How Long, Oh Lord....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathrine Lowther
  • Start date Start date
C

Cathrine Lowther

....how long will this vxers tiff go on? Normally, my little server is
passed by -- well, except for old copies of KLEZ that turn up every now
and then. Now between Trend(server)and F-Prot we're dealing with a
couple dozen Netsky attachments daily. Not that I am likely to click
them, or, for that matter, that they take much effort to deal with, but
it is beginning to be irritating.

Any idea how long this will go on? Surely these folk are being foolish
to be so public, when the laws are getting so tight about making and
propagating malware(s).....

Just curious

The Old Broad
 
Cathrine Lowther said:
...how long will this vxers tiff go on? Normally, my little server is
passed by -- well, except for old copies of KLEZ that turn up every now
and then. Now between Trend(server)and F-Prot we're dealing with a
couple dozen Netsky attachments daily. Not that I am likely to click
them, or, for that matter, that they take much effort to deal with, but
it is beginning to be irritating.

Any idea how long this will go on? Surely these folk are being foolish
to be so public, when the laws are getting so tight about making and
propagating malware(s).....
Click to expand...

It will continue until *WE ALL* contact our Senators and Representatives and
get them to declare virus attacks and the like as attacks against our
country's infrastructure. To me it's the same as throwing LSD into the
public water supply. It's not funny, it's not clever, it's not nice and
it's not something that society should tolerate. I believe there should be
a mandatory 1 year jail term with no chance of early release. Subsequent
offenses should double the term.
 
William said:
It will continue until *WE ALL* contact our Senators and Representatives and
get them to declare virus attacks and the like as attacks against our
country's infrastructure. To me it's the same as throwing LSD into the
public water supply.
Click to expand...

The difference is that you cannot protect yourself from contaminated
water, but infected emails are easy to spot...
I believe there should be a mandatory 1 year jail term with
no chance of early release.
Click to expand...

That would be nice, but consider that law enforcement agencies are
already trying to catch some of the bad boys. You cannot go after all of
them. There are too many and they aren't easy to find.
 
Cathrine said:
...how long will this vxers tiff go on? Normally, my little server is
passed by -- well, except for old copies of KLEZ that turn up every now
and then. Now between Trend(server)and F-Prot we're dealing with a
couple dozen Netsky attachments daily. Not that I am likely to click
them, or, for that matter, that they take much effort to deal with, but
it is beginning to be irritating.

Any idea how long this will go on? Surely these folk are being foolish
to be so public, when the laws are getting so tight about making and
propagating malware(s).....

Just curious

The Old Broad
Click to expand...

We're too busy prosecuting another old broad (Martha), worrying about
who marries whom and trying to police the world to try to enforce laws
dealing with computer (property) crimes. Imagine, Republicans turning a
blind eye toward property crime. Who'd a thought...?
 
...how long will this vxers tiff go on? Normally, my little server is
passed by -- well, except for old copies of KLEZ that turn up every now
and then. Now between Trend(server)and F-Prot we're dealing with a
couple dozen Netsky attachments daily. Not that I am likely to click
them, or, for that matter, that they take much effort to deal with, but
it is beginning to be irritating.

Any idea how long this will go on? Surely these folk are being foolish
to be so public, when the laws are getting so tight about making and
propagating malware(s).....

Just curious

The Old Broad
Click to expand...
************************* REPLY SEPARATER **************************
It will go on as long as the infected systems are connected to the Internet.
Once the ball has started rolling, it is virtually impossible to stop it until
it has run it's course.

So if you know how to get the idiots to disinfect their machines or disconnect
from the Internet, please let us all know.
 
William said:
It will continue until *WE ALL* contact our Senators and Representatives and
get them to declare virus attacks and the like as attacks against our
country's infrastructure. To me it's the same as throwing LSD into the
public water supply.
Click to expand...

No it's not. You wouldn't have a clue in advance if I dumped a
truck-load of blotter into the public water supply. You certainly have a
clue when someone sends you an email attachment that's malicious. Or,
you should have a clue.

I think it's more like going up to a young child, holding out you hand
and offering him/her some chocolate. Except, it's not really chocolate;
it's chocolate ex-lax. Sure, the kid has probably been told not to
accept candy from strangers. But, you know, if just 5% of those kids
accept it anyway, what a hoot!

It's not funny, it's not clever, it's not nice and
it's not something that society should tolerate.
Click to expand...


You're absolutely right. And there are laws. It's that these crimes
aren't on our radar screen right now. There are too many other important
laws to enforce ;)

I believe there should be
a mandatory 1 year jail term with no chance of early release.
Click to expand...

Why not fine the ****ers? Hit 'em where it hurts. Jail's a bad idea, for
a number of reasons.

Subsequent
offenses should double the term.
Click to expand...
Double the fine.
 
Frederic said:
The difference is that you cannot protect yourself from contaminated
water, but infected emails are easy to spot...
Click to expand...

Right on Frederic..
That would be nice, but consider that law enforcement agencies are
already trying to catch some of the bad boys. You cannot go after all of
them. There are too many and they aren't easy to find.
Click to expand...

Harder to find than WMD's?
 
Frederic Bonroy said:
Virus writers exist, that's a fact. We don't know about WMDs. :-)
Click to expand...

Sadam used chem warfare to wipe out millions of his own people. Chem, like
bio and nukes, is a WMD. So, he has the capability to make WMD, although
the current inventory may not be full. Bio is even harder to find -- some
one held up a 5 lb bag of flour and said, "If this were antrax, it would be
enough to wipe out NYC." It's very easy to hide or destroy something the
size of a 5 lb bag.

This exposes a bit of paranoia that the press media have exploited. Trigger
words such as "Nukes" and "mass destruction" call up fears of Nagasaki and
Hiroshima where a 100,000 persons were wiped out in a few seconds, totally
out of control and without defense. That could happen, but the NBC weapons
which will be found in Iraq are much more likely to be _tactical_ in nature
rather than global, strategic in nature. Chem weapons are actually pretty
poor because the plume is very small and a little wind will disperse it
rapidly. Tactical nuclear wepons are the same -- mortar shells that make a
small number of troops ill, decreasing their effectiveness.

Bio weapons are bad. They are also the hardest to hide. And, equipment
suitable for making bio weapons has been capture. Worse, it is portable
and mounted on trucks so it can be moved around.
 
Sadam used chem warfare to wipe out millions of his own people.
Click to expand...

Supplied by the USA Government's own Donald Rumsfeld, Current USA
secretary of war, who encouraged his use of them to put down an American
inspired Kurdish revolution attempt at the end of the First Gulf war.
Can you say La Bahia de los Cochinos (Bay of Pigs) Cuba?
Chem, like
bio and nukes, is a WMD.
Click to expand...

No argument there.
So, he has the capability to make WMD,
Click to expand...

Whoa,
having the volition to use USA supplied WMD to squelch a domestic revolt
doesn't prove, or even suggest the capability to manufacture such
weapons.
although
the current inventory may not be full.
Click to expand...

Not by a long shot,
but that didn't silence lying Bush from making the claim,
nor Colin Powell from parroting it before the UN.
 
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:30:45 GMT, "William W. Plummer"
Sadam used chem warfare to wipe out millions of his own people. Chem, like
bio and nukes, is a WMD. So, he has the capability to make WMD, although
the current inventory may not be full.
Click to expand...

Um. That puts Germany in the same bag - after all, they produced and
deployed mustard gas in WWI and used Zyklon.B in-house in WWII.

It doesn't yay or nay the assertion that the Iraqi regime was renewing
WMD programs in the post-Storm era.
Tactical nuclear wepons are the same -- mortar shells that make a
small number of troops ill, decreasing their effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Tactical nukes have a significant tactical effect in terms of leveling
the playing field. The US's technological edge depends on electronics
and comms, which are disrupted by electronic noise that accompanies
nukes. An air-burst over home territory may not be seen as
provocative enough to warrant a nuclear counter-attack, but may force
US forces to engage on equal terms, i.e. low-tech "eyeball warfare".
Bio weapons are bad. They are also the hardest to hide. And, equipment
suitable for making bio weapons has been capture. Worse, it is portable
and mounted on trucks so it can be moved around.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's hard to distinguish genuine intent confounded by inaccurate
intelligence from hostile intent acting irrespective of intelligence.




-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Click to expand...
Trsut me, I won't make a mistake!
 
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:30:45 GMT, "William W. Plummer"
Tactical nuclear wepons are the same -- mortar shells that make a
small number of troops ill, decreasing their effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Speaking of making a small number of troops ill, the US left quite a
genetic legacy through the use of DU (Depleted Uranium) ammunition,
which may have come home as the "Gulf War Syndrome".

It could be that this recent Crusades II will leave more of a lasting
reason for hatred than Crusades I - after all, whatever the original
crusaders did, isn't still causing congenital malformations today.


-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Click to expand...
Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
 
cquirke (MVP Win9x) said:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:30:45 GMT, "William W. Plummer"


Speaking of making a small number of troops ill, the US left quite a
genetic legacy through the use of DU (Depleted Uranium) ammunition,
which may have come home as the "Gulf War Syndrome".

It could be that this recent Crusades II will leave more of a lasting
reason for hatred than Crusades I - after all, whatever the original
crusaders did, isn't still causing congenital malformations today.
Click to expand...

No, I don't believe that will happen. From my reading (sorry, can't quote
the reference) depleted uranium is actually LESS radioactive that the normal
rock and dirt that we live on. Also, DU shells are typically used in very
specific circumstances such as armor piercing. I know the 30 mm gun on A-10
warthogs fires $24,375 (65 * $375) per second of DU rounds. Plinking tanks
is a mission for the A-10.

Side note. DU rounds used to be made by Nuclear Metals Corp in West
Concord, MA, less than 10 miles from where I live. Sometime ago the word
"nuclear" triggered the fear mongers who conjured up images of mushroom
clouds centered on NMC. So NMC changed its name to Starmet Corp and all
the protest went away! It was that protest activity that spurred me to look
at just how much of a threat the product posed.
 
et.al.

I can stand it no longer (like Popeye).

You folks are having good sport bouncing this back and forth. But when will
someone actually take a reasoned stand and discuss the underlying issues?
(Well, now...)

First, it is a real-life consideration that all decisions made by everyone
are made with some degree of uncertainty. We live with uncertainty and only
exist because by-and-large we discover enough "truth" to make decisions that
don't have disastrous outcomes. Consider that those charged with making the
most influential decisions (i.e. that will affect the most people in the
most direct and serious way) are also presumed or provided with the most
information on which to make those decisions. And therein lies the problem.
It is possible that the amount of information provided makes matters even
worse, because ...
There is so much it is hard to select only those items that are relevant
["Aha, here in the 50,000 reports of possible terrorist actions is a mention
of using aircraft as missiles!!! Why didn't you act on that???"]
The motives of the sources of the information are unknown and may be
malicious
The suppliers of the information are themselves wrongly informed, but
supply the information anyway due to actual or felt pressures to do so
Malicious persons with private agendas supply malicious information
The persons making the decision may be selective (or maybe, have to be
selective) with regard to what information they use
And there are probably more reasons.

It is starting to look as though there were private, monetary, and malicious
reasons that personnel high in the structures of the U.N., France, and
Russia had reasons to support the Iraqi government. It may be that they had
much to gain from illegal activities diverting vast amounts of money from
the Oil for Food programs to their own use. [It's pretty clear the money
wasn't going for food and medicine.] This might account for the resistance
put up by those parties to support direct action against the government of
Iraq, both not to kill the cash cow, and to keep hidden things hidden. We
shall see with investigation, but might not know until it becomes historical
fodder (say) 50 years or so from now.

It is also the case that the U.S.A.'s policies over the years have placed
greater and lesser value on building information sources and
defensive/offensive weapons. These fluctuations make the decision process
all the harder because of the better or worse quality of what is ALWAYS
incomplete information.

It was nearly 11 years (yes, years) between the time the Iraqi government
signed agreements on leaving Kuwait which included a number of directives on
what they would do and not do with regard to weapons, weapon programs,
international activities, etc. I believe it was in the low hundreds. To the
best I can remember or determine, they did not comply with any of them.
After 11 years of confusion about what was actually going on in Iraq (made
worse by the game-playing of the Iraqi government itself) someone (hey, is
that Bush?) finally went to the limit of convincing enough people that it
was to our/their best advantage to remove the current Iraqi government and
replace it with ... well, something different anyway.

It was like turning over a rock to kill a nest of scorpions. They are small
and we can destroy them, but you get bitten in the process.

If one can grow up and disregard the personal attacks one can form better
opinions on the affair. Was Iraq a threat? Was it then time to do something?
If so, what? What will the result be? [I submit one never knows this, ever.
You guess, but ...] Who is really in control? Was the deeper problem of the
culture and religious history of the region misunderstood? [I'm betting most
people don't know the geo-political aspects of the Mideast region and how
the countries there were created and how Islam treats the whole issue of
"nationhood."]

The nature of diplomacy is that it is a lifetime study to get right. A bunch
of armchair pundits sitting around with partial (or no) information deciding
the issues of who was right, who was wrong, what should or shouldn't have
been or should be done, blah, blah, blah, and etc. drives me nuts. However,
that is the nature of democracy and our democratic republic dictates that
they get to elect representatives (with varying degrees of competence and
their own agendas) to make the final decisions of what will be done.

It will all work out, of course, since everything passes on and away, but it
can be uncomfortable getting from here to there.

I'm actually sorry to have gone on so long, and I know much of what I say
will be misunderstood, but this is my one post to your 50. Have a good day.
 
cquirke said:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:30:45 GMT, "William W. Plummer"




Speaking of making a small number of troops ill, the US left quite a
genetic legacy through the use of DU (Depleted Uranium) ammunition,
which may have come home as the "Gulf War Syndrome".

It could be that this recent Crusades II will leave more of a lasting
reason for hatred than Crusades I - after all, whatever the original
crusaders did, isn't still causing congenital malformations today.
Click to expand...

Cites for DU causing congenital malformations?

Cites for what the US did being worse than what Saddam did to his own
people?
 
Gary said:
et.al.

I can stand it no longer (like Popeye).

You folks are having good sport bouncing this back and forth. But when will
someone actually take a reasoned stand and discuss the underlying issues?
(Well, now...)
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Side note. DU rounds used to be made by Nuclear Metals Corp in West
Concord, MA, less than 10 miles from where I live. Sometime ago the word
"nuclear" triggered the fear mongers who conjured up images of mushroom
clouds centered on NMC. So NMC changed its name to Starmet Corp and all
the protest went away! It was that protest activity that spurred me to look
at just how much of a threat the product posed.
Click to expand...

That's why the old NMR dept is now the MRI dept in hospitals.
What used to be Nuclear Magnetic Resonance is now called Magnetic
Resonance Imaging for the same reasons.
And it didn't involve any ionizing radiation at all, the nuclear part
referred to the nucleus of atoms in a target mass within someone, and
the way they were pinged electromagnetically.
 
Offbreed said:
Cites for DU causing congenital malformations?
Click to expand...
You must be kidding to not know the sources regarding DU at this
point. If you take issue any of known reports, you should simply state
that.

You have heard of google.com right? Well, just type in "Depleted
Uranium" in the little box there. 187,000 pages are found. Many are
well researched and quite good reads. Guess how many vindicate using
DU? Or offer any evidence it IS safe? Rather than assuming the rest of
the world should have to prove someone else's technology IS NOT safe
to the satisfaction of the Rand Corporation or Raytheon?

Here are some common sources, both pro and anti-DU. Note that the long
term safety of inhaled DU-oxide dust is not addressed in ANY pro-DU
claims.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2970503.stm
http://www.ccnr.org/bertell_book.html
http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html#iraq5
http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_library/
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=507&archive=true
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ed+Uranium+site:www.democraticunderground.com
http://www.google.com/search?q=Depleted+Uranium
http://www.iaea.org/search97cgi/s97...ate=Iaea/iaeacvw_smpl.hts&collection=IaeaSite
http://www.ngwrc.org/Issues.cfm?NewsTopicID=8
http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/index.htm
http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/du/
Cites for what the US did being worse than what Saddam did to his own
people?
Click to expand...

First of all, the US and Europe helped put Saddam in power. Read some
Iraqi history if you want sources. You might start with Janes
International Defense Review in a good library. Second, we actively
supported and assisted Saddam during some of his most brutal periods.
Add up how many people have died in Iraq during US occupation, attack
or complicity. Don't forget the effects of being driven from homes,
ruined water supplies, and other peripheral destruction.

Now add up how many people died under Saddam alone with no outside
assistance, and you will have your answer.

Note: I have not taken or recommended a position on any of these
subjects.
 
Back
Top