Cyberwar Hype Intended to Destroy the Open Internet | Hacker News Reader

Cyberwar Hype Intended to Destroy the Open Internet

wired.com

48 pointsyanw20 comments

He pretty much uses the same argument here as those who breathlessly claim web filtering is important so we can stop child porn.

It's still the same bullshit.

Why can't people grasp what they are letting the government do? They wouldn't agree if the Gov't would want to bug all telephones and read your mail in order to find child pornography ...

Sadly, I think a large percentage of the population WOULD let the government do that.

They do do that. Remember the guy in jail for some manga he bought? The government found it because they randomly opened his mail. Then they decided he should go to prison for 15 years for having that box addressed to him. (And that's not even child porn, it was just books!)

Remember the guy in jail for some manga he bought?

I don't remember that, but I don't pay regular attention to the news.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/obscene-us-manga-co...

same as it ever was. the only difference is that this time you have a front row seat. governments have been using the same rhetoric techniques to accomplish the same goals since the agricultural revolution at least, and probably before that.

Why not? Large number of the population doesn't have anything worth writing about or losing if their mail/phone call show up on CNN or Fox News. It is sad, I agree.

Lesson for us is not to despair but to figure out how we can "sell" a good idea as an economic incentive (vs. scare tactic). Majority of the population understands that. I would point to Bill Gates Innovation to Zero as a reference of this tactic. Check that talk out on TED.

The concern is not so much that. Indeed I wouldnt particularly worry too much either way about being monitored.

The problem is as follows:

- not everyone feels comfortable being monitored

- innocent data (such as porn surfing) can cause serious damage to someone if released in the wrong way/light

- there is the capacity for serious abuse. Someone could get unauthorized access to the system. Or the government could use it to impose censorship etc.

So while the majority have nothing to lose - they also dont have a huge amount to gain (because things like this wouldnt stop malware being a problem as claimed - etc.). On the other hand it would adversely affect a reasonable minority for all sorts of reasons.

Yes, I understand that. And that's why "people" (which I thought referred to the majority) don't care about this stuff and these stupid policies get through senate & house. Those who benefit from these policies know how to make the majority care-- everyone cares about child exploitation, and terrorists-- but we haven't quite figured out how to make majority aware that this is a double edge sword or propose better alternatives (the hard part).

Im really sorry - for some reason I read your comment as saying "so why shouldn't they be monitored"

Which clearly it doesnt. Umm :(

Totally agree with you.

The real problem more than anything else is that systems like this would be used by politicians in power to spy on their competition. It'd be much easier to stay in power when you know what your opponent is planning.

More Wired hype-garbage.

Here's the quote they listed:

"We need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace, identify intrusions and locate the source of attacks with a trail of evidence that can support diplomatic, military and legal options and we must be able to do this in milliseconds. More specifically, we need to re-engineer the Internet to make attribution, geo-location, intelligence analysis and impact assessment who did it, from where, why and what was the result more manageable. The technologies are already available from public and private sources and can be further developed if we have the will to build them into our systems and to work with our allies and trading partners so they will do the same."

90% of this is done most effectively and cheaply by sniffing the backbone links and having a fast-response ability to filter incoming traffic via router control. Sort of like what any decent NOC does now.

Where's the destruction of the open internet? Only in Wired's typically-REM (R.E.M. (n) Rectal Extraction Method) hyperbole do we have a conspiracy story. Classic Slashdot fodder, I don't see what it's doing on HN.

No, we're not at war over the Internet right now. But a network-based attack is a fantastic first-wave means of reducing the target's ability -- no different from sending in stealth bombers to knock out radar first. Right now we're in a cold-war variant, arming, defending, and collecting intel on opponents doing the same.

(edited for formatting)

I don't get how they can change the Internet and get the rest of the world to build on this "new" infrastructure (and they really need the rest of the world to follow suit in order for it to work) ... unless it means separating the US from the rest of us.

On one hand, the US has the largest market for web applications. On the other hand, Europe, Japan and China at least are fast growing markets that may surpass the US in the future ... so I'm pretty sure many US entrepreneurs will move their businesses overseas.

So don't worry about it, it will be just like the Copenhagen negotiations, if not worse :) Not to mention that I don't think they have the technical skills to pull it of (the Internet itself was spawned by some of the brightest minds of the 20th century).

We are losing it. The Internet is becoming the new radio.

Worse. The new Television.

Welcome to Rome...

the government must consult engineers, civil liberty orgs and people in the know on these policy moves because this is obvious scaremongering.

> the government must consult engineers, civil liberty orgs and people in the know on these policy moves because this is obvious scaremongering.

What's the definition of "must" for which the above makes sense? (I'd like govts to consult others, but I recognize they can get away with not doing so.)

And here I was hoping that all the reports about China's espionage efforts was tied to I don't know rumors of China cutting back on rare earth exports. A sort of "keep selling us neodymium or we convince american sto stop buying from you" threat.

No silly me just plain old fashioned Big Brother. Anyone taking bets on the google attacks being a false flag operation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com