3 ms·
Spying on your citizens and enforcing martial law are two very different things. The US already (illegally) spies on its citizens. Giving it more ways of doing
by samdk 17y ago
Spying on your citizens and enforcing martial law are two very different things. The US already (illegally) spies on its citizens. Giving it more ways of doing so is not a good idea.
- chrischen 17y agoWell then the US does not have to do that then. They could just pay for our free McAfee or Norton... A credit perhaps even to allow us to buy it for free with a new computer. Then the guys at McAfee or Norton can use this to curtail infections because they now have access to more computers, whereas right now they only have access to those willing to pay for their stuff. My point was that if we can keep in checks and balances from the military from being abused, we can do the same for national computer security.
- TeHCrAzY 17y agoAnd that's happily another reason why it's a terrible idea. Norton and McAfee are terrible virus scanners (Norton especially)
- ErrantX 17y agoWhy? There are plenty if free and often better systems. And even if the gov funded it why would there be an uptake in use. Then you have the issue of unmaintained systems. Most machines friends give me to fix already have a virus scanner bt are still infected. No, as already said this is not a funding problem it is an education one.
- synnik 17y agoI see two main problems with your arguments: 1) Security online is an international problem. One government cannot solve the problem, even it were a good idea. 2) Your arguments comparing this to the military are fundamentally flawed. The US military has its basis in the Constitution, and has been refined by many further laws/acts over the course of US history. That structure is what keeps them in line. No such structure exists for your proposal.
- chrischen 17y ago1) I agree. Unfortunately a unified human government is not in the near future, but having one whole country, especially one as well connected as the United States, secure itself can cut into the power of botnets or viruses. The US can also set an example, for other countries to adopt. (This is all assuming that distributing anti-viral software by the gov't can keep up with self-propagating viruses). 2) My point is that such a structure can be created for my proposal too. Simply letting the government contract out to multiple private corporations, or providing subsidies for antiviral software, is one way to prevent "big brother" from controlling computers.