Kaspersky Calls For Cyber Weapons Convention 166
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."
Online voting (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Kaspersky will say what helps his business (Score:3, Insightful)
FUD was always good for the AV market.
Re:Online voting (Score:5, Insightful)
And Kaspersky stands to earn a lot from security theatre should electronic voting be widely adopted.
Re:Die out in 20 years? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Online voting (Score:5, Insightful)
I usually hold Eugene in some high esteem, but this time he is dangerously wrong. Considering just how insecure the average user is and how likely it is that his machine is infected, online voting is one of the biggest threats to real democracy that we face today, right after voting machines.
So far, infecting machines has only been a threat due to criminals wanting to infect those machines. Now, this by itself, is already dangerous. But it's minimal considering the possibilities for crooked regimes that like to put a democracy show on.
Governments are already creating "government trojans". For reference, search for the infamous "Bundestrojaner" the Germans tried to put into place. So far, AV makers "may" at least find criminal trojans, but can we assume they still may if the trojans are made by the government? Can we see a crooked government create a trojan and infect the machines of their subjects with the express intention to manipulate the way they vote? Can we even see them making those trojans mandatory in the name of "security" (of course, without the stated intention of manipulating votes, but just to have a government backdoor "for security reasons")?
And even if all of that is nothing but a crazy conspiracy theory, how likely would it be that some populist oppositions try to spin it and destabilize governments based on this "theory" and create doubt in the legitimacy of governments?
Please, Eugene, reconsider.
Re:Die out in 20 years? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that's what the US used to be. Now it's an oligarchic empire play-acting as a democratic republic.
Re:I'd just like to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you give people financial support it doesn't make a fuck what you think you do or do not support.
Your ACTION is support.
You fool, you'll destroy everything we love (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Online voting (Score:4, Insightful)
If you magically make the voting machines 100% secure, attackers will target the infrastructure that transmits, stores, and counts the votes.
Re:I think they should adapt ATM machines for voti (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_O'Dell [wikipedia.org]
Voting on issues is not a panacea (Score:4, Insightful)
... 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.