<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_01_1549226</id>
	<title>The Hysteria of the Cyber-Warriors</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246465260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Willfro sends in a piece by Evgeny Morozov at the Boston Review about <a href="http://bostonreview.net/BR34.4/morozov.php">the hyperbole and the reality of "cyber war."</a> Quoting:
<i>"At the end of May, President Obama called cyber-security 'one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation.' His words echo a flurry of gloomy think-tank reports. Unfortunately, these reports are usually richer in vivid metaphor &mdash; with fears of 'digital Pearl Harbors' and 'cyber-Katrinas' &mdash; than in factual foundation. So why is there so much concern about 'cyber-terrorism?' Answering a question with a question: who frames the debate? Much of the data are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies &mdash; which need to justify their own existence &mdash; and cyber-security companies &mdash; which derive commercial benefits from popular anxiety. Journalists do not help. Gloomy scenarios and speculations about cyber-Armaggedon draw attention, even if they are relatively short on facts."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Willfro sends in a piece by Evgeny Morozov at the Boston Review about the hyperbole and the reality of " cyber war .
" Quoting : " At the end of May , President Obama called cyber-security 'one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation .
' His words echo a flurry of gloomy think-tank reports .
Unfortunately , these reports are usually richer in vivid metaphor    with fears of 'digital Pearl Harbors ' and 'cyber-Katrinas '    than in factual foundation .
So why is there so much concern about 'cyber-terrorism ?
' Answering a question with a question : who frames the debate ?
Much of the data are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies    which need to justify their own existence    and cyber-security companies    which derive commercial benefits from popular anxiety .
Journalists do not help .
Gloomy scenarios and speculations about cyber-Armaggedon draw attention , even if they are relatively short on facts .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Willfro sends in a piece by Evgeny Morozov at the Boston Review about the hyperbole and the reality of "cyber war.
" Quoting:
"At the end of May, President Obama called cyber-security 'one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation.
' His words echo a flurry of gloomy think-tank reports.
Unfortunately, these reports are usually richer in vivid metaphor — with fears of 'digital Pearl Harbors' and 'cyber-Katrinas' — than in factual foundation.
So why is there so much concern about 'cyber-terrorism?
' Answering a question with a question: who frames the debate?
Much of the data are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies — which need to justify their own existence — and cyber-security companies — which derive commercial benefits from popular anxiety.
Journalists do not help.
Gloomy scenarios and speculations about cyber-Armaggedon draw attention, even if they are relatively short on facts.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545605</id>
	<title>Because Cyber-Security isn't Free!</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1246473600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It must be paid for by the complete destruction of every person's privacy*.
<br> <br>
* - Politicians, Cyber-Security Vendors, and Fatherland Security excluded, natch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It must be paid for by the complete destruction of every person 's privacy * .
* - Politicians , Cyber-Security Vendors , and Fatherland Security excluded , natch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It must be paid for by the complete destruction of every person's privacy*.
* - Politicians, Cyber-Security Vendors, and Fatherland Security excluded, natch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544411</id>
	<title>concern over cyberterrorism</title>
	<author>visible.frylock</author>
	<datestamp>1246470060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the face of meatspace terrorism, meatspace liberties can be curtailed. That's why there's "concern" over cyberterrorism. Because the internet is not healthy for the establishment. It can spread both truth and propaganda, but currently, it tends too much toward truth for the establishment. If that sounds crazy to you (nothing on the internet but lies and pr0n!) then you haven't looked around.</p><p>FTA:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>It is alarming that so many people have accepted the White House's assertions about cyber-security as a key national security problem without demanding further evidence. Have we learned nothing from the WMD debacle? The administration's claims could lead to policies with serious, long-term, troubling consequences for network openness and personal privacy.</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Yes, this same thing keeps happening, where a (possibly) real world problem is used to justify a curtailing of freedom, consolidation of power, and serving various agendas of people in power at the time. A cynic might say it's planned, but we're not cynical, are we?</p><p>I suggest we give it a name. Let's call it Problem-Reaction-Solution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the face of meatspace terrorism , meatspace liberties can be curtailed .
That 's why there 's " concern " over cyberterrorism .
Because the internet is not healthy for the establishment .
It can spread both truth and propaganda , but currently , it tends too much toward truth for the establishment .
If that sounds crazy to you ( nothing on the internet but lies and pr0n !
) then you have n't looked around.FTA : It is alarming that so many people have accepted the White House 's assertions about cyber-security as a key national security problem without demanding further evidence .
Have we learned nothing from the WMD debacle ?
The administration 's claims could lead to policies with serious , long-term , troubling consequences for network openness and personal privacy .
Yes , this same thing keeps happening , where a ( possibly ) real world problem is used to justify a curtailing of freedom , consolidation of power , and serving various agendas of people in power at the time .
A cynic might say it 's planned , but we 're not cynical , are we ? I suggest we give it a name .
Let 's call it Problem-Reaction-Solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the face of meatspace terrorism, meatspace liberties can be curtailed.
That's why there's "concern" over cyberterrorism.
Because the internet is not healthy for the establishment.
It can spread both truth and propaganda, but currently, it tends too much toward truth for the establishment.
If that sounds crazy to you (nothing on the internet but lies and pr0n!
) then you haven't looked around.FTA: It is alarming that so many people have accepted the White House's assertions about cyber-security as a key national security problem without demanding further evidence.
Have we learned nothing from the WMD debacle?
The administration's claims could lead to policies with serious, long-term, troubling consequences for network openness and personal privacy.
Yes, this same thing keeps happening, where a (possibly) real world problem is used to justify a curtailing of freedom, consolidation of power, and serving various agendas of people in power at the time.
A cynic might say it's planned, but we're not cynical, are we?I suggest we give it a name.
Let's call it Problem-Reaction-Solution.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544611</id>
	<title>Re:No governance required.</title>
	<author>al0ha</author>
	<datestamp>1246470660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disagree.  It should be a government issue, but not solely a government issue and certainly not a clandestine government organization issue.  Information and Network Security should be shared and handle by all end-points, government, commercial and private; and they should all work together and share information openly.
<br>
<br>
Bruce Schneier has an interesting essay which touches on this subject.  <a href="http://www.schneier.com/essay-265.html" title="schneier.com">http://www.schneier.com/essay-265.html</a> [schneier.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disagree .
It should be a government issue , but not solely a government issue and certainly not a clandestine government organization issue .
Information and Network Security should be shared and handle by all end-points , government , commercial and private ; and they should all work together and share information openly .
Bruce Schneier has an interesting essay which touches on this subject .
http : //www.schneier.com/essay-265.html [ schneier.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disagree.
It should be a government issue, but not solely a government issue and certainly not a clandestine government organization issue.
Information and Network Security should be shared and handle by all end-points, government, commercial and private; and they should all work together and share information openly.
Bruce Schneier has an interesting essay which touches on this subject.
http://www.schneier.com/essay-265.html [schneier.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28555097</id>
	<title>Re:You're wrong.</title>
	<author>ghighi</author>
	<datestamp>1246527000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I second this statement. What I learned in my short time studying computer security is that there is a potential for large damage to be made.<br> <br> I would even go so far as to say i'm surprised no large scale attack ever happened. We can be thankfull that the bad guys switched from a "damage dealing" to a "money making" state of mind.<br> <br>What's even funnier is that all the technology and good practice are readilly available to *greatly* mitigate the risks but there is a clear lack of skill and will in most places.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I second this statement .
What I learned in my short time studying computer security is that there is a potential for large damage to be made .
I would even go so far as to say i 'm surprised no large scale attack ever happened .
We can be thankfull that the bad guys switched from a " damage dealing " to a " money making " state of mind .
What 's even funnier is that all the technology and good practice are readilly available to * greatly * mitigate the risks but there is a clear lack of skill and will in most places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I second this statement.
What I learned in my short time studying computer security is that there is a potential for large damage to be made.
I would even go so far as to say i'm surprised no large scale attack ever happened.
We can be thankfull that the bad guys switched from a "damage dealing" to a "money making" state of mind.
What's even funnier is that all the technology and good practice are readilly available to *greatly* mitigate the risks but there is a clear lack of skill and will in most places.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544963</id>
	<title>We are paying for it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246471740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We pay for the internet structure and bandwidth. If spam is sucking our email system, then we are paying for spam filtering and spam traffic. If porn is using bandwidth, then we are paying for it. If downloading/stealing  movies and songs is happening and sucking up our bandwidth, then we are paying for it. If our servers and services are going down because of ddos attacks, then we are paying for it. If criminals are stealing our credit and identities, then we are paying for it. Right now it is difficult to say what percentage of our costs are due to spam, crime, terrorism, etc. But if we continue on our current path, then these things are going to grow, and we will be paying more for them.<br>Now is the time to fight these problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We pay for the internet structure and bandwidth .
If spam is sucking our email system , then we are paying for spam filtering and spam traffic .
If porn is using bandwidth , then we are paying for it .
If downloading/stealing movies and songs is happening and sucking up our bandwidth , then we are paying for it .
If our servers and services are going down because of ddos attacks , then we are paying for it .
If criminals are stealing our credit and identities , then we are paying for it .
Right now it is difficult to say what percentage of our costs are due to spam , crime , terrorism , etc .
But if we continue on our current path , then these things are going to grow , and we will be paying more for them.Now is the time to fight these problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We pay for the internet structure and bandwidth.
If spam is sucking our email system, then we are paying for spam filtering and spam traffic.
If porn is using bandwidth, then we are paying for it.
If downloading/stealing  movies and songs is happening and sucking up our bandwidth, then we are paying for it.
If our servers and services are going down because of ddos attacks, then we are paying for it.
If criminals are stealing our credit and identities, then we are paying for it.
Right now it is difficult to say what percentage of our costs are due to spam, crime, terrorism, etc.
But if we continue on our current path, then these things are going to grow, and we will be paying more for them.Now is the time to fight these problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544243</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance Leads to Fear Leads to Profit</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1246469520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. And seems there just keeps coming more and more news about how this goverment facility was attacked, how that goverment office was hacked and how pretty much whole goverment is in cyber war with china and other "bad countries". For me it seems like US is trying to push that into peoples minds, so they can more easily create new laws to restrict internet. Seems goverments are quite afraid now that normal citizens can quite freely tell their opinions to large user base. TV and radio and other ways to tell your opinion to lots of people were restricted and under goverment control before. Freedom on the internet scares them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
And seems there just keeps coming more and more news about how this goverment facility was attacked , how that goverment office was hacked and how pretty much whole goverment is in cyber war with china and other " bad countries " .
For me it seems like US is trying to push that into peoples minds , so they can more easily create new laws to restrict internet .
Seems goverments are quite afraid now that normal citizens can quite freely tell their opinions to large user base .
TV and radio and other ways to tell your opinion to lots of people were restricted and under goverment control before .
Freedom on the internet scares them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
And seems there just keeps coming more and more news about how this goverment facility was attacked, how that goverment office was hacked and how pretty much whole goverment is in cyber war with china and other "bad countries".
For me it seems like US is trying to push that into peoples minds, so they can more easily create new laws to restrict internet.
Seems goverments are quite afraid now that normal citizens can quite freely tell their opinions to large user base.
TV and radio and other ways to tell your opinion to lots of people were restricted and under goverment control before.
Freedom on the internet scares them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546431</id>
	<title>Re:A little bit of non-commercial input</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1246475940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd agree that a lot of media is FUD with regards to this subject, but a lot of it is fed by security groups.  In fact within the company I work for I could hardly get any response or concern to the Conficker virus, because the management group has seen so many of these alerts.<br>
Over the past 3 years, I've seen computer security budgets getting squeezed more and more for lack of concern, mostly because security companies have yelled "Fire" way to much.<br> <br>
With regards to government laws,  the latest inundation (by sales and security consultants) with regards to email storage was enough to pretty much get management to ignore any future warnings about legal threats.  Because during the investigation and discussion with legal it was determined we were better off just changing the policy with regards to storing email vs maintaining an email storage system.<br> <br>
Somebody else mentioned SPAM, which I would consider the biggest cost and threat to commerce on the web.  But right now some of the biggest spammers I deal with are security and computer consultant companies sending emails stating here is the next biggest threat and here is the next biggest thing you have to have.<br> <br>
Right now I'm looking for the security web site which reiterates most of the information you have in your post and links to an application which would require less than 2 hours maintenance a week and could tell me whether something or someone is on my network doing bad things.  And it needs to cost monetarily next to nothing. (Okay I'm dreaming)<br>
I'd also settle for a web site that provides reasonably good information on securing services , something where you can go from basic security settings and drill down to more detail (accurate updated and comprehensive information), even with a payment model (like expert exchange).  I have run into so many web sites with inaccurate or poorly documented information on simple things such as authentication settings  (Usually they are outdated with no version information, but sometimes they are just flat out wrong, as in no one even tested it).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd agree that a lot of media is FUD with regards to this subject , but a lot of it is fed by security groups .
In fact within the company I work for I could hardly get any response or concern to the Conficker virus , because the management group has seen so many of these alerts .
Over the past 3 years , I 've seen computer security budgets getting squeezed more and more for lack of concern , mostly because security companies have yelled " Fire " way to much .
With regards to government laws , the latest inundation ( by sales and security consultants ) with regards to email storage was enough to pretty much get management to ignore any future warnings about legal threats .
Because during the investigation and discussion with legal it was determined we were better off just changing the policy with regards to storing email vs maintaining an email storage system .
Somebody else mentioned SPAM , which I would consider the biggest cost and threat to commerce on the web .
But right now some of the biggest spammers I deal with are security and computer consultant companies sending emails stating here is the next biggest threat and here is the next biggest thing you have to have .
Right now I 'm looking for the security web site which reiterates most of the information you have in your post and links to an application which would require less than 2 hours maintenance a week and could tell me whether something or someone is on my network doing bad things .
And it needs to cost monetarily next to nothing .
( Okay I 'm dreaming ) I 'd also settle for a web site that provides reasonably good information on securing services , something where you can go from basic security settings and drill down to more detail ( accurate updated and comprehensive information ) , even with a payment model ( like expert exchange ) .
I have run into so many web sites with inaccurate or poorly documented information on simple things such as authentication settings ( Usually they are outdated with no version information , but sometimes they are just flat out wrong , as in no one even tested it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd agree that a lot of media is FUD with regards to this subject, but a lot of it is fed by security groups.
In fact within the company I work for I could hardly get any response or concern to the Conficker virus, because the management group has seen so many of these alerts.
Over the past 3 years, I've seen computer security budgets getting squeezed more and more for lack of concern, mostly because security companies have yelled "Fire" way to much.
With regards to government laws,  the latest inundation (by sales and security consultants) with regards to email storage was enough to pretty much get management to ignore any future warnings about legal threats.
Because during the investigation and discussion with legal it was determined we were better off just changing the policy with regards to storing email vs maintaining an email storage system.
Somebody else mentioned SPAM, which I would consider the biggest cost and threat to commerce on the web.
But right now some of the biggest spammers I deal with are security and computer consultant companies sending emails stating here is the next biggest threat and here is the next biggest thing you have to have.
Right now I'm looking for the security web site which reiterates most of the information you have in your post and links to an application which would require less than 2 hours maintenance a week and could tell me whether something or someone is on my network doing bad things.
And it needs to cost monetarily next to nothing.
(Okay I'm dreaming)
I'd also settle for a web site that provides reasonably good information on securing services , something where you can go from basic security settings and drill down to more detail (accurate updated and comprehensive information), even with a payment model (like expert exchange).
I have run into so many web sites with inaccurate or poorly documented information on simple things such as authentication settings  (Usually they are outdated with no version information, but sometimes they are just flat out wrong, as in no one even tested it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545787</id>
	<title>They know what they are planning to do to others..</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1246474200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is hysteria because they know what we can do offensively to other countries with cyberterror. They also know that we are just as vunarible as our enemies. But as usual it will all be alot of what if, maybe that. I grew up during the cold war. Russia was portrayed as this unstoppable juggernaut. The reality was that it was all smoke an mirrors. Their system colapsed mostly on its own, simply because it was unworkable. Most of this hype is thrown out by people who stand to make large sums of money by "protecting us." Beware the defense industrial complex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is hysteria because they know what we can do offensively to other countries with cyberterror .
They also know that we are just as vunarible as our enemies .
But as usual it will all be alot of what if , maybe that .
I grew up during the cold war .
Russia was portrayed as this unstoppable juggernaut .
The reality was that it was all smoke an mirrors .
Their system colapsed mostly on its own , simply because it was unworkable .
Most of this hype is thrown out by people who stand to make large sums of money by " protecting us .
" Beware the defense industrial complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is hysteria because they know what we can do offensively to other countries with cyberterror.
They also know that we are just as vunarible as our enemies.
But as usual it will all be alot of what if, maybe that.
I grew up during the cold war.
Russia was portrayed as this unstoppable juggernaut.
The reality was that it was all smoke an mirrors.
Their system colapsed mostly on its own, simply because it was unworkable.
Most of this hype is thrown out by people who stand to make large sums of money by "protecting us.
" Beware the defense industrial complex.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</id>
	<title>Ignorance Leads to Fear Leads to Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246468980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, these reports are usually richer in vivid metaphor -- with fears of 'digital Pearl Harbors' and 'cyber-Katrinas' -- than in factual foundation. So why is there so much concern about 'cyber-terrorism?'</p></div><p>Because no one fully understands it.  And not understanding something can easily lead to fear.  And those standing to make money off that fear (journalists, contractors, agencies) are unashamed to exploit it.  <br> <br>

I'm a computer scientist and I don't even understand or know about every potential vulnerability.  It's simply too complex<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and that's easy to turn into fear when you're talking to the people who are in charge of protecting us from threats.  And the potential mitigation techniques are another endless myriad of complex software/hardware.  All I can say is that it is highly unlikely that a <i>Live Free or Die Hard</i> 'fire-sale' scenario will happen.  I can't in good conscious tell you it's impossible.  I <i>can</i> tell you that the probability of it happening within a year would most certainly be dealt with in multi-digit negative powers of ten.  Then there's the possibility of lesser attacks which are highly probable but I feel that the cost-risk ratio is all messed up.  Again, I believe this is due to ignorance.  <br> <br>

You get into a weird sort of emperors-new-clothes kind of situation when the only people who understand your problems are also the ones trying to sell you a solution.  And they're just not being openly honest nor realistic with you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , these reports are usually richer in vivid metaphor -- with fears of 'digital Pearl Harbors ' and 'cyber-Katrinas ' -- than in factual foundation .
So why is there so much concern about 'cyber-terrorism ?
'Because no one fully understands it .
And not understanding something can easily lead to fear .
And those standing to make money off that fear ( journalists , contractors , agencies ) are unashamed to exploit it .
I 'm a computer scientist and I do n't even understand or know about every potential vulnerability .
It 's simply too complex ... and that 's easy to turn into fear when you 're talking to the people who are in charge of protecting us from threats .
And the potential mitigation techniques are another endless myriad of complex software/hardware .
All I can say is that it is highly unlikely that a Live Free or Die Hard 'fire-sale ' scenario will happen .
I ca n't in good conscious tell you it 's impossible .
I can tell you that the probability of it happening within a year would most certainly be dealt with in multi-digit negative powers of ten .
Then there 's the possibility of lesser attacks which are highly probable but I feel that the cost-risk ratio is all messed up .
Again , I believe this is due to ignorance .
You get into a weird sort of emperors-new-clothes kind of situation when the only people who understand your problems are also the ones trying to sell you a solution .
And they 're just not being openly honest nor realistic with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, these reports are usually richer in vivid metaphor -- with fears of 'digital Pearl Harbors' and 'cyber-Katrinas' -- than in factual foundation.
So why is there so much concern about 'cyber-terrorism?
'Because no one fully understands it.
And not understanding something can easily lead to fear.
And those standing to make money off that fear (journalists, contractors, agencies) are unashamed to exploit it.
I'm a computer scientist and I don't even understand or know about every potential vulnerability.
It's simply too complex ... and that's easy to turn into fear when you're talking to the people who are in charge of protecting us from threats.
And the potential mitigation techniques are another endless myriad of complex software/hardware.
All I can say is that it is highly unlikely that a Live Free or Die Hard 'fire-sale' scenario will happen.
I can't in good conscious tell you it's impossible.
I can tell you that the probability of it happening within a year would most certainly be dealt with in multi-digit negative powers of ten.
Then there's the possibility of lesser attacks which are highly probable but I feel that the cost-risk ratio is all messed up.
Again, I believe this is due to ignorance.
You get into a weird sort of emperors-new-clothes kind of situation when the only people who understand your problems are also the ones trying to sell you a solution.
And they're just not being openly honest nor realistic with you.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28560175</id>
	<title>Re:Elevating a simple scenario to a movement</title>
	<author>jeff4747</author>
	<datestamp>1246558740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um....you do realize that it takes longer than a reboot to recover from a proper cyber attack, yes?</p><p>So you might be able to get pizza on day 1, if you hurry and they have one sitting around the store.  The lack of an oven would kinda hinder their on-going production.  (Despite being gas appliances, they have electrical ignition.  No electricity and the gas is turned off for safety.)</p><blockquote><div><p>f major bank computer systems gets wiped for instance, as long as 'someone' has an audit of recent account info and transactions, you'll be taken care of to some extent.</p></div></blockquote><p>ROFL</p><p>So if somehow an audit trail managed to survive the cyber-apocalypse, the banks would magically re-create everyone's account in a day or two.</p><p>That's hilarious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um....you do realize that it takes longer than a reboot to recover from a proper cyber attack , yes ? So you might be able to get pizza on day 1 , if you hurry and they have one sitting around the store .
The lack of an oven would kinda hinder their on-going production .
( Despite being gas appliances , they have electrical ignition .
No electricity and the gas is turned off for safety .
) f major bank computer systems gets wiped for instance , as long as 'someone ' has an audit of recent account info and transactions , you 'll be taken care of to some extent.ROFLSo if somehow an audit trail managed to survive the cyber-apocalypse , the banks would magically re-create everyone 's account in a day or two.That 's hilarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um....you do realize that it takes longer than a reboot to recover from a proper cyber attack, yes?So you might be able to get pizza on day 1, if you hurry and they have one sitting around the store.
The lack of an oven would kinda hinder their on-going production.
(Despite being gas appliances, they have electrical ignition.
No electricity and the gas is turned off for safety.
)f major bank computer systems gets wiped for instance, as long as 'someone' has an audit of recent account info and transactions, you'll be taken care of to some extent.ROFLSo if somehow an audit trail managed to survive the cyber-apocalypse, the banks would magically re-create everyone's account in a day or two.That's hilarious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544713</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance Leads to Fear Leads to Profit</title>
	<author>visible.frylock</author>
	<datestamp>1246470960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see your point, but that can't be all there is to it. If we take sept 11 for example, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the cockpit needs to be locked, secure from both attackers and the pilots themselves. And sure, the average person might not understand the concept of an air gap, but they don't understand how a real crack works either. So, given two possible solutions, one rational, and the other "omfg, we're gonna die unless we have a panopticon prison state!" that they're equally unclear on, there must be something else going on that makes fear the default position.</p><p>Over the years, I've started thinking it has a lot to do with controling TV. If you control what the box says, you control the reality, or at least the perceived reality, of the populace. From another angle, that's another good point for putting more strict controls on the internet, from the point of view of those in power. I'm sure they would love to turn the internet into glorified TV for content, and into a walled garden for things that actually do need a real grown up global comm system, like software updates. All without encryption of course, except for license holders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see your point , but that ca n't be all there is to it .
If we take sept 11 for example , it does n't take a genius to figure out that the cockpit needs to be locked , secure from both attackers and the pilots themselves .
And sure , the average person might not understand the concept of an air gap , but they do n't understand how a real crack works either .
So , given two possible solutions , one rational , and the other " omfg , we 're gon na die unless we have a panopticon prison state !
" that they 're equally unclear on , there must be something else going on that makes fear the default position.Over the years , I 've started thinking it has a lot to do with controling TV .
If you control what the box says , you control the reality , or at least the perceived reality , of the populace .
From another angle , that 's another good point for putting more strict controls on the internet , from the point of view of those in power .
I 'm sure they would love to turn the internet into glorified TV for content , and into a walled garden for things that actually do need a real grown up global comm system , like software updates .
All without encryption of course , except for license holders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see your point, but that can't be all there is to it.
If we take sept 11 for example, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the cockpit needs to be locked, secure from both attackers and the pilots themselves.
And sure, the average person might not understand the concept of an air gap, but they don't understand how a real crack works either.
So, given two possible solutions, one rational, and the other "omfg, we're gonna die unless we have a panopticon prison state!
" that they're equally unclear on, there must be something else going on that makes fear the default position.Over the years, I've started thinking it has a lot to do with controling TV.
If you control what the box says, you control the reality, or at least the perceived reality, of the populace.
From another angle, that's another good point for putting more strict controls on the internet, from the point of view of those in power.
I'm sure they would love to turn the internet into glorified TV for content, and into a walled garden for things that actually do need a real grown up global comm system, like software updates.
All without encryption of course, except for license holders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28548661</id>
	<title>The Stupidity of Geeks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246439760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You built this fucking mess and yet you cant think your way out of this or paper bag.</p><p>A) The User- preach security through obscolesence meaning, each boot is a fresh OS, virtualized, no more long term cache or temp files that are anything but temp. You built it broken in the first place and now wonder what to do. Computing is not for the avg dunce, its too powerful and insecure to leave them to it. They need the technical equivalent of their technobility, aka the DUMB TERMINAL.</p><p>b) Govt and Private Sector infrastructure- in the case of National Security or Governmental<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; biz data, there is no reasonable logic you could ever rely on as to why its need to be<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; accessible for the lazy convenience of the world, get it off the fucking network you<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; fucking dumbasses. If some fucking dork has to get on a plane to come and see, so fucking<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; be it!</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Better yet, create gatekeepers who allow access, humans who make you jump through hoops<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; to get to the data. If you dont pass they lob a cruise missle at your ass for being a<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; dick.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Private Sector data is a tad more difficult since it could hamper commerce but if the<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; idea is to build in security then build it in by building it the fuck in meaning, stop<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; being cheap asses and get the best on the job. Your making billions off selling a<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; product or a service or both and then take more profit when you whore their information<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; out, you fuckwads.</p><p>I swear you fucking geeks are feckless cunts who created this shitpile and now lament with your hands on your ears, "what are we to do".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You built this fucking mess and yet you cant think your way out of this or paper bag.A ) The User- preach security through obscolesence meaning , each boot is a fresh OS , virtualized , no more long term cache or temp files that are anything but temp .
You built it broken in the first place and now wonder what to do .
Computing is not for the avg dunce , its too powerful and insecure to leave them to it .
They need the technical equivalent of their technobility , aka the DUMB TERMINAL.b ) Govt and Private Sector infrastructure- in the case of National Security or Governmental       biz data , there is no reasonable logic you could ever rely on as to why its need to be       accessible for the lazy convenience of the world , get it off the fucking network you       fucking dumbasses .
If some fucking dork has to get on a plane to come and see , so fucking       be it !
        Better yet , create gatekeepers who allow access , humans who make you jump through hoops         to get to the data .
If you dont pass they lob a cruise missle at your ass for being a         dick .
        Private Sector data is a tad more difficult since it could hamper commerce but if the         idea is to build in security then build it in by building it the fuck in meaning , stop         being cheap asses and get the best on the job .
Your making billions off selling a         product or a service or both and then take more profit when you whore their information         out , you fuckwads.I swear you fucking geeks are feckless cunts who created this shitpile and now lament with your hands on your ears , " what are we to do " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You built this fucking mess and yet you cant think your way out of this or paper bag.A) The User- preach security through obscolesence meaning, each boot is a fresh OS, virtualized, no more long term cache or temp files that are anything but temp.
You built it broken in the first place and now wonder what to do.
Computing is not for the avg dunce, its too powerful and insecure to leave them to it.
They need the technical equivalent of their technobility, aka the DUMB TERMINAL.b) Govt and Private Sector infrastructure- in the case of National Security or Governmental
      biz data, there is no reasonable logic you could ever rely on as to why its need to be
      accessible for the lazy convenience of the world, get it off the fucking network you
      fucking dumbasses.
If some fucking dork has to get on a plane to come and see, so fucking
      be it!
        Better yet, create gatekeepers who allow access, humans who make you jump through hoops
        to get to the data.
If you dont pass they lob a cruise missle at your ass for being a
        dick.
        Private Sector data is a tad more difficult since it could hamper commerce but if the
        idea is to build in security then build it in by building it the fuck in meaning, stop
        being cheap asses and get the best on the job.
Your making billions off selling a
        product or a service or both and then take more profit when you whore their information
        out, you fuckwads.I swear you fucking geeks are feckless cunts who created this shitpile and now lament with your hands on your ears, "what are we to do".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28552333</id>
	<title>Re:The post-nuclear war threat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246455300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's no perhaps for the PRC.  If the US fought a conventional yet total war against China, the tech is close enough that manpower alone dictates the US would lose.  The US simply does not have the resources necessary to win a conventional war against China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no perhaps for the PRC .
If the US fought a conventional yet total war against China , the tech is close enough that manpower alone dictates the US would lose .
The US simply does not have the resources necessary to win a conventional war against China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no perhaps for the PRC.
If the US fought a conventional yet total war against China, the tech is close enough that manpower alone dictates the US would lose.
The US simply does not have the resources necessary to win a conventional war against China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129</id>
	<title>Are you kidding?</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1246469220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its kind of a big deal when the U.S. military can't keep its data secure.</p><p>Like when plans for the JSF fighter were taken.<br><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/21/pentagon.hacked/index.html" title="cnn.com">http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/21/pentagon.hacked/index.html</a> [cnn.com]</p><p>I don't have time to Google it all, but it has been a pretty regular stream of "Pentagon loses data/gets hacked" and "US military data found on Chinese file sharing sites" etc. etc. etc.</p><p>And in an era where more and more of our bombs are dropped by computer-controlled drones....</p><p>Yeah, its kind of a big fucking deal.  IMHO..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its kind of a big deal when the U.S. military ca n't keep its data secure.Like when plans for the JSF fighter were taken.http : //www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/21/pentagon.hacked/index.html [ cnn.com ] I do n't have time to Google it all , but it has been a pretty regular stream of " Pentagon loses data/gets hacked " and " US military data found on Chinese file sharing sites " etc .
etc. etc.And in an era where more and more of our bombs are dropped by computer-controlled drones....Yeah , its kind of a big fucking deal .
IMHO. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its kind of a big deal when the U.S. military can't keep its data secure.Like when plans for the JSF fighter were taken.http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/21/pentagon.hacked/index.html [cnn.com]I don't have time to Google it all, but it has been a pretty regular stream of "Pentagon loses data/gets hacked" and "US military data found on Chinese file sharing sites" etc.
etc. etc.And in an era where more and more of our bombs are dropped by computer-controlled drones....Yeah, its kind of a big fucking deal.
IMHO..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544933</id>
	<title>Re:No governance required.</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1246471620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 'we' that you refer to is evidently not a part of the set of people that connect insecure equipment to the Internet. Good for you, but you don't represent the majority of users.
</p><p>I wish there was something akin to a driver's license for the web, where a judge could order incompetents to hand it over, box their computer up and take it back to the store. But that's not likely to happen in the near future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'we ' that you refer to is evidently not a part of the set of people that connect insecure equipment to the Internet .
Good for you , but you do n't represent the majority of users .
I wish there was something akin to a driver 's license for the web , where a judge could order incompetents to hand it over , box their computer up and take it back to the store .
But that 's not likely to happen in the near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'we' that you refer to is evidently not a part of the set of people that connect insecure equipment to the Internet.
Good for you, but you don't represent the majority of users.
I wish there was something akin to a driver's license for the web, where a judge could order incompetents to hand it over, box their computer up and take it back to the store.
But that's not likely to happen in the near future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545595</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?</title>
	<author>ThosLives</author>
	<datestamp>1246473540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I think that true security lies not in keeping people from obtaining information, but from setting things up so that it is irrelevant if people obtain that information.</p><p>Consider the situation where someone knows all the internal workings of, say, the JSF, but it's designed in such a way that that knowledge would not allow someone to prevent the use of the JSF.</p><p>Or consider "identity theft": what if it didn't matter if someone stole your "identity" because there was nothing they could do with it anyway? (Now, in that case, the tradeoff would likely be some loss of convenience.)</p><p>So I'll say it again: true security is knowing that you're safe* even when people get to places where you normally wouldn't want them.</p><p>*Of course, the definition of "safe" is fairly tricky in this instance. I would probably define "safe" as something along the lines of "suffering no direct immediate or prolonged-exposure-based physical harm."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I think that true security lies not in keeping people from obtaining information , but from setting things up so that it is irrelevant if people obtain that information.Consider the situation where someone knows all the internal workings of , say , the JSF , but it 's designed in such a way that that knowledge would not allow someone to prevent the use of the JSF.Or consider " identity theft " : what if it did n't matter if someone stole your " identity " because there was nothing they could do with it anyway ?
( Now , in that case , the tradeoff would likely be some loss of convenience .
) So I 'll say it again : true security is knowing that you 're safe * even when people get to places where you normally would n't want them .
* Of course , the definition of " safe " is fairly tricky in this instance .
I would probably define " safe " as something along the lines of " suffering no direct immediate or prolonged-exposure-based physical harm .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I think that true security lies not in keeping people from obtaining information, but from setting things up so that it is irrelevant if people obtain that information.Consider the situation where someone knows all the internal workings of, say, the JSF, but it's designed in such a way that that knowledge would not allow someone to prevent the use of the JSF.Or consider "identity theft": what if it didn't matter if someone stole your "identity" because there was nothing they could do with it anyway?
(Now, in that case, the tradeoff would likely be some loss of convenience.
)So I'll say it again: true security is knowing that you're safe* even when people get to places where you normally wouldn't want them.
*Of course, the definition of "safe" is fairly tricky in this instance.
I would probably define "safe" as something along the lines of "suffering no direct immediate or prolonged-exposure-based physical harm.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545431</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance Leads to Fear Leads to Profit</title>
	<author>netruner</author>
	<datestamp>1246473000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed - the likelihood of a "fire sale" scenario is very minimal, but the odds for any given individual getting caught up in a specific attack on a "soft target" such as in the TJ Maxx case are about 1:1.  I have already been involved in 3 - one of those incidents put a coworker in the sights of an identity thief.  This is the issue:  It's the same old game - "Security is a cost to be minimized, not a "value-added" feature of a business", "It's not like we're protecting national security info", "Why would someone want <i>our</i> data?".  Until this old-school mindset is broken, the problems will persist and fear of consequence is the only way to motivate the decision makers in the short term.<br> <br>
<i>Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering. - Yoda</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed - the likelihood of a " fire sale " scenario is very minimal , but the odds for any given individual getting caught up in a specific attack on a " soft target " such as in the TJ Maxx case are about 1 : 1 .
I have already been involved in 3 - one of those incidents put a coworker in the sights of an identity thief .
This is the issue : It 's the same old game - " Security is a cost to be minimized , not a " value-added " feature of a business " , " It 's not like we 're protecting national security info " , " Why would someone want our data ? " .
Until this old-school mindset is broken , the problems will persist and fear of consequence is the only way to motivate the decision makers in the short term .
Fear leads to anger , anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering .
- Yoda</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed - the likelihood of a "fire sale" scenario is very minimal, but the odds for any given individual getting caught up in a specific attack on a "soft target" such as in the TJ Maxx case are about 1:1.
I have already been involved in 3 - one of those incidents put a coworker in the sights of an identity thief.
This is the issue:  It's the same old game - "Security is a cost to be minimized, not a "value-added" feature of a business", "It's not like we're protecting national security info", "Why would someone want our data?".
Until this old-school mindset is broken, the problems will persist and fear of consequence is the only way to motivate the decision makers in the short term.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering.
- Yoda</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544647</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance Leads to Fear Leads to Profit</title>
	<author>johnsonav</author>
	<datestamp>1246470720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because no one fully understands it. And not understanding something can easily lead to fear.</p></div><p>Understanding plays a large part. But, it's also about an individual's lack of control. Most everyone depends upon the network and computer infrastructure of our world to meet their basic, day-to-day needs. Almost all of that infrastructure is out of their individual control. Their actions have no direct relationship to how likely they are to be affected by any "cyber"-attack.</p><p>People don't get this batty about hurricanes or even conventional terrorist attacks (like 9/11); not everyone is equally likely to experience such an event, and there are actions one can take to minimize their risk. Things like cyber-attacks and virulent diseases provoke more fear because they are seemingly harder to mitigate by individual action, and are seen as more equal-opportunity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because no one fully understands it .
And not understanding something can easily lead to fear.Understanding plays a large part .
But , it 's also about an individual 's lack of control .
Most everyone depends upon the network and computer infrastructure of our world to meet their basic , day-to-day needs .
Almost all of that infrastructure is out of their individual control .
Their actions have no direct relationship to how likely they are to be affected by any " cyber " -attack.People do n't get this batty about hurricanes or even conventional terrorist attacks ( like 9/11 ) ; not everyone is equally likely to experience such an event , and there are actions one can take to minimize their risk .
Things like cyber-attacks and virulent diseases provoke more fear because they are seemingly harder to mitigate by individual action , and are seen as more equal-opportunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because no one fully understands it.
And not understanding something can easily lead to fear.Understanding plays a large part.
But, it's also about an individual's lack of control.
Most everyone depends upon the network and computer infrastructure of our world to meet their basic, day-to-day needs.
Almost all of that infrastructure is out of their individual control.
Their actions have no direct relationship to how likely they are to be affected by any "cyber"-attack.People don't get this batty about hurricanes or even conventional terrorist attacks (like 9/11); not everyone is equally likely to experience such an event, and there are actions one can take to minimize their risk.
Things like cyber-attacks and virulent diseases provoke more fear because they are seemingly harder to mitigate by individual action, and are seen as more equal-opportunity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545095</id>
	<title>A little bit of non-commercial input</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246472040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in security research, but none of you will be potential customers (trust me, you won't), so I needn't lie to you: It's hopeless, but not serious.</p><p>The problem is not insecure applications. It's not the stealthy superhacker from China. It's not the RBN (ok, it is, but they couldn't do jack without the original culprit). The biggest problem in IT security and internet security is (drumroll please) the user. And his inability and unwillingness to take responsibility for his crate.</p><p>There are security holes, granted. They are not the main source of malware, though. I do assume here that the average<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. reader knows a bit more about his machine than "push this button to turn on, when a window opens that you don't know, panic". Likewise, a lot of you say they have no AV suit installed and never had troubles with malware. I believe you. You're probably not into dancing pigs and if you are, you don't let any arbitrary webpage gain root access to show those pigs dancing.</p><p>A lot of users do. And thus get infected. And thus become a security problem.</p><p>Governments will create a lot of laws concerning the problem, without one that actually addresses the problem: Making the user responsible for his security. I don't mean "get infected, get your pants sued off". I mean that you are required to take reasonable (!) means and surf safely, that includes not clicking on every friggin' crap you run into, that includes not opening every goddamn spam mail and run the infector. This would require educated users, and education has always been the mortal enemy of surveillance and monitoring, so we won't see any of this anytime soon. So it's hopeless.</p><p>On the other hand, the infections we face currently (which may change, but so far didn't) don't even come close to enabling anyone to cause a global network meltdown. It is a nuisance (because of spam, page infections and so on), attacks may take out certain parts of the net, but there's no global threat. So it's not serious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in security research , but none of you will be potential customers ( trust me , you wo n't ) , so I need n't lie to you : It 's hopeless , but not serious.The problem is not insecure applications .
It 's not the stealthy superhacker from China .
It 's not the RBN ( ok , it is , but they could n't do jack without the original culprit ) .
The biggest problem in IT security and internet security is ( drumroll please ) the user .
And his inability and unwillingness to take responsibility for his crate.There are security holes , granted .
They are not the main source of malware , though .
I do assume here that the average / .
reader knows a bit more about his machine than " push this button to turn on , when a window opens that you do n't know , panic " .
Likewise , a lot of you say they have no AV suit installed and never had troubles with malware .
I believe you .
You 're probably not into dancing pigs and if you are , you do n't let any arbitrary webpage gain root access to show those pigs dancing.A lot of users do .
And thus get infected .
And thus become a security problem.Governments will create a lot of laws concerning the problem , without one that actually addresses the problem : Making the user responsible for his security .
I do n't mean " get infected , get your pants sued off " .
I mean that you are required to take reasonable ( !
) means and surf safely , that includes not clicking on every friggin ' crap you run into , that includes not opening every goddamn spam mail and run the infector .
This would require educated users , and education has always been the mortal enemy of surveillance and monitoring , so we wo n't see any of this anytime soon .
So it 's hopeless.On the other hand , the infections we face currently ( which may change , but so far did n't ) do n't even come close to enabling anyone to cause a global network meltdown .
It is a nuisance ( because of spam , page infections and so on ) , attacks may take out certain parts of the net , but there 's no global threat .
So it 's not serious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in security research, but none of you will be potential customers (trust me, you won't), so I needn't lie to you: It's hopeless, but not serious.The problem is not insecure applications.
It's not the stealthy superhacker from China.
It's not the RBN (ok, it is, but they couldn't do jack without the original culprit).
The biggest problem in IT security and internet security is (drumroll please) the user.
And his inability and unwillingness to take responsibility for his crate.There are security holes, granted.
They are not the main source of malware, though.
I do assume here that the average /.
reader knows a bit more about his machine than "push this button to turn on, when a window opens that you don't know, panic".
Likewise, a lot of you say they have no AV suit installed and never had troubles with malware.
I believe you.
You're probably not into dancing pigs and if you are, you don't let any arbitrary webpage gain root access to show those pigs dancing.A lot of users do.
And thus get infected.
And thus become a security problem.Governments will create a lot of laws concerning the problem, without one that actually addresses the problem: Making the user responsible for his security.
I don't mean "get infected, get your pants sued off".
I mean that you are required to take reasonable (!
) means and surf safely, that includes not clicking on every friggin' crap you run into, that includes not opening every goddamn spam mail and run the infector.
This would require educated users, and education has always been the mortal enemy of surveillance and monitoring, so we won't see any of this anytime soon.
So it's hopeless.On the other hand, the infections we face currently (which may change, but so far didn't) don't even come close to enabling anyone to cause a global network meltdown.
It is a nuisance (because of spam, page infections and so on), attacks may take out certain parts of the net, but there's no global threat.
So it's not serious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28548189</id>
	<title>For cryin' out loud...</title>
	<author>mozzis</author>
	<datestamp>1246481580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Much of the data are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies -- which need to justify their own existence...</p></div><p>It seems like the OP is trying to justify his or her own existence - face it, you can't escape self-interest no matter what your side is in a political discussion. The secretive government agencies just might have some data that justifies their paranoia. There are methods which could come with estimates as to how true that is. But the blatant opinion of the OP and quite a few of the replies is hardly any more authoritative.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Much of the data are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies -- which need to justify their own existence...It seems like the OP is trying to justify his or her own existence - face it , you ca n't escape self-interest no matter what your side is in a political discussion .
The secretive government agencies just might have some data that justifies their paranoia .
There are methods which could come with estimates as to how true that is .
But the blatant opinion of the OP and quite a few of the replies is hardly any more authoritative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much of the data are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies -- which need to justify their own existence...It seems like the OP is trying to justify his or her own existence - face it, you can't escape self-interest no matter what your side is in a political discussion.
The secretive government agencies just might have some data that justifies their paranoia.
There are methods which could come with estimates as to how true that is.
But the blatant opinion of the OP and quite a few of the replies is hardly any more authoritative.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545739</id>
	<title>Ignorance Leads to complacency Leads to 0wn3d</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246474020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get your head out of the sand. There are governments, specifically the PRC who have military doctrine surrounding "force multiplication" using cyber attacks against US. Russians are doing the same.<br>Here is an excerpt from Unresricted Warfare (Google it), written by a Chinese General:</p><p>"However, the Americans are not necessarily in the sole lead in everything. The new concepts of<br>weapons, which came after the weapons of new concepts and which cover a wider area, were a<br>natural extension of this. However, the Americans have not been able to get their act together in<br>this area. This is because proposing a new concept of weapons does not require relying on the<br>springboard of new technology, it just demands lucid and incisive thinking. However, this is not<br>a strong point of the Americans, who are slaves to technology in their thinking. The Americans<br>invariably halt their thinking at the boundary where technology has not yet reached. It cannot be<br>denied that man-made earthquakes, tsunamis, weather disasters, or subsonic wave and new<br>biological and chemical weapons all constitute new concept weapons [16], and that they have<br>tremendous differences with what we normally speak of as weapons, but they are still all<br>weapons whose immediate goal is to kill and destroy, and which are still related to military<br>affairs, soldiers, and munitions."</p><p>Nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get your head out of the sand .
There are governments , specifically the PRC who have military doctrine surrounding " force multiplication " using cyber attacks against US .
Russians are doing the same.Here is an excerpt from Unresricted Warfare ( Google it ) , written by a Chinese General : " However , the Americans are not necessarily in the sole lead in everything .
The new concepts ofweapons , which came after the weapons of new concepts and which cover a wider area , were anatural extension of this .
However , the Americans have not been able to get their act together inthis area .
This is because proposing a new concept of weapons does not require relying on thespringboard of new technology , it just demands lucid and incisive thinking .
However , this is nota strong point of the Americans , who are slaves to technology in their thinking .
The Americansinvariably halt their thinking at the boundary where technology has not yet reached .
It can not bedenied that man-made earthquakes , tsunamis , weather disasters , or subsonic wave and newbiological and chemical weapons all constitute new concept weapons [ 16 ] , and that they havetremendous differences with what we normally speak of as weapons , but they are still allweapons whose immediate goal is to kill and destroy , and which are still related to militaryaffairs , soldiers , and munitions .
" Nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get your head out of the sand.
There are governments, specifically the PRC who have military doctrine surrounding "force multiplication" using cyber attacks against US.
Russians are doing the same.Here is an excerpt from Unresricted Warfare (Google it), written by a Chinese General:"However, the Americans are not necessarily in the sole lead in everything.
The new concepts ofweapons, which came after the weapons of new concepts and which cover a wider area, were anatural extension of this.
However, the Americans have not been able to get their act together inthis area.
This is because proposing a new concept of weapons does not require relying on thespringboard of new technology, it just demands lucid and incisive thinking.
However, this is nota strong point of the Americans, who are slaves to technology in their thinking.
The Americansinvariably halt their thinking at the boundary where technology has not yet reached.
It cannot bedenied that man-made earthquakes, tsunamis, weather disasters, or subsonic wave and newbiological and chemical weapons all constitute new concept weapons [16], and that they havetremendous differences with what we normally speak of as weapons, but they are still allweapons whose immediate goal is to kill and destroy, and which are still related to militaryaffairs, soldiers, and munitions.
"Nuff said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544349</id>
	<title>More worried about SPAM</title>
	<author>Kintanon</author>
	<datestamp>1246469880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of the 63 MILLION emails we've processed for our clients (About 60 companies run through our spam filter) 58 million of them are blocked as SPAM.<br>So only 1/12th of the email traffic we see is legit. One of our clients has its own spam filter because they process that much email all by themselves and they have closer to a 1/20 legit traffic.<br>SPAM is a bigger threat to the network than some hypothetical cyber-terrorist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of the 63 MILLION emails we 've processed for our clients ( About 60 companies run through our spam filter ) 58 million of them are blocked as SPAM.So only 1/12th of the email traffic we see is legit .
One of our clients has its own spam filter because they process that much email all by themselves and they have closer to a 1/20 legit traffic.SPAM is a bigger threat to the network than some hypothetical cyber-terrorist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of the 63 MILLION emails we've processed for our clients (About 60 companies run through our spam filter) 58 million of them are blocked as SPAM.So only 1/12th of the email traffic we see is legit.
One of our clients has its own spam filter because they process that much email all by themselves and they have closer to a 1/20 legit traffic.SPAM is a bigger threat to the network than some hypothetical cyber-terrorist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544471</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance Leads to Fear Leads to Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246470180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree and I would add the simple fact of life that politicians love to BS and love to be seen as though they are "with it", whatever "it" happens to be at the time. Same thing over here in the UK, all the policticians are using the prefix "cyber" on every bloody thing they can, without really thinking about it. Old gits, with about 5 years of working life left, before they bugger off to some highly paid consultant job, bandying "cyber" about like so much confetti. Just to make it seem like they understand this wonderful tech, which they love trying to take credit for putting in place!</p><p>Like most politics, all smoke and mirrors. Make the public think they getting something they asked for, make it seem like the gov is in control, while they have no more clue about the state of things than the local knitting circle!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree and I would add the simple fact of life that politicians love to BS and love to be seen as though they are " with it " , whatever " it " happens to be at the time .
Same thing over here in the UK , all the policticians are using the prefix " cyber " on every bloody thing they can , without really thinking about it .
Old gits , with about 5 years of working life left , before they bugger off to some highly paid consultant job , bandying " cyber " about like so much confetti .
Just to make it seem like they understand this wonderful tech , which they love trying to take credit for putting in place ! Like most politics , all smoke and mirrors .
Make the public think they getting something they asked for , make it seem like the gov is in control , while they have no more clue about the state of things than the local knitting circle !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree and I would add the simple fact of life that politicians love to BS and love to be seen as though they are "with it", whatever "it" happens to be at the time.
Same thing over here in the UK, all the policticians are using the prefix "cyber" on every bloody thing they can, without really thinking about it.
Old gits, with about 5 years of working life left, before they bugger off to some highly paid consultant job, bandying "cyber" about like so much confetti.
Just to make it seem like they understand this wonderful tech, which they love trying to take credit for putting in place!Like most politics, all smoke and mirrors.
Make the public think they getting something they asked for, make it seem like the gov is in control, while they have no more clue about the state of things than the local knitting circle!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28584459</id>
	<title>what if someone posts everyone's personal info?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246728660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a few million people's personal info leak here, a few million more there, every month you read about more.. and those are just what is made public</p><p>pretty soon you are talking about big money</p><p>question: what would happen if someone were to publish the name, social security number, mothers maiden name, etc. for everyone in the usa?</p><p>would it implode?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a few million people 's personal info leak here , a few million more there , every month you read about more.. and those are just what is made publicpretty soon you are talking about big moneyquestion : what would happen if someone were to publish the name , social security number , mothers maiden name , etc .
for everyone in the usa ? would it implode ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a few million people's personal info leak here, a few million more there, every month you read about more.. and those are just what is made publicpretty soon you are talking about big moneyquestion: what would happen if someone were to publish the name, social security number, mothers maiden name, etc.
for everyone in the usa?would it implode?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544403</id>
	<title>No email, no working</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1246470000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At my job if email goes down, work stops.. 100\% shutdown.  The organization has largely gone paperless.  I'd imagine most other gov't organizations are the same way.  That's only one service of many.. so cybersecurity is very important in my book.  Unfortunately a national level of security seems impossible, offensively yes, but not defensively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At my job if email goes down , work stops.. 100 \ % shutdown .
The organization has largely gone paperless .
I 'd imagine most other gov't organizations are the same way .
That 's only one service of many.. so cybersecurity is very important in my book .
Unfortunately a national level of security seems impossible , offensively yes , but not defensively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At my job if email goes down, work stops.. 100\% shutdown.
The organization has largely gone paperless.
I'd imagine most other gov't organizations are the same way.
That's only one service of many.. so cybersecurity is very important in my book.
Unfortunately a national level of security seems impossible, offensively yes, but not defensively.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28551149</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance Leads to Fear Leads to Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246448700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would someone want our data?".</p> </div><p>Both your post &amp; it's parent are completely on the mark. The statement above which I quoted is part of the same mentality that leads into "If you aren't doing something wrong, you have no reason to care if you're being watched, searched, etc.".</p><p>The best quote is the old "First, they came for the xxx" but so many people's brains shut down the second they hear you say that, it has lost its effectiveness. People are back to the old mindset that bad things won't happen, and the time is ripe for abuse by the powers that be.</p><p>Just like what Hitler (and many before him), the government is putting the big scary Fear machine into effect, so that not only will people be distracted from the real sources of worry, but willing to sacrifice all personal control for whoever rides in on the white horse to save the day.</p><p>More people should read "The Prince" and then take a second look at their leaders. I'm not just saying the US, but pretty much the whole planet at this point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would someone want our data ? " .
Both your post &amp; it 's parent are completely on the mark .
The statement above which I quoted is part of the same mentality that leads into " If you are n't doing something wrong , you have no reason to care if you 're being watched , searched , etc .
" .The best quote is the old " First , they came for the xxx " but so many people 's brains shut down the second they hear you say that , it has lost its effectiveness .
People are back to the old mindset that bad things wo n't happen , and the time is ripe for abuse by the powers that be.Just like what Hitler ( and many before him ) , the government is putting the big scary Fear machine into effect , so that not only will people be distracted from the real sources of worry , but willing to sacrifice all personal control for whoever rides in on the white horse to save the day.More people should read " The Prince " and then take a second look at their leaders .
I 'm not just saying the US , but pretty much the whole planet at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would someone want our data?".
Both your post &amp; it's parent are completely on the mark.
The statement above which I quoted is part of the same mentality that leads into "If you aren't doing something wrong, you have no reason to care if you're being watched, searched, etc.
".The best quote is the old "First, they came for the xxx" but so many people's brains shut down the second they hear you say that, it has lost its effectiveness.
People are back to the old mindset that bad things won't happen, and the time is ripe for abuse by the powers that be.Just like what Hitler (and many before him), the government is putting the big scary Fear machine into effect, so that not only will people be distracted from the real sources of worry, but willing to sacrifice all personal control for whoever rides in on the white horse to save the day.More people should read "The Prince" and then take a second look at their leaders.
I'm not just saying the US, but pretty much the whole planet at this point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545377</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance Leads to Fear Leads to Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, these reports are usually richer in vivid metaphor -- with fears of 'digital Pearl Harbors' and 'cyber-Katrinas' -- than in factual foundation. So why is there so much concern about 'cyber-terrorism?'</p></div><p>Because no one fully understands it.  And not understanding something can easily lead to fear.  And those standing to make money off that fear (journalists, contractors, agencies) are unashamed to exploit it.</p></div><p>Remember Y2K?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , these reports are usually richer in vivid metaphor -- with fears of 'digital Pearl Harbors ' and 'cyber-Katrinas ' -- than in factual foundation .
So why is there so much concern about 'cyber-terrorism ?
'Because no one fully understands it .
And not understanding something can easily lead to fear .
And those standing to make money off that fear ( journalists , contractors , agencies ) are unashamed to exploit it.Remember Y2K ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, these reports are usually richer in vivid metaphor -- with fears of 'digital Pearl Harbors' and 'cyber-Katrinas' -- than in factual foundation.
So why is there so much concern about 'cyber-terrorism?
'Because no one fully understands it.
And not understanding something can easily lead to fear.
And those standing to make money off that fear (journalists, contractors, agencies) are unashamed to exploit it.Remember Y2K?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546867</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance Leads to Fear Leads to Profit</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1246477380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. But now we have pneumatic hammers with 100 round magazines and a plethora of frightened people willing to get their hands on them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When all you have is a hammer , everything starts to look like a nail .
But now we have pneumatic hammers with 100 round magazines and a plethora of frightened people willing to get their hands on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
But now we have pneumatic hammers with 100 round magazines and a plethora of frightened people willing to get their hands on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546367</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance Leads to Fear Leads to Profit</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1246475760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANACS though. But neat to have another acronym.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANACS though .
But neat to have another acronym .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANACS though.
But neat to have another acronym.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28553419</id>
	<title>Other countries are taking this a bit seriously.</title>
	<author>blakedev</author>
	<datestamp>1246464180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The United States is just trying to keep up. Whether or not it's hysteria, we have had various attacks on critical components of our infrastructure, notably the power grid, from Russian and Chinese hackers. Iran also has an entire division devoted to cyber-warfare. I read in Soldiers magazine (I was at MEPS waiting to swear in) and saw an ad for a new unit of the Army, the Army Network Warfare Battalion, and they're looking for soldiers from the intelligence (35) and signal (25) fields, as well as those with CS and programming experience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The United States is just trying to keep up .
Whether or not it 's hysteria , we have had various attacks on critical components of our infrastructure , notably the power grid , from Russian and Chinese hackers .
Iran also has an entire division devoted to cyber-warfare .
I read in Soldiers magazine ( I was at MEPS waiting to swear in ) and saw an ad for a new unit of the Army , the Army Network Warfare Battalion , and they 're looking for soldiers from the intelligence ( 35 ) and signal ( 25 ) fields , as well as those with CS and programming experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The United States is just trying to keep up.
Whether or not it's hysteria, we have had various attacks on critical components of our infrastructure, notably the power grid, from Russian and Chinese hackers.
Iran also has an entire division devoted to cyber-warfare.
I read in Soldiers magazine (I was at MEPS waiting to swear in) and saw an ad for a new unit of the Army, the Army Network Warfare Battalion, and they're looking for soldiers from the intelligence (35) and signal (25) fields, as well as those with CS and programming experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28547547</id>
	<title>Pax Americana at the Galleria, maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246479780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without any regard to the veracity of your "manufacture existential threats" premise, the notion that we as a nation "are in a period of relative peace and stability" is complete and utter hogwash.</p><p>The USMC, US Army, elements of the USN, USAF larger IC, as well as significant chunks of our allies' armed forces, are really and actually at war--real and actual ordnance, rounds and other kinetic weapons are really and actually used against them, even as we are "speaking."</p><p>Pax Americana might be the case at the mall, but our armed forces are feeding the slipped loose dogs of war, and have been for coming up on 8 years!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without any regard to the veracity of your " manufacture existential threats " premise , the notion that we as a nation " are in a period of relative peace and stability " is complete and utter hogwash.The USMC , US Army , elements of the USN , USAF larger IC , as well as significant chunks of our allies ' armed forces , are really and actually at war--real and actual ordnance , rounds and other kinetic weapons are really and actually used against them , even as we are " speaking .
" Pax Americana might be the case at the mall , but our armed forces are feeding the slipped loose dogs of war , and have been for coming up on 8 years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without any regard to the veracity of your "manufacture existential threats" premise, the notion that we as a nation "are in a period of relative peace and stability" is complete and utter hogwash.The USMC, US Army, elements of the USN, USAF larger IC, as well as significant chunks of our allies' armed forces, are really and actually at war--real and actual ordnance, rounds and other kinetic weapons are really and actually used against them, even as we are "speaking.
"Pax Americana might be the case at the mall, but our armed forces are feeding the slipped loose dogs of war, and have been for coming up on 8 years!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545611</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1246473600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody, governments, companies, content creators, privacy advocates, have the same problem: digital information is cheap to disseminate.</p><p>If somebody breaks into a library of secret documents, there's a limit to how many copies they can make and take out. Even if they were to scan and store every page in every folder in every cabinet, it's still extremely time-consuming.</p><p>If somebody breaks into a computer full of secret documents, it takes seconds, maybe minutes, to copy the whole thing. And, the person doesn't have to be physically located by the computer. The person could be halfway around the world, or just right next door but seem halfway around the world.</p><p>What it amounts to is that secret-keeping is becoming more and more difficult. Actually, this isn't true. The difficulty of secret-keeping hasn't changed. But society desires convenience. And little do people know, these two concepts are mutually exclusive.</p><p>Furthermore, while convenience is individual, keeping secrets is communal. "Secret" is a term that only has meaning within the context of systems, i.e. only people inside the system know the secret, while people outside the system do not know. The problem is when one individual wants convenience and compromises secrecy for it, then the secret is effectively compromised.</p><p>Everybody just wants to have their cake and eat it too. That kind of logical impossibility will not happen, no matter how much we might desire it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody , governments , companies , content creators , privacy advocates , have the same problem : digital information is cheap to disseminate.If somebody breaks into a library of secret documents , there 's a limit to how many copies they can make and take out .
Even if they were to scan and store every page in every folder in every cabinet , it 's still extremely time-consuming.If somebody breaks into a computer full of secret documents , it takes seconds , maybe minutes , to copy the whole thing .
And , the person does n't have to be physically located by the computer .
The person could be halfway around the world , or just right next door but seem halfway around the world.What it amounts to is that secret-keeping is becoming more and more difficult .
Actually , this is n't true .
The difficulty of secret-keeping has n't changed .
But society desires convenience .
And little do people know , these two concepts are mutually exclusive.Furthermore , while convenience is individual , keeping secrets is communal .
" Secret " is a term that only has meaning within the context of systems , i.e .
only people inside the system know the secret , while people outside the system do not know .
The problem is when one individual wants convenience and compromises secrecy for it , then the secret is effectively compromised.Everybody just wants to have their cake and eat it too .
That kind of logical impossibility will not happen , no matter how much we might desire it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody, governments, companies, content creators, privacy advocates, have the same problem: digital information is cheap to disseminate.If somebody breaks into a library of secret documents, there's a limit to how many copies they can make and take out.
Even if they were to scan and store every page in every folder in every cabinet, it's still extremely time-consuming.If somebody breaks into a computer full of secret documents, it takes seconds, maybe minutes, to copy the whole thing.
And, the person doesn't have to be physically located by the computer.
The person could be halfway around the world, or just right next door but seem halfway around the world.What it amounts to is that secret-keeping is becoming more and more difficult.
Actually, this isn't true.
The difficulty of secret-keeping hasn't changed.
But society desires convenience.
And little do people know, these two concepts are mutually exclusive.Furthermore, while convenience is individual, keeping secrets is communal.
"Secret" is a term that only has meaning within the context of systems, i.e.
only people inside the system know the secret, while people outside the system do not know.
The problem is when one individual wants convenience and compromises secrecy for it, then the secret is effectively compromised.Everybody just wants to have their cake and eat it too.
That kind of logical impossibility will not happen, no matter how much we might desire it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545125</id>
	<title>Re:No governance required.</title>
	<author>Sophacles</author>
	<datestamp>1246472160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can think of a couple of reasons its a government issue.</p><p>* The government has computers on the internet. If our taxpayer money is being spent on government security, it might as well go to benefit infrastructure as well.</p><p>* In the last couple of years there has been a major increase in how comfortable "normal" people are with doing business on the internet, with potential negative impact gaining greatly.</p><p>* People are starting to take notice at how little security has been designed into a lot of critical infrastructure. For instance I work in the power grid space, and the "security" there is scary bad.</p><p>* There is a new administration, meaning different priorities. This idea has been talked about for years, now with a new boss things are gonna "change".[1]</p><p>There are probably other reasons too. I personally think it is long overdue.  I think there may be some over-hype to it lately, because the * i didnt do is: The media decided they need something new for us to fear.</p><p>1. No position regarding our president is implied by my irony quotes, i just wanted to note that this may qualify as change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of a couple of reasons its a government issue .
* The government has computers on the internet .
If our taxpayer money is being spent on government security , it might as well go to benefit infrastructure as well .
* In the last couple of years there has been a major increase in how comfortable " normal " people are with doing business on the internet , with potential negative impact gaining greatly .
* People are starting to take notice at how little security has been designed into a lot of critical infrastructure .
For instance I work in the power grid space , and the " security " there is scary bad .
* There is a new administration , meaning different priorities .
This idea has been talked about for years , now with a new boss things are gon na " change " .
[ 1 ] There are probably other reasons too .
I personally think it is long overdue .
I think there may be some over-hype to it lately , because the * i didnt do is : The media decided they need something new for us to fear.1 .
No position regarding our president is implied by my irony quotes , i just wanted to note that this may qualify as change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of a couple of reasons its a government issue.
* The government has computers on the internet.
If our taxpayer money is being spent on government security, it might as well go to benefit infrastructure as well.
* In the last couple of years there has been a major increase in how comfortable "normal" people are with doing business on the internet, with potential negative impact gaining greatly.
* People are starting to take notice at how little security has been designed into a lot of critical infrastructure.
For instance I work in the power grid space, and the "security" there is scary bad.
* There is a new administration, meaning different priorities.
This idea has been talked about for years, now with a new boss things are gonna "change".
[1]There are probably other reasons too.
I personally think it is long overdue.
I think there may be some over-hype to it lately, because the * i didnt do is: The media decided they need something new for us to fear.1.
No position regarding our president is implied by my irony quotes, i just wanted to note that this may qualify as change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544543</id>
	<title>Welcome to psychology 101</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1246470420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fear is one of the biggest motivators.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease.  As Americans, we are unfortunately conditioned by fear based language.  Unless something is presented to us as scary and threatening, we tend to ignore it.  In order to get funding for projects, politicans and the like have to play the fear card.  They will present doomsday what-if scenarios, and threaten to put responsibility for failure on anyone who gets in the way of getting things done.</p><p>Although I agree that "cyber security" should be a priority, it would be nice if there were a way to talk about things without having to wrap them in fear and threats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fear is one of the biggest motivators .
The squeaky wheel gets the grease .
As Americans , we are unfortunately conditioned by fear based language .
Unless something is presented to us as scary and threatening , we tend to ignore it .
In order to get funding for projects , politicans and the like have to play the fear card .
They will present doomsday what-if scenarios , and threaten to put responsibility for failure on anyone who gets in the way of getting things done.Although I agree that " cyber security " should be a priority , it would be nice if there were a way to talk about things without having to wrap them in fear and threats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fear is one of the biggest motivators.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
As Americans, we are unfortunately conditioned by fear based language.
Unless something is presented to us as scary and threatening, we tend to ignore it.
In order to get funding for projects, politicans and the like have to play the fear card.
They will present doomsday what-if scenarios, and threaten to put responsibility for failure on anyone who gets in the way of getting things done.Although I agree that "cyber security" should be a priority, it would be nice if there were a way to talk about things without having to wrap them in fear and threats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545737</id>
	<title>just follow the money - scam the gov for big $$$</title>
	<author>Hobyx</author>
	<datestamp>1246474020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason why is clear if you've ever listened to these people make their cases in congressional hearings - they get hella PAID for scamming the government. For whatever reason, senators and state reps have a soft spot for this particular thing they have no understanding of. They feel the fear and dish out contracts by the truck-load.. maybe it's a way for them to seem "tough on crime" without actually doing anything; maybe it's favoritism or otherwise; but it works time after time.

I for one find it appalling. 90\% of what these "experts" profess in their doomsday cyber war talks are complete bull and no one is allowed to publicly counter their presentations with things like, oh, the truth for instance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why is clear if you 've ever listened to these people make their cases in congressional hearings - they get hella PAID for scamming the government .
For whatever reason , senators and state reps have a soft spot for this particular thing they have no understanding of .
They feel the fear and dish out contracts by the truck-load.. maybe it 's a way for them to seem " tough on crime " without actually doing anything ; maybe it 's favoritism or otherwise ; but it works time after time .
I for one find it appalling .
90 \ % of what these " experts " profess in their doomsday cyber war talks are complete bull and no one is allowed to publicly counter their presentations with things like , oh , the truth for instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why is clear if you've ever listened to these people make their cases in congressional hearings - they get hella PAID for scamming the government.
For whatever reason, senators and state reps have a soft spot for this particular thing they have no understanding of.
They feel the fear and dish out contracts by the truck-load.. maybe it's a way for them to seem "tough on crime" without actually doing anything; maybe it's favoritism or otherwise; but it works time after time.
I for one find it appalling.
90\% of what these "experts" profess in their doomsday cyber war talks are complete bull and no one is allowed to publicly counter their presentations with things like, oh, the truth for instance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28549343</id>
	<title>The Physical Danger is actually quite low...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246441740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real threat is from the web is actually how easily it exposes the true nature of what the government does.  The truth is a bigger danger to national security than worst damage any hacker could ever do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real threat is from the web is actually how easily it exposes the true nature of what the government does .
The truth is a bigger danger to national security than worst damage any hacker could ever do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real threat is from the web is actually how easily it exposes the true nature of what the government does.
The truth is a bigger danger to national security than worst damage any hacker could ever do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545905</id>
	<title>cyber-Katrinas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246474500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF - you still haven't fixed New Orleans after the real Katrina - are you lot totally deranged or on drugs? WTF is going on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF - you still have n't fixed New Orleans after the real Katrina - are you lot totally deranged or on drugs ?
WTF is going on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF - you still haven't fixed New Orleans after the real Katrina - are you lot totally deranged or on drugs?
WTF is going on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544369</id>
	<title>The post-nuclear war threat</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1246469940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US no longer has to worry about nuclear war or even conventional war because we have the means of "winning" a nuclear war and can easily crush any country in a conventional war except, perhaps, the PRC. Even the European Union would not likely hold out against us in a conventional war. Our military knows that, and the majority of the world knows that. We are in a period of relative peace and stability, a Pax Americana. Thus we have to manufacture existential threats to keep the momentum going.</p><p>Going back to that post about government IT spending, I'd like to point out something about the military industrial complex that many don't realize. Just keeping the US military ready to go as a kick ass self-defense force with modest offensive capabilities is expensive. There is plenty of money to go around, and you're much more likely to see the agencies that now have to justify their existence like DHS getting in on this bandwagon than the DoD. For the traditional apparatus, it's always business as usual keeping the basic defense of US sovereignty going. For the rest, like DHS which has to find a new enemy under every bush, they have a lot of good reasons to be afraid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US no longer has to worry about nuclear war or even conventional war because we have the means of " winning " a nuclear war and can easily crush any country in a conventional war except , perhaps , the PRC .
Even the European Union would not likely hold out against us in a conventional war .
Our military knows that , and the majority of the world knows that .
We are in a period of relative peace and stability , a Pax Americana .
Thus we have to manufacture existential threats to keep the momentum going.Going back to that post about government IT spending , I 'd like to point out something about the military industrial complex that many do n't realize .
Just keeping the US military ready to go as a kick ass self-defense force with modest offensive capabilities is expensive .
There is plenty of money to go around , and you 're much more likely to see the agencies that now have to justify their existence like DHS getting in on this bandwagon than the DoD .
For the traditional apparatus , it 's always business as usual keeping the basic defense of US sovereignty going .
For the rest , like DHS which has to find a new enemy under every bush , they have a lot of good reasons to be afraid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US no longer has to worry about nuclear war or even conventional war because we have the means of "winning" a nuclear war and can easily crush any country in a conventional war except, perhaps, the PRC.
Even the European Union would not likely hold out against us in a conventional war.
Our military knows that, and the majority of the world knows that.
We are in a period of relative peace and stability, a Pax Americana.
Thus we have to manufacture existential threats to keep the momentum going.Going back to that post about government IT spending, I'd like to point out something about the military industrial complex that many don't realize.
Just keeping the US military ready to go as a kick ass self-defense force with modest offensive capabilities is expensive.
There is plenty of money to go around, and you're much more likely to see the agencies that now have to justify their existence like DHS getting in on this bandwagon than the DoD.
For the traditional apparatus, it's always business as usual keeping the basic defense of US sovereignty going.
For the rest, like DHS which has to find a new enemy under every bush, they have a lot of good reasons to be afraid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28555245</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance Leads to Fear Leads to Profit</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1246529160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>probability of it happening within a year would most certainly be dealt with in multi-digit negative powers of ten</p></div></blockquote><p>That's not helping, really...</p><p>Politician: "So you would say there's about a ten percent chance?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>probability of it happening within a year would most certainly be dealt with in multi-digit negative powers of tenThat 's not helping , really...Politician : " So you would say there 's about a ten percent chance ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>probability of it happening within a year would most certainly be dealt with in multi-digit negative powers of tenThat's not helping, really...Politician: "So you would say there's about a ten percent chance?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28547649</id>
	<title>Re:You're wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246480140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There is more profitable, lower-hanging fruit. But if we went to war with a sophisticated nation, the motivations are entirely different. Widespread DoS combined with targeted database corruption would do much more damage to the economy (that thing that allows us to have the best military) than similarly-funded missile strikes.</i><br>Yah... because if we went to war with a sophisticate nation you don't think one of the first thing we'd blow up would be their communication systems?<br>In a real war you'd probably have a day or two before the whole communication network is rendered near unusable state.  And the only reason you'd get a day or two is because radar normally comes first to make the rest of the attacks easier.<br>How effective will your internet attacks be when half the country is without power and every big switching station is blown to crap?<br>And conversely, assuming a war on equal footing, how &#226;effective&#226;(TM) will a DoS attack be on... say... Bank of America when a bomb has already blown their data center to pieces?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is more profitable , lower-hanging fruit .
But if we went to war with a sophisticated nation , the motivations are entirely different .
Widespread DoS combined with targeted database corruption would do much more damage to the economy ( that thing that allows us to have the best military ) than similarly-funded missile strikes.Yah... because if we went to war with a sophisticate nation you do n't think one of the first thing we 'd blow up would be their communication systems ? In a real war you 'd probably have a day or two before the whole communication network is rendered near unusable state .
And the only reason you 'd get a day or two is because radar normally comes first to make the rest of the attacks easier.How effective will your internet attacks be when half the country is without power and every big switching station is blown to crap ? And conversely , assuming a war on equal footing , how   effective   ( TM ) will a DoS attack be on... say... Bank of America when a bomb has already blown their data center to pieces ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is more profitable, lower-hanging fruit.
But if we went to war with a sophisticated nation, the motivations are entirely different.
Widespread DoS combined with targeted database corruption would do much more damage to the economy (that thing that allows us to have the best military) than similarly-funded missile strikes.Yah... because if we went to war with a sophisticate nation you don't think one of the first thing we'd blow up would be their communication systems?In a real war you'd probably have a day or two before the whole communication network is rendered near unusable state.
And the only reason you'd get a day or two is because radar normally comes first to make the rest of the attacks easier.How effective will your internet attacks be when half the country is without power and every big switching station is blown to crap?And conversely, assuming a war on equal footing, how âeffectiveâ(TM) will a DoS attack be on... say... Bank of America when a bomb has already blown their data center to pieces?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544917</id>
	<title>Merely self-preservation</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1246471620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you form a think-tank, or oversight committee, or regulatory office with a nice, big budget and charge them with feeding into the decision making process, that's what they'll do. They are hardly likely to say "we've checked - everything's fine". The two obvious reasons being:
<p>There might be something they missed</p><p>If there is no "threat", they're out of a job</p><p>
So it happens that every time a new office is created to look into the potential of a hazard to the country - lo and behold: they find one. Amazing!
</p><p>
So far as the first reason is concerned, there will always be the possibility that (maybe for reasons outside their control) the watchers were unaware of a potential problem. However, that doesn't matter - they'll still get it in the neck if a threat in their "area" materialises. Far better to say: "we've looked, but to be absolutely sure, we need more money." Since this approach can be repeated ad-infinitum, or until the money runs out it's a great way to CYA.
</p><p>
The second reason is simply human nature. they try to stay on the gravy train for as long as possible. If there are no BIG threats, they'll find little ones and exaggerate their importance. Or find non-existant ones and use so many weasel-words like: "could", "might", "possibly", with everyone too cowed by the infinitesimal possibility there might be something in it, to challenge their vague mutterings.
</p><p>
The problem is that the real problems are too hard. Things like lack of education, opportunity, addictive personalities, crime, uncertainty, greed are all much bigger problems. However they're too big for a government to fix (certainly within one or two electorial terms). So it's better to go for the "quick" fixes, that have no real cause and no real fix. That way, whatever a government does can be called a success as the threat wasn't that real to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you form a think-tank , or oversight committee , or regulatory office with a nice , big budget and charge them with feeding into the decision making process , that 's what they 'll do .
They are hardly likely to say " we 've checked - everything 's fine " .
The two obvious reasons being : There might be something they missedIf there is no " threat " , they 're out of a job So it happens that every time a new office is created to look into the potential of a hazard to the country - lo and behold : they find one .
Amazing ! So far as the first reason is concerned , there will always be the possibility that ( maybe for reasons outside their control ) the watchers were unaware of a potential problem .
However , that does n't matter - they 'll still get it in the neck if a threat in their " area " materialises .
Far better to say : " we 've looked , but to be absolutely sure , we need more money .
" Since this approach can be repeated ad-infinitum , or until the money runs out it 's a great way to CYA .
The second reason is simply human nature .
they try to stay on the gravy train for as long as possible .
If there are no BIG threats , they 'll find little ones and exaggerate their importance .
Or find non-existant ones and use so many weasel-words like : " could " , " might " , " possibly " , with everyone too cowed by the infinitesimal possibility there might be something in it , to challenge their vague mutterings .
The problem is that the real problems are too hard .
Things like lack of education , opportunity , addictive personalities , crime , uncertainty , greed are all much bigger problems .
However they 're too big for a government to fix ( certainly within one or two electorial terms ) .
So it 's better to go for the " quick " fixes , that have no real cause and no real fix .
That way , whatever a government does can be called a success as the threat was n't that real to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you form a think-tank, or oversight committee, or regulatory office with a nice, big budget and charge them with feeding into the decision making process, that's what they'll do.
They are hardly likely to say "we've checked - everything's fine".
The two obvious reasons being:
There might be something they missedIf there is no "threat", they're out of a job
So it happens that every time a new office is created to look into the potential of a hazard to the country - lo and behold: they find one.
Amazing!

So far as the first reason is concerned, there will always be the possibility that (maybe for reasons outside their control) the watchers were unaware of a potential problem.
However, that doesn't matter - they'll still get it in the neck if a threat in their "area" materialises.
Far better to say: "we've looked, but to be absolutely sure, we need more money.
" Since this approach can be repeated ad-infinitum, or until the money runs out it's a great way to CYA.
The second reason is simply human nature.
they try to stay on the gravy train for as long as possible.
If there are no BIG threats, they'll find little ones and exaggerate their importance.
Or find non-existant ones and use so many weasel-words like: "could", "might", "possibly", with everyone too cowed by the infinitesimal possibility there might be something in it, to challenge their vague mutterings.
The problem is that the real problems are too hard.
Things like lack of education, opportunity, addictive personalities, crime, uncertainty, greed are all much bigger problems.
However they're too big for a government to fix (certainly within one or two electorial terms).
So it's better to go for the "quick" fixes, that have no real cause and no real fix.
That way, whatever a government does can be called a success as the threat wasn't that real to begin with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28552097</id>
	<title>Hysteria of the Cyber-Warriors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246453680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did that feature Jon Pertwee or Tom Baker?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did that feature Jon Pertwee or Tom Baker ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did that feature Jon Pertwee or Tom Baker?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28555057</id>
	<title>Re:You're wrong.</title>
	<author>fredrickleo</author>
	<datestamp>1246526460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed, why hasn't it happened yet?<br>
<br>
You would think there would be any number of Iraqi or Afghani nationals and sympathizers living abroad with access to the sophisticated infrastructure and possess the knowledge required to carry out one of these attacks.<br>
<br>
So, why hasn't it happened yet? If it's as easy and devastating as you assert, why isn't it happening all the time?<br>
<br>
In my opinion, it's not as easy as you suggest, and the personal penalties for getting caught engaging in "cyber terrorism" far outweigh the potential damage you can inflict.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , why has n't it happened yet ?
You would think there would be any number of Iraqi or Afghani nationals and sympathizers living abroad with access to the sophisticated infrastructure and possess the knowledge required to carry out one of these attacks .
So , why has n't it happened yet ?
If it 's as easy and devastating as you assert , why is n't it happening all the time ?
In my opinion , it 's not as easy as you suggest , and the personal penalties for getting caught engaging in " cyber terrorism " far outweigh the potential damage you can inflict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, why hasn't it happened yet?
You would think there would be any number of Iraqi or Afghani nationals and sympathizers living abroad with access to the sophisticated infrastructure and possess the knowledge required to carry out one of these attacks.
So, why hasn't it happened yet?
If it's as easy and devastating as you assert, why isn't it happening all the time?
In my opinion, it's not as easy as you suggest, and the personal penalties for getting caught engaging in "cyber terrorism" far outweigh the potential damage you can inflict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28558149</id>
	<title>Hysteria?</title>
	<author>stanjam</author>
	<datestamp>1246551660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think it is hysteria.  Crimminal activities on the net already cost us, as a country, LOTS of money, and there has been a lot of damage.  Cyber-terrorism, and cyber-warfare is a real phenomena.  Take a look at what happened to Estonia.  The whole country was essentially shut down!

Now the US is a bit more protected than Estonia, but that doesn't mean it could not happen here.  One successful attack could have huge ramifications. We know that countries like China are ramping up their efforts to create a cyber-warfare division.  The United States is as well. Not only do we need to defend against possible attacks, but we need to also have the capability of going on the offensive.  With a cyber-attack first strike, we could cripple a country, take down their command and communications capabilities, stop their propoganda machines, and cause panic. All without ever launching a single plane!

It has already been shown that the Internet can be attacked, and that our enemies could do us a lot of damage with the right tools, knowledge, desire.  We MUST, as a country, defend our interests, and protect our people.  This isn't about protecting your ability to download porn. It is about keeping the economy running, banks running, planes and trains, the electric grid, and communications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it is hysteria .
Crimminal activities on the net already cost us , as a country , LOTS of money , and there has been a lot of damage .
Cyber-terrorism , and cyber-warfare is a real phenomena .
Take a look at what happened to Estonia .
The whole country was essentially shut down !
Now the US is a bit more protected than Estonia , but that does n't mean it could not happen here .
One successful attack could have huge ramifications .
We know that countries like China are ramping up their efforts to create a cyber-warfare division .
The United States is as well .
Not only do we need to defend against possible attacks , but we need to also have the capability of going on the offensive .
With a cyber-attack first strike , we could cripple a country , take down their command and communications capabilities , stop their propoganda machines , and cause panic .
All without ever launching a single plane !
It has already been shown that the Internet can be attacked , and that our enemies could do us a lot of damage with the right tools , knowledge , desire .
We MUST , as a country , defend our interests , and protect our people .
This is n't about protecting your ability to download porn .
It is about keeping the economy running , banks running , planes and trains , the electric grid , and communications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it is hysteria.
Crimminal activities on the net already cost us, as a country, LOTS of money, and there has been a lot of damage.
Cyber-terrorism, and cyber-warfare is a real phenomena.
Take a look at what happened to Estonia.
The whole country was essentially shut down!
Now the US is a bit more protected than Estonia, but that doesn't mean it could not happen here.
One successful attack could have huge ramifications.
We know that countries like China are ramping up their efforts to create a cyber-warfare division.
The United States is as well.
Not only do we need to defend against possible attacks, but we need to also have the capability of going on the offensive.
With a cyber-attack first strike, we could cripple a country, take down their command and communications capabilities, stop their propoganda machines, and cause panic.
All without ever launching a single plane!
It has already been shown that the Internet can be attacked, and that our enemies could do us a lot of damage with the right tools, knowledge, desire.
We MUST, as a country, defend our interests, and protect our people.
This isn't about protecting your ability to download porn.
It is about keeping the economy running, banks running, planes and trains, the electric grid, and communications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28550015</id>
	<title>Re:Because the threat is real</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246443840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a bit bigger than they're letting on to- you are right about the tip of the iceberg thing.</p><p>Fortunately, it's not been bad enough (yet!) to be more visible than the stuff the public's seen.  It's a mess- really, it is.  They're aware of some of the nature of the mess and trying to do a bit more about it in many areas where we really DO have something to be honestly concerned about.  But it's still woefully inadequate.</p><p>The truth of the matter is:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The gainsayers are ostriching in many cases.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The doomsayers are hyping it up entirely too much.</p><p>We have a problem.  It's very much more real than many let on to.  We're doing more about it than before.  But...it's not enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a bit bigger than they 're letting on to- you are right about the tip of the iceberg thing.Fortunately , it 's not been bad enough ( yet !
) to be more visible than the stuff the public 's seen .
It 's a mess- really , it is .
They 're aware of some of the nature of the mess and trying to do a bit more about it in many areas where we really DO have something to be honestly concerned about .
But it 's still woefully inadequate.The truth of the matter is :         The gainsayers are ostriching in many cases .
        The doomsayers are hyping it up entirely too much.We have a problem .
It 's very much more real than many let on to .
We 're doing more about it than before .
But...it 's not enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a bit bigger than they're letting on to- you are right about the tip of the iceberg thing.Fortunately, it's not been bad enough (yet!
) to be more visible than the stuff the public's seen.
It's a mess- really, it is.
They're aware of some of the nature of the mess and trying to do a bit more about it in many areas where we really DO have something to be honestly concerned about.
But it's still woefully inadequate.The truth of the matter is:
        The gainsayers are ostriching in many cases.
        The doomsayers are hyping it up entirely too much.We have a problem.
It's very much more real than many let on to.
We're doing more about it than before.
But...it's not enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544653</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?</title>
	<author>TerranFury</author>
	<datestamp>1246470720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but it's not cyber-"terrorism;" nothing is going to blow up.  It's just espionage.</p><p>Plus, I've got to wonder how much of this is truly "hackers" from the outside, and how much is just the result of employees taking data with them -- whether they're just being sloppy, or actually malicious (e.g., ethnic Chinese with misplaced loyalties (god do I hate nationalism)).</p><p>Whatever the case, without disclosure for each "incident" of what actually happened in <i>technical</i> terms, we the public will never understand what's going on at any level besides "OMG HACKERS" -- which can mean <i>anything</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but it 's not cyber- " terrorism ; " nothing is going to blow up .
It 's just espionage.Plus , I 've got to wonder how much of this is truly " hackers " from the outside , and how much is just the result of employees taking data with them -- whether they 're just being sloppy , or actually malicious ( e.g. , ethnic Chinese with misplaced loyalties ( god do I hate nationalism ) ) .Whatever the case , without disclosure for each " incident " of what actually happened in technical terms , we the public will never understand what 's going on at any level besides " OMG HACKERS " -- which can mean anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but it's not cyber-"terrorism;" nothing is going to blow up.
It's just espionage.Plus, I've got to wonder how much of this is truly "hackers" from the outside, and how much is just the result of employees taking data with them -- whether they're just being sloppy, or actually malicious (e.g., ethnic Chinese with misplaced loyalties (god do I hate nationalism)).Whatever the case, without disclosure for each "incident" of what actually happened in technical terms, we the public will never understand what's going on at any level besides "OMG HACKERS" -- which can mean anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545423</id>
	<title>Because the threat is real</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246473000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There have been some very vivid demonstrations of the impacts of cyber-warfare, such as the attacks on Estonia and Georgia, Chinese and Iranian suppresion of free speech and media, air traffic control penetrations, and demonstrated penetrations of SCADA networks (power grid in particular).  In Estonia, gov't services were disrupted, and the local equivalent of 911 was broken.  Georgia was not as badly dinged as Estonia, largely because they're less reliant on networked services.  (c.f. <a href="http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=12673385" title="economist.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=12673385</a> [economist.com] ).  Power grid infrastructures (as well as telecom, oil pipelines, etc.) are highly automated in the US, and have been demonstrated to have been attacked (c.f. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123914805204099085.html?mod=googlenews\_wsj" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123914805204099085.html?mod=googlenews\_wsj</a> [wsj.com] ).  Having accidentally broken chunks of telecom infrastructure, I know how easy it is to create large-scale disruptions through control networks - even without ill intent.  The FAA IG has reported that air traffic has already been disrupted by system breaches (c.f. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124165272826193727.html" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124165272826193727.html</a> [wsj.com], <a href="http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/ATC\_Web\_Report.pdf" title="dot.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/ATC\_Web\_Report.pdf</a> [dot.gov] ).</p><p>And this is the stuff that's publicly visible.  There is definitely an iceberg effect here - there's a lot more under the surface that isn't readily visible to the public.  There's good reason the Pentagon doesn't publish the full extent of attacks (successful and not) perpetrated against the DoD infrastructure - it's not a good idea to let attackers know how much you see (and don't).  But the concern is based on real threats, and real attempts - this is not hysterical speculation.  The rules of engagement haven't been defined (when is a hack attempt serious enough to merit retaliation?  what's a 'cyber-exercise' v. an act of war?  how definite does attribution of an attack need to be to become a diplomatic issue?).  There are countries that are pushing all these envelopes to gain an edge.</p><p>So if this stuff is already going on at a low-rumble level, the threat is demonstrated, and the consequences can be foreseen, wouldn't it be irresponsible not to develop techniques and strategies to ensure this bad stuff doesn't happen?</p><p>Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been some very vivid demonstrations of the impacts of cyber-warfare , such as the attacks on Estonia and Georgia , Chinese and Iranian suppresion of free speech and media , air traffic control penetrations , and demonstrated penetrations of SCADA networks ( power grid in particular ) .
In Estonia , gov't services were disrupted , and the local equivalent of 911 was broken .
Georgia was not as badly dinged as Estonia , largely because they 're less reliant on networked services .
( c.f. http : //www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm ? story \ _id = 12673385 [ economist.com ] ) .
Power grid infrastructures ( as well as telecom , oil pipelines , etc .
) are highly automated in the US , and have been demonstrated to have been attacked ( c.f .
http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB123914805204099085.html ? mod = googlenews \ _wsj [ wsj.com ] ) .
Having accidentally broken chunks of telecom infrastructure , I know how easy it is to create large-scale disruptions through control networks - even without ill intent .
The FAA IG has reported that air traffic has already been disrupted by system breaches ( c.f .
http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB124165272826193727.html [ wsj.com ] , http : //www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile ? file = /data/pdfdocs/ATC \ _Web \ _Report.pdf [ dot.gov ] ) .And this is the stuff that 's publicly visible .
There is definitely an iceberg effect here - there 's a lot more under the surface that is n't readily visible to the public .
There 's good reason the Pentagon does n't publish the full extent of attacks ( successful and not ) perpetrated against the DoD infrastructure - it 's not a good idea to let attackers know how much you see ( and do n't ) .
But the concern is based on real threats , and real attempts - this is not hysterical speculation .
The rules of engagement have n't been defined ( when is a hack attempt serious enough to merit retaliation ?
what 's a 'cyber-exercise ' v. an act of war ?
how definite does attribution of an attack need to be to become a diplomatic issue ? ) .
There are countries that are pushing all these envelopes to gain an edge.So if this stuff is already going on at a low-rumble level , the threat is demonstrated , and the consequences can be foreseen , would n't it be irresponsible not to develop techniques and strategies to ensure this bad stuff does n't happen ? Just because you 're paranoid , does n't mean people are n't out to get you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been some very vivid demonstrations of the impacts of cyber-warfare, such as the attacks on Estonia and Georgia, Chinese and Iranian suppresion of free speech and media, air traffic control penetrations, and demonstrated penetrations of SCADA networks (power grid in particular).
In Estonia, gov't services were disrupted, and the local equivalent of 911 was broken.
Georgia was not as badly dinged as Estonia, largely because they're less reliant on networked services.
(c.f. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=12673385 [economist.com] ).
Power grid infrastructures (as well as telecom, oil pipelines, etc.
) are highly automated in the US, and have been demonstrated to have been attacked (c.f.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123914805204099085.html?mod=googlenews\_wsj [wsj.com] ).
Having accidentally broken chunks of telecom infrastructure, I know how easy it is to create large-scale disruptions through control networks - even without ill intent.
The FAA IG has reported that air traffic has already been disrupted by system breaches (c.f.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124165272826193727.html [wsj.com], http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/ATC\_Web\_Report.pdf [dot.gov] ).And this is the stuff that's publicly visible.
There is definitely an iceberg effect here - there's a lot more under the surface that isn't readily visible to the public.
There's good reason the Pentagon doesn't publish the full extent of attacks (successful and not) perpetrated against the DoD infrastructure - it's not a good idea to let attackers know how much you see (and don't).
But the concern is based on real threats, and real attempts - this is not hysterical speculation.
The rules of engagement haven't been defined (when is a hack attempt serious enough to merit retaliation?
what's a 'cyber-exercise' v. an act of war?
how definite does attribution of an attack need to be to become a diplomatic issue?).
There are countries that are pushing all these envelopes to gain an edge.So if this stuff is already going on at a low-rumble level, the threat is demonstrated, and the consequences can be foreseen, wouldn't it be irresponsible not to develop techniques and strategies to ensure this bad stuff doesn't happen?Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28554281</id>
	<title>Re:Elevating a simple scenario to a movement</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1246474320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>See that wasn't so hard.</i> </p><p>That $2 slice of pizza implies - along with much else - the ability to move dairy and produce quickly and efficiently from the farms to the wholesale market or directly to the processing plant and from there to the fast-food outlet.</p><p>Try negotiating all the intermediate steps by cash or barter - with no telephone - telegraph - telex - fax or e-mail to monitor the traffic and speed it along.</p><p>The first and most obvious impact is that costs skyrocket. You need to field armies of commission agents, clerks and couriers. </p><p> The second is that the quality and supply of the fresh product becomes unpredictable - the tomatoes now come from a can.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See that was n't so hard .
That $ 2 slice of pizza implies - along with much else - the ability to move dairy and produce quickly and efficiently from the farms to the wholesale market or directly to the processing plant and from there to the fast-food outlet.Try negotiating all the intermediate steps by cash or barter - with no telephone - telegraph - telex - fax or e-mail to monitor the traffic and speed it along.The first and most obvious impact is that costs skyrocket .
You need to field armies of commission agents , clerks and couriers .
The second is that the quality and supply of the fresh product becomes unpredictable - the tomatoes now come from a can .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>See that wasn't so hard.
That $2 slice of pizza implies - along with much else - the ability to move dairy and produce quickly and efficiently from the farms to the wholesale market or directly to the processing plant and from there to the fast-food outlet.Try negotiating all the intermediate steps by cash or barter - with no telephone - telegraph - telex - fax or e-mail to monitor the traffic and speed it along.The first and most obvious impact is that costs skyrocket.
You need to field armies of commission agents, clerks and couriers.
The second is that the quality and supply of the fresh product becomes unpredictable - the tomatoes now come from a can.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28558001</id>
	<title>Re:Elevating a simple scenario to a movement</title>
	<author>ElizabethGreene</author>
	<datestamp>1246550700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except the kid at the pizza place is going to say "I'm sorry, our registers are down".  After someone digs out a calculator they will start taking orders and making pies.  You'll say get a calculator out, but they won't know the prices of anything because the LCD menuboards are out.

<p>You would drive to a different store, but they someone hacked the OnStar network and bricked your car.

</p><p>You would go out for a walk, but the TV weatherguy says there are multiple hurricane, tsunami, and tornado warnings.  This is odd because it is sunny outside and you live nowhere near a coast.

</p><p>Then your power goes out.

</p><p>And your cell phone is getting DOS'd with text messages, until the provider turns the SMS service off.

</p><p>And your landline phone only gets a busy signal because people are freaking out and overwhelm the Telephone system.

</p><p>And it's getting really annoying with those firetrucks and ambulances racing by as they try to sort out which fires are real, and which are false reports.

</p><p>...

</p><p>From a terrorist and a security analyst point of view, cyberterrorism can be a very effective tool for distilling fear and panic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the kid at the pizza place is going to say " I 'm sorry , our registers are down " .
After someone digs out a calculator they will start taking orders and making pies .
You 'll say get a calculator out , but they wo n't know the prices of anything because the LCD menuboards are out .
You would drive to a different store , but they someone hacked the OnStar network and bricked your car .
You would go out for a walk , but the TV weatherguy says there are multiple hurricane , tsunami , and tornado warnings .
This is odd because it is sunny outside and you live nowhere near a coast .
Then your power goes out .
And your cell phone is getting DOS 'd with text messages , until the provider turns the SMS service off .
And your landline phone only gets a busy signal because people are freaking out and overwhelm the Telephone system .
And it 's getting really annoying with those firetrucks and ambulances racing by as they try to sort out which fires are real , and which are false reports .
.. . From a terrorist and a security analyst point of view , cyberterrorism can be a very effective tool for distilling fear and panic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the kid at the pizza place is going to say "I'm sorry, our registers are down".
After someone digs out a calculator they will start taking orders and making pies.
You'll say get a calculator out, but they won't know the prices of anything because the LCD menuboards are out.
You would drive to a different store, but they someone hacked the OnStar network and bricked your car.
You would go out for a walk, but the TV weatherguy says there are multiple hurricane, tsunami, and tornado warnings.
This is odd because it is sunny outside and you live nowhere near a coast.
Then your power goes out.
And your cell phone is getting DOS'd with text messages, until the provider turns the SMS service off.
And your landline phone only gets a busy signal because people are freaking out and overwhelm the Telephone system.
And it's getting really annoying with those firetrucks and ambulances racing by as they try to sort out which fires are real, and which are false reports.
...

From a terrorist and a security analyst point of view, cyberterrorism can be a very effective tool for distilling fear and panic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545755</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?</title>
	<author>tburkhol</author>
	<datestamp>1246474080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its kind of a big deal when the U.S. military can't keep its data secure.</p></div><p>But what are the consequences of that failure?  Katrina crippled a 200 mile stretch of coastline, displaced millions of people - many for months, shut down 25\% of US oil and gas production for weeks, and resulted in billions in direct costs and who knows how much in indirect costs and lost productivity.  What's the scenario where cyber warfare does something on the same scale?  Or what's the scenario where a cyber attack sinks 18 warships?</p><p>I can understand where a cyber attack could black out the northeast for a few hours.  Even a day or two.  I can imagine, at just about the limit of my imagination, where a cyber attack might take over drones in the air long enough to deploy their ordnance inappropriately (although I don't think that's what people discussing "cyberterrorism" are talking about), but I can't imagine that happening for a second shift, as the first incident would certainly ground the entire drone fleet.</p><p>Big scary words.  "Cyber-Katrina"  "Virtual Perl Harbor"  I've never seen an actual scenario on that scale, and I don't think I will.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its kind of a big deal when the U.S. military ca n't keep its data secure.But what are the consequences of that failure ?
Katrina crippled a 200 mile stretch of coastline , displaced millions of people - many for months , shut down 25 \ % of US oil and gas production for weeks , and resulted in billions in direct costs and who knows how much in indirect costs and lost productivity .
What 's the scenario where cyber warfare does something on the same scale ?
Or what 's the scenario where a cyber attack sinks 18 warships ? I can understand where a cyber attack could black out the northeast for a few hours .
Even a day or two .
I can imagine , at just about the limit of my imagination , where a cyber attack might take over drones in the air long enough to deploy their ordnance inappropriately ( although I do n't think that 's what people discussing " cyberterrorism " are talking about ) , but I ca n't imagine that happening for a second shift , as the first incident would certainly ground the entire drone fleet.Big scary words .
" Cyber-Katrina " " Virtual Perl Harbor " I 've never seen an actual scenario on that scale , and I do n't think I will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its kind of a big deal when the U.S. military can't keep its data secure.But what are the consequences of that failure?
Katrina crippled a 200 mile stretch of coastline, displaced millions of people - many for months, shut down 25\% of US oil and gas production for weeks, and resulted in billions in direct costs and who knows how much in indirect costs and lost productivity.
What's the scenario where cyber warfare does something on the same scale?
Or what's the scenario where a cyber attack sinks 18 warships?I can understand where a cyber attack could black out the northeast for a few hours.
Even a day or two.
I can imagine, at just about the limit of my imagination, where a cyber attack might take over drones in the air long enough to deploy their ordnance inappropriately (although I don't think that's what people discussing "cyberterrorism" are talking about), but I can't imagine that happening for a second shift, as the first incident would certainly ground the entire drone fleet.Big scary words.
"Cyber-Katrina"  "Virtual Perl Harbor"  I've never seen an actual scenario on that scale, and I don't think I will.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28547421</id>
	<title>Homogenous networks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246479240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Homogenous networks are a big problem.  In English: most computers on most networks run exploitable versions of Windows.  The non-windows \% is about 10\% (mac + linux + sun + everything else).  Almost all networks are TCP/IP.  And almost all data these days is kept on computers connected to the internet.  And almost all online machines use a web browser with JavaScript, Java, and Flash turned on.</p><p>This means almost all computers on-line can be compromised through the same means, either remotely or thru a client-side script.  And no matter what you're looking for, it's probably on an internet-connected computer.  That's why this is happening.</p><p>Steps as simple as:<br>- mixed-networks: Macs + PC, Linux, though these can introduce more vectors for attack<br>- non-IP networks, like IPX<br>- air-gaps, meaning computers and networks not connected to the internet<br>- paper or CD copies locked in a cabinet</p><p>Not everything needs to be on a computer or on the internet.  We're are shooting ourselves in the foot by being so intellectually lazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Homogenous networks are a big problem .
In English : most computers on most networks run exploitable versions of Windows .
The non-windows \ % is about 10 \ % ( mac + linux + sun + everything else ) .
Almost all networks are TCP/IP .
And almost all data these days is kept on computers connected to the internet .
And almost all online machines use a web browser with JavaScript , Java , and Flash turned on.This means almost all computers on-line can be compromised through the same means , either remotely or thru a client-side script .
And no matter what you 're looking for , it 's probably on an internet-connected computer .
That 's why this is happening.Steps as simple as : - mixed-networks : Macs + PC , Linux , though these can introduce more vectors for attack- non-IP networks , like IPX- air-gaps , meaning computers and networks not connected to the internet- paper or CD copies locked in a cabinetNot everything needs to be on a computer or on the internet .
We 're are shooting ourselves in the foot by being so intellectually lazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Homogenous networks are a big problem.
In English: most computers on most networks run exploitable versions of Windows.
The non-windows \% is about 10\% (mac + linux + sun + everything else).
Almost all networks are TCP/IP.
And almost all data these days is kept on computers connected to the internet.
And almost all online machines use a web browser with JavaScript, Java, and Flash turned on.This means almost all computers on-line can be compromised through the same means, either remotely or thru a client-side script.
And no matter what you're looking for, it's probably on an internet-connected computer.
That's why this is happening.Steps as simple as:- mixed-networks: Macs + PC, Linux, though these can introduce more vectors for attack- non-IP networks, like IPX- air-gaps, meaning computers and networks not connected to the internet- paper or CD copies locked in a cabinetNot everything needs to be on a computer or on the internet.
We're are shooting ourselves in the foot by being so intellectually lazy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28559993</id>
	<title>Re:No governance required.</title>
	<author>jeff4747</author>
	<datestamp>1246558260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why should it suddenly become a government issue?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because more and more important stuff is being connected to the Internet.</p><p>Back when the web was a collection of our ugly home pages hand-coded in html-1.0 view with Mosaic, it really didn't matter if someone broke in to your site.</p><p>We don't live in that world anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should it suddenly become a government issue ? Because more and more important stuff is being connected to the Internet.Back when the web was a collection of our ugly home pages hand-coded in html-1.0 view with Mosaic , it really did n't matter if someone broke in to your site.We do n't live in that world anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should it suddenly become a government issue?Because more and more important stuff is being connected to the Internet.Back when the web was a collection of our ugly home pages hand-coded in html-1.0 view with Mosaic, it really didn't matter if someone broke in to your site.We don't live in that world anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28554197</id>
	<title>batty is in the eye of the beholder</title>
	<author>vaporland</author>
	<datestamp>1246473600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I've never experienced a terror attack personally, but I have been through the eye of more than one Category 5 hurricane, and I can assure you people go pretty batty over that. Besides, what would you call the election of Bush in 2004 if not batty behavior, given what an obvious fuckup he made of the Iraq war and plundering the US Treasury?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 've never experienced a terror attack personally , but I have been through the eye of more than one Category 5 hurricane , and I can assure you people go pretty batty over that .
Besides , what would you call the election of Bush in 2004 if not batty behavior , given what an obvious fuckup he made of the Iraq war and plundering the US Treasury ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I've never experienced a terror attack personally, but I have been through the eye of more than one Category 5 hurricane, and I can assure you people go pretty batty over that.
Besides, what would you call the election of Bush in 2004 if not batty behavior, given what an obvious fuckup he made of the Iraq war and plundering the US Treasury?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28553775</id>
	<title>install a password</title>
	<author>chris.evans</author>
	<datestamp>1246467600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and you will be safe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-0 I promise... but I will have the password list and cracker.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and you will be safe : -0 I promise... but I will have the password list and cracker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and you will be safe :-0 I promise... but I will have the password list and cracker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544071</id>
	<title>Think of the children, goddamnit!</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1246469100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, seriously?  Journalists and other people with something to gain from it take a sensationalist view point and run with it?</p><p>Holy crap, really?  They do that?  Huh.</p><p>Oh well.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/eats some Cheetos.  What's on the tube?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , seriously ?
Journalists and other people with something to gain from it take a sensationalist view point and run with it ? Holy crap , really ?
They do that ?
Huh.Oh well .
/eats some Cheetos .
What 's on the tube ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, seriously?
Journalists and other people with something to gain from it take a sensationalist view point and run with it?Holy crap, really?
They do that?
Huh.Oh well.
/eats some Cheetos.
What's on the tube?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545239</id>
	<title>Depends on your agenda</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1246472520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Much of the data are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies</p></div><p>Bush wanted to know who was moving porn in cyberspace. Obama wants to know who's moving cash. Both are legitimate concerns on the surface, but the searches will suffer from many false positives. Most porn doesn't involve kids or coerced victims. Likewise, the amount of money needed to finance another 9/11 could easily moved down below the noise level of AIG's CDS operations. While law enforcement is looking for the rare needle in each haystack, they'll be motivated to take action on the other stuff they find. Just so their supporters see that we're getting our money's woth out of the operation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Much of the data are gathered by ultra-secretive government agenciesBush wanted to know who was moving porn in cyberspace .
Obama wants to know who 's moving cash .
Both are legitimate concerns on the surface , but the searches will suffer from many false positives .
Most porn does n't involve kids or coerced victims .
Likewise , the amount of money needed to finance another 9/11 could easily moved down below the noise level of AIG 's CDS operations .
While law enforcement is looking for the rare needle in each haystack , they 'll be motivated to take action on the other stuff they find .
Just so their supporters see that we 're getting our money 's woth out of the operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much of the data are gathered by ultra-secretive government agenciesBush wanted to know who was moving porn in cyberspace.
Obama wants to know who's moving cash.
Both are legitimate concerns on the surface, but the searches will suffer from many false positives.
Most porn doesn't involve kids or coerced victims.
Likewise, the amount of money needed to finance another 9/11 could easily moved down below the noise level of AIG's CDS operations.
While law enforcement is looking for the rare needle in each haystack, they'll be motivated to take action on the other stuff they find.
Just so their supporters see that we're getting our money's woth out of the operation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545265</id>
	<title>Re:Elevating a simple scenario to a movement</title>
	<author>jackbird</author>
	<datestamp>1246472580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about an attack that corrupts over a period of months, then wipes out, a state EBT/food stamp database?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about an attack that corrupts over a period of months , then wipes out , a state EBT/food stamp database ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about an attack that corrupts over a period of months, then wipes out, a state EBT/food stamp database?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544075</id>
	<title>1 Billion Angry Chinese Cant be Wrong!!</title>
	<author>JesterUSCG</author>
	<datestamp>1246469100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If probed...  Should we probe back!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If probed... Should we probe back !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If probed...  Should we probe back!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546887</id>
	<title>Organizations vs individuals</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1246477440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The danger/damage scales with the size of the attacker? Internet (or at least, some monocultures on it) is so vulnerable that single individuals alone did a lot of damage in the past. And is so big the hole that individuals and very small organizations are swarming to get a share of the cake. Spam, small/medium botnets, phishing, etc are doing pretty well without implying something big behind, and in a way that could be hard to get the people behind it, at least with current freedom, rights to privacy and so on.<br><br>Before worrying about the possibility that big organizations, governments, etc trying to do damage you must go to the small fishes, and with current technology you probably can't, at least without harming a lot freedom and privacy in internet worldwide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The danger/damage scales with the size of the attacker ?
Internet ( or at least , some monocultures on it ) is so vulnerable that single individuals alone did a lot of damage in the past .
And is so big the hole that individuals and very small organizations are swarming to get a share of the cake .
Spam , small/medium botnets , phishing , etc are doing pretty well without implying something big behind , and in a way that could be hard to get the people behind it , at least with current freedom , rights to privacy and so on.Before worrying about the possibility that big organizations , governments , etc trying to do damage you must go to the small fishes , and with current technology you probably ca n't , at least without harming a lot freedom and privacy in internet worldwide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The danger/damage scales with the size of the attacker?
Internet (or at least, some monocultures on it) is so vulnerable that single individuals alone did a lot of damage in the past.
And is so big the hole that individuals and very small organizations are swarming to get a share of the cake.
Spam, small/medium botnets, phishing, etc are doing pretty well without implying something big behind, and in a way that could be hard to get the people behind it, at least with current freedom, rights to privacy and so on.Before worrying about the possibility that big organizations, governments, etc trying to do damage you must go to the small fishes, and with current technology you probably can't, at least without harming a lot freedom and privacy in internet worldwide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545313</id>
	<title>Re:No "cyberwarriors needed", first round</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1246472700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not a nameless or faceless "terrorist" group that is costing our businesses, shutting down our infrastructure, tangling our air traffic control, our power grid, or our hospitals. The people promoting Windows and Microsoft technologies have real names and faces and walk among us every day. Take them out and we've won the first round. It could be as simple as organizing a large scale round up under the RICO Act [cornell.edu].</p></div><p>
Haven't you been paying attention.  These nameless faceless people have lots of money and political clout.  So good luck getting the government or getting the main stream to help resolve this issue.<br> <br>
By the way, I think maybe your tinfoil is wrapped to tight.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a nameless or faceless " terrorist " group that is costing our businesses , shutting down our infrastructure , tangling our air traffic control , our power grid , or our hospitals .
The people promoting Windows and Microsoft technologies have real names and faces and walk among us every day .
Take them out and we 've won the first round .
It could be as simple as organizing a large scale round up under the RICO Act [ cornell.edu ] .
Have n't you been paying attention .
These nameless faceless people have lots of money and political clout .
So good luck getting the government or getting the main stream to help resolve this issue .
By the way , I think maybe your tinfoil is wrapped to tight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a nameless or faceless "terrorist" group that is costing our businesses, shutting down our infrastructure, tangling our air traffic control, our power grid, or our hospitals.
The people promoting Windows and Microsoft technologies have real names and faces and walk among us every day.
Take them out and we've won the first round.
It could be as simple as organizing a large scale round up under the RICO Act [cornell.edu].
Haven't you been paying attention.
These nameless faceless people have lots of money and political clout.
So good luck getting the government or getting the main stream to help resolve this issue.
By the way, I think maybe your tinfoil is wrapped to tight.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28547833</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1246480560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Its kind of a big deal when the U.S. military can't keep its data secure.</i> <br> <br>
"Having the plans" is not enough. You have to have people able to interpret them and put them into action. Critical elements are often left out of engineering documentation and there's also always that stuff which was figured-out on the shop floor and never written down.<br> <br>
Slashdot's comments are frequently amusing, as armchair experts bolstered by 30 second's worth of Google search know everything. And are smug in their ignorance. They're probably the type that eventually gets into politics for all the wrong reasons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its kind of a big deal when the U.S. military ca n't keep its data secure .
" Having the plans " is not enough .
You have to have people able to interpret them and put them into action .
Critical elements are often left out of engineering documentation and there 's also always that stuff which was figured-out on the shop floor and never written down .
Slashdot 's comments are frequently amusing , as armchair experts bolstered by 30 second 's worth of Google search know everything .
And are smug in their ignorance .
They 're probably the type that eventually gets into politics for all the wrong reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its kind of a big deal when the U.S. military can't keep its data secure.
"Having the plans" is not enough.
You have to have people able to interpret them and put them into action.
Critical elements are often left out of engineering documentation and there's also always that stuff which was figured-out on the shop floor and never written down.
Slashdot's comments are frequently amusing, as armchair experts bolstered by 30 second's worth of Google search know everything.
And are smug in their ignorance.
They're probably the type that eventually gets into politics for all the wrong reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544831</id>
	<title>Re:Elevating a simple scenario to a movement</title>
	<author>grexluporum</author>
	<datestamp>1246471320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really? Now go unplug your refrigerator, and turn off your lights.

I'm not saying that this is likely to happen. Just that, yes, references to Pearl Harbor or Katrina are valid. How likely that Pearl Harbor or Katrina is going to happen is another question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Now go unplug your refrigerator , and turn off your lights .
I 'm not saying that this is likely to happen .
Just that , yes , references to Pearl Harbor or Katrina are valid .
How likely that Pearl Harbor or Katrina is going to happen is another question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Now go unplug your refrigerator, and turn off your lights.
I'm not saying that this is likely to happen.
Just that, yes, references to Pearl Harbor or Katrina are valid.
How likely that Pearl Harbor or Katrina is going to happen is another question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545395</id>
	<title>Opposite of NSA</title>
	<author>get\_your\_guns</author>
	<datestamp>1246472880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NSA has the computing power to monitor all incoming threats to the US that deals with anything electronic or electrical signal and other techniques used. They can not legally use these techniques looking into the US, if you believe the television and news papers. Now, I can see how many<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'s will have their panties riding their ass when a new agency can legally look at what happens on the wires inside the US. They will probably find that many of the robots that are hitting US public IP space everyday from overseas locations are being developed and controlled (and even sold) by people here in the US. The US is almost completely dependent on the internet in one way or another and I can fully understand the need for a new command to monitor and react to these increasing threats to it's traffic on the inside of the US borders. For those that think it would be a wonderful day when the internet shuts down and they can walk down the street to buy a pizza, this would last about a day, then all the stores and restaurants would shut down because they could not resupply, get trucks on the road if they could get their orders in, or even pay their people so they keep showing up for work. What a wonderful world that would be...</htmltext>
<tokenext>NSA has the computing power to monitor all incoming threats to the US that deals with anything electronic or electrical signal and other techniques used .
They can not legally use these techniques looking into the US , if you believe the television and news papers .
Now , I can see how many / .
's will have their panties riding their ass when a new agency can legally look at what happens on the wires inside the US .
They will probably find that many of the robots that are hitting US public IP space everyday from overseas locations are being developed and controlled ( and even sold ) by people here in the US .
The US is almost completely dependent on the internet in one way or another and I can fully understand the need for a new command to monitor and react to these increasing threats to it 's traffic on the inside of the US borders .
For those that think it would be a wonderful day when the internet shuts down and they can walk down the street to buy a pizza , this would last about a day , then all the stores and restaurants would shut down because they could not resupply , get trucks on the road if they could get their orders in , or even pay their people so they keep showing up for work .
What a wonderful world that would be.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NSA has the computing power to monitor all incoming threats to the US that deals with anything electronic or electrical signal and other techniques used.
They can not legally use these techniques looking into the US, if you believe the television and news papers.
Now, I can see how many /.
's will have their panties riding their ass when a new agency can legally look at what happens on the wires inside the US.
They will probably find that many of the robots that are hitting US public IP space everyday from overseas locations are being developed and controlled (and even sold) by people here in the US.
The US is almost completely dependent on the internet in one way or another and I can fully understand the need for a new command to monitor and react to these increasing threats to it's traffic on the inside of the US borders.
For those that think it would be a wonderful day when the internet shuts down and they can walk down the street to buy a pizza, this would last about a day, then all the stores and restaurants would shut down because they could not resupply, get trucks on the road if they could get their orders in, or even pay their people so they keep showing up for work.
What a wonderful world that would be...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28553215</id>
	<title>Re:You're wrong.</title>
	<author>twostix</author>
	<datestamp>1246462020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm no.  You are the person that this articles talks about.  It's in your interest to over hype the risk and given it's your area you of course believe it's the most important thing in the world.</p><p>A single individual with a $500 gas axe  from the local hardware store and a 4x4 could cut the power to any major city for weeks in a few hours simply by taking the bottoms out of remote high voltage power lines that feed most cities.</p><p>A group of individuals could cut power for months.</p><p>Or how about dumping a few thousand litres of arsenic in the local water supply?  Or hell, just blowing up the water pipes?</p><p>That would be far worse than anything computer related.</p><p>Yet we don't hear about the deadly danger posed by the millions of kilometres of unguarded high voltage power lines across every country or the unguarded dams or anything else, yet in war these are the first targets for sabotage.</p><p>What good are your computers without power?</p><p>A bit of perspective is in order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm no .
You are the person that this articles talks about .
It 's in your interest to over hype the risk and given it 's your area you of course believe it 's the most important thing in the world.A single individual with a $ 500 gas axe from the local hardware store and a 4x4 could cut the power to any major city for weeks in a few hours simply by taking the bottoms out of remote high voltage power lines that feed most cities.A group of individuals could cut power for months.Or how about dumping a few thousand litres of arsenic in the local water supply ?
Or hell , just blowing up the water pipes ? That would be far worse than anything computer related.Yet we do n't hear about the deadly danger posed by the millions of kilometres of unguarded high voltage power lines across every country or the unguarded dams or anything else , yet in war these are the first targets for sabotage.What good are your computers without power ? A bit of perspective is in order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm no.
You are the person that this articles talks about.
It's in your interest to over hype the risk and given it's your area you of course believe it's the most important thing in the world.A single individual with a $500 gas axe  from the local hardware store and a 4x4 could cut the power to any major city for weeks in a few hours simply by taking the bottoms out of remote high voltage power lines that feed most cities.A group of individuals could cut power for months.Or how about dumping a few thousand litres of arsenic in the local water supply?
Or hell, just blowing up the water pipes?That would be far worse than anything computer related.Yet we don't hear about the deadly danger posed by the millions of kilometres of unguarded high voltage power lines across every country or the unguarded dams or anything else, yet in war these are the first targets for sabotage.What good are your computers without power?A bit of perspective is in order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28551531</id>
	<title>Re:Are you kidding?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246450500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most of the files broken into focused on the design and performance statistics of the fighter, as well as its electronic systems, officials said. The information could be used to make the plane easier to fight or defend against.<br>However, the officials insisted that none of the information accessed was highly sensitive data.<br>The plane uses stealth and other highly sensitive electronic equipment, but it does not appear that information on those systems was compromised, because it is stored on computers that are not connected to the Internet, according to the defense officials.</p></div><p>I will bet you a good pile of money that the files which WERE "compromised" contained carefully polluted data. They want the hackers to think they got away with a good haul, when they probably were, in all reality, raiding a honey pot. This info will then be used by foreign agencies to help design their defense/intrusion/detection systems... and then those systems will completely under or over-estimate the capability of the actual craft.</p><p>This is one of the oldest games in the espionage book.</p><p>The important point is- notice that they straight up admit the really secret stuff isn't even online. There IS a reason why the other stuff WAS accessible- it was intended to be stolen.</p><p>It's also highly likely that this is part of a Canary Trap type operation, which is a prettty simply formula. Give "sensitive" documents/data to several people, each one gets a version that is slightly different in a very subtle fashion. When the data gets leaked, or more importantly, when OUR spies in the foreign country see that data come over, we can tell who leaked it, when, and where. And then feed them even more bogus data.</p><p>But go ahead- believe everything you see in the news. Just don't be surprised when it all ends up being completely wrong. This wouldn't be the first time that CNN was directly implicit in lying to the public on behalf of the US military... just look at the "embedded reporters" during the Gulf War.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the files broken into focused on the design and performance statistics of the fighter , as well as its electronic systems , officials said .
The information could be used to make the plane easier to fight or defend against.However , the officials insisted that none of the information accessed was highly sensitive data.The plane uses stealth and other highly sensitive electronic equipment , but it does not appear that information on those systems was compromised , because it is stored on computers that are not connected to the Internet , according to the defense officials.I will bet you a good pile of money that the files which WERE " compromised " contained carefully polluted data .
They want the hackers to think they got away with a good haul , when they probably were , in all reality , raiding a honey pot .
This info will then be used by foreign agencies to help design their defense/intrusion/detection systems... and then those systems will completely under or over-estimate the capability of the actual craft.This is one of the oldest games in the espionage book.The important point is- notice that they straight up admit the really secret stuff is n't even online .
There IS a reason why the other stuff WAS accessible- it was intended to be stolen.It 's also highly likely that this is part of a Canary Trap type operation , which is a prettty simply formula .
Give " sensitive " documents/data to several people , each one gets a version that is slightly different in a very subtle fashion .
When the data gets leaked , or more importantly , when OUR spies in the foreign country see that data come over , we can tell who leaked it , when , and where .
And then feed them even more bogus data.But go ahead- believe everything you see in the news .
Just do n't be surprised when it all ends up being completely wrong .
This would n't be the first time that CNN was directly implicit in lying to the public on behalf of the US military... just look at the " embedded reporters " during the Gulf War .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the files broken into focused on the design and performance statistics of the fighter, as well as its electronic systems, officials said.
The information could be used to make the plane easier to fight or defend against.However, the officials insisted that none of the information accessed was highly sensitive data.The plane uses stealth and other highly sensitive electronic equipment, but it does not appear that information on those systems was compromised, because it is stored on computers that are not connected to the Internet, according to the defense officials.I will bet you a good pile of money that the files which WERE "compromised" contained carefully polluted data.
They want the hackers to think they got away with a good haul, when they probably were, in all reality, raiding a honey pot.
This info will then be used by foreign agencies to help design their defense/intrusion/detection systems... and then those systems will completely under or over-estimate the capability of the actual craft.This is one of the oldest games in the espionage book.The important point is- notice that they straight up admit the really secret stuff isn't even online.
There IS a reason why the other stuff WAS accessible- it was intended to be stolen.It's also highly likely that this is part of a Canary Trap type operation, which is a prettty simply formula.
Give "sensitive" documents/data to several people, each one gets a version that is slightly different in a very subtle fashion.
When the data gets leaked, or more importantly, when OUR spies in the foreign country see that data come over, we can tell who leaked it, when, and where.
And then feed them even more bogus data.But go ahead- believe everything you see in the news.
Just don't be surprised when it all ends up being completely wrong.
This wouldn't be the first time that CNN was directly implicit in lying to the public on behalf of the US military... just look at the "embedded reporters" during the Gulf War.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28554133</id>
	<title>The so called black hats want their sheep</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1246473000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the ecosystem of good/bad/profit/free/loss the people who make their lively hood from a system are those that will defend it without threat or coercion. Leave the black hats who earn their living off the weak and stupid to protect the system to their benefit with careful nudging when they get out of line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the ecosystem of good/bad/profit/free/loss the people who make their lively hood from a system are those that will defend it without threat or coercion .
Leave the black hats who earn their living off the weak and stupid to protect the system to their benefit with careful nudging when they get out of line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the ecosystem of good/bad/profit/free/loss the people who make their lively hood from a system are those that will defend it without threat or coercion.
Leave the black hats who earn their living off the weak and stupid to protect the system to their benefit with careful nudging when they get out of line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28549717</id>
	<title>Re:Elevating a simple scenario to a movement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246442880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh...  Now... What would you do if your power was out?  Not for a couple of days.  Not for a couple of weeks.  MONTHS.</p><p>There's aspects of the grid that the gainsayers are not talking about and the doomsayers are losing in the hype, desensitizing people to the real risks.  There's pieces that if they're torched off in an attack (and it's very possible right at the moment under the right circumstances"...) that you'll be waiting as much as 6-12 months to replace the critical part.  Generators tied to turbines- overload the system in the right way (and it's not as hard as you'd think...) and you burn them up.  Some of the "right" ways are accessible to people with the right black-hat skillsets- all they need is a motive to do it.</p><p>We don't make those generator models here in the States anymore- they're built in Europe where it was cheaper to do so.  There's a 6-12 month lead time on delivery for most of the models in question as they've got to be built upon order.</p><p>To say "Cyber Perl Harbor" or "Cyber Katrina" is silly.<br>To say what you're claiming is equally so for opposite reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh... Now... What would you do if your power was out ?
Not for a couple of days .
Not for a couple of weeks .
MONTHS.There 's aspects of the grid that the gainsayers are not talking about and the doomsayers are losing in the hype , desensitizing people to the real risks .
There 's pieces that if they 're torched off in an attack ( and it 's very possible right at the moment under the right circumstances " ... ) that you 'll be waiting as much as 6-12 months to replace the critical part .
Generators tied to turbines- overload the system in the right way ( and it 's not as hard as you 'd think... ) and you burn them up .
Some of the " right " ways are accessible to people with the right black-hat skillsets- all they need is a motive to do it.We do n't make those generator models here in the States anymore- they 're built in Europe where it was cheaper to do so .
There 's a 6-12 month lead time on delivery for most of the models in question as they 've got to be built upon order.To say " Cyber Perl Harbor " or " Cyber Katrina " is silly.To say what you 're claiming is equally so for opposite reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh...  Now... What would you do if your power was out?
Not for a couple of days.
Not for a couple of weeks.
MONTHS.There's aspects of the grid that the gainsayers are not talking about and the doomsayers are losing in the hype, desensitizing people to the real risks.
There's pieces that if they're torched off in an attack (and it's very possible right at the moment under the right circumstances"...) that you'll be waiting as much as 6-12 months to replace the critical part.
Generators tied to turbines- overload the system in the right way (and it's not as hard as you'd think...) and you burn them up.
Some of the "right" ways are accessible to people with the right black-hat skillsets- all they need is a motive to do it.We don't make those generator models here in the States anymore- they're built in Europe where it was cheaper to do so.
There's a 6-12 month lead time on delivery for most of the models in question as they've got to be built upon order.To say "Cyber Perl Harbor" or "Cyber Katrina" is silly.To say what you're claiming is equally so for opposite reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28555229</id>
	<title>They get what they ask for</title>
	<author>Optimus6128</author>
	<datestamp>1246528740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe all the fuzz behind "hackers" is overrated but I'd like that something could wipe out all this leet hax0r, viruz spread, spam, junk on the web trends. Maybe particular measures won't do anything and we should educate people. Many young people are more attracted by the "hacker" breaking into networks myth than doing something creative in their computer. A wrong in my opinion and destructive trend is in the minds of people.</p><p>I am using the term "hacker" here in quotes to mean the new definition. As everyone understands it. I wish 99\% of the people were talking about pioneer programmers and not cyberanarchists when using the term. And I wish they'd respect creativity on a computer and not cyber attacks without a true reason. But the former does not sounds "cool" to them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>If there are government measures towards cyberattacks today it's because of the young people thinking it's cool and respected to bring mess to the internet, not the mass media. The so called "hackers" (with the new definition always) are preserving the bad notion and wrong ethics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe all the fuzz behind " hackers " is overrated but I 'd like that something could wipe out all this leet hax0r , viruz spread , spam , junk on the web trends .
Maybe particular measures wo n't do anything and we should educate people .
Many young people are more attracted by the " hacker " breaking into networks myth than doing something creative in their computer .
A wrong in my opinion and destructive trend is in the minds of people.I am using the term " hacker " here in quotes to mean the new definition .
As everyone understands it .
I wish 99 \ % of the people were talking about pioneer programmers and not cyberanarchists when using the term .
And I wish they 'd respect creativity on a computer and not cyber attacks without a true reason .
But the former does not sounds " cool " to them : PIf there are government measures towards cyberattacks today it 's because of the young people thinking it 's cool and respected to bring mess to the internet , not the mass media .
The so called " hackers " ( with the new definition always ) are preserving the bad notion and wrong ethics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe all the fuzz behind "hackers" is overrated but I'd like that something could wipe out all this leet hax0r, viruz spread, spam, junk on the web trends.
Maybe particular measures won't do anything and we should educate people.
Many young people are more attracted by the "hacker" breaking into networks myth than doing something creative in their computer.
A wrong in my opinion and destructive trend is in the minds of people.I am using the term "hacker" here in quotes to mean the new definition.
As everyone understands it.
I wish 99\% of the people were talking about pioneer programmers and not cyberanarchists when using the term.
And I wish they'd respect creativity on a computer and not cyber attacks without a true reason.
But the former does not sounds "cool" to them :PIf there are government measures towards cyberattacks today it's because of the young people thinking it's cool and respected to bring mess to the internet, not the mass media.
The so called "hackers" (with the new definition always) are preserving the bad notion and wrong ethics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544691</id>
	<title>Cyber Propaganda:  +1, Helpful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246470900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>along with the vacuous threat about a North Korean missile hurting Hawaii. Please note that the U.S. based<br>news machines did not echo a threat to the area EAST of Hawaii which would include the continental U.S.</p><p>In perspective, the cyber "threat" should be the least of  Obama's concerns.  If Obama does not get the U.S. Congress to pass a government-sponsored health care bill, he WILL lose the 2012 presidential race because of the economic disaadvantage the U.S. private health care system poses for ALL U.S.ian companies competing against the rest of the OECD countries.</p><p>With Obama's failure to implement a government run health care system, the Republican-Democrat Party can bathe in the victory of completing Newt Gingrich's Contract ON America.</p><p>Yours In Socialism,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>along with the vacuous threat about a North Korean missile hurting Hawaii .
Please note that the U.S. basednews machines did not echo a threat to the area EAST of Hawaii which would include the continental U.S.In perspective , the cyber " threat " should be the least of Obama 's concerns .
If Obama does not get the U.S. Congress to pass a government-sponsored health care bill , he WILL lose the 2012 presidential race because of the economic disaadvantage the U.S. private health care system poses for ALL U.S.ian companies competing against the rest of the OECD countries.With Obama 's failure to implement a government run health care system , the Republican-Democrat Party can bathe in the victory of completing Newt Gingrich 's Contract ON America.Yours In Socialism,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>along with the vacuous threat about a North Korean missile hurting Hawaii.
Please note that the U.S. basednews machines did not echo a threat to the area EAST of Hawaii which would include the continental U.S.In perspective, the cyber "threat" should be the least of  Obama's concerns.
If Obama does not get the U.S. Congress to pass a government-sponsored health care bill, he WILL lose the 2012 presidential race because of the economic disaadvantage the U.S. private health care system poses for ALL U.S.ian companies competing against the rest of the OECD countries.With Obama's failure to implement a government run health care system, the Republican-Democrat Party can bathe in the victory of completing Newt Gingrich's Contract ON America.Yours In Socialism,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544357</id>
	<title>No governance required.</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1246469880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Internet security has been an issue ever since the beginning and we have been handeling it just fine. Why should it suddenly become a government issue?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet security has been an issue ever since the beginning and we have been handeling it just fine .
Why should it suddenly become a government issue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet security has been an issue ever since the beginning and we have been handeling it just fine.
Why should it suddenly become a government issue?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544795</id>
	<title>The Hysteria of FILL-IN-THE-BLANK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246471200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some ill defined crisis exists that requires more power given to the feds by passing legislation that NO ONE HAS EVEN READ.</p><p>Terrorism, economic collapse, global warming, etc.</p><p>The current bunch has taken the baton from their historic brotherhood. And if you can't gin up a crisis, you can send out your secret police to manufacture a real crisis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some ill defined crisis exists that requires more power given to the feds by passing legislation that NO ONE HAS EVEN READ.Terrorism , economic collapse , global warming , etc.The current bunch has taken the baton from their historic brotherhood .
And if you ca n't gin up a crisis , you can send out your secret police to manufacture a real crisis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some ill defined crisis exists that requires more power given to the feds by passing legislation that NO ONE HAS EVEN READ.Terrorism, economic collapse, global warming, etc.The current bunch has taken the baton from their historic brotherhood.
And if you can't gin up a crisis, you can send out your secret police to manufacture a real crisis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545489</id>
	<title>But what role is there for the Government?</title>
	<author>paulsnx2</author>
	<datestamp>1246473240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely, spam and malware cost government and companies millions if not billions of dollars.  But what is the Government going to do?</p><p>Every server placed on the Internet is exposed to traffic.  If we try and shape and filter that traffic, we can certainly reduce spam and such, but at the cost to everyone.  What does Obama think he is going to do to stop a "Cyber Pearl Harbor"?  filter all traffic over the net?  Restrict what servers can host what applications?  Control what applications people install and use?</p><p>This so reminds me back when I was a freshmen in college, and I heard about all the "Languages" people used to program computers (the main one being a mainframe in the center of campus).  I saw people carrying around boxes of cards, and wondered about computer "languages" and how they worked.</p><p>Well the same thing is happening about "cyber attacks" and such.  There are problems, but no matter what we do to solve them, they must be solved system by system, user by user, server by server, application by application, service by service.  The government can't do anything to help except to mandate standards.  But that is the worst possible thing we could do.  Standards necessarily mean that we replicate the same vulerabilities everywhere.  Even if it takes 1000 x the effort to take advantage of a vulnerability in standard system, by definition everyone that follows that standard is vulnerable.  We are  far better off with diversity, where there are millions of more vulerabilities but none of them common to many applications and systems then we are having the same ones.</p><p>No mystery here.  It is called genetic diversity in nature.  A species without it dies.</p><p>But most likely, if we get anything from Obama's efforts, killing off diversity will be result.  And that will be bad for us all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely , spam and malware cost government and companies millions if not billions of dollars .
But what is the Government going to do ? Every server placed on the Internet is exposed to traffic .
If we try and shape and filter that traffic , we can certainly reduce spam and such , but at the cost to everyone .
What does Obama think he is going to do to stop a " Cyber Pearl Harbor " ?
filter all traffic over the net ?
Restrict what servers can host what applications ?
Control what applications people install and use ? This so reminds me back when I was a freshmen in college , and I heard about all the " Languages " people used to program computers ( the main one being a mainframe in the center of campus ) .
I saw people carrying around boxes of cards , and wondered about computer " languages " and how they worked.Well the same thing is happening about " cyber attacks " and such .
There are problems , but no matter what we do to solve them , they must be solved system by system , user by user , server by server , application by application , service by service .
The government ca n't do anything to help except to mandate standards .
But that is the worst possible thing we could do .
Standards necessarily mean that we replicate the same vulerabilities everywhere .
Even if it takes 1000 x the effort to take advantage of a vulnerability in standard system , by definition everyone that follows that standard is vulnerable .
We are far better off with diversity , where there are millions of more vulerabilities but none of them common to many applications and systems then we are having the same ones.No mystery here .
It is called genetic diversity in nature .
A species without it dies.But most likely , if we get anything from Obama 's efforts , killing off diversity will be result .
And that will be bad for us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely, spam and malware cost government and companies millions if not billions of dollars.
But what is the Government going to do?Every server placed on the Internet is exposed to traffic.
If we try and shape and filter that traffic, we can certainly reduce spam and such, but at the cost to everyone.
What does Obama think he is going to do to stop a "Cyber Pearl Harbor"?
filter all traffic over the net?
Restrict what servers can host what applications?
Control what applications people install and use?This so reminds me back when I was a freshmen in college, and I heard about all the "Languages" people used to program computers (the main one being a mainframe in the center of campus).
I saw people carrying around boxes of cards, and wondered about computer "languages" and how they worked.Well the same thing is happening about "cyber attacks" and such.
There are problems, but no matter what we do to solve them, they must be solved system by system, user by user, server by server, application by application, service by service.
The government can't do anything to help except to mandate standards.
But that is the worst possible thing we could do.
Standards necessarily mean that we replicate the same vulerabilities everywhere.
Even if it takes 1000 x the effort to take advantage of a vulnerability in standard system, by definition everyone that follows that standard is vulnerable.
We are  far better off with diversity, where there are millions of more vulerabilities but none of them common to many applications and systems then we are having the same ones.No mystery here.
It is called genetic diversity in nature.
A species without it dies.But most likely, if we get anything from Obama's efforts, killing off diversity will be result.
And that will be bad for us all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546129</id>
	<title>You must mean this data</title>
	<author>FriendlyLurker</author>
	<datestamp>1246475100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>plans for the JSF fighter were <b>sold</b>.</p></div><p>Fixed that for you. Seriously, you must mean <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=selling+to+chinese+military+secrets" title="google.com">ALL THIS DATA</a> [google.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>plans for the JSF fighter were sold.Fixed that for you .
Seriously , you must mean ALL THIS DATA [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>plans for the JSF fighter were sold.Fixed that for you.
Seriously, you must mean ALL THIS DATA [google.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545325</id>
	<title>Perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all like a series of tubes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all like a series of tubes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all like a series of tubes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28548919</id>
	<title>Sgt. Doom I hope YOU &amp; FriendlyLurker aren't r</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246440600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man... in keeping with what sgt. doom said?</p><p>I hope he's NOT right!</p><p>(AND, that those of us interested in helping others in this area (computer security) + learning MORE about it, ourselves, aren't just "playig into the hands" of the "wannabe ruling elite" etc. et al... who DO use "fear" &amp; the "hype of fear" to create more "controls")</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Of course, one also has to realize, that the "hacker/cracker" types out there, right now, profiting via their bogus actions, would say exactly what you BOTH have said, &amp; sell it as "fear the hand of gov't. &amp; the 'ruling powers that be' and their psychological + other forms of control", as well... hard to decide WHICH view to take &amp; hold as "true" really, imo @ least... apk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man... in keeping with what sgt .
doom said ? I hope he 's NOT right !
( AND , that those of us interested in helping others in this area ( computer security ) + learning MORE about it , ourselves , are n't just " playig into the hands " of the " wannabe ruling elite " etc .
et al... who DO use " fear " &amp; the " hype of fear " to create more " controls " ) APKP.S. = &gt; Of course , one also has to realize , that the " hacker/cracker " types out there , right now , profiting via their bogus actions , would say exactly what you BOTH have said , &amp; sell it as " fear the hand of gov't .
&amp; the 'ruling powers that be ' and their psychological + other forms of control " , as well... hard to decide WHICH view to take &amp; hold as " true " really , imo @ least... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man... in keeping with what sgt.
doom said?I hope he's NOT right!
(AND, that those of us interested in helping others in this area (computer security) + learning MORE about it, ourselves, aren't just "playig into the hands" of the "wannabe ruling elite" etc.
et al... who DO use "fear" &amp; the "hype of fear" to create more "controls")APKP.S.=&gt; Of course, one also has to realize, that the "hacker/cracker" types out there, right now, profiting via their bogus actions, would say exactly what you BOTH have said, &amp; sell it as "fear the hand of gov't.
&amp; the 'ruling powers that be' and their psychological + other forms of control", as well... hard to decide WHICH view to take &amp; hold as "true" really, imo @ least... apk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544487</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance Leads to Fear Leads to Profit</title>
	<author>FriendlyLurker</author>
	<datestamp>1246470240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention that in the process of securing against the "cyber-terrorism" <a href="bogeyman" title="slashdot.org">bogeyman</a> [slashdot.org], an big added benefit for ruling elites will be removing net anonymity and related speech in the name of national security, bringing all those blogs and uncontrollable information channels under heel in a more hierarchical system - or at least more accountable to an "authorized views", type system - ("Take down that anti-war protest site and uncensored video footage - preempt information warfare against our war, sir") and of course, only authorized p2p channels and protocols allowed in this future we are manufacturing, thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that in the process of securing against the " cyber-terrorism " bogeyman [ slashdot.org ] , an big added benefit for ruling elites will be removing net anonymity and related speech in the name of national security , bringing all those blogs and uncontrollable information channels under heel in a more hierarchical system - or at least more accountable to an " authorized views " , type system - ( " Take down that anti-war protest site and uncensored video footage - preempt information warfare against our war , sir " ) and of course , only authorized p2p channels and protocols allowed in this future we are manufacturing , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that in the process of securing against the "cyber-terrorism" bogeyman [slashdot.org], an big added benefit for ruling elites will be removing net anonymity and related speech in the name of national security, bringing all those blogs and uncontrollable information channels under heel in a more hierarchical system - or at least more accountable to an "authorized views", type system - ("Take down that anti-war protest site and uncensored video footage - preempt information warfare against our war, sir") and of course, only authorized p2p channels and protocols allowed in this future we are manufacturing, thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545555</id>
	<title>You're wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246473360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's fear, yes. But it is extremely well-justified fear.</p><p>I do penetration tests for large companies. It's bad. Everywhere. The only reason penetration tests are ever unsuccessful is when the tester's hands are tied. Attacker's hands are not tied. Furthermore, denial-of-service flaws are universally ignored because information disclosure is considered a higher priority, and most companies have their hands full dealing with those flaws.</p><p>So let me make this as clear as possible: A single individual could shut down pretty much any large company. A group of individuals (say, from a hostile government) could halt operations in multiple simultaneous companies. Target a few large supply-chain management companies and a few large payment-processing/banking companies, and it would be relatively easy to shut down the economy for a while.</p><p>That means food rots on delivery trucks while paychecks stop flowing to employees. And don't think we will all switch over to doing things by hand during such an attack. The infrastructure to do so has been dismantled. We are entirely dependent on digital transactions these days.</p><p>Why hasn't such an attack happened? Is the probability really "low" as you suggest? It's just a matter of motivation. There isn't much profit in doing such a (tedious) thing for the eastern-european hacker crime groups, nor for the bored teenagers. There is more profitable, lower-hanging fruit. But if we went to war with a sophisticated nation, the motivations are entirely different. Widespread DoS combined with targeted database corruption would do much more damage to the economy (that thing that allows us to have the best military) than similarly-funded missile strikes.</p><p>Ignore the sound-bites security companies feed the media, but don't ignore the problem. This is perhaps the weakest part of our nation's defense infrastructure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fear , yes .
But it is extremely well-justified fear.I do penetration tests for large companies .
It 's bad .
Everywhere. The only reason penetration tests are ever unsuccessful is when the tester 's hands are tied .
Attacker 's hands are not tied .
Furthermore , denial-of-service flaws are universally ignored because information disclosure is considered a higher priority , and most companies have their hands full dealing with those flaws.So let me make this as clear as possible : A single individual could shut down pretty much any large company .
A group of individuals ( say , from a hostile government ) could halt operations in multiple simultaneous companies .
Target a few large supply-chain management companies and a few large payment-processing/banking companies , and it would be relatively easy to shut down the economy for a while.That means food rots on delivery trucks while paychecks stop flowing to employees .
And do n't think we will all switch over to doing things by hand during such an attack .
The infrastructure to do so has been dismantled .
We are entirely dependent on digital transactions these days.Why has n't such an attack happened ?
Is the probability really " low " as you suggest ?
It 's just a matter of motivation .
There is n't much profit in doing such a ( tedious ) thing for the eastern-european hacker crime groups , nor for the bored teenagers .
There is more profitable , lower-hanging fruit .
But if we went to war with a sophisticated nation , the motivations are entirely different .
Widespread DoS combined with targeted database corruption would do much more damage to the economy ( that thing that allows us to have the best military ) than similarly-funded missile strikes.Ignore the sound-bites security companies feed the media , but do n't ignore the problem .
This is perhaps the weakest part of our nation 's defense infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fear, yes.
But it is extremely well-justified fear.I do penetration tests for large companies.
It's bad.
Everywhere. The only reason penetration tests are ever unsuccessful is when the tester's hands are tied.
Attacker's hands are not tied.
Furthermore, denial-of-service flaws are universally ignored because information disclosure is considered a higher priority, and most companies have their hands full dealing with those flaws.So let me make this as clear as possible: A single individual could shut down pretty much any large company.
A group of individuals (say, from a hostile government) could halt operations in multiple simultaneous companies.
Target a few large supply-chain management companies and a few large payment-processing/banking companies, and it would be relatively easy to shut down the economy for a while.That means food rots on delivery trucks while paychecks stop flowing to employees.
And don't think we will all switch over to doing things by hand during such an attack.
The infrastructure to do so has been dismantled.
We are entirely dependent on digital transactions these days.Why hasn't such an attack happened?
Is the probability really "low" as you suggest?
It's just a matter of motivation.
There isn't much profit in doing such a (tedious) thing for the eastern-european hacker crime groups, nor for the bored teenagers.
There is more profitable, lower-hanging fruit.
But if we went to war with a sophisticated nation, the motivations are entirely different.
Widespread DoS combined with targeted database corruption would do much more damage to the economy (that thing that allows us to have the best military) than similarly-funded missile strikes.Ignore the sound-bites security companies feed the media, but don't ignore the problem.
This is perhaps the weakest part of our nation's defense infrastructure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544627</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance Leads to Fear Leads to Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246470660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm a computer scientist and I don't even understand or know about every potential vulnerability. It's simply too complex"</p><p>And yet you're claiming that "the probability of it happening within a year would most certainly be dealt with in multi-digit negative powers of ten."</p><p>Not sure where you're getting your confidence from.  You've basically just said that these complex systems are extremely vulnerable. Meaning, even you can't be clear to what extent these vulnerabilities can be used to cause damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm a computer scientist and I do n't even understand or know about every potential vulnerability .
It 's simply too complex " And yet you 're claiming that " the probability of it happening within a year would most certainly be dealt with in multi-digit negative powers of ten .
" Not sure where you 're getting your confidence from .
You 've basically just said that these complex systems are extremely vulnerable .
Meaning , even you ca n't be clear to what extent these vulnerabilities can be used to cause damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm a computer scientist and I don't even understand or know about every potential vulnerability.
It's simply too complex"And yet you're claiming that "the probability of it happening within a year would most certainly be dealt with in multi-digit negative powers of ten.
"Not sure where you're getting your confidence from.
You've basically just said that these complex systems are extremely vulnerable.
Meaning, even you can't be clear to what extent these vulnerabilities can be used to cause damage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28549837</id>
	<title>Re:No "cyberwarriors needed", first round</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246443240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are one fanboi Dumb ass. It's not the OS security that's the problem. It's the people, their awareness and the practices of the organizations. Actually, speaking from experience, Windows Vista/7/XP are all fairly secure. Not even Linux/OSX/Solaris can save anyone from stupidity.</p><p>This is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. So you have been modded +5 insightful. Elsewhere in real world, things would be different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are one fanboi Dumb ass .
It 's not the OS security that 's the problem .
It 's the people , their awareness and the practices of the organizations .
Actually , speaking from experience , Windows Vista/7/XP are all fairly secure .
Not even Linux/OSX/Solaris can save anyone from stupidity.This is / .
So you have been modded + 5 insightful .
Elsewhere in real world , things would be different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are one fanboi Dumb ass.
It's not the OS security that's the problem.
It's the people, their awareness and the practices of the organizations.
Actually, speaking from experience, Windows Vista/7/XP are all fairly secure.
Not even Linux/OSX/Solaris can save anyone from stupidity.This is /.
So you have been modded +5 insightful.
Elsewhere in real world, things would be different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28555293</id>
	<title>Re:The post-nuclear war threat</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1246529760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are very, very few countries the USA could attack right now without doing great harm to its own economy, and most of those countries are tiny third-world nations. The stimulus to the arms industry could no more hope to compensate for the damage to international trade, than you could violate the laws of thermodynamics.</p><p>The European Union and even the PRC could be destroyed militarily, but each of these events would cause hyperinflation in the USD, and essentially an economic apocalypse in the US. It'd be reduced to foodstamps and barter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are very , very few countries the USA could attack right now without doing great harm to its own economy , and most of those countries are tiny third-world nations .
The stimulus to the arms industry could no more hope to compensate for the damage to international trade , than you could violate the laws of thermodynamics.The European Union and even the PRC could be destroyed militarily , but each of these events would cause hyperinflation in the USD , and essentially an economic apocalypse in the US .
It 'd be reduced to foodstamps and barter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are very, very few countries the USA could attack right now without doing great harm to its own economy, and most of those countries are tiny third-world nations.
The stimulus to the arms industry could no more hope to compensate for the damage to international trade, than you could violate the laws of thermodynamics.The European Union and even the PRC could be destroyed militarily, but each of these events would cause hyperinflation in the USD, and essentially an economic apocalypse in the US.
It'd be reduced to foodstamps and barter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544603</id>
	<title>No "cyberwarriors needed", first round</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246470660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, for the first round of clean up no "cyberwarriors" are needed.  We just had yet another article about how <i>single city</i>, for a <i>single Windows worm</i>, lost millions due to clean up.
In that case  it <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/30/1752220/The-Hidden-Cost-of-Using-Microsoft-Software" title="slashdot.org">lost over $2.5 million</a> [slashdot.org], including rewarding the designers of the security flaws to the tune of $1 million.
Knocking down a water tower would probably cost less to repair.  So why are not the defense and law enforcement agencies stepping in here?
</p><p>
It's not a nameless or faceless "terrorist" group that is costing our businesses, shutting down our infrastructure, tangling our air traffic control, our power grid, or our hospitals.  The people promoting Windows and Microsoft technologies have real names and faces and walk among us every day.  Take them out and we've won the first round.  It could be as simple as organizing a large scale round up under the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc\_sup\_01\_18\_10\_I\_20\_96.html" title="cornell.edu">RICO Act</a> [cornell.edu].
</p><p>
From there we can go on to hardening the net with IPv6 and dealing with the usual intelligence / counter-intelligence activities.  But the first step, before we can stop the <a href="http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html#broken\_window" title="bastiat.org">economic bleeding</a> [bastiat.org] is to deal with the <i>cause</i> of the problem: the people who promote and profit from known defective technology.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , for the first round of clean up no " cyberwarriors " are needed .
We just had yet another article about how single city , for a single Windows worm , lost millions due to clean up .
In that case it lost over $ 2.5 million [ slashdot.org ] , including rewarding the designers of the security flaws to the tune of $ 1 million .
Knocking down a water tower would probably cost less to repair .
So why are not the defense and law enforcement agencies stepping in here ?
It 's not a nameless or faceless " terrorist " group that is costing our businesses , shutting down our infrastructure , tangling our air traffic control , our power grid , or our hospitals .
The people promoting Windows and Microsoft technologies have real names and faces and walk among us every day .
Take them out and we 've won the first round .
It could be as simple as organizing a large scale round up under the RICO Act [ cornell.edu ] .
From there we can go on to hardening the net with IPv6 and dealing with the usual intelligence / counter-intelligence activities .
But the first step , before we can stop the economic bleeding [ bastiat.org ] is to deal with the cause of the problem : the people who promote and profit from known defective technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, for the first round of clean up no "cyberwarriors" are needed.
We just had yet another article about how single city, for a single Windows worm, lost millions due to clean up.
In that case  it lost over $2.5 million [slashdot.org], including rewarding the designers of the security flaws to the tune of $1 million.
Knocking down a water tower would probably cost less to repair.
So why are not the defense and law enforcement agencies stepping in here?
It's not a nameless or faceless "terrorist" group that is costing our businesses, shutting down our infrastructure, tangling our air traffic control, our power grid, or our hospitals.
The people promoting Windows and Microsoft technologies have real names and faces and walk among us every day.
Take them out and we've won the first round.
It could be as simple as organizing a large scale round up under the RICO Act [cornell.edu].
From there we can go on to hardening the net with IPv6 and dealing with the usual intelligence / counter-intelligence activities.
But the first step, before we can stop the economic bleeding [bastiat.org] is to deal with the cause of the problem: the people who promote and profit from known defective technology.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28557419</id>
	<title>Re:Because the threat is real</title>
	<author>Dragoness Eclectic</author>
	<datestamp>1246548120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct. There are more serious things that you don't hear about because they are classified, which creates a problem: because you (the general public) don't hear about them, you don't believe they exist. Unfortunately, these days many people don't trust the government well enough to accept "trust us, we know what we're talking about even if we can't show you the evidence" because of past abuses of the public trust.</p><p>So what, hypothetically, do you do know if you're in the government setting policy on this issue? You can't reveal all that's really going on for good security reasons (sure, let's tell the enemy exactly what has been successful against us and what hasn't!), but without evidence, the public thinks you are crying wolf.  If you release limited information that isn't a big security compromise just to know about, the public says "Eh, that's not a big deal, you're just trying to get attention!"</p><p>What do you do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct .
There are more serious things that you do n't hear about because they are classified , which creates a problem : because you ( the general public ) do n't hear about them , you do n't believe they exist .
Unfortunately , these days many people do n't trust the government well enough to accept " trust us , we know what we 're talking about even if we ca n't show you the evidence " because of past abuses of the public trust.So what , hypothetically , do you do know if you 're in the government setting policy on this issue ?
You ca n't reveal all that 's really going on for good security reasons ( sure , let 's tell the enemy exactly what has been successful against us and what has n't !
) , but without evidence , the public thinks you are crying wolf .
If you release limited information that is n't a big security compromise just to know about , the public says " Eh , that 's not a big deal , you 're just trying to get attention !
" What do you do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct.
There are more serious things that you don't hear about because they are classified, which creates a problem: because you (the general public) don't hear about them, you don't believe they exist.
Unfortunately, these days many people don't trust the government well enough to accept "trust us, we know what we're talking about even if we can't show you the evidence" because of past abuses of the public trust.So what, hypothetically, do you do know if you're in the government setting policy on this issue?
You can't reveal all that's really going on for good security reasons (sure, let's tell the enemy exactly what has been successful against us and what hasn't!
), but without evidence, the public thinks you are crying wolf.
If you release limited information that isn't a big security compromise just to know about, the public says "Eh, that's not a big deal, you're just trying to get attention!
"What do you do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545577</id>
	<title>Re:No "cyberwarriors needed", first round</title>
	<author>$1uck</author>
	<datestamp>1246473480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>MS is not the one perpetuating the attacks, or causing the damage.  There are no laws holding them responsible for creating a secure operating system.  Rounding them up and punishing them is hardly legal/ethical/moral.   The first thing we should do is start with laws requiring the people creating the networks/data warehouses  to secure them properly.  Then they'll demand a better product (from MS or some other vendor) if not they should be responsible (unless said vendor wishes to indemnify them).

MS is just trying to make a buck, they're not actually attacking anyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS is not the one perpetuating the attacks , or causing the damage .
There are no laws holding them responsible for creating a secure operating system .
Rounding them up and punishing them is hardly legal/ethical/moral .
The first thing we should do is start with laws requiring the people creating the networks/data warehouses to secure them properly .
Then they 'll demand a better product ( from MS or some other vendor ) if not they should be responsible ( unless said vendor wishes to indemnify them ) .
MS is just trying to make a buck , they 're not actually attacking anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS is not the one perpetuating the attacks, or causing the damage.
There are no laws holding them responsible for creating a secure operating system.
Rounding them up and punishing them is hardly legal/ethical/moral.
The first thing we should do is start with laws requiring the people creating the networks/data warehouses  to secure them properly.
Then they'll demand a better product (from MS or some other vendor) if not they should be responsible (unless said vendor wishes to indemnify them).
MS is just trying to make a buck, they're not actually attacking anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28555315</id>
	<title>For maximum hilarity</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1246530060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Run s/cyber/cybersex on any article related to this topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Run s/cyber/cybersex on any article related to this topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Run s/cyber/cybersex on any article related to this topic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28549411</id>
	<title>by creating a cyber war</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1246441980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>youve effectively avoided the meatgrinder aspect of traditional war, which means you can increase recruiting and start at least coming close to quota.  people can still be drummed up, things can still be sold, patriotasm maintained and politicians given worth.<br> <br>
weve had to create a more efficient war that can be turned on and off depending on respective correlation to circus attention span and appetite for peanuts.  that, and we just dont seem to have much money or support for our current real world wars so i cant blame the marketing department for trying on this "cyber" one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>youve effectively avoided the meatgrinder aspect of traditional war , which means you can increase recruiting and start at least coming close to quota .
people can still be drummed up , things can still be sold , patriotasm maintained and politicians given worth .
weve had to create a more efficient war that can be turned on and off depending on respective correlation to circus attention span and appetite for peanuts .
that , and we just dont seem to have much money or support for our current real world wars so i cant blame the marketing department for trying on this " cyber " one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>youve effectively avoided the meatgrinder aspect of traditional war, which means you can increase recruiting and start at least coming close to quota.
people can still be drummed up, things can still be sold, patriotasm maintained and politicians given worth.
weve had to create a more efficient war that can be turned on and off depending on respective correlation to circus attention span and appetite for peanuts.
that, and we just dont seem to have much money or support for our current real world wars so i cant blame the marketing department for trying on this "cyber" one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544407</id>
	<title>Elevating a simple scenario to a movement</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1246470000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>a. Turn off your computer.
<p>b. Turn off your phone.
</p><p>c. Turn off your TV.
</p><p>d. Take that $20 bill in your wallet (better yet in a different society, you wouldn't need money)
</p><p>e. Go buy a slice of pizza. Enjoy the outside environment.
</p><p>.
</p><p>.
See that wasn't so hard.
</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p>
That what would likely happen in a cyber attack. It's more like a 'snow' day in DC. Of course, if a physical Pearl Harbor, 9/11 or Katrina happened, you would NOT be able to do the above. As for money: if major bank computer systems gets wiped for instance, as long as 'someone' has an audit of recent account info and transactions, you'll be taken care of to some extent. Sure you may lose money, but <i>life isn't going to end</i>.
</p><p>.
</p><p>
Therefore, this is exploiting technology for the purpose of generating 'progress'. A. That's a politician's job (<i>to look useful in keeping your "well being" SAFE</i>) and B. that's a skill where gov't excels (exploitation).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a. Turn off your computer .
b. Turn off your phone .
c. Turn off your TV .
d. Take that $ 20 bill in your wallet ( better yet in a different society , you would n't need money ) e. Go buy a slice of pizza .
Enjoy the outside environment .
. .
See that was n't so hard .
. That what would likely happen in a cyber attack .
It 's more like a 'snow ' day in DC .
Of course , if a physical Pearl Harbor , 9/11 or Katrina happened , you would NOT be able to do the above .
As for money : if major bank computer systems gets wiped for instance , as long as 'someone ' has an audit of recent account info and transactions , you 'll be taken care of to some extent .
Sure you may lose money , but life is n't going to end .
. Therefore , this is exploiting technology for the purpose of generating 'progress' .
A. That 's a politician 's job ( to look useful in keeping your " well being " SAFE ) and B. that 's a skill where gov't excels ( exploitation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a. Turn off your computer.
b. Turn off your phone.
c. Turn off your TV.
d. Take that $20 bill in your wallet (better yet in a different society, you wouldn't need money)
e. Go buy a slice of pizza.
Enjoy the outside environment.
.
.
See that wasn't so hard.
.
That what would likely happen in a cyber attack.
It's more like a 'snow' day in DC.
Of course, if a physical Pearl Harbor, 9/11 or Katrina happened, you would NOT be able to do the above.
As for money: if major bank computer systems gets wiped for instance, as long as 'someone' has an audit of recent account info and transactions, you'll be taken care of to some extent.
Sure you may lose money, but life isn't going to end.
.

Therefore, this is exploiting technology for the purpose of generating 'progress'.
A. That's a politician's job (to look useful in keeping your "well being" SAFE) and B. that's a skill where gov't excels (exploitation).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544375</id>
	<title>Fear == Revenue</title>
	<author>iCantSpell</author>
	<datestamp>1246469940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If country A were to take down country B internet connection then country A wouldn't be able to spy on country B or even get sensative info. I honestly don't think it's a big of a problem as they make it out to be.</p><p>Most of it's just hollywood and bad publishing, but the main idea behind all this is revenue.</p><p>The gov get's more spending, the site/paper that publishes the story gets more notice, and the list could go on forever. The truth of the fact is if people knew the facts then no one would beable to sell "protection" software and computer movies would have to make sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If country A were to take down country B internet connection then country A would n't be able to spy on country B or even get sensative info .
I honestly do n't think it 's a big of a problem as they make it out to be.Most of it 's just hollywood and bad publishing , but the main idea behind all this is revenue.The gov get 's more spending , the site/paper that publishes the story gets more notice , and the list could go on forever .
The truth of the fact is if people knew the facts then no one would beable to sell " protection " software and computer movies would have to make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If country A were to take down country B internet connection then country A wouldn't be able to spy on country B or even get sensative info.
I honestly don't think it's a big of a problem as they make it out to be.Most of it's just hollywood and bad publishing, but the main idea behind all this is revenue.The gov get's more spending, the site/paper that publishes the story gets more notice, and the list could go on forever.
The truth of the fact is if people knew the facts then no one would beable to sell "protection" software and computer movies would have to make sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28552289</id>
	<title>Re:Ignorance Leads to Fear Leads to Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246454940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>conscience not conscious<br>within not "with in"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>conscience not consciouswithin not " with in "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>conscience not consciouswithin not "with in"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546591</id>
	<title>Re:A little bit of non-commercial input</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246476420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Governments will create a lot of laws concerning the problem, without one that actually addresses the problem: Making the user responsible for his security.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Until people stop joining (and remaining on) botnets, the <em>one</em> attack that is really hard to defend against (DDoS) remains as a threat to just about every server.  Without DDoS, "cyber security" just wouldn't be publicly debated much; everyone would just defend their systems and that would be that.  DDoS changes landscape to a "we're all in this together" scenario.  DDoS is why the government is involved.  DDoS is why there is hysteria.
</p><p>
And yet the threat people mention is <em>still</em> the "hackers," with virtually no discussion of the people who enable them by joining their botnets.  If addressing the threat isn't on the agenda <em>yet</em>, then it probably never will be.  And if addressing the threat isn't on the agenda, then things aren't going to get better.
</p><p>
Making people bear the consequences of joining a botnet, is the only way to reduce the threat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Governments will create a lot of laws concerning the problem , without one that actually addresses the problem : Making the user responsible for his security .
Until people stop joining ( and remaining on ) botnets , the one attack that is really hard to defend against ( DDoS ) remains as a threat to just about every server .
Without DDoS , " cyber security " just would n't be publicly debated much ; everyone would just defend their systems and that would be that .
DDoS changes landscape to a " we 're all in this together " scenario .
DDoS is why the government is involved .
DDoS is why there is hysteria .
And yet the threat people mention is still the " hackers , " with virtually no discussion of the people who enable them by joining their botnets .
If addressing the threat is n't on the agenda yet , then it probably never will be .
And if addressing the threat is n't on the agenda , then things are n't going to get better .
Making people bear the consequences of joining a botnet , is the only way to reduce the threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Governments will create a lot of laws concerning the problem, without one that actually addresses the problem: Making the user responsible for his security.
Until people stop joining (and remaining on) botnets, the one attack that is really hard to defend against (DDoS) remains as a threat to just about every server.
Without DDoS, "cyber security" just wouldn't be publicly debated much; everyone would just defend their systems and that would be that.
DDoS changes landscape to a "we're all in this together" scenario.
DDoS is why the government is involved.
DDoS is why there is hysteria.
And yet the threat people mention is still the "hackers," with virtually no discussion of the people who enable them by joining their botnets.
If addressing the threat isn't on the agenda yet, then it probably never will be.
And if addressing the threat isn't on the agenda, then things aren't going to get better.
Making people bear the consequences of joining a botnet, is the only way to reduce the threat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546259</id>
	<title>scary equals good practice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246475400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When establishing what your security risks are it is good practice to account for the worst case scenario. In other words, improve airport security before planes are highjacked, not after.</p><p>I suspect that's the main reason for the scary scenarios being presented, not financial gain (in most cases).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When establishing what your security risks are it is good practice to account for the worst case scenario .
In other words , improve airport security before planes are highjacked , not after.I suspect that 's the main reason for the scary scenarios being presented , not financial gain ( in most cases ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When establishing what your security risks are it is good practice to account for the worst case scenario.
In other words, improve airport security before planes are highjacked, not after.I suspect that's the main reason for the scary scenarios being presented, not financial gain (in most cases).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28554247</id>
	<title>Re:The post-nuclear war threat</title>
	<author>Riven.exe</author>
	<datestamp>1246473960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The US no longer has to worry about nuclear war or even conventional war because we have the means of "winning" a nuclear war and can easily crush any country in a conventional war</p></div><p>Let me introduce you to my little <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300\_(missile)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">friend</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US no longer has to worry about nuclear war or even conventional war because we have the means of " winning " a nuclear war and can easily crush any country in a conventional warLet me introduce you to my little friend [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US no longer has to worry about nuclear war or even conventional war because we have the means of "winning" a nuclear war and can easily crush any country in a conventional warLet me introduce you to my little friend [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28548815</id>
	<title>Cyber Security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246440300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember back when "Cyber" meant anything on MMOs, and "Cyber Security" meant that you had to be-careful that you're not "cybering" with "another-dude-wannabe-chick".</p><p>Anyway, all this talk about cyber warfare always make me remember when journalists report about a website that has been attacked.  "Look at all those 404s, they are looking for hidden web pages and try to exploit them, then maybe upload a trojan and then log your keyboard, and then get your social security number, steal your identity, etc, etc".  I also remember a journalist reporting a story about an art gallery web site owner who complained about cyber crime.  They showed the http access.log and said "Look at all those GETs in the IMGs!!!! I'm being robbed blind here, and I can't charge for each image the thieves download.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember back when " Cyber " meant anything on MMOs , and " Cyber Security " meant that you had to be-careful that you 're not " cybering " with " another-dude-wannabe-chick " .Anyway , all this talk about cyber warfare always make me remember when journalists report about a website that has been attacked .
" Look at all those 404s , they are looking for hidden web pages and try to exploit them , then maybe upload a trojan and then log your keyboard , and then get your social security number , steal your identity , etc , etc " .
I also remember a journalist reporting a story about an art gallery web site owner who complained about cyber crime .
They showed the http access.log and said " Look at all those GETs in the IMGs ! ! ! !
I 'm being robbed blind here , and I ca n't charge for each image the thieves download .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember back when "Cyber" meant anything on MMOs, and "Cyber Security" meant that you had to be-careful that you're not "cybering" with "another-dude-wannabe-chick".Anyway, all this talk about cyber warfare always make me remember when journalists report about a website that has been attacked.
"Look at all those 404s, they are looking for hidden web pages and try to exploit them, then maybe upload a trojan and then log your keyboard, and then get your social security number, steal your identity, etc, etc".
I also remember a journalist reporting a story about an art gallery web site owner who complained about cyber crime.
They showed the http access.log and said "Look at all those GETs in the IMGs!!!!
I'm being robbed blind here, and I can't charge for each image the thieves download.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544711</id>
	<title>Indeed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246470960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is generally true, but this is also how Agencies and politicians have been taught to obtain funding.  Get over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is generally true , but this is also how Agencies and politicians have been taught to obtain funding .
Get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is generally true, but this is also how Agencies and politicians have been taught to obtain funding.
Get over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28552333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28558001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28555293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28555097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28551149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28548919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28555245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28549837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28555057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28552289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28554197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28554247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28551531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28557419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28553215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28550015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28549717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28560175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28547649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28559993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28554281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28547833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28547547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1549226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28552289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544487
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28548919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28555057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28553215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28547649
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28555097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28554197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28555245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28551149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28547547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28552333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28555293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28554247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544075
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545489
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545787
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28559993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28547833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28546129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28551531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28549837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28550015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28557419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28549717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28558001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28560175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28554281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28545395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1549226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1549226.28544071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
