3 ms·

Premise A: "Something must be done." Premise B: "This is something." ----------- Conclusion: "This must be done." I call bullshit. I do believe th

Premise A: "Something must be done." Premise B: "This is something." ----------- Conclusion: "This must be done." I call bullshit. I do believe that key pieces of global computer infrastructure are at risk of attack. But the threat will not be eliminated by scaremongering, or by handing POTUS the ability to 'shut down the internet' in the case of an emergency (a situation which would arguably lead to more catastrophic failures than any 'cyber attack'). The obvious thing to do when facing a direct military threat is to step up defense forces (missiles, infantry, warships, whatever) in the area you're expecting to be attacked in. But no such obvious solution exists in the case of 'cyberwarfare'. You can't just 'build a digital fortress' with a pile of bricks. I've yet to hear a sound explanation of how legislation will protect computer infrastructure. Despite our protestations, the governments of the US, UK, Germany and whoever else probably will pass cyberspace protection laws, that only deprive us of freedoms we've grown accustomed to, do little to secure anything, and drive up barriers to entry in more industries.

Zenst 14y ago
It is certainly interesting times in that if country A sends even a remote controlled plane into country B, then country B can deem that as aggression and proceed. In the digital age attacks akin to that happen all the time yet we are only told they happen and that we need to react. There is nothing evident that the consumer public at large can relate to as there is no physical object or clear damage. Then there is the aspect that a attack from country B upon country A done on the internet is nothing to do with country B in any intended form and is the product of a few people sat at home who have no official right to be doing the attack. The internet allows criminals to expand beyond there physical comuter reach and extend globaly. How do you seperate a milatary attack from a lone gunman or criminal collective? With great difficaulty alas and with that, everything gets labels at the country level and deemed as a official attack. In a Worls that even at war has standards and a code that is followed, then it is about time perhaps that such a convention/standard was globaly agreed upon to encompass the digital age. Certianly agree that hospitals IT systems are a no go area, I know many a evil black hat hacker adheed to this moral code already, some things are just not cricket. But as a global official agreement, there is nothing. This sadly lends itself to a World that can be manipluated and in that laws that proctect movies and music far outway the ones to protect Hospitals and patient data and in that the level of money to enforce this is very much biased in one direction sadly. It is the new think of the children meme used as an excuse to enforce control and with that we have the think of the internet attacks has now become the norm. Certainly think about and process them, but in a fair way and not by putting up a large stop sign and thinking that is how you control those doing the bad things when it only impacts those who are upstanding more than not. Can even cause somebody upstanding to become disalusioned and with that add to the issue that is never realy addressed directly.

Zenst 14y ago

It is certainly interesting times in that if country A sends even a remote controlled plane into country B, then country B can deem that as aggression and proceed. In the digital age attacks akin to that happen all the time yet we are only told they happen and that we need to react. There is nothing evident that the consumer public at large can relate to as there is no physical object or clear damage. Then there is the aspect that a attack from country B upon country A done on the internet is nothing to do with country B in any intended form and is the product of a few people sat at home who have no official right to be doing the attack. The internet allows criminals to expand beyond there physical comuter reach and extend globaly. How do you seperate a milatary attack from a lone gunman or criminal collective? With great difficaulty alas and with that, everything gets labels at the country level and deemed as a official attack. In a Worls that even at war has standards and a code that is followed, then it is about time perhaps that such a convention/standard was globaly agreed upon to encompass the digital age. Certianly agree that hospitals IT systems are a no go area, I know many a evil black hat hacker adheed to this moral code already, some things are just not cricket. But as a global official agreement, there is nothing. This sadly lends itself to a World that can be manipluated and in that laws that proctect movies and music far outway the ones to protect Hospitals and patient data and in that the level of money to enforce this is very much biased in one direction sadly. It is the new think of the children meme used as an excuse to enforce control and with that we have the think of the internet attacks has now become the norm. Certainly think about and process them, but in a fair way and not by putting up a large stop sign and thinking that is how you control those doing the bad things when it only impacts those who are upstanding more than not. Can even cause somebody upstanding to become disalusioned and with that add to the issue that is never realy addressed directly.