Slashdot Mirror
Is the Cyberterror Threat Credible?
Scott Pinzon writes "Is the idea that cyber terrorists might take down US networks or utilities realistic, or over-hyped? One of the authors of the Patriot Act and several Black Hat 2005 speakers debated the issue informally at WatchGuard's "Security and Beer Roundtable." Participants include Dan Kaminsky, Johnny "Google Hacker" Long, Tim Mullen, Sensepost penetration testers, a guy from Microsoft's ISA team, and others."
Personally, I don't feel in any way threatened by any word, phrase, or sentence with the prefix "cyber" in it. Cyber*, to me, means a way for non-geeks to explain something that they don't in any way understand.
The Bush administration has been warning of a digital Pearl Harbor for years.
However, their desire to collect and to centralize information on government computers for 'homeland security' purposes makes such a threat more dangerous, not less dangerous.
If their proposals for government-accessible backdoors for all encryption were actually to become reality, then a single successful hacker could compromise millions of secure computers and documents in a single attack.
The best solution is to go back to the policies of Clinton's presidency. Let us, the people, take care of our own security without government intrusion, as is our natural right and privilege.
If I'm reading this correctly, yes.
The fact that an idea is really dumb doesn't mean it's never been implemented.
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
No, staying technologically superior makes a lot of sense. Even if it is to fight an enemy that does not exist yet.
Staying technologically superior is also a form of corporate welfare. Same with war. Without going into the obvious politics of war, was the $30 Billion Shock and Awe phase of the war needed? We could have done just as much damage dropping $10 million worth of diesel fuel and nitrate in 50 gallon drums from cargo planes. But who would that have helped out? Not GE, Lockheed, Boeing, or anyone else who makes high precision implements of death.
Call me an idealist, call me a purist, but if we rewarded technology for the sake of technology, not for how many people it can accurately kill, then maybe people wouldn't want to attack the U.S. Don't believe that "They hate our freedom" line, it's a lot more complicated than that. If a country acted benevolent, didn't cowtow to corporate interests, and took a leadership role, both in its own society as well as in global matters, as well as (and not just) a moral compass, then do you think that country would be the target of attacks? If the U.S. said that they were going to develop a cure for aids, paid for that, and then licensed out the manufacture of the pharmaceuticals, then do you think that there would be a pissing match with African nations over patent controls?
Everyone says that technology is not a panacea, but even still, we've yet given an honest attempt to prove them right. We're still all stuck on that greed thing.