-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ Click Here: <A HREF="http://www.aci.net/kalliste/">The Home Page of J. Orlin Grabbe</A> ----- Information Warfare Military Thinks Cyberwarfare is a Pandora's Box Does that mean there is still Hope? WASHINGTON - During the conflict last spring with Yugoslavia, the Pentagon considered hacking into Serbian computer networks to disrupt military operations and basic civilian services. But it refrained from doing so, according to senior defense officials, because of continuing uncertainties and limitations in the emerging field of cyberwarfare. ''We went through the drill of figuring out how we would do some of these cyber things if we were to do them,'' a senior military officer said. ''But we never went ahead with any.'' As computers revolutionize many aspects of life, military officials have stepped up development of cyberweapons and spoken ominously of their potential to change the nature of war. Instead of risking planes to bomb power grids, telephone exchanges or rail lines, for example, Pentagon planners envision soldiers at computer terminals silently invading foreign networks to shut the electrical facilities, interrupt phone service, crash trains and disrupt financial systems. But such attacks, officials say, pose nettlesome legal, ethical and practical problems. Midway through the war with Yugoslavia, the Defense Department's top legal office issued guidelines warning that misuse of cyberattacks could subject U.S. authorities to war crimes charges. It advised commanders to apply the same ''law of war'' principles to computer attack that they do to the use of bombs and missiles. These call for hitting targets that are of military necessity only, minimizing collateral damage and avoiding indiscriminate attacks. Defense officials said concern about legalities was only one of the reasons U.S. authorities resisted the temptation to, say, raid the bank accounts of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Other reasons included the untested or embryonic state of the U.S. cyberarsenal and the rudimentary or decentralized nature of some Yugoslav systems, which officials said did not lend themselves to computer assault. U.S. forces did target some computers that controlled the Yugoslav air defense system, the officials said. But the attacks were launched from electronic jamming aircraft rather than over computer networks from ground-based U.S. keyboards. No plan for a cyberattack on Yugoslav computer networks ever reached the stage of a formal legal assessment, according to several defense officials familiar with the planning. And the 50 pages of guidelines, prepared by the Pentagon general counsel's office, were not drafted with the Yugoslav operation specifically in mind. But officials said the document, which has received little publicity, reflected the collective thinking of Defense Department lawyers about cyberwarfare and marked the U.S. government's first formal attempt to set legal boundaries for the military's involvement in computer attack operations. It told commanders to remain wary of targeting institutions that are essentially civilian, such as banking systems, stock exchanges and universities, even though cyberweapons might provide the ability to do so. In wartime, the document advised, computer attacks and other forms of what the military calls ''information operations'' should be conducted only by members of the armed forces, not civilian agents. It also stated that before launching any cyberassaults, commanders must carefully gauge potential damage beyond the intended target, much as the Pentagon now estimates the number of likely casualties from bomb attacks. While computer attacks may appear on the surface as a cleaner means of destroying targets - with less prospect for physical destruction or loss of life than bombs - Pentagon officials say such a view is wrong. By penetrating computer systems that control communications, transportation, energy and other basic services in a foreign country, cyberweapons can have serious cascading effects, disrupting not only military operations but civilian life, officials say. Instead of turning cyberassaults into another arms control issue, the administration prefers to treat them internationally as essentially a law enforcement concern. U.S. officials have supported several efforts through the United Nations and other groups to facilitate international cooperation in tracking computer criminals and terrorists. For all the heightened attention to cyberwarfare, defense specialists contend that there are large gaps between what the technology promises and what practitioners can deliver. ''We certainly have some capabilities, but they aren't what I would call mature ones yet,'' a high-ranking U.S. military officer said. The full extent of the U.S. cyberarsenal is among the most tightly held national security secrets. But reports point to a broad range of weapons under development, including the use of computer viruses or ''logic bombs'' to disrupt enemy networks, the feeding of false information to sow confusion and the morphing of video images onto foreign television stations to deceive. Last month, the Pentagon announced it was consolidating plans for offensive as well as defensive cyberoperations under the four-star general who heads the U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs. But complicating large-scale computer attacks is the need for an extraordinary amount of detailed intelligence about a target's hardware and software systems. ''A recurring theme in our discussions with military operators is, well, if we can drop a bomb on it, why can't we take it out by a computer network attack,'' said a senior Pentagon lawyer specializing in intelligence. ''Well, you may be able to. However, you've got to go through a few hoops and make sure that when you're choosing an alternative method, you're still complying with the law of armed conflict and making sure collateral damage is limited.'' In their guidelines document, titled ''An Assessment of International Legal Issues in Information Operations,'' the Pentagon's lawyers warned of such unintended effects of computer attacks as opening the floodgates of a dam, causing an oil refinery in a populated area to explode in flames or triggering the release of radioactivity. They mentioned the possibility of computer attacks spilling over into neutral or friendly nations and noted the legal limits on deceptive actions. ''It may seem attractive for a combatant vessel or aircraft to avoid being attacked by broadcasting the agreed identification signals for a medical vessel or aircraft, but such actions would be a war crime,'' said the document, which was first reported last week by William Arkin, a defense analyst, in a column on The Washington Post's on-line service. ''Similarly, it might be possible to use computer morphing techniques to create an image of the enemy's chief of state informing his troops that an armistice or cease-fire agreement had been signed. If false, this also would be a war crime.'' The document also addressed questions about whether the United States would be any more justified in using cyberweapons if a foreign adversary first hacked into U.S. computer networks. The answer: It depends on the extent of damage. One complicating factor, the defense lawyers wrote, is the difficulty of being certain about the source and intent of some cyberattacks, whose origin can easily be disguised. International Herald Tribune, November 9, 1999 The City London Doesn't Need the Euro, Thank You The pound looks the euro in the face. THE battle over whether Britain should join the single European currency was thrown wide open last night when the City of London said it was thriving outside the euro zone. One of the main arguments of euro-enthusiasts has been that London will lose influence as a world financial centre if Britain refuses to scrap the pound and sign up to monetary union. But Lord Levene, who stands down as Lord Mayor of London on Friday, said yesterday that far from losing business, the City had prospered despite Britain staying outside the single currency. He said campaigners for the single currency would no longer be able to use the City as an argument for signing up. Earlier this year, Lord Levene was among the leading figures in finance and business who voiced fears that London could lose out as a result of Britain not joining its main EU competitors, including France, Germany and Italy, in adopting the euro. In February, after a tour of European capitals, he gave warning that there was widespread expectation that London would lose ground to Frankfurt, where the European Central Bank, which runs the euro, is based. He said then that the City was looking for a positive sign that Britain would join the euro "sooner rather than later. In four or five years, London could start to lose out if the UK's entry into the euro is delayed". But he acknowledged yesterday that since the new currency was launched on Jan 1, London had "done more than hold its own". The first 10 to 11 months of the single currency were probably the most critical period for the City, but the impact of the euro had been positive. He said in the first half of this year, trading in shares in London of companies within the 11 euro-zone countries had increased by 59 per cent compared with the same period last year. Lord Levene made clear there was still a general expectation among financial institutions and other EU countries that Britain would hold a referendum on joining the single currency soon after the next election. He said a formal declaration that Britain would stay out permanently would have a serious impact on the City. William Hague, the Tory leader, has been careful to avoid saying "never" despite ruling out joining the euro in the lifetime of the next Parliament. But Lord Levene's acceptance that the City could continue to prosper even if the present position continued for some time is a serious blow for the Britain in Europe campaign. He said Britain's membership of the euro was not the key factor in whether banks and financial institutions from elsewhere in Europe and around the world continued to do business in London. London had other advantages, he said. It was increasingly regarded as "offshore" from mainland Europe, it had the English language, a "critical mass" of financial institutions, and business people liked living in London. "It is the Wimbledonisation of the City. We have the best playing field, but few of the finalists are British nationals." He contrasted London's booming financial sector - which ranks alongside New York and Tokyo - with its European rivals. "There are one million people working in financial services in London. The total population of Frankfurt - men, women and children - is 600,000." As Lord Mayor, Lord Levene is effectively the City's chief spokesman and is an influential figure. He has worked as an adviser to the present Government and the previous Tory administration and now heads the investment banking section of Deutsche Bank in London. His comments are a big boost for those who have long argued that Britain can have a viable economic future outside the euro. Francis Maude, the Tory Treasury spokesman, said Lord Levene had "knocked on the head once and for all" the idea that the City would suffer if Britain did not join the single currency. "It's about time that Tony Blair admitted that Britain can prosper in Europe but keep the pound," said Mr Maude. Earlier, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, who has made clear he will not be bounced into joining the single currency, underlined Britain's growing economic links with the United States. He announced a link-up between the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Cambridge University, aimed at developing technology entrepreneurs in Britain. The warmth of Mr Brown's welcome for American investment and expertise was seen at Westminster as a further sign that he intends to keep open his options on the euro. The Government yesterday demonstrated its determination to protect the City's leading role outside the euro zone by blocking plans for a European-wide tax on interest from savings. At a meeting in Brussels, Britain was accused of adopting an "unfair" approach to the proposed tax, which is aimed at preventing tax evasion across Europe. The London Telegraph, November 9, 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
