> They could derail passenger trains, or even more dangerous, derail passenger trains loaded with lethal chemicals.
Why are passenger trains loaded with lethal chemicals in the first place?
Why are passenger trains loaded with lethal chemicals in the first place?
Panetta raises the issue that a combination of attacks could cause loss of life and a new sense of vulnerability among the public. (From the article: "...would cause physical destruction and the loss of life, an attack that would paralyze and shock the nation and create a profound new sense of vulnerability.")
The last time the public had that sudden sense of vulnerability, on 9/11 of course, there was a tremendous and partly counterproductive reaction that we're still dealing with.
It could be smarter to put in place laws to force private companies to report cyberattacks, so the government can understand the scope of the problem, than to pay for the reactive spasms that would follow a successful attack.
They don't want smart - otherwise we'd already be doing the smart thing.
I think Panetta partly wants money, but even more, wants laws changed so that privately-operated infrastructure has to have certain security provisions. His agency can't compel it without a law.
History has shown that market forces are not always sufficient to guard against catastrophic events.
(And BTW, trains derail even without evil cyber hacker criminals. First YouTube result: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCbOUgr_r-E)