dave.aitel at gmail.com
Fri Apr 1 13:35:49 EDT 2016
One possible long-lasting cause of the "asymmetry" everyone talks about is
that US defenders get quite high salaries compared to Chinese attackers (I
assume, not being a Chinese attacker it's hard to know for sure).
Just in pure "dollars spent vs dollars spent" it seems like it would be
three times cheaper to be a Chinese attacker at that rate?
But I think it's still a question whether or not machine learning
techniques make surveillance cheaper than intrusion as a rule. What if it
does? What would that change about our national strategy? (And if it
DOESN'T then why bother?)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dailydave