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.
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
The guy must be an optimist. After Citizens United, most of us concluded that democracy was already dead.
"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
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
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"
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.
It is entirely absurd to expect a majority of the population to invest the time and effort required to understand enough about politics, economics, international relations, etc. to make anything approaching intelligent decisions on most legislation.
Hell, people can't even be bothered to understand how existing legislation affects them, even when it's something as direct and quantifiable as how much money they pay on their taxes.
Choosing representatives to do it for us is far simpler, and we're not even good at that. Direct voting on bills would be a disaster.
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.
But you simply can't prevent an organization (incorporated or otherwise) from advertizing in favor of a candidate they like without directly destroying free speech. The problem is that advertizing spending swings too many votes. Allowing groups of people to advocate their political position is a fundamental right, not a problem.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
...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.