NEW CASTLE —
The Internet is an amazing resource.
It provides seemingly endless information and entertainment. And it has become an instrumental tool for commerce, allowing businesses to reach customers in ways that were once impossible.
Today, it’s difficult to imagine life without the Internet and all it can do. But as everyone knows — or ought to know — the World Wide Web has its dark side, one that’s fraught with danger.
On an individual level, this includes such things as scams and viruses that can cost money, disrupt computers and generally make things miserable. However, cyberspace contains other dangers that have genuinely deadly consequences.
Modern society runs on computers. They operate the electrical grid, water systems, power plants, financial networks. An increasing concern with national security and defense involves protecting key facilities from cyber attacks. In theory, if a hacker could interfere with nuclear power plant operations, he could cause it to malfunction and create a disaster.
That’s just one dramatic example. Other scenarios could produce blackouts in cities, shut down water supplies or disrupt telecommunications. It’s safe to assume that in future wars, cyber attacks will be just as common as bombs and missiles, perhaps more so.
And they could be just as damaging and deadly.
The businesses that operate power plants and other at-risk facilities have good reasons to protect their assets. But that doesn’t guarantee they will be successful. This is why the federal government is involved in cybersecurity. The potential for public harm is simply too great for Washington to ignore.
Yet like everything else, government involvement in Internet security comes with its own set of concerns. The extent to which government can — and should — direct the Web security operations of private companies has been an ongoing debate. For instance, businesses worry that more cyber security regulations will add costs without guaranteeing any real protection.
Earlier this year, Congress failed to pass cybersecurity legislation, mainly because of such objections from the business community. Now the Obama administration is preparing an executive order in an effort to address concerns raised by national security experts.
We don’t claim to be authorities when it comes to security in cyberspace. But we do know there are legitimate dual interests here, both for business and government.
Regulation of cyber communications should not stifle crucial business operations. At the same time, however, operators of key facilities and services need to consider what will happen if the type of breach that’s feared by security officials actually happens. The resulting government regulations at that point would be hard to fight.
NEW CASTLE —
The Internet is an amazing resource.
Our Opinion: Purchase of city house raises policy issues
Having the city buy a house on East Hillcrest Avenue because of neighbor complaints is bad public policy. The house in question was the scene of a shooting in October, in which three people were injured.
Our Opinion: Famed musician faces hate speech charges in France
Bob Dylan always has something interesting to say. Even when it’s not particularly wise or insightful. But Dylan still can contribute something instructive regarding free expression in the process.
Our Opinion: Wilmington district avoids trouble with tuition vote
The Wilmington Area School Board’s decision against giving non-resident teachers free student tuition was the right one.
Our Opinion: IRS seeks tougher rules for advocacy organizations
Americans have a fundamental First Amendment right to espouse and advocate their political views. But do they have a right to expect others to subsidize those views?
Our Opinion: Nation fails to take clear stand on drug’s medical use
To understand the shortcomings in putting state power ahead of federal authority, consider the matter of medical marijuana. Slowly but surely, states have been liberalizing marijuana laws. Every year, more and more states authorize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Our Opinion: Senate Democrats use ‘nuclear option’ and moderation is the victim
Last week’s decision by Senate Democrats to limit use of the filibuster will widen Washington’s partisan divide. Democrats argue they had good reason to end the practice of blocking votes on judicial and executive branch nominees — and they are right.
Our Opinion: The curious need to post ‘In God We Trust’
Apparently, Pennsylvania lawyers don’t have nearly enough to do. So some lawmakers want to keep them busy. That appears to be the most likely outcome of a proposed piece of legislation requiring the national motto “In God We Trust” to be posted in every school in the state.
Our Opinion: Program will give Americans more insight into their culture
The information available on the Internet is nothing short of astonishing. Of course, a fair amount of it consists of little more than trivial nonsense, celebrity gossip and a seemingly endless stream of cat videos.
Our Opinion: Fate of nuclear talks with Iran remains uncertain
Hope flickered for a while last week regarding a possible breakthrough nuclear deal with Iran. But this week, things appear to be a bit more muddled.
Our Opinion: Whigs are attempting a comeback in America
The two-party system has dominated American politics ever since — well — the beginning. Although George Washington avoided party labels as the first president, even during his tenure in office, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists parties were taking shape.
- More Editorials Headlines
- Our Opinion: Purchase of city house raises policy issues