Cybersecurity Should be Nationalised

[Tani Coyote]

Internet security should be nationalised. While a firm supporter of the free market and capitalism... it just disgusts me how this sector works.

I recently caught the "Vista Security 2010" virus. I'm seething out of my teeth at the moment. Why?

Well, I started off fairly confident I could find a solution... So I've downloaded just about everything.

Rkill to terminate the process that the virus uses; that doesn't help at all as it just restarts when I try ANY program that could kill the virus. Malwarebytes won't work, of course due to the fact they're the only moderately-generous virus scanners. Spydoctor and some other sweeper worked VERY NICELY at scanning, but then told me I had to PAY in order to use their services! That's a cocktease if anything!

I think this would be a good area to purge greed from our lives. I think it's sick that despite all the money we - as in, all people - pay in taxes for physical security via the police, we don't have cybersecurity, which, in many ways, is just as important as physical security these days. It's sick that a virus antagonises millions of people every god-damned year, and then just when you think you found your savior, you hear:

"Hurrrr. You have to pay x dollars for our scanner services. Hurrrr. Tough cookies!"

I hope these guys all get nationalised so their services are provided for "free" via taxes. I hope all the guys who make the viruses in the first place get lined up against a wall and get one right between the eyes. And even that would be far too merciful for them.

---

Edit: For clarification, since everyone's assuming I'm advocating total nationalisation.

It should be akin to the police, where everyone has access to it, but people with money could buy better stuff if they wanted to. So there would still be private security providers(as some people have 1984 syndrome and thus would be afraid of the government monitoring them through their own products) to fill a niche and foster innovation(which the government could pick up), but the government would provide "free" - as in paid for by taxes - anti-virus software.

If not producing it's own software, it could simply just subsidise the purchase of the software, but that kind of defeats the point for me, since EVERYBODY should have access to free anti-virus software, though you're free to pay more for better services if you see fit.

 

[emzie]

While I agree it should be nationalized for vital infrastructure, your personal computer is your personal responsibility. I'm not okay with subsidizing idiocy.

 

[Tani Coyote]

While I agree it should be nationalized for vital infrastructure, your personal computer is your personal responsibility.

Sure, that's true. But umm...

Isn't that like saying not paying to have a security system in your house is your own responsibility, and if you don't have one, too bad if the police don't show up?

I think that's wrong. I think it's wrong that just because you don't install some super-duper-spyware detector you have to pay for, you should be left completely naked to the elements of cyberattacks.

Though hey, if we're going to advocate giving all the poor internet and then saying "tough cookies" when they get infected... (This is of course based on the assumption that you're a liberal and thus support giving the poor internet access; disregard this if that's not true)

Anyway. Cybersecurity should be covered by taxes meant for police funding, I think, given the fact that the internet is just as much a safe as any bank for many many people. We can't afford to not let it be policed. If we'll arrest people for preying on young girls on it, we should also "arrest" the viruses that prey upon people, and the people who make these viruses.

 

[Shekwan]

If it was nationalised then people would be giving out about it being too basic or something like that and that private companies would offer a better service.

 

[uppi]

If your system has been compromised, there is only one option: reformat and reinstall.

And you do not need nationalized cybersecurity for that.

 

[Tani Coyote]

If it was nationalised then people would be giving out about it being too basic or something like that and that private companies would offer a better service.

Sure, sure, that's fine, just like people have private police forces in addition to what the public funds provide them. I just think we should all have some level of cybersecurity guaranteed by the government. In an age where so much important, vital information is online, it's insane that we don't have our own digital police to battle the digital criminals, aka the viruses and the crimebosses who make them.

 

[emzie]

Sure, that's true. But umm...

Isn't that like saying not paying to have a security system in your house is your own responsibility, and if you don't have one, too bad if the police don't show up?

The police aren't a good comparison to malware protection. The police don't exist to guard your house.

I think that's wrong. I think it's wrong that just because you don't install some super-duper-spyware detector you have to pay for, you should be left completely naked to the elements of cyberattacks.

AVG, firefox + noscript

"tough cookies" when they get infected...

HA. PUN!

 

[Camikaze]

Bad, bad idea. Giving the government way too much power over everyone's computer security (or as they may see it, 'security') is giving the government way too much power over most people's access to information. There is no way a government would stop at merely preventing viruses if given the power to do so.

 

[emzie]

Bad, bad idea. Giving the government way too much power over everyone's computer security (or as they may see it, 'security') is giving the government way too much power over most people's access to information. There is no way a government would stop at merely preventing viruses if given the power to do so.

Listen to this guy. He's Australian.

The last thing I want is the government near my computer without cause (and I have no intention of giving them cause).

 

[Zelig]

Linux is free, and will solve your virus problem. Even in Windows, the vast majority of virus problems are caused by user error.

The main thing I'd like to see more active police work in is taking down spammers, if there was enough of a push for it, spam could be practically eliminated.

And FWIW, companies like MS spend a lot of time and money working to fix security problems that they really don't have to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8537771.stm

 

[Tani Coyote]

Well in the end, it would still be a person's choice to download the government software or not...

There's also the option of a government-chartered corporation that sells the software at rock-bottom prices, though I'd prefer such things be paid for by taxes, so as to ensure everyone can access it and it's not cumbersome to buy.

I'm sure there's a way to prevent the Rule of 1984 from being invoked about this sort of thing.

 

[Camikaze]

I'm sure there's a way to prevent the Rule of 1984 from being invoked about this sort of thing.

And what way would that be?

 

[Tani Coyote]

And what way would that be?

Well I'm not really sure about a specific way, hence why I said, "I'm sure there is a way..." to indicate there probably is a specific way.

Allowing private companies to run competition for people who are afraid of being monitored by big brother is a good start. That way, everyone has cheap access to anti-virus services... and if they're nervous of being watched, they can go ahead and switch to something else at increased cost.

It is a niche market, after all, and will of course be filled.

 

[Zelig]

Well in the end, it would still be a person's choice to download the government software or not...

There's also the option of a government-chartered corporation that sells the software at rock-bottom prices, though I'd prefer such things be paid for by taxes, so as to ensure everyone can access it and it's not cumbersome to buy.

But there's already very high quality, free antivirus (MS Security Essentials, Avast, AVG, Avira, in my order of preference) and general antimalware software (spybot, hijackthis, superantispyware, among many others).

If governments were to make their own consumer AV-type programs, they likely would not be better than what is currently available, and would crush the marketplace with a hundred or so extra options. (100+ countries)

 

[Tani Coyote]

No worry. George Orwell did his part in making sure people will NEVER be entirely satisfied with government aid. As mentioned before, the fear of being monitored should be enough to keep private firms in business. The government option is simply something for all people to fall back on if they don't feel like spending more money.

Compare to buying a 10 dollar DVD player and a 1000 dollar one. Naturally, there's a high risk of losing the 10 dollar player, but some people will still take it because of price, while the 1000 dollar one's company stays in business because people just like to have high-tech in that regard, regardless of the cost comparison.

 

[dirtyparrot]

I'm no computer expert, but in terms of defence against virus and other malware, it seems to me that they were poor designed to combat these things. It just seem like once they're past the main gate, they are free and clear to do their damage. I'm sure that part of the reason is that this was never a consideration when computer were created and subsequent designs just add to the old one.

 

[Integral]

The best cybersecurity is a good system of backups and system wipes. This is particularly effective with personal computers; for businesses, there is a need for robust anti-malware resources.

I'm just not seeing the need for a government solution when the private solution (firefox + noscript + avg, or just migrating to linux) works so well.

 

[uppi]

Nationalized cybersecurity would actually be pretty bad from a security perspective. Like in nature, a monoculture of systems breeds viruses adapted to it. Any program is bound to have bugs and imagine the chaos a security leak on 90% of America's computers would ensure.

 

[Zelig]

No worry. George Orwell did his part in making sure people will NEVER be entirely satisfied with government aid. As mentioned before, the fear of being monitored should be enough to keep private firms in business. The government option is simply something for all people to fall back on if they don't feel like spending more money.

Compare to buying a 10 dollar DVD player and a 1000 dollar one. Naturally, there's a high risk of losing the 10 dollar player, but some people will still take it because of price, while the 1000 dollar one's company stays in business because people just like to have high-tech in that regard, regardless of the cost comparison.

But like I said, there are already very good free options.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I think one of the best antiviruses is common sense. There are also plenty of free downloadable antiviruses out there. And the worst thing that can happen is an OS reinstall.