When technology escapes from political control, politicians face a choice: do they adapt to the change, or do they insist that it adapts to them?
Will we approach the world fearful and reactive, dragged into costly conflicts that strain our military and set back our standing? Or will we lead wisely, using all elements of our power to defeat new threats and protect our planet?
The only thing that can rein in the state is a more powerful state.
If you were given the opportunity to spend USD 100 million over five years to maximally improve the security of open source software, what would you do? I'll admit that it is possible (and worrying) that USD 100 M isn't enough to make much of a dent in our current and upcoming problems.
Paul Graham Raven:
Better technology doesn't necessarily mean thinking about what a technology does or how it does it, but about why you wanted the technology in the first place, and what you definitely don't want it to do.
It's not like a boat with a couple of holes that we can patch; it's more like trying to sail across an ocean on a pile of accrued garbage.
This War on Hackers is likely to be no more effective than the War on Drugs.
To combat violence you must look unflinchingly at the concrete inequities and practices that breed it.
The reason why we don't have any serious proposals on the table that would improve cybersecurity, is because big companies don't actually want to be held accountable.
Regimes change course only when the cost of maintaining the status quo exceeds the cost of enacting change.