zlacker

> According to some in the US government, Facebook can change the result of an election, so I guess that would qualify

Essential infrastructure describes "assets that are essential for the functioning of a society and economy" [1]. Not things that can cause a lot of damage. Bombers aren't essential infrastructure. Facebook is non-essential.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_infrastructure

replies(3): >>koube+a2 >>Rooste+n2 >>chairm+t2

>>JumpCr+(OP)
Bombers don't cause damage if they are neglected and unmaintained. A better analogy might be explosive material or radioactive material like involved in the Goiânia accident. There are consequences to the public when these are neglected. I don't know if those semantically qualify as critical infra, but its security is important for our security.

>>JumpCr+(OP)
The information contained within Facebook is the payload. Facebook itself is the structure that holds and protects (or lack thereof in this case) that payload.

Nuclear missiles themselves aren't critical infrastructure, but you better bet the launch systems, and specifically the security of those systems, are utterly critical to society's continued functioning as we know it.

>>JumpCr+(OP)
According to your linked article, it could be considered 'Critical.' Not sure how it doesn't fit under the 'telecommunications' umbrella. Subjectively I don't like facebook nor people's dependence on it to label it 'critical', but objectively I'm not sure the linked article supports those subjective inclinations. At the very least, it's certainly debatable that facebook could be considered Telecommunications infrastructure.

replies(1): >>vlan0+k5

>>chairm+t2
But it's a self fulfilling prophecy. It's only "critical" because it exists. If we shutdown every Facebook server tomorrow and set fire to their data center, it would no longer exist. And therefore have no influence on much of anything.

replies(2): >>chairm+r9 >>module+nb

>>vlan0+k5
I'm not so sure I follow this argument, one could say the Earth itself is only critical infrastructure because it "exists". So therefore if we destroy the Earth, it wasn't actually "critical" infrastructure, even though any associated infrastructure on the Earth went along with it. Maybe the distinction needs a little more fleshing out.