not equal steps ... not even close to being equal. The challenge is to define what is going on. Some operators will have a perspective "in the network" that differs from their users. So if you see an attack as a user you are seeing damage to your own privacy and security over any number of operator networks and services. As an operator you see an attack as damaging your network assets and business.
IETF is coming down on a definition which is describing "an attack on the Internet". The use of the word "attack" in that context does not coincide with "war" though. It is carefully framed. The aim that is emerging is not to prevent surveillance but to make the current conduct of pervasive monitoring much more expensive to undertake. With a significant figure of $35 billion annually being flashed around as the likely damage just to US Cloud services from the revelations of pervasive monitoring there is cost on all sides that is not being taken into account currently in the actual economics of current surveillance practice. Again how those "damages" are apportioned are not going to be equally distributed. Christian Neil J. McRae wrote: > On 16/01/2014 21:36, "Adrian Farrel" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> While cynicism is to be welcomed, and without speaking for a vendor, >> obviously >> increased business is welcomed by vendors. But it is far from clear that >> this >> situation represents a benefit for vendors as there are far more obviously >> revenue-bearing features to be worked on. I am not sure that the vendors >> have an >> infinite amount of development resource available to them. > > Well there will be standard equipment and specialist equipment as there is > today working for both sides of the ³war²! But for every step to protect > there will be an equal step to unprotect. > > > Neil. > >
