3 ms·

> I'm not sure why we collectively decided to lack courage In this case courage is stupidity. Why waste time knocking out their power when we can spend that ti

> I'm not sure why we collectively decided to lack courage In this case courage is stupidity. Why waste time knocking out their power when we can spend that time making our power more secure. You're like a web master with a downed site due to a DDOS going: > Well I've DDOSed the attacker's site so its okay no its not, you've achieved nothing. Get with the program; this is a defence world not an offence one.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
In situations where Person A is attacking Person B and making it sound like Person A's solution is the only one, Person A is usually mistaken. My mind is open. Convince me. Why is it a good idea to remove the threat of retaliation from our toolkit? It seems like one of the most persuasive reasons not to attack us.
- Quarrelsome 9y ago
  I will attack you yet convince you that someone else attacked you. Now you're off attacking the wrong person and your power grid IS STILL OFFLINE. Just put all the effort into keeping the grid up. Absorb all attacks and then export that IP and tech for healthy profit. Its the only winning move.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Obviously attribution becomes far more important with cyberattacks, but that's a tangential point. You're acting like the power grid going offline is equivalent to a thermonuclear explosion. Yes, it will suck, but it's temporary. And afterwards, those exploit vectors will be patched.
    - Quarrelsome 9y ago
      > Obviously attribution becomes far more important with cyberattacks, but that's a tangential point. No its not, its the whole point. The point of the age of information is that it is a departure from the age of blood and steel. The tactics of blood and steel that you are supporting have no place in this future and are counter-productive. The point of the age of information is that power is no longer solely in the hands of nations. Therefore treating it as a case of "stomping on the bad people" means your attack spread increases from all the nations in the world to all the people in the world. Added to that the evidence of those attacks can and will be forged. You're chasing shadows and its not worth it. Just build a better shield, that's all that matters.
      - floatboth 9y ago
        Yes. This. Old government people think of everything in terms of "weapons" and "wars" and they still think the word "cyber" is cool. We need to promote, like, a radical new school of thought about software: Creators of a system should be fully responsible for whatever damage the system causes. A bug is a bug, whether it's exploited by an outside actor or it happens during normal execution. Developers should be responsible for bugs. I like the "defective lock" analogy from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14663474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14663474

sillysaurus3 9y ago

In situations where Person A is attacking Person B and making it sound like Person A's solution is the only one, Person A is usually mistaken. My mind is open. Convince me. Why is it a good idea to remove the threat of retaliation from our toolkit? It seems like one of the most persuasive reasons not to attack us.

Quarrelsome 9y ago
I will attack you yet convince you that someone else attacked you. Now you're off attacking the wrong person and your power grid IS STILL OFFLINE. Just put all the effort into keeping the grid up. Absorb all attacks and then export that IP and tech for healthy profit. Its the only winning move.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Obviously attribution becomes far more important with cyberattacks, but that's a tangential point. You're acting like the power grid going offline is equivalent to a thermonuclear explosion. Yes, it will suck, but it's temporary. And afterwards, those exploit vectors will be patched.
  - Quarrelsome 9y ago
    > Obviously attribution becomes far more important with cyberattacks, but that's a tangential point. No its not, its the whole point. The point of the age of information is that it is a departure from the age of blood and steel. The tactics of blood and steel that you are supporting have no place in this future and are counter-productive. The point of the age of information is that power is no longer solely in the hands of nations. Therefore treating it as a case of "stomping on the bad people" means your attack spread increases from all the nations in the world to all the people in the world. Added to that the evidence of those attacks can and will be forged. You're chasing shadows and its not worth it. Just build a better shield, that's all that matters.
    - floatboth 9y ago
      Yes. This. Old government people think of everything in terms of "weapons" and "wars" and they still think the word "cyber" is cool. We need to promote, like, a radical new school of thought about software: Creators of a system should be fully responsible for whatever damage the system causes. A bug is a bug, whether it's exploited by an outside actor or it happens during normal execution. Developers should be responsible for bugs. I like the "defective lock" analogy from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14663474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14663474