Obama's Portrait of Cyberwar Isn't Complete Hyperbole 240
pigrabbitbear writes "It's hard to imagine what cyberwarfare actually looks like. Is it like regular warfare, where two sides armed with arsenals of deadly weapons open fire on each other and hope for total destruction? What do they fire instead of bullets? Packets of information? Do people die? Or is it not violent at all — just a bunch of geeks in uniforms playing tricks on each other with sneaky code? Barack Obama would like to clear up this question, thank you very much. In an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal the president voiced his support for the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 now being considered by the Senate with the help of a truly frightening hypothetical: 'Across the country trains had derailed, including one carrying industrial chemicals that exploded into a toxic cloud,' Obama wrote, describing a nightmare scenario of a cyber attack. 'Water treatment plants in several states had shut down, contaminating drinking water and causing Americans to fall ill.' All because of hackers!"
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bankers are worse than hackers. (Score:5, Interesting)
Obama wants new laws to protect us against a hypothetical threat. But he has failed to use the laws he already has against those who have already damaged this country more than a foreign enemy could hope to. The only explanation is that Obama is not concerned about protecting America at all.
Re:wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Y2K wasn't a disaster because a lot of people put in a lot of effort to prevent from being one. I put in hundreds of hours on it, and I was just one average systems guy in one IT department.
Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. (Score:2, Interesting)
And why? What the president is saying isn't 100% bullshit, which is a difficult thing to swallow - for me, too, and I voted for him. Of course it isn't nearly the truth, either. The truth lies somewhere in between "nothing will happen" and "The only way to be sure is to nuke it from orbit" and it shifts.
I will tell you this, not long ago there were some oil pipeline explosions in Russia (not the USSR). The explosions happened just as Russia was starting to make a big dent in middle east oil production and, coincidentally, just as American oil interests were turned away from investment in Russia's oil industry. There was a massive pipeline explosion. It took Russia years to recover fully and by then the Middle Eastern oil situation had stabilized and they were able to over supply Europe once again. The explosion gave the US interests breathing room.
It was caused by code put into the valves by US firms that effectively reversed the oil flow.
Yeah, we did it, and the message was that either Russia does it themselves or they play nice with the US. And now China did the same thing to us.
Serves us right.
The war is here, son. Strap on your slide-rule and tape up your glasses. Uncle Same wants you.
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's total hyperbole. If it was so easy to crash major systems it would have happened already. Then there's the fact that, as with many facets of war, the United States is the first one to use the weapon it pretends it needs defense against. Like nukes, ICBM's, and now "cyber warfare", in Iran with the stuxnet virus.
Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing is as horrible as being trapped in a monopoly.
Sort like before HCR? Employer provided health-care is it's own monopoly, meaning you can't switch jobs if you have a pre-existing condition.
I really don't understand why people distrust a government program 'that they have actual say in' versus a corporation that they have ZERO say in how it's run. You don't get to vote for who runs it, you don't get to vote for what you want it to do.
before HCR reform Insurance companies were perfectly allowed to cancel your coverage because you cost them too much money. You really want that as your health care system?