Home > Blogs > Post Content
|
|
Classified Order Aims to Use Military to Protect Key IT Networks By Eric Chabrow, November 15, 2012 President Obama signed a classified presidential directive last month that enables the military to act more aggressively to frustrate cyberattacks on government and private computer networks. The White House confirmed the issuance of Presidential Policy Directive 20, updating a 2004 presidential directive, but declined to provide specifics. "The directive itself is classified, so we cannot discuss all of the elements contained in it," a senior administration official says. But James Lewis, the well-connected cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the directive, months in the works, will allow the military to actively target digital assailants if it believes such an attack would cause significant harm to individual Americans or its institutions. He says the military didn't have that authority before. Could the directive allow the military to defend against the distributed denial of service attacks that had plagued U.S. banks earlier this fall? Unlikely, Lewis says, though it could if the military determines that the attack would be highly destructive. Lewis says the National Security Agency has improved its ability to identify those attacking IT systems. Now, he says, the Pentagon will finalize new rules of engagement to provide direction to authorities on how to prevent a cyberattack. According to a Washington Post report, the directive establishes a broad and strict set of standards to guide the operations of federal agencies in confronting threats in cyberspace, citing several U.S. officials who have seen the classified document but aren't authorized to speak on the record. The paper also says the directive lays out a process to vet any operations outside government and defense networks and ensure that U.S. citizens' and foreign allies' data and privacy are protected and international laws of war are followed. In an e-mail exchange, the senior administration official says the directive establishes principles and processes for the use of cyber operations so that cyber tools are integrated with the fully array of national security tools we have at our disposal. "It provides a whole-of-government approach consistent with the values that we promote domestically and internationally as we have previously articulated in the International Strategy for Cyberspace," the official says. The directive will establish principles and processes that can enable more effective planning, development and use of the government's capabilities, enabling the government to be flexible while also exercising restraint in dealing with the threats the nation faces. "It continues to be our policy that we shall undertake the least action necessary to mitigate threats and that we will prioritize network defense and law enforcement as the preferred courses of action," the official says. New and existing directives do not provide new authorities to agencies or departments and American military, intelligence community and law enforcement agencies obtain no new authorities in the issuance of this directive, the official says. The official points out the directives do not give the government additional oversight over privately owned networks. The directive comes at a time when Obama is considering issuing an executive order that, in part, would direct the government to work with the private sector to develop cybersecurity best practices that the owners of the nation's critical infrastructure could adopt voluntarily. It also coincides with the Senate reconsideration of the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, comprehensive IT security legislation that stalled last summer when the bill could not get enough votes to block a filibuster. http://www.govinfosecurity.com/obama-signs...
Posted By: Steve Williams
Thursday, November 15th 2012 at 2:51PM
You can also
click
here to view all posts by this author...
|
|
|
First of all, there seem to be some contradictions here:
"But James Lewis, the well-connected cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the directive, months in the works, will allow the military to actively target digital assailants if it believes such an attack would cause significant harm to individual Americans or its institutions. He says the military didn't have that authority before."
"New and existing directives do not provide new authorities to agencies or departments and American military, intelligence community and law enforcement agencies obtain no new authorities in the issuance of this directive, the official says."
The "senior administration official" and "the well-connected cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies" do not seem to agree.
Thursday, November 15th 2012 at 3:07PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
Imagine a scenario where a terrorist cell is communicating over the public network. Could the military shut down parts of the public network to attack the terrorist cell? Would it have to provide details and justification for such an action to the citizens who were also denied service, or would this be classified information? Could this power be abused to deny civil liberties? Do the actions of our Government create terrorists?
I will take a look at the International Strategy for Cyberspace.
Thursday, November 15th 2012 at 3:18PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
National security is a priority but people will differ on the nature of national security and what policies best promote national security.
Thursday, November 15th 2012 at 3:27PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
The International Strategy for Cyberspace is found here. Copy and Paste is disabled, so the best I can do is provide the link. Please review the President's statement there for an understanding of:
"It provides a whole-of-government approach consistent with the values that we promote domestically and internationally as we have previously articulated in the International Strategy for Cyberspace," the official says.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fi...
Thursday, November 15th 2012 at 3:54PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
The Technology Revolution A Campaign for Liberty Manifesto
This is what a technology revolution looks like:
New innovators create vast new markets where none existed previously; Individual genius enabled by the truly free market the Internet represents routes around obsolete and ineffective government attempts at control; The arrogant attempts of governments to centralize, intervene, subsidize, micromanage and regulate innovation is scoffed at and ignored.
The revolution is occurring around the world.
It is occurring in the private sector, not the public sector.
It is occurring despite wrongheaded attempts by governments to micromanage markets through disastrous industrial policy.
And it is driven by the Internet, the single greatest catalyst in history for individual liberty and free markets.
The true technology revolutionaries have little need for big government and never have. Microsoft ignored the government for years and changed the world by leading the PC revolution.
Today, companies like Apple -- which has created several completely new markets out of whole cloth (iPhone, iPad, iTunes, and iPod) -- are changing the world again, successfully adopting visionary new revenue models for movies, songs and games, and launching an “app economy” responsible for creating almost half a million jobs in the United States since the iPhone was introduced…
All in less than 5 years, and all without government permission, partnerships, subsidies, or regulations!
Technology revolutionaries succeeded not because of some collectivist vision that seeks to regulate “fairness”, “neutrality”, “privacy” or “competition” through coercive state actions, or that views the Internet and technology as a vast commons that must be freely available to all, but rather because of the same belief as America’s Founders who understood that private property is the foundation of prosperity and freedom itself.
Technology revolutionaries succeed because of the decentralized nature of the Internet, which defies government control.
As a consequence, decentralization has unlocked individual self-empowerment, entrepreneurialism, creativity, innovation and the creation of new markets in ways never before imagined in human history.
But, ironically, just as decentralization has unleashed the potential for free markets and individual freedom on a global scale, collectivist special interests and governments worldwide are now tirelessly pushing for more centralized control of the Internet and technology.
Here at home they are aided and abetted both by an Administration that wholeheartedly believes in the wisdom of government to manage markets and some in the technology industry that cynically use the cudgel of government control and regulation to hamstring competitors – the Apple’s and Microsoft’s of tomorrow.
Internet collectivism takes many forms, all of them pernicious.
Among the most insidious are government attempts to control and regulate competition, infrastructure, privacy and intellectual property. According to them;
Successful companies in brand new frontier industries that didn’t even exist as recently as five years ago should be penalized and intimidated with antitrust actions in the name of “fairness” and “competition.”
Privately owned broadband high-speed infrastructure must be subject to collective rule via public ownership and government regulations that require “sharing” with other competitors.
Internet infrastructure must be treated as a commons subject to centralized government control through a variety of foolish “public interest” and “fairness” regulations.
Wireless, the lifeblood of the mobile Internet revolution, must be micromanaged as a government-controlled commons, with limited exclusive property rights.
Private property rights on the Internet should exist in limited fashion or not at all, and what is considered to be in the public domain should be greatly expanded.
Private sector data collection practices must be scrutinized and tightly regulated in the name of “protecting consumers”, at the same time as government’s warrantless surveillance and collection of private citizens’ Internet data has dramatically increased.
Internet collectivists are clever.
They are masters at hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to disingenuously push for more centralized control.
“Openness” means government control of privately owned infrastructure.
“Net neutrality” means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems to be "neutral". “Internet freedom” means the destruction of property rights.
“Competition” means managed competition, with the government acting as judge and jury on what constitutes competition and what does not.
Our “right to privacy” only applies to the data collection activities of the private sector, rarely to government.
The eminent economist Ludwig von Mises wrote that when government seeks to solve one problem, it creates two more.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of Internet collectivists and the centralized control of the Internet they seek.
The body of incremental communications law and regulation that has emerged since the days of Alexander Graham Bell are entirely unsuited to the dynamic and ever-changing Internet for one simple reason: Technology is evolving faster than government’s ability to regulate it.
Ronald Reagan once said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." But in the Internet era, true Internet freedom can be lost in far less than one generation.
Around the world, the real threat to Internet freedom comes not from bad people or inefficient markets -- we can and will always route around them -- but from governments' foolish attempts to manage and control innovation.
And it is not just the tyrannies we must fear. The road away from freedom is paved with good intentions.
Today, the road to tyranny is being paved by a collectivist-Industrial complex -- a dangerous brew of wealthy, international NGO's, progressive do-gooders, corporate cronies and sympathetic political elites.
Their goals are clear: The collectivist-industrial complex seeks to undermine free markets and property rights, replacing them with "benevolent" government control and a vision of "free" that quickly evolves from "free speech" to "free stuff."
We know where this path leads. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
A benevolent monopoly for "the public interest" is nothing more than a means for the old guard to reassert their power. The role of the government on the Internet is to protect us from force and fraud, not to decide our interests.
But while the Internet has produced a revolution, it has not, in fact, "changed everything". We do not need to reinvent our principles for the web; we only need apply our core principles to it. When faced with Internet regulation, we should ask these key questions:
Is this a core function of the federal government?
Does it execute Constitutionally defined duties?
Does it protect Constitutionally defined rights?
Does it protect property rights?
Does it protect individual rights?
If the federal government does not do this, will others?
Will this policy or regulation allow the market to decide outcomes or will it distort the market for political ends?
Is this policy or regulation clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations?
Yes, there will always be problems and challenges that exist in the online universe. These challenges are sometimes significant and important and other times not. Government, however, will never solve them. Markets will.
As a matter of principle, we oppose any attempt by Government to tax, regulate, monitor or control the Internet, and we oppose the Internet collectivists who collaborate with the government against Internet freedom.
This is our revolution…. Government needs to get out of the way.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99193487/The-Tec...
Thursday, November 15th 2012 at 9:42PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
Irma, sure there is one commander in chief. There is also one first amendment, which includes the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances. A balance of power, not either or.
Thursday, November 15th 2012 at 10:01PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
Thanks for the lead Jake, the video can be seen here (and James Lewis is again quoted below):
http://iamnotarapperispit.com/2010/10/18/1...
According to the great-grandson of John D. Rockefeller, nephew of banker David Rockefeller, and former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller the internet represents a serious threat to national security. Rockefeller is not alone in this assessment. His belief that the internet is the “number one national hazard” to national security is shared by the former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Obama’s current director Admiral Dennis C. Blair.
Senator Jay Rockefeller pontificates on the threat to national security posed by the internet.
“It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet,” Rockefeller mused during the confirmation hearing of Gary Locke (see video), Obama’s choice for Commerce Secretary. He then cites a dubious figure of three million cyber “attacks” launched against the Department of Defense every day. “Everybody is attacked, anybody can do it. People say, well it’s China and Russia, but there could be some kid in Latvia doing the same thing.”
Jay Rockefeller’s comments reveal an astounding degree of ignorance – or if not ignorance, outright propaganda. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks the government has cranked up the fear quotient in regard to cyber attacks and so-called cyber terrorism, a virtually non-existent threat except in the minds security experts and politicians. In the years since the attacks, not one real instance of real cyberterrorism has been recorded.
“Cyberattacks on critical components of the national infrastructure are not uncommon, but they have not been conducted by terrorists and have not sought to inflict the kind of damage that would qualify as cyberterrorism,” writes Gabriel Weimann, author of Terror on the Internet. “Nuclear weapons and other sensitive military systems, as well as the computer systems of the CIA and FBI, are ‘air-gapped,’ making them inaccessible to outside hackers. Systems in the private sector tend to be less well protected, but they are far from defenseless, and nightmarish tales of their vulnerability tend to be largely apocryphal.”
“Psychological, political, and economic forces have combined to promote the fear of cyberterrorism,” Weimann continues. “From a psychological perspective, two of the greatest fears of modern time are combined in the term ‘cyberterrorism.’ The fear of random, violent victimization blends well with the distrust and outright fear of computer technology.”
“The sky is not falling, and cyber-weapons seem to be of limited value in attacking national power or intimidating citizens,” notes James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Such a threat is overblown, Lewis explains. He notes that “a brief review suggests that while many computer networks remain very vulnerable to attack, few critical infrastructures are equally vulnerable.” In other words, Rockefeller’s example of a kid in Latvia with a laptop posing a serious “hazard” to national security is little more than sensationalistic propaganda.
So-called cyber terrorists are far less of a threat than government. China and Australia have recently imposed draconian censorship on internet freedom. Brazil, Denmark, Canada, Finland, Ireland , Italy, Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States, and many other countries also impose nominal censorship on internet freedom. Urgent calls to restrict the medium in various ways through legislation and government action have increased over the last few years (for more detail, see Internet Censorship: A Comparative Study).
However, the real threat to internet freedom is currently posed by IT and ISP corporations, not the government.
Friday, November 16th 2012 at 2:47AM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
Which President was that Irma?
Friday, November 16th 2012 at 3:04AM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
That said that about the Rockefellers?
Friday, November 16th 2012 at 3:06AM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
Irma, here is something interesting I found when I went looking for that info on the Rockefellers.
National Security Decision Memorandum 266. August 15, 1974 under Gerald Ford. Dealing with telecommunications security. Originally classified Top Secret, now within easy reach via the Internet.
http://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic_herit...
Friday, November 16th 2012 at 3:52AM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
On May 15, 1911, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Standard Oil Cartel was a menace to the Republic and ordered it to be broken up:
"For the safety of the Republic we (U.S. Supreme Court) now decree that the dangerous conspiracy must be ended by Nov. 15, 1911 "(John D. A Portrait in Oils, p. 154).
Rockefeller vowed revenge against the U.S. and used his vast fortune to BUY the U.S. government.
The breakup of the Standard Oil monolith resulted in about 37 new companies. Rockefeller still secretly controlled them all by owning a voting majority of stock in the new corporation. Thus Standard Oil would be known as Standard Oil New Jersey (Exxon), Standard Oil New York (Mobil), Standard Oil Indiana (Amoco), Standard Oil California (Chevron), Atlantic Refining (Arco) etc., etc. It was business as usual at 26 Broadway — the headquarters of the giant.
3 years later they ordered the Kaiser to invade Belgium and start W. W. I. Their plan was to keep Germany and England fighting until the U. S. intervened. Herbert Hoover (another Standard Oil employee) was put in charge of the Belgium Relief Commission.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Rel...
Friday, November 16th 2012 at 4:47AM
Steve Williams
|
 |
LETS SEE, I BET THE ROCKFELLERS SURE WISH IT COULD BE WIPED FROM OUR AMERICAN HISORY BOOKS ABOUT ONE OF OUR PRESIDENTS DECLARING THEM A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY...
EDUCATE!!!EDUCATE!!!EDUCATE!!! (SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
LETS NOT EVEN BRING IN HOW THE DUPONTS GOT WHERE THEY ARE FROM HELPING HITLER AGAINST OUR MILITARY IN WWII...AGAIN, EDUCATE!!!EDUCATE!!!EDUCATE!!!ASS BRAINWASINGS IS AN EVEN BIGGER THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. (NUP/ SMILE)...
AGAIN ALL CAN BE FOUND IN OUR AMERICAN HISTORY BOOKS...NOT BLACK HISTORY BUT, AMERICAN HISTORY...
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
@Jake please try to remember that science it self is still trying to be banned in America. (smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
...and this is why it is so sad taht the right refuses to accept we only have o-n-e commander in chief. (nup)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
...AND, I PUT EMPHSIS BOTH OF THESE INSIDENTS HAPPENING WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR NATION FIGHTING WORLD WARS...NOT PLAY WARS BUT DECLARED W-A-R-S BY OUR GOVERNMENT AND COULD HAVE HAD US SPEAKING ANOTHER LANGUAGE AS OUR NATIONAL LANGUAGE...HOW IRONIC? (NUP)
GOOD NIGHT...
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
i AM DOING ALL OF THIS FROM MEMORY, BUT i BELIEVE IT WAS HOOVER...HE WAS THE ONE TO DO WHAT WE DID IN MODERN TIME WHEN WE BROKE UP AT&T AND OTHER GIANT MEGA-COMPANYS, BECAUSE THEY AFFECT THE STABILITY OF OUR BANKING AND ECONOMIC SYSTEMS WHICH IS LIKE WHAT CAUSED THE DEPRESSION AND OUR LATEST DEPRESSSION BY ANOTHER NAME. LOL (SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
...AND, BECAUSE OF AMATURE HACKING SUCCESS AND COMPUTERS HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM WITH GLICHES AND DEPENDANCY ON ELECTRICITY...i CHANT(PRAY) THAT NONE OF THOSE COUNTLESS NUCLEAR WEAPOONS ARE SET BY WAY OF COMPUTERS. (NUP/ SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
THE DUPONTS BECAME ONE OF WHAT IS CALLED A WAR PROFITEER...YOUHAVE HEARD OF AMERICAN'S RATIONING DURING WWII...WELL WHEN AMERICANS WERE DOING WITHOUT AND DONATING TO OUR GOVERNMENT ALL OF THE SCRAPS OF TIN, STEEL TEHY COULD FIND THE DUPONTS MADE SURE HITLER'S GERMANY HAD ALL OF THESE PRODUCTS NEEDED TO FIGHT AGAINS TUS...
OH, THE PRESIDENT CHANGED OUR CONSUTITION AND BROKE UP THE ROCKERFELLER EMPIRE AND STRANGLE HOLD THEY HAD ON AMERICA. (SMILE)...THE ROCKERFELLER'S GETTING A PRIVATE OWNED EMPIRE BY SQUEEZING OUT THE LITTLE OIL PEOPLE GOVERNMENT LOBBY, BY HOOK, CROOK OR EVEN MURDER WAS PUT TO AN END...AS WERE THE FAMILY HAVING THE TRAIN RIVATE EMPIRE...CAN'T THINK OF THEIR NAMES RIGH TNOW...
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
tHANKS STEVE WILL CHECK THE SITE TOMORROW...IT IS TOO BAD WE KNOW SO LITTLE AABOUT THE VERY THINGS TAHT AFFECT AND EFFECT OUR DAILY LIVES...THESE PRICES AT THEGAS PUMPS AND MONEY SUPPORTING BIG OIL MUST COME TO AN END...THEY HAVE TOO MUCH CONTROL ON LIMITING THE POWERS OF OUR LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...SIMPLY BECAUSE OUR ECONOMEY DEPENDS ON BEING ABLE TO MAKEE A PRODUCT AND GETTING THAT PRODUCT TO THE CONSUMER. (NUP/ SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
IF I CAN BELIEVE THE NEXT WORLD WAR WILL BE A CYBERWAR...SO GLAD OUR PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO ALSO BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE A PRIORITY OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. (SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
LOL..."SECRET" (SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
Blogs Home
|
|
|
