RE: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection

[Al Rowland]

To reinforce a dissenting opinion, And your explanation accounts for
suicide bombers how? I would think a smoking hole in the ground
containing a train or whatever, particularly if lose of life is
involved, would be much more appealing to the motivations of most
terrorists than a couple of computers with blue screens of death. I
would think 9-11 would provide a compelling example of current terrorist
practice.

Just my 2¢

Best regards,
_________________________
Alan Rowland

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Dave Israel
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 1:29 PM
To: alex@yuriev.com
Cc: Dave Israel; sgorman1@gmu.edu; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection



On 9/5/2002 at 16:01:02 -0400, alex@yuriev.com said:
> > 
> > The thing is, the major cuts are not "attacks;" the backhoe 
> > operators aren't gunning for our fiber (no matter how much it seems 
> > like they are).  If I wanted to disrupt traffic, intentionally and 
> > maliciously, I would not derail a train into a fiber path.  Doing so

> > would be very difficult, and the legal ramifications (murder, 
> > destruction of property, etc, etc) are quite clear and severe.  
> > However, if I ping-bomb you from a thousand "0wn3d" PCs on cable 
> > modems, I never had to leave my parents' basement, I'm harder to 
> > trace by normal police methods, and the question of which laws that 
> > can be applied to me is less clear.
> 
> This fails to address how this affects someone who has no problem with

> legal ramfications - i.e. a terrorist.

Even a terrorist will tend towards things that allow him to continue to
be a terrorist.  If I can do X amount of damage, and get caught, or do X
amount of damage, and not get caught, then he'll do the second. Even a
terrorist that will die to kill will probably not die to inconvenience.