I agree with the speaker about how the government is behind in tackling cyber warfare, and that more needs to be done to protect citizens. The most compelling examples for me were how for years, the possibility of cyber being a threat was only considered in 2011 onward and how Anonymous had more influence against Los Zetas with a single threat of information leakage than the U.S. government. While the government is aware of cyber being a top threat and is addressing the issues, it isn’t resulting in effective change. Banning encryption in exchange for more monitoring doesn’t remove the vulnerabilities and backdoors that are growing daily. Furthermore, people are also still left in the dark about security and what they can do to improve it by having the only solution be monitoring. By relinquishing this approach, people will become more aware of cybersecurity and take steps to protect themselves, instead of only looking toward the government as the end-all-be-all.

Additionally, this article, mentions how there are structural issues with cybersecurity within security devices, systems, and the Unites States approach to cyber as a whole. For security devices and systems, it is due to the want to push them out quickly for market value, as opposed to quality security. For the nation’s approach, viewing potential conflict through only espionage and cybercrime means less support is being put into other forms of attack and defense. Adding on the average time for detecting breaches being almost 200 days, this results in a government with poor equipment and insight to address cybersecurity, which allows other nations to further diminish the security already in place.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/09/cyber-attacks-reveal-uncomfortable-truths-about-us.html