectrum of hype to the other (Score:2)
Dumb summary (Score:2)
First of all this doesn't belong in a summary since it's purely opinion.
But second, it's a silly opinion. People don't wake up in the morning and think, "I'm going to menace the population with hobgoblins!" What people do think is things like, "we need to write a good ad for this anti-virus s
Re: (Score:2)
Keep telling yourself that. What Mencken stated is an _observation_ and right on the mark. And while governments do not "wake up in the morning" to think about this, they have think-tanks, committees, meetings, experts, etc. concerned with this, as it is an on-going effort. It happens to also be one of the strategies used by quite a few of the proponents of religion. Hellfire, damnation, eternal pain, etc. same thing, just with a more long-term agenda.
An no. The threats are not more real than other things a
Re: (Score:2)
Summary (Score:2)
Imaginary? Seriously? I guess there are two extreme wings for every opinion. You could probably argue reasonably well that the threats are "overblown" or "exaggerated". You'd have a hard time arguing that it's not important to secure our computer infrastructure. And you'd have an even worse time arguing that co
except that (Score:4, Insightful)
1) million of attempts are made every month on US Government, and industrial systems.
2)And we have had system compromised by foreign attempts frequently.
3) It';s the military's role to protect against those threats
None of that is speculation, none of the is fear mongering. Those are are facts.
So, not it isn't the same as anarchist, of the red scare.
And the war on drugs is a completely separate issue, stop bringing it up.
Now, we can discuss where the line is, and discuss people using those facts to do things we don't want them to do, but don't pretend like they are made up threats.
Re: (Score:2)
Crime is a fact. These attacks are crime, just in a new area, but not even more intensive than other forms of crime.
Repeating nonsense does not make it more true.
Eisenhower (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is news? (Score:3)
Bernard Shaw wrote "Of government, ‘that foolish gaggle shop’, he says: you will do what pays us. You will make war when it suits us, and keep peace when it doesn’t. You will find out that trade requires certain measures when we have decided on those measures. When I want anything to keep my dividends up, you will discover that my want is a national need. When other people want something to keep my dividends down, you will call out the police and military. And in return you shall have the support and applause of my newspapers, and the delight of imagining that you are a great statesman"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google "Sakka and Aang"