8 ms·
I interpret this more as - government IT is in terrible shape, and I can't blame somebody who does not wish to be saddled with the pain of it. The argument tha
by ArkyBeagle 10y ago
I interpret this more as - government IT is in terrible shape, and I can't blame somebody who does not wish to be saddled with the pain of it.
The argument that an ostensibly political appointee must be held to the same IT-savviness standards as , say, an enlisted (wo)man are specious. While it would be a good thing if it were true, we all know too many people in positions of power who have simply not had the time to be competent in it. It's a variation on the generally advancing Russian Doll thinking that is sweeping tech.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago"The argument that an ostensibly political appointee must be held to the same IT-savviness standards as , say, an enlisted (wo)man are specious." Wait: you are seriously arguing that the Secretary of State of the United States is in a less-sensitive position than an enlisted member of the armed forces? Seriously?
- ArkyBeagle 10y agoI am saying that detailed crypto and IT knowledge is not a prerequisite for being appointed to a cabinet position. Ever do any work for lawyers? It's like that. They have admins that run the firms; the lawyers are the inventory.
- Turing_Machine 10y agoHowever, being able to hire competent employees is (or should be) a prerequisite for any executive position. Also, it doesn't take "detailed crypto and IT knowledge" to know that sending sensitive material over email is a bad idea.