Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Blackmoore on Thursday October 30 2014, @10:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-sky-is-still-falling dept.

A major cyber attack will happen between now and 2025 and it will be large enough to cause “significant loss of life or property losses/damage/theft at the levels of tens of billions of dollars,” according to more than 60 percent of technology experts interviewed by the Pew Internet and American Life Project.

But other experts interviewed for the project “Digital Life in 2015,” ( http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/29/cyber-attacks-likely-to-increase/ ) released Wednesday, said the current preoccupation with cyber conflict is product of software merchants looking to hype public anxiety against an eternally unconquerable threat.

It’s the old phantom of the “cyber Pearl Harbor,” a concept commonly credited to former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta but that is actually as old as the world wide web. It dates back to security expert Winn Schwartau’s testimony to Congress in 1991 ( http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000018472172;view=1up;seq=14 ), when he warned of an “electronic Pearl Harbor” and said it was “waiting to occur.” More than two decades later, we’re still waiting. The Pew report offers, if nothing else, an opportunity to look at how the cyber landscape has changed and how it will continue to evolve between now and 2025.

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/10/cyber-attack-will-cause-significant-loss-life-2025-experts-predict/97688/

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30 2014, @10:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30 2014, @10:53PM (#111710)

    Could systemd be the attack that was warned about? It's done a pretty effective job of tearing apart and destroying the Debian community, that's for sure. I don't think we've ever seen such a well-established open source project damaged so severely, and so quickly, ever before.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Friday October 31 2014, @12:45AM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday October 31 2014, @12:45AM (#111744)

      Do you do this with everyone you run into on the street or at work?

      Stranger: "Hey man, nice weather today!" You: "Yeah, it'd be nicer if Debian hadn't switched to systemd." Stranger: "WTF are you talking about?"

      Boss: "I'm convening this meeting to discuss the XYZ account, which we really need to win or else." You: "Debian is being ruined by systemd!!" Boss: "I've talked to you about this before. You're fired. Get out."

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @01:05AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @01:05AM (#111752)

        The week after the guy is fired, the boss tells his replacement to upgrade their Debian systems. The new admin goes ahead and does it. Systemd unexpectedly gets installed. The Debian servers then fail to boot. Lots of time and money is wasted trying to fix them. If only they had listened to the guy who spoke out against systemd, none of this would have happened.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @06:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @06:22PM (#111979)

          Systemd unexpectedly gets installed. The Debian servers then boot and function better than ever before.

          FTFY.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 13 2014, @12:58PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 13 2014, @12:58PM (#115516)

            Something is really wrong if the servers are being rebooted so frequently that the boot time matters that much.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Ryan on Thursday October 30 2014, @10:57PM

    by Ryan (4837) on Thursday October 30 2014, @10:57PM (#111711)

    With what frequency are 10 year technology predictions correct? Do we have any reason to believe this prediction is more likely to be true than any of the past ones mentioned in the article?

    • (Score: 2) by strattitarius on Friday October 31 2014, @01:43AM

      by strattitarius (3191) on Friday October 31 2014, @01:43AM (#111762) Journal

      Some predictions have been correct... Moore's Law held up well. Another angle is that it has already happened in the form of stolen nuclear plans and they just need a few years to obtain and build the stuff.

      --
      Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday October 31 2014, @09:55AM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday October 31 2014, @09:55AM (#111823) Journal

      Well considering we've had Heartbleed and the BASHing one right after the other? Frankly all the pieces are there, all its gonna take is some cybercrook stumbling across the Linux equivalent of Code Red and have no doubt it WILL happen, as too many devs bought into the "many eyes" bullshit without properly vetting their code or the code they were snarfing for their projects and too many corps used Linux backends and stuck them in devices with ZERO chance of getting updated! I mean do you have ANY idea how many routers and firewalls and other networking gear is running on 5+ year old Linux CLI backends? I have no doubt it WILL happen sooner or later and if the ones monitoring the BASHing attempts are right what we are seeing now is just testing the waters, more likely we'll have a major attack during the holidays where it'll have maximum impact and grab the most money.

        What we have with Heartbleed and Shellshock reminds me of a quote a marine commenting on the disasters that were the first sea battles in the Guadalcanal campaign "When you allow yourself to become overconfident, when you start thinking the enemy just isn't that good? That is when you get your ass kicked". What we have is the combination of security by obscurity and VERY vigilant and talented server admins giving too many Linux devs and corporate interests too much faith in the code, too much confidence which has let 'em become complacent and even lazy. And THAT boys and girls is when you get your ass kicked,just look at turn of the century MSFT.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    • (Score: 2) by halcyon1234 on Friday October 31 2014, @01:49PM

      by halcyon1234 (1082) on Friday October 31 2014, @01:49PM (#111896)
      I predict that within 10 years, thanks to the ever increasing availability of computational power, 10-year predictions will become highly accurate.
      --
      Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
  • (Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:11PM

    by Sir Finkus (192) on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:11PM (#111714) Journal

    I think it's a bit naive to think that this hasn't already occurred. Sure, it may not look like Die Hard 4, but this stuff happens every day. I've read a few cases where military positions are given away from metadata on photos taken by the soldiers. A "cyberattack" may not even be at all apparent, especially in the aftermath of a disaster. Just jamming cell towers during an emergency could cause catastrophic damage.

    Of course that isn't even considering the daily "cyber attacks" governments inflict on their citizens, which have surely caused innumerable casualties.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Friday October 31 2014, @12:45AM

      by JNCF (4317) on Friday October 31 2014, @12:45AM (#111745) Journal

      Here's a funny one. [wikipedia.org] It supposedly didn't cause any loss of (human) life, even if it is true, but it was a hell of a big explosion. The CIA acknowledgement of sabotaging a pipeline through "flawed turbines" sounds like a reasonable fit, but like the wiki notes it could be unrelated. I'd bet it's legit.

      • (Score: 1) by anubi on Friday October 31 2014, @04:43AM

        by anubi (2828) on Friday October 31 2014, @04:43AM (#111789) Journal

        Very interesting link! Thanks!

        This is just the kind of stuff that keeps my trust at bay for technological things, and why I feel so compelled to try to understand exactly what my stuff is doing.

        Just because something is backed by a big name no longer means you can trust it. Trust is such a monetized asset these days; companies will sell their reputation for a handshake.

        Ignorance of how your stuff works leads to things like you linked to. The Russians trusted too much - and it just goes to show one what the ramifications of dancing with the devil are.

        --
        "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 31 2014, @06:10PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday October 31 2014, @06:10PM (#111973) Journal

        How much damage did Stuxnet [wikipedia.org] cause? I wouldn't be suprised if that one crossed the 10 billion mark already. Nuke tech isn't exactly cheap.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:22PM

    by LoRdTAW (3755) on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:22PM (#111716) Journal

    Run for your lives!
    PRISM was necessary after all!
    Prep for doomsday and pack your bug out bags!
    The sky is falling!

    What a dumb summary. If you read the article there are both "experts" who say yes, and others who equally say no. And of course, like many other predictions, the numbers are pulled out of thin air.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday October 31 2014, @12:15AM

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Friday October 31 2014, @12:15AM (#111734) Journal

      Stay away from "Internet of Things".

      It's a Trojan horse.

      --
      You're betting on the pantomime horse...
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @01:12AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @01:12AM (#111756)

        This reminds me of a comment [slashdot.org] I saw on Slashdot some time ago:

        Here's a list of reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things:

        1) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I sleep.

        2) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pee.

        3) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I make kaka.

        4) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pleasure myself.

        5) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I wash my body in the shower.

        6) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I relax in the tub.

        7) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I brush my teeth.

        8) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I make passionate love to my wife.

        9) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I brush my hair.

        10) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I read a book.

        11) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I read Slashdot.

        12) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I bake cake.

        13) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I put in my contact lenses.

        14) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I get ready to play golf.

        15) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I do my laundry.

        16) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I think about rugby.

        17) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I tie my shoes.

        18) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I celebrate the 4th of July.

        19) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I water my flowers.

        20) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I eat ham.

        21) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I use my stapler to staple documents.

        22) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I chew bubble gum.

        23) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I check the oil in my car.

        24) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I look for my TV remote.

        25) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I blow my nose.

        26) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I rearrange my stamp collection.

        27) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I listen to the Backstreet Boys.

        28) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I do my calisthenics.

        29) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I search for a paper clip.

        30) Internet of Things devices could send information about me to advertisers.

        31) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I sleep.

        32) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I pee.

        33) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I make kaka.

        34) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I pleasure myself.

        35) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I wash my body in the shower.

        36) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I relax in the tub.

        37) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I brush my teeth.

        38) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I make passionate love to my wife.

        39) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I brush my hair.

        40) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I read a book.

        41) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I read Slashdot.

        42) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I bake cake.

        43) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I put in my contact lenses.

        44) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I get ready to play golf.

        45) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I do my laundry.

        46) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I think about rugby.

        47) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I tie my shoes.

        48) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I celebrate the 4th of July.

        49) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I water my flowers.

        50) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I eat ham.

        51) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I use my stapler to staple documents.

        52) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I chew bubble gum.

        53) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I check the oil in my car.

        54) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I look for my TV remote.

        55) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I blow my nose.

        56) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I rearrange my stamp collection.

        57) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I listen to the Backstreet Boys.

        58) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I do my calisthenics.

        59) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I search for a paper clip.

        60) Everything listed above is really, really, really fucking creepy.

        And those are just my top 60 reasons! I've got a lot more than just those. The Internet of Things is creepy to the max and it sounds like it could be very invasive.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @06:09PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @06:09PM (#111971)

          The "internet of things" is absolutely creepy, but there are some potentially cool things you could do with it like unlock your door for people while you're away on vacation instead of giving them each a key or hiding a key outside. It'd be really stupid to have everything connected to the internet, but some stuff like locks, lights, and heating/cooling could have some cool uses.

          • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Sunday November 02 2014, @10:55PM

            by LoRdTAW (3755) on Sunday November 02 2014, @10:55PM (#112497) Journal

            The problem is IoT can add convenience to peoples lives but at the same time is a gold mine of data for big corps. They have the money to buy or build their own devices and they will dictate protocols, interfaces all the while upload your usage to their servers to mine and sell.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aliks on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:33PM

    by aliks (357) on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:33PM (#111721)

    Any time there is any kind of incident in the next 10 years,

    if one of the bad guys has a smartphone on his person the journalists will scream cyber attack.

    and their spin on the story will be welcomed by the cyber industry

    --
    To err is human, to comment divine
  • (Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:53PM

    by gallondr00nk (392) on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:53PM (#111726)

    God, I love discussing possible events a decade into the future.

    Whenever 'experts' are wheeled out, I can't help but think of that fantastic Orson Welles film F for Fake [wikipedia.org], the subject of which was the art forger Elmyr [wikipedia.org]. He showed that in some fields, experts really don't know that much.

    I have to wonder who these technology experts are.

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday October 31 2014, @12:48AM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Friday October 31 2014, @12:48AM (#111747)

      They're not experts, they're loud-mouth morons.

      If they were truly technology experts, they'd actually be working on technology, instead of talking to the media.

    • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Friday October 31 2014, @03:15PM

      by rts008 (3001) on Friday October 31 2014, @03:15PM (#111928)

      I predict in ten years, I will be ten years older, unless I die before then.

      I must be psychic, or psychotic, I always get them mixed up. ;-)

      Jules Verne seems to have a better track record with predicting future tech than the current crop of experts.(past 50-60 years)
      But I wonder what his record and thoughts would be today?

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by mendax on Friday October 31 2014, @12:00AM

    by mendax (2840) on Friday October 31 2014, @12:00AM (#111728)

    The attack has already happened. However, the attackers are the U.S. government courtesy of the NSA and the victims are the American people. In my mind, the NSA's actions are far more dangerous than anything any enemy could perpetrate. It's an attack on the liberties that a free society requires in order to remain free.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by mendax on Friday October 31 2014, @12:13AM

      by mendax (2840) on Friday October 31 2014, @12:13AM (#111733)

      I ought to have added that the lives destroyed by the government because of their illegal actions far outweigh any attack done by any foreign or terrorist enemy.

      --
      It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
      • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday October 31 2014, @12:21AM

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Friday October 31 2014, @12:21AM (#111739) Journal

        Exactly.

        US pisses itself, over and over, about their precious 9/11.

        "Birds come home to roost", as Malcolm X put it... Violence and exploitation will haunt the perpetrator of injustice all his days, even as he protests his just image and innocent victimhood. "There are none so blind, as those who WILL not see."

        --
        You're betting on the pantomime horse...
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Gravis on Friday October 31 2014, @12:19AM

    by Gravis (4596) on Friday October 31 2014, @12:19AM (#111737)

    it's already been demonstrated that unsecured and poorly secured medical devices can be remotely hacked. one such device is a specific infusion pump [wikipedia.org] that is used in some hospitals. so yes, it's totally possible for someone to commit remote genocide. now, no nation-state would be insane enough to pull something like that but a group of zealots could still manage it. our remotely accessible SCADA systems on infrastructure are really a one trick pony because once the jig is up, it can be disconnected (as it should have been to start with). what's more likely is something like stuxnet where it merely damaged systems slowly thus not revealing it's presence.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Friday October 31 2014, @01:44AM

      by anubi (2828) on Friday October 31 2014, @01:44AM (#111763) Journal

      What seems at first to be purely innocent simple gates are no longer safe.

      I will beat again the horse which has already been beaten here, but we are setting ourselves up for a fall big time by designing in things like FTDI chips which can be remotely bricked. A bricked chip, soldered into a board, is now a bricked board. A system that bricks every board plugged into it is a nightmare.

      Its not that they did this that concerns me so, as some people by their very nature can be very destructive if given the power. A kid given a can of spray paint is apt to make a mess on someone's building. An executive, provided with hold harmless clauses and arrays of lawyers to protect his personal assets, is apt to trash other people's systems in order to make a point.

      The point I am trying to get to was demonstrated a few days ago, by FTDI, working with Microsoft, to release deliberately crafted bricking codes through the Microsoft Update system. These chips are now out there. Designed into other stuff. Just waiting for a bricking code. Digital sleeper cells.

      I wonder how many point-of-sale terminals and coke machines are out there just waiting to be bricked because they trusted the wrong company? This is why I laughed at the salesman at the mall when he tried to sell me a Microsoft phone. Who knows when Microsoft may brick it? Maybe business executives still trust the Microsoft name, but guys like me see the powerlessness of trying to design using anything that requires a Microsoft infrastructure. I do not understand it I would much rather get whatever I have to do onto Arduino and Propeller chips, where I can block off subsequent write attempts to the wrong place with a hardware jumper. I know what I am doing is probably overkill for industrial controls, but someone concerned with kids getting free sodas from his vending machines or protecting them from someone bricking them for the fun of it would be interested in my work.

      I feel rather powerless to do anything about it, as there are political forces at work here, that do not rely on trust or the physics that govern devices, rather its all business relationships and handshakes with the power-people. A kid steals a six pack of beer, and he's marked for life, but some executives OK the manufacture and deployment of devices deliberately designed with a self-destruct, then subsequent release of destruct codes, and everyone seems OK with it.

      I am not OK with it at all. It is a serious breach of trust, and I for one would love to see our Congress seriously re-evaluate copyright legislation in view of the lack of robustness we are now experiencing in the wake of trying to build business models on monopolistic behaviour.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @08:27AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @08:27AM (#111808)

      So, why is not not illegal to put hospital equipment on the internet?

      If a controlled demolitions company put the switch on the sidewalk, with a sign saying "please do not press", and a passerby hit the switch while people were still working in the building, those responsible for putting the switch there would be prosecuted.

  • (Score: 2) by meisterister on Friday October 31 2014, @12:19AM

    by meisterister (949) on Friday October 31 2014, @12:19AM (#111738) Journal

    It may sound sort of paranoid, but who in their right mind would allow any part of the electrical grid on the internet? I don't care how hard it would be otherwise (oooooh, we can't add another wire for data signals onto our power lines (or use modems, because how many hackers seriously have those anymore)! Nope. That would be sane).

    --
    (May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
  • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday October 31 2014, @12:26PM

    by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Friday October 31 2014, @12:26PM (#111849)

    As an expert, I predict that every single person in the world is going to die one day.

    At least that's the prediction that came out of my ass today.

    Let's all start running about, screaming in panic.

  • (Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Friday October 31 2014, @02:09PM

    by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Friday October 31 2014, @02:09PM (#111907)

    Like I say, if you're going to predict something, predict it so far in the future that no one will remember your prediction. I call it the "five-year rule", although this is a ten-year prediction. I always flip it around. Take the same time period and look backwards that far and see how much things have changed. In 2005, was anyone predicting anything that's happened since?

    --
    (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
  • (Score: 2) by gidds on Friday October 31 2014, @03:17PM

    by gidds (589) on Friday October 31 2014, @03:17PM (#111929)

    For those of you who weren't about (alive, or working in IT) last century:...  Lots of people used to save space in files and databases and microprocessors by storing only two digits of the year (e.g. '85' instead of '1985').  After all, we'd got so used to writing and thinking of years that way, it seemed only natural.

    Then, in the late 1990s, it suddenly dawned on some people that that wasn't a sustainable practice.  By then, a lot of devices had electronics in them with some sort of date or time processing.  So at midnight on 2000-01-01, lifts might have frozen or plummeted; aircraft might have fallen out of the sky or been given stupid directions by air-traffic control; bank accounts might have suddenly gained or lost vast sums; pacemakers and telephones and power stations and traffic lights and all sorts of other electronic devices might have stopped working, with potentially lethal consequences.  (Of course, most systems would probably have worked fine; but some wouldn't, and so they all needed checking.)

    The dilemma facing those who understood the risk was that if they didn't make enough noise about it, then organisations and people wouldn't have made all the necessary checks and fixes, and there could have been all those dire consequences, combined with lots of nasty questions like "Why didn't you warn us???"  But if they did make lots of noise about it, then nearly everything would get fixed/handled, and there would be lots of nasty questions like "Why did you make all this fuss for nothing???"

    In the event, they erred on the side of making some noise; and although there were many minor failures, I don't recall hearing of anything major.

    (Of course, those of us who looked more than 6 months in advance had been using 4-digit years all along, and so didn't get to put in lots of hours at exhorbitant rates fixing things...)

    And ever since, the 'Year 2000 Problem' has had a bad rap as a storm in a teacup, a lot of fuss about nothing, a pointless scare...

    This sounds like the same sort of dilemma.  If we don't raise awareness of the importance of security, the risk of Bad Men trying to do Bad Things to our electronic devices, and the need to protect against it in everything from military supercomputers to internet-connected light-bulbs, then those risks will be very real.  But if we do scare people enough to improve security, then (hopefully) we will have nothing to be scared of!

    --
    [sig redacted]
  • (Score: 1) by George Vreeland Hill on Friday November 21 2014, @06:23PM

    by George Vreeland Hill (4890) on Friday November 21 2014, @06:23PM (#118547)

    Once the doors of technology were opened to the masses, it was a matter of time before evil was let in.
    We have been under cyber attack for decades, but the mother bomb is indeed coming.
    When it happens, we will realize that we were better off before it all.

    George Vreeland Hill