This one baffles me. Can someone explain why this is a good idea?

[carlimac]

Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks | World news | guardian.co.uk

[Mahone]

As the article states, the US have been doing this for some time already, in conjuction with Israel. The stuxnet virus is probably the most well known, along with its (far more superior and complex) successor, flame. Both of these were primarily targeted at Iran.

Stuxnet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flame (malware) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mahone]

As an aside, I was in an IT security conference a few weeks back, and I was quite surprised to see that while China was top of the list for the source of cyber attacks (government and non-government), the USA was second, with Russia in third place. Between the three of them, they are responsible for 50% of the attack traffic on the internet.

[annewandering]

Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks | World news | guardian.co.uk

Sure. If we have a list of targets we can use the attacks more efficiently by prioritizing. Or were you asking if we should do this at all?

Think about this. If you use a cyber attack at an enemy how many people die? Now if you use a high powered bomb how many will die? Secondly, if you use a cyber attack is there collateral damage? Is the target very narrow and specified as to purpose? Is it cheaper,more expensive or more accurate to cyber attack prime targets or with bombs?

I like the idea actually. As a side benefit we keep our knowledge on the cutting edge to defend ourselves from similar attacks. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

I actually say "good on Obama" (yes, you read me right) for this one. If what I'm hearing is right we're getting our clock cleaned in the issue of cyber security; and it's about time we started hitting back IMHO.

[yjacket]

I actually say "good on Obama" (yes, you read me right) for this one. If what I'm hearing is right we're getting our clock cleaned in the issue of cyber security; and it's about time we started hitting back IMHO.

I disagree. This is a very perilous road to go down. Who is we and how are we getting our "clock cleaned"?

Think about this. If you use a cyber attack at an enemy how many people die? Now if you use a high powered bomb how many will die? Secondly, if you use a cyber attack is there collateral damage? Is the target very narrow and specified as to purpose? Is it cheaper,more expensive or more accurate to cyber attack prime targets or with bombs?

I like the idea actually. As a side benefit we keep our knowledge on the cutting edge to defend ourselves from similar attacks.

It depends. Maybe we don't kill people we just destroy their livelihood; What Russia did to Georgia before they attacked is just the tip of the iceburg. What about a massive DoS to something like BitCoin or a stock exchange market.

In some ways it is worse. In a direct attack, only the location close to the bomb are directly affected. Think if the US launched a cyber attack on Russia's banking system. Now you have the potential to disrupt the livelihood of every person in Russia rather than just the military infrastructure.

Having the US government directly attack another countries internet infrastructure could be an act of War. Not only that, but now the US has the ability to launch highly disruptive, highly secretive wars against other countries, without Congressional oversight? And this is a good thing?

This worldly tit-for-tat mentality that US culture has must stop or it ends very, very poorly.

Most viruses come from either State actors or crime syndicates.

So the next time one gets a virus, stop and think for a minute . . . did this virus just come from my own government??

[carlimac]

I agree with yjacket. Without knowing why exactly, it seems below our standards- dirty and juvenile.

[Blackmarch]

I disagree. This is a very perilous road to go down. Who is we and how are we getting our "clock cleaned"?

It depends. Maybe we don't kill people we just destroy their livelihood; What Russia did to Georgia before they attacked is just the tip of the iceburg. What about a massive DoS to something like BitCoin or a stock exchange market.

In some ways it is worse. In a direct attack, only the location close to the bomb are directly affected. Think if the US launched a cyber attack on Russia's banking system. Now you have the potential to disrupt the livelihood of every person in Russia rather than just the military infrastructure.

Having the US government directly attack another countries internet infrastructure could be an act of War. Not only that, but now the US has the ability to launch highly disruptive, highly secretive wars against other countries, without Congressional oversight? And this is a good thing?

This worldly tit-for-tat mentality that US culture has must stop or it ends very, very poorly.

Most viruses come from either State actors or crime syndicates.

So the next time one gets a virus, stop and think for a minute . . . did this virus just come from my own government??

Cyber warfare has been happening for a while now.. and I think that the US needs to get more aggressive in response cyber attacks. that being said, the target US citizens clause mentioned in the article I do not like.

All major corporations in the US have been hit, IP theft is very very huge.

Not to mention all the military related compromises we've had over the last decade.....

[Mahone]

For those that mention the US "retaliating" in some shape or form: what makes you so sure it's a retaliation? We know the US Government have been on the offensive with this in the past, and we know they are now too. There is little to no evidence to suggest they weren't on the offensive to begin with - with an awful lot of technology giants based in the states and having to answer to the US government, they have many more opportunities to break into an opposing governments systems than vice versa. It could well be countries like China that have since been retaliating.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Mahone

[yjacket]

Cyber warfare has been happening for a while now.. and I think that the US needs to get more aggressive in response cyber attacks. that being said, the target US citizens clause mentioned in the article I do not like.

All major corporations in the US have been hit, IP theft is very very huge.

Not to mention all the military related compromises we've had over the last decade.....

More aggressive??

Oh you mean the US should retaliate for stuff like this?

Iran Wages Cyber War Against US Banks and Arab Energy Firms

But of course if I was Iranian I would say that before this that Iran should retaliate to the US for this:

Stuxnet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

&

U.S. sanctions against Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which hit Iranian Banks.

Which of course was because Iran is supposedly developing Nuclear Weapons. But of course if I were Iranian I would say that Iran should develop nuclear weapons because of the Iraq and Afghan wars. Which of course in the US was necessary because Iraq was developing WMD, but if I were Iraqi I'd say that of course Iraq should be developing WMD to protect my country . . . . and on and on and on we go. So who is retaliating against who?

And why is the US government's responsibility to protect major corporations from IP theft? Is it the US government's responsibility to protect you from car theft?

The merrygoround never ends, the US nationalistic culture is very similar to the Nephites and Laminates at the end of the BoM. They attack each other because the other side attacked them and they keep retaliating until it is unimportant who did what, it is only important that one is a Nephite and one is a Lamanite and therefore the opposing side is an enemy that must suffer for whatever grievous crimes he supposedly committed.

It is slightly different as today the US enemies are Iran, yesterday it was Iraq and 20 years ago Iraq was a friend (see Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam), funding them against Iran . . .

Cyber warfare is as much an act of war as economic warfare is (i.e. embargo) and a Country would be justified in launching a military war against a country who attacked them through economic or cyber warfare.

Of course because it's a cyber war-and secret, the public (the ultimate arbitrator on when a war should or should not be declared) is completely unaware of when we are attacking other Nations.

And we should be more aggressive??

I personally think we as a culture have become too detached from reality; we do not understand nor contemplate the full consequences of our decisions and actions. We declare war on another country who did not attack us and we go about our merry lives. Very, very few of us have really seen the cost of war, from a hundreds of thousands of dead Sons and Daughters of God to the thousands of battered and bruised veterans. We declare economic war on a country and ignore the human suffering and costs that occurs. We declare cyber war on a country and ignore the suffering that it causes. Not to mention the massive amount of resources that the US spends on carrying out such tasks.

We believe that because we are in the most blessed nation on earth that it makes us right; every other country is wrong if we say so b/c might makes right and God has blessed us. And a pox on all the other heathen nations.

The older I grow the more convinced I become that one of the major roots of conflict in this world is a lack of communication and an inability to see things from another person's perspective. This applies to marriages, children, families, communities, politics, and nations.

The above doesn't mean that we should never go to war, it just means the bar has to be exceptionally high for warfare (of any type) to occur. I have seen very little in the past 13 years (except 9/11=afghan) that justifies the massive amount of warfare the US has been engaged in.