Why would there be such reluctance on the part of not only Americans and engineers but perhaps others interested in the configuration of cyberspace?

there are many people, I think, both from the public and from the leadership of the countries who may due to some issues oppose a surveilance of cyberspce. I think people are more prone to love the idea of freedom of expression and also privacy. But we should also think that people will suffer from terrorist groups. Thus, why should there be a reluctance in a world and time that problems that people face from many directions mount.



Two other articles, "Pentagon Preps Mind Fields for Smarter War Stations" and "The militarization of neuroscience," examine US DARPA research and the "militarization" of neuroscience . This type of research is inevitable, not only in the United States, but in other major powers (e.g. Russia, PRC, UK, etc.). What are the implications for global politics and the development of cyberspace raised by these types of technologies?

If we want to talk about development then why not allowing people to do. I think, the world faces problems such as terrorism and the problems whether terrorism or other forms will continue. So before the time comes and the world suffers severly we should have these kind of machines to check the people. This is a good idea, but to what extent should these machines check every individual and what cost should the governments pay. Of course the military might get a benefit, but other sectors in a country like education and welfare might not. But less developed countries might not be able to pay such a hight cost not even the military will be able to pay and as a result, I think, the digital gap widens in the world rather than closes.