Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Government Security The Military Your Rights Online

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kaspersky Calls For Cyber Weapons Convention

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22, 2012 @12:21PM (#40077501)

    Just because I buy Kaspersky's anti-virus doesn't mean I support what that man stands for.

  • Die out in 20 years? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wjousts ( 1529427 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2012 @12:29PM (#40077587)
    The guy must be an optimist. After Citizens United, most of us concluded that democracy was already dead.
  • I hope they will be! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by delphi125 ( 544730 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2012 @12:37PM (#40077707)

    "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.

  • Re:Online voting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by slashmydots ( 2189826 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2012 @12:40PM (#40077735)
    Exactly! Every manufacturer assures their customers that their protection software is 100% perfect and bulletproof in every way when in fact, it would probably heuristically detect my write in candidate as a virus and delete my social security number from the entire government.
    What exactly happened to literal electronic voting? You don't need a processor, memory, storage, an OS, code, and all that other crap to count freaking numbers. You ever try to hack into and change the results of a free calculator you got at the bank for opening a checking account? Spoiler, it's a machine that doesn't have the capability to allow that. How about they develop an electronic machine instead of a computer for voting? Number +1 is not that hard to do without an operating system.
  • by Ellis D. Tripp ( 755736 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2012 @12:41PM (#40077741) Homepage

    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?

  • by cpu6502 ( 1960974 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2012 @12:52PM (#40077857)

    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.


  • by Marrow ( 195242 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2012 @12:55PM (#40077889)

    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

  • by Fallingcow ( 213461 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2012 @01:34PM (#40078343) Homepage

    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.

Due to lack of disk space, this fortune database has been discontinued.