Former Bush NSA Director calls for "digital Blackwater"

There's already several digital Blackwater's so to speak. HBGary Federal is the obvious unsuccessful one, but you also have much more successful ones like Endgame Security.<p>Personally my view is that the 'physical' Blackwaters of the world haven't demonstrated an awful lot of adherence to the moral requirements associated with such work, so why would the virtual ones do the same? If you sanction a company with the ethics of Blackwater to do offensive work, do you really think they only side they're ever going to fight on is yours? Do you think that they'd represent your interests, or theirs, and do you think there'd be any hope of the kind of transparency or limitations that you'd at least expect to see in a state run equivalent?

I agree a "digital blackwater" can be much more effective than the government for this kind of thing.<p>However, unlike physical violence, there's not as much "inherent human moral knowledge" about computer crime/war/terrorism. It's pretty obvious to anyone (including Blackwater shooters) that shooting people is wrong, all things being equal; it is necessary in certain situations, but is to be avoided if possible. Some kinds of shooting are worse than others, and there are lines which most people wouldn't cross (shooting obviously unarmed people, children, etc.), even if ordered to do so.<p>With most computer crime, it's not so obvious who is being hurt and how much; there's also no primate/reptilian brain response to most of the activities themselves, only their consequences.<p>There's also much more potential to use "able to do digital violence" to influence business and politics within a stable nation state than to use physical violence. Organized crime only really can operate in marginal communities, at least through violent extortion -- in more developed places, it sticks to providing unmet (illegal) needs like drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc., or operates at a sub-organized level.<p>There's really nothing in "inherent morals" of people, or in cultural values, which will prevent using a "digital blackwater" for political or business ends.<p>If someone goes down this road (and the Chinese appear to have already, and possibly Russia), everyone else has to, but the world will become worse overall. Better for hackers, perhaps, as a subset, but I'd be fine with having a little less money and living in a less-Gibsonian world.

I do agree that there comes a time when you have to look at current the current security environment and realize that you need to enable the private sector to do more to defend themselves than appears possible currently. Relating of course to industrial espionage and the so-called "APT", not this #antisec nonsense. I don't look forward to a world where private firms are employing offensive cyber-mercenaries, but let's be honest - that is what many chinese firms and some western firms are already doing. Something needs to change to let western businesses respond to these threats, and it's clear that the usual mantras of defense in depth and being increasingly vigilant just aren't leading us down a winning path. We may never have infosec world where it's possible to adequately rely on defense only, perhaps it is time to move past the missile defense shields and on to MAD - much like US defense has gone.

So like lulzsec, anonymous, or all of the other groups, but operating for money instead of humor and ideology. Sounds like a brilliant idea (that's sarcasm, by the by).

Surprised no one mentioned HBGary yet. They sure have the lack of ethics that job calls for...