[127031] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Nato warns of strike against cyber attackers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Jun 10 08:35:14 2010
To: Michael Dillon <wavetossed@googlemail.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:27:18 BST."
<AANLkTimwgHD1YOYuhMUzTiLKR1mSzzQ-HRKgOoGk6KbF@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:34:22 -0400
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1276173262_4500P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:27:18 BST, Michael Dillon said:
> If any organization operates an infrastructure which could be
> vulnerable to cyberattack that would damage the country in which they
> operate, that organization needs to be regulated to ensure that their
> networks cannot be exploited for cyberattack purposes.
s/cannot be/minimize the risk of/
And "would damage the country" is a very fuzzy concept that you really don't
want to go anywhere near. Remember Microsoft arguing that a Federal judge
shouldn't impose an injunction that was going to make them miss a ship
date, on the grounds that the resulting delay would cause lost productivity
at customer sites and harm the economy?
(Mind you, I thought MS was making a good case they *should* be regulated,
if their ship dates actually had that much influence.. ;)
--==_Exmh_1276173262_4500P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFMENvOcC3lWbTT17ARAnDlAJ4ggqxSxfv5p58LJjhQfeQVQ/d/SQCg23gX
ESl08ruV6LLMPSMXfjr0yjU=
=QpJI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1276173262_4500P--
