The future of warfare! Very cool, yet very scary!

[SlyPokerDog]

How the USA and Israel almost completely destroyed Iran's nuclear program with a computer worm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?hp

 

[Haakzilla]

...yes, the STUXNET is incredibly scary! The very first virus with A.I., a virus like this how the ability to do a lot of very bad things!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

...yes, the STUXNET is incredibly scary! The very first virus with A.I., a virus like this how the ability to do a lot of very bad things!

Or good things, depends on your perspective.

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

Maybe STUXNET is why North Korea has been so awnry lately.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Unless anyone's downloading anything into Kim Jong-Il's brain Borg-style, I don't think the cyber stuff has anything to do with NK.

I think the NYT is making a lot of guesses in this piece and passing them off as facts.

 

[Stevenson]

Unless anyone's downloading anything into Kim Jong-Il's brain Borg-style, I don't think the cyber stuff has anything to do with NK.

I think the NYT is making a lot of guesses in this piece and passing them off as facts.

Did you even read the article? I did. One thing it had was facts galore. "Guesses" are actually not part of real journalism, as opposed to chatboards and blogs.

 

[MARIS61]

Unless anyone's downloading anything into Kim Jong-Il's brain Borg-style, I don't think the cyber stuff has anything to do with NK.

I think the NYT is making a lot of guesses in this piece and passing them off as facts.

That's FAUX news that does that.

The NYT is a real news source.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The NYT is a real news source.

I read the NYT's website all the time.

It's surprising at how many articles they do about Oregon and Portland.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Did you even read the article? I did. One thing it had was facts galore. "Guesses" are actually not part of real journalism, as opposed to chatboards and blogs.

I'm glad you're starting to see that NYT is not always the world's leader on "real journalism".

Yes, I've read the NYT piece. As well as others from them on this line of investigation. And I've probably read much more about it than the NYT has (at least, I hope so, or we have other problems)

Let's see here:

Behind Dimona’s barbed wire, the experts say, Israel has spun nuclear centrifuges virtually identical to Iran’s at Natanz, where Iranian scientists are struggling to enrich uranium...the operations there, as well as related efforts in the United States, are among the newest and strongest clues suggesting that the virus was designed as an American-Israeli project to sabotage the Iranian program.

Clues suggesting, or facts galore?

Though American and Israeli officials refuse to talk publicly about what goes on at Dimona, the operations there, as well as related efforts in the United States, are among the newest and strongest clues suggesting that the virus was designed as an American-Israeli project to sabotage the Iranian program.

Clues, or facts galore?

The biggest single factor in putting time on the nuclear clock appears to be Stuxnet, the most sophisticated cyberweapon ever deployed.

And they know that, how, exactly? They've seen no other sophisticated cyber weaponry, perhaps some even more recent than mid-2009? Or is this a guess? Whatever it is, I'm not sure it's "Facts galore"

Many mysteries remain, chief among them, exactly who constructed a computer worm that appears to have several authors on several continents. But the digital trail is littered with intriguing bits of evidence.

Facts galore, or chief of the mysteries?

Officially, neither American nor Israeli officials will even utter the name of the malicious computer program, much less describe any role in designing it.
But Israeli officials grin widely when asked about its effects.

Grins are now tell-tale signs of "facts" now, I suppose.

Look, I get that the NYT is more gospel than the Bible for some, and I'm not saying I don't read it and get stories from it. As an educated reader, though, one should try to distinguish between "fact", "supposition" and "opinion". And I stand by what I said...the NYT is making a lot of guesses in this piece. Maybe it helps them fill in the blanks of their (pretty good) investigation. Maybe they can't publish some things they know because of security. But, judging solely from their work here, they're suggesting a joint act of war against Iran with a lot of "clues" and little "fact".

Do you really want to keep up the condescension garbage instead of actually talking about the point?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I'm glad you're starting to see that NYT is not always the world's leader on "real journalism".

Yes, I've read the NYT piece. As well as others from them on this line of investigation. And I've probably read much more about it than the NYT has (at least, I hope so, or we have other problems)

Let's see here:
Clues suggesting, or facts galore?
Clues, or facts galore?
And they know that, how, exactly? They've seen no other sophisticated cyber weaponry, perhaps some even more recent than mid-2009? Or is this a guess? Whatever it is, I'm not sure it's "Facts galore"
Facts galore, or chief of the mysteries?
Grins are now tell-tale signs of "facts" now, I suppose.

Look, I get that the NYT is more gospel than the Bible for some, and I'm not saying I don't read it and get stories from it. As an educated reader, though, one should try to distinguish between "fact", "supposition" and "opinion". And I stand by what I said...the NYT is making a lot of guesses in this piece. Maybe it helps them fill in the blanks of their (pretty good) investigation. Maybe they can't publish some things they know because of security. But, judging solely from their work here, they're suggesting a joint act of war against Iran with a lot of "clues" and little "fact".

Do you really want to keep up the condescension garbage instead of actually talking about the point?

Yeah, why would Israel or the USA even want to mess with Iran's nuclear program?

 

[hasoos]

Yeah, why would Israel or the USA even want to mess with Iran's nuclear program?

Yep we didn't mess with their nuclear program. Just like Iran never funded Hizbollah. This is intense as cold war gets without fielding a proxy army to overthrow a government. The reason that so many pieces of the article are guesswork is because when investigating black ops, there is always a certain portion of the information that has to be pieced together or guessed at. Unless some dumb ass post it on Wiki Leaks or something.

 

[BrianFromWA]

The reason that so many pieces of the article are guesswork is because when investigating black ops, there is always a certain portion of the information that has to be pieced together or guessed at.

There's a difference between piecing together facts and guessing. However, it's odd to me that no one seems to care that the NYT is basically accusing Israel and the US of an international crime that could be construed as an act of war on another country's soil wrt a nuclear program, and using guesswork to back it up. That's all.

Notice, I'm not saying that US and Israel did or didn't send Stuxnet all over the world. I'm just saying that there's a lot of guesswork going on in that piece that isn't really validated. And that's a bit dangerous for me.

 

[barfo]

The stuff you quoted and bolded, Brian, is actually evidence of honest journalism. They didn't say "These things prove that...". They (accurately) said "These are clues suggesting...". They are clues, and they are suggestive. Not sure what your complaint is or why that is "dangerous for [you]".

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

Just this. As I said, it's not a BAD piece, imo...here's why it's dangerous.

But, judging solely from their work here, they're suggesting a joint act of war against Iran with a lot of "clues" and little "fact".

Remember the Maine!

 

[maxiep]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/all-seeing-blimp/

 

[Haakzilla]

...interesting name for a blimp, I am sure Lucifer would be honored!

 

[BrianFromWA]

yeah, Krczyzewski was taken.

 

[crandc]

I see no reason to think the NY Times made this up, except political bias, of course. It's not surprising sources would not care to be named. I understand that the rule of thumb for responsible journalism (not radio/TV screech show hosts) in such cases is information confirmed by two independent sources.

At any rate, interesting, and a LOT of implications. Some of them definitely ungood.

But I will say a triumph of brain over brawn. John McCain sang and laughed about bombing Iran, some commentators called for a US invasion of Iran (and therfore involving the US in a third war that is not paid for), both of which would have cost thousands of civilian lives. If this information is correct, the desired result was achieved with no bloodshed. Maybe that's why Brian wants to think it was made up. How could that antichristmuslimnazicommunistsocialistblacknationalistforeignerobama actually do something useful?

 

[PapaG]

I see no reason to think the NY Times made this up, except political bias, of course. It's not surprising sources would not care to be named. I understand that the rule of thumb for responsible journalism (not radio/TV screech show hosts) in such cases is information confirmed by two independent sources.

At any rate, interesting, and a LOT of implications. Some of them definitely ungood.

But I will say a triumph of brain over brawn. John McCain sang and laughed about bombing Iran, some commentators called for a US invasion of Iran (and therfore involving the US in a third war that is not paid for), both of which would have cost thousands of civilian lives. If this information is correct, the desired result was achieved with no bloodshed. Maybe that's why Brian wants to think it was made up. How could that antichristmuslimnazicommunistsocialistblacknationalistforeignerobama actually do something useful?

Yet again, crandc completely misses the point that BrianFromWA was making about "facts" in the article. I can only assume that your own "political bias" played a role in yet another vitriolic and partisan-laced personal attack from you, crandc. Still haven't learned a thing from Loughner, I see. You even put in the caveat "if this information is correct" as a disclaimer to your bias, yet you then ask why the NYT would make it up. That wasn't the point of Brian's rather extensive (and accurate) post.

 

[maxiep]

I see no reason to think the NY Times made this up, except political bias, of course. It's not surprising sources would not care to be named. I understand that the rule of thumb for responsible journalism (not radio/TV screech show hosts) in such cases is information confirmed by two independent sources.

At any rate, interesting, and a LOT of implications. Some of them definitely ungood.

But I will say a triumph of brain over brawn. John McCain sang and laughed about bombing Iran, some commentators called for a US invasion of Iran (and therfore involving the US in a third war that is not paid for), both of which would have cost thousands of civilian lives. If this information is correct, the desired result was achieved with no bloodshed. Maybe that's why Brian wants to think it was made up. How could that antichristmuslimnazicommunistsocialistblacknationalistforeignerobama actually do something useful?

Is it possible for you to post any political viewpoint you hold without demonizing the people you believe hold positions counter to yours? I may think you're wrong on issues, but I don't think you're ignorant or stupid.

 

[crandc]

Is it possible for you to post any political viewpoint you hold without demonizing the people you believe hold positions counter to yours? I may think you're wrong on issues, but I don't think you're ignorant or stupid.

I thank you for not saying I am ignorant or stupid.

Demonizing? My problem was not people disagreeing but the assumption, on no evidence, the story must be made up. Why?

Only reasons I can think of were NY Times and Obama.

 

[barfo]

Just this. As I said, it's not a BAD piece, imo...here's why it's dangerous.


Remember the Maine!

I can understand how the military (using the term broadly) might wish to operate in secret, but it is the role of the press to find out what you guys have been up to. I see nothing dangerous about it. Either you did it, in which case they are justifiably on the right trail albeit lacking proof, or you didn't do it, in which case they are providing you a useful smokescreen.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

I thank you for not saying I am ignorant or stupid.

Demonizing? My problem was not people disagreeing but the assumption, on no evidence, the story must be made up. Why?

Only reasons I can think of were NY Times and Obama.

That wasn't the point being made by BrianFromWA. You realize this, right? Stevenson pointed to the "facts" of the article being proof of good journalism, yet a deconstruction of those "facts" showed that many were suppositions, and while they may be correct, this doesn't make them factual, at least in terms of concrete evidence. I hope the US/Israel actually were behind this, but nothing in that article provides me a smoking gun.

Debating you on anything political is, and always has been, worthless, because everything you read is viewed through an ideological prism. You lecture me on "learning a lesson" after Tucson, yet here you are, doing the same things you've always done, and ratcheting up the rhetoric to an even higher level.

 

[maxiep]

I thank you for not saying I am ignorant or stupid.

It has nothing to do with being polite, so there's no need to thank me. I didn't call you stupid or ignorant because your posts clearly demonstrate you're neither. I do think, however, you are providing evidence that you are bigoted.

Demonizing? My problem was not people disagreeing but the assumption, on no evidence, the story must be made up. Why?

Brian didn't say the story was "made up". He disputed that the Times was reporting "facts". They were necessarily making assumptions, as much of the information is likely classified or no one is talking. And he thought those assumptions were dangerous.

Only reasons I can think of were NY Times and Obama.

Then expand your mind. It's possible to disagree with the NYT's editorial viewpoint and President Obama without being irrational.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The reactions and arguments in this thread are interesting.

When I read the article I immediately thought, "score one for the good guys!" But it was made me a little nervous because of how vulnerable our infrastructure is especially our power grid and power generation. I know that China has been aggressively hacking and probing our computer security for years now.

 

[maxiep]

The reactions and arguments in this thread are interesting.

When I read the article I immediately thought, "score one for the good guys!" But it was made me a little nervous because of how vulnerable our infrastructure is especially our power grid and power generation. I know that China has been aggressively hacking and probing our computer security for years now.

I agree. It's a great moment. Cyberwarfare is one of those things that really level the playing field, the way the internet levelled so much of business.

I'm glad we didn't have to bomb Iran right now, but it's only a matter of time until we do if the mullahs stay in power.

 

[jlprk]

Brian, your examples in Post #9 are examples of the Times saying they can't disclose the source of their known facts, not examples, as you say, of the Times guessing.

 

[PapaG]

Brian, your examples in Post #9 are examples of the Times saying they can't disclose the source of their known facts, not examples, as you say, of the Times guessing.

You clearly didn't read the post. Also, what is posted aren't "fact" that can be proven, which was the point.

 

[jlprk]

They are provable facts that excellent sources (in government and military) told Times reporters. The mystery is who are the sources, not what are the facts. The piecing together of facts (Brian boldfaced the words "clues" and "appears") is coming from the sources, not the reporters. The sources are using those two words.

 

[HailBlazers]

Moore's Law were Doomed.

[video=youtube;cTLMjHrb_w4]