[102296] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Fourth cable damaged in Middle Eest (Qatar to UAE)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick Clochesy)
Mon Feb 4 03:44:59 2008
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 00:27:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Clochesy <patrick@chegg.com>
To: Mark Newton <newton@internode.com.au>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <19E9AFCE-6094-42C9-A655-86F28346EFE9@internode.com.au>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_3781_15016043.1202113655360
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I disagree... I think "information warfare tactic" could easily be terrorism, though I can't see why this particular event could/would be terrorism.
Disrupting a major network like the Internet WITHIN the US could definitely be a form of terrorism... I think anything which maliciously disrupts a huge portions of a nation's day-to-day activities would be cause for concern for many folk, especially the telecommunications infrastructure. However, I'm not sure what the mindset of the terrorist would be even if they fully succeeded what is proposed would be the terrorist's plan - even if we lost totally connectivity with the middle east, or even what's considered "friendly" countries... as long as the information is flowing at home, nobody's going to be filling their swimming pools full of drinking water.
I imagine the mindset would be different if you were a small country loosing a substantial portion of it's communication channels with the outside world...
-Patrick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Newton" <newton@internode.com.au>
To: "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan@gmail.com>
Cc: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2008 11:12:46 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles
Subject: Re: Fourth cable damaged in Middle Eest (Qatar to UAE)
On 04/02/2008, at 4:38 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> I agree with Rod Beck as far as the speculations go. It could be
> terror,
Well, no, it couldn't be. Nobody is being terrorized by this. How
can it possibly be a terrorist incident?
If it's deliberate, it might be described as an "information warfare
tactic." But not terrorism.
(visions of some guy sitting a in cave with a pair of wet boltcutters
laughing maniacally to himself, cackling, "Ha-ha! Now their daytraders
will get upset, and teenagers will get their porn _slower_! Die
American scum!" Doesn't really work, does it?)
Politicians have succeeded in watering down the definition of the word
"terrorism" to the point where it no longer has any meaning. But we're
rational adults, not politicians, right? If we can't get it right,
who will?
- mark
--
Mark Newton Email: newton@internode.com.au
(W)
Network Engineer Email:
newton@atdot.dotat.org (H)
Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
------=_Part_3781_15016043.1202113655360
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head><style type=3D'text/css'>body { font-family: 'Times New Roman';=
font-size: 12pt; color: #000000}</style></head><body>I disagree... I think=
"information warfare tactic" could easily be terrorism, though I can't see=
why this particular event could/would be terrorism.<br><br>Disrupting a ma=
jor network like the Internet WITHIN the US could definitely be a form of t=
errorism... I think anything which maliciously disrupts a huge portions of =
a nation's day-to-day activities would be cause for concern for many folk, =
especially the telecommunications infrastructure. However, I'm not sure wha=
t the mindset of the terrorist would be even if they fully succeeded what i=
s proposed would be the terrorist's plan - even if we lost totally connecti=
vity with the middle east, or even what's considered "friendly" countries..=
. as long as the information is flowing at home, nobody's going to be filli=
ng their swimming pools full of drinking water.<br><br>I imagine the mindse=
t would be different if you were a small country loosing a substantial port=
ion of it's communication channels with the outside world... <br><br>-Patri=
ck<br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Mark Newton" <newton@in=
ternode.com.au><br>To: "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan@gmail.com><br>C=
c: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>, nanog@merit.edu<br>Sent: Sunday=
, February 3, 2008 11:12:46 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles<br>Subject: R=
e: Fourth cable damaged in Middle Eest (Qatar to UAE)<br><br><br><br>On 04/=
02/2008, at 4:38 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:<br><br>> I agree with Rod Be=
ck as far as the speculations go. It could be<br>> terror,<br><br>Well, =
no, it couldn't be. Nobody is being terrorized by this. How<br>=
can it possibly be a terrorist incident?<br><br>If it's deliberate, it migh=
t be described as an "information warfare<br>tactic." But not terrori=
sm.<br><br>(visions of some guy sitting a in cave with a pair of wet boltcu=
tters<br>laughing maniacally to himself, cackling, "Ha-ha! Now their =
daytraders<br>will get upset, and teenagers will get their porn _slower_! &=
nbsp;Die<br>American scum!" Doesn't really work, does it?)<br><br>Po=
liticians have succeeded in watering down the definition of the word<br>"te=
rrorism" to the point where it no longer has any meaning. But we're<b=
r>rational adults, not politicians, right? If we can't get it right,<=
br>who will?<br><br> - mark<br><br><br>--<br>Mark Newton =
&nbs=
p; Email: newton@internode.com.au <br> &nbs=
p;(W)<br>Network Engineer =
Email: <br>newton@atdot.dot=
at.org (H)<br>Internode Systems Pty Ltd &=
nbsp; Desk: +61-8-82282999<br>"Network Man" - A=
nagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223<br><br><br><br><br><b=
r></body></html>
------=_Part_3781_15016043.1202113655360--
