Tuesday, 29 January 2008

The Press

Well, now we know...


When this report came out, Teresa echoed my own thoughts:

This is the type of baseless, scaremongering claim that does far more to hurt than to help when talking about computer and industry security.
...
Unless the other countries are using the same systems we use, set up in the same way in regard to internet access, how can he begin to equate a supposed attack elsewhere in the world with a possible attack in this country?

The real annoyance is the lack of factual evidence. The statement itself has no content. There's nothing - not one single fact to back up what he's saying. It's the all powerful - super menacing (cue scary music) "we know this to be true, we just can't tell you why - it's a security issue"...(/scary music)
So why this story, right now? Here's why:
President Bush signed a directive this month that expands the intelligence community's role in monitoring Internet traffic to protect against a rising number of attacks on federal agencies' computer systems.

The directive, whose content is classified, authorizes the intelligence agencies, in particular the National Security Agency, to monitor the computer networks of all federal agencies -- including ones they have not previously monitored.
...
Supporters of cyber-security measures say the initiative falls short because it doesn't include the private sector -- power plants, refineries, banks -- where analysts say 90 percent of the threat exists.
 - Washington Post
First, proclaim there’s a threat (real or artificial, it doesn’t matter). Next, find some people to agitate for “doing something” to counter it. Third, get the press to promote the screams of the alarmists. Finally, create a new program that appears to “do something,” but actually just increases the reach of some unaccountable federal agency.[1]

In other words, Government 101.


Related: Just a coincidence
------
[1] The gang at Slashdot would add one last step: “5. Profit!”
When the government gets involved, the profits frequently go to the alarmists who agitated to “do something” in step #2. Note the affiliation of the source quoted in the Post article:
“If you don't include industry in the mix, you're keeping one of your eyes closed because the hacking techniques are likely the same across government and commercial organizations,” said Alan Paller, research director at the SANS Institute, a Bethesda-based cyber-security group that assists companies that face attacks. “If you're looking for needles in the haystack, you need as much data as you can get because these are really tiny needles, and bad guys are trying to hide the needles.”
Which just happens to be the organization that hosted the CIA speech reported in the original story. Q.E.D.

Posted by: Old Grouch in The Press at 04:03:19 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 5 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
70kb generated in CPU 0.0123, elapsed 0.3152 seconds.
51 queries taking 0.3071 seconds, 207 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.