3 ms·

According to some in the US government, Facebook can change the result of an election, so I guess that would qualify

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> According to some in the US government, Facebook can change the result of an election, so I guess that would qualify Essential infrastructure describes "assets that are essential for the functioning of a society and economy" [1]. Not things that can cause a lot of damage. Bombers aren't essential infrastructure. Facebook is non-essential. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_infrastructure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_infrastructure
- koube 8y ago
  Bombers don't cause damage if they are neglected and unmaintained. A better analogy might be explosive material or radioactive material like involved in the Goiânia accident. There are consequences to the public when these are neglected. I don't know if those semantically qualify as critical infra, but its security is important for our security.
- Rooster61 8y ago
  The information contained within Facebook is the payload. Facebook itself is the structure that holds and protects (or lack thereof in this case) that payload. Nuclear missiles themselves aren't critical infrastructure, but you better bet the launch systems, and specifically the security of those systems, are utterly critical to society's continued functioning as we know it.
- chairmanmow 8y ago
  According to your linked article, it could be considered 'Critical.' Not sure how it doesn't fit under the 'telecommunications' umbrella. Subjectively I don't like facebook nor people's dependence on it to label it 'critical', but objectively I'm not sure the linked article supports those subjective inclinations. At the very least, it's certainly debatable that facebook could be considered Telecommunications infrastructure.
  - vlan0 8y ago
    But it's a self fulfilling prophecy. It's only "critical" because it exists. If we shutdown every Facebook server tomorrow and set fire to their data center, it would no longer exist. And therefore have no influence on much of anything.
    - chairmanmow 8y ago
      I'm not so sure I follow this argument, one could say the Earth itself is only critical infrastructure because it "exists". So therefore if we destroy the Earth, it wasn't actually "critical" infrastructure, even though any associated infrastructure on the Earth went along with it. Maybe the distinction needs a little more fleshing out.
      - Angostura 8y ago
        If you destroy the Earth, we're all dead. If you destroy Facebook, Google+ gets some more users.
        chairmanmow 8y ago
        But we won't "exist" so it's not "critical".
    - module0000 8y ago
      I support your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter!

> According to some in the US government, Facebook can change the result of an election, so I guess that would qualify Essential infrastructure describes "assets that are essential for the functioning of a society and economy" [1]. Not things that can cause a lot of damage. Bombers aren't essential infrastructure. Facebook is non-essential. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_infrastructure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_infrastructure

koube 8y ago
Bombers don't cause damage if they are neglected and unmaintained. A better analogy might be explosive material or radioactive material like involved in the Goiânia accident. There are consequences to the public when these are neglected. I don't know if those semantically qualify as critical infra, but its security is important for our security.
Rooster61 8y ago
The information contained within Facebook is the payload. Facebook itself is the structure that holds and protects (or lack thereof in this case) that payload. Nuclear missiles themselves aren't critical infrastructure, but you better bet the launch systems, and specifically the security of those systems, are utterly critical to society's continued functioning as we know it.
chairmanmow 8y ago
According to your linked article, it could be considered 'Critical.' Not sure how it doesn't fit under the 'telecommunications' umbrella. Subjectively I don't like facebook nor people's dependence on it to label it 'critical', but objectively I'm not sure the linked article supports those subjective inclinations. At the very least, it's certainly debatable that facebook could be considered Telecommunications infrastructure.
- vlan0 8y ago
  But it's a self fulfilling prophecy. It's only "critical" because it exists. If we shutdown every Facebook server tomorrow and set fire to their data center, it would no longer exist. And therefore have no influence on much of anything.
  - chairmanmow 8y ago
    I'm not so sure I follow this argument, one could say the Earth itself is only critical infrastructure because it "exists". So therefore if we destroy the Earth, it wasn't actually "critical" infrastructure, even though any associated infrastructure on the Earth went along with it. Maybe the distinction needs a little more fleshing out.
    - Angostura 8y ago
      If you destroy the Earth, we're all dead. If you destroy Facebook, Google+ gets some more users.
      - chairmanmow 8y ago
        But we won't "exist" so it's not "critical".
  - module0000 8y ago
    I support your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter!