Thank you Frank.

I have a great deal of concern with the alarming power of technology in the hands of humans who can become careless and erratic in their thinking.
That's not to say that I don't find the capacity of technology to be quite amazing, but rather that I am not mesmerized by its reach. Unlike Faust I cannot fall under its spell and say: ?Verweile doch, du bist so sch?n? ? ?Stay a while, you are so beautiful?.

I'm just offering a different perspective in light of your implication that the technology of "interconnectedness" equals progress, and that resistance is for luddites. You didn't seem to leave room for other interpretations.

I don't agree with the alarmism, but to be completely dismissive of the risks that concern Rich isn't any better. We already know that given enough time, almost anything that can be tampered with, will be, especially things with locks on them. And when that lock exists in a somewhat abstract plane, it becomes easier for would-be perpetrators to rationalize criminal behavior. (Ever steal a CD? Ever download a copy of a CD?)

Quote:

Nice strawman... I do agree with you that too much technology is likely not good for the human soul, but that was not what was being discussed.

The OP recounted the content of an interview in which the interviewee essentially stated we should roll back interconnectedness so we can regain security in some systems. We could also do away with cars and avoid horrific highway accidents, or maybe we just scrap cellular networks, and the telephone, and go back to telegraphs?

People in the late 70's and early 80's thought that modems were inherently dangerous because there was no way to safeguard systems connected to them. With time, we learned to implement security measures, such as passwords. For today's always connected systems, we now have firewalls, packet sniffing, real-time traffic inspections, etc. We don't roll back technological advances because they can be potentially abused or exploited, we just learn to make them more secure.

Quote:

We already have a tendency to embrace technology as a means to its own end, often in the name of progress, so we have plenty of reason to be cautious without being luddites. The most obvious hazard of increasingly pervasive digital information technology is probably not that we will be sabotaged by others (although we will), but by inundating ourselves with more noise, we will continue to sabotage ourselves. All the data security in the world won?t put a dent in that problem.

Quote:
Seems that the luddites always look at the glass as half empty especially if it their own glass they are drinking out of.

As you like it bodhipooh...let's see what the future brings.

In the 19th century, people would destroy train tracks because they thought progress was evil and dangerous.

Luddites have always existed, and will continue to exist. The rest of the world adapts, accepts change, and enjoys the perks of progress.

The idea that we should avoid interconnectedness because some miscreant will want to exploit a weakness is asinine. We don't get rid of banks because someone could rob one, nor did we do away with airplanes because someone could shoot one down easily.

Information security can be achieved. Anyone that tells you otherwise is simply misinformed, or fear mongering. Some companies fail to implement the necessary measures and they suffer the consequences.

I was watching a program concerning cyber security (or the lack of it) during the night on CSPAN. They seem to always put these panel discussions on air while most of the world is asleep.





Anyway there was a government specialist on the Presidential level talking about (among other things) dangers to our infrastructure (water, the electrical grid, transportation etc.) and her view kind of lent to the idea that the older the system the safer it is, which makes a lot of sense. She put out a lot to worry about on that level. Actually, she seemed to favor less connectedness instead of more as a protection method, using the election booths as an example.





When they got to the Internet of Things and how all of our home appliances and vehicles would soon be connected and subject to manipulation by the maniacs of the cyber world, she hit upon a frightening insight. Political officials with heart devices (think Dick Cheney)and such which were controlled by computer so that adjustments might be made by the specialists (or whoever I guess) could be taken or manipulated out by security hackers.



They're only just beginning to wake up to the dangers of an internet controlled world while the cybernuts are leagues ahead of them already waiting for their opportunities. The problem is that businesses can't stop themselves from pushing these things onto the market and the public is so happy with their new toys that they won't take a moment to think of the dangers inherent in the products. The people in the government who study and advise on these matters are trying to convince industry of the possibilities of danger.





BRAVE NEW WORLD!! I wonder....