5 ms·
Seems to me like the government should internally own their malware rather than tolerate a company that presumably sells to other governments or private entitie
by spacemanmatt 5y ago
Seems to me like the government should internally own their malware rather than tolerate a company that presumably sells to other governments or private entities. Mine was a rhetorical question of course.
- hutzlibu 5y agoThat would require the state to attract (and compensate) IT talent. As far as I know, they are trying..
- hnbad 5y agoYou mean like a state owned enterprise? That would go against decades of free market ideology. Even if we had somehow ended up with a state owned malware development organization it would probably have been privatized by now.
- robertlagrant 5y agoAre you joking? Many states do this. E.g. in the UK they had a massive hiring binge for cyber a few years ago. They will also buy from third parties. That's not ideology (the free market can't really be deemed an ideology), that's just not succumbing to an (actual) ideology that says the state must own everything.
- hnbad 5y ago> the free market can't really be deemed an ideology The free market isn't an ideology much like money isn't an ideology. Putting the free market in charge of certain aspects of society however is very much an ideological decision, though. Ideology doesn't stop being ideology just because you agree with it (although there are certainly plenty of political candidates throughout history who claim to not adhere to any ideologies). For example anarchists are somewhat open to market economies while state communists usually advocate for central planning and libertarians are strongly in favor of free market maximalism, believing that for a free market to work at its best it needs to be free of all regulations (tho usually still maintaing some rule of law to prevent a real world equivalent of EVE Online's corporate warfare). I'm not saying privatization is good or bad, I'm just saying that the underlying ideology of the past decades in Germany has been that we should privatize as much as possible and where privatization is not possible we should at least reproduce a free market system as closely as possible (e.g. we have multiple competing public healthcare providers despite having strict regulations that mean they all provide very similar levels of care). > Many states do this. We do have people in government agencies "doing cyber". We just don't have a government owned software development department developing malware for government agencies to use, just like we don't have a government owned weapons manufacturing department developing weapons for the police and military. We do have the government owning shares (even majority shares) in private (or rather publicly traded) companies though. But often these are in privatized branches of the government (e.g. Deutsche Bahn) or companies that are naturally monopolistic. Buying out a private software development company would go against the spirit of the free market as it would eliminate competition.
- kuboble 5y agoWe have private companies designing and building weapons. There are laws regarding who it can be sold to or where it can be exported. I believe malware is in the same category.
- saagarjha 5y agoAt least in the US, there are caps on how much you can pay an internal employee that generally do not pay for a top-tier researcher who’d develop malware like this. Instead you would pay some contractor a much higher rate that they could pass some portion of to their own researchers.
- mikro2nd 5y agoSometimes (frequently) you want an arms-length/plausibly-deniable relationship so that government can do edgy/illegal stuff but duck the blowback if it all goes pear-shaped or gets exposed to the sanitising light of day. See also extraordinary rendition.