On 01/31/2013 04:39 PM, Gregory Foster wrote:
> Thanks for bringing up this subject, Andreas.
>
> I'll just add that aggression (cyber-aggression perhaps?) requires
> actors. And as Andreas points out, on January 27th the Pentagon
> announced approval of US Cyber Command's expansion from 900 personnel
> to 4,900 troops and civilians.
>
> WaPo (Jan 27) - "Pentagon to boost cybersecurity force" by Ellen
> Nakashima:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-to-boost-cybersecurity-force/2013/01/19/d87d9dc2-5fec-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html
>
>
> This five-fold expansion of personnel comes in the midst of threatened
> Defense budget cuts (the "sequester") and a draw-down of overseas
> engagements, which signifies something about its perceived necessity.
> More importantly, DOD Cyber Command (which is right next door to the
> NSA and led by the Director of the NSA) is staffing "combat mission
> forces" now that DOD has the green light to perform offensive
> operations across the Internet.
>
> There is a difference between covert operations concealed in black
> budgets (e.g., Stuxnet) and overtly embraced state-sanctioned
> aggression. Remember that Stuxnet has proven it is quite possible for
> actions initiated from the information environment to have kinetic
> effects in physical space (destroying Iran's centrifuges IMO
> constitutes an act of war).
>
> I wonder how the Internet may change as a result of this slow,
> methodical unfolding. And I do think we're embroiled in something
> quite different than the hyperbolic language acts that have been
> occurring since the early 90's. The language acts are precipitating
> the desired result.
>
Sorry for bringing this up again; but seen from your point of view this
sounds like a new cold war.
Hope that theres soon something like a convention for disarmament..
--
Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
