3 ms·

Hacking some financial system or industrial control isn't really the big threat demanded of 'cyber warfare' that is just sensible information security, building

Hacking some financial system or industrial control isn't really the big threat demanded of 'cyber warfare' that is just sensible information security, building systems to best practice, reviewing them and updating as per normal. The real danger is an idea that gets all too popular. For instance, the could be a new climate change type of group that comes along and gets too much mindshare. In fact there was a new group who closed five of London's bridges the other day. I doubt that they will be the group from which big ideas emanate from to take over the world but you never know. So the case can be made for all of this extra spending on the basis that it is all there to do things that sound sensible - 'Internet Security' - but there is capability being built for the more nefarious 'cyber warfare', making sure ideas that threaten business as usual get taken out.

isostatic 8y ago
For those confused, the op is complaining because some protesters staged a protest on a few bridges in London last week over their view that the UK government is not doing enough to tackle climate change. Civil disobedience existed well before the internet, on a far larger scale.
- Theodores 8y ago
  Precisely. Mass surveillance under the pretext of some fuzzy cyber warfare remit has a chilling effect. This does not have to be mentioned, it is just a silent fear thing. So if people self censor themselves then they never group to that 'far larger scale'. Conversely the 'cyber 9/11' is if some idea - an idea that isn't limited to civil disobedience comes in a message where people don't self censor themselves then they could 'group to a far larger scale'. The status quo can't be threatened even by common sense ideas. So an idea in a message that 'goes viral' is the 'cyber 9/11' most feared. There is an art to controlling information in a democracy.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    I don't really understand much of what you are trying not so say. But I do think there is promise in your ideas of self-censorship and you should definitely think more about that concept.
- Jedi72 8y ago
  I knew this was going to happen, because I read it on the internet. If the government had censored it, then as far as I know it didnt happen, never even existed. There could be people trying to organise similar things in Australia right now, and the message isn't getting through the censors. 1 passionate activist cant shut down a bridge. Governments inherintly fear any disruption to the status quo, but its how virtually all social progress is made.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    > There could be people trying to organise similar things in Australia right now, and the message isn't getting through the censors How on earth did Ghandi organize the Salt March without twitter. China struggles to censor the internet, how on earth do you expect people to believe that Australia does.

isostatic 8y ago

For those confused, the op is complaining because some protesters staged a protest on a few bridges in London last week over their view that the UK government is not doing enough to tackle climate change. Civil disobedience existed well before the internet, on a far larger scale.

Theodores 8y ago
Precisely. Mass surveillance under the pretext of some fuzzy cyber warfare remit has a chilling effect. This does not have to be mentioned, it is just a silent fear thing. So if people self censor themselves then they never group to that 'far larger scale'. Conversely the 'cyber 9/11' is if some idea - an idea that isn't limited to civil disobedience comes in a message where people don't self censor themselves then they could 'group to a far larger scale'. The status quo can't be threatened even by common sense ideas. So an idea in a message that 'goes viral' is the 'cyber 9/11' most feared. There is an art to controlling information in a democracy.
- matt4077 8y ago
  I don't really understand much of what you are trying not so say. But I do think there is promise in your ideas of self-censorship and you should definitely think more about that concept.
Jedi72 8y ago
I knew this was going to happen, because I read it on the internet. If the government had censored it, then as far as I know it didnt happen, never even existed. There could be people trying to organise similar things in Australia right now, and the message isn't getting through the censors. 1 passionate activist cant shut down a bridge. Governments inherintly fear any disruption to the status quo, but its how virtually all social progress is made.
- isostatic 8y ago
  > There could be people trying to organise similar things in Australia right now, and the message isn't getting through the censors How on earth did Ghandi organize the Salt March without twitter. China struggles to censor the internet, how on earth do you expect people to believe that Australia does.