3 ms·

The drawback is that they require systematic vulnerabilities to work; therefore the rhetoric for state-sponsored malware demands systems deliberately be left vu

The drawback is that they require systematic vulnerabilities to work; therefore the rhetoric for state-sponsored malware demands systems deliberately be left vulnerable to attack, either by failing to fix vulnerabilities found or deliberately inserting them (as in by backdoors) This has a global effect. The "enemy" uses the same things you do. A weapon to attack them demands weaknesses in everyone's armour, including your own. They are so easily reverse-engineered and repurposed to attack you or third parties, so easily developed by low-budget or non-state actors, and so easily misattributed, that they exhibit all the same essential properties as biological weapons. I think state-sponsored malware should be banned, by international treaty, and I say this as someone with expertise in the field.

hawkice 12y ago
So, let's tease out a couple ideas here, that way I can address your core idea at its best. >They are so easily reverse-engineered and repurposed to attack you You probably meant just third parties here. No one is checking government machine's patch level and demanding an explanation -- if they have the exploit they probably patched any vulnerable systems before they used it. > I think state-sponsored malware should be banned, by international treaty So, espionage is largely _already_ banned by international treaty, including fairly specific rules about how, if you are a soldier down behind enemy lines you can escape using a disguise but not if you are a spy (I hope this conveys how bizarre international law is, the idea that if a spy is caught that their use of a disguise will play a factor in their fate). Suffice it to say, you want a "soft ban", because you want them to not be used in reality (not just that you don't want them used in threat gestures, etc. -- plus you can't really rely on international law for things like this, as we've seen by recent NSA leaks as well as Merkel's response to learning she was personally wiretapped). ---- Most importantly: you have an argument that is too general. You could make _precisely the same argument_ in defense of banning pistols in any wars. (1) enemy is symmetrically offensive; (2) if there exist defenses, your opponent is likely to use them; (3) this leaves you largely unprotected to isomorphic attacks for all useful versions of this weapon (soldiers can still die from gunshot wounds); (4) similar technology can be devised by your opponents; (5) guns can be developed by low-budget or non-state actors; (6) direct attribution for gun crime is difficult (about half of murders in the US go unsolved, and that's not in a war zone). So governments paying for pistols is too dangerous and should be "soft banned" or banned by international treaty. I believe you have a more complex belief that would provide for much better discussion (subject matter experts typically do). Would you mind expanding on your ideas and sharing?

hawkice 12y ago

So, let's tease out a couple ideas here, that way I can address your core idea at its best. >They are so easily reverse-engineered and repurposed to attack you You probably meant just third parties here. No one is checking government machine's patch level and demanding an explanation -- if they have the exploit they probably patched any vulnerable systems before they used it. > I think state-sponsored malware should be banned, by international treaty So, espionage is largely _already_ banned by international treaty, including fairly specific rules about how, if you are a soldier down behind enemy lines you can escape using a disguise but not if you are a spy (I hope this conveys how bizarre international law is, the idea that if a spy is caught that their use of a disguise will play a factor in their fate). Suffice it to say, you want a "soft ban", because you want them to not be used in reality (not just that you don't want them used in threat gestures, etc. -- plus you can't really rely on international law for things like this, as we've seen by recent NSA leaks as well as Merkel's response to learning she was personally wiretapped). ---- Most importantly: you have an argument that is too general. You could make _precisely the same argument_ in defense of banning pistols in any wars. (1) enemy is symmetrically offensive; (2) if there exist defenses, your opponent is likely to use them; (3) this leaves you largely unprotected to isomorphic attacks for all useful versions of this weapon (soldiers can still die from gunshot wounds); (4) similar technology can be devised by your opponents; (5) guns can be developed by low-budget or non-state actors; (6) direct attribution for gun crime is difficult (about half of murders in the US go unsolved, and that's not in a war zone). So governments paying for pistols is too dangerous and should be "soft banned" or banned by international treaty. I believe you have a more complex belief that would provide for much better discussion (subject matter experts typically do). Would you mind expanding on your ideas and sharing?