| From the AP version (h/t @tareqak) [0], "identification of anyone engaged in foreign state-sanctioned malicious cyber activity". Key phrase, state-sanctioned. This has less to do with tracking down cybercriminals, and more with creating a case for foreign policy agenda. Remember it was WMD informant "Curveball" testimony to then Secretary of State Powell, that was used as one of the key pretexts to invade Iraq. Essentially if an administration comes with an agenda to start a new war, they put the right people inside the State Department and then those guys just need to comb for anything (validated or not) to find "informants" to make the case for cyber attack. Followed by making the case in media that cyber attack is military attack and it requires military retaliation. This will bypass the entire US intelligence system to validate the source of threat. It just needs one person to claim they were involve in cyber attack against US and it was sponsored by the government of Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, or any other country we want to go after. I highly recommend watching this portion of the town hall with former US Congressman Dennis Kucinich talking about how non disclosure rules prevented the Congress from speaking out against US State Department spreading false information to American public [1]. [0] https://apnews.com/article/technology-joe-biden-europe-busin... [1] https://youtu.be/s-W9b-_K_Xo?t=2433 |
That’s a very oversimplified odd narrative. Unlike Iraq and mysterious nuclear related material objects, cyber attacks are happening. And it’s quite evident US is lacking in this area. The US doesn’t need “one person” when there are clear signatures and traces that are substantiated not only by the US intelligence system but also by non-government entities.