amanfromMars 1 …. Wed 26 Feb 05:40  …. commenting on http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2014/02/25/make_cyberwar_as_much_of_a_nono_as_nuclear_chemical_exchanges_says_rsa/
Re: Fantasy Land?
I’m thinking that this is wishful thinking on his part. Until the world fundamentally changes, this has about as much chance as a snowball in hell. There’s still chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons in abundance. There’s still those who seek to destroy others and make them follow their beliefs. There’s still power-hungry and greedy folks looking to conquer. His naivete reminds me of the yogi types who think that if they hug and say nice things then war, starvation, crime and all the ills of the world will go away.
And there are those who will always try to break into computer systems for fun and profit just like there are those who will create mayhem with explosives over religion, politics, and personal grudges…
Meh… ….. Mark 85
Quite so, Mark 85, I agree with view and would wonder at the fitness of the state of mind of the RSA headman and would ask, who on Earth he would be thinking would be listening and taking heed of his utterings. Certainly any and all concerned and working with intelligence will realise they be high fantasy and simply unlikely.
I would just single out this one point for alternative viewing in this new age of zerodays ….
First, he said, governments around the world need to renounce the use of offensive cyberweapons, and through treaties and mutual agreements make them as forbidden as nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. ….. Governments around the world purchase from and outsource everything they need to special private and/or pirate sector operatives/smarter individuals who are very effectively hidden in the shell fronts of such intelligently designed entities as are mega corporations/specialising ventures/sensitive companies etc. Government itself is clueless and impotent. It merely picks up the tab and pays the piper for the tunes they and IT play.
And ask yourself these two telling polar opposite questions ……. Whenever one have an offensive cyberweapon and remote invisible space command and control capability and utility and facilities which render to one whatever one would need and/or desire, why would one renounce it rather than use it to its fullest creative mutually beneficial advantage for maximum personal gain? And why would one
not think of using them and IT to do massive catastrophic destruction to selected targets for maximum personal gain for either and all possible variations in between such two extreme courses are equally easily available for delivery.
One cannot defend a system unless one knows its systemic weaknesses and how they are to be attacked to create a flow of irreversible devastation that will destroy systems administration/its guiding heads, and if the system be deemed to be perverse and corrupt and inequitable and not worthy of future consideration, intelligence would surely require it not be saved in anything like its present forms with current executive administrators/head honchos.
And that last sentence is akin to providing defensive advice from an offensive perspective which has GCHQ UK Top Secret Strap 1 markings as shown in the last slide of twelve here …… http://cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-cyber-effects.pdf
Those boys and girls need to get out more and realise who the real enemy is, for they are easily quickly destroyed in a flash series of crashes which puts intelligent communities in command and control of everything and anything, anywhere and everywhere …… and that be an Ab Fab Fabless Domain and no Fantasy Land.
amanfromMars 1 … Wed 26 Feb 05:53  …. casting caution to the winds on http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2014/02/25/make_cyberwar_as_much_of_a_nono_as_nuclear_chemical_exchanges_says_rsa/
Cold War Warrior Tactics in Hot Space Ware Zones
Methinks this is appropriate spooky information to exchange on this thread, El Reg …… http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5