- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Ukraine has nothing to do with Syria.
Really? How about people calling for the US to go to war?
Ukraine has nothing to do with Syria.
Putting took nothing and those troops can leave as quickly as they came in.
You sound like GW Bush. Saying "bring it on" is not brave it is stupid. Thankfully we don't have a dunce in the Whitehouse anymore.
That's nice. Any country can take care of itself. Hooray. Civilization and order are natural, instead of fragile, artificial creations.
I was just reading about this.
The treaty that withdrew all nukes from the Ukraine had a stipulation in it that Ukraine would never be attacked by the signers - the West and Russia. That treaty is broken- or on the verge of it.
This is concerning because of future treaties that could be devised with nuclear disarmament.
Ukraine has nothing to do with Syria. Stop trying to thread hijack.
Exactly. By invading Ukranian Crimea, Putin himself broke the treaty. Standing idle communicates cowardness and non-commitment.
I think Putin did that in purpose while trying to present us as weak to the rest of the world. This cannot stand. Nor will Ukraine stand. I keep saying this, but they can fight and are well armed!
i think russia has proven itself to be weak.
Your references are all filled with "supposed", "alleged", "believe to have", and other words and phrases that plainly show there is little to no actual evidence of any government's involvement in cyber warfare (except the ones I mentioned). I'm not saying it doesn't happen but what little evidence is available is circumstantial at best. Nowhere is there enough evidence to warrant mild trade sanctions, let alone war.One of the beauties of Cyber Attacks is the relative ease with which you can make them either non-attributable, or impossible to prove attribution (the Russians are particularly good at that trick). Which is one reason why governments do, in fact, initiate Cyber Attacks. For other exceptions where this has gone public check out China (who seems to be quite busy in this realm) and Israel. Iran joins the club as a proud member, having outed herself (as did we). Even Hermit Kingdom North Korea has gotten into the game, although it seems they got at least an initial boost there from China.
Only after there was enough to evidence for a guilty verdict in California. Once the cat's out of the bag you may as well use it for all it's worth and just admit you had the cat all along.:raises eyebrow: we outed ourselves. The Administration wanted to have some good "Foreign Policy" chest-thumping before the election and so they leaked it to the New York Times, and outed our Israeli allies as well (who must have collectively hit the ceiling, thereby further eroding trust with a key ally in the region).
That information is not on those pages. Going for the shotgun effect, are we? Multiple, including some false, claims to take up my time hoping I'll just drop it?Actually he does. I would direct you to pages 15 and 16, where he states that either A) the state did it or B) hackers that are trained and supported by the state in organized crime did it, and points out that C) it doesn't really matter which one it is, since both are instruments of Russian Foreign Policy. To translate that into American terms, the hackers were either employees of the NSA, or employees of Lockheed Martin, working on contract for the NSA, and either way, it was the US.
Elaborate please. It seems the contrary at this point. Well it seemed the contrary prior to Kerry and Rasmussen doing their job to be exact.
Yes, I'm well aware of who he was as well as the fact that he quit government employment in 2003, as I previously noted. That means he his zero actual data on those attacks except what the government released, which was not the source code - the raw programming actually needed to determine where a program originated. As far as Estonia goes, he's Mr Buy-My-Book and I'm sure sensationalizing events like Estonia netted him a few more $10,000's.Richard Clarke was the guy who spent years trying to convince both the Clinton and Bush Administrations that this oddball group called "Al-Qaeda" was going to try to launch attacks inside of the Continental United States. He was the Cyber Czar for the Bush Administration. I realize that mockery is the last resort of those who have no argument, but it falls flat here.
I believe Britain and other EU nations covered that in 2008. That's was my previous *.pdf link's main topic - defending the EU (including Estonia) from cyber attack.The UN? I could give a fig about the UN, that worthless, useless body in which Russia enjoys a veto anyway. What we should have done is what we pledged to do for NATO countries - offer them our tools to defend themselves if they come under attack.
Thousands of hackers all over the planet use DDOS attacks and a huge portion of those hackers are not connected to any government. Trying to pin that kind of common attack on a government is like saying "The perpetrator was driving a black SUV so it must have been a secret government job." Next thing you'll be talking black helicopters. :lol:No, the same tactics as in utilizing DDOS attacks to neutralize financial servers while impersonating those servers and sending thousands of fraudulent claims to Central and Western European Financial Centers, triggering automatic lockdowns ensuring that, even as the host nation loses the ability to serve it's deposit holders, it also loses the ability to borrow from outside sources in order to replace its temporarily frozen capital.
Exercises control over it's hacking community??? :lamoRussia is a police state that exercises control over its' hacking community, and is extremely skilled at cyber operations. The likelihood that this was random "patriotic Russians" (which is what - laughably - Putin's spokesman tried to insist that it must be) pulled this off without state support, awareness, and approval is about as likely as someone in the United States compiling a division of tanks and using them to invade Mexico without the government's knowledge. It is a ridiculous claim on it's face.
Anonymous has been successful - several times - at stealing both private and government data ... and sometimes releasing that data to the public. And this is the US government we're talking about. We're one of the best if not THE best at this game. Imagine what Anonymous could do to, say, Estonia if they put their resources into it. Russia's (private) hackers are just as good if not better than Anonymous.....you really have no idea how difficult and costly it is to develop, build, employ, and then attempt to reattribute complex cyber weapons, do you?
...You really do think it's like in the movies, where the cool music plays, and the guy looks at 5 different screens at one time, and some one's and zero's flash by in a montage, or you see a little "loading" bar, and then he's hacked the CIA or something.
No, dude. Cyber introduces asymmetries, to be sure, but nothing as extreme as the alternative you are positing - else our systems would be constantly going down from attacks by Al Qaeda or some similarly disapproving group, and Anonymous would be extremely successful instead of a nuisance. You still require pretty hefty resources to have these kinds of effects. There is a reason why Live Free or Die Hard is a hollywood movie rather than our reality - it's not like there aren't plenty of actors out there who would do it, if all it took was a $1500 laptop.
I didn't say cyber wasn't war, I said I didn't want to go to war without some REAL evidence we've been attacked by another government. Bush already got us into one protracted war over nothing but poor information and rumors, which became painfully obvious after we'd invaded another country. I think countries should only get one mistake like that per century and we've already used ours.If Cyber isn't a war, then what's your worry? We aren't "going to war".
We know nothing of the sort. You have repeatedly failed to produce evidence that Russia was responsible for the 2007 Estonia cyber attack. All you've shown is rumor and innuendo, which is only considered evidence in US conservative circles and on Conspiracy Theory websites (is there really a difference?). The rest of the world requires something a little more substantial.On the contrary - we know that it was Russia that did this, and Russia did everything but admit it - jokingly claiming that maybe it was just patriots and refusing to allow any investigation into the points of origin. An attack was launched on a NATO ally and we did... nothing. I imagine it was fairly instructive for Putin.
cpwill said:I would direct you to pages 15 and 16, where he states that either A) the state did it or B) hackers that are trained and supported by the state in organized crime did it, and points out that C) it doesn't really matter which one it is, since both are instruments of Russian Foreign Policy. To translate that into American terms, the hackers were either employees of the NSA, or employees of Lockheed Martin, working on contract for the NSA, and either way, it was the US.
That information is not on those pages. Going for the shotgun effect, are we? Multiple, including some false, claims to take up my time hoping I'll just drop it?
I'd happily cut and paste both pages but I'm pretty sure it's against DP policy to c&p that much data. Try again, quote at least one paragraph, and be sure to include the
correct page number.
Your references are all filled with "supposed", "alleged", "believe to have", and other words and phrases that plainly show there is little to no actual evidence of any government's involvement in cyber warfare (except the ones I mentioned)
I'm not saying it doesn't happen but what little evidence is publicly available is circumstantial at best. Nowhere is there enough evidence to warrant mild trade sanctions, let alone war.
And believing anything that comes out of Tehran is being naive. Iran has lied so much about so many different topics their credibility is less than zero - they'd have to work just to get to the break-even point again. Iran would claim responsibility for bringing down a drone if the drone was plainly shown on satellite to have been hit by a sand storm.
The Ukraine is not going to give up it's seaports over this. Odessa is as much (or more) of a commercial port than Sevastopol.I am not familiar with the particular events surrounding Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. But I do now know about the deep divisions within Ukraine:
Crimea is the peninsula that looks like an island to the southeast.
Thankfully it appears that the pro-West/pro-Russia divide is a pretty clean one, unlike the complete cluster**** in Syria.
The Ukraine is not going to give up it's seaports over this. Odessa is as much (or more) of a commercial port than Sevastopol.
The Crimea was barely included in the Ukraine as it was. It has a special designation compared to other regions and is relatively independent of the Ukrainian government.
Dude, you neither said it was from his book nor did you link the book. What you did do was quote my link to the House Of Lords reportDude I pulled the book off my shelf and am sitting with it physically here in front of me.
Sure. From Cyber War: The Next Threat To National Security, and What To Do About It, by Richard A Clarke and Robert K Knake. Copyright 2010, HarperCollins publishers, New York.
The "many close observers" line is also a standard for people who have access to classified information to be able to write competently to a subject without directly stating intelligence assessments or collections' methods. Books like this have to get run through an SSO office before they can be released not least in order to insure that that level of obfuscation has taken place.
I already said that much. Russia refused to help Estonia. So what? We wouldn't do any different even if it was China or Russia whining at us, let alone someone like Castro.Page 15:
"The Russian Government indignantly denied that it was engaged in cyber war against Estonia. It also refused Estonia's formal diplomatic request for assistance in tracing the attackers, although a standing bilateral agreement required Moscow to cooperate.
No it doesn't.So, yeah. Pretty much it does say that .
Uh, maybe because they agreed with the hackers? Maybe because Russian/Estonian relations were pretty much in the dirt by that time? Again, we wouldn't do any different even if it was China or Russia whining at us, let alone someone like Castro.But even if the "patriotic Russian" theory were to be believed, it left unanswered the question of why the Russian government would not move to stop such vigilantism
Yeah --- They "suggested" but failed to provide proof of any kind. :lol:Others, more familiar with modern Russia, suggested that what was at work was far more than a passive Russian police turning a blind eye to the hooliganism of overly nationalistic youth.
we might have no choice. if it gets bad we will get involved
I saw no evidence of Chinese military involvement.I can only assume that you did not read them? In China and Israel, for example, the units involved are named (we outed Israel, too), and in China's case an IT Security Firm named Mandiant (hilariously) even posted a video of a live-capture of a Chinese Military Hacker attempting to invade their networks to YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nZt7WCobY
It doesn't matter how good the motivation, what matters is evidence and there isn't any except those I've already noted. I like to see solid evidence to guide our actions as a nation, not rumor and innuendo as we used to invade Iraq the second time.Furthermore, think about your own argument for a minute - you are simultaneously claiming that states do not engage in cyber attacks all that much outside of the US/Iran Russia/Georgia example, and then you are claiming that the attribution of such attacks is beyond our capability.
But if it was impossible or even extremely difficult to attribute cyber attacks, then that would give nation-states a massive incentive to use them.
Anyone can take that line of argument (that the government knows but won't release the info) with anything at all. Are you going to profess belief in the aliens at Area 51, now? The people who believe that sad story use the exact same line, "The government knows about (the aliens) but it won't tell anyone!" :lol:fixed that to more accurately mean what I think you are getting at. If not, let me know.
Anonymous has pulled off some pretty big events using nothing more than a few laptops and/or desktops. That's how several of them eventually ended up in US and British jails. Anonymous and it's actions are a fact, not Hollywood, and you should get used to it. It doesn't take a multi-million dollar operation to make a lot of trouble and cost people a lot of money. All it takes is a few smart hackers, some relatively cheap computers, and an Internet connection. Anonymous has proved that more than once.So what - you think Thomas Gabriel did that with a $1500 laptop?
Dude, you neither said it was from his book
cpwill said:Actually he does. I would direct you to pages 15 and 16, where he states that either A) the state did it or B) hackers that are trained and supported by the state in organized crime did it, and points out that C) it doesn't really matter which one it is, since both are instruments of Russian Foreign Policy. To translate that into American terms, the hackers were either employees of the NSA, or employees of Lockheed Martin, working on contract for the NSA, and either way, it was the US.MoSurveyor said:Even Mr Buy-My-Book doesn't say the Russians did it
nor did you link the book.
I already said that much. Russia refused to help Estonia. So what? We wouldn't do any different even if it was China or Russia whining at us
No it doesn't.
Uh, maybe because they agreed with the hackers?
They "suggested" but failed to provide proof of any kind.
Like I said, what you've got is a bunch of rumors and innuendos - and I might add, from someone who has good monetary reason to continue promoting said rumors
Elaborate please. It seems the contrary at this point. Well it seemed the contrary prior to Kerry and Rasmussen doing their job to be exact.
More non-evidence? :lol:Someone managed to capture a drone from our satellite, a drone whose existence, flight path, mission, and capabilities were, until that time, secret. That entity would have required impressive cyber resources - like the kind that a state can bring to bear - to defeat US military networks and hack CIA encryption. That entity then chose to fly the drone to Iran, so that it's capabilities could be studied by Iranians, so that Iran could protect itself from observation by that kind of collection in the future, and so that any reverse engineering that Iran was capable of doing, it could do.
That's a very likely scenario. I'm still not sure how Sevastopol will play out in all this. The Ukraine has most of it's navy stationed there - alongside the Russian fleet. I'm sure that makes the Russians very nervous, having their fleet isolated like that, and it may be the whole reason for this incident.I'm guessing Crimea will declare independence and Russia will protect it. Ukraine won't attack, Russia won't invade the rest of Ukraine.
Sanctions on Russia will occur, Ukraine will move closer to the west for protection, and Russia will lose another ally.