Nato should tool up for cyber war, say globo-bigwigs
Albright demands 'passive and active' measures
Nato believes there is not likely to be a conventional military attack on its members in the future but that some form of cyber-attack is one of three most probable dangers facing the alliance.
The organisation is the midst of finding itself a new purpose. A group of bigwigs have been appointed to find "a New Strategic Concept". Nato has gone through several changes since its creation in the wake of the Second World War as a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union.
Although Nato said the possibility of conventional military attack could not be ignored it is more likely to face an attack by ballistic missile, a terrorist attack or a cyber attack.
Other less probable attacks include disruption to energy or maritime supply lines, a financial crisis or harmful consequences of climate change.
Dealing with cyber attacks will require more cooperation with the European Union, the experts conclude, because the EU has more expertise in dealing with such attacks.
The report warns: "The next significant attack on the Alliance may well come down a fibre optic cable. Already, cyber attacks against NATO systems occur frequently, but most often below the threshold of political concern."
It recommends a major effort to increase monitoring of Nato's critical network in order to find and fix vulnerabilities. The Centre for Excellence should improve members' training in cyber-defence. Nato members should expand their early warning network monitoring systems. Nato should have a team ready to dispatch to areas under or threatened by cyber attack.
Finally the experts said that over time Nato should "plan to mount a fully adequate array of cyber defence capabilities, including passive and active elements".
The group, chaired by Madeleine Albright, also looked at Nato enlargement, relations with groups and countries outside the Alliance - particularly Russia - but warned that such partnerships need to be a two-way street.
The press release and links to the full report are here. ®
There has already been a financial attack?
Is this the same Madeline Albright?
'We Think the Price Is Worth It'
Media uncurious about Iraq policy's effects--there or here
By Rahul Mahajan
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It's also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01).
Cyber Ware Fare relegates War Mongering to the Preserve of the Idiot Classes
A cyber war is an Intellectual Property Joust to capture hearts and minds, which ideally would also expose and detail to all a a malignant, self-centred and self-serving clandestine chicanery, which would be a fully justifiable and perfectly acceptable, although not necessarily, necessarily stated reason for engagement. Invariably it will always be targeted against rapacious empire building hordes, who by their very actions would be considered to be below the higher levels of intelligence needed to effortlessly maintain and sustain and further gain credence and respectability for the future exercise of their programs and projects.
Is the following the sort of skirmish to be expected and dealt with, and a Novel Introduction to Beta Great Game Play Ground ProgramMING? ...........
""Now, network centricity involves cyberspace to an unforeseen high degree. The cyber environment has become very dynamic, and many adversaries are able to penetrate networks to a degree not predicted even a few years ago."
Not all penetrations are adversarial and some are so stealthy as to be practically invisible/undetectable and an exploitation of the virtual theatre which would render HyperRadioproActive IT and Cyberspace Command and Control to its ...... Drivers/Great Game Players, which is the sort of Mindset required to Lead All in such as would really be AI Fields.
Is this virtual contact a penetration demonstration of future likely operations to be regularly encountered and appropriately actively addressed rather than just simply ignored or dismissed as crank/eccentric whenever it actually cloaks irregular and unconventional and a systems vulnerability test?
One usually finds that anything and everything which eventually finds itself in the public realm is a long ago tried and tested and perfected product of a private and pirate confection and therefore nothing at all unusual even if completely surprising. Surely such has always been the case, since the time that Man began to think, [which is really only the Age which matters a jot to Mankind] and is especially so in the case of Intelligence and Information Warfare?