Thread by @vmyths

1/6
Let's talk about the ingredients that went into this meal of a treatise (see below).

The authors cite @KimZetter in the endnotes 👍

@bontchev? No mentions at all.

@craiu? No mentions at all.

@mikko? No mentions ... and he's got "vigorish" in DoD!

Me? Yeah, no.

2/6
There is a MAJOR BARRIER between "corporate #cybersecurity" that formed as an industry in the late 1980s

vs. "beltway bandits" who hijacked it for gov't funding in the late 1990s.

Fully a dozen years ago I warned DoD is "devolv[ing]" in cyberspace:

web.archive.org/web/2016032800…

3/6
And this brings me to a vital concern I have with the ingredients in ANY well-resarched DoD-centric cyberspace treatise w/ 139 footnotes:

PhD candidates FAIL to earn a doctorate every year because their "well-researched" thesis is way too damn lopsided!

4/6
As for the Jervis Healey Zetter¹ et al. treatise?

I mean it's nice, [Jason]. The words are potentially harmless. The [prose] is ... it's pleasant! But I think Tom is definitely right:²
_____
¹ I couldn’t resist 😎
² skip to 09:00 in video

5/6
So! What constitutes a *good* treatise in the style of Jervis & Healey?

Endnote #80 sums up my belief that DoD is "a helpless damsel"

because "cyber war" COMPELS the corporate & personal sectors' TOTAL involvement:

from rural electrical linemen to your grandma's Jitterbug

6/6
Folks, you can't expect @US_CYBERCOM to prosecute cyber war in a vacuum

while thousands of U.S. patients die attached to infected lifesaving medical devices

and @JoeWeissBlog watches power go out nationwide FOREVER.

These DoD-centric treatises need more ingredients!

7/6
To my "OG" readers:

The paragraph below sums up why I see no need to tackle the authors' allusions & callouts to "Cyber Pearl Harbor."

If ever there was a "subtweet" in a DoD-centric treatise, this is it!

(@threadreaderapp please unroll)