White House Declares It Has 'Broad Powers' When It Comes To Cyberattacks
from the well,-of-course dept
In a bit of news that will shock just about no one, the Obama administration did a legal review over what it's allowed to do in making use of "cyberweapons," and concluded that it has "broad powers" to do all sorts of stuff. The specifics, of course, will remain classified:That decision is among several reached in recent months as the administration moves, in the next few weeks, to approve the nation's first rules for how the military can defend, or retaliate, against a major cyberattack. New policies will also govern how the intelligence agencies can carry out searches of faraway computer networks for signs of potential attacks on the United States and, if the president approves, attack adversaries by injecting them with destructive code - even if there is no declared war.Comforting, huh? And, by comforting, I mean "terrifying." While we've already talked a few times about the US using "cyber weapons" against Iran (hello Stuxnet, Flame, etc.) this NY Times report suggests that the White House is being freed up to do much more, though one "concession" is that the use of such tools must be approved by the President, rather than allowing various agencies (Defense Department, mainly) to run off and starting attacking others electronically without first getting it approved by the President.
In the meantime, this looks like yet another case of the White House not minding leaks that make it look good. As we've noted, whenever there are leaks that embarrass the White House, they come down like a ton of bricks on whoever did the leaking as being guilty of espionage. But when the White House itself leaks information about how awesome and powerful they themselves are, no one ever seems to get arrested.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: administration, cyberattacks, cyberwar, powers, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Motherfucking Eagles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
If another country tried to do the shit we do, we would be calling THEM TERRORISTS. Think about that for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FTFY
"Take the Clinton doctrine. The Clinton doctrine was that the United States is entitled to resort to unilateral force to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.” That goes beyond anything that George W. Bush said. But it was quiet and it wasn’t arrogant and abrasive, so it didn’t cause much of an uproar." - Two sides of the same coin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Define Cyber Attacks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Define Cyber Attacks
(and a potential SWAT team at your door...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're branches of the military now include:
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Geek Squad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The FBI wouldnt find would-maybe "terrorists" and blow stuff for them.
They wouldnt want to fill social networks with fake accounts.
They wouldnt make up their own interpretation of laws and refuse to tell anyone.
They wouldnt request the ability to lie to the American public.
They wouldnt want to lie to a court.
They wouldnt burn down their own parliament building and blame it on communists.
Sure they wouldnt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1984
Newspeak is alive and defining the US news.
Please enjoy to your satisfaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1984
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then we'll see what the "broad powers" will do for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the beatings will continue...
problem solved...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the beatings will continue...
I also like this one, which originated in the Soviet Union, "So long as the bosses pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Acts of war
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Acts of war
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Acts of war
There are actualy some idiots out there that want to instigate a manditory draft. This is without congress declaring war, and there by without a delcaration of war we end up with a financial and moral mess like: Vietnam, Korea, Iraq,... should I continue?
Sometimes I wake up in the morning read the news and wonder what country I live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
White House Declares It Has 'Generous Endowments' When It Comes To Procreative Equipment
Everyone outside the 'classified' circle, of course, calls bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: difference
US citizens dont. (The majority)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No casus belli? No problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No casus belli? No problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No casus belli? No problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No this is not an assumption he said it us much in an interview just last year to anybody who wanted to hear it, and I believe he was talking about then about assassinations, enhanced interrogation and other stuff, he said he needed those things but would not trust other administrations to have the same power, or some equality crappy BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]