4 ms·

It seems a lot of people here find information security to be of utmost importance. I would like you to consider a contrarian position. What if someone said cy

It seems a lot of people here find information security to be of utmost importance. I would like you to consider a contrarian position. What if someone said cybersecurity (as in information security) is not very important? http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/cyberinsecurity.pdf http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/cyberinsecurity.pdf

lonelappde 7y ago
Highlights from the article: * we can just stop using computers to avoid security problems. * Most criminals are dumb, so it doesn't matter that one smart one can control 80K people's computers around the world to mine Bitcoin. * Data deletion attacks that cripples hospitals and governments is not a problem because they should have backups. * Persecuting dissidents isn't a big deal?
dcx 7y ago
I disagree. The contours of our world are shaped by the quality of our cybersecurity, to the point that it's the water we swim in and we just don't see it any more. Some examples: The last US election was won in large part through highly-targeted influence campaigns run based on stolen data. Not to mention the triggering of Brexit. The influence of the NSA / Russia / Five Eyes / etc on geopolitics hinges on poor cybersecurity. I think it would be silly to assume all of the recent leaks we see come from "inside the building". The entire economics and solution space of what is possible on the internet is shaped by our cybersecurity standards. What would the internet look like if payments and spam were easy instead of hard, or if DDOS was hard instead of easy? I might hazard a guess that this is one factor of many that drives the centralisation of tech into monopolies. A positive externality: The general failure of the tech industry to develop good content protection has enabled widespread software and media piracy. I might suspect this has allowed second and third world countries to uplift faster than otherwise possible (sci-hub anyone?) while also removing a tool of empire from the first world.

lonelappde 7y ago

Highlights from the article: * we can just stop using computers to avoid security problems. * Most criminals are dumb, so it doesn't matter that one smart one can control 80K people's computers around the world to mine Bitcoin. * Data deletion attacks that cripples hospitals and governments is not a problem because they should have backups. * Persecuting dissidents isn't a big deal?

dcx 7y ago

I disagree. The contours of our world are shaped by the quality of our cybersecurity, to the point that it's the water we swim in and we just don't see it any more. Some examples: The last US election was won in large part through highly-targeted influence campaigns run based on stolen data. Not to mention the triggering of Brexit. The influence of the NSA / Russia / Five Eyes / etc on geopolitics hinges on poor cybersecurity. I think it would be silly to assume all of the recent leaks we see come from "inside the building". The entire economics and solution space of what is possible on the internet is shaped by our cybersecurity standards. What would the internet look like if payments and spam were easy instead of hard, or if DDOS was hard instead of easy? I might hazard a guess that this is one factor of many that drives the centralisation of tech into monopolies. A positive externality: The general failure of the tech industry to develop good content protection has enabled widespread software and media piracy. I might suspect this has allowed second and third world countries to uplift faster than otherwise possible (sci-hub anyone?) while also removing a tool of empire from the first world.