[Today's Papers] from [Slate Magazine]
To Panic or Not To Panic
By Daniel Politi
Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2009, at 6:42 AM ET
CONTINUED FROM 20090428h
The NYT fronts a look at how amid all the talk about how the United States is stepping up efforts to defend the nation's computer systems from spies and attacks, little is being said about the ongoing debate over the billions of dollars the military and intelligence agencies are spending on offensive cyberwarfare capabilities. The paper makes clear that "there are no broad authorizations for American forces to engage in cyberwar," although there have been a few isolated instances where such capabilities were used. Many think that building up defensive capabilities simply isn't enough, but it's difficult to come up with a policy to strike back against attacks when it's often impossible to know who the attacker might be. Some say a policy of pre-emption should be instituted that would allow U.S. officials to go into foreign computers and destroy any threats before they become a problem. But, that, of course, would raise problems of its own if other countries, or individual hackers, decide to take revenge for such actions.
The WP 's Richard Cohen writes that while he's "glad we're no longer torturing anyone … ceasing this foul practice will not in any way make Americans safer." It may seem ridiculous, but the debate over torture "has been infected with silly arguments" about whether it works. It's impossible to say that torture, or at least the threat of it, doesn't ever work, but that's hardly the point. "America should repudiate torture not because it is always ineffective—nothing is always anything—or because others loathe it but because it degrades us and runs counter to our national values."
To Panic or Not To Panic
By Daniel Politi
Posted Tuesday, April 28, 2009, at 6:42 AM ET
CONTINUED FROM 20090428h
The NYT fronts a look at how amid all the talk about how the United States is stepping up efforts to defend the nation's computer systems from spies and attacks, little is being said about the ongoing debate over the billions of dollars the military and intelligence agencies are spending on offensive cyberwarfare capabilities. The paper makes clear that "there are no broad authorizations for American forces to engage in cyberwar," although there have been a few isolated instances where such capabilities were used. Many think that building up defensive capabilities simply isn't enough, but it's difficult to come up with a policy to strike back against attacks when it's often impossible to know who the attacker might be. Some say a policy of pre-emption should be instituted that would allow U.S. officials to go into foreign computers and destroy any threats before they become a problem. But, that, of course, would raise problems of its own if other countries, or individual hackers, decide to take revenge for such actions.
The WP 's Richard Cohen writes that while he's "glad we're no longer torturing anyone … ceasing this foul practice will not in any way make Americans safer." It may seem ridiculous, but the debate over torture "has been infected with silly arguments" about whether it works. It's impossible to say that torture, or at least the threat of it, doesn't ever work, but that's hardly the point. "America should repudiate torture not because it is always ineffective—nothing is always anything—or because others loathe it but because it degrades us and runs counter to our national values."
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます