Skip navigation

Tag Archives: cyber-9/11

For several years on this blog and my previous blog, I have warned that the government will stage a cyberattack and claim that the hackers used open-source software. I warned that the government would use that as a pretext to ban open-source software – including Linux – and declare users/advocates of open-source software and GNU/Linux are cyberterrorists.

Now it has come out that the Wikileaks-inspired DDoS attacks were carried out using open-source software.

The government now has a pretext to ban open-source software, including GNU/Linux. The government now has a pretext to investigate users of open-source software and GNU/Linux as potential cyberterrorists. The Department of Homeland Security now has a pretext to seize domain names of websites which promote or advocate open-source software and GNU/Linux. So do not be surprised if in the near future you visit Ubuntu’s website and come across something similar to this:

 

Comment: Watch establishment shills such as Barbara Boxer use the leaking/hacking of the “Climategate” emails as “justification” for the passage of Jay Rockefeller’s Cyber Security Act of 2009, aka the “i-PATRIOT Act”.

Flashback: Lawrence Lessig predicts cyber-9/11 will result in cyber-PATRIOT Act

————————–

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70249-boxer-hacked-climategate-emails-may-face-criminal-probe

Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.

Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.

“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,’” she said during a committee meeting. “Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I’m looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public.”

The e-mails, from scientists at the University of East Anglia, were obtained through hacking. The messages showed the director of the university’s Climate Research Unit discussing ways to strengthen the unit’s case for global warming. Climate change skeptics have seized on the e-mails, arguing that they demonstrate manipulation in environmental science.

Boxer said her committee may hold hearings into the matter as its top Republican, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), has asked for, but that a criminal probe would be part of any such hearings.

“We may well have a hearing on this, we may not. We may have a briefing for senators, we may not,” Boxer said. “Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.

“This is a crime,” Boxer said.

THIS IS TRULY BLACKLISTED NEWS, AND I RECOVERED IT FROM A CYBERATTACKED SITE (WHAT A COINCIDENCE A SITE WOULD GET SHUT DOWN THAT WAS THE ONLY OTHER SOURCE IN THE WORLD THAT HAD THIS ARTICLE.)

I will not say where I got this info to protect the current source from being cyber false flagged off the net (you will not find it in a search engine, trust me) (I will be doing this frequently with such information).  This article is almost impossible to find, it is ONLY referenced here: (but I have the full article for you below =) )

http://buysinc.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html

FBI Hopes ‘Digital Enron’ Will Boost Cybercrime Awareness
Though the FBI is gradually making progress in prosecuting online criminals, the agency is still waiting for a major, newsworthy case like the Enron scandal to bring cybercrime to the forefront of public attention. Only after such an event could the necessary reforms be made to allow authorities to effectively battle online criminals, FBI special agent Shana Boswell-Crowe said

___________________________________________________________

FBI Hopes ‘Digital Enron’ Will Boost Cybercrime Awareness
By Tom Sanders
VNUNet.com
07/22/06 5:00 AM PT
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/51940.html

Though the FBI is gradually making progress in prosecuting online criminals, the agency is still waiting for a major, newsworthy case like the Enron scandal to bring cybercrime to the forefront of public attention. Only after such an event could the necessary reforms be made to allow authorities to effectively battle online criminals, FBI special agent Shana Boswell-Crowe said.

Fighting cybercrime requires an Enron-like scandal to force the hand of legislators, the FBI argued Friday.

Only after such an event could the necessary reforms be made to allow authorities to effectively battle online criminals, according to FBI special agent Shana Boswell-Crowe.

“My theory is that computer crime is kind of like white collar crime before Enron,” Boswell-Crowe said during a presentation at the McAfee Avert Labs Day in Mountain View, Calif.

‘Large Event’ Needed
“White collar crime used to be the bank [employee] sifting some money off, or some corporate guy who was going to get rich anyway,” Boswell-Crowe went on.

“I do not think that [cybercrime] has had its day. There has not been something that’s large enough to generate large-scale awareness. Awareness is increasing, but we have not had that large event that makes people think: ‘This is really bad.’”

Boswell-Crowe complained that, while online crimes are committed within seconds, it still takes large amounts of evidence to obtain a search warrant.

There also is no clear legislation that defines when adware is installed illegally. Unless law enforcement officers are able to prove an intent to cause harm, botnet operators can get away with installing adware on computers.

Consumers, in the meantime, are carrying the burden if they become the victim of key-loggers, because they have technically given up their log-in and password information voluntarily.

Kids First, Pros Next
Boswell-Crowe claimed, however, that the FBI is making progress in tracking down and prosecuting online criminals.

Early cases have mainly involved teenagers looking to make a quick buck, but forgetting to clean up their tracks.

Tracking down professional organized cybercriminals takes more time, but the FBI is building cases against such organized groups.

Boswell-Crowe declined further comment because the FBI does not discuss cases before they are brought before a judge.
__________________________________________________________


WHAT THE F*CK, SO, JAY ROCKEFELLER, HOW MUCH CREDIBILITY DO YOU THINK YOU WILL HAVE WHEN THIS ARTICLE GETS ON THE FRONT PAGE OF INFOWARS.COM PROVING THAT THE U.S. GOVT. HAS MADE IT PAINSTAKINGLY CLEAR THAT YOU ARE CALLING FOR FALSE FLAG INSIDE JOB CYBER ATTACKS TO DESTROY FREEDOM OF SPEECH?  YOU HAVE BEEN BUSTED, NOW SHUT THE F*CK UP WITH YOUR LIES, BOTH YOU AND THAT TRAITOR MCCONNEL, BOTH OF YOU NEED TO BE ARRESTED!!!
____________________________________________________________
OH WAIT, I DID FIND ANOTHER SOURCE, ALBEIT NOT AS COMPLETE!:

http://www.crime-research.org/news/23.07.2006/2137/

Fighting cybercrime
Date: July 23, 2006
Source: TechNewsWorld
By: Tom Sanders

Fighting cybercrime requires an Enron-like scandal to force the hand of legislators, the FBI argued Friday.

Only after such an event could the necessary reforms be made to allow authorities to effectively battle online criminals, according to FBI special agent Shana Boswell-Crowe.

“My theory is that computer crime is kind of like white collar crime before Enron,” Boswell-Crowe said during a presentation at the McAfee Latest News about McAfee Avert Labs Day in Mountain View, Calif.

Flashback:
BILL WOULD GIVE OBAMA ‘EMERGENCY’ CONTROL OF INTERNET

August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (“Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”

Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective.”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

———————————–

My comment (screen capture posted here in case CNET deletes/censors it) :

cnet-comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.