He mentions the threat of remotely taking over autonomous vehicles, but really its any vehicle who's a) network connected and b) drive-by-wire. Which is why I w

He mentions the threat of remotely taking over autonomous vehicles, but really its any vehicle who's a) network connected and b) drive-by-wire. Which is why I won't buy one, and why the problem is even worse than it appears. The other problem that he doesn't address is the centralization of critical (and semi-critical, like logistics) software in large shared data-centers. If you wanted to disable large chunks of the American software economy for an extended period, you only have to kill ~100 buildings. In a way I think the ransomware people are doing us all a huge favor by putting the fear of God into executives around cybersecurity. Unfortunately, as other commenters have mentioned, the real problem is hard to address, because it's the complexity inherent in the "worse is better" philosophy. Current systems have grown in a lovely, nice environment that is generally reliable. When that environment changes quickly (which is one way to characterize a cyber attack) these systems will fail, and there will be no time or tools to repair them. This includes software and infrastructure hardware. Somewhat ironically, this is precisely the kind of non-extinction-level threat that "having a bunker" and a large store of food would actually get you through - something only executives can afford. Perhaps we might consider outlawing such bunkers to properly motivate the monied elite to address these issues.