I am really worried about the uptick in "cyber war". Of course cyber war is discursive (you can't cyber-kill someone), but if states understand hacking, now at some kind of hybrid of intelligence operations and active war, as something "war-ish", it means kinetic war (bombing someone) might be an appropriate response.
Couple this with how hard attribution is, poor diplomatic relations, and the things like Russian misjudgement of 2006's impact, this is a powder keg.
>Of course cyber war is discursive (you can't cyber-kill someone)
Well, if you attack critical infrastructure and that *can* lead to death. It's more indirect than a bullet or a bomb, but all the same...
@jack I hear people talk about that but I have never seen a plausible scenario that would actually destroy something important unless someone really, really messed up, eg connected the power grid control system or all the hospital’s pumps to the internet, without local overrides.
@albin Wannacry hit the UK National Health Service in 2017. Ambulances ended up being diverted from some hospitals, and non-critical treatments were was scaled back.
Thankfully I don't think anybody died as a result, but then wannacry wasn't exactly the most sophisticated attack...
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!