Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Cyberweapons are Not the Same Debate as Nuclear Weapons

Today's New York Times article on the debate over cyberweapons (read it here) has one telling article that indicates the military is still in the nuclear weapons mind set:
It is a question Mr. Obama has never spoken about publicly. Because he has put the use of such weapons largely into the hands of the N.S.A., which operates under the laws guiding covert action, there is little of the public discussion that accompanied the arguments over nuclear weapons in the 1950s and ’60s
As I've carped on numerous occasions, the cyberweapons debate is far different than the nuclear proliferation debate. Why? Again, Grasshopper, it's because nuclear weapons require government-level critical mass to develop, whereas cyberweapons require just one man, just one connected computer, and a smattering of genius. We have a whole new ball game, foretold by such science fiction authors as Frank Herbert (see one of my many posts here). The tripwire alarm has already sounded, where one highly motivated individual can—at a minimum—seriously inconvenience large numbers of people. And to continue my carping—carpe diem—the solution is to make any type of cyber incursion overwhelmingly risky to the offender. Licensed and bonded cyber privateers, working under constraints of my Cyber Privateer Code (see it here), are the only rational answer.

And if you want to see the havoc just one individual could wreak, check out Daddy's Little Felons (here).

No comments:

Post a Comment

Implementation suggestions for THE MORGAN DOCTRINE are most welcome. What are the "Got'chas!"? What questions would some future Cyber Privateering Czar have to answer about this in a Senate confirmation hearing?