commentary-hacking-where's the beef?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
--OK, now we have the "official word" that these "attacks" on various large portals and ecommerce sites are the REAL attacks that the "gummint" was warning about for rollover period. Well, uh-h-h-, I mean, hm-m-m-m, that is.........my intial reaction would have to be in a bill cosby voice -->"R-i-g-h-t-t-t!" As in SURE it is.
But is it? Why are only US firms targeted? Why is it, with such a lead time, unlimited budgets, access to cray and ibm super computers, legions of genius level IT nsa spies and intel type, etc, ad nauseum, that they are also saying that they don't have a clue, it's a needle in a haystack? If they had "a warning" or "evidence" before rollover (remember the stern news conference warnings), well, WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Speculation, non conspiracy types exit now.
One of my "warnings" about what I feel would be "signs" that something was about to "pop" would be the taking down of the net, simply because of it's usefullness as a communications tool for anyone to stay informed. Governments around the world love the net in public, hate it in private, as their tricks are being exposed at a faster and faster rate. They want complete oversight and control, have NO doubt of that, no matter what their "spokespeople" say.
The history of "agent provacaturs" is well researched and undebateable as it relates to various orgs and governments using these "agents" to sow mistrust, dissension and confusion into those groups it considers "the enemy". The early civil rights days had them, the modern milita movement has them, trade unions and business associations have them, schools have them, journalism is rife with them, so where is this magical line that supposedly "they" won't cross into cyber space? I maintain there is no line, that "they" are there, doing their little acts of sabotage and infiltration. And who better than orgs with vast resources at their disposal?: In fact, there might be entire sites set up for this purpose. How about those "anonymiser" remote proxie sites? Hmmm? How about these instant messenger type deals, like the Q--who PAID for the Q all these years, when it was first developed in israel, and given away and maintained freely?
Those are just a few obvious pertinent questions, but back to the hacking this week.
The reason for terrorism-virtual or real, physical or in cyberspace-is to instill "terror" or in this instance, to either deny service outright, or to make people using these services to question their trust and use, to be wary of using this great communication tool.
Now as to WHO is responsible, there's several potential "perps" to choose from. A "lone gunman" hiding in his lOpht, or perhaps a small group, out to prove that they are the best. It could be "security companies" eager to sell their software protection products, much like a tire repair shop spreading nails in the street up and down the block. It could be foreign powers, angry at the US, wishing to do harm to the "evil capitalist running dog deceitful imperialist oppressors of the people". It could be an extremely calculating move by rival portal and ecommerce sites to destroy the competition-as we know, the credo of commerce now is "business is WAR!". It could be the domestic government, very afraid and wanting to rein in and "control" the net, so they create an atmosphere where we accept "security" over freedom, same as they are apparently doing with the growing paramilitary police state, and the war on firearms-"to protect the children".
Or, it could be that the dang machines are just malfunctioning, and that "tech" is getting so complex, that no human can keep up with the ramifications of ever growing interconnectedness of widely different technologies.
Take your pick, they all are possibles, there's even more, but these are the most obvious ones. It boils down to "who do you believe", and why. Who has earned your trust, and why? What is probable, possible, or so far out it couldn't happen?
Who, what, when, where, why--are any of these answered yet, or have we just been given multiple versions of those basic questions in such a manner as to further hide the true nature of events?
I am seriously reminded of that urban fixture on the sidewalks, the three card monte dealer. There is more to this than what first appears.
-- zog (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 10, 2000
Zog, Interesting assessment of the potential causes of the E- commerce sites going down. I personally don`t know what to make of it. Any of the scenarios you sited are a possibility. If I were to take an educated guess, I`d say perhaps the "government conspiracists" are at work. I say this due to the guvs rapid response to this situation and their reply (Attorney General Janet Reno) stating "Getting to the bottom of it" and tracking down the "Cyberhacker culprits." This could very well be one way of covering their tracks- by utilizing the "federal" media to their advantage.
-- NoJo (RSKeiper@aol.com), February 10, 2000.
-- bz (email@example.com), February 10, 2000.
Reno? yeah, like she got to the bottom of the Mt. Carmel murders,...let's appoint a special investigator to look into the hacking...then maybe an executive order giving the Fibbies the power to .....get the picture??
-- John Galt (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 10, 2000.
But why would the government resort to hacking the e-commerce systems of US companies?? [/SARCASM]
-- Mad Monk (email@example.com), February 10, 2000.
As always, an interesting look at the events. Another possibility was mentioned on a thread yesterday. I've tried to find the thread in question, but can't seem to do so. Anyway, the gist of it was based on a quote by a Chinese general (or some other .mil type) that an effective act of war is to first disrupt the enemy's communications, thus disrupting many and varied other systems. Then when the enemy's population is rioting in the streets due to the .gov's inability to "protect" them, the real attack occurs. Given the Chinese's position that war with the US is inevitable, and their serious pissed offedness about the vote in the House to strengthen military ties with Taiwan, it would come as no surprise to me if they are involved in these attacks at some level.
Just my $.02
-- Jimmy Splinters (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 10, 2000.
Jimmy, not to mention bombing their embassy, which of course was a mistake. Right!
zog, I agree with you, as I usually do.
-- Kyle (email@example.com), February 10, 2000.
Somebody earlier mentioned the Internet Tax angle. If Gov.Org has to form an new Internet Police Force to "keep the children on the Web safe", they gotta pay for it somehow.
What better excuse for instituting the Internet Tax than to pay for the new Internet Police. And what better excuse than all these high profile hacker attacks.
Then once they get the tax in place, well I'm sure we all know they'll find "good uses" for more tax money from the Internet. And it will never stop.
-- Wildweasel (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 10, 2000.