12 ms·
Bruce Schneier: Has U.S. started an Internet war?
- mtgx 13y agoI've long suspected 90% of the budgets and bills they are trying to pass is to help them offensively against other countries. And yet, 100% of their arguments in public were that they are needed for defense. The government seems to be lying about a lot of things it's doing in your name. You may be okay with it, but just don't act surprised when the retaliation begins, which of course the US government will make it seem like they started it, and now they need even more money and you having fewer liberties to help in the "cyberwar" that they started. And just like that the "cyberwarfare industry complex" will keep expanding just like the "military industry complex" for decades to come, if nobody wants to do anything to stop it before it can't be stopped anymore, and its budgets will keep increasing year after year, with no one daring to touch them.
- TallGuyShort 13y ago>> the US government will make it seem like they started it This has been done extensively with the war on terror. The idiocy of the "they hate our freedoms" statement has been weighing on me lately. I agree that caving to a terrorist's demands immediately is a bad thing to do because it encourages a violent approach to change, which we shouldn't do. But shouldn't we also take a step back and say "hey - we're killing people on the other side of the world - maybe we should stop!". If "they hate our freedoms" they must be pretty happy to see what the Patriot Act has done in response - because evidently we gave them exactly what they wanted.
- beloch 13y agoYou know what's pretty stupid? Routinely violating the sovereignty of a state that has nuclear weapons with drone attacks that kill their civilians (i.e. Pakistan). I doubt they'd ever launch a strike on U.S. soil, but if one of those weapons were to accidentally fall into Taliban hands... It's entirely luck that the Taliban are so brutal (i.e. Shooting school-girl activists in the head) that they don't have universal support in Pakistan.
- jlgreco 13y agoUnfortunately the Pakistani government seems fairly complacent about that one. It distresses me that even a nuclear power like them seems to tolerate so much of our shit. I think that nuclear deterrent is not as strong as we would like to think.
- grey-area 13y agoThe US government funds much of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies. Around $18 Billion dollars in the last decade of official aid, of which more than half is military - not sure if there are even figures for the last few years but they've presumably grown. That's a lot of incentive in some very powerful parts of the government to allow the US carte blanche to kill whoever they want to. One day some of that money will probably be used for an attack on US soil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid_to_Pakistan#U.S._financial_aid_to_Pakistan_since_the_September_11.2C_2001_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_aid_to_Pakistan#U.S._f...
- nickff 13y agoThe Pakistanis must authorize, allow, and support US drone operations in their airspace. This is the only plausible explanation for the US drone airfields within Pakistan, which were visible for some time on Google Earth, (though I have not checked recently).
- chubot 13y agoYou know it has become fashionable to hate on Ron Paul and his supporters, but he is one of the few politicians I have ever learned anything from. Namely that in 1988 the US shot down an Iranian passenger plane, in its OWN air space, with a MISSILE! Which of course killed everyone on board. Imagine if there was an Iranian aircraft carrier parked around NYC, and it fired a missile into an passenger airliner taking off from JFK. Imagine what would happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
- jacquesm 13y agoHoly crap, I completely missed that. I thought KAL007 was the worst incident like this. > However, the United States has never admitted responsibility, nor apologized to Iran. Why not? That would seem to be the proper thing to do.
- hga 13y agoKAL 007 was worse. The Iran Air Flight 655 debacle started with Iranian gun boats firing on one of the ship's helicopters. i.e. the shoot down was during combat initiated by the Iranians. KAL 007 was ultimately shot down because the Soviets involved didn't want to lose face or worse by letting it escape their airspace (it had probably left by the time it was fired upon).
- X-Istence 13y agoThe gun boats were firing upon the ship's helicopters because they were in Iranian airspace ...
- hga 13y agoThat's what the Iranians claim. We obviously claim differently. But even if they were correct, or honestly mistaken, why is shooting at an aircraft a good response to it intruding on your airspace? When you're not in a hot war with the intruder nothing good can come from it. In fact, this brings us right back to KAL 007....
- sliverstorm 13y agoThe idiocy of the "they hate our freedoms" statement has been weighing on me lately. It isn't perfectly accurate, but there might be a kernel of reality there. Remember a little while back when extremists were mad at the US for a video somebody made in their basement? I heard someone explain in regards to that issue that for someone whose government regulates such things, to them it must have looked like the US was endorsing the video simply by allowing it to exist.
- jessaustin 13y agoThe "protests" on that one seemed a bit ginned-up, possibly to coincide with some other event. I mean, the video still exists, but all the goat enthusiasts are satisfied now that the dude's parole was revoked? That seems... unlikely.
- e3pi 13y agoAn effective and unattributable false flag op trumps all DIS, DHS, and inflated budget and corrupt `security clearance' high salary revolving door critics. If another Edward Snowden bombshell is released with massive public outrage, "Expect U.S." not Anonymous.
- grecy 13y agoOf course, it was actually called the Department of War until 1947. Calling it defense is just semantics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_War#Postwar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_War...
- fossuser 13y agoAt least it isn't called the Department of Peace.
- hga 13y agoOur government wasn't using _Nineteen Eighty Four_ as a guidebook back then....
- jessaustin 13y agoI guess now we know what our kids will call it.
- sneak 13y agoEasier to type out "minipax" on a smartphone, btw.
- revelation 13y agoFunny sideline on this: The War Department existed from 1789 until September 18, 1947, [...], renamed the United States Department of Defense in 1949 War ministries have become all but extinct. Edit: Oops, grecy beat me on this one.
- mpyne 13y agoThe force restructuring wasn't simply to rename the Dept. of War. At the time the Navy was an entirely separate entity headed by its own Cabinet-level Secretary. With the introduction of the USAF as a separate service it was decided that instead of having 3 Cabinet-level secretaries all relating to the military, that there would instead be a single military department led by a single Cabinet-level secretary. Each military service would have their own Secretary who reported to this new Secretary of Defense. Since they were restructuring anyways the name change was easy to throw on in the process. Honestly, the name change conformed more to the existing thought of what the military was. Many military actions had been authorized outside of a formal war status since 1798, so the military services were clearly not only about the prosecution of war. That particular change was in fact long overdue.
- zokier 13y ago> I've long suspected 90% of the budgets and bills they are trying to pass is to help them offensively against other countries. And yet, 100% of their arguments in public were that they are needed for defense Offense and defense are pretty muddied concepts for a superpower, when most activities it'll be doing could be categorized as "force projection", or something akin. Imposing the fear of retaliatory action is a valid method of defense.
- lostlogin 13y ago... And a great way to create enemies and foster hatred.
- flyinRyan 13y agoNot when you're the biggest guy on the block. It's the little dogs that need to "force project".
- PavlovsCat 13y agoThe US as a whole is not a little dog. However, those people in it who use the political and economical process for their petty nefarious purposes, well, I guess those consist of 70% water and 30% fear. Being caught in webs of lies has a tendency to make people rather active, since not having full control of the narrative and happenings is potentially lethal for them. So here's hoping.
- Tloewald 13y agoUm, the "War Department" was renamed the "Defense Department" in 1949. Did the US get less belligerent?
- systematical 13y agoDoes the world need a Geneva convention on cyber warfare? I'm beginning to believe so. Unfortunately we (humanity) might need something catastrophic to occur first.
- walshemj 13y agoIn theory the Convention and the laws of war should apply - there is a big debate if attacking a coutrys power grid is allowed or not. I would not have said this is news certainly the Foreign secretary implied that SIS has done this. I am not sure that reconnaissance is an act of war which is the articles thesis - certainly most hackers would consider reconisance legal or do you think a nmap scan should be a criminal offence? The police woudl not be able to get a conviction against a bank robbery crew if all they had was them looking at where the security cameras where.
- sage_joch 13y agoThis reads like the backstory to a Terminator movie.
- uptown 13y agoI've often wondered how technical advancements might have evolved differently if the content of our entertainment were to have provided a different prospective roadmap.
- throwaway10001 13y agoUnless we start spending less than 1% of our GDP or so on Pentagon Inc, I don't mind this. What's the point of having a $12 Billion aircraft carrier if a Chinese hacker can hack it? Or having a $700 Billion a year military if a kid with telnet can hack your power grid? I mean to say that war has been shifted to computer networks and we need to be ready. I just think it can be done without tracing all the phone calls my aunt makes.
- ryusage 13y agoI think that's part of Schneier's point though. This spending seems to be primarily on cyber "weapons", not cyber "shields". We DO need to spend money on making our networks more secure and redundant. But instead of that, we seem to just be taking more of a MAD-style first strike approach to things. Glass cannons, essentially.
- epochwolf 13y agoCold War 2.0
- tankbot 13y agoMy thoughts exactly while reading the article. I also wondered if allegations against Huawei were falsified (assuming they were) not because they posed a security threat from the Chinese government, but because they would make it more difficult for U.S. surveillance programs.
- anigbrowl 13y agoDistinctly preferable to Hot War 3.0 if you ask me.
- nitrogen 13y agoIf you're forced to choose between a bullet in the head and one in the foot, you'll choose the foot almost every time. But why are those the only two choices?
- mseepgood 13y agoSome facts about Bruce Schneier http://www.schneierfacts.com http://www.schneierfacts.com
- contingencies 13y agoIncredible. Bruce has been put on a pedestal by the security community for far too long, these dirty secrets definitely need to be aired.
- mikegioia 13y agoI laughed for far too long at this picture: http://www.schneierfacts.com/images/bruce-schneier-4.jpg http://www.schneierfacts.com/images/bruce-schneier-4.jpg
- DanielBMarkham 13y agoRelated blog post from awhile back: http://freedom-or-safety.com/blog/when-will-the-first-hacker-be-killed/ http://freedom-or-safety.com/blog/when-will-the-first-hacker... This is tricky business. It is not so clear where the boundaries are. Sidebar: anybody who writes a lot will understand the feeling you get when, after writing an article, you suddenly understand a topic in a way that you did not before putting your thoughts together. One of the things I got from my article that I didn't expect was that, whatever else they are, computers are weapons. Weird concept.
- anigbrowl 13y agoYou know the earliest digital computers were developed for the purpose of doing ballistics calculations during WW2, right? Of course, that doesn't make them weapons, any more than math is a weapon or maps are a weapon, despite their long utility in military contexts.
- DanielBMarkham 13y agoI think you're generalizing a bit much. Yes, computers were originally used for ballistic calculations, code-breaking, even. What's different now is that virtually every computer is connected to a world-wide network which is connected to physical things. That means you're no longer having a special-purpose computer assisting a specialized weapon. Instead you've opened up all sorts of mayhem and damage to anybody with a smartphone. An axe is also a weapon, but it's also the best thing we have to cut wood. Computers are moving into a similar role: things that have practical value which can also be very deadly. And any computer, with the right program/operator can inflict far more damage than an axe.
- Vivtek 13y agoDude, everything is a weapon. Your brain is a weapon. Water is a weapon. Weaponness is not in the thing; it's in the intent of the wielder.
- albertyw 13y agoIt's MAD 2.0
- JulianMorrison 13y agoCorporations are people, assassin drones make war, the military has stockpiled cyber weapons… when did the real world turn into Shadowrun? And can we please get dragons and elves out the deal?
- jessaustin 13y agoThis is a reasonable thesis (and it seems the hits just keep on coming from Snowden), but parts of the exposition ring a bit false. If these people are really capable of total observation of all traffic through a random router in Beijing, how is it that they've missed all the APT stuff? We've been told that we had to basically throw out some components of the new stealth planes and start the design over because Chinese hacking. This seems like an adversary that would be vulnerable to the capabilities described here. If they simply didn't think stealth fighter designs were worth protecting, then yes I think Schneier is correct that they need to think a bit more defensively.
- Vivtek 13y ago"We've been told..." Yes. Yes, we have.
- Vivtek 13y agoI'm not entirely sure that this is what has me worried. The government should be using the same tools I could rent from Russian botnet owners and a geolocation service. What has me scared is that the people directing this don't actually understand it all. They don't understand Big Data analysis and why that requires all the phone records. They don't understand how boring a concept geolocation is, or in fact how boring a database of possible attack vectors is. It's all magic - magic they can control if they just pass another law abolishing some silly, antiquated civil rights that only pertained in the age of musketry.
- bborud 13y agoIf so, then the US has fired the first shot and hit...its foot.
- wallio 13y agoIs all this secrecy just "security through obscurity" which is well know to be unreliable. In other words, would we be better off just letting everyone (citizens and enemies) know exactly what you are doing (e.g. tapping phones or not)? The benefits are certain but the costs are uncertain.
- doctorstupid 13y agoA quote from the leaked document: "Malicious Cyber Activity: Activities, other than those authorized by or in accordance with U.S. law, that seek to compromise or impair..." It's a nice way to render the U.S. incapable of being malicious.
- sneak 13y agoThey've probably not started a war. I honestly believe it takes a bit more than that. (Admittedly, they should not be doing stuff in the category of "might start a war" without the knowledge/consent of the general public.) However, this whole "foreign entity" business did just start them a domestic war - with the entire US internet industry, which they have just entirely thrown under the bus with regards to their foreign customers (which, it is worth pointing out, outnumber their US customers by a sizable multiple).
- RyanMcGreal 13y agoIn the embedded video, I quite enjoy the barely-masked contempt in Greenwald's face when he answers the interviewer's last question.
- adventured 13y agoI'd argue that China started the war, and the US is going to escalate it. At least a decade before the US had an organized plan for fighting a digital war, China had organized, very large, and very effective hacking efforts underway targeting the US government and US companies.
- serverhorror 13y agoStarted? Not so much (I think)...rather made some stupid decisions so that it went public. To me the real question is: Who is fighting (nationalities, companies, individuals)? AND: Are the combatants attacking who they think are their targets or just some enemy so that we are entering a circle where informational warfare is simply being carried out for the sake of being able to do it? I can imagine one party going for another when indeed they have the same goals...