Talk:Cyber ShockWave

GNN clarification
There are several GNN abbreviations. I researched which GNN fit the simulation media description and clarified that it was the Guerrilla News Network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoAuthentic (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions
Here is a newspaper article I found that I think has some helpful information to incorporate into the Cyber ShockWave article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605762.html. While one of the simulation attacks of a malware program being planted on phones is discussed in the Wikipedia article, I think a full summary of the simulation should be discussed in one entire section. This article provides some of that information; 40 million people lose power on the east coast of the U.S., 60 million cell phones lose service, Wall Street becomes shut down for a week, and both cell phones and computers are turned into weapons to crash the Internet. I think the results section can also be expanded with some of this information. Jamie Gorelick, a deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton, recommends in the article that the Obama administration seek legislation for comprehensive authority to deal with cyber emergencies. I think another important area to talk about is the controversies that could arise in a cyber warfare scenario. Some issues to address are: the level of authority the U.S. has to quarantine people's cell phones in an emergency; the level privacy that Americans could expect to have on their cell phones and Internet in a cyber attack if the government felt the need to monitor them; and the extent to which government should/could regulate the private sector, which has the majority of the critical infrastucture and information that would be susceptible to a cyber attack. Gsrogers (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the article explains that GNN is the faux news network that "covered" the simulated cyber crisis. Gsrogers (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Building off of the in class review two weeks ago, what do you think of making some of the changes we discussed? I.e. changing the bullet point section of attendees into a new section that is in paragraph format. This could count as a checkpoint in the formatting category. (you could argue readability as well). Also, try your best to write the article as if you were expecting someone with absolutely no knowledge of this topic to read it. Keeping that in mind, you can make significant progress, and hopefully reach DYK status. Lastly, try your best to request some assessments. Finals will be approaching soon, and three quality articles are due. Each article obviously requiring time spent not only in editing and writing, but in feedback and assessment seeking. AMDomG (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)