NYT (Feb 4) - "Broad Powers Seen for Obama in Cyberstrikes":
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/broad-powers-seen-for-obama-in-cyberstrikes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
A secret legal review on the use of America’s growing arsenal of
cyberweapons has concluded that President Obama has the broad power to
order a pre-emptive strike if the United States detects credible
evidence of a major digital attack looming from abroad, according to
officials involved in the review.
That decision is among several reached in recent months as the
administration moves, in the next few weeks, to approve the nation’s
first rules for how the military can defend, or retaliate, against a
major cyberattack. New policies will also govern how the intelligence
agencies can carry out searches of faraway computer networks for signs
of potential attacks on the United States and, if the president
approves, attack adversaries by injecting them with destructive code —
even if there is no declared war.
I'm somewhat amazed at the authorization for intelligence agencies to
routinely "search" "faraway computer networks". That begs the question:
well, how does one "search" a computer system? I'm guessing I can't use
Google for that. And how far away is "faraway" - and will it always
stay far away?
Geographic borders are about to become more relevant to the Internet, a
development which many would argue is counter to the spirit and purpose
of the Internet. Given the network climate that the US government seems
to be encouraging, sealed national networks such as China's Great
Firewall may be considered forward-looking to future Net generations.
And as regards this Administration's definition of "credible evidence"
to justify pre-emptive strikes, look no further than the recently
released DOJ memo on targeted killing of Americans by the American
government, which states:
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat
of violent attack against the United States does not require the
United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S.
persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,”
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
gf
On 2/5/13 2:56 PM, Yuval Adam wrote:
Distinction should be made between 'classic' military cyber-force
buildup (be it any type of resource), and privatized force. We can be
assured, to a certain degree, that only agents of state (i.e. armies)
have access to 'classic' strategic weapons. The same cannot be said
about cyber weapons of similar (potential) magnitude.
Probably the most disturbing aspect of "cyberwar" is the newspeak
rhetoric. War has always been a violent state of affairs between
countries/nations/alliances, while "cyberwar" never needs to be
explained or otherwise justified - it just *is*. "Cyberwar" exists by
its own right, with no need to claim who's Side A and Side B. It is
effectively the perfect vague, always-existing, Orwellian state of war
of the new era.
--
Gregory Foster || [email protected]
@gregoryfoster <> http://entersection.com/
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
