The Future of Violence: Robots and Germs, Hackers and Drones - Confronting a New Age of Threat
Language: English
Pages: 1
ISBN: 1481526006
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
[Read by Tom Weiner]
From drone warfare in the Middle East to digital spying by the National Security Agency, the US government has harnessed the power of cutting-edge technology to awesome effect. But what happens when ordinary people have the same tools at their fingertips? Advances in cybertechnology, biotechnology, and robotics mean that more people than ever before have access to potentially dangerous technologies - from drones to computer networks and biological agents - that could be used to attack states and private citizens alike.
In The Future of Violence, law and security experts Benjamin Wittes and Gabriella Blum detail the myriad possibilities, challenges, and enormous risks present in the modern world and argue that if our national governments can no longer adequately protect us from harm, they will lose their legitimacy. Consequently, governments, companies, and citizens must rethink their security efforts to protect lives and liberty. In this brave new world where many little brothers are as menacing as any Big Brother, safeguarding our liberty and privacy may require strong domestic and international surveillance and regulatory controls. Maintaining security in this world where anyone can attack anyone requires a global perspective, with more multinational forces and greater action to protect (and protect against) weaker states who do not yet have the capability to police their own people. Drawing on political thinkers from Thomas Hobbes to the Founders and beyond, Wittes and Blum show that, despite recent protestations to the contrary, security and liberty are mutually supportive, and we must embrace one to ensure the other.
The Future of Violence is at once an introduction to our emerging world - one in which students can print guns with 3-D printers and scientists' manipulations of viruses can be recreated and unleashed by ordinary people - and an authoritative blueprint for how government must adapt in order to survive and protect us.
The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times
The No-Nonsense Guide to The United Nations (No-Nonsense Guides)
North Korea: State of Paranoia: A Modern History (3rd Edition)
A Thousand Farewells: A Reporter's Journey From Refugee Camp To The Arab Spring
Anonymous offers a daily reminder, is that while hackers will sometimes be patriotic—and thus act as a force multiplier for state policy—the engaged citizenry will not always pull in the same direction as government security policies. Indeed, the conception of security that the engaged citizenry embraces may differ considerably from the conception envisioned by the Leviathan, and even when the goals are the same, the citizenry’s means will not always comport with the Leviathan’s rules. Consider,.
Some day it will break apart, and that will be the end of everything.” His mother interjects, “What is that your business?” She barks at the doctor, “He’s stopped doing his homework!” Alvy asks, “What’s the point?” Every generation proclaims “the end of everything.” And so far, every generation has been wrong, at least with regard to the “everything” part. Most likely, the current generation’s apocalyptic anxiety is also wrong. In any event, the project of governance cannot proceed on the.
Law, April 16, 1856, published in Natalino Ronzitti, The Law of Naval Warfare: A Collection of Agreements and Documents with Commentaries (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1988), 61. 28. For an example of a proposal to use privateering in the context of counterterrorism policy, see DeWitte, “Let Privateers Marque Terrorism,” 130–158. 29. For the use of zero-days in Stuxnet, see Dan Goodin, “Discovery of New ‘Zero-Day’ Exploit Links Developers of Stuxnet, Flame,” Ars Technica, June 11, 2012,.
Much a feature of statehood, no longer means that a state can be entirely independent of other states; nor is it as free to conduct itself entirely as it sees fit—at least not without huge consequences. Countries that insist on the freest of free reins—like Iran and North Korea—become international pariahs. Although the international system is still rife with disputes and conflicts, the growing web of international interactions, economic interdependence, and benefits from interstate cooperation.
Field theory that binds it all together. It simply does not make much sense. The law often suggests a degree of protection utterly disconnected from the protection it affords to comparable data and which it cannot and therefore does not in practice deliver. It thereby marries obscurity with inconsistency. The principles supposedly guiding this area conflict with one another, and we do not follow them anyway. The reason is that we are really not sure what value we are trying to protect—which makes.