Would you ever be comfortable with the government taking a direct action to address vulnerabilities in your networks?

Under certain circumstances taking some level of action seems appropriate, but blocking the entity from being on the Internet would be a more appropriate action than actively hacking the system, adding and removing code. Back in my Intel days, I got a call from somebody at the Pentagon. I didn't believe who it was so I called around until I could validate the caller. They said Intel systems were attacking them because we’d had a couple systems taken over by a bot that was part of something going against the Pentagon, so they needed me to act. We were able to deal with it, and I probably would have been irritated had they just shut me off. Another scenario occurred that did take Intel offline, and it was done by a private company. Going into earnings release one quarter, we're offline to upload certain things to the NASDAQ system. NASDAQ had basically blacklisted the Intel domain it was coming from. They took action to prevent us from doing what we needed to do. Once we sorted it out I was pretty irritated with NASDAQ, but I understood their reasons because they’d received a trigger of potential maliciousness and needed to protect the NASDAQ system. In essence, they disabled my ability to execute a business process to protect Intel.

Anonymous Author
Under certain circumstances taking some level of action seems appropriate, but blocking the entity from being on the Internet would be a more appropriate action than actively hacking the system, adding and removing code. Back in my Intel days, I got a call from somebody at the Pentagon. I didn't believe who it was so I called around until I could validate the caller. They said Intel systems were attacking them because we’d had a couple systems taken over by a bot that was part of something going against the Pentagon, so they needed me to act. We were able to deal with it, and I probably would have been irritated had they just shut me off. Another scenario occurred that did take Intel offline, and it was done by a private company. Going into earnings release one quarter, we're offline to upload certain things to the NASDAQ system. NASDAQ had basically blacklisted the Intel domain it was coming from. They took action to prevent us from doing what we needed to do. Once we sorted it out I was pretty irritated with NASDAQ, but I understood their reasons because they’d received a trigger of potential maliciousness and needed to protect the NASDAQ system. In essence, they disabled my ability to execute a business process to protect Intel.
1 upvotes
Anonymous Author
It changes the dynamics of cybersecurity to have someone say—under color of law—we're going to access your system without your approval, or even without your knowledge. If the FBI had just blocked the domains they targeted from connecting to the internet, it would have forced the system owners to take action. They’d be like, “Our system is down. We need to respond or fix this issue.” Domains have been seized by the FBI before, it happens to sites doing some form of human trafficking, or other illegal activity, like Silk Road. The government uses the established laws to take them down. If my fridge at home is compromised through hacking, can the Feds walk in and take it from my house? They shouldn't be able to. That seems like it would be a violation regardless of some broad subpoena. I try to translate what this would look like physically and it doesn't make sense to me.
1 upvotes
Anonymous Author
It becomes a question of my liberties as a person or as a company. To what extent can the government tell me what to do? And can they take that action on my behalf? What rights do I have? How far is their reach, and under what circumstances does it take effect? Am I able to opt out or opt in?
3 upvotes