Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kerbaal t1_j4gilcl wrote

As an American citizen, I would support prosecuting everyone involved under our criminal hacking laws. This was a crime.

−46

CupResponsible797 t1_j4gnnqs wrote

Why do you think this was a crime? And more importantly, why do you think this was wrong? Would the world have been a better place without Stuxnet and the setbacks it caused for the Iranian nuclear program?

32

ChulaK t1_j4h3ifr wrote

>Would the world have been a better place without Stuxnet

Considering the code is now out in the open, is being reverse engineered, and now being repurposed for other attacks? There's already been other "strains" of Stuxnet, such as Duqu, so much so that it was nearly identical.

If the gun is the great equalizer because men, women, and children can use it to attack or defend regardless of physical strength, then this virus is also an equalizer. A much poorer nation now has the ability to attack or defend regardless of strength and numbers of their military war machines.

Sure it was used to hamper Iran's nuclear program, but in doing so we released an equally deadly weapon that can bring down entire nations. So I guess pick your poison?

Releasing Stuxnet was pretty much giving everyone a "nuclear weapon." There's no longer a nuclear deterrence but a viral deterrence. Launching cyber attacks assures mutual destruction.

−4

CupResponsible797 t1_j4h6xui wrote

>Considering the code is now out in the open, is being reverse engineered, and now being repurposed for other attacks?

It's 2023, Stuxnet has been out in the wild since at least the 2010. What other attacks materialized from Stuxnet being reverse engineered?

Duqu isn't a Stuxnet "strain", it's an entirely separate piece of malware developed by some of the people involved in the creation of Stuxnet.

> If the gun is the great equalizer because men, women, and children can use it to attack or defend regardless of physical strength, then this virus is also an equalizer.

Not really, the exploits get fixed as soon as they become public knowledge. Stuxnet had already been fired, and the exploits burned. All that was left was a spent cartridge.

>Releasing Stuxnet was pretty much giving everyone a "nuclear weapon." There's no longer a nuclear deterrence but a viral deterrence. Launching cyber attacks assures mutual destruction.

This is a weird take. The "dangerous" parts of Stuxnet became irrelevant as soon as it's existence became public knowledge, Microsoft issued patches and Stuxnet was rapidly reduced to nothing but a curiosity.

How do you "patch" nuclear weapons?

Stuxnet isn't the nuke-like capability here, it's the team of people sitting in Fort Meade ensuring a steady supply of 0days.

15

Carbon_60 t1_j4hvgv3 wrote

Tell me you don't understand how malware and patches work without telling me

8

ClemDev t1_j4jfo2n wrote

If it’s out in the open, they wouldn’t need to reverse engineer it. You speak a lot for someone who says nothing of value.

5

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hl9zo wrote

>And more importantly, why do you think this was wrong?

Because a crime is still a crime. You can't kill a murderer just because it would make the world maybe a better place.

Actually, backwards nutters in the US (and Iran haha) still believe in the death penalty so

−5

hawkxp71 t1_j4j56c4 wrote

Sure you can. Armies kill each other all the time.

Yes it's an act of war, but it is not criminal under us code.

2

TibotPhinaut t1_j4katqn wrote

And war is the very foundation of the US, so everything is good

2

hawkxp71 t1_j4kdl52 wrote

Why are you excusing the Dutch, German, British and Israeli foundations?

1

TibotPhinaut t1_j4kfzta wrote

I don't even know what you are trying to say at this point

2

CupResponsible797 t1_j4hmduv wrote

>Because a crime is still a crime. You can't kill a murderer just because it would make the world maybe a better place.

Yes, but from a legal point of view, this simply wasn't a crime.

It's pointless to debate that, so the more interesting debate to be had is whether or not it was the right thing to do.

0

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hn3yy wrote

>so the more interesting debate to be had is whether or not it was the right thing to do.

Yea just like killing a murderer would be...if you're morally bankrupt

0

CupResponsible797 t1_j4hni0f wrote

So, what you're saying is that only a morally bankrupt person would argue that Stuxnet was the right thing to do?

3

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hoon8 wrote

Look, you grew up thinking dropping an atom bomb on Japan and marching into Iraq on false pretences was warranted and necessary. I don't think we need to have this conversation.

−4

CupResponsible797 t1_j4hp2t0 wrote

I grew up in Eastern Europe you imbecile.

But yes indeed, it is an utter waste of time to attempt to have a reasonable conversation with the likes of you.

What a wonderful world it would be if you got your way and everybody had nuclear weapons.

9

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hqxtd wrote

If nuclear weapons are so bad why doesn't the US give up theirs?

0

ChuckRocksEh t1_j4hu9kq wrote

Ah, the old “I don’t wanna bicker about me being wrong so I’m goin got change the arguement” arguement.

7

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hvdcg wrote

The guy isn't from EE, check his profile lol

0

CupResponsible797 t1_j4hxx9t wrote

Where do you think I am from? My comment history makes it pretty clear that I live in the UK, the way I write should make it more than obvious that I'm not a native English speaker.

Anyway, I'm a UA/RO dual national.

3

ChuckRocksEh t1_j4i0xzf wrote

This guy paints a picture of the US dropping nukes as a bad thing. Numbers alone suggest that’s incorrect, 2 million Japanese died in WW2, the whole world lost 3% of people. Scores of people. If the US hadn’t dropped the bombs untold numbers of people would have died. The US didn’t roar into WW2 they were pulled in after trying to stay out. This guys a fuckin idiot.

3

CupResponsible797 t1_j4i2k55 wrote

I don't think you're entirely wrong, but there exists a strong counterpoint to this.

Many argue that Japan did not capitulate because of the nukes, Japan capitulated because Soviet Union entered the war.

3

ChuckRocksEh t1_j4i45ie wrote

Oh man, I agree a web diagram could go in a thousand directions but we only know what happened because of what happened.

2

ChuckRocksEh t1_j4hxlty wrote

I couldn’t care less where either of you are from. You’re argument is garbage.

2

charleswj t1_j4huibz wrote

"I believe guns are bad. Therefore, even though there's someone pointing theirs at me right now, I will immediately disarm."

1

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hvav3 wrote

Now think through the same argument from a non US perspective, you'd be surprised how foolish you look

2

Carbon_60 t1_j4hvsvx wrote

Total outside perspective here. No bone in the comment thread.

You look like the foolish one.

And I won't be replying to whatever foolish response you have.

2

CupResponsible797 t1_j4hykd2 wrote

I think most people can agree that fewer people with nukes is better than more people with nukes.

More people with nukes means more nuke usage, everyone having nukes means rather frequent nuke usage.

I personally would strongly prefer to live in a world without nukes. I can't have that, so I'll be happy with the less maximalist goal of nobody using nukes. The most realistic way to achieve that is for less people to have nukes.

2

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hzyvs wrote

So the US should give up theirs, right?

2

CupResponsible797 t1_j4i05x9 wrote

In an ideal world, of course.

But in the end, that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a good thing that US is working against nuclear proliferation.

2

charleswj t1_j4kermt wrote

Yes, and let Russia and the UK and France and Israel and India and Pakistan and North Korea keep theirs because they'll surely disarm right after us

1

TibotPhinaut t1_j4kfy1k wrote

So as long as all of those don't give them up Iran shouldn't either. Right?

0

charleswj t1_j4kg73a wrote

Feel free to play your false equivalence game by yourself

1

Carbon_60 t1_j4hw2o4 wrote

Is a German really throwing rocks?

Glass houses and such

3

TibotPhinaut t1_j4hy5wr wrote

The only nation to own up to it's past in an upstanding way? Yea that would be us

2

PhillipLlerenas t1_j4j6xjq wrote

Germans did a masterful work of protecting its Nazis for decades after World War II.

And when you did bring them to trial you were amazing at giving them 3-5 years in prison for murdering hundreds of thousands of Jews.

Sit down.

2

TibotPhinaut t1_j4kax9q wrote

How's all that prosecution of US war crimes in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq coming along?

1

PhillipLlerenas t1_j4kvkgu wrote

Let’s ask Walter (Ernst) Burmeister, SS man who operated gas vans at Chelmno extermination camp and helped kill 152,000 Jews and was sentenced to a leisurely 3 and a half years in prison by a German court in Bonn:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chełmno_trials

Or SS-Unterscharführer Gustav Münzberger, gas chamber operator at Treblinka, who helped murder 800,000 Jews and was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. Don’t worry tho….he served six years and was released on good behavior in 1971:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Münzberger

If I was a mass murdering anti semite I know exactly where in the planet I’d like to be after the war.

1

CupResponsible797 t1_j4lcln9 wrote

As well as you'd expect any war crimes prosecutions to go. The laws of war are not very strict to begin with, gathering evidence tends to be extremely challenging. Even locating known witnesses in such countries for interviews is a tremendously difficult task.

There have been more than a hundred people court-martialed in the US over war crimes during the conflicts you mention.

Some of the famous cases that come to mind were almost certainly not war crimes. Perhaps they should be, but according to the laws of war, they weren't.

1

Carbon_60 t1_j4hz9lr wrote

Did your collective remorse undie multi millions of people? I'm glad you're sad about it but your still being an asshat

Your country perpetrated the 2 worst wars the planet has ever seen and your like "Iraq! Hiroshima/Nagasaki!" No one would have died via atomic bomb in ww2 if you guys hadn't started it

1

TibotPhinaut t1_j4i0d06 wrote

The mental reasoning of a 14 year old at work, fascinating

1

Carbon_60 t1_j4i0stf wrote

Ahhh yes. The pillar of a good argument right here.

3

ClemDev t1_j4jg5i0 wrote

Well you do also have the worst past and we had to beat your ass back into your box twice so it would be hard to try and deny it. Germany still acts like a puppy that shit on the couch in world politics. You’re all scared to catch your own reflection in the mirror.

−1

kerbaal t1_j4gtozw wrote

It was unauthorized access to computer devices, it was intentional destruction.

Iran owns their land, they own their uranium, they have every right to develop nuclear power. I really do think its the height of arrogance that we should be screwing with them when us screwing with them created the regime that has existed for the past 45 years.

−17

CupResponsible797 t1_j4guo06 wrote

In the same vein you presumably believe that the US should refrain from all foreign intelligence activities, right? This seems like a horribly naïve take.

> It was unauthorized access to computer devices, it was intentional destruction.

DoD is obviously not bound by these laws, otherwise just about everything they do would be criminal.

Keep in mind that the alternative to Stuxnet was a pre-emptive strike by Israel, the US worked hard to avoid that.

12

UsecMyNuts t1_j4h3ujw wrote

>it was unauthorised access to computer devices

In an attempt to stop a terrorist state getting nuclear weapons.

Im sure your cat videos and micro dick pics are much more important than nuclear attacks.

5

kerbaal t1_j4k8m40 wrote

> In an attempt to stop a terrorist state getting nuclear weapons.

also known as refining their own ore for nuclear power. I have seen no evidence other than the claims of mealy mouthed politicians that they had a weapons program at that time.

2

DarthPutler t1_j4gt7xx wrote

Because Iran is entitled to nukes as much as Israel, a literal apartheid state, is

−20

CupResponsible797 t1_j4gtxo4 wrote

Because Israel unfortunately has nuclear weapons, the US should not seek to prevent other states from getting them? How do you imagine that policy leading to a positive outcome?

In the end everybody would have nuclear weapons, leading to at least semi-regular use.

3

Fatal_Taco t1_j4ha4aj wrote

Good luck trying to bring literal above-the-law state actors of Israel and the US to court....

2

kerbaal t1_j4k8vj7 wrote

I don't expect it to happen; concepts of justice like that everyone is equal under the law and that the law exists to restrict the government as much as it does us are not popular with people who only want us to be a country of laws when its convenient for them.

1

CupResponsible797 t1_j4lad9r wrote

> concepts of [...] and that the law exists to restrict the government as much as it does us

Such concept has literally never existed. Sovereign immunity on the other hand is an ages-old legal concept.

You're veering deep into sovereign citizen loony territory by even suggesting this.

1

kerbaal t1_j4mgctx wrote

> Such concept has literally never existed

Sure if you ignore the concept of rule of law or the very common phrase "nation of laws, not a nation of men".

> Sovereign immunity on the other hand is an ages-old legal concept.

And one that deserves to be nothing more than a footnote in the history of bad ideas that only ever served the people in power to the detriment of the people that they were supposed to be serving.

> You're veering deep into sovereign citizen loony territory by even suggesting this.

Not even close; I am veering into the concept of government as a public service, for the people and by the people. The whole point of a constitution is that government authority shouldn't be absolute ever again.

1

CupResponsible797 t1_j4mizvh wrote

>Sure if you ignore the concept of rule of law or the very common phrase "nation of laws, not a nation of men".

Those do not mean what you think they mean.

These concepts are generally understood to mean that all members of society are considered equally subject to legal codes and processes, but the state is explicitly not a member of society.

>And one that deserves to be nothing more than a footnote in the history of bad ideas that only ever served the people in power to the detriment of the people that they were supposed to be serving.

There's a reason it has survived everywhere in the world for thousands of years, sovereign immunity is simply necessary for states to conduct their duties.

1

Raudskeggr t1_j4ht8k3 wrote

Whatever. Anything that keeps nuclear weapons out of the hands of the worlds biggest state sponsor of terrorism is a net positive to me.

2

kerbaal t1_j4k8j39 wrote

We already have nuclear weapons in the US.

0