Re: Thoughts on The White House Chicago Town Hall Meeting.

[InfoSec News <isn () c4i org>]

Forwarded from: Aj Effin Reznor <aj () reznor com>

"InfoSec News was known to say....."
 
> Forwarded from: "Lepchenske, Craig L (Raytheon)" <LepchenskeCL () navair navy mil>
>
> Greetings all. I have been reading this newsgroup for a little while
> now. I'd like my first comment made on this list to be on the
> "cyberterrorism" debate. I hope I don't put my foot too far in my
> mouth.

Welcome!  I'll make a few short, glib comments I'm notorious for, and
leave it at that :) (I am making a slight rearranging of text to glob
to similar thoughts into one area.  Not changing meanings or setting
anything out of context anywhere.)

> To me, it seems as if cyberterrorism would require a "give or I'll
> take" type threat in order to be considered "cyberterrorism". The
> examples listed above seem to be a "I'll take and I don't care what
> you do or think" type statement only. There were, to my knowledge,
> no demands for social or political change in order to stop the
> denial of service condition. True, it did cost millions in potential
> business, but there were no threats made. So let's take a look at
> what might be the definition in The American Heritage Dictionary for
> Cyberterrorisim:

Correct, and :

> There is a real threat for cyberterrorism, but first would have to
> come a threat, "If you don't paint a mustache on the statue of
> liberty, we'll launch a denial of service on the NYSE." THAT, is
> cyberterrorism.

Well, for some degree, yes.  However, the US Government has never,
*ever* let *facts* get in the way of making laws and enforcing them.

"The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly
enforced."
  -Frank Zappa

> Only a few words changed there, and I'm sure there could be other
> unlawful uses or threatened uses, but you get my point. I think many
> people have confused that word "cyberterrorism", and the exact
> reason why there are some outlandish laws in the works with that
> word stapled to them. Some people in congress are confused and wish
> to call all

The only confusion from the terms comes from the way the Gov. has
chosen to bastardize the meaning.  THe US populace, sheeple that they
are, will accept what is spoonfed into their diminutive heads.  Sure,
*we* know this is all wrong.. the definitions, the abuses.. but we
also *think*.


> As for the ethics question, perhaps parents should take the
> responsibility there. So many inherent parental responsibilities are
> shoved off to the government and to the school systems because
> parents can't or wont follow through with their obligations.
> Eventually, we'll find that we, as parents, will have little or no
> say in what our children learn or do, because we've given most or
> all of the responsibility to the school systems.

Parents are taking less responsibility of late as they rarely, truly
*want* the children they are having.  A father once complained to a
high school principle because his sone failed a class, because a
portion of the grade was based on homework, and his son had never
turned any in apparently.  Yes, the father was blaming the school
because his son did not do work AT HOME.

And we want parents to take responsibility for their offspring's
actions? Uh, no.  Not likely to happen.  This gets into a whole social
disassembly which (for once) I'm not going to get into here. :)  
You're welcome, William ;P~

> Perhaps this topic has been worn thin, but it seems to me that
> people are still misconstruing that word "cyberterrorism".

Totally agreed.


-aj.



-
ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org

To unsubscribe email majordomo () attrition org with 'unsubscribe isn'
in the BODY of the mail.