Now, will the government step up to the plate and do anything?
نuمبعر= , : پاسخ نه , منفي , مخالف , خير , ابدا. (no, in Farsi)
نuمبعر= , : پاسخ نه , منفي , مخالف , خير , ابدا. (no, in Farsi)
If they do, most likely it'll be in the form of a false flag op meant to confuse and scare people.Now, will the government step up to the plate and do anything?
نuمبعر= , : پاسخ نه , منفي , مخالف , خير , ابدا. (no, in Farsi)
I'm not saying that you are possibly making a valid point, but do you have some sort of expertise on this that Richard Clark does not?An attack on that scale is unlikely. Too many of the systems mentioned are not dependent enough on a larger network. Too many red flags would be raised too early for anything large-scale to be pulled off by anyone other than China. Even then, I don't think China could gain access to that many systems at once. As for the chemical plants, nuclear power stations and the like, I'd like to see even a proof-of-concept example that any of these could be made to malfunction solely from input from outside their intranet.
Are you saying that you cannot envision aircraft crashing into each other at major airports, while attempting to land or take off, or military aircraft during refueling?Well, he discredits himself when he says that there would be several mid-air collisions. As a former ATC, I can tell you that is as unlikely as a meteor strike on the same day that a hurricane levels your house. There is equipment on the planes that prevent that type of proximity.
My general opinion is that if someone screws up the part I do know, how can I trust the rest?
The military has yet to open its new Cyber Command centre, amid disagreements about what role different agencies will play.
When will they all grow a pair and start defending this country?
An attack on that scale is unlikely. Too many of the systems mentioned are not dependent enough on a larger network. Too many red flags would be raised too early for anything large-scale to be pulled off by anyone other than China. Even then, I don't think China could gain access to that many systems at once. As for the chemical plants, nuclear power stations and the like, I'd like to see even a proof-of-concept example that any of these could be made to malfunction solely from input from outside their intranet.
Do you not investigate these things for yourself or even try to apply some rudimentary logic yourself? "Gosh, Richard Clark must have some learnin'!"...is that your rationale? I notice you didn't try to tighten up Clark's argument or address any of the doubts I have as to the plausibility of his assertions.I'm not saying that you are possibly making a valid point, but do you have some sort of expertise on this that Richard Clark does not?
Systems aren't as integrated as people might think. I noticed that there were very few ICBMs launched the day that you "got stung once real hard". I've noticed that nobody has cited specific examples where certain power plant designs have mechanical actuators that insert and extract the plutonium or uranium rods that are also connected to the plants outfacing network. I've noticed there are no specific risk assessments.really???? To what source is the systems all connected to? The vast majority anyways...
Then how about virus barriers and such... every day there is a new virus, and updates needed damn near daily... so in that context, what if and how do you know the virus is not already there and planted within the system at Langley, NSA HQ, Pentagon, a dozen power plants, 175 different dams, a million or so cities that all depend upon different asects of communications, then there is the issue of a flase signal that would show the planes to be taking off or landing and it is not actually there... real good mess isn't it..???
And we have not even gotten into the strong military applications... and they are very vulnerable ...and that is a fact...
Believe me, I was in the Army and stationed at the Pentagon back in 1999 and we got stung once real hard... and it shut us down for one full day..... now think about how far technology has come since then...and that has only been 11 years...
And you damn sure cannot tell me that some little chinese dude or a N. Korean or even the guy just down the street that every one calls the Geek or the whiz kid with computers... is not working on this very thing...
If you computer is attached to the system... you damn sure are vulnerable, because if you are like me...you gather information from all over the world... and that makes you vulnerable... very vulnerable...
Do you not investigate these things for yourself or even try to apply some rudimentary logic yourself? "Gosh, Richard Clark must have some learnin'!"...is that your rationale? I notice you didn't try to tighten up Clark's argument or address any of the doubts I have as to the plausibility of his assertions.
Anyway, I'm unaware of Richard Clark's particular expertise. Since he was a figurehead under W, I imagine he might have as much expertise as the former commissioner of some Arabian horse association that W made FEMA director, but I could be wrong.
As for myself, I know that networks have to be accessible in order for them to be hacked. I know that there is no magic key that gets you into all different types of computer systems simultaneously without detection. The mid-air collision stuff sounds equally suspect.
Systems aren't as integrated as people might think. I noticed that there were very few ICBMs launched the day that you "got stung once real hard". I've noticed that nobody has cited specific examples where certain power plant designs have mechanical actuators that insert and extract the plutonium or uranium rods that are also connected to the plants outfacing network. I've noticed there are no specific risk assessments.
Let me provide my credentials. 16.5 year Air Traffic Controller at the Indianapolis EnRoute Air Traffic Control Center. Complete familiarization with the TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) that is on aircraft. I once wrote a paper about it, and gave a lecture at IUPUI Indianapolis. Traffic patterns at airports aren't controlled by computers on the ground, nor in the local sky. They are controlled by controllers, and human minds can't be hacked from China. Nor can China hack military aircraft during refueling, they assume something called MARSA (Military assumed responsibility for separation of aircraft) which is controlled at the refueling point by the aircraft involved. Since those aircraft aren't network dependent, they will be unaffected.Are you saying that you cannot envision aircraft crashing into each other at major airports, while attempting to land or take off, or military aircraft during refueling?
I think the man deserves a little more credit than that.
Let me provide my credentials. 16.5 year Air Traffic Controller at the Indianapolis EnRoute Air Traffic Control Center. Complete familiarization with the TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) that is on aircraft. I once wrote a paper about it, and gave a lecture at IUPUI Indianapolis. Traffic patterns at airports aren't controlled by computers on the ground, nor in the local sky. They are controlled by controllers, and human minds can't be hacked from China. Nor can China hack military aircraft during refueling, they assume something called MARSA (Military assumed responsibility for separation of aircraft) which is controlled at the refueling point by the aircraft involved. Since those aircraft aren't network dependent, they will be unaffected.
Wanting someone to be right doesn't make it so. I can't speak to all the other issues, but regarding aircraft disasters this man is wrong. That, for me, calls into question the rest of his assessment.
Should I give him credit beyond my years of Air Traffic Control experience? Shall he change the reality I lived? I don't think so.
I know TCAS has worked a lot of the bugs out of it since its inception in the 50's but it is not infallable...
Now is not TCAS capable of being able transmit GPS coordinates and altitude via Mode-S datalink???
granted that solves a great deal of problems but it also is not infallable...
And there have been quite a few near misses where the TCAS issued a false RA's.... correct?
If your TCAS issues a RA, Air Traffic Control has already failed.
Most enroute radars have update rates between 6 and 10 seconds... correct???
Now did not NASA have an issue with this system and its overall effectvness back in something like 2006... From what i understand there were false TCAS alerts reported to ASRS... but those could have been a collapse or suppression of the BUS... is that possible..???
So if the computer systems collapse and have in the past then the issue of the computer systems can be circumvented.....correct???
remember the more comlicated the system is the easier it is to pull the plug on it...