Good thing all those companies skimped on hiring and keeping a good IT team, maintaining secure systems, etc., gotta keep them shareholders happy with idiotic short-sighted moves!
Of course, in the end it is just conflict, and when it spills over into the real world then you have a war. But this is not always the case We have already had disruption in power grids, nuclear plants, hospitals, public offices, critical infrastructure of financial markets (some of them with impact in real lives) without retaliation in the physical world.
Cyberwar, in my perspective, have some nuances. For instance, in a physical conflict, a hostile nation’s invasion of my property immediately becomes a state issue. However, this isn’t always the case in a cyberwar if a hostile state invades my organization (It’s hard to immediately distinguish whether the actor is a nation state, a financially motivated group, hacktivists, or just a guy who eats pizza in his mom’s basement). Most of the time, organizations are on their own.
In a cyberwar, espionage is also far more acceptable. This is something the NSA (and FSB/SVR) has been doing for years (against private entities and states). In a way, I understand that it is something similar to what the cold war was (is), but with no boots on the ground.
I’d say we’ve been at cyber war since 1995 if not earlier. In spite of social media and attempted censorship, the internet is still a very chaotic and ungovernable place. This IS where a lot of people go because they want to not be judged while they view weird fetish art or have non-heterosexual and/or transgender relationships, and as far as I’m concerned, the right to do so should be engraved in every legal system on the planet. Most people online seem to agree, hence the fediverse (Mastodon, kbin, etc.), so I assume true order isn’t coming to the internet any time soon.
The rogue states have been doing this kind of shit for decades, albeit at a low level. It is treated mostly the same as spying and is part of an ongoing low-intensity conflict that is not treated the same as a war by leaders nor the public.
I suspect they know if Americans are killed as a direct result, things will change quickly.
E: Fucking Lemmy, I swear to god you have to take everything in a bad way when people are just being curious and want clarity. I don’t know what a fucking “rogue state” is, I’m not from whatever country you are from and English is not my native language.
Rogue states are ones that don’t follow normal international customs and/or threaten the stability of world peace. The usual candidates from an american perspective are Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Afghanistan, and Syria.
It’s all the former reddit users. That place breeds “intellectuals” who try to one-up everyone and prove they’re smarter. If things don’t fit in with their paradigm or echo chamber they down vote.
It’s similar to “US attacks a helpless nation and bears no consequences” kind of war. If your infrastructure is that vulnerable, and your cyber defences are weak, someone stronger will do whatever they please.
What else are you gonna do? Take them to a real war that just took over your infrastructure? based on what, your own incompetence that hurt your feelings? Not that US isn’t a pissy baby as it already is. It’ll just reveal more about the US bullshit does to the rest of the world. Did Iran declare war after the stuxnet incident? Same logic applies.
Attack them on the same playing field if you can and shut up about “wars”. Or sit your ass down and take the L however you feel, comfortably or otherwise.
Add comment