|
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."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2734095.stm
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.
Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38110-2003Feb6.html
Look also to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/international/europe/08BRIT.html?th
http://www.public-i.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0
Re: Debbies comments-US
Debbie,
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.
rfwhistle@hotmail.com
|
