That's the main point of a government mandated system. All computers must be sold with one. You have the choice of disabling it of course, but it would be included by default so the computer-illiterate would be protected without further action. They'd also won't become unwilling participants to DDos attacks.
Spying on your citizens and enforcing martial law are two very different things. The US already (illegally) spies on its citizens. Giving it more ways of doing so is not a good idea.
Well then the US does not have to do that then. They could just pay for our free McAfee or Norton... A credit perhaps even to allow us to buy it for free with a new computer.
Then the guys at McAfee or Norton can use this to curtail infections because they now have access to more computers, whereas right now they only have access to those willing to pay for their stuff.
My point was that if we can keep in checks and balances from the military from being abused, we can do the same for national computer security.
1) Security online is an international problem. One government cannot solve the problem, even it were a good idea.
2) Your arguments comparing this to the military are fundamentally flawed. The US military has its basis in the Constitution, and has been refined by many further laws/acts over the course of US history. That structure is what keeps them in line. No such structure exists for your proposal.
1) I agree. Unfortunately a unified human government is not in the near future, but having one whole country, especially one as well connected as the United States, secure itself can cut into the power of botnets or viruses. The US can also set an example, for other countries to adopt. (This is all assuming that distributing anti-viral software by the gov't can keep up with self-propagating viruses).
2) My point is that such a structure can be created for my proposal too. Simply letting the government contract out to multiple private corporations, or providing subsidies for antiviral software, is one way to prevent "big brother" from controlling computers.
> We have a government mandated military. Most governments do. What keeps them from using it to enforce it's will?
It's a whole lot of work to do so. Govts are lazy. Waging war on their people is hard work, so they tend to avoid it.
"Misusing" equipment or information is easy, so they do it.
Remember "Joe the Plumber"? As soon as he hit the news, various govt flunkies were rummaging through govt databases looking for dirt and releasing it to the press. (And, in at least one case, they either made up stuff or didn't know the law.)
And no, they don't do that as a matter of course whenever someone is on TV.
And yes, Repubs are probably no better. That's why we can't fix these things by voting for different people - we have to take away their toys.
