10 ms·

So, two possible responses by the government to the current increase in these kinds of attacks: 1) blame the lack of computer security in our infrastructure, a

So, two possible responses by the government to the current increase in these kinds of attacks: 1) blame the lack of computer security in our infrastructure, and work on improving that 2) blame cybercurrencies, and try to eliminate them Any bets on which one our government will choose?

waihtis 6y ago
Didn’t see anything about ransomware in the article?
aardvarkr 6y ago
That a pretty low effort dig at the government. What the hell does that have to do with something that is obviously state sponsored cyber espionage? Go troll somewhere else
- kingsuper20 6y ago
  'obviously'? Meh. One argument you can make is to partly defund the surveillance-based departments and agencies and put together a cybersecurity agency who is tasked with hardening the country's systems. I have no idea how someone would build a legislative and personnel firewall to protect it from the existing need to peep through keyholes, it's probably not possible.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wolverine876 6y ago
That's quite a strawperson - it creates a fictional story and then criticize the characters. The U.S. government has been addressing computer security in infrastructure for a long time.
- joejerryronnie 6y ago
  I’d prefer a new Cybersecurity branch of the military with full funding and resources rather than Space Force.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    I've always secretly hoped warfare would move to the digital realm soley. We have some shades of that happening already, but I imagine a future where instead of sending young people to die,warring nations wreck each others economies remotely... which again isn't too far from current day. While there'd still be casualties it wouldn't be nearly as barbaric as current wars, more developed nations would finally have as much skin in the game as disadvantaged ones, etc. The way I see it, the best way to discourage war is to make it unprofitable. If war just becomes directly hurting each other's ability to make money I could see war, or erm excuse me armed conflicts, getting a lot more unattractive.
    - joejerryronnie 6y ago
      I think you’re going to see this more and more (at least with wealthy nations). And I think the motivation for war has always been primarily about profit.
      - BoorishBears 6y ago
        It's been motivated by profit, but this harms the motivation Right now it is profitable for us to go to war. Contracts are signed, jobs are created, it is good for powerful wealthy people for the country to be at war. And if you're powerful enough the risk of retaliation is so low that it's all gain and no cost (outside of human cost which is never enough apparently) With this type of war the equation would be switched. Going to war directly harms wealthy benefactors, who as a result of their wealth hold political influence. We're already seeing that aren't we? Espionage at companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. It's not harming any "normal person" but it's directly hurting the pocketbooks of powerful people. It creates incentive to avoid conflict in a way that (unfortunately) young men and women dying doesn't seem to have done in the past
- mcguire 6y ago
  ...which is why these sorts of attacks almost never occur and are always so resource intensive that no criminal would ever think of doing so for ransom?
  - wolverine876 6y ago
    Is your argument that if there's a problem, the government must not have tried to prevent it? We still have cancer; does the NIH exist? We still have crime, food poisoning, car accidents ...
foobiekr 6y ago
(2) isn’t wrong though. Ransom ware dates to 1989 but the uptick goes hand in hand with the rise of crypto currencies for the obvious reason that you don’t steal what you can’t fence and cryptocurrency has changed the risk and feasibility dramatically. I’m not saying I support government action here but we should be honest about the situation.
- rapjr9 6y ago
  How did criminals pull off international blackmail, kidnapping, and extortion before cryptocurrencies? Did it always require a local bagman? Could ransomware criminals not resort to the same tactics?
raverbashing 6y ago
3) investigate and neutralize the groups behind the cyberattacks
coffeefirst 6y ago
Both are correct. The state of computer security is unacceptable and needs to be fixed. Today its profit-motivated extortionists, but anything they can do is also an option for spy agencies, and is it really that hard to imagine anti-oil activists pulling the same stunt some day? On the other hand, crypto is the thing behind the profit motive. If crypto is impractical (if there were no way to convert it to real currency), the profit incentives for these attacks (and mining, for that matter) break down. I realize this isn't a popular opinion around here, but we should probably do both.
- randomhodler84 6y ago
  Yes, we need to ban math. Math is the root of cryptography; which is the root of cryptocurrency. Ultimately it’s numbers. They are the worst. Everything bad comes from the interaction of points on elliptic curves. Get out of here with this.
  - echelon 6y ago
    Cryptocurrency, not math and cryptography. Cryptocurrency is a bunch of people thinking their bets are more important than the government's control levers of monetary and fiscal policy. They'd rather make a quick buck and disregard the fact that this takes away our government's sovereignty. Our government's ability to bail out the economy, protect its most vulnerable. It's more important that the Winklevosses and early supporters get all the economic upside, and it's just fine if the US dollar slides into the abyss. Lower income folks surely won't get screwed by this. Nevermind the fact that cryptocurrency is destroying the environment. That's just a minor detail. Cryptocurrency is selfishness and hubris. All the smart people working on this insanity would be doing the planet much better if they were working on fixing social media or making tools for cancer researchers. I'm not for telling people what to do with their lives, but this observation seems pretty obvious to me.
    - randomhodler84 6y ago
      It isn’t, and you might be a little misinformed. But it’s ok, you can scream into the abyss as long as you like. We don’t want to cure cancer (don’t know how). We want to free the world of the tyranny of central banking, debt-based economies and theft of savings through inflation. It is a noble endeavor. Selfishness is continuing along the old broken road. There are new, better ones.
rasz 6y ago
Both options sound sane, so I guess it will be 3) blame Russia/China

waihtis 6y ago

Didn’t see anything about ransomware in the article?

aardvarkr 6y ago

That a pretty low effort dig at the government. What the hell does that have to do with something that is obviously state sponsored cyber espionage? Go troll somewhere else

kingsuper20 6y ago
'obviously'? Meh. One argument you can make is to partly defund the surveillance-based departments and agencies and put together a cybersecurity agency who is tasked with hardening the country's systems. I have no idea how someone would build a legislative and personnel firewall to protect it from the existing need to peep through keyholes, it's probably not possible.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wolverine876 6y ago

That's quite a strawperson - it creates a fictional story and then criticize the characters. The U.S. government has been addressing computer security in infrastructure for a long time.

joejerryronnie 6y ago
I’d prefer a new Cybersecurity branch of the military with full funding and resources rather than Space Force.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  I've always secretly hoped warfare would move to the digital realm soley. We have some shades of that happening already, but I imagine a future where instead of sending young people to die,warring nations wreck each others economies remotely... which again isn't too far from current day. While there'd still be casualties it wouldn't be nearly as barbaric as current wars, more developed nations would finally have as much skin in the game as disadvantaged ones, etc. The way I see it, the best way to discourage war is to make it unprofitable. If war just becomes directly hurting each other's ability to make money I could see war, or erm excuse me armed conflicts, getting a lot more unattractive.
  - joejerryronnie 6y ago
    I think you’re going to see this more and more (at least with wealthy nations). And I think the motivation for war has always been primarily about profit.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      It's been motivated by profit, but this harms the motivation Right now it is profitable for us to go to war. Contracts are signed, jobs are created, it is good for powerful wealthy people for the country to be at war. And if you're powerful enough the risk of retaliation is so low that it's all gain and no cost (outside of human cost which is never enough apparently) With this type of war the equation would be switched. Going to war directly harms wealthy benefactors, who as a result of their wealth hold political influence. We're already seeing that aren't we? Espionage at companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. It's not harming any "normal person" but it's directly hurting the pocketbooks of powerful people. It creates incentive to avoid conflict in a way that (unfortunately) young men and women dying doesn't seem to have done in the past
mcguire 6y ago
...which is why these sorts of attacks almost never occur and are always so resource intensive that no criminal would ever think of doing so for ransom?
- wolverine876 6y ago
  Is your argument that if there's a problem, the government must not have tried to prevent it? We still have cancer; does the NIH exist? We still have crime, food poisoning, car accidents ...

foobiekr 6y ago

(2) isn’t wrong though. Ransom ware dates to 1989 but the uptick goes hand in hand with the rise of crypto currencies for the obvious reason that you don’t steal what you can’t fence and cryptocurrency has changed the risk and feasibility dramatically. I’m not saying I support government action here but we should be honest about the situation.

rapjr9 6y ago
How did criminals pull off international blackmail, kidnapping, and extortion before cryptocurrencies? Did it always require a local bagman? Could ransomware criminals not resort to the same tactics?

raverbashing 6y ago

3) investigate and neutralize the groups behind the cyberattacks

coffeefirst 6y ago

Both are correct. The state of computer security is unacceptable and needs to be fixed. Today its profit-motivated extortionists, but anything they can do is also an option for spy agencies, and is it really that hard to imagine anti-oil activists pulling the same stunt some day? On the other hand, crypto is the thing behind the profit motive. If crypto is impractical (if there were no way to convert it to real currency), the profit incentives for these attacks (and mining, for that matter) break down. I realize this isn't a popular opinion around here, but we should probably do both.

randomhodler84 6y ago
Yes, we need to ban math. Math is the root of cryptography; which is the root of cryptocurrency. Ultimately it’s numbers. They are the worst. Everything bad comes from the interaction of points on elliptic curves. Get out of here with this.
- echelon 6y ago
  Cryptocurrency, not math and cryptography. Cryptocurrency is a bunch of people thinking their bets are more important than the government's control levers of monetary and fiscal policy. They'd rather make a quick buck and disregard the fact that this takes away our government's sovereignty. Our government's ability to bail out the economy, protect its most vulnerable. It's more important that the Winklevosses and early supporters get all the economic upside, and it's just fine if the US dollar slides into the abyss. Lower income folks surely won't get screwed by this. Nevermind the fact that cryptocurrency is destroying the environment. That's just a minor detail. Cryptocurrency is selfishness and hubris. All the smart people working on this insanity would be doing the planet much better if they were working on fixing social media or making tools for cancer researchers. I'm not for telling people what to do with their lives, but this observation seems pretty obvious to me.
  - randomhodler84 6y ago
    It isn’t, and you might be a little misinformed. But it’s ok, you can scream into the abyss as long as you like. We don’t want to cure cancer (don’t know how). We want to free the world of the tyranny of central banking, debt-based economies and theft of savings through inflation. It is a noble endeavor. Selfishness is continuing along the old broken road. There are new, better ones.

rasz 6y ago

Both options sound sane, so I guess it will be 3) blame Russia/China