7 ms·

So... The Constitution? We just attack other countries whenever we feel like now?

cronix 8y ago
The case can be made that we were attacked first in 2016, both by hacking (and releasing) the DNC emails and a coordinated propaganda campaign via social media, and this was an offensive move to prevent it from happening again in the 2018 elections. I don't see how this is just an "attack whenever we feel like it."
- triplewipeass 8y ago
  The DNC is not an institution of the US government.
  - cronix 8y ago
    Neither is social media. Your point?
    - triplewipeass 8y ago
      My point is that the government shouldn't be itching to get itself in the business of retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities. Eventually the attackers and the attacked will sort themselves out. There's no need for taxpayer money to be spent on such things.
      - gandhium 8y ago
        > retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities So if they will blow up "non-government entity" it will be perfectly ok and will not require any retaliation? Where's the line?
      - learc83 8y ago
        How do you feel about attacks on cargo ships by a foreign Navy? Protecting citizens and companies from foreign governments is one of the explicit purposes of the military.
        triplewipeass 8y ago
        Cargo ships get attacked & hijacked all the time. There exist some shipping lanes where such risks are well known. In fact, US Navy ships regularly patrol such shipping lanes in an effort to curtail or stop piracy. At the very least, many pirates are turned off by the prospect of facing off against a heavily armed Navy ship. This isn't the same thing as retaliation. This is the US government deploying its considerable resources to mitigate an obvious vulnerability. Under international law, crews of merchant ships aren't allowed to carry weapons, leaving them defenseless against even the shabbiest of pirates. The navies - US and allied alike - are out there protecting ships that cannot legally defend themselves. Retaliation in this case would involve the American Navy sending landing parties ashore to Somalia, or attacking Somalian cargo ships in a tit-for-tat fashion. Compare this with infosec vulnerabilities in the private sector. Are companies legally bound to stay vulnerable? No. Most choose to do so - consciously or not - because to date they've gotten away with a weak security posture. This is just the nature of business. An appropriate mitigation would be for Congress to pass legislation requiring companies to safeguard their systems. I would even go as far as commend the government for subsidizing infosec consultants for companies that are considered important for the continued functioning of society. None of the above jives with retaliating in kind.
        learc83 8y ago
        > Under international law, crews of merchant ships aren't allowed to carry weapons That isn't true. It's perfectly legal for an American ship in international waters to carry weapons aboard. Shipping companies hire armed security to protect their ships even though it's not common. Depending on the country, a very heavily armed ship may have a problem in certain ports, but small arms kept aboard aren't a problem in most places. If you want larger weapons, companies could hire escort boats. >Are companies legally bound to stay vulnerable? No. Most choose to do so - consciously or not - because to date they've gotten away with a weak security posture. This is just the nature of business. An appropriate mitigation would be for Congress to pass legislation requiring companies to safeguard their systems. Sure companies need better security, but no security policy will stop a sufficiently motivated attacker. Expecting private citizens to be solely responsible for protecting themselves from foreign militaries is absurd. >Retaliation in this case would involve the American Navy sending landing parties ashore to Somalia, or attacking Somalian cargo ships in a tit-for-tat fashion. Retaliation in this case would be the US launching cyber attacks and stealing trade secrets from private foreign companies. Instead they are directly attacking cyber combatants.
      - CWuestefeld 8y ago
        the government shouldn't be itching to get itself in the business of retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities. At the end of the day, the reason the government exists is to protect the people and their property. I agree that it's alarming that the US is doing this. But my alarm is because there's no Constitutional declaration of war, or even any apparent invocation of the War Powers Act.
        shitgoose 8y ago
        I always thought that the reason the government exists is to collect taxes and spend them in the most inefficient way. Governments go to war to protect their cash flow, i.e. taxes.
      - JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
        Well we just had a presidential election if not decided, certainly influenced by this same group, I can't think of a better thing to spend taxpayer money on than ensuring that elections are free from interference.
        robdachshund 8y ago
        I fail to see how what amounts to a whistleblowing action revealing horrendous actions done by one of the two viable political parties is "interference." The information revealed was information I was happy to learn. It was true, factual information taken directly from the bad actors committing crimes, violating federal law, and committing election fraud. The other point is that we don't even know who leaked the information. The emails were completely unsecured and they were likely hacked by everyone and their dog. If the leak came from a US whistleblower, would it still be "interference?" Why on earth would you not want to know this information? Because of political bias?
        espeed 8y ago
        Do you know the size of the Russian economy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia How many individual US states have an economy larger than Russia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_sovereign_states_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states... And the size of the PR industry? https://www.statista.com/topics/3521/public-relations/ https://www.statista.com/topics/3521/public-relations/ We invented the modern PR industry, AI, and social media. That's our bailiwick. You think Russia outclassed us at our own game, at home on our own platforms, on the biggest stage, in the highest stakes game of all? That would be like the Russian basketball team [0] beating the US Dream Team [1] in all of our major sports at once. Not gonna happen. [0] Russian Basketball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_national_basketball_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_national_basketball_tea... [1] US Dream Team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men%27s_Olympic_basketball_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men%27s_Oly...
        JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
  - lostapathy 8y ago
    Would you feel differently if power plants (also mostly not government owned) were attacked? I know my analogy is a bit of a stretch, but at least at present it seems like the political parties are at the very core of american civilization (or lack thereof, depending on perspective)
    - triplewipeass 8y ago
      Protecting privately owned power plants at all costs is just another manifestation of the "too big to fail" mentality. If the comparison doesn't seem immediately relevant to you, see if you can find similarities between financial firms that failed to stay solvent and power plants that failed to adopt a security posture commensurate with the function they perform in modern society. I'd much rather see the country face its problems and fix them, than hope Uncle Sam can paper over security vulnerabilities or the casino mentality on Wall St.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- dylan604 8y ago
  If 'first' only occurred in 2016, then I would be shocked. Foreign countries being active in attempting to affect the outcome of elections is just accepted. Dropping leaflets from the air to rain down on the population, funneling money in support of favored candidates, etc is all stuff well documented that the CIA has done. Social Media has just made this so much easier for the attacker. Leaflets raining down from the sky is pretty obvious. A social media post is so not obvious. I kind of feel like it's our own damn fault. It seems like the social is all about influencers. Russia used that desire of people to be influence in the most effective way.. It's kind of brilliant at how cunning, cheap, effective it was/is.
- CWuestefeld 8y ago
  Everything you say could be true, but it doesn't address the comment you responded to. The Constitution requires a declaration of war by Congress. The War Powers Act gives the president the authority to respond to a military emergency for 90 days, giving the Congress time to make such a declaration. Neither of those things have triggered in this case.
  - oaiey 8y ago
    Declaring war on Russia. Not a smart idea. I prefer a violation of the Constitution and everyone looks away than a war declaration on a nuclear power.
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    Everybody in Congress is too chicken shit to declare war because they don't want it on their voting record when things go bad.
- mindslight 8y ago
  Talking about exploiting poor information security as a "cyberattack" is the most dangerous thing here, as it paves the path for escalation into actual fighting. The appropriate context is two armies each residing on their side of the border, yelling insults back and forth. "Prevent it from happening again" is utterly fallacious - there isn't one unique group that is capable of performing such actions, whereby vanquishing them will make everything "safe". Rather, the hacks are entirely in line what we should expect an anti-fragile society to tolerate. Rather than looking to shoot the messenger, we should even thank them when their proceeds align with the self-policing of our own institutions! Ultimately what we're seeing here is the same old "tell them they're being attacked" technique applied to the information realm. Categorizing the involuntary-opening of societal institutions as an "attack" has only one possible ending, and it is the direct opposite of a democratic society!
TulliusCicero 8y ago
Do you think they're not attacking us? Cyber attacks are more easily deniable than missiles or troops on the ground (although Russia did that last one anyway), but that doesn't mean it's not happening.
- ASalazarMX 8y ago
  TL;DR: Yes
- aeturnum 8y ago
  This does not, in any way, provide an answer to the concern you're replying to. Allowing electronic warfare to exist outside of US law and doctrine is not a good idea. That's how things escalate suddenly and unpredictably. Maybe you feel that, because we're being attacked, we must respond offensively. Fine. We should still have rules for how those operations are targeted, conducted and limited.
  - kilo_bravo_3 8y ago
    Electronic warfare exists within the law: 10 U.S. Code § 394. Authorities concerning military cyber operations https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-I/chapter-19 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-I... As a "sensitive military cyber operation" this was likely reported to Congress within the required timeframe unless it was defined as a "covert action" which has its own set of laws. Sensitive military cyber operation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/395 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/395 Covert actions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3093 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3093 Doctrinally, offensive cyber operations have been extensively studied and debated for a number of years and the official joint military doctrine document is publicly available: Joint Publication 3-12, Cyberspace Operations, 8 June 2018 https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_12.pdf https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_1...
mikeash 8y ago
We have been for decades. Often with actual bombs and bullets.
wyldfire 8y ago
The Constitution has yet to be amended to reflect significant modern shifts: mutually-assured-destruction via nuclear warfare, stateless militants, etc. US Congress often does authorize a US military offensive (Afghanistan, Iraq) though without a formal Declaration of War. But who are we kidding? This is a covert offensive "skirmish", probably not too different from many that took place in the cold war or in Latin America. While I suppose I'd prefer if Congress authorized actions like these, I certainly don't want to declare war on a nuclear superpower foe.
- dingaling 8y ago
  > The Constitution has yet to be amended to reflect significant modern shifts That doesn't excuse ignoring it, though the CIA generally did. Doesn't make that an acceptable policy, I can't imagine anyone proposing so for other aspects of the Constitution. > I certainly don't want to declare war on a nuclear superpower foe. But the current actions are the worst of both Worlds; not officially declaring war, yet waging war. Like throwing rocks at the hornets' nest whilst ducking behind a wall. When the hornets find you they'll sting just as hard. If something is worth risking war for, then declare war. If it's not worth nuclear annhiliation then ... get on with boring old spying.

The case can be made that we were attacked first in 2016, both by hacking (and releasing) the DNC emails and a coordinated propaganda campaign via social media, and this was an offensive move to prevent it from happening again in the 2018 elections. I don't see how this is just an "attack whenever we feel like it."

triplewipeass 8y ago
The DNC is not an institution of the US government.
- cronix 8y ago
  Neither is social media. Your point?
  - triplewipeass 8y ago
    My point is that the government shouldn't be itching to get itself in the business of retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities. Eventually the attackers and the attacked will sort themselves out. There's no need for taxpayer money to be spent on such things.
    - gandhium 8y ago
      > retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities So if they will blow up "non-government entity" it will be perfectly ok and will not require any retaliation? Where's the line?
    - learc83 8y ago
      How do you feel about attacks on cargo ships by a foreign Navy? Protecting citizens and companies from foreign governments is one of the explicit purposes of the military.
      - triplewipeass 8y ago
        Cargo ships get attacked & hijacked all the time. There exist some shipping lanes where such risks are well known. In fact, US Navy ships regularly patrol such shipping lanes in an effort to curtail or stop piracy. At the very least, many pirates are turned off by the prospect of facing off against a heavily armed Navy ship. This isn't the same thing as retaliation. This is the US government deploying its considerable resources to mitigate an obvious vulnerability. Under international law, crews of merchant ships aren't allowed to carry weapons, leaving them defenseless against even the shabbiest of pirates. The navies - US and allied alike - are out there protecting ships that cannot legally defend themselves. Retaliation in this case would involve the American Navy sending landing parties ashore to Somalia, or attacking Somalian cargo ships in a tit-for-tat fashion. Compare this with infosec vulnerabilities in the private sector. Are companies legally bound to stay vulnerable? No. Most choose to do so - consciously or not - because to date they've gotten away with a weak security posture. This is just the nature of business. An appropriate mitigation would be for Congress to pass legislation requiring companies to safeguard their systems. I would even go as far as commend the government for subsidizing infosec consultants for companies that are considered important for the continued functioning of society. None of the above jives with retaliating in kind.
        learc83 8y ago
        > Under international law, crews of merchant ships aren't allowed to carry weapons That isn't true. It's perfectly legal for an American ship in international waters to carry weapons aboard. Shipping companies hire armed security to protect their ships even though it's not common. Depending on the country, a very heavily armed ship may have a problem in certain ports, but small arms kept aboard aren't a problem in most places. If you want larger weapons, companies could hire escort boats. >Are companies legally bound to stay vulnerable? No. Most choose to do so - consciously or not - because to date they've gotten away with a weak security posture. This is just the nature of business. An appropriate mitigation would be for Congress to pass legislation requiring companies to safeguard their systems. Sure companies need better security, but no security policy will stop a sufficiently motivated attacker. Expecting private citizens to be solely responsible for protecting themselves from foreign militaries is absurd. >Retaliation in this case would involve the American Navy sending landing parties ashore to Somalia, or attacking Somalian cargo ships in a tit-for-tat fashion. Retaliation in this case would be the US launching cyber attacks and stealing trade secrets from private foreign companies. Instead they are directly attacking cyber combatants.
    - CWuestefeld 8y ago
      the government shouldn't be itching to get itself in the business of retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities. At the end of the day, the reason the government exists is to protect the people and their property. I agree that it's alarming that the US is doing this. But my alarm is because there's no Constitutional declaration of war, or even any apparent invocation of the War Powers Act.
      - shitgoose 8y ago
        I always thought that the reason the government exists is to collect taxes and spend them in the most inefficient way. Governments go to war to protect their cash flow, i.e. taxes.
    - JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
      Well we just had a presidential election if not decided, certainly influenced by this same group, I can't think of a better thing to spend taxpayer money on than ensuring that elections are free from interference.
      - robdachshund 8y ago
        I fail to see how what amounts to a whistleblowing action revealing horrendous actions done by one of the two viable political parties is "interference." The information revealed was information I was happy to learn. It was true, factual information taken directly from the bad actors committing crimes, violating federal law, and committing election fraud. The other point is that we don't even know who leaked the information. The emails were completely unsecured and they were likely hacked by everyone and their dog. If the leak came from a US whistleblower, would it still be "interference?" Why on earth would you not want to know this information? Because of political bias?
      - espeed 8y ago
        Do you know the size of the Russian economy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia How many individual US states have an economy larger than Russia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_sovereign_states_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states... And the size of the PR industry? https://www.statista.com/topics/3521/public-relations/ https://www.statista.com/topics/3521/public-relations/ We invented the modern PR industry, AI, and social media. That's our bailiwick. You think Russia outclassed us at our own game, at home on our own platforms, on the biggest stage, in the highest stakes game of all? That would be like the Russian basketball team [0] beating the US Dream Team [1] in all of our major sports at once. Not gonna happen. [0] Russian Basketball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_national_basketball_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_national_basketball_tea... [1] US Dream Team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men%27s_Olympic_basketball_team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men%27s_Oly...
        JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
- lostapathy 8y ago
  Would you feel differently if power plants (also mostly not government owned) were attacked? I know my analogy is a bit of a stretch, but at least at present it seems like the political parties are at the very core of american civilization (or lack thereof, depending on perspective)
  - triplewipeass 8y ago
    Protecting privately owned power plants at all costs is just another manifestation of the "too big to fail" mentality. If the comparison doesn't seem immediately relevant to you, see if you can find similarities between financial firms that failed to stay solvent and power plants that failed to adopt a security posture commensurate with the function they perform in modern society. I'd much rather see the country face its problems and fix them, than hope Uncle Sam can paper over security vulnerabilities or the casino mentality on Wall St.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
dylan604 8y ago
If 'first' only occurred in 2016, then I would be shocked. Foreign countries being active in attempting to affect the outcome of elections is just accepted. Dropping leaflets from the air to rain down on the population, funneling money in support of favored candidates, etc is all stuff well documented that the CIA has done. Social Media has just made this so much easier for the attacker. Leaflets raining down from the sky is pretty obvious. A social media post is so not obvious. I kind of feel like it's our own damn fault. It seems like the social is all about influencers. Russia used that desire of people to be influence in the most effective way.. It's kind of brilliant at how cunning, cheap, effective it was/is.
CWuestefeld 8y ago
Everything you say could be true, but it doesn't address the comment you responded to. The Constitution requires a declaration of war by Congress. The War Powers Act gives the president the authority to respond to a military emergency for 90 days, giving the Congress time to make such a declaration. Neither of those things have triggered in this case.
- oaiey 8y ago
  Declaring war on Russia. Not a smart idea. I prefer a violation of the Constitution and everyone looks away than a war declaration on a nuclear power.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
  Everybody in Congress is too chicken shit to declare war because they don't want it on their voting record when things go bad.
mindslight 8y ago
Talking about exploiting poor information security as a "cyberattack" is the most dangerous thing here, as it paves the path for escalation into actual fighting. The appropriate context is two armies each residing on their side of the border, yelling insults back and forth. "Prevent it from happening again" is utterly fallacious - there isn't one unique group that is capable of performing such actions, whereby vanquishing them will make everything "safe". Rather, the hacks are entirely in line what we should expect an anti-fragile society to tolerate. Rather than looking to shoot the messenger, we should even thank them when their proceeds align with the self-policing of our own institutions! Ultimately what we're seeing here is the same old "tell them they're being attacked" technique applied to the information realm. Categorizing the involuntary-opening of societal institutions as an "attack" has only one possible ending, and it is the direct opposite of a democratic society!

TulliusCicero 8y ago

Do you think they're not attacking us? Cyber attacks are more easily deniable than missiles or troops on the ground (although Russia did that last one anyway), but that doesn't mean it's not happening.

ASalazarMX 8y ago
TL;DR: Yes
aeturnum 8y ago
This does not, in any way, provide an answer to the concern you're replying to. Allowing electronic warfare to exist outside of US law and doctrine is not a good idea. That's how things escalate suddenly and unpredictably. Maybe you feel that, because we're being attacked, we must respond offensively. Fine. We should still have rules for how those operations are targeted, conducted and limited.
- kilo_bravo_3 8y ago
  Electronic warfare exists within the law: 10 U.S. Code § 394. Authorities concerning military cyber operations https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-I/chapter-19 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-I... As a "sensitive military cyber operation" this was likely reported to Congress within the required timeframe unless it was defined as a "covert action" which has its own set of laws. Sensitive military cyber operation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/395 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/395 Covert actions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3093 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3093 Doctrinally, offensive cyber operations have been extensively studied and debated for a number of years and the official joint military doctrine document is publicly available: Joint Publication 3-12, Cyberspace Operations, 8 June 2018 https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_12.pdf https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_1...

mikeash 8y ago

We have been for decades. Often with actual bombs and bullets.

wyldfire 8y ago

The Constitution has yet to be amended to reflect significant modern shifts: mutually-assured-destruction via nuclear warfare, stateless militants, etc. US Congress often does authorize a US military offensive (Afghanistan, Iraq) though without a formal Declaration of War. But who are we kidding? This is a covert offensive "skirmish", probably not too different from many that took place in the cold war or in Latin America. While I suppose I'd prefer if Congress authorized actions like these, I certainly don't want to declare war on a nuclear superpower foe.

dingaling 8y ago
> The Constitution has yet to be amended to reflect significant modern shifts That doesn't excuse ignoring it, though the CIA generally did. Doesn't make that an acceptable policy, I can't imagine anyone proposing so for other aspects of the Constitution. > I certainly don't want to declare war on a nuclear superpower foe. But the current actions are the worst of both Worlds; not officially declaring war, yet waging war. Like throwing rocks at the hornets' nest whilst ducking behind a wall. When the hornets find you they'll sting just as hard. If something is worth risking war for, then declare war. If it's not worth nuclear annhiliation then ... get on with boring old spying.