Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran 415
diewlasing sends this excerpt from the NY Times:
"From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America's first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program. Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet."
Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Interesting)
So I guess this means we're officially at war with Iran since it was declared that acts of cyberterrorism would be considered acts of war, right?
Re: (Score:2)
So the fact that stuxnet was developed by the US gov is official now ?
So they paid the 2 company to get valid hardware certificate ??
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's not offical. this is just a reporter's opinion sourced from conversations with people whose names he won't reveal at times he won't reveal, who know things that nobody should know. for instance, he details the exact contents of a meeting that consisted of 3 people, president Obama, vice president Biden, and (At the time) CIA director Leon Panetta. For him to have this conversation, it means he has interviewed either the president, the vice president, or Panetta on this. Fat fucking chance.
It's probably true, but no it's no way in hell close to "offical".
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Informative)
I know what happened in a lot of meetings I never personally attended. Participants talk, transcripts are shared, etc. I suspect this info came second or third-hand from the people under Panetta.
Re: (Score:3)
Illustration of the principles of secrecy [youtube.com]
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Informative)
that's exactly why this isn't anything even close to offical. even assuming Panetta told his underlings what "really happened" (which itself sounds a bit dodgy for the director of the freakin CIA), second-hand or third-hand info is suspect as hell.
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Funny)
this isn't anything even close to offical
You waiting for the CIA to issue a formal press release on one of its secret wars? Good luck with that.
The U.S. government is corrupt. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The U.S. government is corrupt. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, every major government in human history. Got it.
Re: (Score:3)
Any government that holds secret wars is extremely corrupt. That taxpayer pays for tinkering that almost always causes more trouble, giving the secret agencies more work and more demands on the taxpayers.
Yeah, damned the government for keeping the actual date and location of D-Day as a state secret </stupid>
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe he got a transcript of the meeting from the Chinese?
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also note that said reporter is trying to sell a new book.
Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power [randomhouse.com], by David E. Sanger. Hardcover on Sale: June 05, 2012.
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this kind of journalism is that we can sit back and say that of course this guy doesn't have the real scoop. But why wouldn't someone high up in Iran not take this to his boss and say "See, they admit it!" The logical followup from Iran is to step up actions, unleash the dogs of war and start preparing to take out Tel Aviv.
Sure it is nice the people in the US are free to come up with stuff like this and "theorize" about it. The problem is that the separation between the journalist and reality may not be quite so apparent to those on the other side of this. This is actually an extremely provocative statement, supposedly from informed sources in the US government. So provocative in fact as to pretty much dare Iran to do something about it.
It doesn't matter that we can laugh and say it is all BS. It might not appear that way in Iran. And it isn't going to be a subject of humor to them, ever.
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:4, Insightful)
The logical followup from Iran is to step up actions, unleash the dogs of war and start preparing to take out Tel Aviv.
This is only a logical followup if Iran thinks they can win. And that's not a war the Iranian regime will survive, because Israel has second-strike capability.
The logical followup from Iran is to harden their defenses, which is what they have been doing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
unleash the dogs of war and start preparing to take out Tel Aviv.
Iran is not seriously considering attacking Tel Aviv. Not now, not any time in the near future. They know exactly what would happen if they attacked Israel. The only possible exception is if they think we are about to attack (in the conventional, air assault and invasion sense, not limited cyberwar) and they are going to get wiped out anyway. They may do some things that seem irrational from our Western perspective, but they are not stupid. Th
Re: (Score:3)
It gets even worse. If this is indeed to be proven bullshit the loons around the world will still repeat it as if it was truth. The number of web pages repeating the fallacy completely dominate the page with the retraction. Hence it becomes a 'truth' that 'everyone knows' and modifies people's behaviour (eg. the loony fringe).
Here is a case study to prove my point. After years of sustained rocket attacks from Gaza on Southern Israel the Israelis launched Operation Cast Lead to stop the menace. The Israel
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, by the way. Would someone please explain it to me why we Americans can have nuclear power and nuclear weapons but other countries can't?
Try this analogy: I have a gun on my hand, not pointing at you. You went around looking for a gun while screaming and whining that I have a gun and I am about to shoot you, so you must have a gun, and point your shiny new toy at me. I don't think 1) that makes me feel secure, simply because I inevitably has a gun first, and 2) people around you feels very sane for you to have a gun, because you are yelling and screaming that you want to hurt me.
that's sums up why american doesn't want someone else to have nuclear weapons. The less nations has it the less likely we are towards planetary destruction.
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:4, Insightful)
New Analogy: There's this tough thug in the neighborhood. He has a LOT of guns. He has used them to kill a LOT of people he disagreed with. Oh, sure, he claims to have a morale imperative to keep the neighborhood safe, but every time he uses his guns there is usually something in it for him too - stuff he can pick up cheap and give to his friends or keep for himself. Oh, many of his friends have a few guns too, but they are all his friends so there is no conflict over the fact that they are all armed - and are the only people who are armed.
Now along comes someone new who decides they want a gun. True, the new arrival is a raving lunatic who is a bully that claims he wants to murder the local Jewish kid - so most people don't feel comfortable with him having a gun either, but that doesn't change the fact that the biggest bully locally is still armed to the teeth and the only one who has ever actually fired a gun at someone and killed them.
I am not comfortable with Iran developing Nuclear Weapons, I am not comfortable with North Korea developing them either. I am not comfortable with the major superpowers like the US, Russia or China having them either. I just know that the bullies in charge are not going to let anyone new into the club, and they aren't going to get rid of their weapons either.
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
"why we Americans can have nuclear power and nuclear weapons but other countries can't?"
1. we have the bombs, so we get to make the rules.
2. it is believed that widely available nuclear weapons in the hands of despots will result in them being used against civilian again.
3. being a superpower is a relative thing, if everyone has the same capabilities then you're no longer a superpower.
I realize 1 and 3 aren't nice, but I assume they enter into the equation. 2 is why your average American voters tends to support our government's attempts to limit access to nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
Look at the destruction and fallout caused the only time nuclear weapons were used. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that they will be used.
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not ever from there, but I want to object to the way the city of Chicago has been turned into political invective. If I said "Everybody from Dallas is a jackass", that would be just plain wrong. But somehow NYC and now Chicago are always fair targets. And if the next Democratic president were from, say, Toledo, then I'm sure suddenly being from the Toledo would be a tremendous mark against him.
I'm pretty certain Mr. Obama did not learn any political tricks from Richard Daley, who died in 1976 and is the only mayor of Chicago most people can name besides the current one. I think it's fair to let the president be defined by his own actions rather than geographic location.
When you refuse, in an argument, to let the other side describe themselves in a term that is neutral and descriptive, you remove yourself from the group of civil and persuadable actors.
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not everyone in Dallas is a jackass, but they are more likely to favor secession, for example. Not every politician in Chicago is corrupt, but they are more likely to be. (Although some might say 'corrupt politician' is a tautology).
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone that's lived in the area his whole life, we all know, and sadly accept, that our politicians are degenerate criminals. The political history of the city and state are an ongoing joke for a reason... we've earned it. I couldn't even guess how many are currently in prison or have done time.
Also, when you say Mayor Daley, most of us think of the more recent Richard M. Daley, who is very much alive and avoided prison (though many of his people didn't).
You can start here and just keep reading down, though there are fun bits before it too...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Daley#Daley_orders_demolition_of_Meigs_Field [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My point is that, if someone thinks the President has done something corrupt, they should definitely point that out. But being a Chicago politician itself is not a crime. Everybody has to be from somewhere. Just discounting entire regions of the country based on identity politics is divisive, it's unhelpful, and it's just lazy thinking.
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that, it absolutely has to be authorized from the big O himself. Specifically, the content of the article is from a book http://www.randomhouse.com/book/202541/confront-and-conceal-by-david-e-sanger [randomhouse.com]
This entire fucking reveal is nothing but a campaign stunt by Obama. What sort of ratfucking moron admits to intelligence ops just for a campaign boost. Oh wait, it's the chicago politician in the white house.
I think you're being a bit of a troll here, but I actually agree with your take on things. The level of detail in the article is really striking, and suggests that the author talked to people who were closely involved in the decision-making process. To release this kind of information about a classified intelligence project without authorization would be a serious breach of security, if not treason. Given that the Obama Administration hasn't made a huge deal about this article, or gone on a witch-hunt looking for the leaker, it seems safe to say that this story was released with the blessing of the White House, and that this was done for political purposes.
As for the political angle, I can think of two possibilities. One is that taking credit for this (the article goes out of the way to minimize the role of the Israelis) is a way of showing off U.S. power and threatening Iran and other nations who pursue W.M.D. They're saying, "it doesn't matter how clever you are in burying your program, we can still shut it down". That threat could come in handy in future negotiations with Iran and North Korea.
The other angle, as you note, is the election year angle. The article goes out of the way to emphasize Obama's role here. The key line here is "'From his first days in office, he was deep into every step in slowing the Iranian program — the diplomacy, the sanctions, every major decision,' a senior administration official said". Biden is depicted as "fuming", while the president is cool and collected and making tough calls. It paints a very flattering picture, which is hardly surprising given that it's a bunch of Obama Administration guys speaking to a New York Times reporter. However, as the article describes it, the program was actually begun during the Bush Administration and was well underway by the time Obama took office. All Obama did was continue with Bush's program, but it sounds like he's trying to take a lot of the credit, which doesn't quite seem fair. I think Bush was a disaster as a President. But still, you can't have it both ways, and claim that you inherited a bad economy from Bush, but then turn around and take credit for a program that he started and put into action.
Re: (Score:3)
The level of detail in the article is really striking, and suggests that the author talked to people who were closely involved in the decision-making process.
On the other hand, "The Lord of the Rings" also has a lot of detail...
All Obama did was continue with Bush's program, but it sounds like he's trying to take a lot of the credit, ... but then turn around and take credit for a program that he [Bush] started and put into action.
It depends on how successful the program was before and after. Certainly most Missions were far from Accomplished even by the end of the Bush administration and *may* be/have been even more effective/productive during the Obama administration. Some of this may be due to things outside either President's control. For example, drone attacks are more abundant and effective now, but that's due to the increased maturity of the technology as
We have always been at war with Eastarabia! (Score:5, Funny)
We have always been at war with Iran, citizen.
We have always been at war with Afghanistan. Even in the 1980s, when Saint Reagan gave vast funds to our allies, the Russians, to defeat Osama Bin Laden.
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which brings up a interesting question: can a cyberwar escalate to a real war? If so, what would provoke that transition?
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd guess non-negligable damage to economic interests, or more likely physical damage to material assets... like say using a virus to cause physical damage to a nuclear weapons production facil...oh shit.
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Funny)
I'd guess non-negligable damage to economic interests, or more likely physical damage to material assets... like say using a virus to cause physical damage to a nuclear weapons production facil...oh shit.
Yes, but there are no nuclear weapons production facilities, according to Iran. It's hard to go to war over damage to facilities that don't exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, except these aren't nuclear weapons production facilities, supposedly. It is uranium enrichment for peaceful nuclear power.
If this "admission" were to be taken seriously I would expect Iran to be mighty pissed about it and want something worth millions (tens of millions?) to happen to the US, somewhere, somehow.
Re: (Score:3)
They dont deny facilities exist, and were attacked, and were damaged.
Only that the facilities in question have anything to do with *weapons* - the claim is that they are pursuing only civilian nuclear power/radioactive medicines and the like, which the NPT says they have a right to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Historically one reason sticks out above all others when it comes to casus belli. People go to war when 2 things are satisfied :
1) they want to (for whatever reason, racism, jealousy, or even justified grievances. Grievances usually only justify a limited conflict, like capturing military superiority in a sea passage)
2) they think they can win
For Iran 1) is certainly true. I would even say it's obviously true. 2) not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, it didn't. And if there will be a real war it won't be caused by the US hacking Iran but because Iran creating nukes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. has a remarkable history of fighting people that we ourselves have trained and armed in some earlier coup. That may have something to do with the fact that meddling in other country's interest may have short-term benefit, but it can (and frequently does) backfire and produce long-term problems. Iran is a great example. We overthrow [wikipedia.org] their democratically-elected government to put in our figurehead [wikipedia.org] so we can get their oil. Worked great until 1979. Now we've spent the last 30 years with a country that despises us.
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I don't wanna pick it up mister, you'll shoot me."
"Pick up the gun."
"Mister, I don't want no trouble, huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, mister."
"Pick up the gun."
Boom, boom.
"You all saw him. He had a gun."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:4, Funny)
Well, just look at what you said for a simple explanation.
US (Big S, Big Satan)
Israel (Small S, Small Satan)
United Kingdom (No S at all, so no Satan)
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, that's why the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in the Gulf, the War in Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan all never happened.
they were "police actions" goddamit.
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly, that's why the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in the Gulf, the War in Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan all never happened.
they were "police actions" goddamit.
So, because they "never happened" , they don't count as losses on America's war scorecard?
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Funny)
I like that line of thinking.
We're still undefeated!
well, I guess that whole war of 1812 thing is still debatable...
Re: (Score:3)
Those wars all accomplished what our masters in the MIC wanted them to accomplish; they made big fucking piles of money. Those wars are all massive successes from their point of view, and since they're the ones calling the shots, they all WERE massive successes. The goals simply weren't what you were told.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. It takes an act of congress to declare war. [wikipedia.org]
I love that this got modded "Funny".
Re: (Score:3)
There is confusion here about what "war" means.
1) the real-world situation. Of course this doesn't require an act of congress, as the military forces involved aren't controlled by congress or the president. Nor does it take an act of war for the US to get into a fight in international waters for example. And if an enemy force operates within the borders of the US, the president is free to act without congressional approval (to illustrate an extreme case, if someone bombed congress killing most of the repres
Depends on what you mean by war (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe he means that certain actions are considered "acts of war" meaning we just handed Iran a reason to say we are already at war with them.
Normally destruction of a governments property is considered an act of war. This would meet the first requirement in the UN charter for a legal war. Iran can now attack the USA stating that it is defending itself against further attacks. In reality they will not, they are just being used to make the Israelis and a subset of the American population happy.
See http:// [wikipedia.org]
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
acts of cyberterrorism would be considered acts of war, right?
Only when perpetrated by the bad guys
Remember the invasion of Afghanistan was a Police action, but Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an invasion
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only when perpetrated by the bad guys
Remember the invasion of Afghanistan was a Police action, but Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an invasion
Apples and oranges. Iraq invaded Kuwait for 2 reasons: their oil, and they wanted better access to the Gulf. The US invaded Afghanistan in response to an attack that was made possible through the materiel and other support of the Taliban government. Iraq went into Kuwait to steal oil. What did the US go in to Afghanistan to take? Bases? We didn't need bases in Afghanistan. They have negligible amounts of oil, we don't need their poppy and marijuana, nor their natural gas. You're comparing 2 different actions with 2 completely different motivations and justifications.
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:4, Insightful)
What did the US go in to Afghanistan to take? Bases? We didn't need bases in Afghanistan. They have negligible amounts of oil, we don't need their poppy and marijuana, nor their natural gas.
The key natural resource for the last 20 years in Afghanistan has been the prospect of oil and natural gas pipelines running from Caspian Sea region to the Indian Ocean. And waddaya know, as soon as the Karzai government backed by the US was in power, there were new agreements signed regarding oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan.
And Iraq is probably also about oil, as well, since the Project for a New American Century [newamericancentury.org] (membership including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz) explicitly advocated the US taking control of all the major oil supplies in the world as a way of controlling everything else that was going on in the world.
"Gutsy" Move (Score:5, Funny)
I can see a campaign commercial now.
Obama single handily Killed Osama, wrote stuxnet AND snuck it into Iran on a USB key.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see a campaign commercial now.
Obama single handily Killed Osama, wrote stuxnet AND snuck it into Iran on a USB key.
USB key? I thought it was a Mac Book Pro ....
Re: (Score:2)
You think the rules that the US declares apply to other nations, apply to the US? How naive.
Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score:5, Informative)
No, you don't understand the rules: It's not an act of war when we do it to them, only when they do it to us.
Please don't stop (Score:2, Insightful)
ps - we aren't allow on their side.
Not news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not news (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe the old joke was, "In Russia, you can only choose the communist party. In America, you can choose the capitalist party, or the other capitalist party!"
Yeah, but neither one really cares about freedom, capitalism, or free markets except when thumping their chests and running for office. Both are run by Mrs. Grundy who thinks she knows how to live your life better than you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh actually they are run by investors
Sophisticated (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather than ordering more sophisticated attacks, why not just order more effective attacks?
hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask yourself "In whose interest is this story?" (Score:5, Interesting)
A story like this doesn't just magically happen. It's not wikileaked. So why would someone want this story in the public? Could it be so that tension between the USA and Iran ratchets up? Because that could induce a whole lot more spending on the military. And all those people who aren't going to be making buckets of money from Iraq and Afghanistan will either need to adjust their standard of living downwards, or find new sources of income. Getting military with China is a bad idea, North Korea is too close to China - look what happened last time - it's the only reason there is a North Korea. Nope: better to pick on a country more isolated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ask yourself "In whose interest is this story?" (Score:5, Insightful)
A story like this doesn't just magically happen. It's not wikileaked. So why would someone want this story in the public? Could it be so that tension between the USA and Iran ratchets up? Because that could induce a whole lot more spending on the military. And all those people who aren't going to be making buckets of money from Iraq and Afghanistan will either need to adjust their standard of living downwards, or find new sources of income. Getting military with China is a bad idea, North Korea is too close to China - look what happened last time - it's the only reason there is a North Korea. Nope: better to pick on a country more isolated.
Thank you for providing an example of how people should interpret the news. Many still think the news is there to inform them, when in actuality it is there to tell them what to think. "Why would somebody want this story public?" is always the right question to ask when dealing with any spokesperson or press agent, corporate or government.
well at least we now know (Score:2)
who wrote stuxnet
Unnamed Sources? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand one thing - all of this is based on David Sanger's book, which in turn is based on "unnamed US, European and Israeli sources".
Other than the author's reputation, do we have anything resembling evidence that this isn't just a science fiction book being sold?
Re:Unnamed Sources? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't understand one thing - all of this is based on David Sanger's book, which in turn is based on "unnamed US, European and Israeli sources".
Other than the author's reputation, do we have anything resembling evidence that this isn't just a science fiction book being sold?
The NYTimes is a reliable source, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Re:Unnamed Sources? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Slashdot. We don't need evidence if the story confirms our prejudices.
Where are all the naysayers (Score:5, Interesting)
When Stuxnet came out, every time someone posted that it was likely the creation of Israel and/or the U.S., they were greeted by a surprising number of deniers who were trying to claim it was Russia or Saudi Arabia, or maybe that Iran *themselves* created it, etc. Of course, this was insane. But there seem to be a LOT of people out there who have their head buried in the sand when it comes to U.S./Israeli intelligence activities in Iran. I bet even now if I were to say that Mossad had assassinated all those Iranian nuclear scientists, there would be several idiots who would jump up and claim it was someone else, or that Iran had just staged the assassinations.
Re:Where are all the naysayers (Score:4, Informative)
The people you talk about are probably on the payroll, we had some forums once and every time we got a little anti American or anti Isreal two posters would always pop up and defend them. It seemed it was their only posts ever. Now eventually me and a friend did some research and found out there are large numbers of people employed to just give Isreal and the USA good press on the net.
I am ashamed to be an american (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax
Every single thing that we complain about Iran being is our fucking fault and now we blatantly continue with our evil foreign policy.
Every single thing that I was told this country stood for is a lie.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a great wiki article, thanks for the refresher ;-)
Half way down is an interesting quote that brings this back to the original topic:
"The action was publicized within Iran by the CIA and in the United States by The New York Times.
Re:I am ashamed to be an american (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax
Every single thing that we complain about Iran being is our fucking fault and now we blatantly continue with our evil foreign policy.
Every single thing that I was told this country stood for is a lie.
Someone should post that link every time someone spews "Islam is evil. They hate us for our freedoms."
Comment removed (Score:3)
Bad news for USA and Israel (Score:2)
Now Iran has a justifiable reason for whatever retaliation they had in mind anyway. If you're going to do stuff like this, getting caught isn't an option. Nice job derps.
Re:Bad news for USA and Israel (Score:4, Funny)
Here is why the US government spends so much... (Score:2)
... of the tax payers funding on warfare technology.
When you screw others enough it simply wouldn't be intelligent to not expect retaliation and when you can use tax payer funding without their knowledgeable consent...
This is about Banking and about getting everyone on the same abusive and controlling banking system.
Money is an abstract representation of value and honestly only intended to ease trade... but its instead become a produce in and of itself in order to manipulate and control economies around the
Someone selling book + NY Times = Non-Story (Score:5, Insightful)
The only fact I see in all this is: The USA has not officially taken responsibility for an international incident.
This story is by someone making sensationalist claims to sell a book, and the NY Times is helping promote it.
As usual, the NY Times reporter relies on anonymous sources. No one knows how reliable they are. No one knows who they are.
The NY Times and their anonymous sources are known to be wrong, like the WMD in Iraq. So we trust them now?
The NY Times is known to make up news, such as Jason Blair. Can anything they say about Stuxnet be independently verified as being correct? No?
In love with the unaccountable power of technology (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sickening to see how everyone in the US political establishment (Democrats, Republicans ie. all "respectable" people) cheer when the executive branch orders drone assassinations abroad. And boy do they love how "clean" and "efficient" those are. Hey, no Americans were hurt, the public loves to hear about the military killing bad guys and since these are conducted in remote areas, the US government doesn't even have to deal with the bad PR of "weeping widows" videos. It's all good! Who needs to seek Congress approval for declaring war, when technology allows you to wage a permanent and global secret war?
It is believed that having more democracies around will ultimately increase world stability because democracies loath going to war and the voting public sees it as a last resort solution. Well, so far the biggest democracy in the west seems to have a giant boner for secret drone wars. Well, its executive branch at least, the public doesn't need to hear know about it in details, those informations are classified you see, national security and all.
Don't these people realize the real damage caused by drones strikes? They are breeding generations of new enemies. The next time terrorists successfully blow up Americans or Americans allies, ask yourself: how would you react if people from your home town/area/country were droned in the night by a foreign power?
And if you were Iranian and you heard that the US is actively trying to sabotage your country's nuclear program, wouldn't that increase your support for the Iranian government and its policy to get nuclear technology, even when you actually loath Ahmadinejad and his authoritarian regime?
Why This Misconception of Obama? (Score:5, Insightful)
First thought: Who's the source on this? Everybody suspected it was the US or the Israelis, but is this reliable?
Well, let's see ... would Obama be the kind of person to do this? His track record so far [nytimes.com]:
Mr. Obama decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership. He overthrew the Libyan dictator. He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia and authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan. He became the first president to authorize the assassination of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and played an operational role in Al Qaeda, and was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen. And, of course, Mr. Obama ordered and oversaw the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
Now considering all that, um, I think ordering a speed up of cyberattacks on Iran where no one dies might be something he does on a whim over coffee on a given morning.
Second thought, while reading through the article: Wow, that's pretty badass.
That's what I don't understand. Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie. At his Nobel Prize announcement, he basically justified going to war with anyone who gave USA the stink eye. He has been more aggressive (albeit more subtle) than George W. Bush and will probably cause problems for Romney who wants to paint him as an indecisive leader that let Libya and Syria happen [nytimes.com]. But the funny thing is that for all everyone sees him as a harbinger of peace, he sure hasn't been acting like it. And it's probably going to be obvious come this next election when people start looking at his track record ...
Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a way you are right - perception trumps reality. However, Obama's also chose his targets well. Unlike Bush which steamrolled his way into a bad situation with Iraq, Obama actually put some thought into the exit scenarios before pushing ahead with his agenda covertly. That contributes to the efficacy in these relatively low-key operations.
Re:Why This Misconception of Obama? (Score:5, Interesting)
He became the first president to authorize the assassination of a United States citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and played an operational role in Al Qaeda, and was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen. .
Now, I am admittedly not an Obama fan, never have been. But I have a hard time calling the al-Awlaki incident an assassination. The man declared war on the US and was leadership in an organization actively targeting and fighting the US. Now, to make a comparison, back during World War II Germany tried to get a lot of Germans living abroad to come back to Germany. Some of these were people living and born in the United States, and some of them joined the German military. You cannot call it an assassination if they were killed fighting the US. To me what happened with al-Awlaki is no different. This is among one of the few things he's done that I can support and get behind.
Re: (Score:3)
Code Pink has continued its protests and movement activities, targeting both Republicans and Democrats, including Obama administration officials, over the continued wars and insufficient domestic spending.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they have different opinons on different wars?
Being fought in different ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Come to think of it, most of the press such groups got was via conservative media....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They didn't. Agents infiltrated the facility, in person, in order to introduce the software.
Then, it escaped, because, allegedly, some unwitting Iranian scientist at the facility inadvertently infected his own laptop, while they were attempting to debug the centrifuges. He then brought the laptop home, as the story goes, and connected the infected laptop to the internet, using his personal residential internet connection.
Re:Why would anyone ..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just goes to show that an air gap isn't going to save you, if your attacker is keen.
Re: (Score:3)
Then, it escaped, because, allegedly, some unwitting Iranian scientist at the facility inadvertently infected his own laptop, while they were attempting to debug the centrifuges. He then brought the laptop home, as the story goes, and connected the infected laptop to the internet, using his personal residential internet connection.
...
Just goes to show that an air gap isn't going to save you, if your attacker is keen.
And just goes to show that even if you have the best security policies in place, some bozo is going to know better than the retards running the IT department and just do things his way.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why would anyone place critical hardware on the internet?
They didn't. Stuxnet was apparently brought into the system physically on the infected flash drives of some Russian contractors working on it.
Re:Why would anyone ..... (Score:5, Informative)
Why would anyone place critical hardware on the internet? I'm going to assume by now that Iran has figured out that the US is trying to sabotage their equipment. You would think that Iran would take any sensitive equipment offline and avoid applying any patches from foreign sources.
Have you been sleeping during the past coverage of Stuxnet, and the analysis by researchers? Stuxnet was introduced using infected USB sticks.
Re: (Score:3)
Stuxnet was introduced using infected USB sticks.
"Okay Microsoft, we'll let you off on the antitrust shit if you'll make sure we can compromise anybody's computer."
"How about if we enable something stupid like autorun?"
"Won't that mean any computer will be vulnerable to anyone plugging in a USB key?"
"Yes."
"Do it."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh great (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time you go to use the word "muzzie" like that, replace "Muslim" with "Jew" and run the sentence through your head before you say it.
Does it still sound like a clever thing to say?
Re: (Score:2)