Tory peer and shadow security minister Baroness Pauline Neville Jones has set out her party's thoughts on cyber war and defence. Unfortunately once the waffle is stripped away there's pretty much nothing there. Here are a few selected bits from her speech: Neither the government nor the private sector can completely control or …
Tech Illiterate I presume
Based on the speech, I'd hazard a guess the speech (and any related plans) were inked by someone who knows nothing about tech, but knows it could be dangerous!
Could be wrong of course.
Incidentally, did anyone here the guy from Which talking about Internet Security on Radio 2 last night? Oh dear, sounded like he'd been paid off by the big AV Companies. You get what you pay for apparantly (failed to mention the link was often - you a pay a shitload of cash, and receive a steaming pile of shit!)
Anon cos I'm at work, albeit on lunch!
How to spot the clueless
They use the word 'cyber'. When you hear that, you know you can stop giving them any credibility.
They only stick 'cyber' on the front of words when they have no understanding of what they are talking about yet seek to confuse a naive listener.
They are not 'cyber assets' they're just feckin 'assets'!
Paris because she knows all about her assets.
Lost Credibility ...... or Simple Diversionary Ruse which costs Nothing for Increased Invisibility
"How to spot the clueless ... They use the word 'cyber'. When you hear that, you know you can stop giving them any credibility." ... SlabMan Posted Thursday 11th March 2010 13:39 GMT
Slabman, Have you any idea how ridiculous your statement is?
Sad, isn't it?
We have the choice between centralist Big Brother Stasi wannabes or a nice-but-dim opposition in bed with big business. The Lib-Dems seemed a good option until they turbo-powered the Mandybill.
Revolution, brothers? No. We're British. Can't be arsed. And anyway the footie's on.
People cant see the future ?
People often don't know a nuclear attack is coming until it has happened and often not even then (cos they are dead).
Seems to me like she much more clued up on what is out there than many, Lewis, for there is nothing false or misleading in her speech.
Does the Cyber Security Operations Centre have any leading assets or are they just Reactionary Virtual Terrain Team Players which would then extraordinarily render them as puppets to third party controlled circumstances, which in Spooks jargon would be, irregular and unconventional events? A question prompted by this paragraph in her speech ...."Finally, underpinning each of the components I have outlined must be an increase in cyber awareness, expertise and forensic skills across the private and public sectors. Operators seldom have enough understanding of their systems to know when something is going wrong or how to defend effectively. So we all need to know a lot more about our cyber assets and to monitor what they - and users - are doing."
And the following is very much the case, and that is very much the way it may remain, such is the beast's nature ...... "People are often not aware of events in cyber space - at least not until they have happened, and even then not always the case [sic]."
Oh and you can be sure, even if it is not assuring/reassuring, that every new day brings ever more cyber opportunities and/or vulnerabilities to exploit, for IT is a whole New SurReal World in which to remotely project Order for Power on Earth although she did miss that possibility, Orderly Command and Virtual Control, in her concentration on Negativity ....."First, actions in cyber space can have a range of purposes, from destruction, to data manipulation, to crime and espionage, to creating chaos and confusion. It is very difficult to determine the purpose of a cyber event until it is completed." .....although she does acknowledge that it is very early days and things have only just started, and for most, the ignorance is bliss ....... "I think we all recognise that there is a long way to go..." ....... for it is a field in which Jack Nicholson said it perfectly ....... "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"
That is all.
Not really surprising. Which? are good at reviewing electrical appliances, cars and financial stuff. They haven't a clue on computers (hardware or software), cameras, or anything audio-related.
I like the keywords to this article
Like "conservative tory party" (what, there's a duplicate progressive one?!) and "Military seekurity intelligence".
William Gibson did everybody a disservice...
By coining the word "Cyberspace" as now everybody who as a control/command agenda or wants to suck money into his portfolio has a concept to glom onto, then create cancerous bulbous memes around it.
A "Cyberspace" has never been observed outside of literature.
In everything from govt IT to so-called anti-piracy, laws and regulations are being established by technical-dyslexics who can't insert a torch battery the right way round, let alone get their heads around the most elementary aspects of computer science. Most of them can barely save a file on their laptop - assuming they haven't already lost their laptop.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - more true of politicians and bureaucrats than anyone else, I should think.
Whenever somebody asks me 'How does it work, though....really?" (especially around technology and the interweb) I still reply 'PFM' - Pure F**king Magic.
PS No relation to John 186 :-)
Are you Peter 212's cousin?
"There are, of course, differences between the threat posed by nuclear weapons and the risks posed by cyber space..."
The Axxis of Efil Poffers could deprive us of the critical resource of youtube and other you*.com video services, thereby enraging the male population, leading to an uprise, revolution and finally the killing of the sovereign.
The end of the West is nigh !!!!
FFS! "Caving runts", the lot of them!
If those were the important bits, I dread to think what the rest of it was like! A serious snooze-fest by the sounds of it!
"Neither the government nor the private sector can completely control or protect the country's information infrastructure..."
I don't like what probably follows that, or the way "control" and "protect" almost seem to mean the same thing.
Best. Jen. Subtitle. Evah.
I'm off for a shot of «have you tried turning it off and on again?» now.
'Computers. Clicking, typing. Email. I could go on'
- iPad? More like iFAD: We reveal why Apple ran off to IBM
- +Analysis Microsoft: We're making ONE TRUE WINDOWS to rule us all
- Climate: 'An excuse for tax hikes', scientists 'don't know what they're talking about'
- Analysis Nadella: Apps must run on ALL WINDOWS – PCs, slabs and mobes
- Yorkshire cops fail to grasp principle behind BT Fon Wi-Fi network