Kaspersky: International Cyber Weapons Agreement Needed

Status
Not open for further replies.

boju

Distinguished
It seems humanity generally speaking needs a good kick up the ass. Perhaps the only way we will ever stop bickering about useless bullshit is being invaded by aliens. Maybe then we'll reach a new level of civilisation.

Religion and dare I say it 'money' is a cancer to us all.

Until then, ebombs and nukes and b-brother are just temporary workarounds.
 

cumi2k4

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2011
51
0
18,580
0
"In the future, governments will have two choices regarding the use of social media: allow social networks to remain free but dangerous to security, or be controlled Big Brother-style which would be safer for everyone."

and we all know which one that every government will choose.... after all, no one will abuse the watcher position, right?? /sarc

whose saying was it that says those who give up freedom for a bit of safety deserves neither and will lose both? must be somebody not important.....

 

molo9000

Distinguished
Aug 14, 2010
243
0
18,830
0
But how can you control if treaties on cyber weapons are being kept?

Nuclear weapon disarmament can be checked relatively easily by spy satellites and inspection of the disarmed warheads, but how can you check if another nation is secretly developing cyber weapons?
The source of a cyber weapon might even remain secret after it has been used.
 

joytech22

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2008
651
0
18,930
0
I was at CeBIT yesterday and won a years licence of their security suite by shooting some bug with a nerf gun.

Is this the same Kaspersky...? I mean I really wish they mentioned this to me in the time that I was there.
 

southernshark

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2009
310
0
18,930
0
Yeah obviously cyber weapons are just as dangerous as nuclear ones..........

Of course this guy makes money off of cyber security so just like every other nutcase out there who sells security measures... he makes things seem much more dangerous than they really are.
 

K2N hater

Distinguished
Sep 15, 2009
203
0
18,830
0
Stupid claim. Cyber terrorism doesn't exist unless they mean every single attack against a greedy corporation or a fascist government is terrorism.

And the alleged weapons can't hit computers which are not reachable through the www.

Want a cheap bunker? unplug your network from the internet.
 

Pailin

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2007
231
0
18,830
0
Soo... that guy is saying :

"don't let the people communicate with each other in case they share information and make informed votes..."

"Governments must dictate social media (officially sanctioned propaganda) to tell the voters who to vote for!"

..."or democracy will be dead"

xD
 

Zingam_Duo

Honorable
Mar 22, 2012
114
0
10,630
0
[citation][nom]boju[/nom]It seems humanity generally speaking needs a good kick up the ass. Perhaps the only way we will ever stop bickering about useless bullshit is being invaded by aliens. Maybe then we'll reach a new level of civilization.Religion and dare I say it 'money' is a cancer to us all.Until then, ebombs and nukes and b-brother are just temporary workarounds.[/citation]

You are headed in the right direction but that's not nearly enough.
Money is not exactly the problem. Besides religion the notion of property and hereditary privileges have to disappear. Which also means: you cannot claim a wife as your own, even children. This means that capitalism should be abolished. This would be the beginning and there would be much more to that.
But I doubt that humanity has the ability to change its mentality. The socialist system of Soviet Union was such an attempt but it failed miserably. In fact it was nothing like that at all.
For all this to be able to happen. Humans have to change their mentality from competitive to cooperative. I don't see how this would happen.
Also this would work if there is only one government, one world culture, etc.
At best we could hope that mass space travel and colonizations of other planets would become possible before we run out completely out of resources on Earth. If we run out of resources before that we are going to be destined to live in a stone era, until the Sun or a meteorite destroys the planet.
If we can advance to a point to be able to colonize other world then we could continue living like that: greedy corporations, wars, pollution. The only difference would that if we destroy a certain environment then we would be able to move on the another one. The universe is huge. We cannot destroy it even in billion years. In that case the only resource we would need (the rest should be abundant in space) is more children.
 

ubercake

Distinguished
Oct 28, 2009
308
0
18,960
21
[citation][nom]zingam_duo[/nom]You are headed in the right direction but that's not nearly enough.Money is not exactly the problem. Besides religion the notion of property and hereditary privileges have to disappear. Which also means: you cannot claim a wife as your own, even children. This means that capitalism should be abolished. This would be the beginning and there would be much more to that.But I doubt that humanity has the ability to change its mentality. The socialist system of Soviet Union was such an attempt but it failed miserably. In fact it was nothing like that at all.For all this to be able to happen. Humans have to change their mentality from competitive to cooperative. I don't see how this would happen.Also this would work if there is only one government, one world culture, etc.At best we could hope that mass space travel and colonizations of other planets would become possible before we run out completely out of resources on Earth. If we run out of resources before that we are going to be destined to live in a stone era, until the Sun or a meteorite destroys the planet.If we can advance to a point to be able to colonize other world then we could continue living like that: greedy corporations, wars, pollution. The only difference would that if we destroy a certain environment then we would be able to move on the another one. The universe is huge. We cannot destroy it even in billion years. In that case the only resource we would need (the rest should be abundant in space) is more children.[/citation]
Sound like a bunch of commies.
 

TeraMedia

Distinguished
Jan 26, 2006
185
0
18,630
0
... "a thousand times cheaper" to develop than conventional weaponry.
It is for this precise reason that a Cyber Weapons Agreement is useless. It costs a lot of money to make even a small nuke - on the order of magnitude of perhaps a billion dollars. Most private entities do not have that much money to invest - especially in something that will turn them into pariah's rather than turning profits (Dr. Evil notwithstanding). So since the prospect is limited to nation-states and *very* well bankrolled terrorist organizations, a treaty has an effect.

In contrast, trojans, worms and viruses can be written by individuals - and in their spare time, at that. So controlling the behaviors of nation-states (whether in fact or even just on paper) does absolutely nothing to control the proliferation of cyberwarfare and cyberterrorism code development.
 
G

Guest

Guest
International nuclear or biological weapons agreements are designed to defend other countries to achieve those weapons and maintain the position of the countries that have already achieved. While there is no need for nuclear or biological weapons, why disarmament of those weapons are not emphasized? The countries having those weapons are emphasizing NFT not emphasizing to destroy those that they posses. Meaning those countries already having more than required nuclear or biological weapons are not interested in restoring the situation by destroying those for human well-being rather they are interested in maintaining their position by enforcing NFT which intentionally been enacted to defend other countries from reach. Therefore each country possessing nuclear or biological weapon are great threat to mankind and to the nationals of the other countries. The simple question is if one single country world can possess and conduct research for upgrading nuclear or biological weapons why other are defended? What is the ulterior motive. The same thing would happen to the international agreement on cyber war if the same be singed by the countries. However, if so is needed there must have a provision that if one country of the world conduct an cyber attack against any country of the world, any other country will gain the right to attack that first attacker. I say this, because while UN Security Council can resolve whether a military strike will be conducted or not against a country for violating NFT, the same UN Security Council do not have the power to resolve that all countries having nuclear or biological weapons will have to destroy those weapons withing one year of so...... here the power of the UN Security Council is questioned? And there are example of many countries bypassing UN Security Council's resolution in undertaking military strikes against other countries that even do not possess nuclear or biological weapons.

Such a provision should be included in the NFT that if the countries possessing nuclear or biological weapons do not destroy those weapons within a certain time, other countries gain the right to produce the same quality and graded weapons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Streaming Video & TVs 2
pbTv Streaming Video & TVs 1
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
M Streaming Video & TVs 1
K Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 2
L Streaming Video & TVs 3
J Streaming Video & TVs 2
F Streaming Video & TVs 11
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 3
G Streaming Video & TVs 12
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 3
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 5
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 13
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 9
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 6
G Streaming Video & TVs 19

ASK THE COMMUNITY