3 ms·

Are bombs an acceptable response to hacker attacks?

5 points by jfruh 15y ago

nextparadigms 15y ago
The first thing that comes to my mind is "Wow. Even the question itself sounds dumb/absurd. The action itself would be even worse. A lot worse" I think USA is just finding more excuses to start more wars to keep the Defense contractors well-fed. You have to ask yourself, what happens if the military/weapon contractors get some fat contracts for a few years because of a war or two, and then (almost) suddenly the wars stop. What happens to those companies? Clearly they are going to take a hit in revenues, because they are not going to make as much money in peace time as they are in war time, and selling weapons in war time is a lot harder. I think this creates a perverse incentive for those companies and it gets them to lobby the Government or scare it with "doomsday cyberwars" and such. We can see how easily it can happen with Big Content lobbying the Government, so why not with these companies, too? Their motivation would be to keep increasing revenue and "shareholder value", and a lack of wars would dramatically reduce that.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  Is it absurd to arrest domestic hackers who commit actual harmful crimes - e.g., stealing ten thousand credit card numbers and going on a shopping spree, or selling them off to other criminals - by sending armed policemen to their house?
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    What? How does arresting someone even come close to bombing a city? Would that make you feel more like a "patriot"?
chrisbennet 15y ago
That web site had the pop-up blocker in my browser clucking away (mine makes a "cluck" moise for every pop up it blocks).
Helianthus 15y ago
Bit of a loaded question, isn't it? Consider that "hacker attacks" nominally includes fucking up power plants and other infrastructure (targeting civilian hospitals)--a country-sponsored malicious cyber assault. Obviously that would be considered an act of war, because it probably _would_ be an act of war.

5 points by jfruh 15y ago

The first thing that comes to my mind is "Wow. Even the question itself sounds dumb/absurd. The action itself would be even worse. A lot worse" I think USA is just finding more excuses to start more wars to keep the Defense contractors well-fed. You have to ask yourself, what happens if the military/weapon contractors get some fat contracts for a few years because of a war or two, and then (almost) suddenly the wars stop. What happens to those companies? Clearly they are going to take a hit in revenues, because they are not going to make as much money in peace time as they are in war time, and selling weapons in war time is a lot harder. I think this creates a perverse incentive for those companies and it gets them to lobby the Government or scare it with "doomsday cyberwars" and such. We can see how easily it can happen with Big Content lobbying the Government, so why not with these companies, too? Their motivation would be to keep increasing revenue and "shareholder value", and a lack of wars would dramatically reduce that.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
Is it absurd to arrest domestic hackers who commit actual harmful crimes - e.g., stealing ten thousand credit card numbers and going on a shopping spree, or selling them off to other criminals - by sending armed policemen to their house?
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  What? How does arresting someone even come close to bombing a city? Would that make you feel more like a "patriot"?

chrisbennet 15y ago

That web site had the pop-up blocker in my browser clucking away (mine makes a "cluck" moise for every pop up it blocks).

Helianthus 15y ago

Bit of a loaded question, isn't it? Consider that "hacker attacks" nominally includes fucking up power plants and other infrastructure (targeting civilian hospitals)--a country-sponsored malicious cyber assault. Obviously that would be considered an act of war, because it probably _would_ be an act of war.