[102297] in North American Network Operators' Group
[admin] Re: Fourth cable damaged in Middle Eest (Qatar to UAE)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Pilosov)
Mon Feb 4 04:39:39 2008
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 04:29:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com>
To: Patrick Clochesy <patrick@chegg.com>
cc: Mark Newton <newton@internode.com.au>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <11756736.76101202113655362.JavaMail.root@protozoa>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
This conversation is quickly spinning into discussion of politics and
terrorism.
Reminder to all, please stick to the *operational* aspects of this thread.
-alex [NANOG MLC Chair]
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Patrick Clochesy wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
