4 ms·

"As cynical as I may sound, but cybersecurity threats like this will continue to be ignored until they sufficiently escalate into consequences." I guess an eve

"As cynical as I may sound, but cybersecurity threats like this will continue to be ignored until they sufficiently escalate into consequences." I guess an even more cynical take would be that nothing will be done even after extreme consequences become visible. The analogy that occurs to me is war. Every politician theoretically wants to stop war but for the modern state, there is never an end to war and conflict, just rearrangements and strategies based on power and circumstances. IE, they expect war forever and just want to win it. Lack of cyber security seems similar and the plan seems to be to merge them.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> Every politician theoretically wants to stop war What? No they don't.
PeterisP 7y ago
The war analogy is not really adequate. War is an extension of diplomacy, a continuation of policy with other means, an instrument that may allow politicians to achieve certain foreign policy goals which they could not otherwise. War is not something that magically happens on it's own, it's started intentionally to achieve certain goals, by a politician who did not want to stop that war but who wanted and chose to start it. Even in the absence of actual conflict, having that option (and others knowing that you have that option) gives you lots of leverage and influence, and unilaterally abandoning that capability gives up that influence and ensures that you'll have to concede things to others who do have that option. And it's not just that unilateral withdrawal doesn't work (si vis pacem, para bellum), but also that a multilateral agreement to end all war and capability for it is not something that all politicians and countries desire - some do, but some countries are militarily more capable than others, and they benefit from that, so it's simply not in their best interest to have a world where war isn't an option and they lose that influence. Case in point - nuclear disarmament; the powers that do have nuclear weapons have a strategic advantage over those that don't, and they would not be willing to give that up to have a world with no nuclear weapons even if it would be possible to have a working multilateral agreement between all of the nuclear powers.
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  The idea that nations go to war for clear, well-considered purposes is stretching things mightily. But it's also irrelevant to my point. Computer insecurity isn't like war as such. Computer insecurity is like floating military technology, insecure borders, foreign sponsored "rebels" and all things that make war more likely. My actual point is that states oriented to ending these problems but taking advantage of them. But by all spend a lot of verbiage to show some knowledge about states.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> Every politician theoretically wants to stop war What? No they don't.

PeterisP 7y ago

The war analogy is not really adequate. War is an extension of diplomacy, a continuation of policy with other means, an instrument that may allow politicians to achieve certain foreign policy goals which they could not otherwise. War is not something that magically happens on it's own, it's started intentionally to achieve certain goals, by a politician who did not want to stop that war but who wanted and chose to start it. Even in the absence of actual conflict, having that option (and others knowing that you have that option) gives you lots of leverage and influence, and unilaterally abandoning that capability gives up that influence and ensures that you'll have to concede things to others who do have that option. And it's not just that unilateral withdrawal doesn't work (si vis pacem, para bellum), but also that a multilateral agreement to end all war and capability for it is not something that all politicians and countries desire - some do, but some countries are militarily more capable than others, and they benefit from that, so it's simply not in their best interest to have a world where war isn't an option and they lose that influence. Case in point - nuclear disarmament; the powers that do have nuclear weapons have a strategic advantage over those that don't, and they would not be willing to give that up to have a world with no nuclear weapons even if it would be possible to have a working multilateral agreement between all of the nuclear powers.

joe_the_user 7y ago
The idea that nations go to war for clear, well-considered purposes is stretching things mightily. But it's also irrelevant to my point. Computer insecurity isn't like war as such. Computer insecurity is like floating military technology, insecure borders, foreign sponsored "rebels" and all things that make war more likely. My actual point is that states oriented to ending these problems but taking advantage of them. But by all spend a lot of verbiage to show some knowledge about states.