Collateral Censorship: Oxford Union Replaces Assange Speech Backdrop, Citing 'Copyright' Concerns

White House Declares It Has 'Broad Powers' When It Comes To Cyberattacks

from the well,-of-course dept

Mon, Feb 4th 2013 10:53am — Mike Masnick

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

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 4 Feb 2013 @ 10:15am

But when the White House itself leaks information about how awesome and powerful they themselves are, no one ever seems to get arrested.

Motherfucking Eagles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 4 Feb 2013 @ 10:56am

Broad powers? Your Patriot Act gives unlimited powers when it comes to terror attacks (cyber or otherwise). The US is a truly frightening country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 4 Feb 2013 @ 10:58am

FTFY
White House Declares It Has 'Broad Powers'... period.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 11:05am

so, if he feels the need, the president can authorise cyber attacks on whomever. what about those countries that feel the same way? i bet shit will hit fan if there is what is considered a retaliatory attack on the USA. and you can bet your arse that the USA are attacking other countries atm. cant have it one way without having it the other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 11:10am

They create mayham, future mayham, the only cyber threats are created by government, because they piss people off, in that respect i dont see it as cyber threat, i see it as respond threat
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 4 Feb 2013 @ 11:12am

Define Cyber Attacks
When asked to define what was meant by Cyber Attack, the government referred us to the RIAA and MPAA for clarification.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 4 Feb 2013 @ 11:13am

Re: FTFY
It's funny, I just read a story about The US thought of itself as an entitled nation since the 40s (under Truman)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 11:15am

Why not just move the Cyberdivisions of the NSA/CIA/etc into the next military branch of the government?

You're branches of the military now include:
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Geek Squad!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 11:17am

Re: Define Cyber Attacks
That's the government's public interpretation. You want the real definition, put in a FOIA proposal and get 64 fully redacted pages.

(and a potential SWAT team at your door...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simon, 4 Feb 2013 @ 11:19am

And only a couple of days after all those poor US news rags shouting "We've been getting hacked for months!", "Us too!" and "It's got to be China behind this!".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 4 Feb 2013 @ 11:20am

1984
Speech should be controlled to only allow that which has been approved.

Newspeak is alive and defining the US news.

Please enjoy to your satisfaction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 11:50am

I think the "White House" should shut the hell up and do some spring cleaning on their own systems, lest someone with actual knowledge and evil intentions decides to take this as a threat and fire a couple of "rounds" at the white house's systems.

Then we'll see what the "broad powers" will do for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 4 Feb 2013 @ 11:51am

the beatings will continue...
...until morale improves ! ! !

problem solved...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 11:52am

Acts of war
Don't these "broad powers" essentially boil down to acts of war? Isn't Congress required to approve of these before they're executed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 4 Feb 2013 @ 12:00pm

Re: Re: FTFY
Thanks for the link, I am only on the second page, but wow.

"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 thread ]
Kelledin (profile), 4 Feb 2013 @ 12:04pm

White House Declares It Has 'Generous Endowments' When It Comes To Procreative Equipment
The specifics, of course, will remain classified.

Everyone outside the 'classified' circle, of course, calls bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
arcan, 4 Feb 2013 @ 12:08pm

and people think i am crazy for having a quick kit to thermite my laptops hard drive and a 79 character password (estimated time to crack not counting gpu cracks 49 septillion years)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 12:10pm

Re: the beatings will continue...
One of my favorite lines.

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 thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 4 Feb 2013 @ 12:19pm

Re:
Nah the US wouldnt attack its own. /s
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 thread ]
anonymous dutch coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 12:24pm

difference
So, apart from winning the World Series more often, there is no difference between the US and China.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 12:30pm

Re: FTFY
The US is the biggest, baddest, terrorist in the known universe, period, exclamation mark
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 12:32pm

Re:
and RIAA and MPAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 1:25pm

Re: Re:
I thought those were the two branches of Congress. My bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 1:33pm

Re: Acts of war
No its not barry is the all powerful great and wonderful wizard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 1:41pm

Re:
pffffft...they'll waterboard that 79 character password out of you toot sweet...just sayin'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 4 Feb 2013 @ 1:52pm

Re: difference
The US still has football and China is stuck with soccer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 4 Feb 2013 @ 2:40pm

Re: difference
Big difference. The Chinese know what their government is.
US citizens dont. (The majority)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 3:20pm

No casus belli? No problem!
Anyone else starting to get the feeling that the current administration thinks World War 3 would be a great way to boost the economy? Maybe I should get one of those fallout shelters...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 3:54pm

Re: 1984
This is very doubleplus-ungood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 3:55pm

Re: No casus belli? No problem!
World War 3 will be against the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 6:09pm

What really gets me annoyed with Obama is the fact that he believes that he can do it right when him himself don't believe anybody could or should and in the case these powers goes to others he plans to make sure nobody can do what he did.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2013 @ 6:23pm

Re: Re: No casus belli? No problem!
An even better reason to build a bunker :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RyanNerd, 5 Feb 2013 @ 7:16am

Re: Acts of war
Yes. That is what the constitution says. It plainly states that it is CONGRESS that declares war. Not the president. But the constitution has been used as toilet paper by the current and former administrations.

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 thread ]
Rick Reed, 9 Feb 2013 @ 7:00am

Re: FTFY
I'm a veteran and am glad to see that other people are waking up to the fact that we are and have been the real terrorists. Look up the definition of terrorism and you can see it yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]