It appears WWI of cyberwars has begun. It seems to be a fair fight, with weapons of choice being Distributed Denial of service attacks. The main casualties will be financial in nature, but will deeply affect how the world will operate in the future. The expectation of "complete" privacy has been eroding considerably, and can only be considered a transient phenomena (this conversation is secure for now - if I don't record it, it loses usefulness. If I do record it, there is an unknown probability that it may be leaked somewhere in the future - hopefully it won't bite us too hard, and will fall in the hands of our friends and not get exclusively sold to our enemies without our knowledge)
This is also the dillemma I (or anyone) has with their own private and intimate emails to friends. I have got into the habit of self-censorship just as much with my private emails as I do with FB or this Blog. There are still a few things I say and talk about verbally that I would not put into writing.
7 comments:
There are some things I only think and never say in case the Cephalopod Overminds are listening.
BTW, I thought your post was going to be about Stuxnet.
And, he'll change his mind soon.
Haha - yes Stuxnet is another case in point. More of a counterpoint now that there is open warfare between Wikileaks and ... Regimes oppressive to the freedom of investigative journalism.
Quoting Julian because I agree with the following sttement:
"the more secretive or unjust an organisation is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. ... Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance
which also makes your point about Vlad correct too.
I think the American Nationalists have already lost the war to stop *ANY* of the leaked files from entering the public domain. However the US retains a revenge and retribution mentality. Trying to instil fear into future leakers sounds like a barbarous and naive tactic. The sooner they abandon it the better. Much better for leaders to start censoring themselves more
Much better for leaders to start censoring themselves more
Best of all, for the leaders of the West to embrace the open paradigm. Trivial to me and you, but possibly momentous to the internal politics of pre-emptive war in Afghanistan and Iraq, there has been nothing in any of the leaks to given any oxygen to the poisonous conspiracy theories of Chomsky and his fellow travellers. That sort of rubbish will wither and die in the light.
I don't believe the US system is particularly secretive or unjust, and thus it shouldn't need to exhibit fear and paranoia ... the relatively laid back attitude of the administration is therefore very encouraging.
In international affairs the likelihood of stumbling into trouble through miscommunication - like the accidental greenlighting of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait - will disappear if it becomes standard for Western diplomats to bluntly and publicly say what they mean.
Parenthetically, doesn't Rudd seem much happier as FM then he ever did as PM? It is the job he should have had all along. I think his comments about this have been spot on. Conversely, Comrade Bishop should be sent to the backbench.
News has suddenly got more exciting. Little more of the tedious probabilities of who is thinking what, but actual transcripts of high level diplomacy.
Now if only western governments can give up on this insane idea that they should censor the media *as a rule*
I think I will put my money where my mouth is and start leaking information on what school uniforms we are making, how many, and when they are likely to be finished. This may fall into the hands of our competitors and mean they make more money using that knowledge - However, I know in my heart that there would be way less over/under production regarding the uniform cycle in the long run.
Post a Comment