The FBI thwarted a planned cyberattack on a children’s hospital in Boston that was to have been carried out by hackers sponsored by the Iranian government, FBI Director Christopher Wray said Wednesday. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/securi...ck-childrens-hospital-director-says-rcna31456 Children's hospital? That's a new low, even for the Iranian regime. In Wray's words, “one of the most despicable cyberattacks I’ve seen.” Cyberattacks are now widely used weapons. How do we define acceptable targets for cyberattacks, and where should the red lines be?
I don't think we could ever say that a cyberattack is acceptable. The question is how to respond to such a thing, since such an attack doesn't generally justify a military response. It's a shame what Trump did with Iran. Relations between our countries might have been much improved by now otherwise, disincentivizing such behavior on their part. I think the best 'weapon' we have is the influence we can wield as the world's top economy. Too often we fail to appreciate and properly employ our power and influence as a nation, in particular the potential for positive reinforcement the way we saw with the JCPOA, as opposed to the negative reinforcement we see with sanctions and the like.
It was an attack that could have caused the deaths of civilian children. The very definition of an atrocity! So, it's good that the FBI stopped them. But who thinks that they used illegal fact finding techniques and any purps are going to walk free?
Cyberattack is a very effective weapon. I wouldn't say about any weapon that it's "acceptable", but weapons exist and we have to deal with their existence the best we can. I'd say that a cyberattack on vulnerable civilian targets would justify a military response. The most important job of the government, at least in democratic countries, is to protect the citizens. I'm not talking about boots on the ground, of course. Not all hostile actions of a foreign government should trigger a full-blown war. I can't understand why would anyone think that Iran, after having repeatedly broken the international law generated by the legally binding Non Proliferation Treaty it signed and ratified, would respect another, not legally binding treaty on the same issue. I agree that leaving the JCPOA was a stupid, useless move. It undermined the credibility of future US administrations, even though the JCPOA was never legally binding for anyone involved. However, the JCPOA was then, as it is now, a toothless dog, and not leaving it wouldn't have made a difference in the long run.
I think the FBI likely had a hand in organizing the attack. Maybe not, but thats how they tend to operate, by finding and helping dissident folks willing to participate in problems for the FBI to 'prevent.'
Well it starts with monitoring the activities of groups to see if they pose a problem. Illegally of course. Then if they do pose a threat the race is on to obtain legal evidence for prosecution in legal law cases. At least that's what I'd do. Without legal evidence, Anybody that they scoop up while stopping in operation can go free because The FBI didn't go about it the right way.
And going after parents who Express unfavorable opinions in a school board meeting, yet they can't stop a school shooter who post plenty of red flags. They could not pour piss out of a boot if it came with an instruction manual limited to four letter words or less
That was Comey. Christopher Wray replaced Comey in 2017. No shenanigans, no Russiagate scandal for Wray.
Shenanigans are the hallmark of the FBI, over decades at least. Maybe you're right and Wray is one of the good guys there. I have no doubt there are a few, but they are a distinct minority.
