E-terrorism

[cwk9]

The link: http://news.com.com/2009-1001-954728.html?tag=fd_lede

An interesting article on cyber terrorism. I feel cyber terrorism has less to do with terrorist and more to do with government departments playing on people’s fears so they can get bigger budgets. Of course the media only add fuel to the fire because there interested in ratings and not the facts. Then there’s the experts. The ones you see on the news spinning the latest cyber terrorism dooms day scenario just so they can get on T.V and sell there new book. These so called experts would have you believe that bin ladin is hiding in a cave with a laptop waiting for the perfect opportunity to ddos your Grandmas geocites page. I can’t help but roll my eyes any time someone starts talking about how hackers could turn off the power and crash the stock markets. Just my $0.02

Intro

Doomsday predictions of a "digital Pearl Harbor" have persisted in the year since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

The specter was a driving force behind controversial new law enforcement measures portrayed as necessary by the government but decried by civil libertarians as an assault on constitutional rights to privacy. Yet security experts, network managers and public safety officials say privately that the threat of cyberterrorism has been overblown and misunderstood--and that physical attacks remain far easier to carry out.

As a result, government officials and industry leaders may have spent needless effort addressing an arguably nonexistent enemy at a time when all resources are needed to guard against more realistic dangers. In this three-day special report, CNET News.com reporters in New York, San Francisco and Washington examine the technological and political realities of this volatile issue.

The other three parts

Safety: Assessing the infrastructure risk
http://news.com.com/2009-1001-954780.html

Politics: Weighing security against liberties
http://news.com.com/2009-1001-954565.html

Lessons: Keeping networks alive in New York
http://news.com.com/2009-1001-954796.html

[valhallen]

omg!! what if they bring down all the p0rn sites oO

/me goes into a panic

hehe

v_Ln

[gghornet]

Lets be honest here.Who's the cyber-terrorists?Your run of the mill "hacker" who does more to create a secure computer system than any government organizations and corporate executives put together,or the privacy invading,consumer rapists known as M$.So you get a script kiddie who likes to throw around a few virii.Is that a real threat to national security.Anyway,how many terrorists do you think even have access to computers.Most of these people live in places that can't afford to have paved roads.I'm sure theirs a few out there,but unless every important computer file the government has is on one low security network I don't feel there's any real threat in it.

[cwk9]

Not the porn sites

gghornet brings up a good question. Just who is a cyber terrorist? Its kind of hard to fight an enemy when you don't eve have a clear definition of who he is.

[debwalin]

Its kind of hard to fight an enemy when you don't eve have a clear definition of who he is.

Just my .02, but isn't this a bit like what we're doing in our whole "war on terror"?

Deb

[Palemoon]

Deb you have it right we do not evben know who we are really fighting. As far as I can see this matter it is pure hype more media then anything else, and an excuse for many goverments to pass bad laws. Fact is none of these measure will prove any more effective then the current system or laws, only a loss of more personal freedoms. I have trouble with the current Admin the pres is following his Daddy's agenda almost to the people assigned to office by him. Cyber terror E-Terror LOL I'm sorry I just do not buy the media spin put on by the Bush Admin the guy has know idea what he is doing and is diverting attention to this fight on terror from the real issues of corp greed, our markets are a sham and he wants to start a war. Geez

[The Old Man]

Hmmm, well folks, i see where y'all are comin' from, and i can see each one of your reasonings and concerns about giving up freedoms and personal privacy in the name of self-defence against e-terrorism,... "BUT": Rule #1 is never underestimate your opposition, no matter if it's a chess game or a quick-draw. They don't all live in caves nor are they stuck with yesterday's technology, nor are they all the dimmest light in the stadium. The expense, preparation, calculation and boldness of the 9-11 Boeing takeovers, the end result, and the fact that those couple dozen fanatics were not even the tip of the iceberg of those who would like to do something every bit as devastating against whoever (U.S. on top of the list, they claim), we would be remiss to dismiss the e-attack threat and do nothing. But, you ask, what could be done without giving up our collective privacy or personal freedoms? Simple: Just exactly what every one of the AO community already does... Keep your OS's and programs patched up to date, use an effective firewall and configure it tight and properly, use an effective anti-virus program and keep the signature file up to date (most can update daily), among other little things..... And, what can our Cities and utility companies do to protect their control systems, the water, electricity and sewage plants? <Shout> Unhook the control systems from the outside phone lines,</shout> use decent alarm systems on the physical plants and locations, use random patrols instead of predictable rounds, and use CCTV at remote sensitive areas with the monitor at the nearest 24/7 polizi dispatch station. OK, now, let's see, how many freedoms did we give up? Not very many that i can count. And how many additional invasions of our privacy did we have to permit? Dang, i can't see any of those either. And how much did all this cost? Chump-change, that's how much.
'Course, you might have a differing opinion, but it'd have to be a darn good one to make me change my mind, 'cause i'm real old and set in my ways.

[digitalgadfly]

I would have to say that I agree with these posts. I may just be bitter since I have been in Afghanistan too long, but....it seems that whenever the smoke starts to clear and the hype dies on a certain subject the Bush administration decides to make up a new issue that "poses a serious threat". All this is done to avoid the lime light. They cannot put themselves in the crosshairs. Trying pass laws that are unjust in the name of fighting terrorism. Sooner or later the public is going to stop buying it, then what? This will not last forever, it is time to focus on the real issues at hand. Someone is playing with our economy and the stock market. The Afghanistan issue is losing steem and all of the sudden it is a big deal that Iraq won't let U.N. weapon inspectors in, this has been going on since we left there last time. Over all I am not impressed with this myth of an"unknown" enemy. Operation Enduring Freedom is turning into a waste of tax payers money.

[The Old Man]

Yeah, that's for sure, being in theatre too long can really do wierd things. But, before anyone dismisses the e-threat or any other type of terrorist threat, take a look around the world at "the happenings". Never underestimate your opponent. In fact, a half dozen people were bombed today in Afghanistan, (among a dozen other incidents around the world) and that was a really big deal for a half-dozen families..... But this article is just one you might use for planning purposes, and (LOL) it didn't come from the "Bush Camp"
http://www.nandotimes.com/special_re...-4177880c.html