13 ms·
Pentagon Puts Cyberwarriors on the Offensive
- Covzire 8y agoI have a hard time believing this is anything new. "Another complicating factor is that taking action against an adversary often requires surreptitiously operating in the networks of an ally, like Germany — a problem that often gave the Obama administration pause." In the light of the previous administration specifically targeting our ally Germany[0], including Merkel herself, what is that sentence even supposed to mean? [0] https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spying-obama-administration/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/germany-media-spying...
- unclebucknasty 8y agoWell, giving pause literally means to think carefully or hesitate before doing something. It doesn't mean it's not ultimately done. On another note, it's interesting going back in time to read your linked article. It's completely riddled with references to Snowden and Wikileaks. At the time, there'd been controversy around Snowden/Wikileaks as to whether they served the interests of a foreign state (generally levelled by U.S. intelligence and its supporters). It appeared to be debatable, with others making seemingly reasonable claims that Snowden was a patriot, interested in opening the eyes of the American people with regard to "domestic spying". Knowing what we know now, it is mind-blowing how clear it is that this was all aimed at hurting the U.S. in the interest of a foreign state, going far beyond exposure of domestic intelligence operations to actively underming U.S. relations with its allies and beyond. Pretty amazing the degree to which average U.S. citizens were all being directly mind-hacked into hating and mistrusting our own government by an active, hostile state years before it came to light in more definitively undeniable ways around the 2016 election. More amazing still that so many people still claim not to see it.
- loeber 8y agoI think you mean "Wikileaks", not "Wikipedia".
- unclebucknasty 8y agoWikipedia can be a little suspect too at times, but you are correct! Edited. Thanks.
- eksemplar 8y agoAre you sure Snowden wasn’t a patriot? I mean, even at the time it was sort of odd that Wikileaks didn’t contain a single leak from places like Russia, but Snowden, seemed to have simple exposure in mind. The result of Snowden hurt America in domestic spying, and by giving up secrets, but as a Dane the NSA can still watch me take a dump through my own smartphone, no questions asked. So it’s not like it changed a whole lot.
- avmich 8y agoInteresting that Russia used to have their own Wikileaks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaltai_Boltai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaltai_Boltai
- varjag 8y agoNo, Shaltai were doing their own work, publishing the teasers and auctioning the info to highest bidder.
- ZephyrP 8y agoAre there any credible cases of an individual coming forward with damaging state secrets or leaks that Wikileaks had refused to publish?
- Krasnol 8y agoIs there anything credible around WikiLeaks? Quick google: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-le...
- travmatt 8y agoThey’ve also refused to release documents linking Russian banking with Assad’s regime. This is of course in addition to the literal tv deal Assange has signed with Putin, if anyone here is of the belief getting paid by someone could be a conflict of interest.
- StanislavPetrov 8y ago>Pretty amazing the degree to which average U.S. citizens were all being directly mind-hacked into hating and mistrusting our own government What's amazing to me is that anyone ever trusted our government given its endless littany of deception since (at least) the Woodrow Wilson administration. Every US citizen faces far, far more of a threat to their freedom, their privacy, and their safety from domestic agents of the police state than any force outside of our border. What's truly amazing is how otherwise intelligent people are so easily brainwashed by the DC/CIA media establishment into thinking that our many problems originate from some foreign boogeyman instead of right here at home.
- unclebucknasty 8y agoI want my country to be better in living up to its ideals, but as an adult I also realize that it's difficult to achieve perfection in the real world. So, until such time as we do, it's a relative question and on that score the U.S. is far and away better than the lying, murderous, kleptocratic regimes of dictators like Putin. Your comment encouraging utter mistrust and outright fear/hatred of our own government is, conveniently, exactly what state actors wishing to see our downfall work to promote. It is the perfect weapon to use against democratic nations as it attacks the very foundation of our freedoms. In a democratic society, the government is an expression of the will of the people, thus to turn its people against their own government is to weaken the very concept of self-rule and open the door to Putin-esque authoritarian autocracy. One would have to be brainwashed or complicit not to acknowledge this. So, what is your solution? That because we have some internal imperfections, we should let adversarial nations who wish us harm attack us with impunity? We should abandon our ideals and join our adversaries in crippling our own government instead of strenghtening our democratic machinery to continue perfecting our free society and the government that supports it? Rightist conspiracy theories notwithstanding, there is no "police state" or "deep state" here and our government is the guarantor of our freedoms. To the extent that it is broken, we should be working to address its problems, not working with adversaries to destroy it and, hence, destroy ourselves.
- StanislavPetrov 8y ago
- Arubis 8y agoI have a kneejerk reaction to dislike virtually anything associated with the current administration, coupled with an understanding that escalation of actions associated with war rarely leads to _less_ war. Yet, knowing that actually defending against a sufficiently determined, skillful, and (crucially) patient network adversary is virtually impossible, I'm unconvinced that this move is a bad one. In fact, it strikes me as the only realistic form of defense short of using actual physical force.
- forapurpose 8y agoVery important context is that this policy is fits an openly stated shift by the current administration (no matter what you think of them) away from the post-WWII international order, based on the rule of law (the 'rules-based order') and to pre-WWII interstate geopolitical competition. IIRC the quote from Kelly or McMaster, 'Geopolitics is back with a vengence' (they embraced that idea), and I think most people are familiar with the America First policy. Early in the Trump administration, two top officials (McMaster and Mattis?) wrote an op-ed in the WSJ where they said, 'there is no community of nations'; it's everyone for themselves. The postwar order was built by the victors of WWII, including Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, because they believed that nationalism and geopolitical competition led to wars - remember they had seen WWI, WWII, and the centuries of wars before that, which they saw as the worst scourge of humanity (I'm not sure of Stalin's thinking there). They also thought that, due to the technology of 1945, the next major war could devastate civilization, even without nuclear weapons - look at the devastation in Europe, as an example, from WWII. And IIRC 1/3 of European men (or British men?) died in WWI. Imagine what could be done with today's technology. Would civilization survive? ~200 people million died in WWII; how many would die today? One effect of acting in this way (i.e., as described in the article) outside the postwar rules-based order is that, especially as the U.S. was the foundation of that order, it actively destroys the order and makes it difficult to return to it in the next administration. It creates anarchy, which undermines the authority of law. The success of that order was overwhelming; the greatest period of peace, liberty, and prosperity in history by orders of magnitude. One thing I don't understand is, who would want to dismantle it? For what ends? The only answer I've seen is that it's the Culture Wars taken too far - they've forgotten what they are fighting for.
- hiram112 8y agoAre you asserting that Snowden was explicitly working as a Russian agent in order to weaken / embarrass the US intelligence agencies? While I believe he probably caused more harm to the US than help, I really don't believe he is / was a Russian agent. Seems like Russia simply ended up with him due to travel restrictions, and since they have absolutely no reason to turn him over to the US as that might discourage future and actual collaborators, they allowed him to remain. A
- deepfriedbits 8y agoThe beauty (curse?) of his case is that it will likely be a long time until we know for sure. If he’s half as smart as a lot of people give him credit for being, it will take even longer to get to the answer.
- mtgx 8y agoShocker. The Department of Defense is actually primarily interested in "offense".
- mr__y 8y agoWell, the problem with cyber offensive is that while even a minor disruption in network infrastructure in western countries will have a huge impact on both economy and society and could cause significant losses. Whereas even if you completely destroy networks of Islamic state I doubt it will hurt them a lot. Cyber warfare escalation is not really a smart move when your economy really needs IT infrastructure and your opponent does not (or does but to a significantly lesser degree)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- varjag 8y agoThat assumes your enemy was holding back their efforts due to some bizarre case of chivalry.
- LUmBULtERA 8y agoI have a hard time believing the U.S. "cyberwarriors" were ever truly interested in defense. It seemed as though the U.S. government was interested in weakening encryption standards and encouraging backdoors that spies, law enforcement, and criminals could all exploit. edit: didn't the NSA intentionally withheld zerodays to exploit them itself, putting everyone at risk?