I find it very disturbing that I hear more about the North Dakota pipeline protests from Facebook and Twitter than my usual news sources.
I think 2016 proves that the media no longer acts as the Fourth Estate.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Thursday, October 27, 2016
National Security, Trade
I compared our relationship to China with decisions on whether to unfriend people on Facebook, but that analogy will only carry you so far. Nations, after all, can't exactly invite each other over to watch a movie together. :)
Nations show friendship in other ways. Trade deals. Military support. Joint training exercises. And more. (This article discussing our relationship with Saudi Arabia touches on some of it.)
This brings up a pretty important part, actually. Namely, the role of business and trade in international relations. This is not new. The East India company, for example, had a very complicated relationship with the British government. The Opium Wars are another example.
I think business - multi-national corporations in particular - have grown larger and have a significant impact on the foreign policy of today. They may, as just one example, push for trade ties with China. China has a large economic market with a lot of potential for growth, after all, and many businesses will take the risks of operating in China (i.e. the theft of their intellectual property, and other things) in order to get that foot in the door. This, btw, isn't exactly new. I came across a book once that described French efforts to steal the secrets of mirror-making from Venice back in the seventh century. Mirrors! We take them for granted now, but Venetians actually tried to make it illegal for artisans to leave and set up shop elsewhere.
Here in the United States we're used to thinking of the government as opposed to business, but when it comes to foreign policy they often work hand in hand. So, for example, we have decisions about granting Most Favoured Nation status to various countries. We also had business interests in building a pipeline through Afghanistan.
Two things I wanted to point out here. The first is that our advantageous geopolitical situation does have some drawbacks. Namely, the average American doesn't easily visit other countries. If they do, most will go to Canada or Mexico (or take a cruise in the Caribbean), as plane tickets across the ocean are expensive. The Americans you meet overseas are generally wealthier and more globally aware than the rest. This may, perhaps, change a bit as the internet and modern communications make us all more connected...but for the most part Americans care more about domestic politics than anything going on in the foreign realm.
It also means it's harder to persuade the general public that an issue is worth losing American lives over. After all, what does it matter to us whether or not a pipeline is built in Afghanistan? And comedians can easily get a laugh by showing how ignorant the average American is about foreign events (like where Aleppo is, or that there's a city called Aleppo and presidential candidates aren't debating about a leppo. Gary Johnson is not the only one who doesn't know).
The second thing is that there is a point of view w/regards to international relations that thinks more trade ties will lead to peace. The Trade Interdependence theory as tied to the Capitalist Peace Theory, to be specific. I personally think this is more wishful thinking than reality, but I will be happy to be proven wrong. (I had an excellent textbook that covered various theories of war and really explored historical examples debunking those theories. One of my greatest regrets is that I loaned it to someone taking the same class a semester later, and can't recall the title or author anymore. While I'll admit certain things may make war less likely, I ultimately came to the conclusion that two nations go to war when they think they have more to gain from fighting than not. I know, this sounds almost too simple to be worth mentioning. Bear with me. The point of this obvious explanation is that we can't count on trade ties, or democracy, or any sort of systemic change to create everlasting peace. Instead, we have to be aware of what a nation's interests are, and whether or not they think they can achieve those interests through fighting. Note, as well, that I said both nations have to feel there is something to gain. In some cases, what a nation has to gain is so important that we act as though there is no choice. Self-defense, for example.)
I think we're coming close to a time when these theories will be put to the test. That is, if our trade ties make World War Three so potentially disastrous that we manage to avoid it...then there may be some truth to the theory. If we don't avoid it, then all our trade ties did was make it more painful when it happened. And possibly made our opponents stronger than they'd have been, otherwise.
Makes you wonder what historians will be saying about us a couple hundred years in the future.
Nations show friendship in other ways. Trade deals. Military support. Joint training exercises. And more. (This article discussing our relationship with Saudi Arabia touches on some of it.)
This brings up a pretty important part, actually. Namely, the role of business and trade in international relations. This is not new. The East India company, for example, had a very complicated relationship with the British government. The Opium Wars are another example.
I think business - multi-national corporations in particular - have grown larger and have a significant impact on the foreign policy of today. They may, as just one example, push for trade ties with China. China has a large economic market with a lot of potential for growth, after all, and many businesses will take the risks of operating in China (i.e. the theft of their intellectual property, and other things) in order to get that foot in the door. This, btw, isn't exactly new. I came across a book once that described French efforts to steal the secrets of mirror-making from Venice back in the seventh century. Mirrors! We take them for granted now, but Venetians actually tried to make it illegal for artisans to leave and set up shop elsewhere.
Here in the United States we're used to thinking of the government as opposed to business, but when it comes to foreign policy they often work hand in hand. So, for example, we have decisions about granting Most Favoured Nation status to various countries. We also had business interests in building a pipeline through Afghanistan.
Two things I wanted to point out here. The first is that our advantageous geopolitical situation does have some drawbacks. Namely, the average American doesn't easily visit other countries. If they do, most will go to Canada or Mexico (or take a cruise in the Caribbean), as plane tickets across the ocean are expensive. The Americans you meet overseas are generally wealthier and more globally aware than the rest. This may, perhaps, change a bit as the internet and modern communications make us all more connected...but for the most part Americans care more about domestic politics than anything going on in the foreign realm.
It also means it's harder to persuade the general public that an issue is worth losing American lives over. After all, what does it matter to us whether or not a pipeline is built in Afghanistan? And comedians can easily get a laugh by showing how ignorant the average American is about foreign events (like where Aleppo is, or that there's a city called Aleppo and presidential candidates aren't debating about a leppo. Gary Johnson is not the only one who doesn't know).
The second thing is that there is a point of view w/regards to international relations that thinks more trade ties will lead to peace. The Trade Interdependence theory as tied to the Capitalist Peace Theory, to be specific. I personally think this is more wishful thinking than reality, but I will be happy to be proven wrong. (I had an excellent textbook that covered various theories of war and really explored historical examples debunking those theories. One of my greatest regrets is that I loaned it to someone taking the same class a semester later, and can't recall the title or author anymore. While I'll admit certain things may make war less likely, I ultimately came to the conclusion that two nations go to war when they think they have more to gain from fighting than not. I know, this sounds almost too simple to be worth mentioning. Bear with me. The point of this obvious explanation is that we can't count on trade ties, or democracy, or any sort of systemic change to create everlasting peace. Instead, we have to be aware of what a nation's interests are, and whether or not they think they can achieve those interests through fighting. Note, as well, that I said both nations have to feel there is something to gain. In some cases, what a nation has to gain is so important that we act as though there is no choice. Self-defense, for example.)
I think we're coming close to a time when these theories will be put to the test. That is, if our trade ties make World War Three so potentially disastrous that we manage to avoid it...then there may be some truth to the theory. If we don't avoid it, then all our trade ties did was make it more painful when it happened. And possibly made our opponents stronger than they'd have been, otherwise.
Makes you wonder what historians will be saying about us a couple hundred years in the future.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
National Security
http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/lets-talk-about-americas-strategic-choices/?utm_content=buffer2b6a0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
I finally joined twitter. I avoided it for ages, but came across an article discussing Rukmini Callimachi's reporting on jihadist movements.
Anyways, I came across the link above and it fits in well with my current theme. I'm not sure I agree entirely. I look forward to the rest of the series.
Clarity, Cosmopolitanism, and Foreign Policy
When I finally figured out what I wanted for my first tattoo, I went to the tattoo artist and tried to explain what I wanted. A mountain lion, in profile. It seemed so simple, right? I could visualize it clearly in my head. Except that I stumbled when I tried to explain it to the artist. He told me to bring in an example of what I wanted...a picture or something. (So I went prowling through the library, looking for a picture of a mountain lion. And discovered that what I thought was classic and commonplace really wasn't. It was hard to find a picture of what I wanted.)
Typing things out in a blog is sometimes similar. I can see something quite clearly in my head. It seems so bright, and shiny. Then when I try to put that vision into words I stumble. I want to get further into foreign policy suggestions, but I realized that the concepts don't flow together well yet. Once again, I need to cover a few more things first.
Kwame Appiah has a book called Cosmopolitanism that I recommend to anyone interested in this topic. He made the point that we don't have to agree on everything in order to get along. That is, we can have very different values. Diverse opinions on what's best for our country. And yet we can still live together peaceably enough.
It reminds me a bit of my extended family, particularly during Thanksgiving. I have relatives across the entire spectrum, politically speaking...and for the most part we can all sit down together and enjoy our Thanksgiving meal. This does, however, presuppose that we all value our relationships more than our politics.
This year, this crazy election year, I have seen various friends on Facebook talk about unfriending or blocking people they disagree with. They sometimes make very eloquent arguments for why they do so, and I'm not going to say they're wrong. I will say, however, that it's not the choice I make.
I keep my Facebook feed pretty much wide open, for a couple of reasons. One is that I don't want to deliberately create a bubble. When you start curating your feed, filtering out the people who disagree with you, then you only hear part of the debate.
In looking back, some of my most rewarding and interesting conversations have been with the friends and family across the political aisle. (It helps that most of them are intelligent people with thoughtful positions. I can't say it's often changed my mind, but it has added depth to my understanding of the issues.) This is also, btw, why I don't like calling various people ReThuglicans or DemoRats or whatever the cutesy insult of the day is.
The choice I make can be good or bad, depending. On the negative side - I don't take as strong a stand as the issues call for. I am friends with people who don't always share my views, and who express views that some of my other friends would strongly disagree with.
On the other hand, I can sometimes have an impact that others don't. Because I'm friends with people I disagree with. (It helps that I don't fit neatly into political stereotypes. It's harder to dismiss me as a bleeding heart liberal when I've served my country, in Iraq and Afghanistan.)
The point of what so far has been a more personal digression is this. Some of the same issues (and strengths, and weaknesses) come into play when we decide how we are going to interact with another country.
Take China, for example. We have very different values, particularly with regards to human rights. Detaining booksellers from Hong Kong, simply because they sell books that criticize China? Awful! The Chinese government must be pretty weak, to find criticism so threatening.
Is this something we should ostracize them for, like banning our Facebook friends? Is this something we can disagree on, and still sit down for Thanksgiving together?
Are we better off engaging, maintaining relationships while making our disapproval known?
Or are we better off cutting ties, so that we aren't supporting it or a part of it?
Typing things out in a blog is sometimes similar. I can see something quite clearly in my head. It seems so bright, and shiny. Then when I try to put that vision into words I stumble. I want to get further into foreign policy suggestions, but I realized that the concepts don't flow together well yet. Once again, I need to cover a few more things first.
Kwame Appiah has a book called Cosmopolitanism that I recommend to anyone interested in this topic. He made the point that we don't have to agree on everything in order to get along. That is, we can have very different values. Diverse opinions on what's best for our country. And yet we can still live together peaceably enough.
It reminds me a bit of my extended family, particularly during Thanksgiving. I have relatives across the entire spectrum, politically speaking...and for the most part we can all sit down together and enjoy our Thanksgiving meal. This does, however, presuppose that we all value our relationships more than our politics.
This year, this crazy election year, I have seen various friends on Facebook talk about unfriending or blocking people they disagree with. They sometimes make very eloquent arguments for why they do so, and I'm not going to say they're wrong. I will say, however, that it's not the choice I make.
I keep my Facebook feed pretty much wide open, for a couple of reasons. One is that I don't want to deliberately create a bubble. When you start curating your feed, filtering out the people who disagree with you, then you only hear part of the debate.
In looking back, some of my most rewarding and interesting conversations have been with the friends and family across the political aisle. (It helps that most of them are intelligent people with thoughtful positions. I can't say it's often changed my mind, but it has added depth to my understanding of the issues.) This is also, btw, why I don't like calling various people ReThuglicans or DemoRats or whatever the cutesy insult of the day is.
The choice I make can be good or bad, depending. On the negative side - I don't take as strong a stand as the issues call for. I am friends with people who don't always share my views, and who express views that some of my other friends would strongly disagree with.
On the other hand, I can sometimes have an impact that others don't. Because I'm friends with people I disagree with. (It helps that I don't fit neatly into political stereotypes. It's harder to dismiss me as a bleeding heart liberal when I've served my country, in Iraq and Afghanistan.)
The point of what so far has been a more personal digression is this. Some of the same issues (and strengths, and weaknesses) come into play when we decide how we are going to interact with another country.
Take China, for example. We have very different values, particularly with regards to human rights. Detaining booksellers from Hong Kong, simply because they sell books that criticize China? Awful! The Chinese government must be pretty weak, to find criticism so threatening.
Is this something we should ostracize them for, like banning our Facebook friends? Is this something we can disagree on, and still sit down for Thanksgiving together?
Are we better off engaging, maintaining relationships while making our disapproval known?
Or are we better off cutting ties, so that we aren't supporting it or a part of it?
Sunday, October 23, 2016
National Security and Poker
I wanted to cover one more topic before going into some guidelines/suggestions for our own strategies on national security.
There's an element of art, or gamesmanship, that I can only explain with poker.
Texas Hold 'Em, to be more precise. (Again, I want to add the caveat that I'm not an expert poker player. I have an uncle that plays much more seriously than I do, and I'm aware that I sometimes have tells that he can pick up on, for example. And I don't always know the statistical likelihood of getting a winning hand, so sometimes I play when I probably should have folded and sometimes I fold when I might have done better to play). In Texas Hold 'Em, each player has two cards that are hidden from the other players' view. Five more are eventually revealed to the entire group, so you've got some intelligence that everyone can see and some intelligence that only you are aware of.
You can make guesses about what the other players have, based on what's on the table and how they're playing. (If they fold, they probably don't have anything that matches up well with what's on the table. If they bet big, they might be holding on to a pocket pair of aces. Or cards that play well with the flop, and might lead to a flush, a straight, or three of a kind.)
In addition to the mechanics of the game, however, a lot of poker is based on being able to read the players around you. You can bluff, and perhaps win the pot with nothing. Push other players out of the game when you don't really have anything. But bluffing, in my experience, can also make you lose big. That is, if the other player has a good enough hand to stay in the game they'll probably keep playing regardless of how big you bluff...and you're single ace is just not going to win the pot.
Actually, when you're going head to head with someone there's a lot of quick games where each side knows their cards are bad (or good) and one side quickly folds. Then you just slowly lose the money you have to put in the pot (with two people, you're always the small blind or the big blind, so you're going to keep losing money if you keep folding). Then you either have to get really good cards or bluff. So in those situations you can recoup your losses by bluffing, but if the other player has a worthwhile hand you can also lose big. In my little bit of experience each round goes pretty quick until either both sides have good hands and commit to bidding (and one side doesn't have as good a hand as they think), or one side tries to bluff the other out and loses. Otherwise whoever has the largest number of chips can probably outlast the other just by refusing to get sucked in unless their cards are great.
Like I keep saying, go find a real expert if you want a better discussion.
I brought this up, though, because there are some similarities to foreign policy. There's some information only you know, there's some information everyone knows, and there's some information the other side has that you don't. You're reputation and the signals you send can make a difference. You might be able to bluff and get away with it. Or you bluff, and they call your bluff, and you lose.
Bluffing...
Sometimes it's worth bluffing and losing, just so the other side is aware that you sometimes bluff. That's more if you want to sucker them in with a good hand, make them think you're bluffing when you're not. And sometimes you also want to show that you've got the cards to back your actions up, so that they know it's not always a bluff. That might make them back down in the future when you really don't have anything.
This is tied to two things. First, Vietnam. You could say that Vietnam was a situation where someone called our bluff. That is, Vietnam wasn't an existential threat. The American people stopped supporting it as the body count added up and didn't really see any reason to keep fighting for something that ultimately wasn't really a threat to us. But losing in Vietnam meant more people questioned whether we really have as good a hand as we sometimes imply. That did cause problems for us, because more people are likely to take the risk of calling our bluff, assuming it's a bluff. This is part of the problem we have in Syria. If we escalate our engagement there, are we really committed to it? Or, if the body count adds up and we get tied up there for a decade or more, will our people eventually get tired of it and call for us to leave? (Iraq adds to that analysis, since everyone and their mother saw that the American people were tired of it after five years of fighting.) I would say that Vietnam was not an existential threat, and that it doesn't necessarily mean we're weak when it's important...but our government is still responsive to the will of the people and what we consider 'important' is not necessarily what our leadership claims it is.
Second, Syria and Russia today. Russia is sending signals that they are very committed to keeping Assad in power. Is it a bluff? Can and will they back it up? Do we have the commitment and resources to call that bluff, if it's a bluff in the first place? Or do are they holding a pocket pair of aces, and will we wind up folding as soon as they reveal their hand? Or do they have a pocket pair of aces, but the flop was all clubs and we've got a pocket pair of clubs? In which case we'll have a showdown, but ultimately come out on top since our hand is better.
Does that make your head hurt?
What I wanted to get to, with all of that, is that some of our strategy is going to depend on how well we all are reading each other. How well we know the cards we have, what educated guesses we can make about the cards the other side is holding, our estimates of whether the other side has a good hand or not, and whether we in turn decide to play, fold, or bluff. It's not as straightforward as analyzing who has how strong of a military, because it depends as much on human psychology as it does on the actual cards in play.
There's an element of art, or gamesmanship, that I can only explain with poker.
Texas Hold 'Em, to be more precise. (Again, I want to add the caveat that I'm not an expert poker player. I have an uncle that plays much more seriously than I do, and I'm aware that I sometimes have tells that he can pick up on, for example. And I don't always know the statistical likelihood of getting a winning hand, so sometimes I play when I probably should have folded and sometimes I fold when I might have done better to play). In Texas Hold 'Em, each player has two cards that are hidden from the other players' view. Five more are eventually revealed to the entire group, so you've got some intelligence that everyone can see and some intelligence that only you are aware of.
You can make guesses about what the other players have, based on what's on the table and how they're playing. (If they fold, they probably don't have anything that matches up well with what's on the table. If they bet big, they might be holding on to a pocket pair of aces. Or cards that play well with the flop, and might lead to a flush, a straight, or three of a kind.)
In addition to the mechanics of the game, however, a lot of poker is based on being able to read the players around you. You can bluff, and perhaps win the pot with nothing. Push other players out of the game when you don't really have anything. But bluffing, in my experience, can also make you lose big. That is, if the other player has a good enough hand to stay in the game they'll probably keep playing regardless of how big you bluff...and you're single ace is just not going to win the pot.
Actually, when you're going head to head with someone there's a lot of quick games where each side knows their cards are bad (or good) and one side quickly folds. Then you just slowly lose the money you have to put in the pot (with two people, you're always the small blind or the big blind, so you're going to keep losing money if you keep folding). Then you either have to get really good cards or bluff. So in those situations you can recoup your losses by bluffing, but if the other player has a worthwhile hand you can also lose big. In my little bit of experience each round goes pretty quick until either both sides have good hands and commit to bidding (and one side doesn't have as good a hand as they think), or one side tries to bluff the other out and loses. Otherwise whoever has the largest number of chips can probably outlast the other just by refusing to get sucked in unless their cards are great.
Like I keep saying, go find a real expert if you want a better discussion.
I brought this up, though, because there are some similarities to foreign policy. There's some information only you know, there's some information everyone knows, and there's some information the other side has that you don't. You're reputation and the signals you send can make a difference. You might be able to bluff and get away with it. Or you bluff, and they call your bluff, and you lose.
Bluffing...
Sometimes it's worth bluffing and losing, just so the other side is aware that you sometimes bluff. That's more if you want to sucker them in with a good hand, make them think you're bluffing when you're not. And sometimes you also want to show that you've got the cards to back your actions up, so that they know it's not always a bluff. That might make them back down in the future when you really don't have anything.
This is tied to two things. First, Vietnam. You could say that Vietnam was a situation where someone called our bluff. That is, Vietnam wasn't an existential threat. The American people stopped supporting it as the body count added up and didn't really see any reason to keep fighting for something that ultimately wasn't really a threat to us. But losing in Vietnam meant more people questioned whether we really have as good a hand as we sometimes imply. That did cause problems for us, because more people are likely to take the risk of calling our bluff, assuming it's a bluff. This is part of the problem we have in Syria. If we escalate our engagement there, are we really committed to it? Or, if the body count adds up and we get tied up there for a decade or more, will our people eventually get tired of it and call for us to leave? (Iraq adds to that analysis, since everyone and their mother saw that the American people were tired of it after five years of fighting.) I would say that Vietnam was not an existential threat, and that it doesn't necessarily mean we're weak when it's important...but our government is still responsive to the will of the people and what we consider 'important' is not necessarily what our leadership claims it is.
Second, Syria and Russia today. Russia is sending signals that they are very committed to keeping Assad in power. Is it a bluff? Can and will they back it up? Do we have the commitment and resources to call that bluff, if it's a bluff in the first place? Or do are they holding a pocket pair of aces, and will we wind up folding as soon as they reveal their hand? Or do they have a pocket pair of aces, but the flop was all clubs and we've got a pocket pair of clubs? In which case we'll have a showdown, but ultimately come out on top since our hand is better.
Does that make your head hurt?
What I wanted to get to, with all of that, is that some of our strategy is going to depend on how well we all are reading each other. How well we know the cards we have, what educated guesses we can make about the cards the other side is holding, our estimates of whether the other side has a good hand or not, and whether we in turn decide to play, fold, or bluff. It's not as straightforward as analyzing who has how strong of a military, because it depends as much on human psychology as it does on the actual cards in play.
Cyber Warfare
Cyberwarfare. Everyone know that's the next big thing, but nobody seems to know how it will really play out. (This is part of why I'd like to take some classes in computer science - to learn more about what's possible)
We know a bit about what we've seen so far. Stuxnet. The 2007 attack on Estonia. Titan Rain. Criminals that use cyber attacks to get money - through ransomware, DDOS attacks, and more. I also know a little, very little about what's possible. Like the ability to hack someone's vehicle.
Cyberattacks are odd, in that it's hard to say if an attack is state-sponsored or based on individual criminal behavior. Attributing an attack to state is...difficult. Which also makes it hard to determine how a state should respond. Would a cyberattack be grounds for war? Would it lead to a more conventional response? At this point, there's a lot of uncertainty about it.
I want to point out a couple of things. DDOS attacks, to me at least, are more of a minor annoyance than a real threat. I wasn't aware of the recent attack until after the fact, for example, because I was at work and wasn't trying to access any of the sites affected. For me, as long as I can wait anywhere from a couple of hours or more, it's not a big deal. Yet criminals are apparently able to make money off of these, because businesses lose money the entire time the system is down. (These issues, btw, raise questions about whether we want political leaders who have a poor understanding of computer issues. It does not seem uncommon for older and more established politicians, for example, to be uncomfortable with smart phones and other aspects of the internet.)
While I heartily recommend talking to someone with real expertise on these issues, I do want to make a few points.
First, given what I said about how little Friday's DDOS attack affected me personally, some attacks are not really effective if you're able to unplug. This is worth pointing out, as there still are a number of people who haven't moved into the internet world completely. Granted, most of them are a bit older...but in my current job I am repeatedly astounded at how many of my employees are not comfortable with or familiar with what I used to consider basic computing skills. I've had to assist them with figuring out how to get information over the internet - whether using a website to get a company award, or information on their retirement plans, and more.
I do wonder whether cyberattacks would be more problematic in another twenty or thirty years, as people who know how to do things the old way are no longer around. (For example - when I was in the military we all learned how to read maps. Nowadays, many people use the GPS on their phones to navigate. If an attack took down GPS, how many people could navigate using a map?) Or take the example I used earlier where someone hacked a car. Older cars might be safer, since they don't have all the computer chips and whatnot inside.
It also means that EPM attacks are a very, very serious concern...since it would shut down a LOT of things we've become dependent on.
The importance of the internet is also worth pointing out, though again we still have old technology (like radios) that we can fall back on if need be.
I'm posting this more to point out the very large question mark we all should have with regards to cyberattacks, then to provide any real answers. I think/hope that most countries are taking steps to secure any critical infrastructure, and have fallback plans in place in case computer chips and technology fail. I believe the Department of Defense has taken steps to create a Cyber Command, and this could well become another branch (Air, Land, Sea...and now Cyber?)
We know a bit about what we've seen so far. Stuxnet. The 2007 attack on Estonia. Titan Rain. Criminals that use cyber attacks to get money - through ransomware, DDOS attacks, and more. I also know a little, very little about what's possible. Like the ability to hack someone's vehicle.
Cyberattacks are odd, in that it's hard to say if an attack is state-sponsored or based on individual criminal behavior. Attributing an attack to state is...difficult. Which also makes it hard to determine how a state should respond. Would a cyberattack be grounds for war? Would it lead to a more conventional response? At this point, there's a lot of uncertainty about it.
I want to point out a couple of things. DDOS attacks, to me at least, are more of a minor annoyance than a real threat. I wasn't aware of the recent attack until after the fact, for example, because I was at work and wasn't trying to access any of the sites affected. For me, as long as I can wait anywhere from a couple of hours or more, it's not a big deal. Yet criminals are apparently able to make money off of these, because businesses lose money the entire time the system is down. (These issues, btw, raise questions about whether we want political leaders who have a poor understanding of computer issues. It does not seem uncommon for older and more established politicians, for example, to be uncomfortable with smart phones and other aspects of the internet.)
While I heartily recommend talking to someone with real expertise on these issues, I do want to make a few points.
First, given what I said about how little Friday's DDOS attack affected me personally, some attacks are not really effective if you're able to unplug. This is worth pointing out, as there still are a number of people who haven't moved into the internet world completely. Granted, most of them are a bit older...but in my current job I am repeatedly astounded at how many of my employees are not comfortable with or familiar with what I used to consider basic computing skills. I've had to assist them with figuring out how to get information over the internet - whether using a website to get a company award, or information on their retirement plans, and more.
I do wonder whether cyberattacks would be more problematic in another twenty or thirty years, as people who know how to do things the old way are no longer around. (For example - when I was in the military we all learned how to read maps. Nowadays, many people use the GPS on their phones to navigate. If an attack took down GPS, how many people could navigate using a map?) Or take the example I used earlier where someone hacked a car. Older cars might be safer, since they don't have all the computer chips and whatnot inside.
It also means that EPM attacks are a very, very serious concern...since it would shut down a LOT of things we've become dependent on.
The importance of the internet is also worth pointing out, though again we still have old technology (like radios) that we can fall back on if need be.
I'm posting this more to point out the very large question mark we all should have with regards to cyberattacks, then to provide any real answers. I think/hope that most countries are taking steps to secure any critical infrastructure, and have fallback plans in place in case computer chips and technology fail. I believe the Department of Defense has taken steps to create a Cyber Command, and this could well become another branch (Air, Land, Sea...and now Cyber?)
Presidential Election 2016
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/opinion/sunday/the-dangers-of-hillary-clinton.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referer=https://t.co/swZLfvqCfC
Nice to see something capture my opinion so very well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)