Air Force Cyber Command General Answers Slashdot Questions 543
Here are the answers to your questions for Major General William T. Lord, who runs the just-getting-off-the ground Air Force Cyber Command. Before you ask: yes, his answers were checked by both PR and security people. Also, please note that this interview is a "first," in that Generals don't typically take questions from random people on forums like Slashdot, and that it is being watched all the way up the chain of command into the Pentagon. Many big-wigs will read what you post here -- and a lot of them are interested in what you say and may even use your suggestions to help set future recruiting and operational policies. A special "thank you" goes to Maj. Gen. Lord for participating in this experiment, along with kudos to the (necessarily anonymous) people who helped us arrange this interview.
How do we prevent "mission creep" (Score:5, Insightful)
by Jeremiah Cornelius (137)
It appears that the military is increasingly involved in areas who's jurisdiction was once considered to be wholly in the civil domain. Use of jargon like "cyberspace" seems only to obfuscate and distract from the core issue. This appears an effort to recruit public opinion and defuse the deeper questions that strike at the heart of a free and civil society. I think that if we had a statement that "The private mails are a warfighting domain" would generate a fair amount of debate on the role of the military as opposed to the police, the function of constitutional protection of liberties, and the question of what actually constitutes a state of war.
What are the limits on this jurisdiction? Who enforces these limits, and how is the public informed of that status? How are efforts to extend being safeguarded from creating mission creep that threatens all civil discourse in the United States and abroad form targeting, suppression, propaganda and extra-legal surveillance?
ANSWER:
A very good question. It's a complex issue, but bottom line is that we won't need new laws to be able to fly and fight in cyberspace. The DoD's role in protecting cyberspace is governed by domestic and international law to the same extent as its activities in other domains. Other U.S. agencies, such as the Department of Justice and the FBI, have important and, in many cases, leading roles to play.
Attacks on the US and its Allies by China (Score:5, Interesting)
by Yahma (1004476)
There have been several recent news reports that China has and is engaging in a nationally funded effort to hack into and attack US government computer systems. The German government recently announced that they traced recent aggressive cyber-attacks back to the Chinese government. What, if anything, is being done against this type of cyber-terrorism against us and our allies? Why do we still confer most-favored nation trading status onto a Nation who is actively engaged in efforts to spy on and attacak our government and corporate computer systems?
ANSWER:
Yes, there are lots of news reports on that, but I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that there are other branches of the U.S. government that must answer your foreign policy questions. I can tell you that securing cyberspace is difficult and requires a coordinated and focused effort from our entire society - federal government, state and local governments, the private sector and the American people. The Air Force is working to improve our ability to respond to cyber attacks, reduce the potential damage from such events, and to reduce our vulnerability to such attacks.
Accept, Retain, Solicit good people? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Lally Singh (3427)
General,
Some of the most talented people in computer security tend to have the sort of records that prevent them from getting clearance. Maybe nothing heavily criminal, but enough of a colored background that traditional security clearance mechanisms would throw them out of the room before they get started. Often the same types of minds that are really good at computer security are also the rebel types, who'll have some history. Will you work to get these people in, or are we looking at a bunch of off-the-shelf programmers/admins who've taken a few simple courses in computer security?
Also, how do you plan to attract/retain them? Again, rebel types are some of the best hackers, and they're not likely to go in without incentives. Not due to any lack of patriotism per se, but an unexplored understanding of it. More importantly, they're likely to be anti-establishment types who aren't comfortable in the strict traditional chain of command. Finally, usually the outside industry pays quite well for the good ones. Are you prepared to financially compete for the best?
Finally, will there be any connections back to the research/academic community? You may find academics more happy to help than usual, as cyber warfare can often be nonviolent. Also, will the existing (and immense) capability within the NSA be properly leveraged?
ANSWER:
I believe even the most unlikely candidate, when working for a cause bigger than himself, turns out to be a most loyal ally. Young men and women come into the military for any number of reasons - education, health care, etc. - but end up staying because they believe what they're doing matters. We know money doesn't create loyalty--a sense of purpose does. We'll take what they have to offer, and in turn they might be surprised by what they get back. It's not just our military members either, it's all those who partner with us . . . academia and private industry, our civilians and contractors, too. In the cyber command, there is a purpose and sense of urgency to be ready. You can bet that we leverage all the expertise out there to help us do our job.
Older recruits? (Score:5, Interesting)
by rolfwind (528248)
It seems that in the military traditionally it was always looking for people fresh out of highschool for EMs and if you wanted to get anywhere in the military you had to be either college educated or, to really have a high end military career, start really young in something like the Valley Forge Military Academy and work from there.
In a traditional branch of the army/navy/airforce that is probably as it should be.
But in this area people have to be trained for years, still not know as much as the older hands in the private industry, and before they really know enough their enlistment would be over. Also, it would be unacceptable for an older IT person to join but take a pay cut to a Private's level or perhaps even a Lieutenant's -- so I imagine this branch would have to be somewhat different.
Is the military going to do to reach out toward the older folks who have extensive experience and knowledge outside the military?
ANSWER:
As I work alongside today's Airmen, many with very specialized skill sets in great demand outside the Air Force, I find them to be incredibly well trained and up-to-speed on current technologies. We bring them in from a general practitioner level and take them to expert level in reasonable time ... and well before retirement age indeed! We train them with specific technical skills as well as overarching abilities required to lead in today's environment. You're right in that we couldn't compete in the cyber world without the experts in the civilian industries who give us the technology in the first place, provide the architectures we use, and even the software we need. People don't have to enlist or take a pay cut to help us out. Certain skill sets can also be brought on board as civilians or contractors, and in many cases we do offer compensation competitive with the commercial sector.
Which acts of war should be illegal in cyberspace? (Score:5, Interesting)
by cohomology (111648)
War is never clean.
In conventional warfare, certain actions such as hiding among civilian populations are forbidden. These actions are considered war crimes because of the collateral damage they are likely to cause. What actions in cyberspace do you think should be outlawed? How about intentionally bringing down hospital IT systems, or destroying undersea cables without regard to the effects on civilian populations?
ANSWER:
The U.S. military complies with all applicable domestic and international laws, and that will certainly apply equally within cyberspace. The Law of Armed Conflict, for example, arose from a desire among civilized nations to prevent unnecessary suffering and minimize unintended destruction while still waging an effective war. It would be possible, as you mentioned in your scenario, that some who ignore the laws of civilized nations could conduct operations in cyberspace that may have unlawful negative consequences on civilian populations. For us, abiding by these laws, being good at we what do and maintaining a technological advantage over our adversaries provides us a first line of defense. Those who commit unlawful acts would certainly face potential criminal liability for war crimes.
Physical Fitness (Score:5, Interesting)
by spacerog (692065)
General, You were recently quoted in Wired as having said "So if they can't run three miles with a pack on their backs but they can shut down a SCADA system, we need to have a culture where they fit in." Is this an accurate quote? As a former member of the US Army I must say that passing a PT test is not very difficult and the suggestion that some soldiers should be exempt from basic minimum requirements is rather upsetting. Are you actually advocating the relaxation of military physical fitness standards for 'cyber warriors'? Would this not create a double standard and animosity between the cyber command and other sections of the military? Surely there must be other recruitment incentives that can be applied to attract the talent you need.
ANSWER:
I don't disagree with you . . . and I am not advocating changing our PT test. What I am saying is that we, as a military culture, need to look beyond what we've traditionally recruited. The very nature of our military requires that we be able to work in combat conditions and be able to establish and protect our cyber/communications structures and networks in remote, even austere conditions. As anyone who has worked in these austere locations will tell you, being fit is critical to mission success, so I don't foresee or advocate for a relaxation of standards just to bring in this specific type of talent. But, as we know, some of what we do in cyber can be done at home station as well, so what will our force look like in the future? This is something we need to look at and evaluate as we progress in this area.
It is good war is so terrible... (Score:5, Insightful)
by MozeeToby (1163751)
A wise man once said "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it". If cyberwarfare ever becomes a reality, how do we respond to the fact that is isn't "terrible"?
The direct damage from such warfare would be primarily economic or data security related (rather than a cost in human lives) how do you feel we can prevent it from becoming a monthly, yearly, or daily occurance?
ANSWER:
The fact is we are dealing with this on a daily basis and it won't be going away anytime soon. Not for any of us. The way to shield ourselves from these attacks is to be at the forefront of technology, tactics and procedures relating to operating in cyberspace. We have systems and software that are protected by multiple layers of security and functional redundancy. We train our people to be on the cutting edge of this technology, and we find ways secure our information. We have to take this very seriously because we rely on our networks to conduct military operations all around the world. The person who hates war the most is the warrior who has to go to it ... we want to prevent that.
Criminal vs Warlike Actions (Score:5, Interesting)
by florescent_beige (608235)
General Lord,
Does the AFCC have a mandate to pursue criminals that use information infrastructure to commit crimes, or is your group intended to defend against warlike attacks only?
If the latter is true, how would you distinguish between criminal activity and warlike activity in cyberspace?
ANSWER:
The speed and anonymity of cyber attacks makes it very hard to distinguish what actions would be those of terrorists, criminals, nation states or just some lone prankster. Our command coordinates with government partners such as the DoD's Cyber Crime Center staff, who work with law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute criminal acts if necessary. A "war-like activity" can also include presenting misleading information to our battlefield commanders. So, we've got to be spot on about authenticating the trusted source of that information in the first place. But, generally speaking, if something is a coordinated attack that would cause disruption or an attack that required a high level of technical sophistication to carry out, that would cause us to take a closer look and recommend a proper response.
Legal Hacking... (Score:5, Funny)
by JeanBaptiste (537955)
Just post a list of the stuff you want hacked and the more patriotic hackers will enjoy doing it for free.
Due to the nature of hacking and what many people do to acquire such skills, they may not want to 'join up' and all that.
But if you post a list of IP's that are okay to bring down, and networks you want information stolen from, with the understanding that the US will not condemn any attacks, and I'm sure more than enough people would do it for free.
Is there anything like this already in place? Cause I got nothing better to do this weekend. Or most any weekend.
ANSWER:
YGTBKM! LOL! I like your enthusiasm, but you know the Air Force neither encourages nor condones criminal activity.
Could a Cyber Attack Trigger a Real War? (Score:5, Interesting)
by florescent_beige (608235)
General Lord,
I'm curious to know if you have have any criteria that would enable you do decide when a cyber attack is an act of war. Would it be possible for some kind of action inside a network to lead to a shooting war without some kind of overt physical threat occurring first?
ANSWER:
Within the Department of Defense, we are careful not to speculate about what would be considered an act of war. Our nation's elected officials are the ones who will decide what threats to, or actions against our national security will constitute an act of war against the United States. These same leaders will likewise determine what an appropriate response would be, and that could be diplomatic, economic or involve the military to demonstrate the nation's resolve. That's why it's my responsibility to oversee the building of a command that will provide our leaders, through the appropriate chain of command, with many options with which to deter threats in the first place or respond when necessary.
Why was the Air Force tasked with this? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Isaac-Lew (623)
Why should the US Air Force be tasked with this, instead of DISA or NSA, neither of which is tied to a specific branch of the military?
ANSWER:
Don't confuse the fact that we are standing up the Air Force Cyber Command to mean we are the lead for the nation, or the primary command to respond to a particular incident. We are just one part of a combined effort. Our first priority is to work with DoD to defend AF military resources, but many of those resources rely on civilian entities, so we obviously have a keen interest in protecting those items as well. We thought it was the right thing to do to consolidate our efforts and to align all the Air Force cyber-related resources so we can have better command and control. This command will be able to respond better to the needs of our commanders and be the focal point within the Air Force for cyber security and defense missions, as well as respond to emergencies and natural disasters. Make no mistake, we are partners with the other sister services--the Army, Marines, Navy--as well as with DISA, NSA and Homeland Security to name a few. We're all in this together.
Question about Existing Contractors (Score:5, Interesting)
by tachyon13 (963336)
General Lord, I currently work as the exact type of 'cyber warrior' you intend to recruit. But I already have a Top Secret clearance, already familiar with DoD systems, etc. The dynamic with what we call 'Information Assurance' is that of a constant struggle with our contractor management (stay within the contract, the budget, etc) and with our 'warfighter' higher ups (educating them on why they can't have full access from their home in the spirit of "operations are a priority, to hell with security"). So assuming you can get the type of expertise that are eligible for clearances, and that are willing to relocate to Offutt/etc, how are you going to address the core issue of security in the DoD: Operations/budget/schedule will always trump security. Or alternatively, security will always be back burner to 'hot' issues. Thank you for your time.
ANSWER:
Certainly the balance between having access to do our mission and having robust security is an issue where not everyone agrees on just how much to restrict or how much to allow. The Air Force takes the security of its computer networks very seriously and has taken several measures to educate our users and to provide secure means for them to operate. As with many other issues, the Air Force through its commanders, must assess the risks and make a decision. I don't agree or I maybe I just haven't seen where security is always a back burner item.
CyberCommand Location (Score:5, Interesting)
by Mz6 (741941)
General,
Can you explain some about the situation developing between Barksdale AFB and Offutt AFB as they try to fight over the eventual final location for CyberCommand? My thoughts are that finding and recruiting talent, and laying the foundation for such a large wired infrastructure in the Omaha, Nebraska area may be easier to accomplish than in and around Shreveport, LA. What types of things is the DoD looking for when they choose the final location for this new Command?
ANSWER:
The government actually has a regulation that covers the whole process for choosing a location for a command and it's a very defined, thorough process. The bases must meet certain criteria -- existing infrastructure would be just one aspect of many items along with communications or square footage requirements, but there are other considerations, such as the impact to the environment that the Pentagon will consider. I would hope that no matter where it was located, we would still be able to attract the talent needed to work in this exciting command and that all communities see the need to protect this domain.
The questions are interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, well. At least they tried.
No one asked... (Score:1, Insightful)
LOL
Consider me impressed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Did anyone seriously expect anything else?
We live in an age where the press routinely goes over every single word spoken by celebrities, politicians, and public figures, and tries to make a scandal out of any off-hand comment that can be construed to embarrass the speaker.
Any officer who has not learned to cover his ass and keep his mouth shut will have a short career in today's military.
Re:Right General? (Score:5, Insightful)
In his defense. (Score:1, Insightful)
I welcome a personality from a department not known for it's sense of humor.
Adding a missing question... (Score:2, Insightful)
In 2004 I was made aware of an effort by the Singaporean Military to hire a Singaporean national with an existing history of submitting code to the Linux kernel (I believe his main are was network card drivers for hardware made by various Asian manufacturers).
Their proposal was that in the middle of the normal patch stream he would slowly inject a very subtle bug that would introduce a remote exploit into the Linux kernel, that they could then keep to themselves for use if needed.
Whether or not this story was entirely true (I have never been able to confirm it, given the sensitivity and not wanting to risk trouble, but my source knew the person they tried to recruit) surely there must be potential risk of similar efforts by governments around the world.
Can you guarantee that you won't attempt to intentionally introduce exploits into Open Source projects in order to create your own private zero day exploits?
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
So tell me, what did you learn, other than the good general is well practiced in PR-fu?
Re:Right General? (Score:2, Insightful)
The cute little acronyms aren't used much here. We're hard core geeks. No big deal though -- at least they're trying.
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm in the Big Brother database, now...
Re:Right General? (Score:-1, Insightful)
Re:AGREED (Score:3, Insightful)
Concerning hacking foreign powers (Score:4, Insightful)
Becasue they are stupid? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Future vision and legal challenges (Score:4, Insightful)
It is unfortunate that the General did not talk about his vision for the future, as several questions prompted.
Does the Cyber Command have a concrete understanding, and long term projections, of cyber wafare in the future?
For example, could this result in the creation of a new branch of the military, in a similar way as the Army Air
Corps spawned the Air Force? In order to instill confidence in our operations, it is important that we convey an
appropriate vision for the future. The disparity, for example, revealed in one response about distinct cyber
groups across the different branches of the military is counter-intuitive, to say the least! This reveals an operational, as opposed to a strategic role of IT in the military. While that may be correct today, ought we not be working towards a paradigm shift in the future?
On the issue of internet law, while a politically understandable response, it would have been good to have read a
more realistic grappling with these incredibly difficult problems. It is a fairly routine conception to refer to
the internet as the wild west, and this is a significant reality in terms of effectively addressing defense. In
particular, this contradiction is revealing:
"It's a complex issue, but [the] bottom line is that we won't need new laws to be able to fly and fight in
cyberspace." [....] "Those who commit unlawful acts would certainly face potential criminal liability for war
crimes."
Effective warfare exploits opportunity, and the lawlessness of the internet has been exploited ad nausea by
criminals and nations the world over. While it is not the role of the military to devise such laws, surely we can
see the strategic importance that it is in our best interest to encourage the establishment of such laws? This should be pretty
obvious: in the same way that a military power is want to fight insurgents/guerrillas, the US Cyber Command
shouldn't tacitly accept a theater that strongly disadvantages what should otherwise be a significant position of
power.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian Basgen
Information Security Officer
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's ok - he'll still put his life on the line to protect your right to continue to whine.
Re:Right General? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Some things seem beyond the military's ken (Score:3, Insightful)
"To my mind, this issue becomes more of how we can improve abysmal public schools and the like than what the military can do."
Great, how many PTA meetings have you been to? how much time have you volunteered? Money?
Have you tried to find a way fro them to get more moeny? discussed the issue that the cost of running a school is going up faster then the taxes that go to it? Have you talked to your representative about it? have you looked at different legislators?
Until you have done all that, then you can add to the issue instead of just point and whine about a problem.
Not to mention that question doesn't belong in this interview. If
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
You are now on our watch-list, "citizen".
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, most of the comments were relatively content free, but a few of them had some interesting tidbits. I mean, I didn't expect him to say "Well, here are our plans, and here are full in depth discussions on some rather sensitive topics". From the position he was coming from, I appreciate that amount he DID say. I think he took the questions seriously and provided those answers he could.
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case I'd list some of the competing interests as:
Don't want to actually lie.
Don't want to say anything your worst enemy shouldn't know.
Don't want to be *perceived* to be doing either of the preceding.
Want to appear receptive to questions.
Want to remain politically neutral.
I'm sure there are many more.
I did manage to tease out one interesting tidbit from two questions of mine the General was kind enough to answer:
Question #9: When asked if a cyber-attack could lead to a shooting war, the General replies (to paraphrase) that the response to any given scenario is up to elected officials, not the DoD. Fair enough. But...
Question #7: When asked about the difference between criminal and military-like actions online, the General replies that, depending on the nature of the attack, his group would "recommend a proper response".
So, while the ultimate decision is always to be up to the CinC, the DoD isn't without an opinion as the answer to #9 might imply. The real answer would get into operational planning which, of course, can't be revealed.
Actually I find the answers interesting to parse, knowing that they must have been massaged by so many experts.
None of which is meant to belittle the fact that the General actually took time to go though this exercise. Very refreshing.
Re:Right General? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, the question itself was rated +5, Funny.
Interesting interview but... (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of the questioners and commenter's seem to believe that the serious work of Network Security, technical counter espionage, and general "cyber" defense are done by folks in blue or green uniforms. This is simply not the case. Contractors and government civilian employees do the vast majority of this work.
It doesn't matter that the Air Force isn't changing its standards to recruit more "hackers" into the enlisted or officer ranks because the work is overwhelmingly being done by civilian contractors/GS/DOD civilians.
Just because the recruiting commercials talk about the high quality of military technical training doesn't make it true. Most of NETCOM's military folks wouldn't know a NOOP_SLED or SQL injection attack from a Carl's Jr. 6-dollar burger.
It isn't that they are unintelligent mind you; it is simply that the training is inadequate, their time is divided amongst too many tasks to stay on top of technical fields, and the culture of the military isn't very conducive to performance oriented tech tasks.
After all when a CERT geek is underperforming you can motivate them with the threat of job loss or outright fire their dead ass... the military just doesn't work like that.
Incompetence is rampant because it isn't grounds for termination. Ergo : contractor corps.Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
I considered some of the answers insightful, for example: "We know money doesn't create loyalty--a sense of purpose does".
Yes, some answers lacked deep content in that they were the expected carefully worded answer. Unfortunately, these questions almost required such an answer. For example, "Why do we still confer most-favored nation trading status onto a Nation who is actively engaged in efforts to spy on and attack our government and corporate computer systems?" Although this is a very good question, General Lord seems like the wrong person to even attempt that question. The probable complaint is that the answers lacked detail. For example, from the same question "What, if anything, is being done against this type of cyber-terrorism against us and our allies?" The answer lacks detail, but it would be difficult to add detail to his answer without discussing a specific threat. I would have enjoyed that discussion, BTW, and use his answer as a start: "working to improve our ability to respond to cyber attacks, reduce the potential damage from such events, and to reduce our vulnerability to such attacks."
Thank you General Lord for your time!
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think they wouldn't pick up a gun if needed?
contractors (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, why the hell not? It's a requirement of the job. There's nothing about PT that's bad for you; in fact, physical exercise sharpens the mind. A soldier is a soldier, and one who isn't trained or able to help his fellow soldier when the crap hits the fan is being a poor soldier. Obviously everyone has their area of expertise; I don't expect everyone to know or be able to do anything. But I'd be pissed if a comrade hadn't at least tried to get strong enough to carry me out if I were unconscious; hadn't learned the basics of first aid, etc.
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Securing your own assets (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked at a certain major AFSPC base for almost a decade as a contractor. Back in the early days, when we first got a base-wide Internet connection, the local Comm Squadron was free to implement security systems as they saw fit, and we had some good stuff in place - we sorted out the Sidewinder mess that CITS dumped on us, added our own IDS, and made the best of our home field advantage, setting up tripwire alarms and things on hosts scattered throughout the network to catch internal scanning.
This was all done by contractors, mind you, and it got done because we liked what we were doing, took pride in doing a good job of it, and we had support from the squadron commander. The blue suiters had a very high turnover rate, with average retention at something like 6-9 months for the folks down at our level. None of them ever learned to do much besides process NOTAM paperwork and handle accreditation pacakges.
Once the MAJCOM started taking control of the security stuff, our defensive posture went to crap. What we'd done didn't fit with the overall plan, so it was all removed. We were left with poorly-implemented downward-directed systems operated by poorly-trained drones. Every week we'd have to explain to these people (mostly MAJCOM-level people, the AFCERT folks were usually a little better) basic concepts like IP spoofing (I wrote a 2-page form letter on the subject), and teach them how to read their own ASIM logs.
I have to say that the aggressor squadron teams that'd come in and attack the network knew their stuff. And of course they were able to break in every time. But it felt a little like being armed with a paintball gun and having the Marines sent at you. We KNEW how to help prevent, detect, and respond to these attacks, but we weren't given the authority, time, or resources to do anything about it.
If Cyber Command is going to do anything useful on the defensive side of things, then the best thing they can do, IMO, is to deploy a small garrison force to each base and give them the responsibility for base network defense. Let them interface directly with the BNCC, and plan on having them in one place for AT LEAST 18-24 months. Let all of these forces communicate with each other at the working level to share information and strategies. Some of our most productive contacts were those we made with other bases on our own initiative, and not through the chain of command. Keep the chain of command in the loop, but let the people at the bottom talk to each other.
Most importantly, make it clear that their job is security, and not paper pushing. Certainly there's always going to be paperwork involved, but when I left, the CND office did nothing BUT push paper, and paper that was largely worthless. Not a single thing they did would have ever helped to detect an attack from within the base network.
I don't mind saying all of this, and I'll be happy to say plenty more, because I don't work there any more, and I frankly don't care to ever get another penny of Air Force money. I WOULD like to know that the trend toward totally incompetent central management of base security is being reversed, though.
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yawn. This is the stock answer to any criticism of the military, and it's crap. Yes, the military is important. Yes, military personnel take risks that most civilians don't, and should be honored for their service. But this does not mean that civilians -- you know, the people the military exists for -- shouldn't be able to criticize the military in general, and certainly doesn't mean that they shouldn't criticize individual military personnel when they retreat into bureaucratic doublespeak instead of giving a straight answer to a question. There's a lot that's right with the military. There's also a lot that's wrong. It is the right and duty of the people to call bullshit when they see it, WRT the military or any other part of the government.
There are countries where this isn't the case, of course. I doubt you'd want to live in any of them.
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Generals aren't hired as Generals. They are promoted after years of dedicated service.
I'm willing to bet that he's done more to protect all of us than you will ever do.
Re:Right General? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a pretty unreasonable question to ask someone who does not make criminal policy.
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay. I will. That line was added as a blatant pandering move to the way it's assumed we communicate. He (or rather whoever he showed this to before it got to us) obviously thought that he could get in with us that way without realizing that we, as a whole, aren't anything like the cast of a Verizon commercial. It's as offensive to me as a white guy speaking "black" to a black coworker out of the blue and just as effective.
There was no content in the questions at all, but he absolutely lost me when I got to that line.
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? How do we know that? Which of the military actions in the last 50 years or so were related to my right to whine? Yes, the war on rice in Vietnam was all about my free speech. Or how about both Gulf Wars and the right to cheap oil (and how cheap is your oil now)? Given the actions of the US government in Cuba, how am I to know that he isn't willing to lay down his life to take away my rights, rather than increase them?
Just being stupid enough to sign up for "designated target" status for long enough to make general doesn't mean that someone is patriotic or willing to protect anything this country stands for. It just means that you are capable of following orders and occassionally guessing what your superiors meant when they screwed up. As for protecting any rights, no military has done that in a long time. They protect political stances and the government's right to whine, at the expense of the people.
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Generals never risk their lives? http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/dfpratt.htm [arlingtoncemetery.net]
OK, it's pretty unlikely that Gen. Lord will be participating in any airborne invasions, but you never know...
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
They're not asking every soldier to make his/her body into a temple--just keep it from turning into a Phillipine brothel.
USAF getting bad advice? (Score:5, Insightful)
A good pay is how your employer shows you that your work and your experience are appreciated. And knowing that you are appreciated is what makes you a happy employee. And happy employees tend to be loyal to their employers. So, yes, money does create loyalty. Lord says that "in many cases we do offer compensation competitive with the commercial sector". While this may be true, working for the USAF as a civilian contractor is not like working in the commercial sector. There's a whole different level of crap that you need to put up with. So, if the USAF is serious about this Cyber Command business, they need to do a whole lot better than just salaries that are "competitive... in many cases". When hiring, don't go for the quantity - you are not planning a cyber-invasion of China - but go for quality instead.
Speaking of quality, while Lord understands that they "need to look beyond what we've traditionally recruited", he is still under the impression that the USAF can "bring them in from a general practitioner level and take them to expert level in reasonable time". Of course, this depends on their definition of "reasonable time", but somehow I don't think they mean 10-20 years. They are probably talking about a couple of years at most. I remember reading a resume of a guy claiming to have "reached the Unix guru level". I just had to bring him in for an interview: I wanted to see what a Unix guru looked like. Apparently, some time in the past ten years the minimum guru requirements have been significantly lowered.
Programming and system administration are not those fields where you can turn a rookie into an expert in reasonable time. The time required will be most unreasonable. For example, a good sysadmin is not someone with encyclopedic knowledge of "man" files, but someone with a big database in his head of stuff that broke down and how it was fixed. Theoretical knowledge is important - comp-sci degrees, training, certificates, etc. - but what really matters is experience - years and years of it. So hire the most experienced personnel you can afford and hold on to them as if the security of your country depended on it. Guys who are good, know they are good, so you need good ego-stroking skills to keep them around. Hint: pinning medals to their chests is not going to help, but a fatter paycheck might. So the approach along the lines of "we'll take what they have to offer, and in turn they might be surprised by what they get back" is not going to work. The people USAF needs are of that certain age where they don't like and can ill afford surprises.
"The U.S. military complies with all applicable domestic and international laws, and that will certainly apply equally within cyberspace..." And that's what everyone is afraid of. But, hey, as long as they wear uniforms while hacking networks, they should be in the clear as far as the Geneva conventions are concerned.
Recommendation - Don't send Non-Answers to /. (Score:1, Insightful)
While I appreciate the attempt to appeal to a wider audience, I would suggest avoiding situations like this instead of merely giving "PR answers" and hoping they will produce a favorable impression. Given they myrid constraints any communication attempts of this nature must face, I would estimate the potential harm is greater than the potential gain.
(I should also state that I am operating under the assumption that this exercise was undertaken as a serious attempt to communicate and generate good PR for the army, and not for the purposes of generating responses indicating that the "tech community" being appealed to here is not a viable recruitment channel and not a source of potential workers compatible with the Army. I expect it is a good faith effort but the possibility remains that someone is hoping "slashdot" will annoy certain people.)
Re:Dear generals (Score:5, Insightful)
You have the chance to eject the Republicans every election.
Re:AGREED, but some caveats: (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, from my decade of service in the USN Submarine Service I'd say that a significant (if not vast) majority of my fellow bubbleheads exhibited the traits of "prickly independence" and "rebel/renegade". From encounters and conversations with other parts of the Navy and other branches of the service over the years I'd say that (outside of the more elite branches, like the Submarine Service) the traits are present in what amounts to only a very slight minority.
Many in the military also tend to be more creative than you might think. Certainly we're trained as most people think, to treat The Book as something to be followed slavishly. What most people don't realize is that we are also schooled in the principles behind The Book so that when the shit hits the fan and The Book has to be tossed over our shoulder - we are ringing the changes [wikipedia.org] rather than merely improvising. (And even when we do have to improvise, we've still got that grounding to work from.)
Which is why the military values those traits - someone who doesn't have them flounders when you have to heave The Book. And the military knows full well that in the real world things will go all pear shaped - its inevitable. (And, inevitably, leads to tension between 'the kind of serviceman you want in peacetime' and 'the serviceman you need in harm's way'.)
The difference between the typical creative person and the military mind, I think, lies in the ability of the military mind to 'switch modes' as it were. The discipline to stay in robot mode when needed, matched with the ability to operate creatively when needed. You can't have artistic tantrums when the bullets are flying, or even in peacetime in garrison.
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if you've noticed, but the biggest threat to the Constitution has been the current administration.
Re:Culture problems (Score:2, Insightful)
The way they hire talented people are through their contractors. These contractors that fall under the supervision of GS's are usually better payed, more knowledgable, and more exeperienced to handle the job then they are.
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:1, Insightful)
Just like the legal department or even the marketing department of a large corporation might have guidelines they "take seriously", not all sheep follow (and some get lost). Just because Microsoft lacks secure software in places does not mean that there is a TOTAL disregard for security.
The Government is the same way. The Cybercommand is a better way to combine these efforts in the Air Force and show they are on the ball. The DoD is attacked EVERY DAY (every minute of every second of every day, more like it) so this is nothing new, other than an effort to unite standards and efforts.
It would be great to have the Air Force accept their role of "Propeller hats" vs "grunts". Too often the branches of the DoD get wound up about who is "hard" and the next thing you know everyone has new uniforms and contests for the harshest basic training. The truth of the Air Force is that they send officers into combat and the majority of the enlisted force is to support them (Army is the other way around). So I welcome the day of Air Force uniforms with elastic waists and airmen with nose rings, if it means that the "bad guys" are sent to
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how hard it is to become a pilot and what kind of intelligence is needed but assuming that you can't fly if you are a moron, is it possible that something has happened between then and now?
Just asking.
Bad bet (Score:3, Insightful)
He doesn't want to hire you. He wants people who aren't motivated only by money.
Because if you're motivated only by money, when the Ruskies (allow my cold war allusion) come by with a $40M bag you're going to tell them everything you know.
Now, you may be saying to yourself, "hey, I'm not just about the money, I've got my ethics, my morals, my values." OK, so then take a paycut for the Common Defense, if that's the right thing to do. If not, see #1.
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
One theory I heard when Bush first became president was that he had a form of dyslexia. It struck me as plausible because at the time I had a flatmate who was also dyslexic and occasionally made similar odd mistakes with words. (OTOH, another(!) of my flatmates was dyslexic and didn't).
Personally, I think that he's either undiagnosed or is trying to cover it up.
Bush certainly isn't as stupid as his clumsiness with words would suggest. That doesn't change the fact that he's an overprivileged fratboy born with a silver spoon in his mouth (in both the financial and political senses) who still likes to portray himself as a no-nonsense man-of-the-people Southerner- another piece of fakery. Nor the fact that he's anti-intellectual and a facilitator of the type of snout-in-the-trough croneyism and corporatism that makes a mockery of "free" trade. Nor even that by general presidential standards he's mediocre to the point of being piss-poor.
But all that aside, most people are think about the Bush of mangled-speeches infamy, and I really don't think he's quite as stupid as those would suggest.
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I don't agree with you, but you forget Afghanistan. Don't feel bad, it seems no one cares or remembers it either, sadly. Afghanistan might have been the closest the US has been to a "just" war since WWII, since it was directly linked to our own protection. I mean just by our own interests in safety, since I guess Iraq II could be called "just" by a stretch to, since we did remove a pretty big genocidal asshat. By just I mean in intention, in Iraq the positive was only a secondary (and irrelevant) consequence of bad reasoning, but I digress.
Re:The questions are interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
In the 1980s I was discussing my career options with a teacher at South Seattle Community College, Ted Kosky. Ted was well known within the Seattle peace activist community at the time.
I told Ted I was leaning against working for defense oriented companies. Ted put this in front of me to consider:
If ethical people refuse to work for defense companies or government, then only unethical people would be working there. Do you want those places governed by 100% unethical people?