Cybersecurity Should be Nationalised

[Arwon]

Both. DSD does many things. Plus viruses aren't necessarily "small scale", they'd be pretty silly to ignore them.

 

[Camikaze]

Both. DSD does many things.

Would it not be more towards the regulatory/advisory side of government involvement, rather than actually taking control of all private anti-virus companies and producing all anti-virus software? I just haven't seen any DSD Anti-Virus things in Dick Smith's lately.

 

[Arwon]

Well, no, stuff they do isn't available retail. There's probably very good security reasons for that.

I'm just pointing out that government agencies are already heavily invested in the cyber security business. And that it doesn't really lead to creeping censorship and control.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, no, stuff they do isn't available retail. There's probably very good security reasons for that.

I'm just pointing out that government agencies are already heavily invested in the cyber security business. And that it doesn't really lead to creeping censorship and control.

Do you think it would, though, if cybersecurity was completely nationalised and the government given complete control of all internet security, such as the OP seems to be suggesting?

Edit: I'm just saying that complete nationalisation and giving the government complete control, or trying to make them a competitor in the anti-virus market, isn't a good idea. I did say that regulation would work (and that's kinda what DSD seems to do; maintaining standards as opposed to enforcing them, though), but Shadylookin and uppi seemed to think that wasn't such a good idea.

 

[Labtec600]

All the virus stuff is reactionary - having the Government control the security isnt going to change a single thing.

Someone makes a virus - virus companies respond and add it to their virus definitions that will then block it out in the future.

Does having the FAA regulate the Airlines stop Airline crashes?

 

[Arwon]

Do you think it would, though, if cybersecurity was completely nationalised and the government given complete control of all internet security, such as the OP seems to be suggesting?

Edit: I'm just saying that complete nationalisation and giving the government complete control, or trying to make them a competitor in the anti-virus market, isn't a good idea. I did say that regulation would work (and that's kinda what DSD seems to do; maintaining standards as opposed to enforcing them, though), but Shadylookin and uppi seemed to think that wasn't such a good idea.

It would depend on the regulatory framework. Governments are compartmentalised, most day-to-day stuff is done by public servants, and different agencies, to a surprisingly large extent, do their own thing.

 

[Karalysia]

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.

Enforce standards? What standards? There are no standards that need to be enforced. Net neautrality is best ensured by the government staying the hell away from the internet. We can see what happens when the government tries to get involved, like in Australia they love censorship they start banning small breasts, censoring porn, banning politically objectionable things and whatnot, no the government has no place regulating anything in cyberspace. Ensure acess maybe, but I don't think we've quite reached the point yet where internet acess can or should be considered a right, there are always libraries anyway.

 

[sophie]

Here at UCSC everyone is provided a free full version of McAfee. It's actually required to use the internet here

(Sorry, antivirus is required to use the internet here, but if you don't want to shell out for your own, McAfee is the free alternative)

 

[Karalysia]

There is no shortage of free antivirus programs from AVG, Avast, Malwarebytes, etc...

 

[Formaldehyde]

This thread reminds me of leaving an uninsured and unlocked Ferrari in a bad neighborhood with the key in the ignition, and then complaining when someone finally stole it.

 

[Shadylookin]

Do you think it would, though, if cybersecurity was completely nationalised and the government given complete control of all internet security, such as the OP seems to be suggesting?

Edit: I'm just saying that complete nationalisation and giving the government complete control, or trying to make them a competitor in the anti-virus market, isn't a good idea. I did say that regulation would work (and that's kinda what DSD seems to do; maintaining standards as opposed to enforcing them, though), but Shadylookin and uppi seemed to think that wasn't such a good idea.

I don't think providing anti-virus and spyware tools for private users is a good idea, I'm well aware the government(especially the NSA) gets involved in improving the security of operating systems. I also don't think it's possible to legislate software quality. All that can be done is making it illegal to intentionally install malware on users computers which is already illegal.

Enforce standards? What standards? There are no standards that need to be enforced.

Huh? The number of standard you have to use just to get to CFC and say there are no standards is a rather long list. IP, TCP, HTML, XML, Javascript, CSS, HTTP, DNS, MAC address. That's just off the top of my head.

The big one that I'm worried about is the private sector is failing to make a switch to IPv6 standard and the internet is running out of IP addresses.

Net neautrality is best ensured by the government staying the hell away from the internet. We can see what happens when the government tries to get involved, like in Australia they love censorship they start banning small breasts, censoring porn, banning politically objectionable things and whatnot, no the government has no place regulating anything in cyberspace.

While scary that has nothing to do with network neutrality. I often frown on people just posting links and telling others to just read it, but wikipedia explains it better than I do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Ensure acess maybe, but I don't think we've quite reached the point yet where internet acess can or should be considered a right, there are always libraries anyway.

A right no, but I definitely think their is value in getting broadband to as many people as possible. In reality if we did it someone would get all Jesus on it and throttle it and firewall it "For the children," but in theory it's a reasonable idea.

 

[IglooDame]

This thread reminds me of leaving an uninsured and unlocked Ferrari in a bad neighborhood with the key in the ignition, and then complaining when someone finally stole it.

But not just complaining, but complaining that the police don't have enough power to prevent such things, meanwhile the local police and government offices are getting their own official cars stolen in their own parking lots.

 

[MobBoss]

Solution is easy. Reformat/reload. You should probably be doing that as least once a year or so anyway.

 

[Grisu]

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.

you don't have to use any pay software to secure your home computer. all it takes is proper precaution

Of course, usually hacked computers are often a direct result of either careless downloading/installing crap. The security firms aren't to blame for your own negligence

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)

as I said, proper security for home systems doesn't have to cost anything, so this would still be possible.

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.

If you don't lock your door, or your car or if you leave your window open when going out you shouldn't be surprised when somebody breaks into your house. Prevention isn't really the police's job.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Maybe they could work more to track down the people who put out viruses.

 

[MobBoss]

There is no shortage of free antivirus programs from AVG, Avast, Malwarebytes, etc...

Even Microsoft.

 

[aneeshm]

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!

What a horrible notion! People actually wanting to get paid for their work!

I think this would be a good area to purge greed from our lives.

Truly! Paying for things is a sign of tremendous greed.

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.

Who, exactly, so you refer to when you say "we"? I'm sure as hell not included. I've never worried about cybersecurity (whatever that is), and I'm typing this from my personal machine, whose average uptime is a week, and which never gets off the internet.

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 see. So your entire objection to the status of the industry as a private one stems from the fact that they expect you to pay for their services.










May I remind you that I pay precisely zero for all the software that I use, and that I DO NOT USE:

1) A firewall
2) A virus scanner
3) An anti-malware or anti-spyware software package
4) Any of the myriad of "security" or "protection" software products on the market,

and yet, I never worry about "cybersecurity" or attack, nor about viruses, or any other digital security threat, at all, ever. Why, exactly, in this case, should I pay a single dime for this ridiculous "nationalised cybersecurity service"?







Take it from a computer engineer - your idea isn't right. It isn't even wrong.

 

[aneeshm]

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.

This, AFAIK, has already been done. The government has in place regulations to ensure that all information requiring the sort of security you posit receives it. The NSA's initiative, by the way, is a hardening of the Linux kernel called [wiki]SELinux[/wiki]. Quoting the Wiki, it:

...provides a mechanism for supporting access control security policies, including U.S. Department of Defense style mandatory access controls, through the use of Linux Security Modules (LSM) in the Linux kernel.

 

[aneeshm]

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

How do you regulate Free Software? The stuff that so many people work on because they like it, and offer to the world as-is, without warranty or any guarantee of correctness at all?

 

[aneeshm]

Solution is easy. Reformat/reload. You should probably be doing that as least once a year or so anyway.

???

!!!

What do you do with that machine that it needs such frequent wiping? Isn't a single install good for at least four to six years at the minimum?