Americans More Worried About Cybersecurity Than Terrorism 266
TheGift73 tips an article discussing a new study (PDF) which found Americans are now more worried about cybersecurity threats than they are about terrorism. Here's Techdirt's acerbic take:
"Well, it looks like all the fearmongering about hackers shutting down electrical grids and making planes fall from the sky is working. No matter that there's no evidence of any actual risk, or that the only real issue is if anyone is stupid enough to actually connect such critical infrastructure to the internet (the proper response to which is: take it off the internet), fear is spreading. Of course, this is mostly due to the work of a neat combination of ex-politicians/now lobbyists working for defense contractors who stand to make a ton of money from the panic — enabled by politicians who seem to have no shame in telling scary bedtime stories that have no basis in reality."
fearmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Has always been an effective tactic for manipulating public opinion.
He who controls the media, controls the future.
Fearmongering? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hacking causes a lot more damage than terrorists ever did.
Illiterate, donkey riding, half starved.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Illiterate, donkey riding, half starved, hyper religious nutbags with AK47's and common explosives have the most fearsome, multi trillion dollar super/mega military/intelligence/surveillance machine ever to exist, ANYWHERE at a strategic standstill! and even more this handful of inbreds (less than a thousand, Al Whastsa or so I've heard) so much so as to have made the Land of the FREE into the Land of the Spied upon/Groped, bugged and X-Rayed! Even if these guy's could commandeer some rusty Soviet era military boat, what are they gonna do? I'll take my chances and have my freedom back!
Re:Fearmongering??? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the sensitive systems are connected to the internet (and they often are), and if standard security procedures are not followed (and they rarely are), then the risk is really quite significant.
.
Re:fearmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:fearmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm talking a creator in a very generic system which is a fundamental thought process in the study of Philosophy. Very much like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes arguments. There is no particular Religion involved in the logic.
A creator is plausible. But there is no evidence for one so it's not science. It's pure speculation.
Re:fearmongering (Score:3, Insightful)
You are confusing Jewish the people, and Jewish the religion. They often appear together, so it's not uncommon to make this mistake. But they are two separate things. Judiasm is a belief system. But you don't have to believe in Judiasm to be Jewish. Being Jewish is also an identity separate from the religion. There are plenty of Jewish people who are secular, agnostic, or even atheist, as well as believers in Judiasm who are not Jewish (converted).
Einstein may have identified with the people, but he did not identify with the religion.
Re:fearmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
>>> price of education has risen, er, 270% in the last 15 years
No the price of a college degree has risen. The price of an "education" has dropped to $20/month (cost of an internet line so you can download free lectures and textbooks and informative websites). I've learned more from these downloads than I ever did in college (which taught me a lot of stuff I forgot).
Re:fearmongering (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>"Something had to start the shit."
False assumption. This universe could have spawned from another universe (read Hawking), or simply from itself (a continuous loop). It doesn't mean there was intelligence behind it.
>>>There is not a single shred of evidence to prove there is not a creator.
That's because it's imposible to prove a negative. For example: There is no way to prove that Santa Clause does not exist. You can say, "Well he's not over here, or over here, or over here....." and the reply will be, "Oh he's there. You just haven't found him yet." The onus is upon the person to prove the positive, not the negative.
Re:fearmongering (Score:2, Insightful)
No it's not, it's pseudo science. It's a possible answer, but without proof it's just that. From your perspective, I could also be the first rutabaga to pass the Turing test. I hope you don't also consider that to be relevant to science or I shall have to taunt you a second time.
This sort of ignorance and the way you don't seem to recognize it is truly mind blowing.
Aristotle's idea had a huge hole in that you would have to have an infinite regress problem as you would then need something to create this god and then something to create that god and eventually you'd have to have an Nth god to get things started.
Re:fearmongering (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Because you are here, there is most likely a creator.
Or not.
Could have sprung from nothing.
AND even if we presume there's a creator...... well then who created the creator? Hmmm. (ponder). It is more probable that a random, chaotic universe came into being, than a fully-formed intelligent person with tremendous power just suddenly "popped" into existence.
Re:fearmongering (Score:3, Insightful)
I see this as sane. The risk of terrorism has always been overblown. But there are literally tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands or millions) of black hats out there totally willing to steal your identity or crack your voicemail, like the Murdoch family did to anybody they wanted to investigate or intimidate.
Re:fearmongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, this is a fallacy. Just because there are two choices does not make them equally probable. You might get hit by lightning tomorrow. You might not. Are the odds 50:50? (No)