Botnets As "eWMDs" 172
John Kelly writes "The current issue of Policy Review has a paper by an American computer scientist and the recent Permanent Undersecretary of Defense for Estonia. Drawing on the Estonian cyber attacks a year and a half ago, as well as other recent examples, they argue that botnets are the major problem. They propose that botnets should be designated as 'eWMDs' — electronic weapons of mass destruction. The paper also proposes a list of reforms that would help to limit the scale and impact of future botnet attacks, beginning with defining and outlawing spam, internationally." Many of the proposed solutions are common-sensical and won't be news to this audience, but it is interesting to see the botnet threat painted in such stark terms for readers of the Hoover Institution's Policy Review. For a more comprehensive overview of cyber-security threats, listen to NPR's interview with security experts on the occasion of the release of a new report, "Securing Cyberspace for the 44th Presidency," which recommends creating a cyber-security czar reporting to the President.
wmd comparison (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps we should compare some WMD's
An atomic bomb detonated over a dense population center: millions die
An eWMD shuts down water supply: people have to resort to bottled water and, in a worst case scenario, boil rain water; for a few weeks
Perhaps eWMD is a better name for an EMP because that actually DESTROYS something that can not be brought back from the dead using backups
Re:What masses, specifically, have botnets destroy (Score:2, Informative)
The goal of more expensive, more powerful government (e.g. a more lucrative business to control for those at the top of the power pyramid) is best achieved through marketing. You shoot high, even claiming the ridiculous as we see here, and then you "back down" into a slightly less outrageous expansion of government, but a significant expansion of the business nonetheless.
Ironically, these crooks are taking a page straight out of the US government's book.
Re:Even though no one dies from them. (Score:1, Informative)