From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 14:52:49 -0800 (PST)
To: anonymous@miron.vip.best.com
Subject: Re: your mail
In-Reply-To: <199701071855.KAA05718@miron.vip.best.com>
Message-ID: <199701072308.RAA02919@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> Citing a specific example, the DSB report said one building in Savannah, 
Ga., (a Bell South switching facility, FCW learned) houses not only a
> vital communications hub but information technology systems supporting 
key electric power and transportation companies. Because Savannah
> serves as a vital port of embarkation for Army troops based in that area, 
an IW attack against that one building would "make it impossible to
> deploy military forces at the pace specified in operations plans." 

     Then again so would a decent breifcase bomb. 
 
> These recommendations included a controversial call for the Pentagon to have 
the legal power to protect nongovernmental portions of the
                   ^^^^^^^

    Someone mispelled "Take Over". 

> infrastructure in the name of "the common defense." To defend DOD and i
critical nongovernmental systems against IW, the report recommends
> new legal authority that will allow "DOD, law enforcement and intelligence 
agencies to conduct efficient, coordinated monitoring of attacks on the
> critical civilian information infrastructure...." 

     I would bet that with the possible execption of TEMPEST (and I doubt
even then) private industry could do the job cheaper, and more thoroughly 
than the DOD.  
 
> In carving out a position for DOD to take on this role in the civil sector,i
the report bluntly summed up the problem: "We should not forget
> information warfare is a form of warfare, not a crime or an act of terror." 
It took an equally blunt approach on how the Pentagon should respond
> to such an attack or intrusion. "The response could entail civil or criminal 
prosecution, use of military force...diplomatic initiatives or economic
> mandates." 

      Seig Heil 


> to surviving willful malicious attack, or detecting and eliminating corrupt software." 

     As opposed to a benevolent attack? or maybe a friendly attack? 

> "For them to blatantly say, `We want to monitor,' that creates a huge problem," he said. "If the government says, `You don't worry, private sector,
> we're going to take care of you,' they're going to have a problem."

     Hmmm.... I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere. I thought this was 
america, land of the free. Can anyone give me directions on how to get there
from here...

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com