Smart determined people don't come for cheap, and you don't get world class cryptanalysts and mathematicians working on such a specific endeavor out of "determination".
Plus, we can all guess what wealthy nation-state developed the software and similar things in the past, let's not be hypocritical here...
you don't get world class cryptanalysts and mathematicians working on such a specific endeavor out of "determination"
In World War II, you had such in Poland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Rejewski
(Who deserves some of the credit for cracking Enigma and thus for the outcome of World War II.)
What you can get for lots of money, you can also get for patriotism and somewhat less money. There are over 30 countries with populations over 40 million. Most of these are industrialized. The odds are that they've produced the requisite mathematical talent. The only question is if they've been able to retain and apply it.
Yes, but I was talking in context here. The level of patriotism you had in Poland in World War II, is nothing like the (far lower) level of patriotism you get of scientists in affluent modern states in no immediate danger.
Plus, the rest of the context is the target of the attack and precedence. Given those constraints, one can only thing of 2 such states. And it's not like those "30 countries with populations over 40 million" are not spied to death already, or that they had foreign policy autonomy on the level of making such attacks without asking consent from a certain power.
One of those countries is Iran. That said, Japan prior to and during World War II knew of its pressing need, had plenty of patriotism to draw upon, had high levels of education and infrastructure, and still failed to compete in that area.
I think the point was more that the amount of money it would take would not necessarily come from a "wealthy nation-state." I'm not arguing over who actually did it; but I agree with the above that it's a pretty big leap to include that only.
There are a lot of organizations in the world, corporate, criminal, and otherwise, that can muster say $25 million (which, I admit is a number I just pulled out of my ass) to accomplish a monumental task. I'm just not sure that I'm ready to believe that the money amounts we're talking here are restricted only to the wealthiest of nation states. Is the claim that you would need literally billions of dollars to get the smart people and equipment?
That was basically my thinking. The purpose of Flame seems to be clear intelligence gathering, so most likely it is a state actor that wanted it; I wonder however if it was indeed developed by a state or a private group on behalf of a state.
Absolutely. I have very little doubt that it was indeed a nation-state who developed it; but, my main issue is with the distinction of it being a "wealthy" one. Couldn't Flame, perhaps, have been developed by Iran and released on themselves as a means for drumming up anti-Israeli or anti-American sentiment?
I realize something like that is totally conjecture; but, I don't see it as any further conjecture than, "it must be the US and / or Israel"
[Edit] Since somehow this didn't come across in my post; throwing up conjecture at another possible source of Flame outside of US / Israel doesn't mean I believe any of these explanations--my point was merely that both ideas are pure conjecture with little (at least that I'm aware of) evidence to support the claim.
Considering that the New York Times this week published a leak from within the administration admitting responsibility for Stuxnet and Duqu, both of which targeted Iran, do you honestly believe that Iran developing Flame as a false flag operation is equally credible?
No, I don't "honestly believe" that at all; I thought my post made it quite clear that is was pure conjecture. I don't see it as "outside the realm of possibility;" though, it is quite unlikely.
It depends on how one defines "wealthy." The IMF has Iran at 25th out of 182 wealthiest in the world, World Bank has them at 29 out of 190, and the CIA has them at 25 out of 191 (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin... ). I think they're using "wealthy" to mean "wealthy enough for the government to fund non-trivial computer science research."
If Iran developed Flame you think they would chose to use it as a PR stunt over using it for intelligence gathering. From what I understand Iran is more interested in developing nukes than generating bad press for US/Israel.
Um, what is it then? Since the 20th Century most inhabitants of the US seem to think of themselves as Americans as opposed to Pennsylvanians or whatever. The US has a few things that look sort of like imperial possessions (e.g. Puerto Rico), but those are a pretty small part.
According to their careers page[1], the NSA is offering $42K - $97K for mathematicians and $72K - $134K for computer scientists. I'm guessing that's on par with many academic and industrial research positions, especially for the locations they have offices (i.e. not Silicon Valley or New York).
Probably not. There are people who have the math chops, and the coding chops, and the other knowledge around security, but with so many qualifiers, that's getting pretty rare.
Several smart, determined people capable of it together would be easier to find, and well within the reach of many nations and large organizations.
>I mean, if I had the capability to screw up Iran's nuclear program in my spare time I probably would, because, y'know, fuck Iran.
Fuck Iran why exactly? Because toppling their democratically elected government and establishing a puppet in the fifties wasn't enough? Or arming Saddam's Iraq to fight them in the eighties?
Or maybe because, say, TX can execute 15 year old "criminals" and ban abortion and/or gay marriage, but Iranians don't get to decide how they want to live? Or maybe because what's OK for Saudi Arabia is not OK for everybody?
Or is it because they haven't harmed anyone in the region, where other nations have already invaded 2 nearby countries?
Or just because, you know, muslims are bad in general? (I don't like the religion myself, but they have the right to do as they damn please in their OWN country).
I understand your position here, but, please make contact with some Iranian refugees/dissidents near you for the full picture. Its bad. Worse than I understand Texas to be, by several ball parks.
>I understand your position here, but, please make contact with some Iranian refugees/dissidents near you for the full picture. Its bad. Worse than I understand Texas to be, by several ball parks.
Sure, but those are "refugees/dissidents", of course they would think that. It's not like the great Iranian masses are held there by force or hate their culture.
In general, dissidents are also overplayed for political gain by other countries. I mean, even the USSR played upon US political dissidents, the McCarthy era etc. If you are going to judge a whole country better ask the locals, not the dissidents.
No, you're arguing from isolated facts presented in a sentimental package from mainstream media. Do you know how many deaths there have been in protests in the US? Like, say, the Kent State shootings, were police shot 4 students dead. Or all around the world, for that matter? There have been 2-3 killings by the British police in the last 2 years, they even beat a guy in wheelchair ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11987395 ). And that's an "advanced western democracy".
Now, put this to perspective. The Kent students were shot doing a mostly harmless protesting, in a country that had sent troops to a third country (Cambodia), and that was in no danger itself. The tension in Iran, on the other hand, is in a country that feels threatened by the US, that has seen 2 other countries invaded in the region, and that foreign powers are known to support vocal dissidents and minorities against the state. In the name of "democracy" of course, and not crude oil. Same foreign powers do nothing for countries having even more extreme muslims, and far less democracy, like, say, Saudi Arabia.
What would the US police do if the US was feeling directly threatened, say like in the WWII? Well, we know what they did at the time: concentration camps for Japanese, for example.
Ok, look man, I'm down with anyone who wants to say the US could do better. I could do better. You could do better. But a fact, always beats a strawman, which is what you presented previously. Because the reality is that the Iranian government killed a bunch of its own people and did their level best to suppress that information. Now you've switched from defending Iran to reaching back a generation to find something you can cite to prosecute the United States.
Just to add another fact, Here's a more comprehensive discussion of casualties in the protests where that Iranian lady died
My point stands: you are arguing from a very weak position. Further weakened by the fact that your thesis keeps moving around. If you're going take on the martyr's quest of defending an outrageous position, you can expect you're going to be expected to present an outragously good argument: all your shit in one bag, sewn up tight. If you're frustrated that people can come along and shoot holes in your argument with a sentence or two, maybe you could consider that as evidence that your argument may not ever hold water.
There's a great passage, I think it's TH White's Once and Future King, where Lancelot has a dream where he sees two armies of knights, white and black fighting. The white side is loosing, so he takes their side. And gets slaughtered. On waking, he is told: know what you're fighting for. Don't fight for the losing side just because they're losing.
We like to separate the citizens and the government, but I don't think this is the case. For most of the citizens, loyal muslims etc, that's exactly how they want to live.
Western media just overplays dissidents and people that talk to our "sentiments". Insignificant opposition parties and small protests are elevated to the level of mass popular protest.
If the situation was reversed, imagine what other countries would say of the 2000 US Bush-Gore elections, what with the electoral fraud et al, or things like the Vietnam protests, etc.
Downvotes? Because of disagreeing? Very democratic. It amazes that people believe that the people of such a country like Iran do not want to live in a religious muslim state and are "forced" by the government.
And it amuses me, because, you have an example right in your backyard: the "middle america" has tens of millions of people that want to live in a Christian state, with no evolution teaching in schools, no abortions, no gay marriages, the death penalty, Bible, etc. Those people are not "forced by the state" to want to live like so. If anything, they think the state FAILS them by not being more christian.
If you consider this --that even within the US there are people who want those kinds of things--, you might understand why your San Franciscan or whatever ideas are not directly applicable to muslim countries, with a much different history and culture than what the US has.
It is entirely appropriate to criticize Iran on its own merits. You can argue that it is hypocritical to do so, but it does nothing to mitigate the facts against the Iranian government, which are many. And while it is true that there are executions in Texas, a lack of rights for gays in the US, etc, you wouldn't want to try to argue that Iranians have it better...or would you?
Plus, we can all guess what wealthy nation-state developed the software and similar things in the past, let's not be hypocritical here...