Cyber False Flag Soon? DHS Warns "Cyber 9/11" Imminent, page


Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times
Topic started on 24-1-2013 @ 11:25 PM by SilentKoala
U.S. homeland chief: cyber 9/11 could happen "imminently"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned on Thursday that a major cyber attack is a looming threat and could have the same sort of impact as last year's Superstorm Sandy, which knocked out electricity in a large swathe of the Northeast.

Napolitano said a "cyber 9/11" could happen "imminently" and that critical infrastructure - including water, electricity and gas - was very vulnerable to such a strike.

"We shouldn't wait until there is a 9/11 in the cyber world. There are things we can and should be doing right now that, if not prevent, would mitigate the extent of damage," said Napolitano, speaking at the Wilson Center think tank in Washington and referring to the September 11, 2001, attacks.


Link:
finance.yahoo.com...

All the pieces are falling into place. The precursors and warning signs are all over. They've been wanting to expand their control over the internet for years.

They hate the fact that the public's views are becoming increasingly 'alternative' to those sanctioned by mainstream television media, since the advent of the internet.
They hate the fact that information is flowing freely, and the greedy are making less $$$ from the distribution of information.
They hate the open source movement.
They hate internet freedom activists like Swartz.
They hate whistle-blowers / truth activists like Assange.
They hate anonymity.
They hate the fact that they have been unsuccessful in ramming things like SOPA down our throats, and in fact have been largely unsuccessful on the majority of these fronts.

So, time to turn to their old standby once again? Crisis-reaction-solution? Never let a good crisis go to waste, isn't that what you said Rahm?

The only question remaining is, who will be the patsy? "Anonymous"? Are they the new Emmanuel Goldstein now that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are gone? Or will it be China? They've been beating the drums for cyber-war with China for a while now.


reply posted on 25-1-2013 @ 12:11 AM by DankKing420
reply to post by iwilliam



You lack a fundamental understanding of how connected all of our world is.

Im not meaning to sound harsh but dont you think if it was that simple Iran would have never got their nuclear plants hit with stuxnet,flame and gauss? The Iranians are not stupid it just so happens our world is to connected in numerous ways


reply posted on 25-1-2013 @ 01:07 AM by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Gridrebel

It's not about liking her or not liking her, IMO. It's about the Government she represents seemingly being interested in keeping the public in a near constant state of high anxiety ALL the time. There were plenty of threats and some of these very same ones before 9/11. The public didn't hear about them all and DHS/DOD weren't doing training and full action drills literally AS publicly as it could possibly be done and as often as it could reasonably be arranged.

If a stressed out public is their business then I'd say the business is pretty good these days. Things like this stoke it well.

Now if this is something the average American walking down main street can do something about, I'd sure like to know what or how? Utilities? Dams? Water Plants? Okay...They can do something. So send bulletins to them. The few hundred million John Q's probably can't help much so why add to what is already pretty hard times to worry about at the moment, is what I wonder some days lately? Every tiny threat they can think up needs major public announcements with as much description of worst case as they can get without blatantly fear mongering.




reply posted on 25-1-2013 @ 06:23 AM by Cinrad
reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Now that the fiscal cliff crisis is simmering down (notice how they stretched that one to the last minute to keep everyone on edge) they have to come up with something else.


reply posted on 25-1-2013 @ 11:38 AM by ganjoa
DHS has to keep a constant threat level to continue justifying their existence since there haven't been any non-government aided terrorist attacks here since 911.

Our infrastructure is far more vulnerable to physical attack by John Q Public than any "cyber threat" - there's no security on power lines compared to the UK which at least has barbed wire around the towers to discourage tampering. Near where I live the water treatment facilities are basically open to the public unless you count flimsy chain link fences. And while a cyber attack is certainly possible, it takes a specialist to either cross net boundaries from the internet to the private proprietary network servicing the control mechanisms or a physical breach at the hardware level. Back in my government days none of the secured computing infrastructure even used IP addresses or any internet protocols - there wasn't any way to access from the internet until VPNs were established and even then you couldn't get to the command-control interfaces, only the data.

Later, as a contractor, I remember sitting in an underground nuclear-proof bunker looking at a poster in the data security area with a fully decked out SWAT guy completely armored up and a laser red dot just under the guys helmet with a caption that stated there's no such thing as absolute security - physical access to the computer room required passing through a double door "kill zone" with toxic gas if you got past the first door with an access card but you didn't pass the biometric ID check. Still, I got access to the computer room with an administrative-type escort that easily could've been compromised.

My point here is that although there is a credible threat of a "cyber 911", it's not as if the threat is at all likely, especially when there are much easier ways to breach security and engage in mayhem by an average person.
Wrabbit is correct, this is more about "stirring the pot" as we used to call it.

ganjoa


reply posted on 25-1-2013 @ 11:48 AM by opethPA
reply to post by SilentKoala



Which part of this statement is not true? "Napolitano said a "cyber 9/11" could happen "imminently" and that critical infrastructure - including water, electricity and gas - was very vulnerable to such a strike.

If you want to tell me that liberties are being taken with the people in many ways I won't disagree but I have no problem with anything in that line above as it's accurate.

A cyber attack could happen any day that could cause major issues to our infrastructure. That is an accurate threat assessment.

Also for people claiming this is something new , its not and the reality of it is since the first networked computers were involved in our infrastructure we have been at risk.
edit on 25-1-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)

Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Dumbing down reality
  Posted 5 days ago with 103 member flags
The 800 Pound Gorilla Everyone Ignores
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags
The Illusion of Choice and Truth
  Posted 10 days ago with 52 member flags
A chronical of the BANKSTER WARS
  Posted 7 days ago with 42 member flags
Conspiracy Theory:The Lost Episode
  Posted 4 days ago with 39 member flags
666, NWO, Aliens and You!
  Posted 13 days ago with 36 member flags