Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet The Military

How the Militarization of the Internet is Changing Warfare 204

Posted by samzenpus
from the you've-got-war-mail dept.
puddingebola writes in with a link to a New York Times article about how the militarization of the internet is changing contemporary warfare. "The decision by the United States and Israel to develop and then deploy the Stuxnet computer worm against an Iranian nuclear facility late in George W. Bush's presidency marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual militarization of the Internet. Washington has begun to cross the Rubicon. If it continues, contemporary warfare will change fundamentally as we move into hazardous and uncharted territory. It is one thing to write viruses and lock them away safely for future use should circumstances dictate it. It is quite another to deploy them in peacetime. Stuxnet has effectively fired the starting gun in a new arms race that is very likely to lead to the spread of similar and still more powerful offensive cyber-weaponry across the Internet. Unlike nuclear or chemical weapons, however, countries are developing cyber-weapons outside any regulatory framework."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How the Militarization of the Internet is Changing Warfare

Comments Filter:
  • Peacetime? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by highphilosopher (1976698) on Monday June 25, 2012 @12:31PM (#40440063)

    We have been at ware since early 2000's. It's not peacetime.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Wrong! The USA has been in a constant state of Emergency since 1950

      Y'know, once the world calms down to pre-1950 levels of crazy I'm sure the President will give up his emergency-granted powers...

      Just remember if we get to Threat-Level Puce to set your radio dial to your CONLRAD station, paint yourself white, remove your distributor cap and lie down away from windows or doors, surely this aggression will not stand...

    • Re:Peacetime? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dkleinsc (563838) on Monday June 25, 2012 @12:43PM (#40440233) Homepage

      Actually, according to the Constitution, the US has fought no wars since 1945. We stopped declaring war at about the same time as we renamed our War Department the Department of Defense (after which we continued to attack foreign nations just like we've been doing throughout history).

      • by Relayman (1068986)
        Correct. If you don't want war, don't ask Congress to declare one. But we haven't been in peacetime, either.
      • by gman003 (1693318)

        Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we formally declare war in Korea?

    • Could we stop such stupid wording? There's no war here. Nobody has died or is dying because of what they are pretending are weapons, which are in fact just a bunch of bits. This is becoming very silly, and I don't buy into this propaganda.

      And by the way, instead of falsely using an important word such as "war", we'd better highlight and focus on how much Microsoft is the responsible here. Responsible in both having stupid security holes (come on... executing code in a .lnk!!!) and not doing security house
      • by DirkDaring (91233) on Monday June 25, 2012 @01:01PM (#40440493)

        So if the virus made the centrifuges explode and people died would you change your mind?

        • by gl4ss (559668)

          So if the virus made the centrifuges explode and people died would you change your mind?

          when few blocks from the same place guys are speeding on motorcycles and attaching bombs to cars.. who the fuck cares about doing the equivalent of pissing in the centrifuges.

          the whole reporting on the issue is out of hand. it makes me worried that some politicians are going to pay even more silly money for silly sw - and the only guys telling that it works and reporting what it did are the same fucking guys who get paid for doing it.

        • by Pseudonym (62607)

          What if it caused an industrial accident in a US factory?

      • by petes_PoV (912422) on Monday June 25, 2012 @01:11PM (#40440633)

        The United States constantly declares war. There's been the "War on Drugs", the "War on Terror" - not to mention the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and undeclared wars in places like Somalia and Yemen - where military actions (or drone-bourne assasinations) take place regularly.

        The thing is, wars are wonderful devices for a democratically elected government. They allow a "wartime" footing to be established where a lot of peacetime protections, rights and restrictions can simply be tossed aside. War is as much a state of mind as a military action. If a country considers itself at war, a lot of the things that its citizens would be permitted to do become criminalised, or at least subject to official scrutiny.

        This is exactly what's happened since 2001. The problem is that now we have governments all over the world - previously responsible, western governments that were considered "enlightened" are now viewing all their citizens as potential enemies, criminals or terrorists - and are treating them according to that suspicion.

        If you think that cyberspace is too abstract a place to have a war, just look out for all the critical infrastructure that is accessible on the internet. Facilities that any government would be mad to let people walk into unchallenged can (I'm told) be hacked. Whether it's by a script-kiddie or a Stuxnet wielding super-power is immaterial. It's a state of conflict and peoples' rights are being squashed in order to counter it. That sure sounds like a war - even if the enemy is us.

      • by demachina (71715)

        How about cyber-industrial complex instead. Cyber warfare and defense is becoming the new way to milk the Federal government for contracts and money, from the same people who've brought you the defense-industrial complex for the last 70 years, so it shall continue, whether you like it or not.

        These would be Lockheed [lockheedmartin.com], Boeing [boeing.com], Northrop Grumman [northropgrumman.com], Raytheon [raytheon.com], plus a few new players like Palantir [palantir.com]. Wonder how Palantir is able to buying up all the free real estate in Silicon Valley [techcrunch.com]?

        Chances are they will be gutting

        • by rtb61 (674572)

          It will also be the excuse for the licensing of access to the internet, for introduction broad restriction of use for 'national security reasons', for creating the new term 'internet terrorists' and, for the creating of no internet access lists for national security reasons. It all starts now.

      • by todrules (882424)
        Agreed. If this is considered war, then is the US and Israel really at war with Iran now? Does Iran have a valid reason to strike back? Can Iran go to the UN and demand sanctions on the US and Israel for striking first and performing hostile activities on Iran?
      • by hoggoth (414195)

        > Could we stop such stupid wording? There's no war here. Nobody has died or is dying because of what they are pretending are weapons, which are in fact just a bunch of bits. This is becoming very silly, and I don't buy into this propaganda

        Shhhhh! Stop calling out the emperor's new clothes. I have a computer security business and this level of groundless hype is good for business.

      • by neonKow (1239288)

        Too bad the US made a statement that it would consider such actions an act of war.

        Source:
        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718.html [wsj.com]

        Anyway, your definition is stupid. If no one dies, it's not a war? There is so much grey area. What if people are maimed? Bleeding? What if country A bombs a warehouse and the only injuries are blindness, deafness, or bruised people? What if you destroy enough food to cause a famine? Nobody directly died. And does that make all assassinations

    • We have been at ware since early 2000's. It's not peacetime.

      I grew up in the U.S. during the 80's. Yeah, we could board an airplane with our shoes on, but there was still a pretty good chance of getting nuked. I can't even imagine what it must have been like for people in the 60's. Go back just a little farther, and the threat of actual invasion was imminent.

      • Go back just a little farther, and the threat of actual invasion was believed to be imminent.

        FTFY. Unless you really meant just the threat was imminent.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Nobodies every answered what makes the US think it can win this type of war? The largest military in the worlds no use in this type pf war. More likely the wells the going to be poisoned and there will be military grade nasties affecting commercial systems for technological generations to com.e

    • by antdude (79039)

      Ware? Warez? Warez has been for many decades! Since thec 1970s/70s?

  • Internet vs USB (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I thought Stuxnet was transferred via USB.

    http://www.matrixgp.com/?page_id=760

  • by Cornwallis (1188489) on Monday June 25, 2012 @12:34PM (#40440103)

    Wasn't the original purpose of the Internet to serve the military?

    • by Sparticus789 (2625955) on Monday June 25, 2012 @12:42PM (#40440217) Journal

      Ask Al Gore

    • Part of the goals was a distributed network with no "head" could be knocked out in an attack. The 14 root name-servers are the closest thing to a head.
    • by mraudigy (1193551)
      Yes, but not for a nuclear command and control system as most people think. The ARPANET was to connect the geographically dispursed defense researchers and institutions to the small number of available research computers. The survivability in the design can be attributed to the poor reliability of the switching and circuits -- you didn't need a nuclear attack to take down the network, it handled that all on its own.
  • This needs to stop (Score:5, Informative)

    by 228e2 (934443) on Monday June 25, 2012 @12:35PM (#40440123)
    "THE decision by the United States and Israel to develop and then deploy the Stuxnet computer worm against"

    This hasnt been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Even though we all think US/Isreal are the curprits, all articles should start with an appropriate preface. This really needs to stop.
    • by dkleinsc (563838) on Monday June 25, 2012 @12:48PM (#40440297) Homepage

      This hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

      And it won't be for decades. These are top-notch spies we're talking about here, with the most powerful military in human history defending them. There's as much proof that the US was involved in Stuxnet as there is that the US was involved in the Venezuela coup: They had the means and the motivation, and left some evidence behind that sure looks suspicious, but no definitive proof.

    • by chill (34294)

      Ah, plausible deniability. It makes me tear up every time I see or hear it mentioned in relation to computer malware and potentially criminal acts.

    • by Baloroth (2370816)

      This really needs to stop.

      The number of pageviews the Washington Post got by running that article begs to differ.

    • by gman003 (1693318)

      This isn't a courtroom. We don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt".

      We have no other reasonable suspects. We have *some* evidence supporting the US/Israel hypothesis. We have motive. We have a lack of denial from the accused.

      None of those alone is "proof". Even altogether, it's not "proof", but this is the Court of Public Opinion, not the International Court of Justice.

    • by sl4shd0rk (755837)

      This hasnt been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

      It's been quite proven,
      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/confirmed-us-israel-created-stuxnet-lost-control-of-it/ [arstechnica.com]

    • by Sir_Sri (199544)

      when would this require reasonable doubt?

      Whether it was the Israelis, Americans, both, or including Canada/France/UK/Germany/AUS/NZ/JAPAN is a legitimate question. But this isn't a legal proceeding, and the precise culpability of any particular government or branch thereof isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      That Genie has left the bottle. Any country, or any INDIVIDUAL, can play.

      The bright spot is that it will COERCE immune responses and we'll have harder systems in the end.

    • by crazyjj (2598719) *

      his hasnt been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

      Jesus, will you EVER remove your head from the sand? I bet you think all those Iranian nuclear scientists assassinated *themselves* too.

    • by Nyder (754090)

      "THE decision by the United States and Israel to develop and then deploy the Stuxnet computer worm against"

      This hasnt been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Even though we all think US/Isreal are the curprits, all articles should start with an appropriate preface. This really needs to stop.

      The problem i see is, no one is saying they haven't done it.

      Where's the official statement saying that We didn't do it and would never do something like that.

    • This hasnt been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Even though we all think US/Isreal are the curprits, all articles should start with an appropriate preface. This really needs to stop.

      The allegation that the United States used a worm to secretly infect and then attack an Iranian nuclear facility is a very serious one... so if the U.S. really was innocent, wouldn't the government officially deny involvement? Instead, when asked about Stuxnet, administration officials say things such as "we're glad they are having trouble with their centrifuge machine and that we – the US and its allies – are doing everything we can to make sure that we complicate matters for them," which is w

  • Say what?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ackthpt (218170) on Monday June 25, 2012 @12:35PM (#40440125) Homepage Journal

    marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual militarization of the Internet.

    And all these attacks coming out of Chinese universities are what, game playing?

    Military takes on all mediums so it was inevitable efforts would evolve. WW III (should it come) will certainly involve a lot of concentrated attacks over the web, to bring it down, because it's far faster communication than simple radio or Television and goes around the world in milliseconds.

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      And all these attacks coming out of Chinese universities are what, game playing?

      Industrial espionage. Very far from war.

    • I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -- A. Einstein

      well, if there's no Internet, then sticks and stones it shall be!

  • Cyberwar, at least as it's currently conducted, doesn't kill people.

    Also, what makes them think that regulations matter when you're talking about war? Look at the nuclear weapons treaties - North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel have all flaunted them by making nuclear weapons, and the US and Israel have flaunted them by attempting to prevent Iran from researching nuclear power for civilian purposes (which is allowed under non-proliferation treaties).

    • by MightyYar (622222) on Monday June 25, 2012 @01:01PM (#40440485)

      Technically, only Iran may possibly have violated the non-proliferation treaty. Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed on to it so were perfectly within their rights to develop nukes. North Korea formally withdrew before testing their nuke, though they probably did violate the treaty prior to that withdrawal.

      Iran is probably violating it, since they are a signatory, have not withdrawn, and almost certainly are developing a nuclear weapon.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Almost certainly they are NOT developing nuclear weapon, as was repeatedly confirmed by Israel [haaretz.com] and US [latimes.com] intelligence agencies, among others.

        • by MightyYar (622222)

          Yes, the oil-rich state desperately needs to develop an extremely expensive form of alternative energy. And they need to enrich their uranium far beyond the 5% used in a typical commercial reactor. I'm sure it is all quite peaceful.

      • by manaway (53637)

        Technically, only Iran may possibly have violated the non-proliferation treaty. Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed on to it so were perfectly within their rights to develop nukes. North Korea formally withdrew before testing their nuke, though they probably did violate the treaty prior to that withdrawal... Iran is probably violating it, since they are a signatory, have not withdrawn, and almost certainly are developing a nuclear weapon.

        So it's somehow better to not sign the non-proliferation treaty and develop nukes than it is to sign and be accused of creating nukes. Technical indeed.

        Next, one of the world's most technical nations purposely inserts a destructive virus into facilities working with one of the most dangerous radioactive substances. Thus ensuring, supposedly, a signatory doesn't develop alleged weapons while 3 countries continue developing actual nuclear weapons. Alleged (adj.): "Iraq was alleged to have WMDs."

        Stuxnet didn't

        • by MightyYar (622222)

          I'm actually quite happy that my government is actively engaged in preventing Iran from acquiring nukes. I'd rather no one had them, but regimes like Iran (and North Korea) are particularly scary.

      • by Nyder (754090)

        Technically, only Iran may possibly have violated the non-proliferation treaty. Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed on to it so were perfectly within their rights to develop nukes. North Korea formally withdrew before testing their nuke, though they probably did violate the treaty prior to that withdrawal.

        Iran is probably violating it, since they are a signatory, have not withdrawn, and almost certainly are developing a nuclear weapon.

        So what if they signed some stupid ass piece of paper? When does the USA go by shit they sign? Not sure? Ask the Native Americans how well treaties has worked for them.

        Iran has all the rights in the world to make Nukes. And everyone knows it. We don't want them to have it, because we want only the few that have it to keep having it. Sort of like how the Music Industry wants to hold on to it's monopoly.

        Keep in mind, the only country to have used nukes against anyone else is the USA, so if anyone

        • by MightyYar (622222)

          When does the USA go by shit they sign?

          Seems like a dodge. What does the USA have to do with Iran's commitments?

          If Iran want's nukes, all they have to do is withdraw from the treaty.

    • by DirkDaring (91233)

      Wouldn't need much of a change to kill people. Make a reactor go critical or spin the centrifuges so fast they explode.

      What would happen if a rogue state hacked North Korea and somehow made a barrage of missiles fly at South Korea?

    • by gmuslera (3436)
      Another difference: when Enola Gay dropped the atomic bomb didn't had megaphones yelling everywhere how to build one atomic bomb yourself. Don't show how to make weapons when you are the most vulnerable player against them.
  • What utter tripe (Score:5, Informative)

    by onyxruby (118189) <onyxruby@@@comcast...net> on Monday June 25, 2012 @12:39PM (#40440175)

    What complete and utter tripe! The Chinese, Russians and any number of other countries crossed the proverbial Rubicon many, many years ago. If the submitter is so naive as to think that this was the first example of state sponsored computer hacking against another state than the submitter needs to go to Defcon or any other security convention. Get real, get a clue.

    • Exactly. In addition, the internet is full of viruses and malware seeking to damage things. If you aren't securing your stuff, you're going to have trouble, and it won't matter much to you if it was a state sponsored actor or third-world thugs who just stole all the money from your bank account.
  • ... idiots using a piss poor OS shot full of security holes called Windows for mission critical infrastructure end up having the computers running said piss poor OS compromised or screwed up by some software that works off an abysmal security failure of a feature called autorun.

    Sorry, but this isn't Tron just yet.

  • Peacetime? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Monday June 25, 2012 @12:42PM (#40440221)
    Peacetime? The US has only been at "peace" for a handful of years in its history, the rest of the years it has been fighting people abroad such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. People within its own borders (Indian wars) or arming, training and supporting violence in other countries ("war on drugs"). By abolishing peacetime, the government is allowed to ransack our liberties, steal our income even more and stifle dissent. Keep in mind we are still under a state of emergency because of "terrorism" first enacted by Bush and then extended every year by Obama.
    • by Phrogman (80473)

      I was always under the impression that the reason the US is always at war was at least in part so that it always had military personnel who were experienced in combat and thus better prepared to defend the country. Purely peacetime armies that have no combat veterans are usually pretty ineffective when they meet folks who are experienced. In a way this makes sense, sadly for the rest of the world it means someone is always going to get their ass invaded and if there is no justification for it, one will be p

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 25, 2012 @12:42PM (#40440223)

    It is a grossly inaccurate to state "Stuxnet has effectively fired the starting gun in a new arms race...". On the contrary, Stuxnet only makes a large percentage of the population aware of an arms race that started long ago.

  • Rubicon? (Score:5, Funny)

    by sbjornda (199447) <sbjornda&hotmail,com> on Monday June 25, 2012 @12:43PM (#40440229)
    From the article:

    Washington has begun to cross the Rubicon.

    I thought Washington crossed the Delaware. When was he in Italy? Now I'm all confused.

    --
    .nosig

  • Considering nearly every protocol and major advancement on the internet has been through DARPA [wikipedia.org] the world will probably be fine. But making unfounded ridiculousness claims is a great way to hype up a book you are going to sell in stores.
  • Laughing out loud (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mr. Firewall (578517) on Monday June 25, 2012 @12:50PM (#40440315) Homepage

    ...a significant and dangerous turning point.... If it continues, contemporary warfare will change fundamentally as we move into hazardous and uncharted territory....

    You mean, just like when gunpowder was invented? Or when troops started using wheeled vehicles instead of horses?

    Or when militaries started using... GASP!... aircraft?

    Get a clue. Warfare is always changing fundamentally as it moves into "uncharted territory" made possible by new technology.

  • Combine the explosion of cyberwarfare with the advances in organic "inkjet printing" compound creation (e.g. http://www.psmag.com/health/making-medical-miracles-with-inkjet-printers-26770/ [psmag.com] ), and you get: Internet Virus Causes Home Printers to Generate Plague / Ebola / Marshmallow Fluff.
    -- clearly I consider all 3 to be of equal horror --

  • by Spiked_Three (626260) on Monday June 25, 2012 @12:50PM (#40440333)
    I never understood 'rules' of war. If someone runs from (the symbolic) me into a church, I say nuke the church. If my bullets can mutilate instead of kill, and in the end bring victory, then I shoot mutilating bullets. If my biological weapon can be easily deployed into your water supply, why shouldn't they be?

    The US started this war. And the rules of war, equivalent to laws, will only be followed by US law abiding citizens, not our enemy targets When we get another 9/11 level attack, don't be so naive this time, we started it (the same as last time).
    • by Hatta (162192)

      Rules of war exist to convince the public that war is not as horrible as it really is. This is a ploy to allow governments to engage in wars with reduced public opposition.

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      The theoretical reasons for rules of war are:
      1. War is a nasty business, but soldiers should not just be wiping out people that aren't a threat to them. Most people have a pretty strong moral aversion to killing people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (it happens, but that doesn't make it ok). In your examples, are you ok with killing off the people who are in that church praying while their country is being invaded? How about the family of civilians that was unable to escape and n

    • Re:rules of war (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Svartormr (692822) on Monday June 25, 2012 @02:55PM (#40442195)

      Then you don't understand war. What is limited is what doesn't really help to win battles or wars. If a church or a historical building is used as a defensive position you can atttack it, but if it isn't, it survivies. Regular ball rounds do plenty of damage. Chemical weapons mostly inconvinience trained troops. Who also breach minefields with little operational delay.

      The rules help minimize the damage to property and society and between societies. You don't just have to win a war, you have to establish a stable peace. I knew a lot of veterans from the Calgary Tanks who because they defended the beach at Dieppe while the infantry was taken off became prisoners of war for 3 years. Under your "enlightened" philosophy I imagine they're no room for POW's either.

      Well, better not exercize those views in a real war zone. With professional troops your side would likely throw you in jail. If captured, you're likely to be shot out of hand.

    • by jvkjvk (102057)

      Rules of war exist when some force or forces have an overpowering superiority, as well as soft spots (whether they be population, infrastructure, resources, or heritage) they would like to be off limits.

      The agreement between these Powers become the "Rules" of war.

      For forces that do not have an overpowering superiority or do not have the "status quo" soft spots, these "Rules" can make little to no sense.

      On the other hand, if the overwhelmingly powerful can have everyone play nicely by the rules they have cre

  • Maybe.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AdmV0rl0n (98366) on Monday June 25, 2012 @12:52PM (#40440355) Homepage Journal

    Someone should note that while everyone watches Stux and similar, the Chinese have been carrying out Cyberwar, and constructive espianage for many years now. Their aggressive war activity has netted, and continues to net them economic gains far far outstripping the silly games being played around the Iranian nuclear program.

    And, further, unless its actually challenged, the price and cost of that makes the Iranian Nuclear issue peanuts.

  • What is this "peacetime" of which you speak? Sounds fascinating...
  • ...and I feel obligated to mention that "the internet" started out as a military entity.

  • Am I the only one who is struck by the irony of that statement? Remember that military funding was behind the initial research and development of the Internet we use today. It's almost as if they allowed the private sector to spend their time and energy to develop and expand it for them, so they could again use it for their own purposes..
  • Cyberwar - When the "elite" consider security a matter of disciplining users, and the rest of the world goes along with it.

    Security - when you don't trust things more than you have to... a feature not available in Windows, Mac OSX, nor Linux.

  • by DirkDaring (91233) on Monday June 25, 2012 @01:08PM (#40440597)

    Step 2. Fire missiles.
    Step 3. ?
    Step 4. Profit!

    Oh wait, Step 1 should buy 'Buy stock in defense contractors'.

  • by stevew (4845) on Monday June 25, 2012 @01:30PM (#40440917) Journal

    The article seems to think that the US is the first to pull the "Cyber Warfare" trigger. That is just silly. The only thing different here is that the US government was silly enough to ADMIT that they were partially responsible for Stuxnet virus, etc. The US civilian industry, and military assets have been under constant attack by various "actors" for over a decade. The only difference is those "actors" haven't admitted it or been caught red-handed. Most likely (and again they haven't been dumb enough to admit it like the US), the Chinese government has been one main Cyber Warfare protagonist that is constantly assailing US assets. So everyone get off their High Horses and face the real world.

    The simple fact is we chose to fire bits at em, instead of nukes! Seems like an improvement in my mind!

  • It's a wild and wooly world out there, folks, and what you're seeing is the difference between an open society and closed ones. Russian, Chinese, DPRK, terrorist, and organized crime entities have been working aggressively to field all sorts of bots, viruses, and trojans designed to inflict harm or break into US systems for at least a decade.

    When Israel and/or the US do it, it's almost inevitable that *someone* will find out, and at the NYT, they interpret this as "OMG look at what we're doing!"

    By the same

  • It is my understanding that Stuxnet got in on a USB stick: nothing at all to do with the Internet !
    (True the actual controllers were networked to the compromised Windows PCs, but still not the "internet".)

    • by Nyder (754090)

      It is my understanding that Stuxnet got in on a USB stick: nothing at all to do with the Internet !
      (True the actual controllers were networked to the compromised Windows PCs, but still not the "internet".)

      Much like everything our government does, Facts do not matter, just the propaganda (They call it PR these days).

  • Your use of the phrase 'the militarization of the internet' bothers me. DARPANET was founded by the military; it was only in the 1990's that the internet became commercialized, and made friendly to civilians. Never forget that the prime purpose of the internet was to found a command and control structure, to keep communications open to Cleveland if Chicago got nuked. Stop worrying about the militarization of a military network. This is a straw man.

    You're free to create your own peacenik network, open and fr

  • The decision by the United States and Israel to develop and then deploy the Stuxnet computer worm against an Iranian nuclear facility late in George W. Bush's presidency marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual militarization of the Internet.

    Chinese gov. has been doing this for over a decade. NOW, ppl want to point fingers at W, while disregarding what CHina (and North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and probably Russia) is doing? Seriously?

    Look,I am well known for my disdain of neo-cons and the harm that they cause. However, to point a finger to W while ignoring the facts of other nations developing spy and attack virus, is just plain out there.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...