Slashdot Mirror
Kaspersky Calls For Cyber Weapons Convention
judgecorp writes with a synopsis of talk given by Kaspersky at CeBit "Cyber weapons are so dangerous, they should be limited by a treaty like those restricting chemical and nuclear arms, Russian security expert Eugene Kaspersky has told a conference. He also warned that online voting was essential or democracy will die out in 20 years."
Just because I buy Kaspersky's anti-virus doesn't mean I support what that man stands for.
Online voting is a single biggest threat to democracy. If 20 years from now "manual" voting will become obsolete, and only online voting remains, no one will be able to tell, whether the results are authentic or not. The one who pays most to the guys administering the DB server is going to be the winner. And everything will look legit, without any proof and without anything that inspectors could do about it.
FUD was always good for the AV market.
Exactly. The guy's just slashvertising himself so that he can boost his product and vice versa. NOTHING has changed in security. It's all a bunch of scare-mongering by tacking cyber- to everything. Cyber weapons? Like a Win Nuke? Uhhhhhhhhhhh.
Pick your security paradigms and stick with them. Learn security. Love security. We do NOT need Internet Police. END OF STORY.
Treaties always work. Never has a country ignored a treaty to accomplish some sort of nefarious goal. You'd think the Russians would have learned their lesson in 1942.
sudo make me a sandwich
From the article: He warned Cebit delegates that unless young citizens were provided with safe and reliable ways to vote online, democracy as we know it could be dead within 20 years. People would expect biometric, cryptographic online identification verification that was 100 per cent secure in order to vote online.
Without that he said that without that conventional modes of democracy could be extinct within two decades as the younger generation would not vote in a conventional physical polling booth, which could lead to “very serious conflict between the generations.”
And I bet the servers will have to be secured by Karpersky Antivirus, right? He is basically creating his own future market. Smart guy.
But seriously, democracy doesn't need and has never needed people who are too lazy to vote influencing the outcomes of elections for its perceived legitimacy
As for the "very serious conflict between the generations", the younger generation would only have themselves to blame, and most likely if they are too lazy to vote they will be too lazy to riot. Or, to reverse it a bit: if they have enough free time to set up riots and generation conflicts, they might as well vote.
The guy must be an optimist. After Citizens United, most of us concluded that democracy was already dead.
A general-purpose computer? Is Dell an international arms dealer?
chuck
The most lucrative business in human history.
While he's at it calling for creating useless treaties, he should also demand a global ban on software bugs too. That'll solve everything! Evil hackers can't exploit what doesn't exist, amirite?
How, exactly, does he plan on verifying compliance when any USB stick can hold, LITERALLY, an infinite number of "weapons".
And gigabytes worth of different "weapons".
And still be smaller than a thumbnail.
"conventional modes of democracy could be extinct within two decades"
At present "conventional democracy" has a vote every 4-5 years (perhaps with mid-term or local elections halfway) in which your bit of information (if that!) ends upo with a single bit of who leads for the next 4-5 years, during which politicians tend to drop their campaign promises.
Internet technology allows for finer-tuned democracy, yes, but if anything "election day" should be an annual day on which everybody does physically go to the polls and cast a secret ballot. Because although technology does allow secrecy (not necessary for all votes, but essential for some), the risk of back doors will always be greater than when a simpler and less technological procedure is used.
I'm in my forties now and want to be able to vote issues, not parties. I'd also like to be able to vote for individuals who have proven leadership qualities without them being beholden to a party. Not that I could vote Perot - being European - nor that I would want his finger on the button anymore than anybody else, and at least Obama comes across as somewhat statesmanlike even if his mantra of "Change" never really happened, but you should see the bunch of twits in Europe nowadays (on all sides of the political spectrum).
Almost as if we are forgetting what populism brought in the 1930s.
Would he suggest regulating programming languages, compilers, etc. as "cyber weapons precursors"? After all, certain chemicals and nuclear materials are strictly watched because they can be used to create chemical or nuclear weapons, right?
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
Apparently hacking tools and custom viruses are what they usually refer to in these types or articles but if a government makes them, they're "weapons." Of course, I don't recall that article mentioning EMP blasts. I have a feeling Kaspersky's software wouldn't be able to stop an EMP blast. :-D You can't hack something with no OS lol.
Btw, I've got an idea. That one mechanical computer from like 2000+ years ago that they found at the bottom of the ocean? Rebuild that into a voting machine
I know it sounds crazy, but just think, if we all vote online, we can all keep track of our votes. We can see what/who we voted for, and have the option to publicly announce it online. If we think someone has been fudging the numbers, a re-count could be a simple has checking your email, and verifying how you voted. I would think that it would be easier for computer geeks to catch problems if something doesn't look right. When I vote on paper, I never see that ballet again. Who knows what happens to it, probably gets trashed.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Am I the only one who hates the prefix "Cyber"? Since when does "cyber" mean "digital"? Cyber bullying, cyber warfare, cyber crime; it's impossible to take it seriously! The mental images are too hilarious. When I think of "cyber" bullying, I think of a kid getting beat up by a robot. When I think of "cyber" warfare I think of Tron. They just coined it to scare southern housewives and the elderly.
More democracy Mr. Kaspersky? Okay. Keep the representatives, allowing them to craft laws and write bills, but when it's time for the "ayes and nays" have the reps stand-aside and submit the bill to the People for a direct referendum.
Also keep the Senate as is (a house representing the 50 Member States). If we had such a system the TARP Bailout Bill never would have passed the House, and 1 trillion not transferred to the top 0.1% as corporate welfare.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Chemical and nuclear arms conventions work because there's a fair amount of risk in developing both, and the latter is generally too cost prohibitive for an individual to create. Cyber "weapons" are neither risky nor expensive to create, so I question how one might restrict individuals from doing so. Indeed, I think it would actually be cost-prohibitive to even monitor for it.
Kaspersky has obviously been living in his parents' basement for the last 40 years.
Yours In Ulanbator,
K. Trout, PatRIOT
1. You get a print-out of your vote.
2. You can optionally get a print-out that says whatever you want in case you are under duress.
3. There is a picture record of who voted for your ID in case of a question of voter fraud.
4. The machines are already everywhere, wired and secure enough to handle money.
5. You dont have to congregate at a place away from your work.
6. Your vote is filed under a random number, so you can call your vote back up if you are concerned about tampering
Im sure threre are other good reasons
Eugene probably observed that the traditional paper/ballot based voting system can be fixed by the gov in Russia.
Note, I am not saying that the elections there were rigged or no, I have no credible information on the subject.
But assuming that Eugene has such information, and thinks that the traditional way can be easily "fixed", do you see any alternatives to the online voting?
Having every single new machine (within the next 20 years) equipped by UFW or whatever is quite doable.
Yours truly,
Russian dude.
...steal cars.
Clearly we need stronger legal controls.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
2 and 6 are inconsistent. As your boss, I'm going to fire you unless you show me your paper confirmation and your online confirmation to prove to me you voted as I told you. Unless you're seriously proposing that the local Board of Elections maintains two separate pools of votes: one legitimate and one fraudulent. If that's the case, I'm going to fire you for having a completely unrealistic world view.
No.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.
Mr. Kapersky obviously has no idea just how oppressive and invasive most governments are willing to be when enforcing WEAPONS laws. The American BATF is currently being investigated for a false-flag gun-smuggling conspiracy meant to justify a huge increase in their power and authority. Lots of European weapons regulatory agencies are even more ruthless.
He does NOT want that camel's nose under the tent with anything having to do with programming or software development. There is nowhere for that to go but downwards.
Its high time for such a conference. Not only do I support it, I fully support locking the doors and setting fire to the building about 15 minutes into the keynote address.
If there is anything we don't need more of, its more dead weight profiteer warmongers who do nothing more than invent bogeymen to protect us from, and expect us all to thank them and pay for it.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
He warned Cebit delegates that unless young citizens were provided with safe and reliable ways to vote online, democracy as we know it could be dead within 20 years. People would expect biometric, cryptographic online identification verification that was 100 per cent secure in order to vote online.
Without that he said that without that conventional modes of democracy could be extinct within two decades as the younger generation would not vote in a conventional physical polling booth, which could lead to âoevery serious conflict between the generations.â
Really young'uns won't show up to the ye olde fashioned polling boothe? And his evidence for this is.. what exactly? The Arab Spring, where polling booths ..... didn't work... correctly?
He recommends biometrics.. what biometrics exactly? Surely not this:
http://blogs.technet.com/b/steriley/archive/2006/09/20/457845.aspx
The guy must be an optimist. After Citizens United, most of us concluded that democracy was already dead.
Citizens United is about speech not votes. You can ignore speech. For example there is no amount of TV ads that Newt Gingrich could have run to convince someone significantly left of center to vote for him. Another example, BP can run many millions of dollars worth of "green" TV commercials and very few will be convinced that they are an environmentally friendly company.
It is still one person one vote. The only threat to democracy is complacency.
I'm sure the banks that operate those ATM's have no opinion on the outcome of the votes, and can be trusted to oversee the vote. Right? Right?
There are, essentiually, two options for social networking sites:
1. Total freedom.
2. Censorship and/or denial.
No middle ground. But then this is freedom. You are either free, or you are not. No middle ground. Freedom in some things does not change the lack of freedom in others.
Crap, now I sound like a Libertarian. I hate that.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I think he is saying Google has a right to defend themselves, and their advertising markets, from anyone and anything that threatens them.
By any means necessary.
And of course, we can always trust the MANUFACTURERS of ATM machines to be free from any political influence, as well, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_O'Dell
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Have gnu, will travel.
... want to be able to vote issues ...
You intentions are good but I think the wisdom of the founding fathers wins on this point. Direct democracy voting on issues is not the panacea one might think. For example look at California and its propositions system, it is largely what you are asking for and some really bad/dumb stuff gets passed.
The flaw in your plan, and a flaw the founding fathers presumably were expecting, is that direct democracy assumes a well informed electorate that seriously contemplates the issues and votes for the common good rather than self interest.
7. You can donate to the candidate of your choice while you vote! One stop shopping in the true American fashion.
I think it would be workable. We could simply make the House a true People's branch --- Keep the representatives, allowing them to craft laws and write bills, but when it's time for the "ayes and nays" have the reps stand-aside and submit the bill to the People for a direct referendum.
Experience in California with propositions suggests that is not a good plan.
What might be a good plan is a People's veto. Although I expect it would need a high threshold to be truly beneficial, sometimes politicians need to do something unpopular. That is the point of representative government as opposed to direct democracy. 2/3 may be too low, perhaps 3/4. Still the veto would need supreme court oversight, preventing vetoing things link the voting act of the 1960s.
Treaty are between nations. Any individual, or group of individuals, in any or several parts of the world, can make a "cyberweapon", no expensive or controllable resources needed to build something that could qualify as such. And for them to believe that they control that means handling them in a silver plate the privacy and basically freedom, of everyone and every organization in any part of the world, except the prepared enough individuals that could do that "weapons".
In the other hand, nations already started cyberwar, like with all probability Israel and/or USA government agencies making Stuxnet. The bomb has already been dropped, and will be used as excuse by those very countries to push laws to avoid people doing that, killing their privacy, while at the same time keep producing those weapons when they think it should be necessary, and probably blaming individuals or "terrorist" organizations and reinforcing restrictions for everyone each time. Won't be the first time that something of that kind happens.
Internet eventually will split, either logically or physically, one with full government surveillance and intervention, other with ensured hard encryption, privacy and anonimity, and countries networks where all relevant services are enclosed by and for them.
In the name of honesty and capitalism, just change the election into an auction. Vote with your wallet!
Am I the only person who can't see the logic in either of these statements?
expandfairuse.org
FTA ...without that conventional modes of democracy could be extinct within two decades as the younger generation would not vote in a conventional physical polling booth, which could lead to “very serious conflict between the generations.”
That is probably perfectly okay with older generations, who would rather younger generations not vote. I suppose I could be lumped in with the "older generation", but I differ with many of my peers in that I appreciate the ideas and concerns of people around my daughter's age.
Personally, I haven't voted in 12 years. There are two primary reasons for this: 1)There never seems to be anyone to vote FOR. I always feel like I'm selecting the lesser of two evils. 2) The vote-counting process is corrupt, even in non-electronic venues. It's not that way everywhere, but enough so that voting seems like a waste of time.
People tell me that it is my civic duty to vote. These are often the same people who run red lights and cheat on their taxes. It is no wonder that young people are apathetic about voting.
Proverbs 21:19
Electronic voting is bad enough. But *online* voting? You've got to be fucking kidding me.
It's impossible to secure the internet in such a way as to ensure that every connection is unique.
What a fucking moron! What a seriously goofball fuckup in the pockets of the elite.
This makes me even more certain that the world's virus-scanning-software authors are also writing the world's worst viruses.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
"or democracy will die out in 20 years."
Democracy died out the day it was bought and sold last century...
But really, why the unneeded hype? Can't we agree it's more e-vigilantism rather than cyber war? The latter only exists if countries and corporations force it to...
...because the same technologies of computing could be used to create material abundance for all so there would be little reason to fight (like by sharing knowledge or collaborating online to build open robotics and advanced manufacturing systems). http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Cyber arms are invisible. You don't have to dig for uranium or run a cyclotron.
If such a treaty were signed, some counties would continue to use them, almost certainly using untraceable and denyable sub-contractors.
Therefore, no country with half a brain would sign such a treaty, with intent to obey it.
How the fuck did it survive over 200 years WITHOUT online voting? Weird...
Oh... I know. He wants to make sure our new robotic overlords can vote, without having to worry that a "pulse" requirement will be used to effect a sort of poll-tax discriminating against Artificial Americans...
You know, we could make the democratic process a lot cheaper, reduce the odds of corporate corruption, and get results that are probably no worse than what we get with our current, ridiculously expensive system... also, we wouldn't need anyone to take time out of their busy lives to learn about candidates or issues, or going out to vote... just choose elected officials AT RANDOM. Wouldn't be much worse than what we have now, and think of the savings!
What a naive view. If you don't think advertising has an effect, if you don't think people can be convinced lies are truth, if you don't think people are sheep... there's really no help for you. All I can tell you is go to a church, listen to a sermon, and note that the majority of the people listening to that sermon actually believe the bullshit the sermon is predicated upon... then go to a super market, and watch what people buy. Note the location of the milk relative to the front of the store, and the location of the single-serving candy bars relative to the registers... then watch political ads.
The truth is that one person=one vote is easily manipulable via huge amounts of cash, and can be modified by systematically disenfranchising people who consistently vote in a fashion that does not favor you (see "Southern Strategy", the rebirth of Jim Crowe...)
If money is speech, can I legally "tell" a woman I'd like her to blow me (other than in Nevada...) by handing her a C-note? How about weed or coke? Can I "say" that it should be legal by handing money to someone who in turn hands me a baggy with my favorite chemicals inside? Of course not, because the pro-prostitution and pro-drug people haven't bought enough "elected" officials yet to make it so.
The argument that money is equal to speech, and therefore protected, is utter bullshit. If it were true, then no one should be able to be prosecuted for asking someone, with a roll of hundreds, if the world would not be a better place if some particular person (or persons) were... no longer in it.
Anyway, I have been waiting for someone to try to get around the prostitution laws with the Citizens United argument... I can't wait to see what happens.
What a naive view. If you don't think advertising has an effect, if you don't think people can be convinced lies are truth, if you don't think people are sheep... there's really no help for you.
You confuse commercial advertising with political advertising. Political ads may reinforce existing beliefs, give people already thinking along those lines a vocabulary or concepts to articulate their thoughts with, may motivate the true believers ... however it does not cause many people to reverse their pre-existing beliefs.
... All I can tell you is go to a church, listen to a sermon, and note that the majority of the people listening to that sermon actually believe the bullshit the sermon is predicated upon ...
Your example proves you mistaken. The message present in church is only successful because the audience is predisposed to believe it. You can play that same message all you want at a Lady Ga Ga concert and it will not change the audience's belief. For your argument to be true, such an audience should be converted.
Commercial advertising is an entirely different thing.
... If money is speech ...
That's a different topic, political contributions. Banning non-voters from donating to a candidate is fine. However speech is not money, a TV commercial transfers ideas not cash.
Kasperky needed new market, like online voting systems security or whatever comes with it
So if you hand him the "fake" then it will be totally consistent. He will think you voted the way he wanted you to. Also, it would eliminate the idea of selling votes. After all, the paper is worthless if it can easily be a lie.
There should be a way past that issue.
Anonymous. LOL
7. Your vote is readily availible to be tampered with by banks.