4 ms·

The difference is that there is serious deterrence against the use of conventional weapons (you can't just do a quick over the border raid), but for 0days it's

The difference is that there is serious deterrence against the use of conventional weapons (you can't just do a quick over the border raid), but for 0days it's all you can exploit buffet.

brap 3y ago
I'm not downplaying cyber weapons, but I would argue that conventional weapons have caused significantly more damage to innocent people over the last few years than any exploit. Deaths in the hundreds of thousands, easily, not to mention injuries, damage of property, etc. Also, the use of cyber weapons is almost meaningless without physical force to back it up. A dictator (or Spain) can spy on their dissidents, sure, but they won't even have any dissidents if they don't have the guns to stay in power. While 0days are still a weapon, and I agree they can and do in fact cause harm to innocent people, I don't think that this comparison is even close.
- yuppiepuppie 3y ago
  It could also be related to the fact that conventional weapons trade and arms have been around for a very long time. Therefore control mechanisms and rules of engagement have been set. Where as, cyber weapons are quite new and from my pov not limited in any way. Does anyone know if the sale of a cyber weapon produced in the US can be sold outside to a foreign actor without government approval? If they can be sold, I suppose that’s one other factor at play here.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  Governments don't need guns to stay in power. It's sufficient for them to have a lawyer and some cops to put you behind bars if they wish. Resisting will just make you go behing those bars for much longer.
  - brap 3y ago
    Do the cops not need guns to put you behind bars?
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      Usually not. They might have them, especially in trigger-happy locales, but they don't use them. You're not usually dragged behind bars at the gunpoint. You're going behind bars voluntarily because the alternative is being dragged behind bars for longer and that's all.
      - brap 3y ago
        I would be very curious to see how a police force which has no credible threat of violence can operate. "You're going to jail" - "No" "Now you're going to jail for even longer!" - "Make me" Even more amusing when the citizens have guns but the "police force" does not.
        jjgreen 3y ago
        Stop! Or I will shout "Stop!" again
        lambertsimnel 3y ago
        In the UK, the police seem to have little trouble being violent without guns. I think it's the threat of that kind of violence that they use to e.g. jail people. Some police officers do have guns, but they're a minority (and many of them in London refused to wield guns this week, in protest about a murder charge for a firearms officer who killed an unarmed man). As far as I can tell, non-police violence here also mostly doesn't involve guns. Knife crime seems to be more widespread.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        thriftwy 3y ago
        They come to your house with a prison sentence and five strong, unarmed men and walk you away politely? What would you do against the state?
        brap 3y ago
  - mrbungie 3y ago
    In governments, power = force = arms.
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  Conventional weapons are dangerous the way guns are dangerous. 0days are dangerous the way a very-well-placed spy is dangerous.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
It's a weird kind of cold war; there's government agencies performing cyberattacks worldwide constantly, but it never turns into "You overstepped a mark" and resulting conflict / sanctions / consequences - at least not as far as I can tell.
- grotorea 3y ago
  Cyberwarfare ended up quite low on the escalation ladder, but I think that's partly because the most extreme cases (i.e. where you're actually trying to destroy or incapacitate) like U.S./Israel attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure or Russian attacks on Eastern Europe only happen between countries that at borderline hostility anyway. Most cyberattacks are just espionage but with computers, which happens even at peacetime between allies.

The difference is that there is serious deterrence against the use of conventional weapons (you can't just do a quick over the border raid), but for 0days it's all you can exploit buffet.

brap 3y ago

I'm not downplaying cyber weapons, but I would argue that conventional weapons have caused significantly more damage to innocent people over the last few years than any exploit. Deaths in the hundreds of thousands, easily, not to mention injuries, damage of property, etc. Also, the use of cyber weapons is almost meaningless without physical force to back it up. A dictator (or Spain) can spy on their dissidents, sure, but they won't even have any dissidents if they don't have the guns to stay in power. While 0days are still a weapon, and I agree they can and do in fact cause harm to innocent people, I don't think that this comparison is even close.

yuppiepuppie 3y ago
It could also be related to the fact that conventional weapons trade and arms have been around for a very long time. Therefore control mechanisms and rules of engagement have been set. Where as, cyber weapons are quite new and from my pov not limited in any way. Does anyone know if the sale of a cyber weapon produced in the US can be sold outside to a foreign actor without government approval? If they can be sold, I suppose that’s one other factor at play here.
thriftwy 3y ago
Governments don't need guns to stay in power. It's sufficient for them to have a lawyer and some cops to put you behind bars if they wish. Resisting will just make you go behing those bars for much longer.
- brap 3y ago
  Do the cops not need guns to put you behind bars?
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    Usually not. They might have them, especially in trigger-happy locales, but they don't use them. You're not usually dragged behind bars at the gunpoint. You're going behind bars voluntarily because the alternative is being dragged behind bars for longer and that's all.
    - brap 3y ago
      I would be very curious to see how a police force which has no credible threat of violence can operate. "You're going to jail" - "No" "Now you're going to jail for even longer!" - "Make me" Even more amusing when the citizens have guns but the "police force" does not.
      - jjgreen 3y ago
        Stop! Or I will shout "Stop!" again
      - lambertsimnel 3y ago
        In the UK, the police seem to have little trouble being violent without guns. I think it's the threat of that kind of violence that they use to e.g. jail people. Some police officers do have guns, but they're a minority (and many of them in London refused to wield guns this week, in protest about a murder charge for a firearms officer who killed an unarmed man). As far as I can tell, non-police violence here also mostly doesn't involve guns. Knife crime seems to be more widespread.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        They come to your house with a prison sentence and five strong, unarmed men and walk you away politely? What would you do against the state?
        brap 3y ago
- mrbungie 3y ago
  In governments, power = force = arms.
hotnfresh 3y ago
Conventional weapons are dangerous the way guns are dangerous. 0days are dangerous the way a very-well-placed spy is dangerous.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

It's a weird kind of cold war; there's government agencies performing cyberattacks worldwide constantly, but it never turns into "You overstepped a mark" and resulting conflict / sanctions / consequences - at least not as far as I can tell.

grotorea 3y ago
Cyberwarfare ended up quite low on the escalation ladder, but I think that's partly because the most extreme cases (i.e. where you're actually trying to destroy or incapacitate) like U.S./Israel attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure or Russian attacks on Eastern Europe only happen between countries that at borderline hostility anyway. Most cyberattacks are just espionage but with computers, which happens even at peacetime between allies.