Is Cyber Arms Control a Lost Cause? 47
Nicola Hahn writes In light of a classified document regarding state-sponsored cyber ops, the editorial board at the New York Times has suggested that the most constructive approach to reducing the spread of cyber threats would be to "accelerate international efforts to negotiate limits on the cyberarms race, akin to the arms-control treaties of the Cold War."
While such advice is by all means well-intentioned there are significant differences between nuclear weapons and malware that would make treaty verification problematic. Not to mention that the history of the Cold War itself illustrates that certain countries viewed arms control treaties as an opportunity to secretly race ahead with their own covert weapons programs. Rather than take on the Sisyphean task of trying to limit the development of offensive cyber technology, why not shift national priorities towards creating robust, fault-tolerant, systems that render offensive tools ineffective?
While such advice is by all means well-intentioned there are significant differences between nuclear weapons and malware that would make treaty verification problematic. Not to mention that the history of the Cold War itself illustrates that certain countries viewed arms control treaties as an opportunity to secretly race ahead with their own covert weapons programs. Rather than take on the Sisyphean task of trying to limit the development of offensive cyber technology, why not shift national priorities towards creating robust, fault-tolerant, systems that render offensive tools ineffective?
Problems is not the systems... (Score:1)
... it's the human beings behind them.
We really need to look at the human beings and fix their flawed perceptions and psyche instead.
Exactly! Recognizing irony is key... (Score:3)
As I wrote here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/reco... [pdfernhout.net]
" Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to r
Re:Exactly! Recognizing irony is key... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
shift national priorities towards creating robust, fault-tolerant, systems that render offensive tools ineffective
Sounds like the first bullet point for a series of hugely profitable, multi-generational government contracts, doncha think?
Re: (Score:2)
And a major reason people want to control other people is... getting needed resources. :-)
Of course, since "needed resources" for some people can include specific mates (who need to be impressed or dominated or whatever), there is complexity there. James P. Hogan talks about the issue of achieving status in a post-scarcity economy in his 1982 sci-fi novel "Voyage From Yesteryear".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V... [wikipedia.org]
But, while prestige and status of a country relative to other countries is a cause of war (inclu
Re: (Score:2)
Paul-
I appreciate your interest in saving humanity, and your interest in promoting your web site, and your interest in promoting your ideas. In general, I appreciate your promotional zeal.
But you will die, as I will, as we all will. We will be forgotten. Despite your promotional zeal, you will be forgotten. If 100,000 people accept your ideas it won't make any difference. I understand there is an ego issue for you and similar crackpots, but the bottom line is that you won't make much difference.
So consider
I hope not (Score:5, Funny)
I really want cyber arms.
But not if I can't control them.
That would be embarrassing.
In reply... (Score:5, Insightful)
In reply to: why not shift national priorities towards creating robust, fault-tolerant, systems that render offensive tools ineffective?
Because then it would be more difficult for the NSA to spy on us?
Re: (Score:1)
Well, we won't make them that robust.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While you guys figure out the cyberwar, I'm going to think about whether typo reduction is a lost cause. (shaking my head)
Yes (Score:1)
Next question?
Re: (Score:3)
If it is Cyber Arms then we are allowed then under the 2nd amendment
Don't be naive (Score:2, Funny)
Bad idea. That would interfere with domestic spying priorities.
Wrong advice for nuclear weapons too (Score:2)
Well-intentioned, but still wrong — even in the case of nuclear weapons. For all the treaties, both USA and USSR retained enough nukes to destroy each other (and, probably, the rest of the planet) many times over — officially.
Unofficially it put the US, where the government is (somewhat) accountable to citizens, at a disadvantage — we had to abide by the agreements, while the rulers of USSR — unafraid of inquisitive lawmakers and "no
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't put either of us at a disadvantage. We had enough to destroy them 10x over. Being able to do it 20x over doesn't make us any more powerful. Now when you start getting down towards the 1x threshold you might have a point.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, it does. Your logic only works, if all missiles available will remain operational and reach their targets if launched.
But that's not a valid assumption. Consider, for example, the possibility of one side's launchers — submarines, bombers, mobile [jalopnik.com] launchers, or stationary silos — being disabled and/or taken-over somehow. They aren't run always by the best [militarytimes.com], unfortunately...
If a mere h
Re: (Score:2)
Heh (Score:1)
Yes, let's control something that requires only a computer and an internet connection to make, and can be essentially untraceable. It will work. Trust me.
cyber-arms left the ban barn (Score:2)
Arms control only works if attribution is possible (Score:2)
In traditional warfare, which often relies on kinetic weapons, its pretty straightforward to trace the trajectory of a weapon back to where it was deployed
why not shift national priorities towards creating robust, fault-tolerant, systems that render offensive tools ineffective?
Defense is more expensive and takes longer to develop because it is only
Re: (Score:2)
One of the biggest differences between the two types of warfare is that attribution is non-trivial in cyber.
Agreed. Another point is that unlike nuclear weapons, cyber weapons can easily be developed and used by non-state players such as terrorists and criminals. (We've seen quite a lot of the latter.) In contrast, one of the saving graces of nuclear weapons has always been that you can't build them in your garage. Therefore, even if a cyber warfare treaty is created and adhered to faithfully by all nations involved, the problem isn't solved. And the smaller nations that haven't even signed the treaty have a
or we could take the opposite approach (Score:2)
if people attack anything that is known to be vulnerable then we actually might get some decent software security! putting our heads in the ground isn't going to solve the fundamental issue that we have wildly insecure systems.
Hopefully it all works out (Score:1)
Wrong Question (Score:2)
The only people that CAN be interested in offensive capabilties are small communities (activists, terrorists, freedom fighters, whistleblowers), because they themselves are not vulnerable.
Any nation state on the other hand MUST be concerned about closing each and any vulnerability, because it puts them at risk. If it doesn't put the secret agency at risk, it will at least put their allies at risk: All the other branches of government, and companies deemed highly important for the running of the country (pow
Reducing the spread of cyber threat .. (Score:2)
I would have thought the solution is to built 'computer' that can't so easily be hacked. DDOD attacks only being feasable because of all those hacked Windows desktops out there in cyberspace.
IRAN -- Current Topics, Interaction with [firstlook.org]
If we'd kept individual hacking (Truth Exposing) (Score:2)
Do these guys remember that Mitnick got 50 life sentences with no outside contact?
Imagine all the Chinese Hackers (Score:2)
Imagine all the NSA, protecting Personal Computers Toodaaayyyy.... oh oh oh...
John Lenno(i)n
Second Joke: Remember Independance Day , the film where Aliens blow up the white house? And are stopped by a basic computer virus? They're frikken OSS utopianists! With laser beams!
Probably (Score:1)