The CIA Says It’s Time to Up Its Cyber Game
recode.net
recode.net
Or are attention spans so short and/or the agency so completely removed from the rule of law that we're going to let them get away with their crimes? If we're not even going to bother with the trial - acknowledging that we won't even bother trying to maintain the rule of law - then I guess that's sufficient proof that we have lost our republic, as we let it be replaced with feudalism.
To drum up more support for pumping billions or trillions of dollars borrowed from America's descendants into the pockets of the US elite via the military industrial complex.
Don't like it? You're welcome to protest but make sure you do it in the designated "free speech zone" over there, well away from those you're holding the protest against.
Oh and while you're doing it we'll increase the attention we give your NSA profile, everything you look at online, your emails, everyone you've ever interacted with in a trackable way and more. Can't have you radicals trying to upset the system the elite rely on, after all.
No, there will never be accountability for any of the gross abuses of the constitution, people's rights (including all those in the USA) and foreign "captives" physical and mental wellbeing highlighted in the NSA and CIA revelations.
Let's not kid ourselves. Representative democracy has shown itself to be a charade, particularly in the USA where you've two very similar entities who have billions pumped into them at election time to ensure no other entities have a shot at power, and then once elected those two very similar entities spend their time serving and protecting those that pumped in those billions.
The worst thing about it that I can't see any way out of it for the American people. The system is now so thoroughly stacked against them that any attempt at radical change - whether it's passive through the political system or more active through protests or at worst a revolution - will be very rapidly quashed. As a European I absolutely loathe that this very same, corrupted, abusive entity - the US Government - is reaching its tentacles into our governing and is now vying for power here via the TTIP and similar.
So this is just casually accepted as fact now?
They could get a better understanding of security and enforce, research, and advise standards of protection on consumer data, making everyone in the country better off, or they can "hack back".
I don't really see how knowing what the average Joe in North Korea is Googling is supposed to help when my data is leaking like a sieve, but whatever.
For the rest, we have the basic problem that defense is much harder than offense. Also, the US seems to be far more vulnerable than most.
Those aside, offensive capabilities are needed. It's just a question of balancing them against defensive capabilities. I know firsthand that significant effort is going into defense, it just doesn't get the press that offensive capabilities do.
Those shouldn't be mistaken for the whole of ongoing defensive efforts, though. Many of the others are much more practical.
The USG has no need to falsely accuse North Korea in order to step up it's cyber warfare game. Stuxnet did that a long time ago and was started under the Bush administration.
That said, from another point of view, monumental fuck-up is a consistent feature of many human endeavours.
The reveal of Stuxnet was before the reveal of the reach our surveillance apparatus has. The narrative was one of plausible deniability and a nod to the fact that nations were engaging in offensive online attacks.
The NK hack was an attack on American culture and values. It was symbolic in a way that attacking Iranian civilian nuclear power plants isn't. It also doesn't involve exposing and admitting to running offensive campaigns on civilians of countries we aren't at war with.
NK hack says that we need cyber defense front, since the internet is the new land bridge across the Atlantic and Pacific for anti-American extremists to attack us directly.
It fits the narrative that the measures we are taking regarding near total electronic surveillance are justified and warranted. It also is a call for more funding and power to the agencies that are engaging in the activities.
(cyber-speed)
Network security is accurate I think but not specific enough.
Comments like this one just seem to me like a form of avoidance: let's mock their vocabulary, because we don't want to think about the substance of what they're doing.
Computer security people just say "security" without any qualifiers, because none are required. When a salesman pitching an anti spam product says cyber, he's failing the shibboleth
That whole agency disco in the US is so confusing that I have the feeling this has to be the plan all the way or it's some kind of old cold war virus spawning divisions and agencies. Don't they all overlap? Is there enough reality for all of them to spy on?
The Department of Homeland security is a bit different, they're charged with domestic operations and support (TSA).
The FBI is a Domestic Detective agency for lack of a better description. They're charged with being the Federal investigative force vs relying on varying state and city groups.
So yes, theres plenty for all of them to spy on / work on. Each have their own laws and limitations. That's why they're incestuous and work together on many projects.
Rule of thumb: If something contains the word 'Cyber' in it, it's gonna be clueless, bureaucratic and political, and utterly incompetently done.
Yet somehow Chinese and Russian cyberwar programs are pretty effective. Sounds like the US needs to catch up.
1. That vaunted "effectiveness" may be Just Another Missile Gap, i.e. a realistically non-existent threat used to drum up fear in the USA, to get greater funding from a terrorized public.
2. Lots of analysts say that both China and Russia tolerate unofficial hacking/cyberwar groups, as long as the targets are outside of China and Russia respectively. With some small amount of guidance done surreptitiously, the governments take advantage of a huge number of semi-criminals to serve "national security" needs without attribution.
3. Because of (2), ISO-9001, CMM level N don't apply. Faster coding. Similarly, Script Kiddies, Honkers and Nationalist Hackers don't do clearances, much less compartmentalized projects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance#Compartmente...) - this means that more people are available, from very diverse backgrounds, and they can collaborate and communicate as necessary.
Unless the USA is willing to quit being bureaucratic to the point of paralysis, it will never catch up.
The FBI changed their task to "national security" recently, and are now part of the "intelligence community" club.
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fbis-main-mission-now-not...
I agree with the parent; there is substantial overlap in capabilities and responsibilities among the agencies that do intelligence work for the U.S. government.
These overlaps led directly to the mistaken Iraq invasion. DOD and CIA reported very different things about the Iraq WMD program, and the U.S. leadership could choose which one they wanted to believe. Cheney and Rumsfeld convinced Bush to listen to DOD, and we all know how that worked out.
Our own military and government barely know what the hell is going on within its own circles, there is absolutely no chance someone will be able to make sense of what is important and relevant. It's essentially a strategy of overwhelming with force and noise signal.
As the economic and global power we had been over the American Century we were able to play fast and loose and wild, whether our strategy will still work in this new century is a different story though. It may very well still work, it may very well lead to our demise. The only thing going for us is that there does not seem to be any alternative power and authority that is any less shitty than ours; whether that is due to natural factors of by CIA sabotage is a different story. Are we really all going to support China's or Russia's supplanting of American power in the world? It's not a good choice, but as horrible as we are, I'll go with the less bad over the worst any time.
The CIA and other agencies having its own smaller team probably means better outcomes. This kind of thing probably works best with smaller and more nimble teams than big data gathering focused organizations like the NSA.
From a budget perspective, this is good cause to cut from the NSA and give to the CIA.
It's an extension of the national security narrative. Agencies recognize the massive amount of funding and legislature on the horizon and want to see it diverted to them like it was to the DHS in the last decade.
Unless it's the RIAA, MPAA, MAFIAA or American Oil Interests... in which case, it's business as usual.
I mean we can argue that RIAA/MPAA were the ones who got them into the books in the first place, but it's not like corporations can approach the CIA to perform economic espionage, despite what some may think.