Doug Kanter wrote:

Perhaps you missed the excellent Frontline (PBS) show about 8 months ago, in
which they discussed how vulnerable our infrastructure is to computer
attacks.

The same people who told us that the whole thing would shut down on Jan
1st 2000 at 12:00 Am.

For viewers who just don't get it, they emphasized that there are
quite a few utilities whose products (water, electricity, gas) can no longer
be controlled quickly by manually turning valves or throwing switches. They
interviewed people whose job it was to purposely attack computer systems.
They succeeded more often than they would've liked.

I've been hearing this for many years. I can't believe that these
utility companies have not invested in security systems (firewalls,
encryption, virus scanning etc.), to make the possibility less likely.
Also, some former "hackers" are now making tons of money consulting
security solutions to protect companies from other hackers.


So, don't assume anything about the cause of ANY infrastructure failure
until all the facts are in.

It sounds like you guys already are. Chuck seems to think the terrorism
angle is the most likely, and from the sounds of it, you do too.

The bottom line is, absent of evidence to the contrary, assume it was a
simple breakdown in infrastructure. It's not responsible for us to
assume the worst until proven otherwise.

Dave

Gould 0738 wrote:

Of course Al Qaida would love to say they caused the blackout. They are
terrorists and
need to have Americans in constant fear of them.

Regardless of whatever press Al Qaida puts out only a fool would believe they
were
responsible for the blackout.

Clear minded folks know the outage was due to mechanical failures and lack of
adequate
response by the engineers at several utility sites, most significantly sites
in Ohio
managed by First Energy.

But the libs would like you to believe otherwise as their only MO is to lay
as much
blame on GWB for anything and everything that goes wrong. They have a group
of
extremely weak candidates who bring nothing to the table this coming
election. Their
only chance of winning is to take down GWB regardless of the cost.

Pathetic.

Well, since this is your 4th of 5th post since we agreed not to harrass one
another I can assume that's off?

Have you considered that nobody has more to gain from a public perception that
terrorists caused the blackout than GWB and his administration? Why would
"libs" spread this rumor? Most of the truly objectionable policies put forward
by Bush and his group have been advanced under the excuse of "fighting
terrorism." The more terrorism the public perceives, the easier it will be to
pass Patriot Acts III, IV, V, VI, and so forth.

No liberal that I know is spreading the rumor that terrorists caused the
outage.
My own statement was the arrest of two Pakistani's on the do-not-fly list
trying to pay cash for one-way tickets to NYC the day before was most likely a
coincidence.

I have never heard anybody of any political bent blame GWB for the blackout.
YMMV

Given the aging electrical infrastructure and the high AC loads in the summer,
it's a wonder we haven't had more blackouts in the past.

Whew! I take back my earlier speculation. It did seem that you were
falling into the "terrorists caused the blackout" conspiracy camp.

Glad you cleared that up.

BTW, there have been "news" articles, from the typical propagandists,
who try to spin this blackout as yet another failure of the Bush
administration. It's truly pathetic, when you consider the depths that
these same people will go to attempt to sling mud at GWB. The only thing
they are succeeding in doing, is tarnishing their own credibility.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

Perhaps you missed the excellent Frontline (PBS) show about 8 months
ago, in
which they discussed how vulnerable our infrastructure is to computer
attacks.

The same people who told us that the whole thing would shut down on Jan
1st 2000 at 12:00 Am.


Same people? Which ones, Dave? Names, please. If a person says "I was hired
to hack into Niagara Mohawk's system and I did it in 8 hours, undetected",
and he says this while in front of a TV camera, sitting in a NYMO facility
with the CEO next to him, please give us a Dave Hall reason to doubt what
the guy is saying.

Please cleanse your response of any nonsense related to the "millennium
bug".


For viewers who just don't get it, they emphasized that there are
quite a few utilities whose products (water, electricity, gas) can no
longer
be controlled quickly by manually turning valves or throwing switches.
They
interviewed people whose job it was to purposely attack computer
systems.
They succeeded more often than they would've liked.

I've been hearing this for many years. I can't believe that these
utility companies have not invested in security systems (firewalls,
encryption, virus scanning etc.), to make the possibility less likely.
Also, some former "hackers" are now making tons of money consulting
security solutions to protect companies from other hackers.

"I can't believe..." - that's the key phrase in your response. You live a
life based on faith. If it only affects you, fine. But, the fact is that
despite security measures, hackers WERE able to access utility systems. In
the same Frontline show, a group of programmers were able to break into DOD
systems and place an annoying message on some rather important workstations.



So, don't assume anything about the cause of ANY infrastructure failure
until all the facts are in.

It sounds like you guys already are. Chuck seems to think the terrorism
angle is the most likely, and from the sounds of it, you do too.

The bottom line is, absent of evidence to the contrary, assume it was a
simple breakdown in infrastructure. It's not responsible for us to
assume the worst until proven otherwise.


I am assuming nothing about the blackout. But, it appears YOU are assuming
that our enemies, for one reason or another, do not have the skills to do
what white hackers from around here can do.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


BTW, there have been "news" articles, from the typical propagandists,
who try to spin this blackout as yet another failure of the Bush
administration.

I'd love to see those articles. Got any?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Of course Al Qaida would love to say they caused the blackout. They are
terrorists and
need to have Americans in constant fear of them.

Regardless of whatever press Al Qaida puts out only a fool would believe they
were
responsible for the blackout.

Clear minded folks know the outage was due to mechanical failures and lack of
adequate
response by the engineers at several utility sites, most significantly sites
in Ohio
managed by First Energy.

But the libs would like you to believe otherwise as their only MO is to lay
as much
blame on GWB for anything and everything that goes wrong. They have a group
of
extremely weak candidates who bring nothing to the table this coming
election. Their
only chance of winning is to take down GWB regardless of the cost.

Pathetic.


Well, since this is your 4th of 5th post since we agreed not to harrass one
another I can assume that's off?



I promised not to respond to you...and I have not. You are the one who now has broken
the promise by responding to my post. I knew you were not a man of his word.

A serious question: Do you actually believe that this blackout WAS the
result of terrorism or, as has been suggested, a breakdown of
infrastructure?

Dave


I seriously believe that if I was Al Quaida, I'd try to take credit for every
bit of bad news in the US from forest fires in the NW to seasonal outbreaks of
the Hong Kong flu.

I also believe that if I were in charge of such decisions in the government,
I'd make darn sure the terrorists never got credit for diddly squat- whether
they did it or not. Even take 9-11 for example: the govt could have portrayed
those tragic events as the deranged act of a group of
criminal extremists, and who would have been able to dispute it? (Surgically
remove the head of the snake if vengeance is required or desired). Instead we
get maybe WW III, and the only difference is how we choose to react.

Chuck - If GWB and his administration can gain so much from the public
perception you speak of, and if, as you and many others have continuously
accused, GWB and his administration are such horrendous liars, then WHY did
he/they not make the claims you speak of?

This government, like all governments before it and all that will follow, does
its best to manipulate information to its own advantage. To understand why some
information is manipulated in a particular manner and other information is not,
cannot be easily guessed by outsiders like you and I.


If the USA can steal all the Iraqi oil from under the watchful eyes of the
whole
entire world, then blaming the electrical outage on terrorist activity should
be
a snap.

Chuck,
Are you suggesting that the government should have kept the reason for 911
secret from it's citizens?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
A serious question: Do you actually believe that this blackout WAS the
result of terrorism or, as has been suggested, a breakdown of
infrastructure?

Dave


I seriously believe that if I was Al Quaida, I'd try to take credit for
every
bit of bad news in the US from forest fires in the NW to seasonal
outbreaks of
the Hong Kong flu.

I also believe that if I were in charge of such decisions in the
government,
I'd make darn sure the terrorists never got credit for diddly squat-
whether
they did it or not. Even take 9-11 for example: the govt could have
portrayed
those tragic events as the deranged act of a group of
criminal extremists, and who would have been able to dispute it?
(Surgically
remove the head of the snake if vengeance is required or desired). Instead
we
get maybe WW III, and the only difference is how we choose to react.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
A serious question: Do you actually believe that this blackout WAS the
result of terrorism or, as has been suggested, a breakdown of
infrastructure?

Dave


I seriously believe that if I was Al Quaida, I'd try to take credit for
every
bit of bad news in the US from forest fires in the NW to seasonal
outbreaks of
the Hong Kong flu.

I also believe that if I were in charge of such decisions in the
government,
I'd make darn sure the terrorists never got credit for diddly squat-
whether
they did it or not. Even take 9-11 for example: the govt could have
portrayed
those tragic events as the deranged act of a group of
criminal extremists, and who would have been able to dispute it?
(Surgically
remove the head of the snake if vengeance is required or desired). Instead
we
get maybe WW III, and the only difference is how we choose to react.



You'd better get ready to rewrite that first paragraph, Chuck. Too many fine
points of grammar for this audience.

Chuck,
Are you suggesting that the government should have kept the reason for 911
secret from it's citizens?

Those most directly responsible for 9-11 died with their victims. That is a
provable truth. They have co-conspirators who lived, and those co-conspirators
need to be brought to justice.

It is as rational to argue that it was a deranged act of criminal extremists as
it is to argue that we needed to completely revamp our foreign policy to
include first strike preemption throughout the world as a result of the
tragedy. We have used 9-11 to take out Afghanistan. In the last few days before
the actual invasion, Bush beat the 9-11 drum over Iraq. How many more wars and
invasions will we be able to justify over 9-11?

If it were up to me, we would have hunted down Osama Bin Ladin as an
individual, international, criminal terrorist *******. We would have not rested
until he was brought to justice, (rather than after we secured the pipeline
right of way from the Caspain Sea). We practically have the capacity to count
the hair on a man's head from outer space. How hard can it be to find an entire
human being, provided we are truly dedicated to look for him?

*People* can be criminals, not countries or cultures. We destroy countries,
dismantle governments, damage cultures, and yet the friggin ciminals (OBL, SH,
etc) keep on truckin. At what point do we consider that if we keep on doing
what we've been doing so far, we'll just keep on getting what we've
already got? A handful of air. No WMD, no OBL, no SH. :-(

Bring the *criminals* to justice. Few on the left would disagree with such a
program, IMO. Anybody who would use the hunt for the criminals as cover for
other purposes is less than forthright, to put it kindly.

If our leaders are so incompetant that they cannot locate people so high
profile as OBL and SH, they should be replaced. If they are so devious that
they deprioritize locating these criminals, they should be replaced.

Maybe it boils down to "which" lie is told to the American people. And neither
is really acceptable. If we continue to knock off a string of governments and
occupy mid east countries without catching the head of the snake, our problems
will become larger and larger.

IMO, we should bring the criminals to justice and that would solve more than
occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.