decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
That's a pretty big "if", and raises an unpleasant question | 379 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
That's a pretty big "if", and raises an unpleasant question
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 06:06 PM EDT
I would say that rather than "make our cybersociety less of a target"
we should make it less of a single point of failure. It will never NOT be a
target; the best we could do is reduce the annoyance in an extended DoS of
Facebook or Google, or a new Flash/IE zero-day exploit. (Frankly, if that's all
it takes to destroy your society, your society is pathetic.)

But this part of the discussion is just handwaving, and ignores the real
question, which is this: is Panetta being an alarmist and trying to stir up the
electorate (this is a Presidential election year, and he's a member of the Obama
administration, so he very much does have a horse in this race), or is there
really a legitimate threat that "cyberterrorists" will destroy
"the Internet"? Any guesses? (Here's a fact that might help: "the
Internet" isn't Google or Facebook anyway, and it's also not a specific
thing, located in a specific well-known place that you can drop bombs on or
crash airplanes into.)

Panetta is not doing his credibility any favors by using the moldy old
propaganda term "digital Pearl Harbor" either.* Lots of people have
been trying, for a very long time (since years before Groklaw went online), to
get the US and other gummints to pass laws and regulations dramatically limiting
civil rights online, almost always to avoid some unnamed but presumably imminent
"digital Pearl Harbor". (One used to be able to read some of the
history of this on Dan Rosenberg's wonderfully thoughtful "Virus
Myths" website, but unfortunately it seems to have turned into a
registration-obscured link farm.) The fearmongering has only gotten easier to do
since 2001.

* What would a "digital Pearl Harbor" even be? Some nominal bad guys
blowing up Rackspace or Network Solutions or cutting an undersea telecom cable?
Please think about this seriously; it's one of the worst IT policy analogies in
existence, yet it continues to be abused by damagogues like Panetta.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )