Lt. Col. John Bircher Answers Your Questions 232
I'd like to preface my responses to your questions by first remarking on the quality and intensity of the input. I was quite literally blown away by the questions you asked, and humbled. Quite candidly, I had some difficulty answering them all. Part of my responsibility in participating in this forum is sticking to "my lane," which means not speaking about things I don't know anything about and not speculating beyond my level of experience and expertise. In those cases where I either didn't know or couldn't answer the question specifically, I inform you of this fact. Still, you will note that every question has an answer because I use every opportunity to share some aspect of the Army's story. Thank you for this rare chance to engage great minds in an important discussion.
1) "What is that?"
by khasim
What, specifically, would be a "cyber-electronic engagement".
Include examples.
Compare/contrast with traditional forms of intelligence gathering (wiretaps, listening devices, etc) and their counter-measures.
As I mentioned in my preface, I'll try to stick to my lane. I have been given the challenge of helping the Army map out the concepts for how we will operate in and through cyberspace in the future: specifically, 2015 and beyond. Sometimes I feel like I'm part science fiction writer, part futurist, part planner. Other times I feel as though I'm leaning into the proverbial windmill. All that said, it's an exciting time to be associated with the Army. One of the concepts we're working on is the thought that you can create effects both in cyberspace and through cyberspace. There are a myriad of tasks, actions, and activities that you can do in order to achieve effects in and through cyberspace - we're grouping these "things" under the banner Cyber-Electronics as a place holder for now. For example, you and I are engaged in a cyber-electronic engagement right now: I'm answering you through cyberspace, as opposed to in person, in order to achieve the effect of informing you.
At its foundation, this is what military operations are about: effects generation and management. Traditionally, we tend to think about effects having impact in the physical domain only, but military operations have always been about cognitive effects, too. In cyberspace, most effects are cognitive: they inform, affect and influence our beliefs, values, dogmas and, ultimately, decisions. One of the best aspects of my current job is that I am afforded the luxury of "engaging" (there's that word again) in discussions, debates, and decision processes that actually cause me to think beyond traditional military functions, and I get to "engage" in these forums with some pretty smart, outside-of-the-box thinkers who are not in uniform (and some who are!).
There has long been a debate about the appropriateness of the military participating in influence operations but if we think about it, influence operations are fundamental to everything we as a society do. Rather than shy away from the debate, we are actively embracing it as we strive to articulate an appropriate role for the Army in cyberspace. The American Public, too, has its role - that of defining the checks and balances that proscribe the acceptable limits of these operations.
2) "Threat Assessment"
by mykepredko
As I understand it, every military in the world assess the threat its opponents pose by their capabilities rather than perceived intents.
How do you perform a threat assessment in the area of cyber-warfare where the physical weapons (as was pointed out in an earlier post) is the keyboard and mouse with much of technology being used as a threat being developed in the U.S?
New capabilities and technological breakthroughs always challenge the ability to assess the threat, but the fundamentals of threat assessment will not change. Today, we use terms such as kinetic and non-kinetic to describe military operations: kinetic meaning motion and physical impact; non-kinetic meaning non-physical impact, something akin to "winning hearts and minds." Cyberspace is an interesting amalgam of both. While largely non-kinetic, it can yet produce kinetic outcomes, especially when you think about not just creating effects in cyberspace but also when you consider creating effects through cyberspace. A virus can crash systems, rendering hardware useless. Malicious rumors on the Internet can result in someone taking their own or someone else's life.
There's a scene in the movie Patton, where Patton is watching a battle unfold on the North African desert against his arch adversary Erwin Rommel. Patton is winning and triumphantly explains why, "I read your book, you son of a b****." Part of threat assessment is not only tallying up an adversary's arsenal of weapons but also getting inside his head. Cyberspace is highly cerebral and highly diffused, where threats can come from any corner. This reality demands new assessment tools. It's all unfolding fast and furiously, and we're working hard to ensure we have the capabilities needed to assess and defeat these new threats effectively. The Army is not acting alone. We work very closely with the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, FBI, and just about every other government organization that operates in cyberspace to make sure we don't overstep our bounds. The Army and all the Department of Defense organizations are very aware of our legal restrictions and requirements, and we go to great pains to make sure we do not cross over into another organization's area of responsibility concerning cyberspace.
3) "Technique?"
by Manip
Does the US Army take advantage of traditional misconfiguration and social engineering techniques in order to compromise a network or is the US government developing a home-grown list of exploits to gain access to foreign government systems?
First, it's important to clarify that as far as I'm aware, we're not in the business of compromising networks or gaining access to other governments' systems without just cause. When there is a clear threat to national security, we then employ legal and just means to deal with that threat. Also, I'm not able to discuss specific methods that the Army might or might not be employing but only speak in terms of concepts and capabilities that we should have in order to be successful conducting operations in cyberspace. If you have insights and skills that might broaden our capabilities in this arena, I encourage you to consider joining the emerging DoD cyber-workforce.
As members of the military, we are sworn to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. The challenge in cyberspace is being able to discern with clarity one's enemy. Social engineering takes advantage of this anonymity. There are significant legal implications with which we are constantly checking. The rules of war have always been their own; yet we have always held American forces to a higher standard, and the same will hold true in cyberspace.
4) "Attacks"
by Notquitecajun
Without diving into details that compromise security, can you reveal anything about the types or quantities of attacks that the US military is able to fend off, and how often they are faced?
If the Air Force television commercial is accurate, the Pentagon alone is cyber-attacked at least three million times a day. So military-wide, the number of attacks is likely significant, but I would suspect relatively few of these attacks are pernicious enough to comprise a significant threat and fewer still are successful. Beyond this, I am not privy to details about the nature and magnitude of these attacks.
5) "China"
by je ne sais quoi
What is the U.S. Army doing to protect U.S. sensitive information from the frequent number of cyber-attacks originating from inside the People's Republic of China? Is it primarily defensive?
U.S. sensitive information requires safeguarding, no matter who may be probing or attacking our systems in order to gain access to this information. This fact demands that we undertake all protective measures possible ... and we are.
6) "Hacker war..."
by Notquitecajun
I doubt you could REALLY answer this, but Is the US military playing any sort of role in the semi-underground "hacker war" that appears to be going on between China and the US?
You're right NQC ... I really can't answer this. Beyond the sensitive nature of the subject, I simply don't know because it is well beyond my scope of responsibility. There's a laundry list of government organizations focusing on the threats to our nation and to our military TODAY. Remember - I'm focusing on how to operate in and through cyberspace in the future.
7) "And if and if ..."
by khasim
And if there actually is a "Hacker War" between us ... and if our military is currently playing a role in such ... are there any civilian applications that will be released to help defend our non-military assets (corporations, education, etc)?
Example: the NSA has worked on SELinux.
The Army, especially the Commanding General of the Combined Arms Center, Lt. Gen William B. Caldwell IV, firmly believes that the challenges we face today can only be addressed using a whole-of-government approach. We often use the acronym JIIM, which speaks even beyond our own government. It stands for Joint, Interagency, Inter-governmental and Multinational partnerships and collaborations to deal effectively with increasingly global problems. The defense of cyberspace is akin to the defense of our fledgling nation: it will require that everyone do his or her part. It behooves us all to work together to protect cyberspace, a frontier where a strong civil-military partnership is vital to success.
8) "Are We At War?"
by Doc Ruby
What is the "cyber command" doing to protect the US from current serious attacks on major Federal government sites, including the attacks on sensitive Congressional sites [slashdot.org] reported this week?
Is there any traditional military precedent for tolerating these attacks to the extent we do? Is that hesitancy making us weaker, so our eventual delayed military (or "cyber-military") response will be compromised from winning the conflict to our satisfaction?
At what point do these attacks constitute acts of war, does that need to be declared by Congress, and how does the "cyber command" change its response at that point?
In the last question, I spoke about the need for a whole-of-government approach to serious threats but we have a ways to go before we have the equivalent of a national "cyber command." We currently rely on each agency protecting its own assets and working in collaboration when there are overlaps. Without question, the overlaps are rapidly increasing. With this in mind, the Combined Arms Center recently hosted an interagency symposium to discuss ways to strengthen whole-of-government responses and capabilities.
Your second question is both tough and fundamental to the nature of a democracy. Our nation was founded in opposition to a strong standing army. Throughout our history, we have wrestled with the dichotomy of eschewing a strong military even as we recognized the need for one. You will find a compelling analysis of this dichotomy in T.R. Fehrenbach's classic study of the Korean conflict titled This Kind of War.
Recently, historians and pundits have noticed increasing tension within this dichotomy: a continued suspicion of a strong military by the American public coupled with an ever-growing dependence on that military to solve intractable problems. Robert D. Kaplan wrote in The Atlantic Monthly:
The acceleration of technology is driving a wedge between military and civilian societies and bringing about, for the first time, a professional-caste elite. Thus today's volunteer Army is different from all others in our history. Soldiers are becoming like doctors and lawyers -- another professional group we'd like to need less of but upon which we rely more. And just as health reform requires the consent of the medical community, because doctors own a complex body of knowledge, foreign policy will over the decades be increasingly influenced by the military, because war, peacekeeping, famine relief, and the like are becoming too complex for civilian managers.
Given this framework, words like "hesitancy" and "weakness" become problematic. How much do we want the military involved in cyber defense? Is a weaker military the price a democracy pays for being a democracy? Excellent questions and worthy of discussion. I encourage forums such as this one to continue the debate. Quite honestly, my hands are full enough trying to figure out what cyberspace will look like in seven years!
Because we are a democracy, your last question is best answered by our civilian leadership. Only the President can determine what constitutes an act of war.
9) "Recruitment"
by caljorden
Does the US Air Force, or any branch of the armed services, currently recruit for cyber-related positions directly? Or is it a requirement that all members come out of the standard armed services personnel? If there is currently no system for recruiting the best and brightest CS/IT/Security personnel from the civilian population, would that ever be considered?
I encourage you to contact Air Force Cyber Command folks to better understand how the Air Force is structuring its newest command.
In the Army, we do not yet have cyber soldiers. That is part of what my office is chartered to do: determine what skills sets are needed, what training is needed to produce these skills sets, what organizations these skills sets will be assigned to, and what doctrine they will employ. We currently have soldiers with related MOS or Additional Skill Identifiers (ASI). These include soldiers who are in intelligence, signal, fires and maneuver specialties, and ASIs such as Electronic Warfare and Information Operations. I do envision that cyber-electronics will evolve into its own specialty for which we will actively recruit both soldiers and civilians.
10) "Jurisdiction?"
by Caerdwyn
Given that the most likely targets for cyber warfare are civilian targets, and that the perpetrators will likely be either non-government organizations or non-military employees of foreign governments, how do you see the jurisdiction question playing out? In particular, at what point are there handoffs in investigation, arrest, and prosecution between the US military, the FBI, and local authorities of affected civilian targets?
Issues of legality and jurisdiction are outside my lane; however, there are plenty of lawyers around to tell me what can and cannot be done (usually the latter!). Unfortunately, in an increasingly inter-connected electronic world - a world inhabited by both flesh and blood actors, as well as their virtual avatars - the ability to discern "the enemy" with clarity is made incredibly complex. Again, only a whole-of-government approach will enable us to navigate these tricky issues successfully.
11) "Legal Ramifications"
by muellerr1
How does the military ensure that it is operating within the law regarding online military offensive activities? Are there any laws or oversight, as such? If so, how are those laws and/or oversight affected by a declaration of war?
Again, I can't speak to specifics, both because I don't know and because the legal issues involved in operations in cyberspace are just now being tackled in earnest. More broadly, the military has a very deliberate process for assuring it adheres to the law and is aggressive in its vigilance. But cyberspace is truly a "brave new world," and we will collectively have to wrestle with questions such as this one. Our ultimate oversight comes from you, the American Citizen...so you have an important role in this conversation.
12) "Making defenses available to the tax payers"
by scorp1us
Would you support the release of information and software (Like Security-Enhanced Linux from the NSA) regarding successful defensive configurations and strategies to the general public so that the tax payer can derive additional benefits from your work? Surely the private industries in this country are valuable and may be attacked in order to cause economic harm.
What limitations or rules would you use for release of such information?
Clearly I don't have the authority to make such a decision. Philosophically, however, I do feel that strong civil-military collaboration in cyberspace is and will be essential to our national security. How this will play out (the degree to which military applications will find their way into the civil and corporate sectors) remains to be seen. I can tell you that my organization is actively looking to partner with industry and academic institutions (and not just the Defense Industrial Complex) in this field to make sure that we not only generate a free-flow of information but also capture the ideas of the best and brightest minds available. It's no secret that industry is well into the notion of operating in and through cyberspace, and in many instances, has paved the way for the military to follow.
13) "Timing and relevancy"
by zappepcs
It's common knowledge that what we call the Internet was suckled by the military. Black-hat and white-hat security conferences and practices have been an active part of Internet security for over a decade.
Can you explain what seems to be the US Military arriving at the game in the third inning?
Having had TSEC and observed security processes and procedures, such as tempest precautions some time ago, I'm having trouble understanding why the 'cyber defenses' of the US Military only now seem to be actually realized.
Is the delay due to funding? Priorities? or simply to underestimation of what the rest of the world was up to all this time?
Please be as specific as you are able to be.
This question is an important one because it speaks to some of the themes that have echoed in earlier questions. Let me start by citing an observation about our current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last year a reporter from a national magazine asked me what it would take for our nation to win the Global War on Terrorism. I offered the opinion that we're not a nation at war - we're a group of military folks, about 200,000 at a time, who are at war. The difference between the war today and World War II is that in 1941 our entire nation mobilized for war: Detroit began producing more tanks and less cars; when you went to the movies you saw Movietone newsreel releases instead of ads for popcorn and sodas; American citizens had victory gardens, fuel rationing, and metal collection drives. The war affected everyone in America. If you put this in perspective of a future war in cyberspace, I think the best question is what will be the nation's response to cyber war? Are cyber threats, cyber terrorism, cyber attacks, cyber war purely the province of the military or the entire nation? The ways in which we answer this question will determine our future priorities and funding.
Over the last seven years, we have been largely focused on the global war on terror and counter-insurgency operations, within which cyber operations and engagements have emerged as significant threats. If we are late to the game, it is attributable to a complex array of reasons, as it always is for a military within a democracy.
14) "Hurdles of Cyber Warfare"
by Digital Ebola
One issue to cyber warfare is linguistics. How does a military unit overcome this? Does the unit consist of people skilled at the various languages used in theater plus the technical concepts required to execute, or are you forced to cooperate with any other agency?
Also, agency cooperation: are there good relationships between the cyberwarfare units and the intelligence community, and can you say whether or not there are SOPs in place that would utilize cyberwarfare units in conjunction with a physical offensive, i.e. disable Three Gorges Dam right before an op?
Having enough trained linguists is challenge enough in "meatspace," so it will likely remain one in cyberspace. In essence, we're essentially asking for dual linguists...those who can speak Farsi, Chinese, Spanish or Urdu, as well as C++, Java, XML, Perl, etc. Sadly, there is a growing gap between the skills we need and the skills brought to us by graduates of our public education system. In many school districts that are struggling for funding, foreign language instruction is considered a luxury they can't afford to sustain. And we have yet to integrate computer science into our high school curriculum fully or effectively.
The military has a long tradition of recruiting, training and employing linguists in support of full spectrum operations. In fact, the Defense Language Institute is a subordinate command of my higher headquarters, the Combined Arms Center. Again, part of my task overseeing the Futures division of the U.S. Army Computer Network Operations-Electronic Warfare Proponent is helping to define the requisite force structure the Army will need to operate in cyberspace successfully. This effort will certainly include an analysis of language needs and capabilities. While we will always need humans involved in this process to deal with the fine nuances of language, cyberspace offers new possibilities (software applications, for example) that facilitate interpretation. Our developmental efforts will also include development of doctrine and capabilities that cross joint, interagency, inter-governmental and multinational boundaries.
15) "Relationship with the Air Force?"
by El Cubano
Since the Air Force is the U.S. military branch claiming dominance in "cyberspace" (along with air and space), how do you view the Army's relationship with the Air Force in "cyberspace"? Will the Army seek to take over all of the "cyberspace warfare", carve out its own niche in cyberspace, or peacefully coexist with the Air Force?
With respect to leadership in this area across the DoD, do you feel that the Air Force being denied the program executive role for all DoD UAV endeavors represents an opportunity for the Army increase its role with respect to UAVs (as many people see cyberspace and UAVs to be inextricably linked)?
16) "Avoiding Redundancy or is it Necessary?"
by introspekt.i
What steps is the Army taking to avoid overlap with the Air Force's "cyber warfare" program(s)? Is avoiding overlap considered necessary, or is redundancy considered a good thing? Are there plans to collaborate on large scale with the Air Force, or keep the programs isolated from one another?
Let me tackle these two questions together.
I applaud the Air Force's aggressiveness in tackling the challenges that confront us in cyberspace. To employ a naval maxim: when the tide comes in, all ships rise. The Air Force's focus and emphasis on cyberspace has helped ensure all of us are placing requisite attention to it. It's important to note that at its recent symposium in Massachusetts, the Air Force made very clear that it is focused squarely on developing Air Force-unique cyber requirements.
I would say that we are doing likewise: focusing on our service-unique requirements, even as we explore collaborative strategies. As a land component force that operates in and amongst populaces that are increasingly connected through cyberspace, the Army must focus on that portion of cyberspace that is virtually contiguous to the land on and in which we operate. Only when we know our own roles and requirements can we adequately integrate our efforts with the other services to support full-spectrum operations. And we have an existing structure in place with the Joint Staff to ensure that internecine turf battles are avoided.
17) "Civilian contractors"
by faloi
Do you foresee a high utilization of civilian contractors? Knowing that there are some restrictions on people that can be recruited into the Army for any number of reasons (asthma, medications, criminal records), do you see a need for either more lax recruiting guidelines for some of the "front line" troops in the cyber warfare field, or a higher use of civilian (or at least non-Army) personnel?
I definitely see that operations in cyberspace have the potential to alter the composition of our military, as well as broaden civil-military alliances. I mentioned earlier that cyberspace is highly cerebral. The key prerequisite becomes, therefore, "brain" rather than "brawn," and recruitment standards should probably be adjusted accordingly. Because cyberspace is also highly diffused, operating within it will demand wide participation and collaboration. Some observers have suggested the notion of creating a Cyber National Guard or Cyber Reserve, which merits consideration. How the mix of formal military, auxiliary forces, civilian allies and civilian contractors plays out will require further study, but you're right to suggest that it will need skill sets that currently exist mostly outside the military.
18) "What value does doing it in the Army add?"
by scorp1us
We already know that the USAF has a cyber-warfare division. Given that all network attacks are fundamentally based in IP Packets, it stands to reason that the Army and USAF would be duplicating work, while creating an opportunity for lack of communication.
Would you agree that a special, single cyber-defense branch should be created to assist all branches of the military as well as non-military?
Generally the armed forces are never known for technical prowess. (They are more consumers than creators) The role of creation comes from contractors. Why shouldn't we rely on contractors to perform these functions when contractors already obtain top-secret clearances? Contractors compete for projects which ensures a level of cost limitation (lets face it, Cost+ rips off the tax payer), continual advancement (beyond what the enemy throws at us).
Why should the armed forces be doing this in-house?
The notion of a single cyber-operational force merits strong consideration. Yet if we use our recent experience with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as a benchmark, the consolidation of the cyber divisions of multiple agencies is likely to be difficult. Earlier, I spoke about the need for each service to focus on its service-unique requirements, even as we explore collaborative strategies. For now, I believe we must each master our corner of "the sandbox" completely. Over the past three decades, in particular, our emphasis on joint inter-operability has helped to ensure that we mitigate duplication of effort and collaborate wherever possible. For example, because the Marine Corps is also a land component force, the USACEWP is working with the Marine Corps Combat Developments Command to develop joint cyber-electronic concepts and capabilities.
To your observation about the role of contractors, they will play (and are playing already) an important role in the development of cyber-electronic concepts and capabilities. We clearly recognize that we can't go it alone. Beyond the use of contractors, we are leveraging academia and industry to help devise the way forward. As I've said repeatedly, the cyber environment demands such collaboration.
"A military brat asks:"
by UncleTogie
In your work as Director of IO for Combined Joint Task Force -76, what were your greatest challenges in Afghanistan? What technology threats other than IEDs were your greatest concern?
The challenges in Afghanistan are immense and include: a population that is 18-20% literate, and it drops to less than 5% once you leave the seven major population centers; the need for basic infrastructure to take root and flourish, like sewage systems, clean water, electricity, schools, medical care, and jobs; a fledgling government trying to allow a concept called Democracy to grow; and a criminally-minded, terrorist organization willing to assassinate anyone who buys into that concept called Democracy.
But the biggest challenge was expectation management, and it's a challenge I deal with every day still. We are a society of instant results and instant gratification: I get upset when I can't get a doctor's appointment that fits perfectly into my personal schedule. What we lose sight of is that we, as a nation, have been experimenting with (and trying to perfect) Democracy for 232 years - our Constitution was adopted in 1787 and has since been amended ("changed") 27 times; we suffered a pretty major Civil War over it; the Supreme Court interprets it every day. My point is that we've worked mightily at it for nearly two and half centuries and are still perfecting it. We're viewed as the hallmark for Democracy (how humbling is that?), which only means we can't let up in this grand endeavor...nor back away from the responsibilities it requires of us. I believe that what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is absolutely critical to the defense of our Nation, but Democracy takes time...and sacrifice.
The ability to develop concepts and capabilities that will provide our country enduring capacity in cyberspace will also take time. While technology may be developing faster than Moore's Law ever forecasted, we cannot afford to react to the current problem in a shortsighted way. Any capabilities we develop must be enduring. At the same time, they must flexible - adaptable as technology adapts or, lead technology development. Finally, they have to be tied to the JIIM community - like I said earlier, the Army isn't going this alone.
God Bless America! (Score:5, Funny)
Good answers, just in time for Independence Day. I feel safe when we have such capable and smart people like Col. Bircher defending and protecting the United States of America.
I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free, And I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me, And I gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today, 'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land God Bless the U.S.A.
Re:God Bless America! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm scratching my head about a couple of things here. First, why the parent post was modded "offtopic". Second, why he posted anonymously; 0 offtopic implies that he had a karma bonus as opposed to not being logged in. Perhaps he's in the military?
I've been proud of my country most of my life, and served in the Air Force (I was born in an Army hospital) but I'm not too damn proud we attacked Iraq. It was completely out of character for us.
And although we are freer than quite a few contries, when I can smoke a joint while playing a game of blackjack with hookers, when I can picket the statehouse without a permit, when I can park in front of a house in the ghetto without being jumped by the DEA, FBI and local cops like I was last summer, when the local police ask my permission before looking around my garage, when I can fly in a commercial airliner without taking off my shoes or showing ID, THEN I'll feel a lot more free.
What was the line in The Patriot [wikipedia.org] about being opressed by an elected body as easily as by a monarch?
...THEN I'll feel a lot more free (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:God Bless America! (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been proud of my country most of my life, and served in the Air Force (I was born in an Army hospital) but I'm not too damn proud we attacked Iraq. It was completely out of character for us.
Probably half of the first twenty or thirty significant military actions by the US of A were specifically for economic reasons, up to and including naval bombardment of towns south of the border to convince the locals to sell their products to the United Fruit Company. You know, Chiquita?
It's simplistic to say that attacks on Iraq were financially motivated, although they did make absolute piles of money for the Bushes &c. But they're actually fallout from a prior action... which was entirely financially motivated.
when I can smoke a joint while playing a game of blackjack with hookers
You could take the hookers to California... As long as you don't fuck them on that side of the state line, you should be safe.
when I can fly in a commercial airliner without taking off my shoes or showing ID
I don't mind showing ID. Or, honestly, even taking off my shoes. I mind that it's all a bunch of bullshit and a waste of my time.
Re:God Bless America! (Score:5, Insightful)
You can see what moderations have been applied (including modifiers because of personal preference and anonymity) if you click on the "Score:#" link in a comments header.
Go on, mod me informative, I dare you :P
In this case (so far as I get):
Moderation +3
20% Informative
30% Offtopic
30% Underrated
Extra 'Informative' Modifier 0 (Edit)
Anonymous Modifier -3 (Edit)
Total Score: 0
Yes, I am harsh on ACs, but then, its not hard to be anon AND post under a user name we can remember :)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I love my country.
But I reserve the right to hate my governments guts.
I support the troops.
But I think their bosses are idiots.
I hate the terrorists as much as the next guy.
But the TSA is stupid, in ineffectively, and criminal. And likely un-constitutional.
I love my country.
But the people running it really make we wonder somedays.
Nationalism confuses me (Score:2)
I simply don't understand why anyone would be proud of their country. Unless you made the conscious decision to immigrate, it's just where you happen to live. Being proud of living in a nation you happen to live in makes about as much sense to me as being proud of being right-handed, or having blue eyes.
I understand there is a fundamental human need to define "us" versus "the other" and nationalism is the modern way to do so, but I still don't understand why it
Re: (Score:2)
As a national of another country, I'm curious - is this intended to be a parody?
I speak English as a first language, but I found Col. Bircher's responses to be, well, vacuous, and loaded with bureaucrateze (I see the US military has come up with a new term for "not my job" - "not in my lane" - shich I'm sure will spread rapidly in the US private sector..). I definitely can't imagine wanting to join an institution with the kind of internal culture that makes someone waffle with such content-free, acronym-la
Stargate? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope Stargate is canceled. You'll have to fly to Atlantis.
Quite Literally (Score:5, Funny)
I bet this was fun to see. Did he quite literally fly backwards out of his office chair?
It's rare in the Army to be quite literally blown away and live to tell about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's gotta suck...
Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Why in the hell do we not have these simple Q&As from our government more often? I learned more in the past 10 minutes than I would on CNN/MSNBC (Fox teaches you a lot, most of it wrong) over an entire week.
Re:Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
When politicians get in front of people, it's all they can do to spew talking points rather than listening to honest questions and offering frank answers. Put that through the further filtering, spin, and analysis of the media, and you get CNN/MSNBC/FOXNews. Heck, even C-SPAN is just coverage of the politicians themselves spinning statistics for political gain in front of an empty Chamber.
Find a way to allow unbiased, technically astute (for their field), peer-moderated people to ask relevant questions in an open forum, and you have something most people would LOVE to see. I just can't think of a way to do this on a mass scale. If anyone else has an idea, I'd love to hear it!
Re: (Score:2)
Or declaring the day 'Mr. Joe Blow' day because he is an influential member of that congressperson's district that is somehow noteworthy
I want an interview with the C-SPAN cameramen to know how they don't fall asleep during it all. Can we arrange that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just can't think of a way to do this on a mass scale. If anyone else has an idea, I'd love to hear it!
Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried contacting the government yourself?
They all had public affairs offices.
Re:Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Why in the hell do we not have these simple Q&As from our government more often? I learned more in the past 10 minutes than I would on CNN/MSNBC (Fox teaches you a lot, most of it wrong) over an entire week.
Because the traditional media, which has been the channel of educating the public on public affairs, generally lacks expertise in every field except journalism. In other words, those that tell us what's going on most likely are unqualified and/or unwilling to digest and regurgitate that which they've been told to the masses with any accuracy and/or detail whatsoever.
You doubt this? The next time you read/see/listen to a mainstream news source about a subject that (1) has any complexity to it at all and (2) about which you consider yourself to be knowledgeable, ask yourself the following question: Was that information correct? Your answer should then beg the broader question: Since I now have identified a news report as being wrong/misleading/grossly inaccurate, is anything these talking heads/ink purveyors spew forth accurate?
Re: (Score:2)
It often is, but usually only from two major sources: The New Yorker and The Atlantic. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal sit a tier below them. Below that, there's not much worth reading, and below that, TV news starts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the traditional media, which has been the channel of educating the public on public affairs, generally lacks expertise in every field except journalism. In other words, those that tell us what's going on most likely are unqualified and/or unwilling to digest and regurgitate that which they've been told to the masses with any accuracy and/or detail whatsoever.
I disagree. The problem is that the traditional media has no clue but spends so much time telling us what to think or how to feel about the news rather than giving us the facts - and only the facts - and letting us decide for ourselves. I don't want the journalists to have the expertise. I don't want the journalists to tell me what I should think of something. I'm an intelligent adult and I can make up my own damned mind.
We live in a world of spin and the press is complicit in keeping the masses stupid
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's kinda funny, but your comment here about 50% of the population being of below average intelligence is the second time in literally *2 minutes* that someone has said that to me.
The problem with writing to the lowest common denominator (or by assuming people won't understand and so writing to some perceived average, which I would argue is an assumption), then the average continues to drop.
But like I said, news is now entertainment - in order to get people to read it, it has to be emotive and entertaining
Re: (Score:2)
I learned more in the past 10 minutes than I would on CNN/MSNBC (Fox teaches you a lot, most of it wrong) over an entire week.
I scanned the article looking for something of interest, but it was fully of the typical empty and verbose writings you get from bureaucrats. I admit I didn't read it in detail.
So, could you tell me one single thing you learned?
Meaningless. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice answers. Completely vacuous, but nice. Let's take one of mine:
Us ex-military types refer to that as "email".
And us ex-military types refer to that as "propaganda". White, black or gray. Usually handled by the Psychological Operations staff.
No. There has not been ANY debate about it ... provided it is targeted at a declared enemy.
The ONLY debate is about whether the military should be targeting propaganda at our own people AND during peacetime.
The limits were already known. Calling email "a cyber-electronic engagement" does NOT change the facts.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The sense I got from the answers was that they are still defining their mission scope, but it will probably be limited to the army systems similar to how the air force cyber command is limited to dealing with air force specific threats. Consequently jurisdiction would be limited to army systems.
That bit about th
Pretty much. (Score:2)
Yep. And isn't that what was asked for? Won't self-motivated people always ask specific questions about subjects that interest them?
The "vacuous" bit was from his comment:
So you and I are now "engaged" in a "cyber-electronic engagement" beca
Re:Pretty much. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you and I are now "engaged" in a "cyber-electronic engagement" because we are both posting to /. here.
In which case "cyber-electronic" is redundant. There is no non-electronic means of accessing "cyberspace" as he uses the term.
And I'm sure that Taco can point to the physical boxes that house slashdot. So "cyberspace" is a little ... whatever.
I'll still refer to it as "posting on slashdot".
This is relevant for another reason, though: by disclosing what he means by "cyber-electronic engagement" (very nearly anything) it is implied that very nearly anything can fall under the army's purview as cyber-electronic engagement, right down to posting on Slashdot.
Or phrased differently, "cyber-electronic engagement" can mean just about any damn thing they want it to.
On the Bright Side... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ONLY debate is about whether the military should be targeting propaganda at our own people AND during peacetime.
There's a debate over that? Last I checked, the military was not to be used against the citizenry. Why should that be any different in cyberspace than in meatspace? They already have a whole organization whose job is is to fuck with citizens anywhere in the country (the FBI) and to harass and annoy them when they go out into the world (the CIA) and even to snoop on them and make sure they don't have any secrets (the NSA) so why should the armed farces get a piece of us, too?
Answer: Because the "powers that
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, the military was not to be used against the citizenry. Why should that be any different in cyberspace than in meatspace?
Easy answer:
They can if threatened/attacked. For example, check the response you'd get if you tried to drive on-base without stopping at the gate...
Re: (Score:2)
They can if threatened/attacked. For example, check the response you'd get if you tried to drive on-base without stopping at the gate...
The proper response in that situation is simply to hand the person to the FBI.
But if you attack them, you can probably be designated as an enemy combatant... and then they can do with you as they will. So I guess that makes some sense.
Of course, all you have to do to protect against someone trying to drive through your virtual gate is institute some proper front end security. I guess this is true at the military bases too though; just installing some huge metal gates would do that. Oddly, it's usually prett
Civilian/Military/Corporate cooperation? (Score:5, Interesting)
This raises an interesting question as to the nature of military/civilian coordination in the future, especially as conflicts arise more and more often out of financial and ideological, rather than territorial, causes.
When does stopping spyware on your parents' computer become a means of encouraging solidarity rather than a personal privacy concern? (When) Will American companies realize that security vulnerabilities they introduce may impact the viability of the market that sustains them?
Re: (Score:2)
(When) Will American companies realize that security vulnerabilities they introduce may impact the viability of the market that sustains them?
Uh, of course they do. But vulnerabilities create sales, so you are not understanding the nature of pure market forces at work and the reason why government needs to get involved in commerce (or stop preventing people from tarring and feathering those who bilk the public. sometimes what the world needs is an angry mob.)
When people's computers go to hell they either buy a new one or hire some geek to fix it. If the geek is a typical MCSE-type odds are good they will try to sell the user something to fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
When does stopping spyware on your parents' computer become a means of encouraging solidarity rather than a personal privacy concern?
As soon as one realizes the positive impact it can have on our nation as a whole, both as an action and as an example.
(When) Will American companies realize that security vulnerabilities they introduce may impact the viability of the market that sustains them?
As soon as their bottom line is impacted by consumer action. I don't mean to impugn the ethics or patriotism of those working in corporations, but the bottom line is truly what drives corporate decision making.
Actions speak much louder than words. Cooperation is an individual choice. Lead the way!
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is easy. Posters that say "UncleSam001 wants YOU... to install cyb3rAttack_omgwtfbbq (Build 91, Nightly 003)"
Foreign and domestic (Score:5, Funny)
Does that mean you will be taking out whitehouse.gov and eop.gov in the near future?
Thanks in advance!
A terrible misquote! (Score:2, Funny)
The exact quote from Patton (the motion picture) is:
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!"
I read Patton's book "War as I knew it" and have to say that he must have been much more colorful in person than he paints himself in his own book.
So, at some point in the future we can expect a blockbuster movie in which the pasty army lieutenant protagonist proclaims, "Chang, you magnificent bastard, I stole your source code!"
[Cut to scene of several officers gathered to power off a compromised machine
Typical government response (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all, kudos to the guy for answering the questions. The majority of answers weren't really answers though, but in this day and age of "no comment" and disappearing emails from most branches of government, it is great to see a couple of paragraphs devoted to each query.
The fact that each department wants to master its own sandbox is a big fat load of crap. Like the original question stated, an IP packet is an IP packet. There are only so many ways to secure a communication channel. There are only so many ways to setup an ACL. I remember back when I first got into networking there were governmental standards (Orange Book maybe?) that were touted as minimum levels of security required of network operating systems. I heard about that stuff in the early 1990s and I'm sure the concept has been around since long before then. What the government needs is a single entity that comes up with a set of best practices and then works with a couple of vendors to produce milspec hardware and software combinations that meet the practices.
The reality of the situation is that such a thing will never happen because of the budgeting process. Every sandbox is funded seperately and nobody wants to give up their budget for the good of the whole country. Nope, the Army wants to do the Army thing and the Air Force wants to do the Air Force thing and the NSA wants their way, and the DoJ wants their way. As a taxpayer I'm quite frankly sick and tired of all of the duplication. On the other hand, with the economy hemoraging ~65,000 jobs a month, maybe some duplication is good for employment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You kind of missed the point. This guy's job isn't building routers and securing LANs from haX0rs. There is an organization that comes up with the best practices that you mention, and they have vendors for hardware and software. That was already the case at least as far back as '97, when I did a summer job at Boeing. If you read the things that he says he is involved in, as well as where ha comments about being "out of his lane", it sounds like his job has very little to do with network security. Inst
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly not such a good idea. As soon as the bad guys figure out how to break into one part of the system, they can break into everything else too.
Isn't this the problem we have now with so many desktop systems using the same OS with the same security controls (and vulnerabilities). Once someone figu
Botnets (Score:2)
Let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, and that is why the US is a republic. While it might be nice to ask everyone to text in their vote on every decision the government made, it wouldn't really be practical.
You get the leadership you vote in. And you better hope the leader wants to do something besides take a poll every morning to see what to have for breakfast.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
While it might be nice to ask everyone to text in their vote on every decision the government made, it wouldn't really be practical.
Nor is posting ideas on Slashdot stories, but somehow we all find the time to do it.
I'm tired of looking at politicians as "issue bundles," like a hamburger selection from a menu. You get a little of this, you like the taste of that, but you'd rather they left out the mayonnaise. So it devolves into red-state ketchup lovers battling blue-state mustard aficionados squared across the dinner table, but still nobody's too keen about that mayonnaise, and while we're on it, there's a bunch of mustard-lovers who a
Re: (Score:2)
Last I heard the United States was a republic. We get to elect our representatives so that makes us a representative democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not some vast conspiracy, people just don't know or don't care what the difference is. At this point, with no true democracies in the world, the word has been adopted to refer to representative democracies. There's nothing sinister about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I kinda wondered about that statement myself. I think he's probably correct, though, that the President can declare an "inbound" action as an act of war, but it does seem to me that the really telling "statement" is Congress' declaration of war against an enemy that has taken an action that *they* determine is worthy of such a response.
Why aggression towards China? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why aggression towards China? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about threat assessment. China is one of the only powers which, if it wanted to could do some bad things to us. Brazil? France? Nigeria? Not so much. China, on the other hand has a space program, a nuclear program, and a sufficiently large pool of potential military that IF they wanted to go to war with us, it could be pretty nasty.
When planning defense, you have to look at people as potential attackers -- even if they're friends, or just nonaggressive in the past. It's not aggression vs China, but rather a recognition that they are a potential threat. Just like when you look at (and plan) modes of risk management and escape when on a plane, so too do you look at ways of mitigating the harm that could come in case of a war.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have forgotten Tibet. And a lot of threatening moves towards Taiwan.
While it is true that China has not made direct threats against other nations lately, they are viewed as a potential threat. They are also in an economic position that could lead them to attempt to expand their power in other directions.
China directly, and various US concerns indirectly, have also caused the death of a significant number of pets and illnesses of people. Lots and lots of people feel China as a whole has not do
Re:Why aggression towards China? (Score:4, Informative)
Firstly, as someone else pointed out in this thread, just that week there was a news article about a congressman claiming China hacked some congressional computers. (link [slashdot.org].) This is familiar territory of techs I guess, I'm not even a system admin and in the logs of some of my own computers that were exposed, I've seen an inordinate amount of chinese IPs port scanning them.
Secondly, it's not just that we're being "groomed" for examining China as an enemy, there really is tension. Just off the top of my head: China has been doing missile tests to intimidate the Taiwanese (link [bbc.co.uk].) There was a confrontation between a U.S. spy plane and chinese fighter planes. (link [cnn.com]) A U.S. carrier was refused entry to Hong Kong. (link [wordpress.com]).
If you ask me, it's a little like the kinds of things that happened during the cold war.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A Chinese submarine popped up in the middle of U.S Naval exercises. (link [dailymail.co.uk])
Chinese police shoot protesters in Tibet. (link [telegraph.co.uk])
Somewhere between 200 and several thousand deaths in the Tiananmen square massacre. (link [wikipedia.org])
Not to mention, Chinese involvement in the Korean War. (link [wikipedia.org])
I mean, I'm not trying to claim that the U.S. is angelic, no one could, but China is more than an economic rival. Also, the U.S. populace has never particularly liked repressive governments our own i
Underestimation (Score:2, Interesting)
our Constitution was adopted in 1787 and has since been amended ("changed") 27 times
He answers 19 intelligent, informed questions in an intelligent, informed manner and then thinks that we don't know what "amended" means and can't figure out how to look it up. I'm not offended, but it is kind of unusual.
not President, Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, perhaps Lt. Col. Bircher should read it. In Section 8, all of the responsibility for paying for and choosing to engage in war belongs to Congress (despite their having fumbled it for the past half-century, at least). The President is merely the "Commander in Chief" ONCE WAR IS DECLARED.
The President may, as a citizen, advocate that Congress make such a declaration, but Congress is failing in its collective responsibility if it takes his (so far) word for anything regarding cause without validation from OUTSIDE the President's subordinates.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only the President can determine what constitutes an act of war.
I think the President can decide what constitutes an act of war before congress actually declares it.
The President has the executive the power to repel sudden attacks. Cyberspace is all about the sudden attacks. Also, CAPITAL LETTERS MAKE YOU MORE IMPORTANT.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a fairly long shot. Perhaps with better potential Presidential material like Dan Quale but the current President has done little to inspire confidence.
Informed, enthusiastic civilians (Score:3, Interesting)
... [in World War II] our entire nation mobilized for war: Detroit began producing more tanks and less cars; when you went to the movies you saw Movietone newsreel releases instead of ads for popcorn and sodas; American citizens had victory gardens, fuel rationing, and metal collection drives. The war affected everyone in America. If you put this in perspective of a future war in cyberspace, I think the best question is what will be the nation's response to cyber war? Are cyber threats, cyber terrorism, cyber attacks, cyber war purely the province of the military or the entire nation? The ways in which we answer this question will determine our future priorities and funding.
This brings up an important point about current and future warfare. Pretty much everyone understands military conflict for the control of land, so they can decide whether it is justified and offer their support accordingly. The War on Terror is somewhat different. Most Americans don't understand the motives and actions of the people we are fighting against or the people we are trying to protect. I think that this is why most people are disconnected from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They don't really have enough information to form an opinion, so they can't really find it in themselves to support (or oppose) the war effort in the same way that previous generations did in previous wars.
Is strong civilian support important or necessary to win wars? I don't know, but if it is, cyber-warfare is going to be hard. Nobody will be able to even understand what is going on or why, so they won't be able to get behind it. I don't really know what the public could do to assist in a primarily cyberspace conflict in the same way that the efforts he mentioned benefited a land war. Bandwidth rationing? Donating computer cycles to the military ( a la SETI@Home)? Vigilante cracking? Whatever it is, people won't do it because they won't know what the heck is going on.
yet another empty interview (Score:2)
I assume this interview had as its main goal to help their recruitment efforts. However the guy failed badly. He tried to do two contradictory things at once: define his own language for his work and use common language to relate to us. So the interview sounds nothing short of psychotic. One minute he is spending a paragraph of gibberish to say "we have presence on the net and we have goals to accomplish", the next he speaks like a normal person e.g. about the Patton anecdote.
I am a researcher in biology so
Re: (Score:2)
When you put it that way, it doesn't sound that appealing, does it? It's interesting to see how the US is but one country of many in a long line of countries where sustaining a military has became a partly self-serving process, as in the military (-industrial complex) existing for it's own sake. Other examples like Russia,
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. We are in the era of peak oil. Those who have more guns and stick together win. Most lose. I am an American and I will stick with my fellow Americans. Period. Realpolitik is a team sport.
Re: (Score:2)
The military is hurting from oil prices pretty badly. I would bet they will be the ones to give real funding to alternative energy projects. A sure sign they have finally pulled their heads out of their asses will be when DoE (or even DoD directly) underwrites all the needed investment in ITER.
As for nuclear plants, well, in the short term we will clearly run on coal. Once people realize they are choking then we will go to nuclear. BTW, we should build breeders because they use the fuel to the max. We shoul
Anyone else itching for more? (Score:3, Insightful)
We get cyber-attacked, everyone knows it and he admits it. But what are we DOING about it? I like the platitudes he espouses and I agree with them, but I still don't get the sense we're doing anything smart with these attacks. Obviously, we don't want to get embroiled in a full-scale cyber-war, which would lead to real war, but can't we track, trace and investigate them so we have the ability to immediately and devastatingly attack if, God forbid, we need to go to war with a major power? I've still never heard anything like this from the military folks... I can only hope the NSA is light years ahead of the military.
Eh, I suppose it's not for us (me) to know, but I'd be a little more assured if I knew they were actually doing something, and what that something was (even in a general sense).
To craft an analogy with conventional military operations, you don't need to tell me where you're putting the tanks, I just want proof you're making them.
Re: (Score:2)
That's really not a big deal - the problem is that Congress and the Senate does not know either. A Monarchy really sucks in this situation, let's hope things move back to a Republic and thank an earlier George for term limits.
Re: (Score:2)
Unequivocally, yes, things are being done to defend our national interests.
Unanswered (Score:3, Interesting)
Of all the questions collected for John Bircher, only ">34 comments rated a "5" score [slashdot.org], of which only 25 were questions. Mr Bircher answered 17 questions (including two by the same questioner). One of the unanswered Score 5 questions was mine, "Are We At War?" [slashdot.org]:
Some other questions about cyberwar with China were answered by Mr Bircher, but they were nonanswers about actual operational warfare, which is legitimately secret:
So we still don't know anything more about the political and legal relationship between the civilian government and the military, while we hear sporadic reports of a war raging between us and China.
But at least some of us are asking the questions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
War is far too strong a word for this especially since China is lending cash to the USA for a real war.
Lacking in content (Score:4, Insightful)
From what I can see, Bircher failed to answer a single direct question -- and the questions asked were pretty direct. The interview was vague; it gave the impression that the mission is diffuse and mired in bureaucracy. Somebody there needs to have a clue, but it's not clear how that clue can be imparted.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Lanes" are very important in the Army ethos. Everyone is skilled in their primary MOS and one doesn't question the experts on their areas of expertise. He was loathe to step outside his lane because stepping on another expert's toes i
Waffle Waffle (Score:4, Insightful)
First, it's important to clarify that as far as I'm aware, we're not in the business of compromising networks or gaining access to other governments' systems without just cause. When there is a clear threat to national security, we then employ legal and just means to deal with that threat. Also, I'm not able to discuss specific methods that the Army might or might not be employing but only speak in terms of concepts and capabilities that we should have in order to be successful conducting operations in cyberspace. If you have insights and skills that might broaden our capabilities in this arena, I encourage you to consider joining the emerging DoD cyber-workforce.
"Oh, absolutely not. But then again, I can't really say either way. On a completely unrelated note, if you are a l33t haxor, call us!"
Re: (Score:2)
Read more closely: "we're not in the business of compromising networks or gaining access to other governments' systems without just cause."
Higher standard indeed dog. (Score:2, Insightful)
Democracy (Score:2)
> We're viewed as the hallmark for Democracy
No you're bloody not. This title belongs or more correctly belonged to some european countries like Switzerland, the Netherlands or Finland.
Right now, you're viewed as the hallmark of the rise of the next generation of fascist states. (with european countries catching up, however).
- Spying upon your own people
- Taking fingerprints from travelers
- Detaining people without cause and without access to a lawyer
- Fraudulent elections via voting-machines
and so on.
Unl
Re: (Score:2)
Fraudulent elections???
Proof please!
All other items you have said are true. DNA printing, spying, and detaining. But fraud in elections? PLEASE...
Provide some concrete proof where a court overturned an election/ballot for fraud.
Just because you hate Bush doesn't mean you blame anything you want.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't *seriously* believe that in the 2000 election everything was above board in Florida, can you? Katherine Harris had an obvious conflict of interest acting both as Bush's campaign co-chair in Florida and also being responsible for certifying the Florida vote for President.
At the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest is unethical.
And let's not go into the felons who voted or the dead people who voted for Bush in Florida that year whose ballots were not discarded by Harris.
Gore was an
Re: (Score:2)
the appearance of a conflict of interest is unethical.
Is it illegal? That is the point. Unethical, ethical does not count. Was it illegal?
Or the former CEO of Diebold stating pretty clearly that his intention in Ohio was to ensure Bush's election.
Again, proof that MOST or ALL voting machines were tampered with?
Or that Kerry lost the vote by exactly the same number of people who were misdirected?
Gore being an idiot for not fighting back does not matter, He was an idiot and still is. That is why he will never be a president.
That does NOT mean 2000 was a fraud.
So, once again, Proof please, or else you are just McCain camp inverted.
Talk about useless (Score:2)
This guy is the best asset the Army's PR department has. And he said hardly anything that we needed to hear. He is very well spoken, to the point that I'd like to hear him again, even, maybe not online though.
The most surprising part of this whole interview and response to it, is the lack of rethinking military in cyberspace. We are all, not just in U.S. but worldwide, other countries as well as U.S. citizens abroad, under daily attack by spam, viruses, malware, identity theft, etc. and we are being targete
Re: (Score:2)
I don't discount a "lack of vision," but it's more likely that he did not say anything substantial, because even admitting (or denying) a capability can get him fired.
Re:I giggled (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite some waffle words here and there, it's good to see someone of rank in the US DOD stepping up to answer serious questions from real techies.
The fact that Lt. Col. Bircher went the extra mile and answered even more questions, often quite in detail, is laudable. More should follow his example.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that Lt. Col. Bircher went the extra mile and answered even more questions, often quite in detail, is laudable. More should follow his example.
I would rather see a question go unanswered than receive a jingoistic, back-slapping "everything we are doing is in your best interest and completely above the board" answer. After listening to tales from American vets talking about where they've been (Viet Nam in particular) I can tell you that the behavior of US troops has often been dramatically less than exemplary.
And speaking of that war, remember too that this is the government that sprayed carcinogenic defoliants all over our own troops. If you go fa
Re: (Score:2)
You need to remember one thing - the US is a nation 'of by and for' the people. The government is composed of people, none of whom are perfect. We can point to this or that good or bad thing that was done, and that thing is the result of a set of decisions, good or bad, made by people. The US Government that experimented on African Americans by infecting them with syphilis 80 years ago is totally different than the one that shot the demonstrating vets, which is totally different than the one that invaded
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me that should we declare war on another country (which we haven't actually done since WWII; my friend Ralph fought in that one and he's 86 years old) anything that isn't prohibited by the Geneva Convention or US law is legal. Also if Congress declares war on another country, any treaty with that country would be instantly nullified.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...anything that isn't prohibited by the Geneva Convention or US law is legal. Also if Congress declares war on another country, any treaty with that country would be instantly nullified.
Well, the Geneva Conventions are themselves treaties.
Imagine that it was only illegal to murder someone if the murderer and victim had previously entered into a contract agreeing not to murder each other and, furthermore, if the murderer decided to press charges against himself. That's how international law works.
This little loophole is how the USA claims it's not guilty of war crimes for violating certain protocols of the Geneva Conventions. The USA claims that since it never ratified the specific protoco
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the US claims that since the captured people are not wearing uniforms, they are not soldiers, and thus protected by the Geneva Conventions. I know that the concept of "uniformed" is present in the Conventions. But regardless of whether technically the US is viola
Re:I giggled (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, no, actually. The Geneva Convention is not just good principle: it's good pragmatism as well; that soldiers must wear a uniform is integral to its spirit AND its function. Persistent identification of soldiers is the single best way of holding them responsible for their behavior, because a uniformed soldier is, even more than a killing machine, a symbol. It's precisely the nature of, for instance, plain clothes insurgents (or freedom fighters or whatever - pick your favorite term) in Iraq that allows them to so butcher their neighbors with relative political impunity. Meanwhile an American soldier committing the same war crime is much more likely to not only be held accountable - by the local populace, by the media, by their commanders (even if not to the degree you'd like. And note that I'm no apologist here: holding them accountable is always and everywhere a good thing) but to contribute the the ruin of his own country's already tarnished image.
Consider for instance the horrible image the US has acquired during the Iraq conflict - every violation of the Convention (or even rumor of violation) is immediately scrutinized to such a degree that even the foreign policy options of most powerful nation on Earth are affected (and again, not necessarily to the degree you might like, but certainly to A degree); meanwhile, for instance, Sadr's non-uniformed Mahdi Army (the so-called "special groups") can commit incredible, horrendous atrocities against their own countrymen with neither anywhere near the same standard of scrutiny, NOR anywhere near the affect on their policies. No uniform = difficulty in pinning their actions to their image.
So granting the protections of the Geneva Convention to soldiers who refuse to consistently identify themselves is, effectively, to leave civilians at mercy of the forces most willing to commit the atrocities the Convention itself is meant to prevent. A more self destructive application of the Geneva Convention I cannot imagine!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I skipped a step in my own logic. Between the last two paragraphs I meant to say, denying protections to enemies who will not wear uniforms is a very strong measure a nation can take to keep its opponents civilized.
In fact, the public's failure to recognize this fact ITSELF weaken's the Convention - that is a horrible shame. The world needs to be more civilized, even in war - not less.
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely agree. I would go further - even if there was NOT a pragmatic reason to enforce the standards of the Geneva convention on all people falling into the 'enemy' category, it is still the right thing to do.
For those who want to hammer me for being naive or a 'softie' - I'm a USMC combat veteran who lost friends in war. I still would not torture, period. (I would, however, hold strictly accountable those who cause, aid or abet violence against civilians, etc. - including those in my own uniform)
To y
Re: (Score:2)
I _completely_ agree, and this is easily the most insightful post I've seen on the topic in a year or two.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I am aware, the Geneva conventions had (and still have?) no rules on how a country treats its own citizens. Several Nazi officials were put on trial for the Holocaust, under the general heading "war crimes".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing in international law that I know of that suggests aggressive intelligence gathering (e.g. spying) on a hostile foreign agent (especially one we're at war with) is wrong or illegal. We, and everyone else in the international community, do it as a matter of course. It's one of the oldest tools of statecraft. Why you think this changes once it's done over a computer network is incomprehensible to me.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What kind of conditions do you think American prisoners were held in Iraq by Al-Queda? How about the Tootsies in Rwanda when they were held by their enemies?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They weren't likely to be imprisoned for very long, if at all, which I suspect is what you're getting at. The point may actually have been coherent if you'd bothered to check the spelling. They are a tribe called Tutsi [wikipedia.org].
As usual, apologies for the rant if there are mitigating factors.
Offtopic(ish):
I wish people were forced to define "Al-Qaeda" if they wanted to use it. It's turned into a real chicken-and-egg problem, where there's organisations called Al-Qaeda because they know the name scares Westerners. Th
Re: (Score:2)
But there were no mitigating factors on my misspelling of Tutsi's... unless laziness counts. However, I still stand by my comments that we do adhere to higher standards, for the most part. I knew more of the story 8 years or so ago, but the details are now very foggy. The summary is two tribes fought one of the most brut
Re: (Score:2)
The cynic in me interprets these words to mean that american lives always mattered much more than any other human being's, but then again knowing US history quite well, I'm quickly forced to admit it to myself, that this is in fact the objective historical interpretation. Sad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. While I applaud him for such a goal and motive, it is really hard to read that and not laugh when I remember what we do at places like Guantanamo.
While I applaud him for his ability to blow sunshine up the asses of the world (I know from experience however that it is easier in text than in almost any other medium... and English makes it easy to say three conflicting things at once) it is really hard to believe shit like that when I remember the tales I've heard from vets about rape and needless murder (I'm not talking about shooting a combatant here) they've witnessed... and that's the shit they tell you about. I mean, war is hell, but there's no nee
Re: (Score:2)
Word.
Re: (Score:2)
"What about all these idiots who flame the US government when they don't even fucking live here."
Hmmm, I smell someone ignorant, and I just can't pass the opportunity up. First off, dude, go take a shower.
Talk to the guy in Australia - friend of mine who lived just up the street here in the good ol' USA about the cost of rent in Sydney. Ask his coworkers about their *13%* interest rate on home loans right now.
Know why that is happening? Lack of US investment in Australia is a big part of it. Why are US
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, my friend rents. But I see looking at one site that the good rates (presumably for good credit) are in the 8.5% range, not nearly as bad as I had been led to believe, but certainly not the 5%-ish I'm paying here in the states.
Re: (Score:2)