On 9/5/2002 at 16:01:02 -0400, alex@yuriev.com said:
The thing is, the major cuts are not "attacks;" the backhoe operators aren't gunning for our fiber (no matter how much it seems like they are). If I wanted to disrupt traffic, intentionally and maliciously, I would not derail a train into a fiber path. Doing so would be very difficult, and the legal ramifications (murder, destruction of property, etc, etc) are quite clear and severe. However, if I ping-bomb you from a thousand "0wn3d" PCs on cable modems, I never had to leave my parents' basement, I'm harder to trace by normal police methods, and the question of which laws that can be applied to me is less clear.
This fails to address how this affects someone who has no problem with legal ramfications - i.e. a terrorist.
Even a terrorist will tend towards things that allow him to continue to be a terrorist. If I can do X amount of damage, and get caught, or do X amount of damage, and not get caught, then he'll do the second. Even a terrorist that will die to kill will probably not die to inconvenience.
This fails to address how this affects someone who has no problem with legal ramfications - i.e. a terrorist.
Even a terrorist will tend towards things that allow him to continue to be a terrorist. If I can do X amount of damage, and get caught, or do X amount of damage, and not get caught, then he'll do the second. Even a terrorist that will die to kill will probably not die to inconvenience.
This presumes he subscribes to the western value system. It had been proven to be a fatally incorrect presumption. Alex
To reinforce a dissenting opinion, And your explanation accounts for suicide bombers how? I would think a smoking hole in the ground containing a train or whatever, particularly if lose of life is involved, would be much more appealing to the motivations of most terrorists than a couple of computers with blue screens of death. I would think 9-11 would provide a compelling example of current terrorist practice. Just my 2¢ Best regards, _________________________ Alan Rowland -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Dave Israel Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 1:29 PM To: alex@yuriev.com Cc: Dave Israel; sgorman1@gmu.edu; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection On 9/5/2002 at 16:01:02 -0400, alex@yuriev.com said:
The thing is, the major cuts are not "attacks;" the backhoe operators aren't gunning for our fiber (no matter how much it seems like they are). If I wanted to disrupt traffic, intentionally and maliciously, I would not derail a train into a fiber path. Doing so
would be very difficult, and the legal ramifications (murder, destruction of property, etc, etc) are quite clear and severe. However, if I ping-bomb you from a thousand "0wn3d" PCs on cable modems, I never had to leave my parents' basement, I'm harder to trace by normal police methods, and the question of which laws that can be applied to me is less clear.
This fails to address how this affects someone who has no problem with
legal ramfications - i.e. a terrorist.
Even a terrorist will tend towards things that allow him to continue to be a terrorist. If I can do X amount of damage, and get caught, or do X amount of damage, and not get caught, then he'll do the second. Even a terrorist that will die to kill will probably not die to inconvenience.
participants (3)
-
Al Rowland -
alex＠yuriev.com -
Dave Israel