4 ms·
No, security professionals should find adequate solutions to a changing technological (and the corresponding sociological) landscape. Just saying "No" without
by batbomb 11y ago
No, security professionals should find adequate solutions to a changing technological (and the corresponding sociological) landscape.
Just saying "No" without investigating alternative solutions to satisfy the spirit of the request is likely the problem.
It's also apparent that there was no routine security auditing which may have caught Clinton's behavior. I'm not sure you can claim the NSA was acting with security in mind when it's quite evident she was walking around with a blackberry every day in "Mahogany Row'.
- talmand 11y agoHow do we know that "no" was the only answer with no investigation of alternative solutions? How do we know there wasn't an audit done? How is it the lacking of the NSA in considering security when a person who was told don't do that decided to ignore it?
- awinder 11y agoProbably a combination of: A) People seeing this play out in their own lives enough to relate it to this experience B) That the quote wasn't "No", it was "shut up and go color", lmao
- carboncopy 11y agoIf you re-read that portion of the article, the State Department rep used that phrase to paraphrase the NSA's response. That was not the actual response; nobody who wants to keep their job communicates inter-agency like that.
- johngalt 11y agoBecause when "we" can't do something it's for reasons that are varied, nuanced and entirely justifiable. When "they" can't do something it's because they are malicious lazy idiots. Obviously. It's illuminating how someone treats other professions that intersect with their own. If one security team acts in a way you disagree with fine. But if you view all security teams as inherently obstructionist, then that tells me you are self-centered or cut corners. Similar if you always have problems with HR, Accounting, etc...