Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Government Expanding To Counter Phony Cyberthreat

January 30, 2013 by  

Government Expanding To Counter Phony Cyberthreat

As government officials continue to drum up fears about the possibility of a looming “cyber-Pearl Harbor,” the Pentagon is working on plans to expand its cyber security force from 900 personnel to 4,900 troops and civilians.

The Cyber Command Unit is under the command of Gen. Keith Alexander, head of the government’s foreign and domestic spy force, the National Security Agency. Because the Cyber Command Unit operates side by side with the NSA, serious threats to Americans’ privacy are expected to result from the massive expansion of force.

Though officials continuously say that the United States faces threats of cyber attacks that could potentially cripple infrastructure, the reality is that the Nation is actually one of the world’s biggest perpetrator of cyber attacks against other countries and groups.

Columbia professor Misha Glenny explained in The New York Times last summer:

The United States has long been a commendable leader in combating the spread of malicious computer code, known as malware, that pranksters, criminals, intelligence services and terrorist organizations have been using to further their own ends. But by introducing such pernicious viruses as Stuxnet and Flame, America has severely undermined its moral and political credibility.

Cyber security experts say that the government is actually more interested in gaining the ability to spy on Americans’ online activities and expand a lucrative new leg of the military-industrial complex. In reality, “cyberthreat” is simply the new Red scare, Latin American tyrant, weapon of mass destruction or terrorist.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Government Expanding To Counter Phony Cyberthreat”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • http://yahoo Glen

    Big Brother is coming.

    • eddie47d

      Possibly but it could also be a way for our country to be taken down without a shot being fired.

  • Harold Olsen

    If there is a cyber-Pearl Harbor, it will come from the Obama regime. They’ll manufacture a crisis so they’ll have an excuse to control the Internet and restrict what is posted. They’ll do anything they can to put a stop to criticism of Obama and his Nazi regime.

    • Robert Smith

      Sort of like Bush blew up the Twin Towers?


      Pearl Harbor was tragicaly real.

      911 was tragicaly real.

      What would those who are objecting to being prepared for a cyber attack do when it happened? Blame Obama, that’s what.

      No matter what Obama isn’t going to get credit for being prudent in these dangerous times, but blame…


      • Bill

        [personal attack has been removed] The internet is the last vestage of a free market place and they want to tap into the cash flow.

        Someday you might grow up and learn that it is all about the money

      • Robert Smith

        “and they want to tap into the cash flow.”

        Tell me Bill, just how are they gonna do that?

        The FACT is that you can claim such, but it really has no basis in reality.


    • eddie47d

      Think Harold ! Why do you always agree with everything instead of investigating what is said? Between Sept of 2011 and 2012 there were 198 cyber attacks affecting US facilities. These would include water,energy,communications and transportation sectors. Are you concerned and do you care? There were exactly 20 people with the capabilities to respond to those attacks during that time period working with Cyber Security (ICS-CERT) . Six of those facilities were nuclear that were hacked into. These attacks I mentioned are only for that one year and don’t include private banks and oil companies etc.

      • TML

        Eddie47d says, “Between Sept of 2011 and 2012 there were 198 cyber attacks affecting US facilities. These would include water,energy,communications and transportation sectors. Are you concerned and do you care?”

        Seems to me that those facilities should have stronger cyber defense security, just as we are responsible for security on our own computers, rather than some overall government sponsored and controlled national system which would invade the privacy of citizens or attempt controlling or sensoring the internet.

      • WTS/JAY

        eddie: Between Sept of 2011 and 2012 there were 198 cyber attacks affecting US facilities. These would include water,energy,communications and transportation sectors.

        And you believe this because…you were told? You trust too much, i dare say.

      • Robert Smith

        “Seems to me that those facilities should have stronger cyber defense security, j”

        Once again let’s watch the right wing turn our security over to the 1% who are looting from the rest of us.


      • eddie47d

        Those 198 were government facilities whether local or national TML!

    • ibcamn

      Harold i was thinking the same thing,make a crisis so you can come swooping in and be the hero of the day!!he’s doing the same thing on the borders,going to make all the things he wants to come about in his time as king is correct.manufactured into the utopia he wants,CONTROL!i don’t see how some people can’t see this!his henchmen are working hard at thinking of ways to make his dreams come true!

    • mark

      No, Harold, there is a legitimate cyber threat from foreign nations and from domestic and foreign hackers as well. If Obama did nothing to deter this, and our country suffered a powerful, nationwide power outage or the collapse of vital defense capabilities or a financial collapse from shutting down all the banks and Wall Street firms’ computers, you would be among the first to accuse Obama of treason for not being prepared to stop such a catastrophic attack.

      • WTS/JAY

        mark: No, Harold, there is a legitimate cyber threat from foreign nations and from domestic and foreign hackers as well.

        You believe everything you here?…of course you do. Don’t throw your tin-foil-hat away just yet.

      • eddie47d

        WTS; That’s almost the exact opposite answer you gave me! LOL!

      • Robert Smith

        Are you really denying that there is a cyber threat from China, Iran, and others?

        There might even be a 13 year old who can get in if he is lucky and smart enough.

        Why do you refuse to recognize that?


      • WTS/JAY

        Robert: Are you really denying that there is a cyber threat from China, Iran, and others?

        Are you really suggesting that there is? Why would countries such as China and Iran be interested in hacking our systems? For what, pray tell? They have better things to do then to hack the systems of a banana-republic. If anything, it is we who are constantly hacking their systems, and waging war against them, considering they are not the least bit interested in our bullsh*t fiat-money. Oooo, watch out for the “boogey-man”! We, are the “boogey-man, Robert.

    • woodbutcher

      Dude the Nazi’s were far right fascist ! If you don’t believe me, Google Dictionary !

  • Alex Frazier

    We’re not going to escape this one. They push these bills one after another. You call up your reps and senators with each one. It gets voted down. Then another one gets proposed. They won’t be satisfied until they have control over the internet.

    They want to be able to shut down sites like this one. The spreading of information is a problem. They used to be able to simply control the news. That’s no longer adequate. To keep the citizens in the dark, it’s necessary to get a grip on the internet.

    Don’t expect the attempts to stop until they have succeeded.

    • Robert Smith

      From Alex: “They want to be able to shut down sites like this one”

      Really??????? Can you give us an example of ANY site that has been shut down by the United States Government so far?


    • Donna Collum

      these guys debate something they know nothing about when what they really need to be doing is going back to school and learning how to spell. china has already been caught hacking U.S. sites last year

  • rendarsmith

    It’s just like Skynet! It was activated to counter a cyberthreat then became the ultimate threat itself!

  • Don

    too bad the internet became the framework for everything. shut it down and our military would probly become very ineffective. whatta mess we put ourselves in.

  • Bill

    The governments BS is becoming so obvious. Anyone with half a lick of sense can see right through it

    Their real motivation is to have control over you

    • eddie47d

      Which foreign entity are you working for Bill in taking down our nation and private companies? You seem to be about as equally clueless!

  • randydutton

    The US if far behind what it needs to do in cyber security. As I wrote in my novel, The Carbon Trap, new malicious code and techniques exists to hack into banks and trading system, ‘smart buildings’, factories, and SCADA systems including the grid, power plants, and more recently newer automobiles, medical devices. and anything with UPnP (universal plug and play). The problem is multi-tiered. The penalties for committing cyber crime (and white collar crime) are not severe enough. We need to catch the criminals, not just deflect them to another target. People aren’t educated well enough to understand that nearly every piece of electronics they buy and use, is vulnerable. And our culture celebrates the criminal mind.

    There are reasons to fear what can happen. Sometimes paranoia is a good thing.

    • Robert Smith

      Did you used to be at Crystal City in VA?


  • Steve E

    Many people have anti virus software on their computers. I often wonder if the people who write the anti virus software are the very ones that write the viruses. I would keep them in business.

  • mark

    Why won’t Obama let our defences down and leave us totally vulnerable? Because he is a traitor. Why is Obama increasing our defences and killing more Muslim jihadists with his constant drone attacks? Because he is a traitor. Obvously, the guy can’t win. When he increases U.S. defences you attack him. When he cuts back on U.S. defences (see Bob Livingston’s article today on this site), you attack him. How convenient. Could it be this blog’s irrational anti-Obama bias is showing today? Mmmm.

    • WTS/JAY

      You are a walking contradiction, mark. Here is your response to Mr. Livingston wherein you support Obama’s decision to remove our southern defence mechanism, because, as you clearly stated, “who is going to invade us” “why do we need all the surveillance”? “i’m against government-surveillance” “i support less surveillance” On the other hand, you are convinced we have an invasion threat from cyber-space, and we need MORE government surveillance? You are a piece of work,mark!

      mark says January 30, 2013 at 2:09 pm: OK Bob, who is going to invade us from the South? Guatemala, Cuba, Honduras? Maybe the dying Chavez from Venezuela? What a ridiculous premise. We face no invasion threat from the South. And as for drugs that war is a long lost cause – another giant tax-spending boondoogle enriching lawyers, judges, prosecuters, police, and corporate prison-builders. This policy also infringes on people’s individual rights and makes criminals out of non-criminals. Alcohol is OK – even though it kills many more people than drugs – but drugs are verboten. By what right can the government do this – interfere with our individual rights to medicate ourselves as we see fit? I thought you supported this right?

      And you know this supposed military surveillance is simply a cover for spying on U.S. citizens. I can’t follow your arguments anymore. First you are against government surveillance, in this case you are in favor of it. You constantly call for our federal government to stop its interference in our lives and its ever mounting defense spending but here when they agree to do so, you criticize them? What gives? Any measure to cut back on our giant militarist/police complex has my complete support. I can’t wait until they cut more military spending in the sequester next month. The federal money-grabbers are killing us with their ludicrous spending projects on all this nonsense – and now you support them!

    • Donna Collum

      these guys debate something they know nothing about when what they really need to be doing is going back to school and learning how to spell. china has already been caught hacking U.S. sites last year

  • jeepman

    mark, eddie, Robert: you guys are the best! I just took a look at your posts on Bob’s article “Obama Shuts Down Southern Defense Mechanism, Opens South To Attack” where you were all in support of weakening our southern border surveillance by this administration. But, somehow you are inclined to jump to the defence of the administration’s increase of cyber security. Wow…I gotta hand to the democrat party propaganda machine you work for…clearly they found true devotees. Or, could it be you all sell your souls for cash per word? Yeah, that’s probably it…paid schills. Just remember that after the Revolution, the Loyalist Tories were not welcome in the newly freed country. And, don’t bother denying it, I really don’t care what any of you have to say.

    • WTS/JAY

      Modern liberalism is characterized by a set of beliefs that stand in such strong contradiction to what we know about human nature and society that some authors believe that a psychological assessment of this movement will give insights that cannot be gained by simply identifying its claims and demands. In this tradition, the Catholic reactionary Andy Nowicki has published a short book called The Psychology of Liberalism: Character Study of a Movement.

      It should be noted from the outset that the author does not have in mind what today would be called “classical liberalism,” although one could argue that all forms of liberalism have some beliefs in common (a point that he addresses at the end of the book). On the other hand, the author’s analysis does not just refer to those who self-identify as liberals, but to all those who (unconsciously) state their beliefs in the framework of liberalism, which includes most contemporary conservatives.

      Nowicki identifies the promotion of tolerance while excluding oneself from its requirements as the essence of the psychology of liberals. This is not a straightforward issue of hypocrisy because, in their own mind, they are the truly tolerant. This lack of recognition that they do not value diversity at all is what characterizes the liberal mind. “But should one point this out to liberals, one discovers to one’s perplexity that what is apparent to people of below-average intelligence is not necessarily so to a victim of “doublethink,” no matter how clever and well read the latter might be,” he writes.

      Liberals often counter that tolerance does not require “tolerance of the intolerant,” but then re-define tolerance in such a manner that tolerance requires conforming to liberal ideas. Such selective and circular reasoning constitutes modern liberalism.

      One thing that puzzles the writer is how liberals can persist in believing that they are an oppressed minority who speak “truth to power” when they are the status quo in the media, academia, public policy, etc. But as he correctly notes, progressives have to believe this or be faced with the uncomfortable fact that they are not fighting power but exercising it. And that their demands for tolerance are not demands for justice but commands to conform.

      Nowicki observes that liberals reject the doctrine of “Original Sin,” but only to resuscitate the doctrine in a secular and highly selective manner, where it seeks to induce guilt in people who belong to a certain groups (males, individuals of European descent, etc.) and place other groups beyond all criticism.

      Liberal guilt is concerned with abstractions; the “system” is to blame. Those who prosper under the system, the “privileged,” ought to feel guilty, even if they themselves have done nothing personally to oppress or tyrannize others. Liberal guilt, again, is corporate; it is no respecter of persons, but rather of groups. While original sin is applicable to everyone, liberal sin only taints those groups which it designates as “privileged.”

      Of course, many liberals themselves are part of the privileged. As Nowicki notes, the more prestigious the school, the more likely that it promotes a liberal outlook. These “limousine liberals” can hardly claim to be among the oppressed but they do see themselves as a vanguard for the oppressed. The problem is that their translation of the concerns of the oppressed are highly contestable.

      Feminists may claim to speak for women but most women reject feminism, labor unionists speak on behalf of the workers but many workers are not supportive of unions. Black community leaders justify and excuse violence that is condemned by many ordinary black people.

      Undeterred, the vanguard considers such objections as evidence of the degree that the victims are brainwashed to condone their own oppression, which produces a perfect, circular, self-justification of liberalism.


      • woodbutcher

        Are you sure, that you weren’t talking about conservative’s ???

    • woodbutcher

      What is the most dangerous Weapon ??? A closed mind !!!

      • Andy

        Speaking of closed minds…


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.