12 replies to this topic

[Ash-Bash]

Well this is an article that caught my eye.

Quote

The head of America's National Security Agency says that America needs to build a digital warfare force for the future, according to reports.
Lt Gen Keith Alexander, who also heads the Pentagon's new Cyber Command, outlined his views in a report for the House Armed Services subcommittee.
In it, he stated that the US needed to reorganise its offensive and defensive cyber operations.
The general also said more resources and training were needed.
The report, part of which was outlined in an Associated Press news agency story, is due to be presented to the subcommittee on Tuesday.
During the past six months, the Pentagon spent more than £67m ($100m) responding to and repairing damage from cyber attacks and other network problems.
Gen Keith Alexander's new department, to be based in Fort Meade in Maryland, will be part of the US Strategic Command - currently responsible for securing the US military's networks - and will work alongside the US Department of Homeland Security.
It is thought the new department would open in October and be at full strength in 2010.

Lag
A separate document, from the US Air Force's chief information officer Lt Gen William Shelton, said the US relies heavily on industry efforts to respond to cyber threats which, he says, "does not keep pace with the threat".

The submissions for the House Armed Services subcommittee comes a few days after the National Research Council - part of the United States National Academy of Sciences - said that current US policies on cyber warfare are "ill-formed, lack adequate oversight and require a broad public debate".

The report went on to say that the "undeveloped and uncertain nature" of the US governments cyber warfare policies could lead to them being misused in a possible crisis.
The US administration is currently nearing the end of a 60 day review on cyber-security ordered by President Obama.

What do you think about this? I think it is a waste of money and that the US need to spent it on something else other than that.

Notice from jlhaslip:

Added quote tags. You know better than to quote outside articles without them.
Also, supply a link. http://www.trap17.com/forums/redirect.php?...26btnG%3DSearch

Edited by jlhaslip, 05 May 2009 - 01:46 PM.

[rayzoredge]

You forgot your quotes and, FYI for others, this article is from the BBC (amongst other sources).

Ash-Bash, on May 5 2009, 08:57 AM, said:

During the past six months, the Pentagon spent more than £67m ($100m) responding to and repairing damage from cyber attacks and other network problems.

What do you think about this? I think it is a waste of money and that the US need to spent it on something else other than that.

You also answered your own question with the article. Why would it be a waste of money to invest in cyber security and a possible cyber attack force when we're wasting money cleaning up the mess that we could have prevented in the first place, not to mention that if it damages us in this way, why does it seem like a waste of an investment when we can cause the same grief to others?

[freeflashclocks]

I understand that many forget to quote the necessary copyrighted content from sources, and to also refer the same sources, but it is a rule to quote it, not to provide the source, and i understand you could have missed it, nobody is perfect.

I completely understand your point of view, governments, and specially the united states of america government should applie the contributers money more correctly, better distributed i mean, but they are also not perfect, they are people too, and lets not forget, before we blame it for the bad that happens in our societies, that the people ellected the united states government, so it is fair to say that we should all assume our guilt, and we must all contribute to make a better place we live in.

So, we should create cyber cops of course, but it is not a prime goal for the united states of amercia right now, there are more important things to do with the united states of america contributers, and i agree with you, while they should talk about it and organize things up, there are much more subjects that require the complete government atention, like war (preventing, and preventing it in the world, as america government reclame themselfs to be the police world and responsible to fight for the humans rights and all that), famine, homless persons in the streets, and a couple of more very important subjects that really do need the contributers money which is pretty much almost all the money the government has and gets everyday, except of course from sources not known by the public.

I understand what rayzoredge says, it is a good investment to prevent certain things from happening in the cyber/virtual world, but the investment could also be pointless because lets face one thing, with an example, the police in the streets does not prevent the fact that there are murderers, rapes, robbers on the streets now do they? So this is not of true importance to the united states citizens nor to the internet users world wide, that is my opinion of course anyway.

[webishqiptar]

I heard about his some hours ago. Pentagon spent over 100 million$ to repair cyber attacks. Well If everything is going to based on net applications imagine what could happen if attacks happen. Imagine the Net world war could happen. Well I think they do well, that spent money on this critical issue.

[rayzoredge]

My bad on the source rule... I don't think it's a rule, but it's a courtesy and rule of thumb to let people know where you're getting your information from. It definitely prevents the asking of "Who told you the world was flat?" before you make the announcement. I'm not sure about everyone else, but I don't believe everything I read, and you can even bring up the fact that even if there were multiple sources, who's to say that they are credible or even correct?

Anyway, to get back on topic...

The law enforcement analogy is very nicely applied here, but it's very much like saying that if I have XYZ anti-malware software, does that mean that I won't have any malware anymore? Will the threat disappear? Or will there be a deterrent, which is what most things exist to be nowadays? With the invention of locks, do we have absolute security or just a deterrent towards burglars who could have just walked right in? With a cyber task force, will there be increased security to monitor and/or decrease the chances of a successful cyber attack on the United States? You may say that this seems rather unnecessary, but with the status quo on electronics and how everything is becoming "smart," along with the fact that the U.S. smart power grid was just infiltrated, I think that we really should invest some time and effort into creating some sort of security measure to, at the very least, discourage others from delving into our cyber world and wreaking havoc.

Think of the fact that if you didn't have any electronic security measures for any of your equipment, you would be vulnerable to cyber attack. Hackers would be able to get into your power grid and shut everything off that you own just by tweaking the feed, which would then leave us rather helpless as we are so dependent on our electronics. (Think about how a power outage feels and what tolls it may take on your lifestyle, temporarily or even permanently.) Hackers could get into a government database and steal identity data, to include social security numbers, addresses, phone numbers, and everything else. And of course, whatever you would have access to, you would be able to change...

Yes, we have a ton of issues that may warrant more or less attention... but I'm sure that cyber security can be a viable priority in terms of establishment. Look at how dependent the world, let alone the United States, is with technology.

[rayzoredge]

This is where I step in and throw a bit of politics into this matter... as much as I'd hate to.

A lot of people take one look at something and make an on-the-spot judgment, and for the most part, they don't stop to think about the grand scheme of things. You and I understand the importance of cyber security and why the government would make such a step. You also bring up outstanding points that we should all heed, and in all reality, pay more attention and effort in rectifying issues that affect our daily lives, to include the less fortunate. But that's why I pointed out that the security increase would benefit most if not everyone in the United States by providing the example of the possibility of a hacked smart power grid and the complications it would cause to just about everyone with a home and access to electricity.

But some people don't even have homes, and there are the hungry, the poor, the bit of the populace that we need to extend a hand to help keep them afloat. But there lies the political part of this argument. The United States flourishes on the idea of capitalism: basically, you are what you become. If you start out poor, you have the opportunity to make your riches IF you are proactive and make your own fortunes. If you're born into a rich family, you could possibly be spoiled and make wrong choices in the long run to put you into the poor house. Of course, there's the concept of welfare, social security, and government assistance to help those in need, but not everyone gets it because of the stringent regulations, rules, and eligibility requirements, not to mention that the ones who abuse the privilege bring down the system and thus tack on more debt that our government can't realistically afford.

And that's just trying to take care of our own, but then the United States has to venture forth and play the good guy and try to spread democracy all over the place (because it's apparently the way to go), feed the hungry in other countries, and basically police the world. When the US gives money that it doesn't have to other countries to try to help with famine and civil projects to make that country a "better" place, the governments there take it and spend that money on whatever else... with a residual amount actually going to what the funds were meant for in the first place. Do governments really deal with economic resources as efficiently as they should, distribute resources downward as they should, and do the end-users even see the resources at all? Are people that honest?

With all that being said, and with your stance on trying to help everyone out, it's kind of hard to be able to do that and still retain the principle that everyone should carve his or her own path. Yes, some people are born with a handicap on life when they start out in the lower classes, but that doesn't stop them from trying. And then there are people who do try, but the government regulations for assistance screw them out of those opportunities (not intentionally, but indirectly with the same eligibility requirements that make it hard to receive government assistance in the first place). (Take a look at the "middle" class.)

Everyone gets mad when others receive help and you're left wondering why you had to hurdle all this way when people on welfare earn as much as you doing absolutely nothing while you're chugging away at bills with your job as a cashier at the grocery store, actually working and being proactive. It stinks when everyone else seems to get the easy breaks while you get screwed by the system because you, being a capitalist, ground at the gears to get where you are now only to realize that Joe Schmoe got a break on something the government could give him because he "needed" assistance. Do I dare mention that people are starving and homeless here in the United States, yet we're pouring money into assisting other countries in a state of "goodwill" to increase global reputability?

Sure, we should be helping others out. Our administration now is being scrutinized and criticized as being socialistic because Obama is doing the good thing: taking care of our own. We already have stories of our presidents making it possible that homeless people ARE getting homes. I've even heard that there is assistance where you can default your mortgage payments on your existing home and the government will pick up the tab if you "can't" pay for it. And I would love it if the government could provide everyone a shelter, food, and the basic essentials. But who pays for it?

The government pays for it. But how does the government get that money. Us. All of us through taxes. And I think it's funny when Shawn Hannity does his gig on the streets, asking people who voted to see if they even have a d*mn clue as to what's going on in the world and how things work. Some of the college folk he asks are for socialistic ideals, but once confronted with being a socialist, they are quick to deny because socialism is considered bad to Americans. The simple truth is that we can't afford to take care of our own, and it sucks. On a political point of view, it's nice to be able to do everything, but it's not economically viable. And that's why our country seems (IMO) to be at a standstill, because liberal views are countered by conservative points.

Edited by rayzoredge, 06 May 2009 - 08:02 PM.

[freeflashclocks]

I understand your point of view, it is logic, and if the government in fact considers it a priority, i would not try to stop by any means, though i know that if you or i were living on the streets (like many do), if you and i needed a work (which many do not, and it is increasing), if you and i were in a country, like pretty much all the countries in africa, that needed help from the other continents, the rich ones of course, rich countries like USA, GERMANY, ENGLAND, FRANCE, et cetera, if you and i needed food for ourselfs and for our family (like many do not have nor can afford to provide to their family), well, if you saw in subject like this on the news, i am sure you and i would feel anger and revolt for the government/s that do not do a thing for the BIG problems, but they do have time to protect a luxury, yes a luxury because internet is a luxury for most of its users, lets face and admit that much.

Now, facing it is a luxury, and that there are very big problems to solve, untill all persons have a home, food and all normal things a human beeing has the right to have despite whatever you might say or i, even an assassin in its death road has the right to food, a roof, closes and a lot more.

We are talking about protecting what it is already protected as it can be, we all know that hackers will be one step ahead always, databases are going to be hacked always and forever no matter what, and those social security numbers and other personal public/private data are illegaly accessed all the time by hackers, and i beleave that are also accessed by the government services without our knowledge and agreement, so if you ask me who is the biggest hacker, i would say the government services for sure.

Of course i see the importance of preventing security breaches, the importance to protect the privacy of the people, of companies, of countries and so forth, but untill the big problems are solved, all the contributers money should be applied to resolve, once and for all, the real life problems, and when a reasonable solution is in place and effective, then money should be applied in this matters, i am all afford that, but not sooner.

[freeflashclocks]

I just think that the world has gone completely up side down, really completely, here we are talking about securing database data, and cyber infrastructures as well as industrial ones, when governments do not unite to resolve the main problems, i am afford country governments spending money on critical issues like this one, but in my point of view, it can not be compared with the problems i refered in my latest replies, those problems i truly beleave to be critical in comparison.

If tomorrow, a very big incident happens to our planet, and governments need to then unite to provide the basic needs to people, caused by this hipothetical incident (like the nature critical problems, which are also ignored by the united states of america government, and pretty much by all country governments), then if that happens, people will have to unite to resolve their common problem/problems caused by it (i am sure you know the consequences of a nature disaster, really a big disaster, caused by polution and other factors), i guess you understand what i mean.

Only in the worst situation, people help each other, even so it is hard to happen!!!

If i had the power, i would first apply money for what i beleave it is really critical, critical to our own future, to our future generations (our sons), and i just talked a few of the really main problems i am aware of, but i am sure that, pretty soon, the world/planet will suffer consequences for the peoples negligence to our planet and to each other, you know that it is just a matter of time till our doom, caused by our selfs as you also know.

Edited by freeflashclocks, 08 May 2009 - 06:46 PM.

[rayzoredge]

Just another case-in-point as to how this "lesser" issue should get as much focus as other issues.

I'm personally not so much worried about the identity theft portion... but the fact that an air traffic control system was broken into for data. What's next... actually relaying orders so that planes are directed in ways where they would crash into each other? Maybe try to land on a runway that's not exactly clear? I'll let you think about that one for a bit...

Anything can be broken into regardless of security measures implemented, but those measures should deter and slow down potential cyber attacks if not prevent them.

[freeflashclocks]

Lets make one thing clear, if it is not already, this discussion were are having is no more then a discussion, there is no need to take things personal, too personal i mean, so now that is out of the way, let me tell you my true insight about it all.

I already told you that i consider this to be a critical issue, obviously because we already, as private persons and independent states (countries, i speak for my own country of course) have sensitive data on databases/computers/networks, and so it is more then evident that it must be protected because it must not fall in the wrong hands, for example, in the hands of our own enemies, and the same vary between persons, groups, ethnies, companies of any corporate size, country governments, and countries.

But my point is that we can not go back now, but if i could (using my own perspective, beleaves and my own politics/ideals), i would change many things, and i would apply my recources to resolve the problems that i do consider to be most critical, because the difference is that you may consider one thing and i another completely different, who is right, does not matter really, only who has the power and influence to manipulate people, companies and governments/countries, can really do what is right or wrong, i give you an example of such powerful entities, the president of the united states.

But what did the president of the united states did concerning the what i consider the most important, crucial and crticial issues, nothing, he went in to war as you know, as his father did, for what, money/oil.

What about the real problems, and with this list, i present you what i beleave are the real and big problems:

. Nature problems (ozone dissapearing, icebergs melting, et cetera ... ... ...)

. Undreds of thousands of nuclear bombs and facilities all over the USA, Russia, europe (Must be dismantled as they are beeing, but there are still too much, and a tragedy could occur in the future, it is a reality)

. Femine (millions of persons are dying because they have no food, and this happens mainly in africa, a continent highly used by USA and Europe because of its natural resources, like precious stones, and much more then that as you might know), but it happens in many other countries in other continents.

. Homeless people, undreds of millions do not have a home to live in, nor food, nor baisc rights as you and i have, internet or computer databases are alien toys for them, they precious food and a roof to protect them from terrorists on their own country as well as wild animals. Homeless people is not a third world country problem, it is a critical issue in USA, EUROPE AND ASIA, as you should know.

This critical issues/problems do not stop there, they cause other problems to happen, it is a repeating circle, just like the weather functions in our planet (if you know how the weather works, you know what i mean).

That circle must be stoped, and the most rich countries MUST HELP THEM, obviously at the same time we hlep our ownn people with related and equal problems.

If you say that securing databases with sensitive data is important, as i also do but not that much, then imagine how important is to help this people with this problems, if you did not know, i tell you, they are, right now, in the final stage of their lifes, suffering like hell, with no food, roof, clothes, and the nature that we are poluting ad destroying, it is going to take "revenge" from us.

People are suffering right now, if i had money to spend, i would spend all on stop the suffering of those people, not in securing databases in objects, people is more important then that for me.

.