3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt 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 agoGovernments 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 agoDo the cops not need guns to put you behind bars?
- thriftwy 3y agoUsually 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 agoI 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 agoStop! Or I will shout "Stop!" again
- lambertsimnel 3y agoIn 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 agoThey 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 agoAnd what will these fine gentlemen do when I take out my gun and kindly refuse their offer? Better yet, what will the state do when the neighboring country, armed with F35s, decides it’s time to take their land?
- thriftwy 3y agoIn this case you will indeed get a visit of militarized police or state army, and you have good chances being crippled or dead in the process and you know it. The point being, 99% of arrests will not involve guns at all. State has guns, absolutely, it just does not need these guns on day-to-day basis. Needing guns is an emergency.
- mrbungie 3y agoIn governments, power = force = arms.
- hotnfresh 3y agoConventional weapons are dangerous the way guns are dangerous. 0days are dangerous the way a very-well-placed spy is dangerous.