31–40 of 321 posts
From the NYT article: > American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day. Convenient. Not only was the reporter able to secure one reliable, anonymous, highly privileged source to confirm the story, but he found multiple!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should actually read that link; the emails indicated HBGary were interested in using Stuxnet (probably the framework or exploits it used), but not that they had any idea who actually made Stuxnet. So no, Anonymous didn't "scoop" anything.
Aaron Barr talks to Defence Intelligence Agency and DoD about StuxNet in 2010, they had a copy given to them in 2009 that they claim was a US produced binary. Keep in mind stuxnet was 'discovered' in 2010. First reference to Stuxnet being U.S. government produced? You decide.
Anonymous scooped everyone last year: http://crowdleaks.org/hbgary-wanted-to-suppress-stuxnet-rese...
But this NYT story is indeed a scoop. It confirms that belief and provides quite a bit more detail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original nytimes article implies that the U.S. started this program as a way to prevent Israel from responding in a military way to Iran's nuclear program. But yes, it certainly does seem that nary a geopolitical snafu goes by without the U.S. being involved.
That's because you hear about the snafus, not the successes. There is much more incentive inkeeping the successes black, classified, and burried. Snafus are, almost by definition, just the things you hear about---otherwise, whos's to say?
Blaming the US for essentially everything, with or without evidence, is a mainstay of many countries' politics.
From the NYT article: > American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day. Convenient. Not only was the reporter able to secure one reliable, anonymous, highly privileged source to confirm the story, but he found multiple!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Violation of international law huh...as long as the law doesn't apply to America or Israel I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_s... http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/29/us-israel-nuclear-... Oh, that and the fact that America and Israel can't trust anyone but themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5-9aAFvWXA
No arguments on settlements, but would you point to hard evidence that the US is in violation of NPT? I am getting tired of sourceless claims here.
From the NYT article: > American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day. Convenient. Not only was the reporter able to secure one reliable, anonymous, highly privileged source to confirm the story, but he found multiple!
The NYT would almost certainly not have run the story with a single source backing it up.
I'll wait my 50 years or whatever for the relevant documents to be declassified, in the meantime this is all just drama and guesswork, no matter how many anonymous, totally reliable sources crawl out of the woodwork.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless David E. Sanger is a new Jayson Blair, I'd say the connection is confirmed, not just suspected. There are no weasel words in the article, meaning both the journalist, his editor, and NYT are putting their reputation at stake. This is as strong as a newspaper story gets.
Is it really true that "someone published in a newspaper said so, therefore we can rely on its being true"? I don't think so. Hard data, credible sources are what make a strong newspaper story - not a convenient message from someone who would be embarrassed if the story were untrue (something which is at least as hard to disprove in this case as it is to actually prove)
It's a sketchy system, but it's the best we can get if we want journalism to remain investigative (though we may already be losing that battle).
If Israel had physically bombed the Iranian plant would that not started another major war in the Middle East? I am not saying this is an elegant solution to cross border conflict but war was avoided. Everyone in the hacker community knows this was coming. This is going to get much worst before it gets better. Power outages in Brazil, China/Google event last year, and stuxnet. As the article says: "Stuxnet is old new…
Who would be the combatants? One of the few actually interesting things that came out of the leaked diplomatic cables was that many of the major Middle East countries want Iran's nuclear program stopped, with Saudi Arabia actually repeatedly urging the US to attack.
In light of that, I'd expect that if Israel attacked it would be publicly condemned by the rest of the Middle East countries, but most would secretly be relieved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Violation of international law huh...as long as the law doesn't apply to America or Israel I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_s... http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/29/us-israel-nuclear-... Oh, that and the fact that America and Israel can't trust anyone but themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5-9aAFvWXA
No arguments on settlements, but would you point to hard evidence that the US is in violation of NPT? I am getting tired of sourceless claims here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1707812.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty#U...