> On Nov 14, 2017, at 10:22 PM, Matthew Ford <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bill, > > Presumably the results of this survey will show that, depending on the > ‘sector’ or ‘system’, the degree to which respondents believe they should be > protected varies. How does that help those who might prefer a simpler > approach that says that civilian infrastructure should be protected full > stop? By generating ‘data’ about the strength to which people feel specific > sectors should be protected, don’t you legitimise the idea that some civilian > sectors are acceptable targets for military operations?
I absolutely agree with your moral position.
This exercise is not about finding sacrificial infrastructures and telling
militaries that they can attack those; this exercise is about ascertaining what
our strongest arguments are, and leading with those. If, for instance, there
were 99.5% agreement among the public that governments should not cyber-attack
hospitals, but only 85% agreement that they should not cyber-attack schools,
we’d want to lead with the hospitals argument, and not dilute it by talking
about schools as well, at that point. This is not an all-or-nothing exercise;
people have been trying that for a long time, and the result is… “nothing.”
We’re trying to find the fight that we can win, and win it, to establish a
foundation and begin building on it.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
