4 ms·

I think we have to assume that if a government can hack it, they will try. Perhaps it's sad that a university will help them but I'd also to be assumed that the

• nullc 11y ago
  > I think we have to assume that if a government can hack it, they will try. Perhaps it's sad that a university will help them but I'd also to be assumed that they're going to be trying it in some way. Sure. And we can also-- for the purpose of thinking about risks-- assume that if a government can torture people, they will. This doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean that people should sit idly by. Nor does the fact that people oppose and discourage such actions mean that systems can be left vulnerable to these attacks. Opposing unethical and abusive behavior is not mutually exclusive with building systems which are robust even against unethical attackers. Human wellbeing is maximized when we do _both_.
• dmix 11y ago
  The government's ability to do nearly anything by force is an obvious given. This is the reason why constitutional limitations and charters of rights exist in every modern country. For example, it is equally a understood that almost any government could control/manipulate any press agency if they wanted to, or break down any door with a SWAT team. The only difference here is that `cyber` did not exist nor is cleanly appliciable to laws wich limits this type of power - laws largely written in the 1800s. Additionally it largely happens in secret, attribution is difficult, and there is a serious knowledge gap from the general public and the type of operations being done.