Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Attack Is Suspected as North Korean Internet Collapses

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 205 posts

Re: Attack Is Suspected as North Korean Internet Collapses

#111

Post by vegabook »

jgwest wrote: post #105

Maybe it's the doing of the U.S. gov't... maybe not... But in any case, what's the point of keeping the U.S. government's action or non-action secret? As the linked piece states: "If the attack was American in origin — something the United States would probably never acknowledge ..." It's sort of like the Doomsday Machine in Dr. Strangelove: it just doesn't work as a deterrent if you keep it a secret. Or is all this…

Your excellent point has a follow on: who exactly is responsible for deciding when or if such a retaliation is to occur? Is there any oversight? Is there any accountability? Who are the individuals involved? Which agency is involved? Is Obama fessing up or not? I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the retaliation, only that open accountability is necessary, precisely such that our collective liberty is safeguarded.

If this is not the US, then the cybersecurity apparatus of the US and other nations must surely provide more information about which entity has the power to take down an entire country's internet (even if, admittely, this is a small country that is easy to take down?). We need to know either that this is an explicit retaliatory attack (in which case, who is deciding the legitimacy and proportion of this retaliation), or if not, we need to know very clearly that our cybersecurity apparatus is aware of who did it, and if not, what are they doing to become aware of such issues in the future (with guarantees of public disclosure when this is not incompatible with national security).

Basically, we cannot have a situation where signficant swathes of the internet can be taken down with nobody knowing what's going on, and what the principles are behind any decisions made. That would be a basic affront to freedom.

Nebulous, intangible entities with the power to perpetrate or retaliate with no accountability, are extremely dangerous.

I see a significant dearth of information here, information that is in the public interest whoever is behind it.

Re: Attack Is Suspected as North Korean Internet Collapses

#112

Post by gaius »

terminado wrote: post #28
luftderfreiheit wrote: post #12

What fascinating times we live in. My interpretation of the general history of warfare is that countries agree on restraint once some situation has occurred that all sides agree should never happen again. Mustard gas in WWI, nuclear weapons in WWII... Hopefully this doesn't spiral out of control. It's not clear where the boundaries are that we don't want to cross.

Well, right now, we're in a place where The Internet really only facilitates greater efficiency in telecommunications, and does so in such a way that can be distributed and encapsulated across many independent partitions. In other words, whatever we would be capable of accomplishing with pen and ink on paper, and carrier pigeons, or smoke signals; that's what the internet does, but at nearly the speed of light, for v…

Unless your target is stupid enough to connect their SCADA systems to the Internet.

Re: Attack Is Suspected as North Korean Internet Collapses

#113

Post by darkstar999 »

SEJeff wrote: post #19

Do people seriously think the USG is behind a ddos when Anonymous has already stated they are going to go after the DRPK? http://www.inquisitr.com/1691688/anonymous-announces-vengean...

That twitter account is banned. What's to stop me from creating an "Anonymous" account and acting like "them"?

Re: Attack Is Suspected as North Korean Internet Collapses

#115

Post by d55 »

Crito wrote: post #107
jusben1369 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well to be clear to the North Koreans this is 100% a propaganda movie.

There seems that people living under regimes with limited freedom often fail to comprehend that people living in other countries might produce something without the explicit approval of their government. To the North Koreans, it is beyond comprehension that people living in the US made something, rather than the US government making it. To them, if Americans made it, that means America made it. This misunderstanding…

I have seen this line of thought some times now but I can't help but having a hard time believing it to be true. The notion that in other countries people have the right to express themselves freely is not particularly hard to grasp and pass on, even if told otherwise by state media (which are probably not very well respected under oppressive regimes.)

Re: Attack Is Suspected as North Korean Internet Collapses

#116

Post by _delirium »

Crito wrote: post #107
jusben1369 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well to be clear to the North Koreans this is 100% a propaganda movie.

There seems that people living under regimes with limited freedom often fail to comprehend that people living in other countries might produce something without the explicit approval of their government. To the North Koreans, it is beyond comprehension that people living in the US made something, rather than the US government making it. To them, if Americans made it, that means America made it. This misunderstanding…

> the Norwegian Nobel Committee (which is a private organization which awards a private prize, despite having some members selected by Norwegian parliament)

The Peace Prize is a bit closer to the Norwegian government than that. Alfred Nobel left that part of his will directly to the Norwegian Parliament, not to a private organization, and he tasked the Parliament with using the money to establish a peace prize. The Parliament established a committee, the Nobel Committee, to administer the award, and traditionally its members were a subset of standing members of Parliament, with the partisan makeup of the Nobel Committee reflecting each party's representation in Parliament.

In recent years they have instituted a rule that current parliamentarians can't sit on the committee, and instead retired parliamentarians are chosen, to given it slightly more distance. But they're still 100% selected by Parliament, and allocated to each party in proportion to party representation in the Parliament.

Re: Attack Is Suspected as North Korean Internet Collapses

#117

Post by autokad »

jgwest wrote: post #105

Maybe it's the doing of the U.S. gov't... maybe not... But in any case, what's the point of keeping the U.S. government's action or non-action secret? As the linked piece states: "If the attack was American in origin — something the United States would probably never acknowledge ..." It's sort of like the Doomsday Machine in Dr. Strangelove: it just doesn't work as a deterrent if you keep it a secret. Or is all this…

i would suspect that if it was a retaliation and secret to the public, it would certainly not be secret in negotiations and what not.

Re: Attack Is Suspected as North Korean Internet Collapses

#118

Post by dragonwriter »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #108
crazypyro wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is illegal. Under the CFAA, any unauthorized access of any "protected" system anywhere (that causes at least $5,000 in damages, but hell, anything over a 1-2 man business can have $5,000 in damages, in legal terms, in a few seconds) is a felony. Protected system: "including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the Un…

But, I wonder, if a case could be made for such an attack being a defensive maneuver on the part of the USG? That is, due to the claimed recent activity by NK and future threats articulated by NK to engage in cyber warfare, might taking their access offline be construed as a defensive measure? If so, would there be anything under the U.S. Code or otherwise that would supersede the CFAA; or are there exclusions in the…

Acts of the executive branch (or of anyone the executive branch agrees with) can escape criminal prosecution (whether or not they are technically crimes) simply because (1) the executive branch controls prosecutions, and (2) the executive branch has the power of the pardon.

Criminal law, except from a political standpoint, does not constrain the policy of the executive branch.

Re: Attack Is Suspected as North Korean Internet Collapses

#119

Post by autokad »

tedunangst wrote: post #23
SEJeff wrote: post #19

Do people seriously think the USG is behind a ddos when Anonymous has already stated they are going to go after the DRPK? http://www.inquisitr.com/1691688/anonymous-announces-vengean...

Maybe the USG is Anonymous!

he's down voted but not too far off base. The US has already used hacker organizations to inadvertently act in the interests of the US government. Considering that the US almost certainly has moles in Anonymous, it wouldn't be hard to influence them to target Korea

Re: Attack Is Suspected as North Korean Internet Collapses

#120

Post by downandout »

crazypyro wrote: post #103
downandout wrote: post #7

I suspect this to be the work of the US government, but out of curiosity I wonder if there would be any legal consequences were Sony or another private party to launch a DDOS attack on North Korea from the US. Obviously no one would be extradited to NK, but I'm curious if that would run afoul of US law. If not, it might be fun to create some software or a mobile app that would keep this going indefinitely. I imagine…

This is illegal. Under the CFAA, any unauthorized access of any "protected" system anywhere (that causes at least $5,000 in damages, but hell, anything over a 1-2 man business can have $5,000 in damages, in legal terms, in a few seconds) is a felony. Protected system: "including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the Un…

Yes, but the larger question is whether computers in NK "affect interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States". Since we don't conduct business with NK, I think it wouldn't meet the definition.
Post reply on HN