The risks of information warfare

I would like to put forth the assertion that "society", of late, has become
exceptionally poor at judging relative risk.  I think this is due in large
part to the sensationalism of the media (although this is not an entirely
new phenomena - "remember the Maine").  I will cite a few examples:

	1.  Radon causes 25% of all lung cancer.  Of course every study but one
shows no link between radon and lung cancer.  Still, Americans spend
billions testing and reducing the "threat".

	2.  Second hand smoke kills.  Probably, but the only statistical link was
found by picking and choosing which studies to use.  And the freedoms of
millions of Americans are dramatically restricted based on this premise.

	3.  Terrorism is a big threat to the "national security".  Of course more
people are killed in the bathtub than by terrorists, but that is beside the
point.

My reason for bringing these up is that I think much of the "information
warfare" 5th horseman is overblown hype - in the same category as 1-3
above.  Of course, many security professionals will disagree, because it is
in their best interests to do so - their level of funding depends on it.  

Sure, there have been break-ins and some loss of $$ (of course that is what
insurance companies are for).  I have seen nothing, to date, that would
justify massive increases in government power over the private sector; this
of course, has never stopped them before.  The desire to "do something"
appears to infect every politician, fortunately our system has checks and
balances to limit the ability for them to "do something" - because more
often than not it is the wrong "something"!  Unfortunately, these checks
and balances have been seriously eroded over the past 60 or so years.  It
is now much more necessary to actively oppose such idiocy as the FDA
regulating tobacco or the govt imposing "policy" over the entire
information infrastructure.  

It is hard to "buck the tide", but those of us who are skeptical of
government "solutions" to "problems" that may or may not exist must
actively oppose them.

	Clay  

***************************************************************************
Clay Olbon II       *      Clay.Olbon@dynetics.com
Systems Engineer    *    PGP262 public key on web page
Dynetics, Inc.      * http://www.msen.com/~olbon/olbon.html
***************************************************************** TANSTAAFL

On 19 Jul 1996, Clay Olbon II wrote:

> 	2.  Second hand smoke kills.  Probably, but the only statistical link was
> found by picking and choosing which studies to use.  And the freedoms of
> millions of Americans are dramatically restricted based on this premise.

   That and the fact that it can be physically sickening to the people 
who have to be around such individuals.

> 	3.  Terrorism is a big threat to the "national security".  Of course more
> people are killed in the bathtub than by terrorists, but that is beside the
> point.

    The government can't do much about accidental bathtub deaths though.  
Terrorism can be dealt with on a much more tangible level.

> My reason for bringing these up is that I think much of the "information
> warfare" 5th horseman is overblown hype - in the same category as 1-3
> above.  Of course, many security professionals will disagree, because it is
> in their best interests to do so - their level of funding depends on it.  

    I look at it this way.  Information warfare has the *potential* of 
being as potentially destructive as conventional warfare due to the very 
nature of our country's infrastructure.  However, when we look at other 
means of war that were supposed to be the "ultimate" force, like nuclear 
weapons, we've historically seen that they work better as pawns in the 
power struggle rather than as actual playing pieces.

    The main difference between nukes and infowar is that an attack by 
the latter means is more feasible for just about anyone as opposed to an 
actual country or powerful organization having nukes.

> Sure, there have been break-ins and some loss of $$ (of course that is what
> insurance companies are for).  I have seen nothing, to date, that would
> justify massive increases in government power over the private sector; 

    Neither have I.  It would seem that the government has worked more 
towards actively discouraging any good infosec policies than helping 
out.  Let them take care of foreign nations amassing large groups of 
Internet connected work stations in their military bases and I think we 
can handle the infrequent malicious individual.

                       ________________________________
                      [ Bruce M. - Feist Systems, Inc. ]
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     "Official estimates show that more than 120 countries have or are 
      developing [information warfare] capabilities." -GAO/AIMD-96-84
                         So, what is your excuse now?