Cybersecurity Should be Nationalised

[Cutlass]

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.

On that, I would think the thing to do is have the NSA see what they can hack, design something they cannot hack, and then inform Microsoft that they will make Windows conform to that standard, or Windows will not be used by any part of the US government.

 

[dirtyparrot]

On that, I would think the thing to do is have the NSA see what they can hack, design something they cannot hack, and then inform Microsoft that they will make Windows conform to that standard, or Windows will not be used by any part of the US government.

Honestly, I don't think that they should be using Windows and they should be designing their own computers. Hackers having easy access to the template on which they want to hack is just not a good idea imo. I know this would cost a lot of money, but unfortunately, the risks outweight doing nothing.

 

[Tani Coyote]

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.

...That's actually a very good theory, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's true. Maybe the body is the real issue, not the illness... hmm...

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.

A very sound point.

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.

Well, having a variety of options is always a good thing to aim for, is it not?

Nationalized cybersecurity would actually 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.

More reason to allow private businesses to still exist(and they will, once more, for the niche market), so that their innovations can help reinforce the government's ease-of-access, while they themselves also function as diversity should one feel uncomfortable with the government.

 

[SG-17]

AVG, firefox + noscript

That and Adblocker Plus is all that you really need. Viruses only spread because of ignorance.

 

[Karalysia]

Cyberspace is the only place where I support the free market. LET THE INVISIBLE HAND TO ITS WORK.

 

[Cutlass]

Honestly, I don't think that they should be using Windows and they should be designing their own computers. Hackers having easy access to the template on which they want to hack is just not a good idea imo. I know this would cost a lot of money, but unfortunately, the risks outweight doing nothing.

I don't know how much they do use Window. But I bet it's a lot. And I bet they won't stop. Yet Windows is the number one cause of vulnerability to viruses. Fixing Windows for real would be the best thing to do do reduce the threat to everyone.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Cyberspace is the only place where I support the free market. LET THE INVISIBLE HAND TO ITS WORK.

Figures we'd reverse economic philosophies on one issue and couldn't agree.

 

[uppi]

On that, I would think the thing to do is have the NSA see what they can hack, design something they cannot hack, and then inform Microsoft that they will make Windows conform to that standard, or Windows will not be used by any part of the US government.

They already designed SELinux. However nobody really wants to run a maximum security system, as it is a PITA to use.

More reason to allow private businesses to still exist(and they will, once more, for the niche market), so that their innovations can help reinforce the government's ease-of-access, while they themselves also function as diversity should one feel uncomfortable with the government.

What niche would that be? A tax payer funded program given away for free can outcompete anything else. Otherwise it would be a waste of taxes.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

If it makes economic sense to do so, why not? Hijacked computers probably cost a nation a fair bit of money.

 

[Shadylookin]

If you're too attached to Windows to leave it then the free solution is to reinstall it.

The government doesn't exist to provide free stuff(nothing is free anyway) but to benefit everyone. In the case of malware the private solutions are probably best.

Cyberspace is the only place where I support the free market. LET THE INVISIBLE HAND TO ITS WORK.

How ironic that I as a capitalist would say the internet is one(of few) place where I'd say let the government enforce standards, ensure network neutrality, and help get people access to it.

 

[Camikaze]

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.

I very much doubt that the government would be able to compete against private companies, both in terms of quality and price. So introducing private competition would make the whole idea of government run anti-virus redundant. So if you're going to have a viable government made security thing, it'd have to go it alone.

That being said, what would be a good solution to the problem is regulation, without complete nationalisation. That means you get the benefit of quality without as much of a possibility of censorship, or other government interference. Although this could still happen, it would be harder, I would imagine, than if they had direct control.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Maybe what the governments can do is research on it, and they make the results public. And the antivirus companies can implement it themselves.

 

[uppi]

That being said, what would be a good solution to the problem is regulation, without complete nationalisation. That means you get the benefit of quality without as much of a possibility of censorship, or other government interference. Although this could still happen, it would be harder, I would imagine, than if they had direct control.

Regulation? What would you want to regulate? Software is required by law not to suck? People need a license before operating a computer?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

People need a license before operating a computer?

Sometimes I wonder if that would help

 

[Camikaze]

Regulation? What would you want to regulate? Software is required by law not to suck? People need a license before operating a computer?

What's wrong with regulating software standards so you don't get products that do suck but have catchy names?

 

[Shadylookin]

What's wrong with regulating software standards so you don't get products that do suck but have catchy names?

It's hard to measure suckiness. Bugs are also present in (almost) all software. So the only thing you could ban is intentional maliciousness which is already illegal.

 

[uppi]

What's wrong with regulating software standards so you don't get products that do suck but have catchy names?

Finding standards that are applicable over a wide range of systems, don't stifle innovation and don't create loads of unnecessary paperwork and then actually mean something

 

[Camikaze]

So regulation wouldn't work either? Ok. That just means that the government shouldn't take any role in the matter.

 

[Arwon]

Um, it kind of is.

Sure there's a private sector, but these guys and their counterpart signals/crypto agencies in other countries have some pretty intense hardware and expertise in the area.

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.

Yeah they've been doing it for ages, sorry dude. They regularly advise all government agencies on computer security and work with the private sector on this stuff too. You'll note, though, that DSD and the like don't bother with censorship and internet filters and stuff, they've got better things to do.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah they've been doing it for ages, sorry dude. They regularly advise all government agencies on computer security and work with the private sector on this stuff too. You'll note, though, that DSD and the like don't bother with censorship and internet filters and stuff, they've got better things to do.

Isn't that more about large scale cyber attacks that would threaten national security, or something, rather than small scale 'someone sent me a virus' things?

I get the impression the OP is wanting the government to create anti-virus software as a replacement to, like, Norton and Symantec and stuff, rather than suggesting that they prevent a cyber attack against the whole of Australia from China, or something.