> There are four key implications of this revolution that policymakers in the national security sector will need to address:<p>> The first is that the unprecedented scale and pace of technological change will outstrip our ability to effectively adapt to it. Second, we will be in a world of ceaseless and pervasive cyberinsecurity and cyberconflict against nation-states, businesses and individuals. Third, the flood of data about human and machine activity will put such extraordinary economic and political power in the hands of the private sector that it will transform the fundamental relationship, at least in the Western world, between government and the private sector. Finally, and perhaps most ominously, the digital revolution has the potential for a pernicious effect on the very legitimacy and thus stability of our governmental and societal structures.
That states like China and Russia can recruit the best cybersecurity talent in their respective countries, and force them to work for the government, while the United States can't, is a problem. If I were the president, I would focus on talent recruitment and retention. Google is paying its top cyberstaff 700k? Offer them 1M. Also get rid of archaic hiring practices like drug tests, and streamline the process to obtain a clearance.
We could call this historical period a great dis-integration where the consensus that formed the equilibrium of the last 60 years has been disrupted by tech, and we're looking at a period of volatility before reaching a new equilibrium.<p>I've argued before that U.S. critical infrastructure vulnerability will prevent it from intervening in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Its lack of a strong homeland defensive posture on infrastructure has emboldened regional powers like China, Russia, and Iran to assert themselves over local NATO allies without fear of US retaliation. e.g. The US isn't going to risk a dam flooding or a long term grid failure over a distant minor ally. Arguably, NATO made sense when partners could defend their infrastructure, but the mutual aid commitment becomes a suicide pact when your cities can be turned into tribal warzones by depriving them of power, payments, and fuel. Nobody wants to get drawn into that by a minor ally.<p>That's the weakness that creates the power vacuum into which warring parties pile in. We do indeed live in interesting times.
This opinion piece is borderline screed and I'm not sure what to make of it.<p>Part of the piece is "OMG China!" with some pretty dubious assumptions, especially things like their GDP being bigger than the US is an existential threat.<p>"The world is scary" is not a narrative I will respond to. Of course it is - it's bloody frightening. But have you tried framing the discussion in a way that is not so warfare and zero sum-focused but rather collaborative?<p>The rest of this piece contains the kind of Cold War logic that, while understandable from someone whose job it is to solve these problems, is also alarming to see in what is supposed to be a "new approach" to preparedness from an agency.<p>This seems like a backdoor argument to compromising privacy, asking politely for businesses to be friendlier, while at the same time asking for more money than their already astronomical budget.<p>The obvious first step here is to Fix. Your. Own. House.<p>Become more transparent about what you are doing. Don't talk about secret bunkers in the first paragraph but instead about what you are going to do in order to share more with industry, and the kinds of investments you are going to make to ensure government can keep up.<p>Included in that is staffing proposals, workforce management changes, being more lenient with behaviors that are not relevant to your ability to hold a clearance to broaden recruitment, doing more work in the open and possibly a new imperative to focus on privacy and help protect privacy for all Americans despite best attempts of companies to destroy it. Some of that was alluded to but I find it really hard to take this piece seriously.
Since the NSA and similar agencies don't seem to have the flexibility to evaluate their own influence on developments, I do seriously think they are a greater threat to overall national security compared to some propped up countries that were named here.<p>So they want to ramp up surveillance again... better get ready for my new side job as insurgent against the state.<p>Having an agency that sees everything as a threat should not have the competence to determine civil interactions or should be shackled to a more severe degree. The lack of trust in western societies doesn't seem to be a factor in their threat analysis. Maybe not worth it for budget discussions... idiotic...<p>> in a vast databank of personally identifying information about its citizens, from iris and facial recognition to DNA data. That is antithetical to our values.<p>I think this is a lie. It is not against their value. On the contrary these are exactly values espoused as per evidence acquired by people currently residing in very dark cells.<p>> Our innovative and entrepreneurial society affords us a unique advantage in dealing with those implications.<p>Some people hire whores, some people hire security firms. But it too often is to stick your dick into something.<p>> our society could consider greater coordination between government and the private sector<p>to combat unruly citizens...<p>This would be a great opportunity for the new york times to show some of their critical investigative abilities.<p>This is plainly painting a threat to the wall to justify spying on citizens. Even if this show deep ineptitude, I fear it might be working
Such a bleak picture of the future where the only solution is for all of us to give up our privacy and allow the government to watch us so they can keep us safe. There are so many rants I could go off on this article I would not even know where to start but I will say this. What about the option of peace building? Why not put 1/3 of your insane military budget towards a new mission of going into the places you have the worst reputation, the places you have wronged the most and start building up their infrastructure like water plants and schools? The only options this article gave was to give up all our freedoms so the government can keep us safe which to any person with half a brain (hint even my kids know this and their vote is coming one day) this only stops the average citizen from remain anonymous.<p>Link to neat video explaining how to easily encrypt a message on a piece of paper. "Bear in mind if we are talking about banning encryption, we are talking about banning mathematics". I love that line.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRa_zzQOEe8" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRa_zzQOEe8</a>
This is huge and is a subject I feel strongly about- especially for defense software.<p>Parts of the US Government are already sounding the alarm over this. see- <a href="https://innovation.defense.gov/software/" rel="nofollow">https://innovation.defense.gov/software/</a><p>Basically, we are too slow. The contract acquisition process and waterfall development moves at a glacial pace. I have some serious doubts we will ever adapt since it would require a restructuring of the way our defense industry operates.
I've often thought about what the next "Great War" would look like. Not researched it or anything but mulled it over.<p>I honestly think the enemy will take out our power stations via malicious code that may already be sitting there waiting to go off right now.<p>A few days after that, when people are still in total darkness and the supermarket shelves are empty then we will turn on ourselves and our "leaders" because we are cold, hungry etc: we'll destroy ourselves first.<p>I don't even think a shot will need to be fired!
No, in my opinion, we need to start working so that wars don't even make sense. A concept of the distant past. A future in which our descendants don't even know what wars are. In my vision there are no legitimate reasons for wars to exist at all. Of course this concept will sound alien and completely nuts for the majority, who are still in the fear based mindset; But then you can ask: So how do we protect ourselves from those that are attacking us ? The day we can answer this question without violence in the mindset is the day we evolve as humanity;
Cf. Manuel de Landa, "War in the age of intelligent machines".<p><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/83650.War_in_the_Age_of_Intelligent_Machines" rel="nofollow">https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/83650.War_in_the_Age_of_...</a><p>Delanda was very interesting in the beginning but didn't quite find or found his community and began talking in an echo chamber that impoverished his thought. Still, "War...", "Intensive science and virtual philosophy" and "A thousand years of nonlinear history" are respectively a very promising start, an impressive peak and an early mature book. Too bad I can't recommend anything from "Philosophy and simulation" forward.
The author's last key implication,<p>> Finally, and perhaps most ominously, the digital revolution has the potential for a pernicious effect on the very legitimacy and thus stability of our governmental and societal structures.<p>But they then proceed to say things like<p>> Will Western liberal democracies, already straining under the combined demands of decaying civil infrastructure, aging populations, upgrading militaries and so on, be able to afford these investments? Given that there is no specific forcing event to require greater resources, but rather a trend, history suggests that we will appreciate the seriousness of the underinvestment only when a crisis has occurred.<p>Meaning that currently, our system of government is simply not built to deal with modern technology. Yet they state that the fundamental threat of forcing change within societal and governmental structure is 'ominous', while at the same time implying that it is absolutely necessary.<p>Discarding stability and tradition for the sake of progress is inevitable, and will happen either deliberately, through policy (this rarely happens), or by revolution.
It is possible to make secure operating systems, doing so has been discouraged since the demise of multics.<p>A sense of futility is now endemic to the Information Technology community, because they think such a thing is impossible, they won't even try, and actively deride anyone who states otherwise.<p>The security research required to build multi-level secure operating systems was completed in response to information processing requirements during the Vietnam conflict... there are multiple models which work... none of which are implemented.<p>It doesn't have to be this way... look up capability based security.
I have a lot of trouble taking this guy seriously given the amount of hand-waving and fearmongering in this article, especially around "A.I.". Last time I checked, the NSA did very little to fulfill its mission to help secure existing US assets against cyberattack, much less help improve security in emerging technology. As Snowden showed us, they are far more interested in wiretapping everything.
Unrelated (kind of): do you guys/girls recommend books (especially novels) that cover the subjects of futurism, espionage, cyber warfare and other related topics ? I find the current situation to be very dystopic and would love to read more about it. Thanks in advance !
Maybe the US would do well to obsess a little less about wars? After spending 90%+ of its time existing on being at war, it sure would seem like a good time to take a break and stop attacking other countries maybe.
> And even if we could detect a missile flying at low altitudes at 20 times the speed of sound, we have no way of stopping it.<p>Looks like author doesn't know what he's talking about here?
The article is full of conventional thinking that extrapolates directly from current trends.<p>Most likely the critical IT need in the Next World War will be bioinformatics to identify pathogens being used in biowarfare and to design, produce and distribute vaccines, drugs, and other countermeasures. The second IT need will be to enable society to function without the movement of or physical contact between people in order to limit contagion.