Trump, Seeking To Relax Rules on US Cyberattacks, Reverses Obama Directive (wsj.com) 153
President Trump has reversed an Obama-era memorandum dictating how and when the U.S. government can deploy cyberweapons against its adversaries, in an effort to loosen restrictions on such operations [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source], WSJ reports. From the report: Mr. Trump signed an order on Wednesday reversing the classified rules, known as Presidential Policy Directive 20, that had mapped out an elaborate interagency process that must be followed before U.S. use of cyberattacks, particularly those geared at foreign adversaries. The change was described as an "offensive step forward" by an administration official briefed on the decision, one intended to help support military operations, deter foreign election influence and thwart intellectual property theft by meeting such threats with more forceful responses. The Trump administration has faced pressure to show that it is taking seriously national-security cyberthreats -- particularly those that intelligence officials say are posed by Moscow.
Oh, here we go ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, here we go ... Obama is apparently like an ancient Persian king; one cannot not simply reverse his dictates!
He was more like Woodrow Wilson with his naïve "gentlemen do not read each other's mail" approach to national level espionage.
Re: (Score:1)
Except, you know, for all the minor controversies around snooping on Merkel's cell phone and whatnot.
Politics is a bloodsport. None of these people are good. Some of them are less bad. But don't delude yourself into thinking Your Guy was an uncommon gentleman.
Re:Oh, here we go ... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's hilarious. The scale of electronic collection operations increased dramatically under Obama. Or do you think the Utah Data Center [wikipedia.org] was built for shits and giggles?
But regardless, this is not/should not be a partisan issue, and one of the most compelling reasons to limit offensive operations and strengthen vulnerability disclosure rules is that we all use the same shit. [technologyreview.com] If the NSA or other TLA is actively exploiting vulnerabilities in common platforms such as OSes, routers, or cellular infrastructure, then they are, by definition, leaving America's identical technology vulnerable to the exact same attacks by our adversaries. By leaving ourselves vulnerable, we are trading access to our own secrets -- from classified government information, to corporate trade secrets, to political party internals -- for access to information that we should reasonably be able to collect through other means. It's shooting ourselves in the foot and hoping the ricochet hits our enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or it may prevent some attacks just by announcing this new rule and not doing anything else different. From the perspective of an attacking nation with means and something to gain or lose, they may see removal of "be nice" rules as a slightly increased risk of retaliation.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey guys, did you hear? Trump is going to close down the Utah Data Center because Obama started it!
Why, has it run out of space, is he going to build a bigger one somewhere else?
Re: (Score:1)
Hey guys, did you hear? Trump is going to close down the Utah Data Center because Obama started it!
Why, has it run out of space, is he going to build a bigger one somewhere else?
It'll be a YUUUUGE data center. Really classy. Marble doors and windows. Marble servers. Marble hard-drives.
We have the best data.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot all the gold that will be in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
It's a good job America's cyber security is so famously top-notch, now that Trump has escalated and opened it up for retaliatory/preemptive attacks.
Don't worry, I'm sure most critical systems have patched the leaked NSA/CIA vulnerabilities by now, so it's safe for the US to start deploying new ones. This time they won't lose control of them, for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh, here we go ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't so much that Trump is reversing a policy of Obama.
The problem is that Trump makes policy by shooting from the hip, with no consideration for the ramifications of it. Nobody does any analysis or planning, just suddenly there is a bad policy dumped one everyone.
Now while saying there was no foreign interference, Trump is protecting us from foreign interference. Which is it? It never happened and we don't need to be protected? Or it did and Trump is still lying about it?
The problem is other countries might decide this is an Unfriendly Act (which is diplomat speak for 'we don't like what you're doing and we're monitoring it'), and if escalates to a Hostile Act (which is diplomat speak for 'now we're really pissed off and things are going to get messy').
Trump is essentially authorising hostile actions against foreign entities without oversight and planning.
Shit like that can get dangerous in terms of relations between countries.
The problems happen when Trump makes policy without consulting with the people who know what they're talking about (you know, 'elites') and instead relies on his own feels and stupidity.
Re: Oh, here we go ... (Score:4, Insightful)
What will make lots of people like me?
Sex or cloning.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the sex part ain't gonna happen with AC... unless you count necrophilia. Fortunately, that has a very low chance of creating offspring. Just like AC.
mnem
Go Team Venture!!!
Re:Oh, here we go ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is essentially authorising hostile actions against foreign entities without oversight and planning.
More like Trump is explicitly telling other countries that it's OK to try and hack us. Because it goes both ways. It's like Net Neutrality. Before it existed, there might have been some general intellectual agreement about what was OK and what was not OK. After it was repealed, that's an explicit statement that doing the formerly banned things is explicitly OK. It doesn't revert back to undefined or there would be no motive to repeal.
Re: (Score:1)
ok so by relaxing rules for cyber attacks Trump invites attacks? so if i load my shotgun and point it at you i'm inviting you to attack me? ( i do not own a shot gun )
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those rules made it clear we were classifying it like an act of war. Going back and saying it's OK implies that we are going to be aggressive and make offensive attacks. Put two and two together and we are the crazy third world country with an unstable dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
But since we all know that the NSA (and presumably other agencies among the alphabet soup) can make any attack look as if it was carried out by any chosen foreign nation, any foreign nation can now attack the USA in the certainty that no one can prove it was them - rather than the NSA trying to frame them with a false flag. (Although of course you could take the US government's word for it, because it never tells lies).
They think they're clever, but they're not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Lacks the Mental Ability - Game Theory (Score:1)
Hahaha...
Well, he knew how to air drop $1.6 billion dollars to our worst enemy under cover of night, in unmarked bills, from an unmarked plane.
Fantastic advisors!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll preface this comment by I'm not a huge President Trump supporter. But people need to know how to look at things objectively, outside their views.
People are tired of the same rhetoric which is doing nothing. Yes this change can be dangerous, and yes it can be "messy". What was happening before is also dangerous and messy. Do nothing, and allow the bullies to have their way. Then we will say stop and the bullies laugh all the more.
Why do you think President Trump was voted into office? It wasn't th
Re:Oh, here we go ... (Score:5, Funny)
> he just changed a policy and now he's going rogue
This is /. so we need a car analogy. So, by refusing to buy a new car, I'm obviously against the entire car industry.
Re: (Score:1)
Because he hoodwinked people into believing he was going to magically make everything better, and instead has installed his own cronies who spend thousands in unauthorised money on furniture or use their sirens to commute to work. He also put his kids into positions of power bypassing all relevant laws and vetting. He's completely surrounded himself with other crooks. Trump is the fucking swamp.
Re: (Score:1)
That logic is simply flawed though.
If you have a bad CEO you don't hire someone with no experience in your business to be the new CEO...
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't vote for Trump but I do understand the people who did... the 49% of the country
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let those pieces of shit fail and in 2020 we can finally move forward as the GOP will be completely fucking destroyed and its supporters will be destitute.
The GOP, as it existed before, is completely gone. The people who used to either swear by Reagan, or just push the establishment, first lost in 2016, and this year, in more places than not, have been swept aside by MAGA candidates. Today, to win a GOP primary in most places, one has to be supportive of Trump, rather than the likes of Ryan, McConnell, McCain or Sass. By 2020, all the establishment Republicans who live on hostility to Russia and the no-tariffs ideology should be sleeping w/ the fishes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'll preface this comment by I'm not a huge President Trump supporter.
Anyone who is a huge "President Anyone" supporter needs serious medication.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll preface this comment by I'm not a huge President Trump supporter.
Anyone who is a huge "President Anyone" supporter needs serious medication.
I'm a huge supporter of ex French President- Francois Mitterand. Not because I liked him or his policies... it's just Francois Mitterand is the most fun name to same in the history of names... (if done correctly in a French Accent).
I challenge anyone to come up with a more fun name to same than Francois Mitterand.
Re: (Score:1)
"I challenge anyone to come up with a more fun name to same than Francois Mitterand."
Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Re: (Score:2)
"I challenge anyone to come up with a more fun name to same than Francois Mitterand."
Boutros Boutros-Ghali
His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Alhaji Dr. Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE.
Talk about compensating.
'Course his name might be fun, but he sure wasn't. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Whoops, forgot this last part:
His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular.
He also claimed to be the uncrowned king of Scotland. Can you say 'unhinged?'
Re: (Score:2)
I challenge anyone to come up with a more fun name to same than Francois Mitterand.
Challenge accepted.
Guy de Loimbard
Re: (Score:2)
In the context of this thread, I meant "any US president".
One good enough reason:
https://chomsky.info/1990____-... [chomsky.info]
Re:Oh, here we go ... (Score:4)
By the way, I like your vast assumptions in your comment. I suppose you know for a fact how "Trump shoots from the hip" Talked to him lately? You know the man? Also how you took President Trumps action from changing a policy (which is his job) to saying he's "essentially authorizing hostile actions without oversight or planning" Yup, he just changed a policy and now he's going rogue. Sounds like the same policy and political BS we hear everyday.
We have a president who very literally seems confused by what policies his own administration is following. That is not an exaggeration.
Whether he goes "rogue" or not, a president who implements a great policy badly is probably going to be worse for the nation than a president to implements a mediocre policy reasonably well.
The main effect of this Obama policy is to force the various departments to talk to each other before a significant change of policy that involves what is likely to be interpreted as a hostile action. I do not see why any competent president would find that a big burden. Of course, a completely incompetent president might find having to explain his own policy to people who are following trying to follow his directions a big burden -- that is clear.
Re: (Score:2)
People are tired of the status quo. So change came in someone outside the political system.
I know, right. Last time I saw a rat I too burnt my entire house down.
What Kool-Aid are you drinking? (Score:2)
Are you fucking kidding? Are you a Russian troll? Have you ever seen the man try to speak? Everything he does is "Shoot from the hip." If you think he makes calm, calculated decisions about policy, you've must have a screw loose, yourself, I'm sorry to say.
Re: (Score:2)
People are tired of the same rhetoric which is doing nothing.
It's better than actively and shamelessly making things worse.
Why do you think President Trump was voted into office?
Hillary. Yes, that was the Democrats' own fault, but still... out of millions of people, that was the best they could offer?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll preface this comment by I'm not a huge President Trump supporter. But people need to know how to look at things objectively, outside their views.
Objectively, he's lost the benefit of the doubt. He's started stripping people of security clearances for saying mean things about him. I have no confidence that any action he takes is for the good of the US, nor that he's given it any serious analytical thought.
I see two main reasons for this policy, one it's reversing an "Obama policy", which seems to be a main objective in its own right. And second, some advisor said it was a good and necessary thing. The problem there is the advisor has their own possib
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He was elected because he wasn't an insider. The people that voted for him love the cowboy attitude shoot from the hip. I for one love it. Watching the liberals squirm is awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
People love to watch professional wrestling too. Doesn't mean wrestlers make good leaders. Good politicians, maybe.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Now while saying there was no foreign interference, Trump is ...
That's NOT what he's said, ever. He's been - the whole time - referring to the lefty canards that either he worked with the Russians to interfere with something, or that Russian activity actually changed the outcome of the election. That's substantially different than saying that the Russians didn't, in 2016, do exactly the same sort of dicking around in our public discourse just like they always have here and elsewhere.
The investigators working this have now said, more than once, that the Russian activ
Re: (Score:2)
Trump isn't completely random. Some people whisper into his ear first and then Trump shoots from the hip. Such as "hey, we could have stopped this Russian story before it began, if it weren't for the memo that Obama wrote", then Trump thinks "I can fix this!"
Re: (Score:2)
And if there are problems you adjust the policy. People can't agree on anything and nobody is happy with the existing policy. He might have character flaws but he certainly hasn't actually done any worse than the last few. There is one thing different though, every good and bad move he makes is bein
Re: (Score:2)
"3). Soft on Russian aggression. "The Russians know us and we know them." Wow, by this logic, every dictatorship is A-OK!"
By this logic every nation we interact with has to governed and have the same moral, ethical, and philosophical ideals we do. Talk about isolationist. A democracy can be worse than a dictatorship but that doesn't really matter, when talking about whether we want to deal with a government what matters is leverage and mutual interests and those thing have pr
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives think people are generally bad, and want to focus on protecting themselves."
Actually one side pretends people are generally good and says avoiding trusting those who advocate that idea with lots of central power to do good is crazy and paranoid. The other exploits paranoia built on the simple but blindingly obvious truth that everyone doesn't need to be bad if anyone is bad it is a bad idea to leave your door open f
Trump says he can recognize Crimea as Russian (Score:3, Interesting)
And the GOP House? Can Trump simply ignore *those* dictates? Because the McCain Defense Authorization Bill, requires he cannot accept Russian soverignty of Crimea, and the first thing he did was annul that clause with a signing statement.
"President Donald Trump said in a statement he reserves the right to ignore the defense authorization law’s ban on U.S. recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, among 50 other provisions he says tread on his authority as president.,....Trump objected to four of
Re:Oh, here we go ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Like DACA that was an Obama EO? A judge recently ruled Trump couldn't undo part of it with his own EO. What a ridiculous double-standard.
Hack the planet (Score:3, Funny)
Donald 1337 Trumpxorz
thwart intellectual property theft (Score:2)
thwart intellectual property theft
Really? Our military is going on the offensive to help Disney? Don't they have enough money and resources to take care of themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we shouldn't use American software (Score:1)
Bullshit: He is jealous of the black man (Score:2, Informative)
Next up, Trump reverses nuclear war rules (Score:1, Troll)
So next we can expect him to reverse rules that mandate we don't just go nuking countries because we don't like them. Oh wait, Obama didn't make those rules, so he's probably cool with it.
Re: (Score:3)
He's not really cool with it:
https://newrepublic.com/minute... [newrepublic.com]
pistolwhipped.exe (Score:1)
Meaningless (Score:4, Insightful)
In the first place, all such self-denying laws and regulations are honoured in the breech. They look good to the peasants and the outside world, but the executive agencies simply ignore them when they are inconvenient. For many years there was a presidential policy against assassinating foreign leaders! During which period countless such plots were hatched and carried out - with occasional success.
In the second place, there is only one real deterrent to using any weapon against foreign powers - retaliation. The USA has by far the biggest and most fragile house of cards when it comes to IT infrastructure. Americans are living in the largest, most elaborate glasshouse ever constructed, so it wouldn't be smart for them to start throwing rocks at people who live in mud huts or concrete blockhouses. (And who have plenty of nice big rocks to throw back).
Re: (Score:2)
We are deceived by language and metaphor. (Score:3)
We use the words: cyberweapon, cyberwar, and cyberattack and think that we know the consequences of conflict. But our prior experience with conflict deceive us. Our instincts are wrong. Our sports metaphors delude us. We undervalue defense. We greatly overvalue attack. At the core, we still believe that Internet warfare is win-able. We believe that victory will go to the righteous aggressor. We believe that attack is sexy and desirable.
The reality is, Internet attack is like poisoning all sources of water, and hoping that your enemy dies first. There is no "Win" in "CyberWar". We all have to defend the same stuff. None of us have functional defenses. Every successful attack weakens us all.
It is easy to capture, analyze and reproduce somebody else's attack. If somebody drops a bomb on you, it is hard to reassemble all the bits, unburn the chemicals, and reuse it. But, if a government deploys an Internet attack, it is easy to copy the attack and repurpose it. When the US deploys an Internet attack, we give our enemies the motive, means, and opportunity to destroy us.
As long as it is really foreign targets... good (Score:2)
Fry 'em! (Score:1)
Re:So Trump is actually DOING SOMETHING about Russ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
What are you talking about - Obama said he directly talked to Putin and told him to cut it out before the 2016 election. You mean that didn't work?!?
Obama says he told Putin to ‘cut it out’ on Russia hacking [politico.com]
President Barack Obama said Friday that he told Russian President Vladimir Putin in September to “cut it out” in regard to allegations that his nation engaged in cyberattacks against the U.S. electoral process. Obama added that further hacking by Russia did not occur following Obama’s admonition.
Re: (Score:3)
What are you talking about - Obama said he directly talked to Putin and told him to cut it out before the 2016 election. You mean that didn't work?!?
Obama says he told Putin to ‘cut it out’ on Russia hacking [politico.com]
President Barack Obama said Friday that he told Russian President Vladimir Putin in September to “cut it out” in regard to allegations that his nation engaged in cyberattacks against the U.S. electoral process. Obama added that further hacking by Russia did not occur following Obama’s admonition.
What else could Obama do? Obama asked McConnell to issue a joint statement condemning Russia's election meddling and McConnell refused.
McConnell deliberately obstructed the defence to an attack on his nation's electoral foundations. When this is all said and done McConnell should be sitting in a cell next to Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is about as troubling as Obama's "failure" to stop a magic man from flying around on a sled on Christmas, breaking into people's houses every year. You know, something else that is pure fantasy with no connection to reality.
Re: So Trump is actually DOING SOMETHING about Rus (Score:1, Insightful)
Nope, Trump is pretending to do something. Thus is just grandstanding that accomplishes nothing.
Just like he already did with North Korea.
Meanwhile, he fumes at European allies, lies about Canada and Mexico, and can't take responsibility for his lies or even his child detainment centers.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, we need to protect the U.S. from people coming over here and wanting to be Americans...the nerve of those ungrateful bastards. Americans are just jumping at the bit to take those jobs they wouldn't touch in the past because...because....Trump wants them to....Make America Great Again. The again seems to be the circa 1950 again, what a wonderful time to be non-white in America.
Re: (Score:1)