3 ms·

I'd argue that the intention for that is to protect against using military equipment against civilians. (which is already being done in some cases, MRAPs, autom

by dm2 12y ago

I'd argue that the intention for that is to protect against using military equipment against civilians. (which is already being done in some cases, MRAPs, automatic weapons, body armor, SAMs) Using the military to protect from foreign attacks is exactly what it's suppose to be used for. What's the harm of protecting US govt employees and even civilians and businesses from internet attacks with agencies that are technically part of a military branch? I'm not saying send troops after anyone, if someone within the US hacks something, either pass it to the FBI or just fix the security hole and move on. From the page you linked to: "Active participation in civilian law enforcement, such as making arrests, is deemed to be a violation of the Act, while taking a passive supporting role is not. Passive support has often taken the form of logistical support to civilian police agencies." So basically that doesn't apply to internet and telecommunications protection. I'm not suggestion that USCyberCom hacks US citizens or businesses, but they possess the capabilities to help protect them which in turn strengthens their own security.

Someone1234 12y ago
The way Cyber Command operates is quite offensive (e.g. attacking servers used by "enemy" "combatants"). The NSA's job is to secure US systems, the Cyber Command's job is to go attack foreign country's systems. There is definitely some overlap there (particularly with cyber Command working to improve DoD security). I'd say that ultimately the NSA has a far bigger/better legal right to be doing that kind of thing than the Cyber Command does (and also the law wouldn't be super-clear-cut if the Cyber Command had to attack a US-hosted server, network, or client). Or to use a really bad analogy: You could have the US Army defend Washington DC instead of the Capitol Police, however most would be more comfortable with the Capitol Police and there are far less potential legal hurdles also. Everything is fine if all the US Army did all day was stand outside of buildings, but as soon as they literally have to shoot someone all hell is going to break lose (or in our case as soon as Cyber Command had to act in an offensive way against a US company, citizen, or similar).
- dm2 12y ago
  From the wikipedia article on USCYBERCOM: "In July 2011 Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn announced in a conference that “We have, within Cyber Command, a full spectrum of capabilities, but the thrust of the strategy is defensive.” “The strategy rests on five pillars, he said: treat cyber as a domain; employ more active defenses; support the Department of Homeland Security in protecting critical infrastructure networks; practice collective defense with allies and international partners; and reduce the advantages attackers have on the Internet.”" Their directors have emphasized that while it will have extensive attack capabilities that it will also provide support to all departments to help strengthen system security across the board. Banks, hospitals, government departments not relating to the military, utilities (power/water), are all critical to the nation and we must use every asset we have to protect them. I'd argue that any analogy involving armed soldiers or deadly equipment is very different from defensive cyber warfare. Cyber Command should NEVER act offensively against a US company or citizens, no government organization should in my opinion unless a similar level of physical violence is threatened or preformed by those citizens. If I was in charge I would allow all US citizens to attack US government systems as long as they responsibly disclose the security vulnerabilities and do not distribute any stolen information (and as long as they don't cause a service interruption), without fear of prosecution.
- lawnchair_larry 12y ago
  "The NSA's job is to secure US systems, the Cyber Command's job is to go attack foreign country's systems." Well we know that is not true. NSA is almost entirely offense.

by dm2 12y ago

Someone1234 12y ago

The way Cyber Command operates is quite offensive (e.g. attacking servers used by "enemy" "combatants"). The NSA's job is to secure US systems, the Cyber Command's job is to go attack foreign country's systems. There is definitely some overlap there (particularly with cyber Command working to improve DoD security). I'd say that ultimately the NSA has a far bigger/better legal right to be doing that kind of thing than the Cyber Command does (and also the law wouldn't be super-clear-cut if the Cyber Command had to attack a US-hosted server, network, or client). Or to use a really bad analogy: You could have the US Army defend Washington DC instead of the Capitol Police, however most would be more comfortable with the Capitol Police and there are far less potential legal hurdles also. Everything is fine if all the US Army did all day was stand outside of buildings, but as soon as they literally have to shoot someone all hell is going to break lose (or in our case as soon as Cyber Command had to act in an offensive way against a US company, citizen, or similar).

dm2 12y ago
From the wikipedia article on USCYBERCOM: "In July 2011 Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn announced in a conference that “We have, within Cyber Command, a full spectrum of capabilities, but the thrust of the strategy is defensive.” “The strategy rests on five pillars, he said: treat cyber as a domain; employ more active defenses; support the Department of Homeland Security in protecting critical infrastructure networks; practice collective defense with allies and international partners; and reduce the advantages attackers have on the Internet.”" Their directors have emphasized that while it will have extensive attack capabilities that it will also provide support to all departments to help strengthen system security across the board. Banks, hospitals, government departments not relating to the military, utilities (power/water), are all critical to the nation and we must use every asset we have to protect them. I'd argue that any analogy involving armed soldiers or deadly equipment is very different from defensive cyber warfare. Cyber Command should NEVER act offensively against a US company or citizens, no government organization should in my opinion unless a similar level of physical violence is threatened or preformed by those citizens. If I was in charge I would allow all US citizens to attack US government systems as long as they responsibly disclose the security vulnerabilities and do not distribute any stolen information (and as long as they don't cause a service interruption), without fear of prosecution.
lawnchair_larry 12y ago
"The NSA's job is to secure US systems, the Cyber Command's job is to go attack foreign country's systems." Well we know that is not true. NSA is almost entirely offense.