2 ms·

It depends on just who you are attacking. Terrorist groups, criminal organizations or criminal individuals are legitimate targets of a cyber attack, just as the

It depends on just who you are attacking. Terrorist groups, criminal organizations or criminal individuals are legitimate targets of a cyber attack, just as they could and should be put under conventional surveillance. If government agencies attack ordinary citizens or companies, without legitimate authorization, than it's not a problem of means or tools but rather a problem with democratic or judicial oversight on these organizations.

spuz 12y ago
It can be argued that leaving systems vulnerable to attack as the NSA have been accused of doing actually facilitates more crime than it prevents.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
Providing these backdoors isn't government hacking on legitimate targets, but rather a sort of lazy surveillance or intrusion on its citizens.
- rantanplan 12y ago
  You comment here sort of answers my question above. So basically you don't agree with attacking or weakening crypto/security systems. The thing is that without those "competitive advantages", I fail to see how they can have an advantage over the bad guys. Playing offense, when the need arises, won't cut it. You're gonna have to "lay the foundations" so to speak, for you to be a successful attacker. So basically we reach the old, but not so tired, question of how much of your freedom you're willing to sacrifice, for your government to be the "meanest of them all"
  - bayesianhorse 12y ago
    Hacking is not the only way to spy on an enemy, especially terrorists or criminals. If such a group is sophisticated enough to evade all but the most sophisticated, ultra-secret bleeding edge attacks, maybe it's time to resort to conventional means. Luckily most such groups aren't. They just began using encryption. The alternative to offensive hacking is to include backdoors in the encryption technology used by everyone. I think that this is causing more harm than good.
rantanplan 12y ago
Ok, but you omit a crucial step, that I kinda need an answer to further understand. In order to attack(successfully), they employeed various techniques; from weakening security systems and protocols, to actively endorse weak crypto schemes. What about these? And for the sake of the argument, let's say that they have the best of intentions and they don't plan to use those against law abiding citizens. Do you agree with these actions?

spuz 12y ago

It can be argued that leaving systems vulnerable to attack as the NSA have been accused of doing actually facilitates more crime than it prevents.

bayesianhorse 12y ago

Providing these backdoors isn't government hacking on legitimate targets, but rather a sort of lazy surveillance or intrusion on its citizens.

rantanplan 12y ago
You comment here sort of answers my question above. So basically you don't agree with attacking or weakening crypto/security systems. The thing is that without those "competitive advantages", I fail to see how they can have an advantage over the bad guys. Playing offense, when the need arises, won't cut it. You're gonna have to "lay the foundations" so to speak, for you to be a successful attacker. So basically we reach the old, but not so tired, question of how much of your freedom you're willing to sacrifice, for your government to be the "meanest of them all"
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  Hacking is not the only way to spy on an enemy, especially terrorists or criminals. If such a group is sophisticated enough to evade all but the most sophisticated, ultra-secret bleeding edge attacks, maybe it's time to resort to conventional means. Luckily most such groups aren't. They just began using encryption. The alternative to offensive hacking is to include backdoors in the encryption technology used by everyone. I think that this is causing more harm than good.

rantanplan 12y ago

Ok, but you omit a crucial step, that I kinda need an answer to further understand. In order to attack(successfully), they employeed various techniques; from weakening security systems and protocols, to actively endorse weak crypto schemes. What about these? And for the sake of the argument, let's say that they have the best of intentions and they don't plan to use those against law abiding citizens. Do you agree with these actions?