The readings that replaced Norris for this week are relevant for understanding "cyberpolitics" over the next 5 to 10 years, especially issues related to the militarization and securitization of the architecture of cyberspace, and research on human-computer interfaces.
In the Physorg.com article entitled "New Net Design Must Tackle Interests" a former US FBI agent L. Szwajkowski states "'building surveillance capabilities from the start could certainly cut costs' and that 'engineers and other Americans shouldn't worry.' 'In theory this would be an excellent idea, but I think there are political issues to overcome... There would be a reluctance to say you have an investigative agency at the table involved in a deep reworking of the Internet.'"
Why would there be such reluctance on the part of not only Americans and engineers but perhaps others interested in the configuration of cyberspace?
Two other articles, "Pentagon Preps Mind Fields for Smarter War Stations" and "The militarization of neuroscience," examine US DARPA research and the "militarization" of neuroscience . This type of research is inevitable, not only in the United States, but in other major powers (e.g. Russia, PRC, UK, etc.). What are the implications for global politics and the development of cyberspace raised by these types of technologies?
Before answering the second question you may want to visit US DARPA Information Processing Technology Office's description of currently active research projects.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment