US cyber-security on the offensive

[JonS]

None of your business. I still want my winnings though. Now.

You are a man of honour, right?

[abneo3sierra]

This is provably false.

That's it? A shrug and a whoops and you just forget about it? I don't think these guys, or these ones, will be quite so blasé about it.

I actually know many of THESE guys, so I am not so blasé about it either. My point is that it is past, while the current situation fueled in part by ASSange, NYTimes, etc, is not yet passed, and there will be MORE of "these guys" as you so casually put it.

Also it is not provably false, as those in the field can attest to the uptick in violence directed at US troops, as well as NATO, in the aftermath of these "leaks", as well as the actual statements by al Jazeera, etc.

[abneo3sierra]

None of your business. I still want my winnings though. Now.

You are a man of honour, right?

I am a man of honor, but you do not seem to be a military person, and for certain do not even seem to be on the side of the soldiers in this case, that is why I question whether you are a civilian.

[JonS]

I am am an of honor

You have been sadly misinformed.

[abneo3sierra]

Oh, and since I have just as much proof that you are a civilian as you have that you are not, I should ask for my winnings, except that I was too dumb to say what your part of the bet would be, so I am $hit out of luck..

Anyway, it is fun to debate guys..but my wife insists I spend some time with her so I am gone for the night. Take care all.

[Stalins Organ]

Oh...trust me, I hope there is a special place in hell for that guy also.But that guy is not risking our lives now,

If you are in the path of any islamic attack it is mainly because of the debacle in Iraq, and therefore yes, that guy is directly responsible.

while ASSange is trying to do everything he can to whip into a frenzy the Radical Islamic groups,

that's just bull****.

[abneo3sierra]

If you are in the path of any islamic attack it is mainly because of the debacle in Iraq, and therefore yes, that guy is directly responsible.

that's just bull****.

9-11 happened before Iraq. The previous attacks on the WTC happened, again, before Iraq, the attack on USS Cole happened...wait..yep, before Iraq. Islamic fundamentalists have been attacking western culture for centuries, before there was a USA, before the 'debacle in Iraq' etc.

The person you name yourself after was by far harsher to Islamic minorities in the USSR than anything the USA has done, all added together.

[Stalins Organ]

And you were in both Iraq and Afghanistan getting shot at before wikileaks...and OBL had bombed the embassy in Kenya, and Clinton had sent cruise missiles to his camps in Afghanistan before wikileaks too.

And that the chap in question - he was spouting his drivel before 9/11.

[abneo3sierra]

And you were in both Iraq and Afghanistan getting shot at before wikileaks...and OBL had bombed the embassy in Kenya, and Clinton had sent cruise missiles to his camps in Afghanistan before wikileaks too.

And that the chap in question - he was spouting his drivel before 9/11.

Agreed. However, that does not excuse the ones who intentionally try to harm US interests...of course you are not an American, so I would not expect you to care about that, but it is also why I do care about it.

If you plan to go on vacation, will you be happy about someone telling everyone the combination to get into your house and rob you while you are away? Of course, the robber is MOST responsible, but would you not at all blame the one who told him how to get it?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Julian Assange said U.S. informants named in secret cables 'deserved' to be killed and initially refused to redact their names, a new book has revealed.

WikiLeaks published thousands of names of Afghans in 77,000 classified war files put on the whistle-blowing website, attracting criticism from international charities and governments.

In later releases of secret U.S. embassy cables in November around 15 per cent of files were withheld to protect lives and every file was checked before release.

Amnesty International said in a letter to WikiLeaks last year that all names in Afghan war logs should be redacted.

'We have seen the negative, sometimes deadly ramifications for those Afghans identified as working for or sympathizing with international forces,' it said.

Assange's apparent gung-ho attitude in an early meeting to naming U.S. informants stunned his media collaborators, the new book claimed.

The title said he told international reporters: 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' The book continues: 'There was, for a moment, silence around the table.'

The allegations were made in a new book published today by the Guardian timed to coincide with another title released by the New York Times.

Linky

Regardless of questions on what he deserves or doesn't deserve, Julian Assange is a twat of the first order.

BTW, the thread title is misleading. HBGary is a private company, not the US Government.

[costard]

(insert IMO here if you are prone to doublethink)

abneo3sierra is deserving of respect. He does an absolutely awesome job at respecting other's views whilst partaking in stressful conflict. JonS, you are a knowing instigator of conflict. Jon, I think you're just getting old and cranky. Hey, no biggie, you can do something about it. I might have come across some philosophy for you.

He is part of a very special clique, one that regards the value of life in a very real and immediate way - his friends, mates, whatever, their lives are on the line. His mission requires that he view other lives as important, too: the people of the country he serves in. The immediacy of the decisions he needs to make (and has made, apparently) gives a true urgency to his viewpoint. These decisions shouldn't be confused with the types of decision an emergency surgeon might be required to make, but we're talking the same intensity, the same adrenalin and equally important outcomes to be aimed at. We, on the other hand, live our lives with the leisure to distance ourselves from the place he is at - even thought we require him to be there, by the commonly held understanding of the laws we follow. Certainly, Jak-don't-know-your-real-name-so-this-one-will-do-why-would-you-make-us-type-abneosierra3-how's-'bout-subbie?, that is subbie, would understand this to be the case: a large part of his meaning is tied to that being the case. It needs to be, or he isn't fighting for the flag - he's just a paid thug.

I think one of the problems we have, as civilians, is knowing where we can expect a true argument to be coming from the mouth of an arguer - in this case, subbie needs to know that he isn't just a paid thug (Jon, what's the value of a volunteer?). He isn't. The end. OK, how do we formulate an argument that caters for this necessity? It is true that (if he survives, not always a given in his chosen line of work) his personal viewpoint will change. With time, and hopefully in times of peace, and to an understanding that is different, but still allows him his dignity if not his pride. But the value of his sacrifice needs to be lauded - it is a theme that has graced our civilisation in legend and deed longer than the written word has been around.

The specifics: ABNS3, why are you so sure these leaks emanated low? How is it that you are so sure, given that the most likely path of this documentation was through a high official in the diplomat caste? Would it not be better to focus on the fact that your (the Army's) information needs to be better protected? If you don't have an answer to that one, resign yourself to knowing that it's situation normal and adapt your protocols accordingly. No need to kill Assange - it won't solve anything, at all, ever.

[dieseltaylor]

The title was not US Govt. so your assumption was wrong not the title. I could have added firm into the title but it did not seem important : )

US cyber-security on the offensive

Treason - my personal opinion is that treason/ exonomic sabotage charges should be brought gaainst many in Wall St.. The damage they have done to the world is far more damaging than Wikileaks.

Regarding Assange, he is an asse but he is our asse. In that I mean he is throwing light on that which some people would like hidden. I despair that all the good leaks that Wikileaks exposes are ignored whilst the US Government ones seem to get all the press. Perhaps people will realise how important it is that criminals both corporate , governmental, and private are exposed.

Approximately $10 trillion is held in secret accounts around the world by private individuals - is it not right that there should be a means to expose them?

[Vanir Ausf B]

My point regarding the title was simply that HBGary does not represent the United States or US cyber security. There actually is a National Cyber Security Division of the Department of Homeland Security.

Regarding Assange... he is your bastard, not mine. I do agree with costard that killing him would solve nothing. It would only make him a martyr, a status he is entirely undeserving of. Better to shine light on his own nasty secrets.

[abneo3sierra]

(insert IMO here if you are prone to doublethink)

.......

The specifics: ABNS3, why are you so sure these leaks emanated low? How is it that you are so sure, given that the most likely path of this documentation was through a high official in the diplomat caste? Would it not be better to focus on the fact that your (the Army's) information needs to be better protected? If you don't have an answer to that one, resign yourself to knowing that it's situation normal and adapt your protocols accordingly. No need to kill Assange - it won't solve anything, at all, ever.

Thank you for the kind words Costard, and mine is Ron.

The soldier charged has already admitted his guilt. That said, however, I also find it interesting/mysterious/?strange? that he had access to the majority of the cables which were of diplomatic rather than military interest.

And I do feel that I tried to point out some posts back from here, that probably my initial reaction, based more upon emotion rather than thought, was wrong....but in case I did not make that clear, let me reiterate...my comment about wishing...let's just call him "Ass..." for short..death, was based on emotional reaction to his 'kind', and especially to what he seems intent on doing. That said, the logical,just part of my being, does not truly wish him dead, just would wish him to grow some brains at some point. And I do not agree with his philosophy that secrets are meant to be told. I found it amusing that some of his secrets were told to the world some weeks ago,and hopefully as he faces rape charges in Sweden, that whole thing can be told, and people can see him for the type of person he really is.

Ron

[abneo3sierra]

The title was not US Govt. so your assumption was wrong not the title. I could have added firm into the title but it did not seem important : )

Treason - my personal opinion is that treason/ exonomic sabotage charges should be brought gaainst many in Wall St.. The damage they have done to the world is far more damaging than Wikileaks.

Regarding Assange, he is an asse but he is our asse. In that I mean he is throwing light on that which some people would like hidden. I despair that all the good leaks that Wikileaks exposes are ignored whilst the US Government ones seem to get all the press. Perhaps people will realise how important it is that criminals both corporate , governmental, and private are exposed.

Approximately $10 trillion is held in secret accounts around the world by private individuals - is it not right that there should be a means to expose them?

I fail to see how holding money in secret accounts is wrong. The government does NOT have a right, to take more and more of our money. Wars have been fought, revolutions such as our own, over the government thinking that what is ours, is really theirs.

As for Wall Street, I have no love of them, but would not say they have committed crimes, though the entire 'business' world seems to have no morals, either.

[dieseltaylor]

I fail to see how holding money in secret accounts is wrong. The government does NOT have a right, to take more and more of our money.

Pardon me but as a tax-payer I object to rich people evading tax. I cannot understand why any normal tax-payer would wish to pay more than a fair share. Please explain.

but would not say they have committed crimes

Perhaps you do not read the correct resources or your view on legality is very narrow, Wikileaks was very good in showing documents where Barclays placed matched deals off-shore to save paying a couple of billion in tax. Just to make it clear there were no real loans taking place it was just back-to-back deals laundered through off-shore accounts.

Now the majority of UK tax-payers, if they knew more, might take the view that Barclays is taking the piss and that what is legal and what is not is being exploited by sharks.

In the US you may wonder why the Board of Lehman Brothers is not being sued by shareholders for corrupt practices. To whit when a section of the bank refused to buy contaminated slices of loans the guy was fired and the new boss was someone not versed in the area who was appointed from the Far East. The Lehman sellers for the contaminated loans then paid this new guy portions of their bonuses to take on the necessary slice of tainted CDO's. Which of course sunk the company in due course - and not very shortly afterwards. Dealers millions richer , Directors richer, shareholders screwed.

It is interesting to consider that with all the so-called smart people on Wall St. that no one [ apart from those betting on a collapse] called foul. Now this is not really a matter of legality but I suggest if you are aware of a major threat to the well-being of the US your duty as a citizen demands you do something. Apparently there is not this onus In the US? Can that be right? If I am aware of a plot to bomb Wahington or New York it appears that making hay in the stock market is the appropriate response.

Surely not! Or is there a difference subtle wrinkle I am missing?

[abneo3sierra]

Well..partially I think ,not sure of British tax codes, but here.."wealthy" pays nearly 50% of income into all the various tax schemes, while 80%+ of people,pay nothing, or get back whatever they do pay. So I think the difference for me is my interpretation of "pay the fair share" to me, 10%,(as a round number here, not necessarily a number I agree with) of your income,would be "fair" now, if you make 20.000 income, you pay your 10%, thus 2.000...and if you make 20.000.000 income, again, you pay your fair 10%,and still are paying more,but this is fair..so you pay your 200.000 taxes...no special deal, no special write-off, but also, no unfair jump of tax rate, and no unfair redistribution of money you earned, to other people in various vote-buying schemes.

This would erase the incentive to "hide" money, as all are paying a REAL "fair share".

And as I said, I do not care at all for Wall Street, or for businesses who make their shady deals. However, I also know that these businesses, indeed, are the primary employers, it is them who create things, who give jobs, etc...it is not government, who creates nothing, and it is not the aforementioned 80%+ (in USA) who pay no taxes whatsoever,while being the primary benefactors of government handouts.

[Stalins Organ]

Fortunately lots of people have a somewhat different idea of a fair tax.

Here someone on $20k a year is probably close to the poverty line, so taking $2k off him seems a bit pointless.

whereas here someone on $2 million is in no danger of poverty, and his marginal tax rate is 30% - and has been since about $80k pa (or somewhere near there)....but there's still no danger he's going to starve, and even with that "obviously unfair" tax burden he's still actually filthy rich.

So - tax everyone ethe same and the deperately poor can be reduced to starvation, whereas having a progressive tax system doesn' stop eth filthy rich from being filthy rich......hmm......that's a toughy....NOT! Well at least not for me!

And, actually, the Government does have the right to "take more and more" if it can get the votes. although in these parts it has been taking less and less for quieet a long time.

AFAIK the current tax proposals in the US relate to going back to how things weer a decade or go don't they - nothing more than that? The tax cuts foisted by Bush to break the budget only had a life of 8 years, and now that's up? Well you had a holiday, the country is bankrupt....mission accomplished...vast amounts of wealth transfered from the budget to the better off... why the whining?

(getting close to politics methinks......)

[abneo3sierra]

Fortunately lots of people have a somewhat different idea of a fair tax.

Here someone on $20k a year is probably close to the poverty line, so taking $2k off him seems a bit pointless.

whereas here someone on $2 million is in no danger of poverty, and his marginal tax rate is 30% - and has been since about $80k pa (or somewhere near there)....but there's still no danger he's going to starve, and even with that "obviously unfair" tax burden he's still actually filthy rich.

So - tax everyone ethe same and the deperately poor can be reduced to starvation, whereas having a progressive tax system doesn' stop eth filthy rich from being filthy rich......hmm......that's a toughy....NOT! Well at least not for me!

And, actually, the Government does have the right to "take more and more" if it can get the votes. although in these parts it has been taking less and less for quieet a long time.

AFAIK the current tax proposals in the US relate to going back to how things weer a decade or go don't they - nothing more than that? The tax cuts foisted by Bush to break the budget only had a life of 8 years, and now that's up? Well you had a holiday, the country is bankrupt....mission accomplished...vast amounts of wealth transfered from the budget to the better off... why the whining?

(getting close to politics methinks......)

I can see your point on it also. And I am glad I don't have to design tax codes. My point is the government should not inherantly have a right to ANYONES money, but some is needed, so a bare minimum should be taken. The government always spends it,anyway,much less effectively than a private person would. The government is basically full, at the high-budget decision making level, of people who have no real idea of real life,have never had to worry about their checks, their job, babysitters, or a million other things that we all deal with every day. They don't need more of my money, they need to shrink, do only what they are meant to do, and leave me alone.

[Stalins Organ]

That's a pretty gross generalisation.

I'm a civil servant - pretty much everyone in my organisation has worked in private industry or the defence forces -mainly the airforce. I have worked here for 12 years. Before then i did an apprenticeship, left my employer to go to uni for 4 years, went back to work for 2 more companies for a total of 10 years.

I work with a zimbabwean immigrant and a young chap trying to get his instructor's rating while his family breaks up (they report to me), a 70 yr old "semi"-retiree who worked as an IT professional for many organisations having started as a TV repairman, and my boss started in the Airfoce as a mechanic and went on to fly UH-1's for them, then privately in New Guinea before coming here.

As I look around other areas I see people who have run their own small airlines/charter companies, agricultural spraying operations and repair shops.

When I think of the general managers there is a guy who helped design ballistic missiles, another who was the Chief Engineer of one of our larger airlines, someone who has run another airlines and routinely flies Fokker Tr-1 and Pfalz replica WW1 aircraft and used to fly the I-16 and I-15's that were rebuilt here. I think a couple of others came to us from other senior roles in the civil service but not exactly sure where.

In the policy unit there's not a lot of people - 3 to be exact...including the manager - not exactly overstaffed for policy and it shows - we cold do with a couple more! 1 is a former lawyer...well still is a lwyer I suppose, 1 is a "professional" policy adviser, and the Manager is ex-Fleet Air Arm.

The board is Govt appointed - 1 used to be cheif pilot for an airline I worked for, and was also a GM here then became Chief Pilot for an airline in the Virgin Group before coming back to this board position. another is a "professional director" of several private companies. A third has had a career with BP, including managing director of the local national operation, and similarly in Papua New Guinea, the 4th is a Queens Counsel and partner in a local law firm, and the last has been an independant corporate advisor in finance and industry, blah blah blah.

Yep - there's a shortage of knowledge of "real life" around here f'sure......

[abneo3sierra]

I am impressed with your organization...but again, something seems to be lacking with understanding of the English in my posts...I specifically said "at the high budget decision making level" ie. the people who make the national budgets. I am fairly certain no one in your very impressive sounding organization, is in charge of the federal budget..if so,I would move there in a heart beat. I specifically am speaking of politicians, who have no experience, doing anything, except lying to get re-elected every few years...then promptly forgetting their promises, until it is time to play the game again in a few years.

[Pešadija]

Organist - you seem to know an awful lot of interesting people.

[LJFHutch]

I'm on the fence with Assange, on the one hand I sure as hell don't want the religious extremists getting an upper hand (and can't stand it when people act as though the Taliban are just farmers defending their land), yet on the other I don't like the idea of any government sneaking around the democratic process. People need to learn more about a lot of things I think.

Also, taunting hackers probably isn't the greatest idea in the world

[abneo3sierra]

Also, taunting hackers probably isn't the greatest idea in the world

Unless you have better hackers...which, ironically in a comedic way, they did not.

[Pešadija]

But the guys at anonymous paid great price for this powers. They gave up everything for becoming the best cheetos-stained hackers.