2 ms·

> Which military policy decisions are those? What does expelling a few diplomats have to do with the military? Nothing, of course. "The Department of Homeland

> Which military policy decisions are those? What does expelling a few diplomats have to do with the military? Nothing, of course. "The Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are releasing declassified technical information on Russian civilian and military intelligence service cyber activity, to help network defenders in the United States and abroad identify, detect, and disrupt Russia’s global campaign of malicious cyber activities." This suggests it is evidence of Russian activity. "These actions are not the sum total of our response to Russia’s aggressive activities. We will continue to take a variety of actions at a time and place of our choosing, some of which will not be publicized." This suggests we're going to be engaging in a classified cyber war with Russia. Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/29/statement-president-actions-response-russian-malicious-cyber-activity https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/29/state... In the United States the only organization that can legally 'hack back' is the US military, according to the CFAA. So any cyber operation will be a military operation.

snowwrestler 10y ago
> This suggests it is evidence of Russian activity. The U.S. government is asserting it is Russian activity, and the information in the report is provided to help private organizations defend against it. The attribution rests in part on classified information and is not likely to ever be "good enough" for members of the public, even with the ODNI report due in a few weeks. And as I said below, I don't remember everyone jumping up to object when State and White House intrusions were attributed to Russia. Anyway, the fact that Russia is conducting a global campaign of malicious cyber activities is not news [1], and it's not fair to pretend that this DHS report is supposed to prove that on its own. > This suggests we're going to be engaging in a classified cyber war with Russia. War is a loaded term. Our war in Iraq killed many thousands of people and dropped an entire region into violent chaos. Is that what you think the U.S. government intends with the quote you mention? > In the United States the only organization that can legally 'hack back' is the US military, according to the CFAA. So any cyber operation will be a military operation. The military is also the only organization that can take out the trash in the Pentagon. My point with this flippant remark is that military activities are not commensurate just because they're military. Comparing the policy discussions of today to the run-up to the Iraq War is not defensible IMO. [1] So are we, BTW. EDIT to add: If the U.S. government wanted war with Russia, it has already passed up 2 perfect opportunities: - Aid the Ukrainian government in opposing the Russian seizure of Crimea by sending air cover or troops. - Declare a no-fly zone in Syria and shoot down a Russian jet. These were both real shooting war situations where force could have been justified. To think that now, a cybersecurity response is going to be the excuse for a shooting war, does not make any sense to me. I don't think anyone wants a shooting war with Russia. That does not mean we should ignore a material shift in the balance of intelligence activities we do to one another.

snowwrestler 10y ago

> This suggests it is evidence of Russian activity. The U.S. government is asserting it is Russian activity, and the information in the report is provided to help private organizations defend against it. The attribution rests in part on classified information and is not likely to ever be "good enough" for members of the public, even with the ODNI report due in a few weeks. And as I said below, I don't remember everyone jumping up to object when State and White House intrusions were attributed to Russia. Anyway, the fact that Russia is conducting a global campaign of malicious cyber activities is not news [1], and it's not fair to pretend that this DHS report is supposed to prove that on its own. > This suggests we're going to be engaging in a classified cyber war with Russia. War is a loaded term. Our war in Iraq killed many thousands of people and dropped an entire region into violent chaos. Is that what you think the U.S. government intends with the quote you mention? > In the United States the only organization that can legally 'hack back' is the US military, according to the CFAA. So any cyber operation will be a military operation. The military is also the only organization that can take out the trash in the Pentagon. My point with this flippant remark is that military activities are not commensurate just because they're military. Comparing the policy discussions of today to the run-up to the Iraq War is not defensible IMO. [1] So are we, BTW. EDIT to add: If the U.S. government wanted war with Russia, it has already passed up 2 perfect opportunities: - Aid the Ukrainian government in opposing the Russian seizure of Crimea by sending air cover or troops. - Declare a no-fly zone in Syria and shoot down a Russian jet. These were both real shooting war situations where force could have been justified. To think that now, a cybersecurity response is going to be the excuse for a shooting war, does not make any sense to me. I don't think anyone wants a shooting war with Russia. That does not mean we should ignore a material shift in the balance of intelligence activities we do to one another.