Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Government Security The Military United States Politics

Schneier Calls US Stuxnet Cyberattack a 'Destabilizing and Dangerous' Action 351

alphadogg writes "Revelations by The New York Times that President Barack Obama in his role as commander in chief ordered the Stuxnet cyberattack against Iran's uranium-enrichment facility two years ago in cahoots with Israel is generating controversy, with Washington in an uproar over national-security leaks. But the important question is whether this covert action of sabotage against Iran, the first known major cyberattack authorized by a U.S. president, is the right course for the country to take. Are secret cyberattacks helping the U.S. solve geopolitical problems or actually making things worse? Bruce Schneier, whose most recent book is 'Liars and Outliers,' argues the U.S. made a mistake with Stuxnet, and he discusses why it's important for the world to tackle cyber-arms control now."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Schneier Calls US Stuxnet Cyberattack a 'Destabilizing and Dangerous' Action

Comments Filter:
  • Nonsense! (Score:5, Funny)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday June 19, 2012 @08:28AM (#40368981) Journal
    How could contributing to the spread of clever computer-intrusion technologies(both with things like Stuxnet, and with the pernicious habit of doing business with the sort of slimy vulnerability-sellers whose customers want to exploit, not patch, them), possibly be a bad idea for a country whose citizens, businesses, government, and R&D capabilities are overwhelmingly dependent on computerized infrastructure?

    That's crazy talk.
  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Tuesday June 19, 2012 @08:52AM (#40369291) Homepage

    I wonder if that Nobel Peace Prize burns in his hand yet.

  • by Darth Snowshoe (1434515) on Tuesday June 19, 2012 @09:42AM (#40369897)

    Schneier goes commando! Every day!

  • by Psyborgue (699890) on Tuesday June 19, 2012 @11:07AM (#40371153) Homepage Journal
    That's assuming tensions can be decreased. That's assuming if we decrease pressure, Iran or North Korea would back down. The problem with your assumptions is it assumes everybody is rational and by the same things. In case you haven't noticed, not everybody is. In Iran's case, religion is a big factor. Mutually assured destruction, to people who regularly strap explosives to their chests, is not a deterrent but rather an incentive. In North Korea's case, you have a teenager in charge who has been brought up his whole life as some sort of Messiah. I would trust Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin with ICBMs before I would trust those two.

The person who's taking you to lunch has no intention of paying.