Even though there's no expectation that the case will be heard...
So the US is saying here that they pretty much won't "drag cyber-spies into court" then?
The US Department of Justice has floated a plan to advance criminal prosecutions against cyber-spies. This is after the department's agency, the Defense Security Service (DSS) reported* this week that the number of foreign cyberattacks aimed at snaffling US tech, intellectual property, trade secrets and classified information …
This post has been deleted by its author
The arrogance of any country, or any administrative body in any country, that would think it can control and/or police and command and control CyberSpace to protect and/or provide itself with an inequitable advantage, is staggering, and merely indicates to all, that a systemic ignorance exists therein, within that said hierarchy, which makes them vulnerable to exploitation in realms too many to mention?
What say you? Be that true or not?
It's an imposter I say.
This is no amanfromMars!
I declare this to be a cad and and bounder. An imposter no less!
The insufferable interloper has assumed the title "amanfromMars 1" with the malignant intent of bamboozling and deceiving us.
Well you have not fooled me young Turk. The south lawn at dawn.
Departments of Justice and Governments have lost all credibility and extraordinarily render themselves as enemies of the state and virtual terrorists to the people because of this "important point" that a wimpy Prime Minister chose not to answer ........ A criminal conspiracy with Cabinet collusion?
And they expect to be able to prosecute virtual identities in a space which is not theirs and in which they flounder at every turn? Lay off the charlie, boys, it doesn't agree with you and makes you look pathetically ridiculous.
Oh, and that question and "important point" will remain for ever and a day until it is answered. So, what is the politically correct answer? The world and his dogs of war want to know.
>>A criminal conspiracy with Cabinet collusion?
My dad has blocked access to the Daily Mail website from my computer beause he doesn't like me looking at pictures of scantily clad teenage girls, please can we have a Guardian link instead?
I say AMFM, are you ill today?
I normally have to take a lunchtime to contemplate your discourse. This was less than a sip of tea.
In any case, This is Big Business beating on the gummint desks again. They "want something done right now" about these foreign attempts to steal data. All that forensic analysis stuff is exceptionally expensive. And there are cases where the legal recourse for a corporate is just not available or publicly palatable.
(Can you imagine a corporate willing to sue a foreign entity "You stole our data over the internets" ?? really?)
I'd say its more Horses, Barn Doors situation in the long run.
"one man's filthy, underhand (cyber) spy is another man's brave fighting hero risking life and limb behind enemy lines (firewalls)".
As for the ability "to be heard" in the US right now, I am slightly pessimistic. Too much noise in front of the waterfall. As for the guy ejected to Mars years ago (I think he is a lyer)
(The proper way to spell lyer. This word has been passed down through the generations but due to a slight technical hitch (and a pinch of dyslexia) it was spelt wrong down the line. Don't trust the oxford english dictionary!
You are a lyer, and a grotesqly ugly freak. Thank you.)
You have to try and try again, giving up is not an option, you perhaps wrongly ejected man on/or from Mars.
But as I have a tendency and a bold goal to be bold and serious, I have been wondering about this "Blighty" thing.
As I am sometimes considered a foreigner (Monday mornings, my feeling too, sometimes), when do I have the right to consider somebody a Blighty. My spellchecker tens to be very negative, but on a very serious note, I once asked a nice guy in a restaurant in Rugby, if he was English (shame on me, what a stupid and rude thing to ask).
I then went through all European and Eastern European countries I have ever heard of adding North African countries I have never heard of, moving towards the far east (forgetting Australia). No and no, having an other bottle of something, I came to my senses and asked him where he came from.
From Wales, he said. Now, would "Blighty" have saved time and money for me.
More recently - courtesy of beeb news? Relates to navy bod wanting to sell stuff to overseas nation. "He arranged to meet some ****ian spies but the men were not spies they were employed by MI6" ...... All names Taken Posted Thursday 20th December 2012 20:33 GMT
That is standard DOD GI/MODified administration fare, All names Taken. Create a phantom enemy for to control a phony war. However, when further paravirtualised and paramilitarised for applications in civilian spheres of operations, add a tad more/a great deal more 00mph and steganographic sophistication to the methodology and reality becomes one's canvas in which to paint a UniVersatile MasterPeace whenever one is better than just good at IT. Be bad and inept in the fare, and all one delivers is pain and conflict for oneself in reactionary movements which always have one following and chasing phantom leads to nowhere and no one important and relevant to the situation one would be searching for friends and/or foes in.
Do you think British Secret Security Intelligence Services are SMARTR Enabled and Sublimely Active in its Myriad IT Spheres/Virtual Worlds? Or is that Facility and Ability a Gift which Graces their Merry XSSXXXXmas Hot Wish List? :-) ;-)
And the smileys give a passing nod to Poe's Law, which tells of much you are never quite sure about in fluid and rapidly evolving scenarios/global stages.
And quite whether Auntie Beeb is currently smart enough to do that the courtesy of accurate reporting and creative presentation, is and remains until resolution ....... well, the Catch 42 Question which defines them as good or not so good and even bad at Intelligent Service Provision? Certainly recent news from the heart of their empire does not bode well for them ....... and that is all down to a lack of hypervision and practical virtual ability right at the top of that Broadband Brainwashing Corporation with its Trust and Boards, aint it. There is Zero Future Day Leadership there.
Spookily enough, and so very Catch 22 it is too, one does have to ponder and wonder why UKGBNI Intelligence hasn't supplied what is needed and would tolerate such an abdication of professional duty? Zero Future Day Leadership there too, do you think? :-) ;-)
And how do you know Stuxnet was a USA creation? Because you read it in the newspapers? We all know how reliable a source the media is. Did it say "Made in USA" on the box? Did the receipt say "The CIA thanks you for your business"? Wouldn't it be something if Stuxnet actually originated in Iran and it got away from them during a trial run? Or maybe if Stuxnet didn't really exist, and is nothing more than a propaganda exercise to show the world how big, bad America is just picking on poor little peace-loving Iran which only wants to enrich uranium for innocent "research purposes" - the research being "how big a bomb can we build?"
Prediction - when the **** hits the fan, who do you think everyone is going to be trying to hide behind in order to have their butts saved? Iran or the USA? Choose wisely . . .
The US is imperfect but we're usually on the side of the "good guys". Just look at 20th century history in China to decide if you really want them to be the world's superpower.
Espionage is RAMPANT in China and it affects the UK just as much as the US. Interesting reading:
Tons of other great stuff on their site. Obama hasn't done much to nurture the US-UK alliance but I hope someday when sh*t hits the fan, we can work together as old friends.
"And how do you know Stuxnet was a USA creation?"
The US govt did nothing to deny the NY Times report, and in fact took credit for it.
"Iran which only wants to enrich uranium for innocent "research purposes" - the research being "how big a bomb can we build?"
If you have definite proof that Iran is making a "bomb", then show it to the US and the IAEA, because so far they don't have proof.
"when the **** hits the fan, who do you think everyone is going to be trying to hide behind in order to have their butts saved? Iran or the USA?"
When the shit comes from the US as is most likely the case, don't look to them to save you.
"Just look at 20th century history in China to decide if you really want them to be the world's superpower."
Since WW2 China has only been involved in 2 major wars involving other countries, Korean and Vietnam. The former as a result of US led invasion of N Korea, and the latter as a result of US led attempts to conquer N Vietnam.
It has also been involved in one or two minor border skirmishes with India, Vietnam and the USSR/Russia.
Since the death of Chairman Mao and the subsequent opening up of the economy, China hasn't been involved in any wars or lent support to whatever communist "insurgencies" that remain in around the world.
In contrast the US has invaded or tried to invade or has unleashed major military action on:
- N Korea (and threatened to use nuclear weapons on China for daring to support the North)
- Dominican Republic (on the side of a military regime which deposed a democratically elected leader)
- Laos (between 1964 and 1973, US bombers dropped more ordnance on Laos in this period than was dropped during the whole of the WW2. This is in a country just over half the size of California.)
- Iraq (again)
And the US has a shameful record of covertly or otherwise of deposing democratically elected or popular leaders who are "too independent" (ie doesn't do what the US tells them to do) and replacing them with often brutal military dictatorships or despots:
Nicaragua 1980s, trafficking arms to Iran and using proceeds to fund the Sandinista terrorists, trafficking drugs via Manuel Noriega (dictator of Panama, subsequently abducted by the US and convicted for drugs trafficking) and using proceeds to fund the Sandinista terrorists who wanted to overthrow a democratically elected government.
Dictatorships or authoritarian regimes that even China doesn't support are eagerly propped up by the US:
South America, all the right-wing military dictatorships
Africa, all the resource-rich regimes, plus Egypt before the overthrow of Mubarak
Middle East, all the oil-rich authoritarian monarchies
Central Asia, all the oil-rich dictatorships
Asia - Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, S Korea all had military dictatorships fully supported by the US until popular action replaced them with more or less functioning democracies.
With China you get what it says on the packet - they will not interfere in other countries internal affairs and they don't.
With the US they say they're fully committed to freedom of speech, self-determination, human rights, rule of law etc, except when they're not, which from the above list of examples is a lot of the time.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020