Fortuantely scientists employed by Universities should not be directly affected by this (all UK Universities are private institutions although they do receive the bulk of their funding from government) - and thus there should remain a good sized group of experts who can speak out unfettered.
Whether it was a real attack or a staged one, what mattered was what came after it, both in the government, and among the public.
Actually what came after it proves that it was not staged. The objective of terror organisations is to undermine our freedonm, in short to make us behave as badly as they do, thus undermining our moral authority. In this they succeeded because of the moral weakness of out politicians.
I don't believe that our politicians actually want to create a police state (although that cannot be said of some of the commercial organisations that sell them the equipment). However they are slaves to the "something must be done - this is something" fallacy and that is the real problem.
Keeping a system patched and up to date is the single most important thing a user should with their computer to keep it malware-free. More important even than firewalls or anti-virus software.
No the single most important thing to keep a computer malware free is not to connect it to the internet. I can see no reason to connect a scoreboard computer to the internet. Treat it as a dumb device and leave it with the s/w that it came with - if it ain't broke...
It is never about safety or freedom or whatever buzz word they choose to use.
Tis has happened far too many times in history to count. It is about controlling your population to conform to how you see things.
No it is always about being seen to be doing something. In our current style of democracy that is what politicians believe will work to keep them in power.
It is the only way to explain the grotesque interventions overseas - which cost many lives - supposedly in the cause of freedom, whilst at home freedoms are sacrificed - supposedly in the cause of saving lives.
Here's a better idea. Find something better to talk about than television shows.
Actually there are many things to talk about that don't suffer from this problem, Sport, Technology, Science, Politics - and if you must have something that is contrived by TV programme makers there is always reality shows.
Once they setup rules for the plebs then we might notice those how arn't following the rules. No rules, no domestic oversight!
Military drones of the kind that carry weapons are operated under the same rule set as other military aircraft or guided missiles. You may or may not regard the level of oversight as adequate - but it is far from "no rules" and it is not new.
The military have operated drones since the 1950s at least.
Generally speaking aviation authorities do not distinguish at the top level. Everything that flies is an aircraft. None of them are toys.
IF you drill down into the regulations that already exist at national level you will find that there are two key points. One is the weight, the other is whether the aircraft is always operated within direct line of sight of a pilot. For example in the UK regulation is very light touch for aircraft below 20kg operated in direct view. From 20kg-150kg regulation is done via approved hobbyist organisations to ensure that the airframe is sound.
The top end of this scale is represented bythis model. Still perfectly safe when operated as you see in the video, away from buildings, (uninvolved) people and man carrying aviation. (Bear in mind that there are man carrying aircraft that are smaller!).
Once you break the visual link between the aircraft and the operator, or operate over crowds etc then you are in a different category and new regulations are needed.
Even a "toy" quadcopter will hurt if it falls on your head from 200ft.