4 ms·
Depending on the circumstances it could absolutely be. For example, many defense research labs have “red team” projects where new capabilities are developed st
by mlthoughts2018 8y ago
Depending on the circumstances it could absolutely be.
For example, many defense research labs have “red team” projects where new capabilities are developed strictly to understand adversary capabilities, feasibility / cost to extend a legacy system with modern tech, and many similar things. Kind of like Myth Busters but applied to questions about an adversary’s capabilities.
Some of these research labs are even joined with academic institutions that carry with them a strict ethics mandate that any and all such work can only be theoretical or defensive in nature, to assess and defend against threats, anticipate new threats or debunk claimed capabilities from existing adversaries, but absolutely never to carry out an offensive agenda, enhance existing attack capability or anything similar.
In a situation like that, you absolutely could be greatly surprised & upset to learn your defensive “myth busters” research is turned around and repurposed by another team or something to enhance attack capabilities.
It could be similar with computer security as well. Imagine putting your best effort into developing an attack, exploit or malware because you think it’s purely to determine if something could be done by an adversary, or to highlight a weakness purely for defensive purposes... only to find that it’s used to directly attack someone else after the research leaves your hands.
- jessaustin 8y agoAgain, this isn't meant as harsh criticism, since I know how easy it is to fool oneself. However, we're talking about another level of cognitive dissonance entirely with defense research lab staff discovering only too late the purpose of "defense research". Maybe there was a sign on the door that said "for peaceful purposes only", but the main thing to remember about the war industry is that they lie.
- mlthoughts2018 8y agoI think you are imagining that it’s some small, throw-away comment, but it’s not necessarily. MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory for example was originally opposed by the university president at the time with huge community backlash against the university becoming connected to a military research lab. Part of the original charter of the lab was that its scope of operation was very, very strictly restricted to US air defense, and very strictly not the development of offensive capabilities. There was even a huge report commissioned by the university to detail exactly the defense needs and set boundaries around them in terms of what projects could possibly be approved for funding at the lab. The “no attack” component of this was a giant, first-order constraint of the whole multi-million dollar endeavor to even create the facility at all. On the other hand, I do agree many other cases could be like what you suggested. Just saying not all.. and some of them would be directly, loudly predicated on “defense only” mandates where it would be a huge surprise if the research was subverted later.
- jessaustin 8y agoThe thread hypothesis is that regardless of the marketing, work in weapons-oriented research will create weapons. Does Lincoln undertake such research? Could it do so? You introduced LL into the conversation, presumably because you wouldn't be shocked to see weapons come from there too. I don't know much about LL, but I wouldn't be shocked either. I do believe you when you tell me that some people working there would be shocked.
- mlthoughts2018 8y agoWithin the first 5-15 years of LL’s existence though, I would have been dramatically shocked if it engaged in projects that created offensive capabilities.