5 ms·

Israel’s pager attacks did not change the world. They merely alerted the world to the possibility of everyday devices being compromised. What is true today was

Israel’s pager attacks did not change the world. They merely alerted the world to the possibility of everyday devices being compromised. What is true today was still true yesterday, it just wasn’t top of mind: we have to be very careful with what we allow our adversaries to sell to us.

saghm 2y ago
People are a large part of the world. If enough people who weren't aware of something are aware of it now, society can react to it, and change.
haswell 2y ago
It seems like a stretch to argue that a world in which thousands of people are simultaneously injured or killed by an electronic device they had no reason to fear is not meaningfully changed by said event. The world is in a continuous state of change, and the fact that these pager attacks are now in the public consciousness introduces a whole series of potential pathways of thought and action that wouldn’t have been explored if not for this event. This is in addition to gaining clarity about the world as it already was immediately prior to the attack, i.e. yes we were vulnerable, and an entity was in the process of actively exploiting that vulnerability. Now we're aware, and that awareness has/will initiate a new cascade of change. ETA: I'm very curious to understand how/why people disagree with this.
eesmith 2y ago
By that definition, Covid-19 and the September 11 attacks also did not change the world. Literally the first sentence says the pager attack 'graphically illustrated a threat that cybersecurity experts have been warning about for years'.
acdha 2y ago
Did 9/11 not change the world because the idea had been made in fiction beforehand? The pager attack did change the world in two ways: the obvious one is where your point is most accurate (people becoming aware of how fragile supply chain are - just think snout what a terrorist could do with Amazon’s comingled inventory and returns!), but the other thing it did is start to legitimize this. If it’s only the Unabomber doing something, it’s clearly indefensible but as states use it other people will start to justify it on those grounds. Hezbollah is hardly a sympathetic target but I’d be shocked if someone in the region doesn’t try to attack Israelis this way saying it’s not a war crime for the same reasons.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  > the other thing it did is start to legitimize this. If it’s only the Unabomber doing something, it’s clearly indefensible but as states use it other people will start to justify it on those grounds. This is the most worrying part: Do we really need to normalize the idea of governments sending little bombs out into the civilian population and detonating them, hoping that they actually hit their targets? This is not how legitimate warfighting is done.
  - edanm 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      Yea, I mean sure it's better than firing a missile at an apartment building full of families because there are a few terrorists hiding in it. But that's a pretty low bar. We are also just taking their word for it that it was a carefully chosen shipment (this time) and that it went out specifically to actual Bad Guys™ (this time). With only "Trust Us, Bro" as assurance. It's a bad precedent to normalize.
  - acdha 2y ago
    That’s what I’ve been fearing, too. It’s like dressing up as medical workers or using chemical weapons: no matter the legitimacy of the current target, it’s virtually certain that someone else will cite that as a justification for why they’re doing something similar. This seems especially dicey in the generative AI era where it’d be increasingly cheap for some government to “prove” that the people they just bombed were Hezbollah-level threats.
  - zero-sharp 2y ago
    what is "legitimate warfighting"?
    - OutOfHere 2y ago
      Legitimate warfighting is where sensible pacifist civilians have a sufficient notice and a chance to leave the intended warzone with their belongings before the war starts. It is also where military, industrial, and infrastructural targets are the only targets, where reasonable efforts are made to avoid targeting civilians. Legitimate warfighting brings freedom in the end, whereas illegitimate warfighting takes it away.
gmuslera 2y ago
It used to be a possibility. Now is a reality, and done not by a minor unorganized player (like a small group of people breaking things) but by a major power. Even if they stop doing it right now, and not escalate it to i.e. phones, it has set up a dangerous precedent.

saghm 2y ago

People are a large part of the world. If enough people who weren't aware of something are aware of it now, society can react to it, and change.

haswell 2y ago

It seems like a stretch to argue that a world in which thousands of people are simultaneously injured or killed by an electronic device they had no reason to fear is not meaningfully changed by said event. The world is in a continuous state of change, and the fact that these pager attacks are now in the public consciousness introduces a whole series of potential pathways of thought and action that wouldn’t have been explored if not for this event. This is in addition to gaining clarity about the world as it already was immediately prior to the attack, i.e. yes we were vulnerable, and an entity was in the process of actively exploiting that vulnerability. Now we're aware, and that awareness has/will initiate a new cascade of change. ETA: I'm very curious to understand how/why people disagree with this.

eesmith 2y ago

By that definition, Covid-19 and the September 11 attacks also did not change the world. Literally the first sentence says the pager attack 'graphically illustrated a threat that cybersecurity experts have been warning about for years'.

acdha 2y ago

Did 9/11 not change the world because the idea had been made in fiction beforehand? The pager attack did change the world in two ways: the obvious one is where your point is most accurate (people becoming aware of how fragile supply chain are - just think snout what a terrorist could do with Amazon’s comingled inventory and returns!), but the other thing it did is start to legitimize this. If it’s only the Unabomber doing something, it’s clearly indefensible but as states use it other people will start to justify it on those grounds. Hezbollah is hardly a sympathetic target but I’d be shocked if someone in the region doesn’t try to attack Israelis this way saying it’s not a war crime for the same reasons.

ryandrake 2y ago
> the other thing it did is start to legitimize this. If it’s only the Unabomber doing something, it’s clearly indefensible but as states use it other people will start to justify it on those grounds. This is the most worrying part: Do we really need to normalize the idea of governments sending little bombs out into the civilian population and detonating them, hoping that they actually hit their targets? This is not how legitimate warfighting is done.
- edanm 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    Yea, I mean sure it's better than firing a missile at an apartment building full of families because there are a few terrorists hiding in it. But that's a pretty low bar. We are also just taking their word for it that it was a carefully chosen shipment (this time) and that it went out specifically to actual Bad Guys™ (this time). With only "Trust Us, Bro" as assurance. It's a bad precedent to normalize.
- acdha 2y ago
  That’s what I’ve been fearing, too. It’s like dressing up as medical workers or using chemical weapons: no matter the legitimacy of the current target, it’s virtually certain that someone else will cite that as a justification for why they’re doing something similar. This seems especially dicey in the generative AI era where it’d be increasingly cheap for some government to “prove” that the people they just bombed were Hezbollah-level threats.
- zero-sharp 2y ago
  what is "legitimate warfighting"?
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    Legitimate warfighting is where sensible pacifist civilians have a sufficient notice and a chance to leave the intended warzone with their belongings before the war starts. It is also where military, industrial, and infrastructural targets are the only targets, where reasonable efforts are made to avoid targeting civilians. Legitimate warfighting brings freedom in the end, whereas illegitimate warfighting takes it away.

gmuslera 2y ago

It used to be a possibility. Now is a reality, and done not by a minor unorganized player (like a small group of people breaking things) but by a major power. Even if they stop doing it right now, and not escalate it to i.e. phones, it has set up a dangerous precedent.