3 ms·

Unfortunately or fortunately, I think much of the world would disagree with you and argue that such behaviour would be 'meddling' and gross overstepping by the

by tekacs 13y ago

Unfortunately or fortunately, I think much of the world would disagree with you and argue that such behaviour would be 'meddling' and gross overstepping by the government, right now. Perhaps this sort of governmental 'help' would be possible in the future, but right now it seems that such behaviour would almost certainly result in cries that we had entered into a police state. :/ Edit: he notes that when he says 'we', you and I are almost certainly not in the same nation state. :P shrug

Retric 13y ago
I don't see it a much different from the fire chef telling you how many people can occupy your building. FAA inspecting aircraft matence schedules, FDA inspecting a slughterhouse, the fed keeping track of a banks balancesheets or thousands of other areas where private companies interests are not aligned with the public.
- taf2 13y ago
  There are and will be growing pains as this becomes reality... for example, there would be unintended consequences one might even imagine one such as: " you get fined for hosting ogv videos because they're deemed unsafe and the FCC decides you should be fined per video that is not an MPEG format... after all these unsafe video's hurt people real people " So, yeah the government could be a good vehicle for helping to secure our internet, but it could also have unintended consequences of preventing growth and innovation under the guise of "security" e.g "fear"
jrochkind1 13y ago
The U.S. government (and several others) is surely already aggressively doing vulnerability discovery. [1] They just keep the exploits to themselves, to use for their own spying -- instead of sharing them with the public so they can be patched, to increase security for everyone. Which course of action is more of a 'police state'? [1]: “You’re commuting to where the information is stored and extracting the information from the adversaries’ network. We are the best at doing it. Period.” -- Michael Hayden, who headed the NSA, and later the CIA, under Bush. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-23/how-the-u-dot-s-dot-government-hacks-the-world http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-23/how-the-u-do...

by tekacs 13y ago

Retric 13y ago

I don't see it a much different from the fire chef telling you how many people can occupy your building. FAA inspecting aircraft matence schedules, FDA inspecting a slughterhouse, the fed keeping track of a banks balancesheets or thousands of other areas where private companies interests are not aligned with the public.

taf2 13y ago
There are and will be growing pains as this becomes reality... for example, there would be unintended consequences one might even imagine one such as: " you get fined for hosting ogv videos because they're deemed unsafe and the FCC decides you should be fined per video that is not an MPEG format... after all these unsafe video's hurt people real people " So, yeah the government could be a good vehicle for helping to secure our internet, but it could also have unintended consequences of preventing growth and innovation under the guise of "security" e.g "fear"

jrochkind1 13y ago

The U.S. government (and several others) is surely already aggressively doing vulnerability discovery. [1] They just keep the exploits to themselves, to use for their own spying -- instead of sharing them with the public so they can be patched, to increase security for everyone. Which course of action is more of a 'police state'? [1]: “You’re commuting to where the information is stored and extracting the information from the adversaries’ network. We are the best at doing it. Period.” -- Michael Hayden, who headed the NSA, and later the CIA, under Bush. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-23/how-the-u-dot-s-dot-government-hacks-the-world http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-23/how-the-u-do...