quote:Reagan Approved Plan to Sabotage Soviets Book Recounts Cold War Program That Made Technology Go Haywire
By David E. Hoffman Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, February 27, 2004; Page A01
In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural gas pipeline, according to a new memoir by a Reagan White House official.
Thomas C. Reed, a former Air Force secretary who was serving in the National Security Council at the time, describes the episode in "At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War," to be published next month by Ballantine Books. Reed writes that the pipeline explosion was just one example of "cold-eyed economic warfare" against the Soviet Union that the CIA carried out under Director William J. Casey during the final years of the Cold War.
At the time, the United States was attempting to block Western Europe from importing Soviet natural gas. There were also signs that the Soviets were trying to steal a wide variety of Western technology. Then, a KGB insider revealed the specific shopping list and the CIA slipped the flawed software to the Soviets in a way they would not detect it.
"In order to disrupt the Soviet gas supply, its hard currency earnings from the West, and the internal Russian economy, the pipeline software that was to run the pumps, turbines, and valves was programmed to go haywire, after a decent interval, to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to pipeline joints and welds," Reed writes.
"The result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space," he recalls, adding that U.S. satellites picked up the explosion. Reed said in an interview that the blast occurred in the summer of 1982.
"While there were no physical casualties from the pipeline explosion, there was significant damage to the Soviet economy," he writes. "Its ultimate bankruptcy, not a bloody battle or nuclear exchange, is what brought the Cold War to an end. In time the Soviets came to understand that they had been stealing bogus technology, but now what were they to do? By implication, every cell of the Soviet leviathan might be infected. They had no way of knowing which equipment was sound, which was bogus. All was suspect, which was the intended endgame for the entire operation."
Honestly, if this is true, I think there are deaths of innocent people to be laid at the doorstep of our former President and the CIA. The resulting blast may not have killed anyone, but economic disruption is a pretty deadly thing in and of itself.
I think of how I would react upon learning that someone did this the U.S.... and I get very angry.
Of course the major counter to it is that the Soviets stole the technology from us and we simply put some code in there that would make them pay dearly for that theft.
I suppose a patriotic attitude might be "yeah, screw them, and we won!!!"
But adhering to my principles, I'd have to say that this is not the kind of thing I want my government doing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know - I fall on the side of the major counter, I think. "Economic disruption" is a very common foreign policy tool and is done in lots of ways.
Dagonee
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
If they stole it, then I would have to say the conscience of the US and the CIA should be clear on this issue. Not a nice thing to do; I cannot say I would be able to do it... but it was not wrong. You get what you pay for, and as much as I complain about the USA I would still rather live here than in Soviet Russia. If this helped us to win... well, better us as a sole superpower than them.
If it happened to us? Well, if we stole it, then we would have gotten what we deserved.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yeah, I guess...
I just keep thinking this is like boys in a playground.
Or those cranks who wire 220V booby traps to their front doors at night, just in case a burglar comes in.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Was the end worth the means?
This kind of thing doesn't suprise me at all. The list of countries and people that the CIA has screwed around with is long. It would be pretty naive to assume that we wouldn't do the same thing to our major adversary.
I'm not saying that this kind of thing sits well with me. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it. The malefic nature of the Soviet Union has long been known and arguments can be made that anything that was done to get it to go away was justified.
Again, do the ends justify the means in this case? I don't know.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Or those cranks who wire 220V booby traps to their front doors at night, just in case a burglar comes in.
Now that's wrong (and illegal, by the way).
The difference here is the Soviets stole a piece of software meant for a highly dangerous real-time system and did not check the code. Builders test random samples of the stuctural materials for a reason. Stealing something would make me want to check it even more.
Dagonee
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
I guess that this type of activity doesn't surprise me at all...
I suspect that if we were to know all the nasty, covert things our government has done (and currently doing) over time we would all be very, very appalled.
I once was talking to a former CIA operative who explained to me some of the things that the CIA used to do in Cuba to try to destabilize the economy and undermine support for the government. One of the things that seemed particularly insidious was that they would do stuff like spoiling the milk that was going to schools, etc. so parents would complain, etc.
It was hearing stories like these that made me finally quit my Political Science major and move into something else. I was just getting to cynical about the nature of government.
-Matt
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
It does go on the list of things that are criminal when done by the individual but apparently OK when done by the nation. For instance, if I were to put a booby-trap in my briefcase that would injure someone who stole it and opened it, I would probably go to jail, or at least be sued and found liable.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, I see that point has already been made. Oh well, I now return the conversation to the rest of you. Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
It was a war. Do you think that the USSR was not trying to do the same to us? Over all it was an ingenous way to end the war with a minimal amount of bloodshed on both sides.
I would be more upset if it didn't work.
msquared
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
The fall of an empire that was responsible for the death of millions of its own citizens is worth nearly every means I can think of. Some things I wouldn't have done, but most, yes. To end the USSR's encroaching into and domination of Europe? You betcha.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
We have absolutely no reason to feel bad. They stole from us, and it came back and bit them. Do you think they were siting, hands folded, doing nothing to oppose us?
Note that I don't mean it makes it fine to do something to someone just because they do it to you, however, the government has to protect the interests of its people. Remember we didn't do anything wrong. They didn't have to steal the software.
Edit: msquared said it better.
[ February 27, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: HollowEarth ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
So the ends do justify the means.
In what sense was it a war? Were we ever at war with the Soviet Union?
What does the term "Cold War" even mean?
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:Of course the major counter to it is that the Soviets stole the technology from us and we simply put some code in there that would make them pay dearly for that theft.
For me, that's the crux of it right there.
I have no issue with this.
And while it is illegal to boobytrap your own property, that's not a law I agree with either. I think you don't have any rights during the commission of a felony. The fact that people have lost lawsuits over putting ex-lax in their own brownies and that sort of thing is disgusting to me, and a sign of a legal system gone insane.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
You mean WON lawsuits, right?
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
No. They have lost lawsuits in cases where they boobytrapped their own house or food (in an office, and it was clearly marked as theirs) to get revenge on people who stole from them.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
On the other hand, a jury in Miami a dozen years ago or so did acquit a man who electrified the grating on the roof of his business, when he was charged with murder.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
If I remember right...the reason that it is illegal to boobytrap your windows, etc is that this endangers emergency workers, etc.
I think I remembered reading that when I read about the case of someone electrifying their windows and killing some burlar.
I'll see if I can find some more on it...
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Bob
I means that we did not send tanks into Russia or nuke them and they did not do the same.
The war was fought with spied and sabotage and economic power.
msquared
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
So why is it illegal to booby trap your own brownies at the office? (That does sound funny, doesn't it?)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It does go on the list of things that are criminal when done by the individual but apparently OK when done by the nation. For instance, if I were to put a booby-trap in my briefcase that would injure someone who stole it and opened it, I would probably go to jail, or at least be sued and found liable.
This analogy is just wrong. It wasn't the place where the software was that had the booby-trap. The stolen property was not suitable for the use to which the thief put it. Whether or not the lack of suitability was created on purpose or not is irrelevant - the Soviets put the software in their system without checking it. The intervening act of negligence nullifies the U.S.'s responsibility.
Dagonee
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:So why is it illegal to booby trap your own brownies at the office?
Maybe it's in case the emergency workers get hungry.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The intervening act of negligence nullifies the U.S.'s responsibility."
But isn't that like saying that if you stick a needle into a doughnut, expecting someone to steal and eat it, and they DO steal and eat it, it's their fault because they didn't look for needles?
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Wow Bob, you just now figured this out?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, the emergency-worker thing is only an example of why the booby traps are illegal. The application of deadly force is the activity most restricted by the law. No state allows deadly force by the average civillian to protect property. Those that allow it in burglaries or robberies are actually allowing it as self-defense, since one involves the home (where most states do not require retreat before using deadly force in self defense) and the other involves a direct threat of bodily harm.
Booby traps lack any discretion in their application. There are non-felonious reasons to break into a house (necessity, duress, etc.) and a booby trap cannot distinguish between the felonious and non-felonious person.
Even if a person shoots someone who they mistook for a felon, there was a chance to evaluate the circumstances. A booby trap offers no such chance.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But isn't that like saying that if you stick a needle into a doughnut, expecting someone to steal and eat it, and they DO steal and eat it, it's their fault because they didn't look for needles?
Eating is not supposed to be an inherently dangerous act. Regulating the flow of natural gas in a pipeline is. The person doing the latter has a greater responsibility to check his materials than the former.
Dagonee
[ February 27, 2004, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So the more potentially lethal one's meddling is, the less responsibility one has for the meddling itself?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No. The more potentially lethal a product is, the less it makes sense to steal and install it without going through some basic safety checks.
With software, at minimum that means having the source code and examining it.
Edit: For example, what would have happened if the software had had a bug that only showed up in the Soviets' particular configuration? It's blatant irresponsibility.
To extend the donut analogy, taking a donut out of a trashcan in my kitchen should not lead the thief to think it's safe. Taking it out of my refirgerator might make him think it's safe.
Dagonee
[ February 27, 2004, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
By that logic, is it immoral to poison your donuts before throwing them out?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Spoiling a donut in any way is immoral.
Poisoning food and not disposing of it in a way which prevents others from eating it is immoral.
Stopping a sworn enemy from using your technology to get hard currency to build weapons is not.
The ends don't justify the means. But the ends are part of the moral calculus for evaluating the means.
Dagonee
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
We keep changing our currency not so that counterfeiters can't steal, but because our enemies have tried to soften the dollar by importing massive quantities of counterfeit. At least, this was a concern when one of the "Axis of Evil" bought some presses back in 1991. Due to the separation of church and state, the golden rule doesn't need to apply to our leaders.
Still, I think there is a line between the currency game and the really big explosion game that shouldn't be crossed with abandon.
Posted by Zan (Member # 4888) on :
It irks me that it appears that the bugs put into the software were intended to cause an explosion. They didn't merely fix so that it would cause random glitches or fry their computers, they were intentionally setting up an explosion.
It said no one was injured. Was that pure luck or did they somehow have it rigged to break down in an uninhabited area?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It sounds like triggering the explosion required a rather specific set of valve-tunings and gauge-riggings. It would seem to me that making it happen in an uninhabited area would have been part of the plan, and not any harder than having it blow up in the middle of a city. Just guessing, though.
Dagonee
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
quote: While there were no physical casualties from the pipeline explosion, there was significant damage to the Soviet economy," he writes. "Its ultimate bankruptcy, not a bloody battle or nuclear exchange, is what brought the Cold War to an end.
The Soviet Union murdered, starved, jailed and enslaved millions and millions of people under communism. By contrast, no physical casualties and the end of the Cold War due to covert operations of the CIA under Reagan. What a brilliant plan. Hats off to the Gipper.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I'm with Kranky.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
| | | I'm with stupid. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
But Michael Moore tells me that the US is murdering, starving, jailing and enslaving millions and millions of people under capitolism! Who's going to take them out? What form of gouvernment is left?
Aie!
*runs back to sustainable development fantasy land*
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You know, there really shouldn't be a "u" in government, but if anyone asks it's now the official Canadian spelling.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
zgator- are you mocking me?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
You post so infrequently, I have to mock you when I get a chance. BTW, a game of mafia is coming up.
As to the topic, would it change your way of thinking if the US had no idea where the explosion might occur and could have as easily killed thousands? I honestly have no idea, but it doesn't seem like you could rig the software to be that specific when it was going to be used on a pipeline we didn't design.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
Bob: Mikey Moore benefits from capitolism and a free society that he is so critical of and where his moranic rants and B rate flicks are making him big bucks.
But I suspect it was his own self sabotage and not the CIA's that caused his brain to have "hidden malfunctions", and which "later triggered a huge" belly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But the article talks about specific valves being manipulated in a specific sequence. It doesn't seem possible we could rig that without knowing where it would be used.
And yes, it would change my thoughts on the tactic.
Dagonee
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I would guess that we had people on the inside who could provide schematics. I really want to think that we intentionally did it to cause minimum or no loss of life.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: You post so infrequently, I have to mock you when I get a chance.
True enough (the infrequent posting, not the mockery.) It is strange how many times I have started to type a response to a thread and then I just delete it. I never was one for posting much in fluff threads, and the serious ones all seem so futile. Add to that the fact that the rare responses I have decided to actually post all seem to pass by without a single elicited comment and there you have it.
Mafia does seem like a good idea though. Maybe I'll have to sign up.
quote: As to the topic, would it change your way of thinking if the US had no idea where the explosion might occur and could have as easily killed thousands? I honestly have no idea, but it doesn't seem like you could rig the software to be that specific when it was going to be used on a pipeline we didn't design.
The CIA is essentially a nationalistic mafia organization. They sell weapons, make thousands of alliances of convenience with the scum of the earth, kill when it is expedient, live a constant games of lies, misdirection and deceit. In short, I feel that much of that organization is an utter waste of humanity.
Unfortunately, however, it seems that often the Machiavellian way of government is the more realistic view. The foreign intelligence of all of the countries around us are doubtless every bit as bad as the CIA. In a practical sense I am sure that it is often our own scum who protect us from other scum.
Now, with all of that said, I think that none of the metaphors so far employed is anywhere near accurate. What happened was this: our agents were craftier than their foes and it resulted in a very good outcome for nearly everyone involved. The Russians escaped (sort of) from a very oppressive government. The economic collapse which led to the political collapse was by far the best of any likely scenario for revolution. If it had required a popular uprising to topple the communists then far, far more people would have died or been injured both physically and economically than even the worst-case scenario with that pipeline. For that reason I think that indeed the means were justified and that the individual moral comparisons are mostly irrelevant.
Posted by Shlomo (Member # 1912) on :
Wait...Communism fell? You mean I can get out from under my desk now?
I dunno...I have nothing particularly useful to say.
Well, I guess...
Yeah. Communism's has "fallen" for about 15 years now. I've been alive about 15 years now. It hasn't fallen too long ago. 15 years. That's two more than 1776 to 1789. That's equal to the time from 1815 to 1830, and half the time from 1815 to 1848. China is still Communist.
In conclusion, Communism has "fallen" in much the same way Aragorn "fell" in the Two Towers...it's not feeling very exuberant right now, but it's not dead.
I also think America needs to cool it with democracy, which is a result of 300 years of Wesern revolutions, wars, reforms, etc., in which most of the world took no part.
While I'm willing to put up with dirty tricks in a fight for survival, we're not in a fight for survival anymore, so we could probably be a bit more benevolent now.
*Shrug* G'night.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Just because they took no part doesn't invalidate democracy.
The Doomsday Clock has been moving towards 12 for the past 15 years. So who decides when it become a fight for survival?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Economic warfare is and always has been an acceptable way to fight a war. When we destroyed German infrastructure in World War II we were justified because it would bring a quicker end to the war. In 1982 the US government was completely justified in doing what it did to bring Soviet Union to its knees.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:I suspect that if we were to know all the nasty, covert things our government has done (and currently doing) over time we would all be very, very appalled.
Yes. In a big way.
And this isn't Michael Moore Conspiracy talk (though I actually have a lot of time for Michael Moore). This is stuff the CIA has actually admitted doing.
There a couple of ICJ (International Court of Justice) cases against the US for various CIA actions in South America. (The Nicaragua Case is the most famous). And in every one of these cases, the CIA admits to what they are accused of.
Yes, we trained your contra movements to kill your civilians. Yes, we encouraged them to make it look like it was your government's fault. Yes, we gave them weapons. And money. And training manuals. Yes, we oversaw and funded the coup that overturned your democratically elected government.
In terms of the CIA activity that is the subject of this thread: While I'm not sure whether it was justified or not, it is important to remember at no point where the US and Russia actually at war. And that makes a big difference in terms of the legality of certain actions.
Posted by Shlomo (Member # 1912) on :
Luthe,
I never said anything about invalidating democracy. However, people viewing democracy as a cure-all, as the magical potion for all nations, may have contributed to much suffering over the years. I would much prefer if these nations would get an effective, benevolent system of government that won't get overthrown once a week.
quote:The Doomsday Clock has been moving towards 12 for the past 15 years.
I guess what I mean is that the US now posesses more power than any other country, so it can afford to fight fair.
And I'm not sure we can tell when we are fighting for our survival. I guess you can make pretty good cases that we are and that we aren't. Although I think that whether we say yes or no, our answer is to some extent a self-fullfilling prophecy. Whichever answer we choose will probably be manifest in our international relations, and whether we seem to be hostile or friendly will determine whether other nations are hostile or friendly back. I'm actually not positive what I'm trying to say at the moment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And that makes a big difference in terms of the legality of certain actions.
Yep. Makes the Soviets' stealing our software even less justified, doesn't it?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I'm rather curious as to where "the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space" could have occurred without killing a lot of technicians and maintanence personnel.
I guess you guys are saying that damaging the Pentagon, the destruction of the WorldTradeCenter, and four airliners is also an acceptable ColdWar action.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Re-examines the posts in this thread carefully. Fails to see anyone who equated the events of 9/11 in which hijackers used force to take over 4 airliners resulting in 3,000 deaths to someone stealing software and using it without verifying it worked in a system designed to carry explosive gas.
Fails to see it.
Does see the part where there were no physical injuries in the pipeline explosion.
Wonders what the hell aspectre is talking about.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
What Dag said.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The largest similar explosions in the US have been at refining/purification&storage facilities manned by many workers. Apparently, even larger explosions could have occurred in the SovietUnion without killing anyone because Soviet technology was so advanced that technicians and maintenance personnel weren't required. Kinda makes one wonder why they needed US software for their far superior automation, don't it?
[ February 29, 2004, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Read the description again. The pipeline exploded. Not "refining/purification&storage facilities manned by many workers." Pipelines generally run through miles and miles of wilderness. You know, where there aren't many workers.
Dagonee
[ February 29, 2004, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If it were just pipeline fires, it wasn't the "largest explosion..."; just a series of comparatively small explosions. So by your reasoning, it would have been okay if AlQaeda had done the same to US pipelines. Of course, that would agree with Republican philosophy&actions: witness the DubyaAdminsitrations non-reaction to the energy companies' sabotage to create the "California Energy Crisis".
[ February 29, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:So by your reasoning, it would have been okay if AlQaeda had done the same to US pipelines.
These situations are not analogous. For one thing, we're not stealing technology from Al Qaeda.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well according to them, we stole algebra from the arabs.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Well, then I agree that they would be morally justified in feeding us faulty algebra.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, crumb! Does that mean the SAT is going to get changed again?
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Are we moral people or not?
Are we moral only when it's expedient?
Dagonee said this in jest.
quote: Spoiling a donut in any way is immoral.
Yet I mean it in truth. Sabotaging a technological system that people work their hearts out to get going, even if nobody is physically hurt, is just wrong. And there aren't really ways to keep people from being physically hurt.
People die in ever power outage, from exposure to cold in the winter or overheating in the summer. People die because the economy is bad, because they can't afford medical care or whatever. From bad nutrition.
What would be the result if we just got rid of the skullduggery? Why if it's evil and unthinkable for individuals to do, are we willing to let poeple do it in our name?
I reject the argument that people like the CIA are needed. What if we would be a whole lot better off without them? If we were honorable people?
Doing what's right is always the smartest option in the long run. Always. I'm positive of that. We should root out this stuff from our system and discard it. The world will be much better off, and we as a people will be better off.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
They didn't work their hearts out to get it going; they stole it. If they had only lived as you suggested, they wouldn't have had those explosions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If it were just pipeline fires, it wasn't the "largest explosion..."; just a series of comparatively small explosions.
Are you backing this up with any facts or just reinterpeting the clear language of the text at the beginning of the thread to suit your rhetorical needs? Whatever actually blew up, the source is absolutely clear in its claims that 1) no one was physically injured and 2) they actively sought this technology for some reason. Obviously, these claims are open to factual refutation, but they are the only record any of us have at this point.
quote:So by your reasoning, it would have been okay if AlQaeda had done the same to US pipelines.
How does my reasoning support this?
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
No, merely pointing out that "the largest non-nuclear explosion..." and "no physical casualties" are incompatible concepts. Either the first statement is false or the second.
So virus/etc writers are morally good because you hafta click onto ("approve") their program to activate it? It's okay to leave out a bowl of poisoned candy on your frontyard next to the sidewalk cuz any kid who eats a piece without your permission deserves to be punished?
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Icarus, if that system ever delivered oil, then I can assure you that someone worked their hearts out to get it going. I don't invent all the technology I'm using, and I don't procure it either. I just read the technical information, figure out how to apply it, and get it to actually work in the field. Because I'm an engineer I feel badly for the engineers in particular, but the principle is wider than that. Did I know more I would also feel badly for all the others involved, I'm sure.
What is the morality of this situation? Many people who were innocent were hurt. We weren't at war. How can you convince yourselves this sort of thing is okay? Couldn't the Soviets look at things like this and claim the reason their system failed is because we sabotaged it, rather than because it's a poor economic system?
How can doing surreptitious evil things be good? When we are at war and fighting for our own survival, maybe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, merely pointing out that "the largest non-nuclear explosion..." and "no physical casualties" are incompatible concepts. Either the first statement is false or the second.
No. It might be unlikely, but in no way is it impossible. Siberia is a big place with lots of uninhabited areas.
quote:So virus/etc writers are morally good because you hafta click onto ("approve") their program to activate it?
Not if they made representations or warranties about what the program would do when in fact the program did other things (or additional things).
quote:It's okay to leave out a bowl of poisoned candy on your frontyard next to the sidewalk cuz any kid who eats a piece without your permission deserves to be punished?
This analogy was discussed on the first page.
Dagonee
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I read it. And the question wasn't addressed; just walked around. No one obtains the permission of a virus/etc writer to download his/her program either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Basically, someone installing software into a potentially dangerous mechanical device bears the risk that the software isn't functional. It's really that simple.
The virus writer analogy is just not parallel - the virus writer writes software so it spreads unknowingly, with no permission. A trojan horse writer lies about what the software will do in an attempt to get people to install his software. Not at all analogous.
Dagonee
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:How can you convince yourselves this sort of thing is okay?
Why, because I'm a bad person, of course!
quote:How can doing surreptitious evil things be good?
I don't couch this in ends/means terms. I generally don't see these as evil means. It seems a natural way to combat espionage . . . make it unreliable.
And, what Dag said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Basically, someone installing software into a potentially dangerous mechanical device bears the risk that the software isn't functional."
Dag, let's use a better analogy:
Every time I park my car, I detach the brake lines.
Therefore, when someone steals my car, it's THEIR fault that they crash and die -- because every time someone gets behind a wheel, it's their responsibility to make sure the car's in working order, right?
I think you're conveniently ignoring our deliberate sabotage, here.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I am not at all sure whether I would feel any guilt in that situation. I know I would not feel nearly as much as I already feel for moral failing I commit every day.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Therefore, when someone steals my car, it's THEIR fault that they crash and die.
Yes. Yes it is.
Dagonee
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Things like this do U.S. interests far more long term harm than good. For pragmatic reasons only, if not for moral ones, then we need to rethink these policies.
Stealing software is wrong, yes, just like stealing music online is wrong. It doesn't carry a death sentence, though, and certainly there were many innocent bystanders hurt as well, who stole no software.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Yes. Yes it is."
So, just to clarify: despite the fact that the car, under normal operation, would NOT have killed anyone, I am not culpable for modifying the car to deliberately kill anyone who stole it?
Are you making a legal argument for the right to booby-trap one's home, Dag? After all, any criminal should expect that a home invasion could put his life in danger, so therefore anything that could kill someone walking on your property without your permission should, in theory, fall within the guidelines of "expected use" as you've defined it here.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I don't think the car is a good analogy, Tom.
You're right that no one stealing a car would be reasonably expected to check to see if the brakes had been tampered with.
However, you can't say the same for a country stealing software to run a pipeline carrying natural gas under pressure. Even if the software was acquired legally, you would expect them to test and retest the software to make sure it functioned properly.
Of course, you could argue that the bugs were included in such a matter that they escaped detection.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's likely that the bug(s) were well-concealed, and that the "decent interval" mentioned in the original article was designed to be long enough that it would have been undetected by typical testing cycles.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There is a difference between the harm caused by the stolen property and the harm caused by the security system.
There are valid reasons for having a car with faulty brakes. (For example, the brakes are faulty and you haven't gotten them fixed yet.) Similarly, there are valid reasons for having faulty software (you haven't debugged it yet, you bought it from Sony Online Entertainment). Someone stealing a car or software is bearing the risk that the car or software is not safe, since they've left no possibility for warranting the product.
There's no similar rationale for having a spring-gun pointed at a window.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, you continue to conveniently ignore the fact that "bearing the risk" is a legal construct that is not meant to encompass deliberate harm and/or sabotage, which is what we actually did.
For example, when you park in a grocery store lot, you assume the risk that your car may be struck by a rolling cart. This is pretty much a given. However, were an employee to stand outside and deliberately push carts at cars, the employee and possibly the store would remain liable -- despite the fact that you chose to park in a lot which explicitly identified your risk. It becomes a matter of the INTENTION of harm, which cannot be absolved through the assumption of risk.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But your example it is the actions of the employee (and thus the store) that caused the harm. There is no intervening act by the injured party.
A person is almost never forced to assume the risk of causing harm based on the expectation of someone else's criminal activity, even if the person has reason to suspect specific criminal activity by a specific criminal.
This is distinguished from the booby-trap cases because the force being applied is directly initiated by the homeowner.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except that the force is NOT directly applied by the homeowner, is it?
Let's leave aside a spring-gun issue, and say that I've put a bucket full of powerful acid over my front door. Is it MY fault that people didn't check for acid before opening the door?
I think you're trying a little too hard to make this non-analogous, and I'm wondering what motive you have for doing so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Is there any valid reason for placing an acid-bucket over your door other than to injure someone? No. Is there any reason to own faulty software or a car with faulty brakes other than to injure someone? Yes.
If you knowingly lend or sell a car to someone with faulty brakes, you are liable for the resulting harm whether you intended the harm or not. The distinction works both ways and provides protection when you haven't provided the car to the person (either explicitly or constructively). By stealing the car, the thief has voluntarily deprived himself of an important protection - knowledge of the repair history of the car.
You're also ignoring the fact that driving a car and installing a piece of software on a complex mechanical system that handles explosive gas are inherently more dangerous than opening a door. A person does not have the right to shoot you simply for breaking in his door - some more direct threat is required. This distinction applies to manually or automatically operated weapons.
Similarly, a person has no right to expect that stolen material is suitable for the purposes for which it was stolen.
I'm wondering why you're working so hard to stretch the analogy. This is a fine-haired legal point. Arguments about it will split fine hairs.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Is there any reason to own faulty software or a car with faulty brakes other than to injure someone? Yes."
What's the valid reason for deliberately inserting harmful bugs into code, exactly? Are you attempting to assert that we sabotaged Russia ACCIDENTALLY?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
[quote]What's the valid reason for deliberately inserting harmful bugs into code, exactly?[/quote
That's not the determining question. "What's the valid reason for owning software with bugs?" It doesn't matter how it got into that state. Just as lack of intention doesn't protect you from liability for damage caused by your car's faulty brakes in most situations, presence of intention does not enusre liability for damage caused by your intentional act.
And of course I'm not maintaining we sabotaged them accidentally. I'm stating that we put software with deliberately induced bugs in a place where the only way it would harm someone is if they stole it, took it to their own country, installed it, and used it without checking for bugs.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It doesn't matter how it got into that state."
I would argue that there is plenty of legal precedent AND ethical argument which demonstrates that it DOES matter how it got into that state.
If I dig a punji trap in my lawn and cover it with leaves, I am liable for a whole host of other crimes than I would be if I just happened to have a leaf-covered hole in my lawn with some sharp sticks in it. Proving intent moves the resulting death from the manslaughter to homicide categories -- as it rightfully should.
Your argument here -- that the more dangerous the product being sabotaged, the less culpable the saboteur -- is one that I find baffling.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
It was the Cold War, after all, War being the operative word. Honestly, I'd have rather seen this sort of thing happen than what could have happened...
If going into a conventional war would have destroyed all life as we know it now (just imagine how the world would be if the Nukes had been popped around 1985), wasn't this sort of warfare to dominance a much better route?
Neither side could destroy the other militarily without ruining the rest of the world along the way. Both ideologies were counter to the other, conflict was inevitable.
While I am by no means a fan of Reagan, the idea of ratcheting up the arms race while sabotaging the Soviet economy was a smart way to bring down the other government. One done with a lot less loss of life than any other alternative offered to us.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
First of all, I don't see where we did anything morally wrong by sabotaging our own software.
But it also seems that Tom's analogies are right on the money. Let's use the car/brake analogy. Yes, there *are* reasons that you can own a car without working brakes, but the reason our breaks weren't working was because we heard that somebody might take our car, and we went out and disconnected them. Our motives are extremely important to the morality of what we did.
And while there are letitimite reasons for a car that you haven't been using to not have brakes, there is no legitimte reason (unless they just *barely* failed) for your brakes to not work if you just drove your car to the store.
Part of Tom's argument seems to be that since we did harm to people or even to their work, our act was evil. The same argument would say that all wars are evil to participate in, because somebody is going to die. While that is a morally defendable stance, it's not one that I can agree with.
All of that having been said, just because something makes you culpable in american courts doesn't make it morally wrong. I see nothing wrong with sabotaging your car, because nobody would ever have a legit reason to drive it w/out your permission. The cops would just have it towed. But it would be wrong to sabotage your house to injure anybody that tried to enter it, as there are many legitimate reasons that somebody could have to enter your house without permission.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would argue that there is plenty of legal precedent AND ethical argument which demonstrates that it DOES matter how it got into that state.
Can you point to just one legal precedent? The legal distinctions I’m making are not fabricated. I’m not saying there aren’t ethical arguments against what the CIA did. I’m saying that the booby trap analogy is a particularly weak and vulnerable one.
quote:If I dig a punji trap in my lawn and cover it with leaves, I am liable for a whole host of other crimes than I would be if I just happened to have a leaf-covered hole in my lawn with some sharp sticks in it.
True. But again, we’re talking about duty of care. The only way the software could produce the explosion is if the Soviets stole it. That’s not the case with the harm in the booby-trap cases.
quote:Proving intent moves the resulting death from the manslaughter to homicide categories -- as it rightfully should.
Not always. If I watch someone drown without rescuing them, I am not criminally liable for their death. Even if I would have intervened for anyone else.
quote:Your argument here -- that the more dangerous the product being sabotaged, the less culpable the saboteur -- is one that I find baffling.
You’re failure to note the different amounts of responsibility when someone uses something dangerous is baffling to me. If I manufacture a faulty beam, the builder who uses that beam will be liable for the building collapse caused by it. I would share some liability as well, deriving from the strict liability that attaches to certain commercial transactions. But there’s no commercial transaction here.
Look, I understand there are lots of ethical reasons to oppose the sabotage. But this analogy is not one of them – it’s weak and has lots of distinguishing features. You haven’t addressed the distinctions I’ve pointed out between them.
Dagonee
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Intent keeps coming up and I agree with that. According to the article, no lives were lost due to the explosion. Did we intend for that happen or was it just pure luck that the explosion happened in an uninhabited area?
If it was bugged to happen to minimize loss of life, then I would say a better analogy would be if you rigged your car such that the engine would die. It's possible someone could be hurt, but not likely. Disconnecting the brakes would imply that you didn't care whether the thief was hurt or not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, what I find interesting is that, until my most recent post, I never mentioned legal precedent at all -- and have been throughout making an ethical argument. Do you concede, at last, that we are ethically culpable for our sabotage? Because, y'know, if so, you could have said so a page ago. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Can I try to push the car/brake analogy a bit further?
We didn't sabotage the software in case somebody stole it.
We knew who was going to steal it.
They were are enemy and were plotting to kill us.
This is not, leave poisoned candy on the steps scenario.
Lets say that you and Fred have an argument. He pulls out a gun and says,"I am going to kill you."
You pull out a gun and say the same to him. (Actually, we pulled the gun first, but they made the thread first)
You know that if given a chance, he will kill you, and every one in your family. You also know that he plans on stealing your car.
That is when you booby-trap your car. Not to punish him for stealing it, but to stop him from killing you and everyone you hold dear.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, what I find interesting is that, until my most recent post, I never mentioned legal precedent at all -- and have been throughout making an ethical argument. Do you concede, at last, that we are ethically culpable for our sabotage? Because, y'know, if so, you could have said so a page ago.
The booby-trap analogy arose specifically out of someone saying this would be against the law because it's against the law to set a booby-trap. All my dealings with booby-traps have been in that context.
However, all my objections to the booby-trap analogy (none of which have been answered except by asserting the analogy again, by the way) stand as objections to it as an ethical argument. There is a difference between setting traps that might hurt someone innocent and setting traps that can only catch the very guilty.
Besides, all my other ethical reasons for supporting the action aren't dealt with by the booby-trap analogy at all. Namely, that punishing a sovereign power for stealing your technology in order to raise money that, in part, will be used to make weapons for potential use against your own state is not wrong. None of this is dealt with by the booby-trap analogy at all.
So while I of course acknowledge that the pipeline blew up because of our actions (in a "but-for" sense), you must acknowledge that the pipeline blew up because of the Soviets' actions (again, in a "but-for" sense). The booby-trap analogy fails to accurately account for this tension, for reasons which have largely been outlined in the legal context.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Good reasoning in your post, Dag. I stand corrected.
quote:You know that if given a chance, he will kill you, and every one in your family. You also know that he plans on stealing your car.
That is when you booby-trap your car. Not to punish him for stealing it, but to stop him from killing you and everyone you hold dear.
What we did is pull a MacGyver. Instead of using a gun (MacGyver *never* used a gun) to eliminate the threat, we used our swiss-army knife, talcum powder, and a coffee maker to incapacite Murdoc, and then he falls over a cliff. Let's just hope that the Soviet Union does not come back from the dead like Murdoc always did.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bob,
quote:Honestly, if this is true, I think there are deaths of innocent people to be laid at the doorstep of our former President and the CIA. The resulting blast may not have killed anyone, but economic disruption is a pretty deadly thing in and of itself.
You're probably right, whether or not it was an explosion in a wilderness pipeline, or a refinement facility with workers. But my question to you is one I've asked before: is our government to do only those things which will not result in any civilian death of our enemies? (No one can seriously claim that the Soviets weren't our implacable enemies, dedicated to the downfall of capitalism in general, America in particular, and 'world domination'-as cheesy as that sounds).
Because pretty much every major foreign-policy decision, overt or covert, is going to result in a civilian death whether or not it was intentional. Economic deals? Someone somewhere might be financially ruined and committ suicide. War is of course more obvious. The difference here was that it could've been avoided entirely...if we were willing to continue fighting an undeclared war with the Soviet Union. Any deaths-and I've seen no one demonstrating any occurred, beyond economic and fuel-shortage related-have to be measured against that yardstick: how many more deaths and human suffering would've likely happened if we did not do this?
Do the ends justify the means? No, I don't think they ever do, in and of themselves. Nor do I think that any nation should only do things that are entirely ethical and moral, because let's face it, even if that one nation did it, every other nation wouldn't-ever-do the same, and so the citizens of that one nation would ultimately suffer. Until we have a clear mandate that that is what we want our elected officials to do-gamble on American suffering for a moral stance-then we cannot expect them to do so, and it is unreasonable to expect them to do it.
It'd be nice if we could turn the other cheek as a nation, but the fact is the world is a dangerous place. Would you, Bob, have favored pre-emptive war against Nazi Germany in the late `30s? Or Japan and Italy? Even knowing that we would be attacking first?
Questions like what is permissible in warfare are never as simple as, "If it was done to me, I'd be pissed, so I don't think we should do it."
Although I personally think questions like this are utterly irrelevant given that the technology was stolen from us in the first place, and not just by some average Joe or Ivan on the street. Our 'car' was, as has been pointed out, stolen by the Ivan that was dedicated to our downfall. Frankly, Ivan has himself to blame if his theft bites him in the butt, considering we were open-but not warring-enemies.
-------
I don't think comparing booby-trapping your door or car against theft or burglary is reasonable here. On a purely legal level, look at the punishment. Is the punishment for grand theft auto death by car accident that endangers, possibly kills, other innocent motorists? No. Is the penalty for burglary the electric chair? No. What if there's a Robert Downey Jr. incident? Accidents can happen.
On the other hand, is serious technology theft causus belli between two nations that are already open enemies engaged in a 'Cold War'? You betcha.
Edit:
quote:In what sense was it a war? Were we ever at war with the Soviet Union?
What does the term "Cold War" even mean?
It was a just-short-of-war. It was a war that we weren't actually fighting because of nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean it wasn't actually a war; consider it an extremely tentative cease-fire. We were at war with the Soviet Union from its birth, frankly. Undeniably since Stalin came to power. He (Stalin) certainly knew we were, even though Western leadership was a bit late in starting.
quote:Cold War: 1. often Cold War A state of political tension and military rivalry between nations that stops short of full-scale war, especially that which existed between the United States and Soviet Union following World War II. 2. A state of rivalry and tension between two factions, groups, or individuals that stops short of open, violent confrontation.
[ March 01, 2004, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I would make a horrible President. I could not make this decision. Or rather, I would decide NOT to do what Reagan did.
Here's my problem.
He was right in the short term. And wrong in the long term, infinite sense of things.
Given the choice, I would rather be right long term.
And that might doom some of my own people to death at the hands of an enemy who might not scruple to do something just as nasty and underhanded to us.
But my sense of things would not allow me to strike first.
It's why I hate the Iraq war most of all. In the America I love, there is no room for pre-emption, no matter how painful it may be for us to be hit first.
I believe that this was wrong in the way that murder is wrong. And I think that just because you classify someone as your enemy, you don't have the right to attack them until and unless they do something besides talk or play stupid pranks through proxy states (that you can't prove was them!)
I think that we won the battle at too high a price.
I think there might be such a thing as a national soul. And the fact that this action is a stain on that soul is pretty darned clear to me.
There are other stains.
But I don't see how this one is even arguable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I've looked at three sepereate articles, and none of them says mentions any casualties other than the spy the Soviets executed.
This is, honestly, a reason I might not vote for you if you ran for President. (Although I still think I'd end up siding for a Bob ticket ) Because most leaders-particularly leaders of nations, and most particularly leaders of nations at war-have to make decisions that aren't totally moral and ethical. Because even though...
quote:Given the choice, I would rather be right long term.
is morally the best route, long-term doesn't mean as much if you've lost the war. As far as nations are concerned, I'd rather be a little gritty morally speaking and win, than lose under almost any circumstances to the Soviet Union. Because make no bones about it, I don't want to be the next Tibetans, ultimately or immediately. That's the kind of thing that happens to people somewhere in the world if, when you're at war with enemies like the Soviets were, you play by the rules they've long since thrown out.
quote:It's why I hate the Iraq war most of all. In the America I love, there is no room for pre-emption, no matter how painful it may be for us to be hit first.
I cannot agree with that stance, and despite a heaping helping of respect for you, Bob, I wonder if you would hold the same belief if you were the person charged with giving notice to the grieving widow or orphaned children. "Your husband, this city, that family, that nation next-door to the enemy, is dead or crippled, but we're stainless. I'm sorry for your loss," is a lot less noble when we actually have to say it.
That is, really, what we have to say to all the people who suffered in WWII needlessly. "You're dead, your family is air vapor, your home is shattered...but we are stainless. We just couldn't strike first." There are just some circumstances that defy the word 'never'.
And, frankly, I don't think playing by a few of the rules your enemy made and started using first is nasty or underhanded.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(That does sound funny, doesn't it?)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
on the street. Our 'car' was, as has been pointed out, stolen by the Ivan that was dedicated to our downfall. Frankly, Ivan has himself to blame if his theft bites him in the butt, considering we were open-but not warring-enemies.