« Will CISPA Amendments Hurt Cybersecurity? | Main | George Gershwin and the President's CISPA Veto Threat »

Apr 12, 2013

Comments

Well, that's about the best blog post I've seen in awhile. Sure, great argument and policy analysis. But bringing Steve McQueen into cyber security - well, that's just cool.

It's not difficult for great nations to fall. A couple of critical mistakes is all it takes.

Assuming that this guy was in fact acting against "Unit 61398 of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army", doesn't that mean he was a private citizen taking antagonistic action against an organized segment of a foreign government?

In other words, he's a privateer?

Given that the United States Constitution states that only Congress is authorized to grant letters of marque and reprisal, that's probably where the DoJ is coming from. It is, quite literally, an un-Constitutional act of war for people to back-hack a foreign government organization.

Luckily for Rascagneres, the US Constitution doesn't cut much ice in Luxembourg.

Unfortunately many of the conclusion outlined in the iTrust report are flat out wrong. Sure, they displayed cunning technical skill in infiltrating the bad guys control network, but their analysis of the data they found is plain wrong. The group in question is not APT 1.

Ned --

Have you elaborated on your comment somewhere?

Stewart

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Bookmark and Share

Blog powered by Typepad