|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical [admin] Re: Fourth cable damaged in Middle Eest (Qatar to UAE)
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" <[email protected]> > To: "Martin Hannigan" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Sean Donelan" <[email protected]>, [email protected] > 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 > > >
|