Today, Twitter, we're going to argue abt whether exploits are weapons or not. Weaponized anthrax may be better analogy than missiles.https://twitter.com/RidT/status/880338437886365696 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Or even a success. I do think the language of proliferation is apt though. Maybe not all prior lessons, but concept.
I am not a fan of "label engineering." Terms have a life of their own. The IT sec community has a large proportion of label nerds.
No matter how hard they try to get people to use their term for exploiting vulnerabilities to advance military objectives, they will fail.
Also, if you really believed "label engineering" isn't important, you wouldn't be arguing against ditching the "weapon" metaphor. ;-)
I am arguing that one should use the language that is already there, not try to form the language to your own mindset.
I went through all of this in 2008. Found that "cyber" was accepted use in policy and military circles. Adopted their terms.
Even consulted with a linguist on "cyber war" vs "cyberwar." Went with latter because he felt it would contract eventually.
We have the leading cyber wonk calling out the leading cyber journalist in public here. *That* is label engineering. And it will fail.
Missiles, bombs, nukes? No. Bio or chem? Maybe. If so, what might we learn by using those weapons as a lens?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.