from the just-hammering-the-'launch-cyber-nuke'-button dept
It’s impossible to be the “aggressor” of the free world. Those words just don’t make sense together. “Defender of the free world,” maybe. If you’re going on the offensive, it seems unlikely you’re there to protect anyone’s freedoms.
But that appears to be where America is heading: the aggressor that somehow protects rights and freedoms worldwide. For years, government agencies have been asking for codification of glove removal. They want to go on the offensive in the new forever war in cyberspace.
And government officials have muddied the water by mixing metaphors, saying ill-advised things like “cyber Pearl Harbor” in hopes of rhetorically raising the stakes high enough to allow the government to act as a conquering force, rather than a defender of freedom.
Those pitching the idea that the federal government should become a broadband bully often forget how often our offensive hacking tools are leaked or absconded with, resulting in Americans becoming the targets of repurposed literal spyware.
It’s not that America isn’t a juicy target for malicious state-sponsored hackers. And it’s not that malicious entities haven’t caused serious fiscal and logistical damage. It’s whether or not those who buy into the cyber war = actual war rhetoric want to turn the United States into an armed invader.
That question has an answer, at ..
Support the originator by clicking the read the rest link below.