Spying wouldn't matter here if everything going in and out of the 5G network was anonymized and encrypted. This is among the strongest cases I've heard for strong encryption.
This is an example of what's wrong with the paternalistic attitude that's prevalent toward students. Acting as if high school students have absolutely no self-control by seizing their phones because they're deemed to be too distracting is certainly not a good way to form them into responsible adults who can take care of themselves.
It's worth emphasizing that the only reason this is allowed to stand is because high school students don't have another option. If an employer imposed the surrender of phones by employees, people would quit, or collectively advocate against it with their union. But high school students are legally required to go to school, and generally don't have much (if any) choice in which school, and aren't unionized.
I remember listening to a talk from the Chaos Communications Conference called "We Lost The War". In it, the presenters posed the question of why there's so much talk of cyberwar, which they answered by saying that your standard warmongers are relevant only in war, so they want to shift as much discussion as possible toward war.
Importantly, this means that the only reason cyberwar is being mentioned is to give relevance to warmongers. The fact is, computer security is inherently asymmetric. That means that retaliation is ineffective. Buying into the framing that's given by people such as Florence Parly makes absolutely no sense. Cyberwar doesn't have to exist at all; it only exists if we want it to. If not, traditional defensive computer security, as has always been done, is extremely effective.
Slashdot Mirror
Spying wouldn't matter here if everything going in and out of the 5G network was anonymized and encrypted. This is among the strongest cases I've heard for strong encryption.
This is an example of what's wrong with the paternalistic attitude that's prevalent toward students. Acting as if high school students have absolutely no self-control by seizing their phones because they're deemed to be too distracting is certainly not a good way to form them into responsible adults who can take care of themselves.
It's worth emphasizing that the only reason this is allowed to stand is because high school students don't have another option. If an employer imposed the surrender of phones by employees, people would quit, or collectively advocate against it with their union. But high school students are legally required to go to school, and generally don't have much (if any) choice in which school, and aren't unionized.
I remember listening to a talk from the Chaos Communications Conference called "We Lost The War". In it, the presenters posed the question of why there's so much talk of cyberwar, which they answered by saying that your standard warmongers are relevant only in war, so they want to shift as much discussion as possible toward war. Importantly, this means that the only reason cyberwar is being mentioned is to give relevance to warmongers. The fact is, computer security is inherently asymmetric. That means that retaliation is ineffective. Buying into the framing that's given by people such as Florence Parly makes absolutely no sense. Cyberwar doesn't have to exist at all; it only exists if we want it to. If not, traditional defensive computer security, as has always been done, is extremely effective.