Government Spies Admit That Cyber Armageddon Is Unlikely
Nicola Hahn writes NSA director Mike Rogers spoke to a Senate Committee [Thursday], admonishing them that the United States should bolster its offensive cyber capabilities to deter attacks. Never mind that deterrence is problematic if you can't identify the people who attacked you. In the past a speech by a spymaster like Rogers would have been laced with hyperbolic intimations of the End Times. Indeed, for almost a decade mainstream news outlets have conveyed a litany of cyber doomsday scenarios on behalf of ostensibly credible public officials. So it's interesting to note a recent statement by the U.S. intelligence community that pours a bucket of cold water over all of this. According to government spies the likelihood of a cyber Armageddon is "remote." And this raises some unsettling questions about our ability to trust government officials and why they might be tempted to fall back on such blatant hyperbole.
I do not believe that government is incompetent, that is simply a propaganda sound bite for people who do not want to pay taxes into the society that they live in. I find it odd that they same people complain about the intelligence services of said governments, since they would would be toothless if they were incompetent
Trade and economic co-dependence are functions of government as well as corporations
The fact that I hold an incredibly small share does not mean that I am in favor of deregulating said company because the majority share holders would certainly take advantage of me (and the rest of the small shareholders) if there was no oversight, just look at Enron
Wherever You Go, There You Are