The norm would say, for instance, “hospitals.” It would be up to the parties
involved whether they wanted to try to avail themselves of protection.
But that’s a distraction from the issue: do we think [hospitals|schools|the
power grid|IXPs|root servers|whatever] should not be cyber-attacked by
governments, or are we just fine with them being attacked?
-Bill
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 06:49, Clive D.W. Feather <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Matthew Ford said:
>> 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?
>
> Also, aren't you providing a target list for any actor that doesn't want to
> play by the rules?
>
> --
> Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler,
> Email: [email protected] | it will get its revenge.
> Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer
> Mobile: +44 7973 377646
>
