So, I'm reading along in this article about Google, China, and the mushrooming cyberwars, and I run across this bit:
In conventional and even nuclear warfare, your assets are relatively easy to measure against those of your opponent. You have 75 tanks and your opponent has 125, but yours are fitted with better weapons systems – roughly even.
And I'm thinking, well, no, not necessarily. But I'm willing to accept it--provisionally--until I see whatever point you're about to make.
Then the article then goes on to say:
Cyberwarfare is not like that. Your assets consist of your opponents' vulnerabilities and your ability to exploit them. This means that to defend yourself, you have to breach your opponent's defences: implicit in any cyberdefence strategy is the development of a comprehensive offensive capability.
And by now the hair is standing up on the back of my neck and I'm muttering, "No, no, no, that's just not true.
I was not, then, surprised to see the next sentence:
This was the thinking behind the Bush administration's Total Information Office....
Any time someone says something that's demonstrably insane, the next sentence seems to attribute the idea to the recent Bonehead/Crookface debacle.
(Unless it's a discussion on the history of something demonstrably insane--in those circumstances, it's invariably traced back to Wretched Reganism.)
P.S. The article goes on to say that while the psychosis of Total Information Assimilation has been abandoned, the most neurotic offshoots live on, under other bureaucratic umbrellas.
P.P.S. Yes, I know that the whole Big Brotherhood of Homeland Security was shoved down Bonehead & Crookface's protesting throats.