9 ms·

> sanction "individuals or entities" that pose a cyber threat to the "national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United

by cooked 12y ago

> sanction "individuals or entities" that pose a cyber threat to the "national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States," If you detangle the weasel words, this is basically "emergency executive powers to do whatever we want to people we don't like, as long as we can tie it back to the internet". Combined with the existing surveillance dragnet, that's horrifying.

nickysielicki 12y ago
2015 seems to be the year for multi-national globalization to really kick into gear. TPP, this, what's next?
tekacs 12y ago
Speaking of those words, it's worth noting that those points (national security, foreign policy, economic health/financial stability) are the same that GCHQ [is charged][1] to protect (I'd cite NSA, but I'm not familiar with where to find a list of their responsibilities). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCHQ#Legal_basis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCHQ#Legal_basis
bstar77 12y ago
It's sad that this is the exact same conclusion I came to. I have zero confidence that executive powers like this won't somehow be abused to target Americans that pose no threat to national security.
- balabaster 12y ago
  I think "zero confidence" underplays it. The U.S. Government has a history of abusing their executive powers. Given their past behavior and not only a complete absence of remorse, but proactive justification of their abuses, it seems as though abuse of those powers is almost a foregone conclusion.
  - tljr 12y ago
    The cliche's were right all along. It does corrupt absolutely.
GabrielF00 12y ago
No, it doesn't mean that the executive branch can do "whatever [it] wants", it means that the executive branch can seize US assets from certain people outside the US or prevent them from accessing the US financial system. That's a lot of power, but it isn't unlimited power.
- stefantalpalaru 12y ago
  > it means that the executive branch can seize US assets from certain people outside the US or prevent them from accessing the US financial system You must be new to this brave new world. In 2012 the US seized $26000 from a Danish businessman while being transfered to a German bank within an electronic banking system that the US is not a part of (SWIFT): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT#US_control_over_transactions_within_the_European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT#US_control_over_transacti...
  - balabaster 12y ago
    8-| I hadn't come across this one before. I can't honestly believe they could have gotten away with that. They're enforcing an embargo under U.S. Law on finance being transferred between two countries that they have no jurisdiction in? That's er... I can't even come up with a word to describe that audacity.
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      It is too bad Europe does not have the guts to stand up for itself.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- fweespeech 12y ago
  It can seize assets from any foreign national based on the standards of evidence they've used in the past to declare someone a "hacker". Under the CFAA, accessing a web page as an unauthorized person would probably be justification enough.
borgia 12y ago
>Combined with the existing surveillance dragnet, that's horrifying. The cruel creep of tyranny. "Cyber-terrorism" is the new bogeyman, or the new "terrorism" but instead of using a real catastrophe like 9/11, the incident they're going to use to justify this is a "hack" on Sony pictures with probably the weakest links to North Korea that could be? There was no proof issued that North Korea were behind that attack. All the evidence that came out of it made it look as though they almost certainly were not behind it. So instead we're just going to repeat it as fact until it's accepted as true? This is horrifying but it's just another turd thrown onto the pile of horrifying things the powers in the US are doing now. Without even touching the USA's utterly toxic foreign policy: - NSA mass surveillance that has eroded everyone's privacy on any communication device they may own, stomping on their own people's 4th Amendment rights in doing so. - NSA lying barefaced to congress and facing no punishment - CIA overthrowing or attempting to overthrow governments in sovereign countries who aren't explicitly under the thumb of the USA, throwing these countries into disarray - CIA torturing untried suspects in the most brutal ways that we've seen in modern times. - CIA arming and training "rebels" abroad who've went on to cause absolute atrocities across the middle east. - Creating a militarized police force in the USA despite violent crimes decreasing year on year. Hell, the NYPD wanted portable, mounted machine guns to deal with protestors! - Supporting a police policy of no-knock raids which have lead to the deaths of an unfortunate number of totally innocent people, over nothing. - Rallied against whistleblowers while at the same time claiming to be working toward transparency and support for whistleblowers. The list just goes on and on.
- tljr 12y ago
  USA--
- themeek 12y ago
  The SONY hack was almost assuredly NK or at the very least NK sympathizers. There are technical reasons (malware fingerprints, servers, tactical similarity to similar operations against SK media outlets). But the best way to link them is to see that the motivation was specifically anti-The Interview. The important emails leaked by the Guardians of Peace (their 'Christmas Gift') show that CEO Lynton, a boardmember of the RAND Corporation, had been discussing with the State Department and RAND Corporation specialist on nuclear deterrence, NK and regime change since June the same year how the film should end and what was most likely to cause instability in NK when CSOs introduced them to the NK population. That is to say The Interview was a 'diplomacy product' of the US government and the NK hacking of SONY was a retaliation for that - and in fact the cyber team retaliating against SONY specifically punishes media outlets for running adversarial messages about the Kim regime. So the story here isn't that NK probably wasn't behind the attack - they probably were. The reason people are so skeptical is that they don't understand why NK would attack SONY, a movie seeming to be too petty a reason. It's easier to see when you read the leaked emails and ascertain that the US government was involved in crafting the film for its purposes. There's a lot of toxic stuff in US foreign policy - and not just US but every nation. We believe in myths about our countries because they perform these actions in covert ways, and propel a lofty image of themselves in public interactions and through the media. The US does some very ugly, dirty stuff. But I take exception with some of the things in your list - specifically the characterization that the CIA's torture is or was somehow the 'most' brutal we've seen in modern times. That's some hyperbole and I think you know it. It may seems like picking on details but there is absolutely more heinous forms of torture (dissolving people in acid, using power tools to remove limbs and digits, etc) practiced at large in other nations. But really the thing I want to leave here is that there is a tragedy at the commons. Torture and rendition, surveillance and propaganda, coups and proxy wars, theft and sabotage - all of these things are alive and well. The US is one of many nations involved in these activities as the planet races to establish water and food security before our planet exhales.
danielweber 12y ago
It's for dealing with foreign parties, and the executive branch has always had a lot of leeway to decide for itself how to handle international relations.

by cooked 12y ago

nickysielicki 12y ago

2015 seems to be the year for multi-national globalization to really kick into gear. TPP, this, what's next?

tekacs 12y ago

Speaking of those words, it's worth noting that those points (national security, foreign policy, economic health/financial stability) are the same that GCHQ [is charged][1] to protect (I'd cite NSA, but I'm not familiar with where to find a list of their responsibilities). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCHQ#Legal_basis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCHQ#Legal_basis

bstar77 12y ago

It's sad that this is the exact same conclusion I came to. I have zero confidence that executive powers like this won't somehow be abused to target Americans that pose no threat to national security.

balabaster 12y ago
I think "zero confidence" underplays it. The U.S. Government has a history of abusing their executive powers. Given their past behavior and not only a complete absence of remorse, but proactive justification of their abuses, it seems as though abuse of those powers is almost a foregone conclusion.
- tljr 12y ago
  The cliche's were right all along. It does corrupt absolutely.

GabrielF00 12y ago

No, it doesn't mean that the executive branch can do "whatever [it] wants", it means that the executive branch can seize US assets from certain people outside the US or prevent them from accessing the US financial system. That's a lot of power, but it isn't unlimited power.

stefantalpalaru 12y ago
> it means that the executive branch can seize US assets from certain people outside the US or prevent them from accessing the US financial system You must be new to this brave new world. In 2012 the US seized $26000 from a Danish businessman while being transfered to a German bank within an electronic banking system that the US is not a part of (SWIFT): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT#US_control_over_transactions_within_the_European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT#US_control_over_transacti...
- balabaster 12y ago
  8-| I hadn't come across this one before. I can't honestly believe they could have gotten away with that. They're enforcing an embargo under U.S. Law on finance being transferred between two countries that they have no jurisdiction in? That's er... I can't even come up with a word to describe that audacity.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    It is too bad Europe does not have the guts to stand up for itself.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
fweespeech 12y ago
It can seize assets from any foreign national based on the standards of evidence they've used in the past to declare someone a "hacker". Under the CFAA, accessing a web page as an unauthorized person would probably be justification enough.

borgia 12y ago

>Combined with the existing surveillance dragnet, that's horrifying. The cruel creep of tyranny. "Cyber-terrorism" is the new bogeyman, or the new "terrorism" but instead of using a real catastrophe like 9/11, the incident they're going to use to justify this is a "hack" on Sony pictures with probably the weakest links to North Korea that could be? There was no proof issued that North Korea were behind that attack. All the evidence that came out of it made it look as though they almost certainly were not behind it. So instead we're just going to repeat it as fact until it's accepted as true? This is horrifying but it's just another turd thrown onto the pile of horrifying things the powers in the US are doing now. Without even touching the USA's utterly toxic foreign policy: - NSA mass surveillance that has eroded everyone's privacy on any communication device they may own, stomping on their own people's 4th Amendment rights in doing so. - NSA lying barefaced to congress and facing no punishment - CIA overthrowing or attempting to overthrow governments in sovereign countries who aren't explicitly under the thumb of the USA, throwing these countries into disarray - CIA torturing untried suspects in the most brutal ways that we've seen in modern times. - CIA arming and training "rebels" abroad who've went on to cause absolute atrocities across the middle east. - Creating a militarized police force in the USA despite violent crimes decreasing year on year. Hell, the NYPD wanted portable, mounted machine guns to deal with protestors! - Supporting a police policy of no-knock raids which have lead to the deaths of an unfortunate number of totally innocent people, over nothing. - Rallied against whistleblowers while at the same time claiming to be working toward transparency and support for whistleblowers. The list just goes on and on.

tljr 12y ago
USA--
themeek 12y ago
The SONY hack was almost assuredly NK or at the very least NK sympathizers. There are technical reasons (malware fingerprints, servers, tactical similarity to similar operations against SK media outlets). But the best way to link them is to see that the motivation was specifically anti-The Interview. The important emails leaked by the Guardians of Peace (their 'Christmas Gift') show that CEO Lynton, a boardmember of the RAND Corporation, had been discussing with the State Department and RAND Corporation specialist on nuclear deterrence, NK and regime change since June the same year how the film should end and what was most likely to cause instability in NK when CSOs introduced them to the NK population. That is to say The Interview was a 'diplomacy product' of the US government and the NK hacking of SONY was a retaliation for that - and in fact the cyber team retaliating against SONY specifically punishes media outlets for running adversarial messages about the Kim regime. So the story here isn't that NK probably wasn't behind the attack - they probably were. The reason people are so skeptical is that they don't understand why NK would attack SONY, a movie seeming to be too petty a reason. It's easier to see when you read the leaked emails and ascertain that the US government was involved in crafting the film for its purposes. There's a lot of toxic stuff in US foreign policy - and not just US but every nation. We believe in myths about our countries because they perform these actions in covert ways, and propel a lofty image of themselves in public interactions and through the media. The US does some very ugly, dirty stuff. But I take exception with some of the things in your list - specifically the characterization that the CIA's torture is or was somehow the 'most' brutal we've seen in modern times. That's some hyperbole and I think you know it. It may seems like picking on details but there is absolutely more heinous forms of torture (dissolving people in acid, using power tools to remove limbs and digits, etc) practiced at large in other nations. But really the thing I want to leave here is that there is a tragedy at the commons. Torture and rendition, surveillance and propaganda, coups and proxy wars, theft and sabotage - all of these things are alive and well. The US is one of many nations involved in these activities as the planet races to establish water and food security before our planet exhales.

danielweber 12y ago

It's for dealing with foreign parties, and the executive branch has always had a lot of leeway to decide for itself how to handle international relations.