3 ms·

I call this the cyber terror paradox. Consider: 1. Computer systems that run important things (power, water distribution, logistics, financial networks, commun

by munin 10y ago

I call this the cyber terror paradox. Consider: 1. Computer systems that run important things (power, water distribution, logistics, financial networks, communication networks, military systems, air traffic control, individual plane/ship control, etc) are inter-networked and vulnerable. 2. The world is full of evil people that hate the West and want to see it suffer. 3. Nothing has happened. How can all of these three things simultaneously be true?

mikeash 10y ago
You can apply similar logic to terrorism in general. 1. Western countries are full of soft, populated targets with minimal protection. 2. The world is full of evil people that hate the West and want to see it suffer. 3. Very little has happened. It's not quite as strong, since 3 is a weaker claim, but the attacks we do see are pretty rare relative to what you'd expect. In both cases, I think the answer is that #2 is wrong. A lot fewer people are out to get us than we're led to believe.
- munin 10y ago
  It's weaker overall since "cyber terror" could be continuous. If you wanted to carry out continuous terror attacks you'd need a shitload of dudes to run around with guns and bomb trucks, and you'd need to train, feed, and move them. With computers, none of that is a problem any more. So why don't you see strictly more cyber terror than regular terror, always?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    You could just send dudes to the US with a small amount of cash and instructions to buy a gun and shoot up a public place. Terror doesn't have to be sophisticated. We're seeing how bad an attack can be with nothing more than a truck. That it's not happening constantly suggests a marked shortage of dudes willing to do these things.
abecedarius 10y ago
Before 9/11 I wondered about this: clearly someone smart could do a lot more damage than we'd ever seen, and clearly part of the reason it hadn't happened was that the few, most disaffected people were not the people who had their shit together. But this reason didn't quite reassure me, and, well, now we know that it shouldn't have.

by munin 10y ago

mikeash 10y ago

You can apply similar logic to terrorism in general. 1. Western countries are full of soft, populated targets with minimal protection. 2. The world is full of evil people that hate the West and want to see it suffer. 3. Very little has happened. It's not quite as strong, since 3 is a weaker claim, but the attacks we do see are pretty rare relative to what you'd expect. In both cases, I think the answer is that #2 is wrong. A lot fewer people are out to get us than we're led to believe.

munin 10y ago
It's weaker overall since "cyber terror" could be continuous. If you wanted to carry out continuous terror attacks you'd need a shitload of dudes to run around with guns and bomb trucks, and you'd need to train, feed, and move them. With computers, none of that is a problem any more. So why don't you see strictly more cyber terror than regular terror, always?
- mikeash 10y ago
  You could just send dudes to the US with a small amount of cash and instructions to buy a gun and shoot up a public place. Terror doesn't have to be sophisticated. We're seeing how bad an attack can be with nothing more than a truck. That it's not happening constantly suggests a marked shortage of dudes willing to do these things.

abecedarius 10y ago

Before 9/11 I wondered about this: clearly someone smart could do a lot more damage than we'd ever seen, and clearly part of the reason it hadn't happened was that the few, most disaffected people were not the people who had their shit together. But this reason didn't quite reassure me, and, well, now we know that it shouldn't have.