* Town rejects 'fake tree' phone mast - Cyber-Warfare Rules for Attacking Enemy Computers - Re: Debbies comments-US (9/2/03)

Thursday, 6 February, 2003, 17:03 GMT
Town rejects 'fake tree' phone mast

Anthony Lucas says the 'tree' masts do not look real

A picturesque Suffolk town has turned down planning permission for a mobile phone mast shaped like a mock dead tree. Detractors in Clare claimed the mast would be a blot on the landscape and could pose health risks.

A similar tree mast has already been built at nearby Hundon, where residents said the "tree" was not convincing.

Anthony Lucas said: "It doesn't look a bit like a tree; it's made of plastic and we originally thought it would be hidden down in a valley."

The Clare Society's Anna Moore said that any tower would be ugly and lobbied the St Edmundsbury Borough Council to reject plans for the mast.

She said: "If we allow one unattractive mast, then the next thing you know we'll have a McDonalds. "People should be able to get by without a mobile phone service and there are public phone boxes in the town."


Informant: Robert Riedlinger

Bush Orders Guidelines for Cyber-Warfare Rules for Attacking Enemy
Computers Prepared as U.S. Weighs Iraq Options

This news in the spanish press

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 7, 2003; Page A01

President Bush has signed a secret directive ordering the government to develop, for the first time, national-level guidance for determining when and how the United States would launch cyber-attacks against enemy computer networks, according to administration officials.

Similar to strategic doctrine that has guided the use of nuclear weapons since World War II, the cyber-warfare guidance would establish the rules under which the United States would penetrate and disrupt foreign computer systems.

The United States has never conducted a large-scale, strategic cyber-attack, according to several senior officials. But the Pentagon has stepped up development of cyber-weapons, envisioning a day when electrons might substitute for bombs and allow for more rapid and less bloody attacks on enemy targets. Instead of risking planes or troops, military planners imagine soldiers at computer terminals silently invading foreign networks to shut down radars, disable electrical facilities and disrupt phone services.

Bush's action highlights the administration's keen interest in pursuing a new form of weaponry that many specialists say has great potential for altering the means of waging war, but that until now has lacked presidential rules for deciding the circumstances under which such attacks would be launched, who should authorize and conduct them and what targets would be considered legitimate.

"We have capabilities, we have organizations; we do not yet have an elaborated strategy, doctrine, procedures," said Richard A. Clarke, who last week resigned as special adviser to the president on cyberspace security.

Bush signed the order, known as National Security Presidential Directive 16, last July but it has not been disclosed publicly until now. The guidance is being prepared amid speculation that the Pentagon is considering some offensive computer operations against Iraq if the president decides to go to war over Baghdad's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons development programs.

"Whatever might happen in Iraq, you can be assured that all the appropriate approval mechanisms for cyber-operations would be followed," said an administration official who declined to confirm or deny whether such planning was underway.

Despite months of discussions involving principally the Pentagon, CIA, FBI and National Security Agency, officials say a number of issues remain far from resolved. "There's been an initial step by the president to say we need to establish broad guidelines," a senior administration official said. "We're trying to be thorough and thoughtful about this. I expect the process will end in another directive, the first of its kind in this area, setting the foundation."

The current state of planning for cyber-warfare has frequently been likened to the early years following the invention of the atomic bomb more than a half-century ago, when thinking about how to wage nuclear war lagged the ability to launch one.

The full extent of the U.S. cyber-arsenal is among the most tightly held national security secrets, even more guarded than nuclear capabilities. Because of secrecy concerns, many of the programs remain known only to strictly compartmented groups, a situation that in the past has inhibited the drafting of general policy and specific rules of engagement.

In a first move last month to consult with experts from outside government, White House officials helped arrange a meeting at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that attracted about 50 participants from academia and industry as well as government. But a number of participants expressed reservations about the United States engaging in cyber-attacks, arguing that the United States' own enormous dependence on computer networks makes it highly vulnerable to counterattack.

"There's a lot of inhibition over doing it," said Harvey M. Sapolsky, an MIT professor who hosted the Jan. 22 session. "A lot of institutions and people are worried about becoming subject to the same kinds of attack in reverse."

Government officials involved in drafting the new policy insist they are proceeding cautiously, recognizing the risks of crossing the threshold into cyber-warfare and acknowledging the difficulties still inherent in trying to model how a major cyber-attack might play out. By penetrating computer systems that control the communications, transportation, energy and other basic services in a country, cyber-weapons can have seriouscascading effects, disrupting not only military operations but civilian life.

"There are questions about collateral damage," Clarke said. As an example, he cited the possibility that a computer attack on an electric power grid, intended to pull the plug on military facilities, might end up turning off electricity to hospitals on the same network.

"There also is an issue, frankly, that's similar to the strategic nuclear issue which is: Do you ever want to do it? Do you want to legitimize that kind of weaponry?" Clarke added.


Look also to:

Re: Debbies comments-US


Your comments are valid, thankyou. My bumps are not painful to touch although they do get itchy from time to time. They are predominately on the right side of my neck (I'm right handed). The bumps on your hands sounds similar to what I get in a mild case from time to time. I find these little blisters come up, I pop them then they go. They are usually at the tips of my finger and it's usually on my right hand (the one I hold my mobile phone with) It sounds as though you have an extreme case of this as opposed to myself. We do however share similar symptoms which is good/bad to know that I'm not the only 1 out there with this. Have you ever had a diagnosis from the doctor without mentioning EMF. It would be interesting to see what you get told. If you like I can include some pictures of my little bumps if you email me direct.

Please retain my email address for your future reference.


Citizens' Initiative Omega

If you want our (normally daily) Newsletter in German, sometimes partially in English, please go to


Note: Citizens' Initiative Omega works on non-profit base. Our messages are the result of many hours of daily research, roundup and editing. If you would like to support our activity for people around the world with a donation or an aid fund unique or on regular base, you can do it here https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=Star.Mail%40t-

If you have informations which you would like to share with your friends and colleges around the world and which are from common interest, please send us this informations, we will send them out. Thank you.

Disclaimer:  The informations contained in our EMF-Omega-News are derived from sources, which we believe to be accurate but is not guaranteed.

Citizens' Initiative Omega is not responsible for any errors or omissions and disclaims any liability incurred as a consequence of any of the contents of this resources.