[bilbo0s]

You've totally missed the point.

No one advocated ignoring the vulnerability. I, myself, specifically stated that monitoring should be direct. Consumers should unilaterally decide where, when and how their assets are monitored.

The material point on security is that there are many, many methods of disrupting a power grid. Even when you are looking for plausible deniability, shutting down solar panels from cloud website doesn't make a list of your top 10 options. (In fact, it won't make the list in those scenarios precisely because you are looking for plausible deniability.)

Let's imagine a power grid as modern societies know them today, except all consumers monitor their solar panels themselves, and none of those consumers outsource this monitoring function to any third party foreign or domestic. Power grids can still be materially disrupted in this scenario. Especially in the case of total war. Obviously in the case of open war. And particularly in the case of cold war.

As I said, I advocate consumers disconnecting any power generation functions from networks. But if I'm in the seat coming up with post conflict, or even simply emergency recovery, operating assumptions, I'm not counting on those panels generating power. It's just irresponsible to do so. In total war EMP will knock most of that generation off line where you're luck enough not to have it eliminated entirely. In cold or open war, disruptions to distribution can and will render that generation useless. (Just ask Ukraine.)

Consumer cloud, or even personal, monitoring of solar panels does not enhance, nor does it degrade, your adversary's ability to disrupt your power grid when your adversary is at that super power level. If you believe it does, you're either not looking at the full spectrum of what you're calling "vulnerabilities" extant in the infrastructure of modern societies. Or you're underestimating the full spectrum of capabilities of modern military powers. Both, frankly, are fatal mistakes in the types of crises we're postulating.

[crazygringo]

No, your point was clearly stated:

> But the security argument? Yeah, that ship has sailed. Total war, means total war.

Those are your words.

I'm saying, focusing on total war is irresponsible and leads you to draw false conclusions. In the real world, limited conflicts are what we're dealing with 99.9+% of the time, thank goodness.

And now in your new comment, for some reason you're focusing on "plausible deniability" which is another red herring. If China wants to disrupt Europe's grid, it doesn't care about plausible deniability -- the entire point is to publicly retaliatiate. It just needs to do it, as easily as possible. The idea that relying on a cloud vulnerability "doesn't make a list of your top 10 options" doesn't make any sense at all. It might very well be the #1 option, or one of three tactics employed simultaneously.

[bilbo0s]

The security argument against cloud based monitoring has sailed.

With or without cloud based monitoring, our power grids can be disrupted.

That's the commonly accepted meaning of "that ship has sailed" as a colloquialism with respect to cloud based monitoring.

Also, you, yourself, brought up the idea of cold war style confrontation. The basis of most actions against proxy supporters in cold war style conflicts is plausible deniability. It's not a red herring, it's a widely adhered to tenet of cold war style conflict planning when targeting said proxy supporters.

I tried to cover total war, open war, and cold war to address the full spectrum of likely super power on super power active confrontations. In each scenario, the existence, or non-existence, of cloud based monitoring of solar panels, has no effect on the ability or inability of your adversary to disrupt your power grid.

Which disruption was the central thesis of your assertion. I was simply explaining why it was false.

You are being willfully argumentative at this point. If you didn't want to address cold war scenarios, why did you bring them up? You have a nice day sir or ma'am.

[crazygringo]

> Also, you, yourself, brought up the idea of cold war style confrontation.

No, I didn't.

I think it's clear that China shutting down Europe's power grid would not be a cold war scenario. That would be quite hot. But also clearly not total war either.

Since you don't want to converse any more I won't make any further points, but please don't claim I said things that I clearly didn't.

[WA]

How could a super power disrupt the energy grid in a non-total war scenario?