4 ms·
The debate is framed as privacy vs security. Really it’s internal threat security vs external threat security. Measures to reduce personal security also reduc
by sjducb 2y ago
The debate is framed as privacy vs security.
Really it’s internal threat security vs external threat security.
Measures to reduce personal security also reduce the security of the traditional armed forces.
1) The armed forces use most of the same networking software and hardware as civilians. They also rely on the same protocols.
2) In a total war scenario, like Ukraine, civilian communication infrastructure becomes military communication infrastructure. See soldiers relying on phones for communication and apps to aim artillery.
3) The vulnerabilities that get built into civilian communications are obvious cyber warfare targets.
The framing of privacy vs security tricks the traditional armed forces into thinking that they have the same interests as the NSA.
- maga_2020 2y agoFamous quote by Benjamin Franklin (from 1755) : “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ... "... Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance--and he was criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former. ..." [0] [0] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-ben-franklin-really-said https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-ben-franklin-reall...
- npteljes 2y agoI think that using a secure layer on top of the insecure layer undermines this argument, similar to how HTTPS is secure while using HTTP with a twist, and using every underlying system in the same way. Or how GPS functionality is regulated for civilians. So especially "1)" won't be true. Yes, right now they may be using same or similar things, but then after the new regulation they would be using superior stuff, problem solved. "3)" is considerable because that's true, whatever difference there is in comms security, adversaries will have the same power over the civilian comms as their own government. Right now of course this is the case already, but especially after regulating it, will it become prevalent. I think governments are fine with this in general, though, which I deduct from the lack of countermeasures to it. In reality, encryption is power, and the more power individuals have, the less power those have who want to control individuals. Everything else is smoke and mirrors, like the classic "think of the children" argument.
- sjducb 2y agoRegarding #1. Will there be performance implications when adding the secure layer? Will there be cost implications when adding a secure layer? Will the secure layer add risks to the project? Governments are already bad at delivering defence projects on time, will the extra complexity make it worse? How do we know which layers are insecure? Will there be a published list of vulnerabilities that need to be mitigated by the military?
- npteljes 2y agoI'm sure there's a pessimistic, but realistic answer to all these questions. What is your point?