Trust, not tech, is holding back a safer internet The tech sector is failing at cybersecurity. Global spending on the stuff is at $190 billion a year, a quarter of the US defense budget. That hasn't stemmed what's estimated to be trillions in annual cybercriminal damages. People are fond of saying that the Wild West days of the internet are over, but on those numbers an 1875 …
Following the data available here, a quarter of the US defense budget for 2023 is $236 billion, not $190 billion.
Choosing to compare that to the US defense budget is curious. Yes, the US of A is certainly the country in the world that spends the most on its military (even though it is the least likely to be invaded), but that fact is irrelevant to the discussion.
If you're going by a quarter of the US defense budget, $236 billion is the GDP of Egypt in 2017 (#44 in the list). $190 billion would be Iraq's GDP for the same year (#52).
It's much less sexy to compare global spending to a country's GDP, but I feel it's much more relevant than comparing to the world's single richest country's military spending.
But hey, American aircraft carriers are sexy, I admit.
And they work a lot better than that Russian one, eh Putin ?
No, dummy, its because we have Canada to the north, and Mexico to the south, neither of which have a large military. Any other invader would have to come by plaine or ship, or be a central or south american country, none of which have militaries to speak of.
It's very true that Canada has a small military. Although we do contribute to NORAD and NATO, the size of the contribution is embarrassingly lightweight.
But consider the following: When an American says they are ticked off at Canada for "not pulling our weight" in NATO and keeping military spending low, I always ask them the following question: "If you think Canada needs to spend more on our military, do you really want a country on your northern border with a large and effective military capability?"
I've never received a reasonable answer to that question.
Just get the Canadian Military to start up a polar breeding program.
Canada spends more money. Is more hostile to foreign invader. And keeps us in America guessing.
That is the thing with Canada. You just never know. You think they are a nice people. But then BOOM. Hockey (which they suck at)
Canada isn't going to pose a threat of invasion to the US no matter how much it spends on its military, both because it would still be outmatched and because Canada doesn't want to invade the US anymore than the US wants to invade Canada so I don't see a problem with bumping spending up to the 2% level that European countries are doing. If you want to be in NATO, you should contribute as an equal member. If you don't want to spend that much, then withdraw from NATO.
It is just giving other members an excuse if they see Canada not pulling their weight but remaining a member of NATO.
"It's very true that Canada has a small military."
Very true. The US and Canada have gone to war seven times. The only victory the US can claim (and even this is disputed) was fought over a pig.
Strangely, that isn't taught in US schools, for some strange reason.
Have you heard of Summer? Temperatures in Siberia reach the 50s in July and the 90s in Alaska. What stops Russia from invading? The military. Ukraine shows they don't care about reputation or economic sanctions of the West. There'd be plenty of other countries would go along with them too, and who would be willing to continue trade with them.
So you think the 51 miles of the Bering strait would be a problem for Russia, if it wasn't for the massive spend on the US military, "dummy"? It's only the military that prevents them from crossing into Alaska and then down through Canada. Russia doesn't care about reputation or economic consequences, as we have seen with Ukraine. If it wasn't for the US defense spending they could cross with ease.
"So you think the 51 miles of the Bering strait would be a problem for Russia, if it wasn't for the massive spend on the US military, "dummy"?"
No need to throw insults around! And, yes, Russia could cross the Bering strait easily if unopposed, after having to drag it's military through some very hostile terrain in Eastern Siberia, in order to get some troops on a very inhospitable terrain in Northwestern Alaska. And to gain what benefit exactly?? (although I acknowledge that Putin's motives are weird but I don't think he's a complete idiot)
"If it wasn't for the US defense spending they could cross with ease."
The US could slash its military budget in half and still be able to comfortably defend itself. Most of the US military budget goes into 'projecting its power' which is a sort of nice way of saying that it sticks it's nose pretty much everywhere it thinks it can get away with. And seeing what hard work Russia is making of advancing through the mostly flat open spaces of Ukraine, I suspect the Bering Strait could be easily be defended even by the Canadians :)
I suspect it is more a cultural issue that they are in a vicious circle with.
Internally spending lots of money on the military is good because it keeps people directly and indirectly employed. It also provides a sense of legitimacy that because a country has so much resources tied up in the military they can do pretty much what they want.
Whether it is sustainable is another thing entirely but all the companies involved in supplying to the military have lots of money and are well connected. The only limitation is how much Congress are prepared to cut other expenditure or raise taxes to fund it.
Then we have fear, if the military is seen to be weak (cuts in funding) or the response to an event is seen to be weak, then there are many up in arms that the government is not doing their job as power pretty much equates to a strong military in the eyes of many. This is not a general thing but something that is specific to certain countries, cultures or governments.
You only have to look at the recent issues with the "weather" balloons being blown "off course" to see that. Statements that the US is complacent and should have just shot them down were common and that not doing so was a sign of weakness and submitting to China's aggression.
This post has been deleted by its author
"...least likely to be invaded"
I can think of a number of other countries less likely to be invaded because they're pretty good friends with all their neighbours... That's what the EU was created for after all.
Not to mention a few other countries I'd consider pretty safe because no-one would really want to invade them
Global spending on the stuff is at $190 billion a year
Sounds huge, but how much is spent on IT worldwide? What do $190 billion represent compared to the whole of IT spending?
Some evaluate that the correct proportion should be 5%, are we near or far of that value?
Talking about trust: trust no one.
This post has been deleted by its author
If the UN can't handle geopolitical events, due to opt-outs and vetoes etc, what chance is there ever of having a United Internet Nations that is effective globally. Fuck all. Ever.
That's the whole point - to give giants essentially a free reign while pretending something is being done.
The UN won't be able to do anything about the giants, but they will be able to easily crush a small guy going against the narrative.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
No.
From the UK, plenty of cases when security services & police have performed some very dubious actions (ranging from "big stuff" security services trying to bring down Harold Wilson, through to, at a more "Personal level" of abuse of power, "spy cops" getting into relationships with naïve peaceful protesters including having children with them, Brazilian electricians shot for no valid reason etc.).
So, not a fan of trusting them.
And as for the UK government - clowns, but malicious clowns (more Pennywise than Grimaldi).
Even in the unlikely event there was a government / security infrastructure you would trust with your personal data, no guarantee that in a few years time things it all may be totally different & trustworthiness has plummeted.
.. And I'm saying that as a fairly average sort of "nothing to hide" person who is not involved in crime & corruption & does not avoid / evade taxes (I'm obviously not Tory MP material!).... though I have long since been on the state "wrong 'un" list, back from when I was filmed by the authorities on anti SA demos (when SA was a white apartheid state & Thatcher called Mandela a terrorist) as conspicuously being against govt policies (even when those policies are obviously dubious) tends not to be approved of
This is the problem - people only think what "good" government can do with the legislation allowing them to do things.
But they never consider what "bad" government can do with the same powers.
History always repeats itself.
Do they think some form of Nazi/Communist government with an aim to exterminate a group of people won't appear again?
They'll have access to all the data to slice and dice to find their undesirable demographic, where they live, their weak points and so on.
Such and such data should have never been in the hands of government and big corporations.
When Nazis or Soviets invaded a city, first thing they did was to get into archives, find intelligentsia and other undesirables to round them up!
it seems to me that is not a surprise, since "terrorist" implies the use of terrorism, which is a /method/, whilst "freedom fighter" implies fighting for freedom, which is an /aim/: thus in principle some actors could use terror while fighting for (some sort of) freedom.
Supporters of the status quo would presumably naturally tend to discount the aims as unimportant (and mistaken); and so focus on the "terror" - hence "they are a terrorist".
Supporters of the aim (freedom), might think the methods somehow a "necessity"; and so focus instead on the aim of "freedom", hence "they are a freedom fighter".
To muddy the waters further, there are many actions that take place in a grey area bordering terrorism that might be "terror" to some but not others -- e.g. maybe attacking *off-duty* police or armed forces personnel in civilian contexts might be reasonably considered either "terrorism" or a "legitimate guerilla action"; but perhaps many might want a bit more context before trying to make such a judgement.
> From the UK, plenty of cases...
All those cases you bring up are reprehensible, but what percentage of the whole do they actually represent? Not forgetting that if they were really the norm, they wouldn't be reported, outside of the local rag.
> So, not a fan of trusting them.
Got anything better? Anything realistic that you could trust or ate you just giving up on society and digging your bunker?
"called Mandela a terrorist" As leader of the military arm of the ANC, he was. The ends do not justify the means. The cause of resistance to the apartheid system was just but that doesn't excuse attacks on civilians: the Durban bar bombing that killed 3 and wounded 60. Between the mid 80s and the mid 90s, 15,000 people were killed in fighting between Inkatha and the ANC. Following the rightful establishment of Black majority rule, 40 ANC officials applied for amnesty for the killing of 8,000 people.
It's the same with the IRA. They might have a case against British rule in Northern Ireland (although the people of the North consistently vote to remain in the UK) but the attacks on civilians, by the IRA, are unjustifiable. Attack the security forces of the oppressor but you don't deliberately kill innocent men, women and children to spread terror in pursuit of your cause. Collateral killings are one thing. Deliberately targetting of civilians another.
"Brazilian electricians shot for no valid reason" sad though it was, there was a valid reason: fear of further bomb attacks. The fact that the security forces were wrong, is a tragedy. What would you prefer, that they didn't try to stop anyone? They are people, they make mistakes.
In the case of the murder of the electrician, it was not only their multiple serious operational failures, it was what they did afterwards.
Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, the police blamed the victim, deliberately lied to the press and even tried to mislead the courts, though apparently not quite to the level of perjury. The Met were eventually convicted of breaking health and safety law, probably because corporate manslaughter wasn't a crime at the time.
And after all that, the Met promoted the officer in charge of this debacle all the way to the very top, compounding their apparent complete refusal to accept responsibility for murdering an innocent man and recklessly endangering many others.
I note that she didn't accept responsibility for her later failures as commissioner either, and had to be forced out by the mayor.
It's a very longstanding pattern of behaviour.
The new commissioner has a very large job to do before Londoners are likely to trust the Met. There's even been suggestions that it has to be disbanded and restarted from scratch.
I'm presuming then that in your schema, everyone involved in the fighting of WW2 was/is a criminal?: Given that armed forces on all sides prosecuted attacks that killed civilians both directly and indirectly.
By your calculus, it would always be illegitimate for example to try and stop the Holocaust and death-camps if doing so involved attacking a single civilian (even if your enemies had no such reservations about targeting the civilian population on your side).
Your "analysis" of the Jean Charles de Menezes murder is pitiful. In particular how having spent two paragraphs on a spiel that even an entirely just cause can't "justify attacks on civilians", you then take a rather specious cause "fear of further bomb attacks" (fear!) and use it to justify the murder of a civilian by incompetent and negligent security officers (and the failure of that system to hold itself to account).
And no, security forces don't get to just say "we're human, we make mistakes". Anyone making that argument needs to be sacked (no hyperbole, they are not fit for the job). In a HV substation, if a technician throws a switch and kills a colleague, he can't say "I'm human, I made a mistake". Nor can his management. There has to be a full analysis of the entire system of controls that failed and allowed that to happen.
Only non-technicals/"civvies" will say stuff like "these things happen"/"he's only human"/etc.,etc.,
The main issue is that most politicians and media look stuck in the 1880s while criminals employ technology that to them looks something like Star Trek one. They are slow to react as if threats would come by horses, carriages, and sail vessels. A lot of them, put in front of technology, looks like old-style "savages" in front of coloured glass pearls and mirrors. Everything - social networks, blockchains, AI, metaverses, whatever, look like the next Promised Land to them - "evangelists" make them believe they have to drive their flocks there, and they will be the kings and the high priests (with all the advantages). The only thing they leanrt to fear is criptography - they wish to be able to intecept everybody but themselves.
Cryptocoins created the perfect tool for extortion and frauds, but they were all very slow to understand the inherent risks and upcoming disasters - because they still believe there are gold mines to be digged in California, and they can make you rich in day, and if you don't find one, you can still sell fake ones to suckers, and still become rich.
To fight a risk, you have to understand what it is really. Otherwise you result you fight a plague chasing plague spreaders and buying snake oil, instead understanding how bacteria and viruses spread - and adopting proper hygiene. The dirty, unpatched servers and clients are like the old city slums without septic systems to keep them healty. Administrators prefer to build the shiny facades that appeal to the elites, and let what is not seen rotting and polluted.
Until the situation changes, and those in charge at least enter the XX century if not the XXI yet, there's no hope. Throwing more money at an issue won't solve it magically, if the issue is not understood, and all that matters is money only.
If only someone would write a bug-free cryptocurrency wallet and exchange system and get it accepted by the community, then the Liberterians would have the stable base they need to rule the world without things descending into a patchwork of war lords. But acceptance requires a community and Liberterianism is about isolating communities so they can set their own rules. Joseph Heller had some good words to say about this type of situation.
The point is that we are in an age that largely rejects meta-narratives and while that persists we are unlikely to get the international cooperation or even a national concensus that allows effective cyber-crime legislation to be put into place. The end result of eliminating cyber-crime is something we all want but until a meta narrative that fosters international cooperation can be established again we are unlikely to see the framework needed to get that result being adopted. As they say in Scotland 'Gud luck wi tha'
If we could make scanning and email take as long and be as detectable as opening and reading a letter then the postal service comparison would be relevant.
The lack of trust for government content moderation stems in part from the acknowledged fact that government content moderators protected Jimmy Savile in the 1970s. That's a lot of trust to regain.
The lack of trust for government content moderation stems in part from the acknowledged fact that government content moderators protected Jimmy Savile in the 1970s. That's a lot of trust to regain.
You think that was bad? You ain't seen nothing yet-
https://www.bbc.com/beyondfakenews/trusted-news-initiative/about-us/
The Trusted News Initiative is a unique global partnership bringing together organisations across media and technology to tackle harmful disinformation in real time. The partnership focuses on moments of potential jeopardy, that could threaten life or the integrity of electoral processes.
Partners alert each other to high risk disinformation so that content can be reviewed promptly by platforms, whilst publishers ensure they don’t unwittingly share dangerous falsehoods.
Minitruth is alive and well. Orwell would be so proud of his former employers! Of course it's classic projection from the entity that brought us Saville and Operation Yewtree, and is part of the problem given the way it spreads 'fake news'. Rather than sticking to the Reithian ideals of 'Inform, Educate and Entertain', it now wants to propagandise and get into wholesale censorship. And sadly, it's not alone-
Core partners in the TNI are: AP, AFP, BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Financial Times, Information Futures Lab, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, The Nation Media Group, Meta, Microsoft, Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post, Kompass – Indonesia, Dawn – Pakistan, Indian Express – India, NDTV – India, ABC – Australia, SBS – Australia, NHK – Japan.
Some of those entities also recently claimed that objectivity was an outdated concept in journalism. Those 'partners' are the main purveyors and consumers of churnalism though, hence why you'll often see exactly the same statements and phrasing repeated across multiple 'independent' media channels. Twitter's given us a peek behind the curtain as to how the disinformation business works, and the Bbc is right there in the thick of it.
Now throw in some legislation, gateways and filtering and the only information available will be the official misinformation, carefully narrated and curated by the likes of TNI. Use of VPNs or <shudder> dark-nets will be made illegal, because you may be exposed to dangerous ideas. Obey, Citizen!
Alternatively, we could just increase funding for law enforcement so they can investigate actual crimes, not thought crimes.
As someone who is for the govt to do a better job of regulating stuff, I'm 100% against the article's idea.
No, we do NOT need govts babysitting the internet. The only way to police the internet as suggested here would be to inspect every data packet traveling through given routes. Oh, that does sound rather invasive to privacy, doesn't it? It's because it is. And why the hell would we trust govts with doing that without abusing the data they get a look at, if we completely despise when companies use it to serve us advertising? The information they'll have access to is extremely valuable, you can bet bad actors will do their best to both work within such surveillances agencies so they can sell it, or hackers doing everything to hack it.
And that's ignoring the jurisdiction problems already pointed by other comments. Oh, look, it's that russian hacker group at it again! Good luck jailing them from another country.
Yes, but in those instances, they are looking for very specific traffic from (relatively) specific endpoints, and aren't authorized to do much if they "accidently" sniff traffic they aren't authorized to sniff.
That is several magnitudes of order different than the Government giving itself relatively unlimited power to snoop on any and all traffic and take any actions it deems necessary against any party that it decides is acting in a way that's unsavory. All "for the public good", of course.
But the trustworthy government would never abuse its' powers if it had access to everybody's communications, right?
Government ‘misinformation’ unit flagged investigative journalism and critics
You can toss out some e-mail addresses and get spam from companies that you'd expect to operate a legitimate business. You can plug a computer into the Internet, give it a DNS entry, and observe thousands of attacks per hour from companies that you'd expect to operate legitimate networking and hosting services. You can visit a hospital and then get robocalls from medical device scammers. And all those SMS scams are not hosted by a lawless nation - they're getting local support.
Governments could be collecting millions of dollars a day for law violations that are absolutely trivial to enforce, but they don't. Who could expect them to work on the complex problems?
This post has been deleted by its author
"You don't, it's why we all sleep in houses behind locked doors, and unlock the doors when we need to go outside."
The problem is most of the public only have paper doors, while the criminals have battering rams. What makes it worse is that the government not only like it that way, but believe the paper needs extra holes and every house should have an unlocked back door.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
