4 ms·
It's pretty easy to pick a lock but you don't remove the locks from your house because of it. No one is 100% secure, not even the NSA.
by onewaystreet 10y ago
It's pretty easy to pick a lock but you don't remove the locks from your house because of it. No one is 100% secure, not even the NSA.
- johncolanduoni 10y agoThe analogy isn't clear to me. If the NSA's data collection opens up additional avenues for breaches of private data, how does stopping this equate to removing a lock?
- unprepare 10y agowhich is why i dont even go out and buy things like gold bars, large diamonds, etc because they are essentially bait for thieves the NSA has collected all of our bait, and put it in one insecure location. If they had built fort knox of network security maybe there would be less concern about data getting out, but regardless of how secure it is, it never needed to be collected, certainly not collected then stored insecurely.
- givinguflac 10y agoNo one said anything about removing locks. My point is exactly that- no one is ever truly 100% secure. In my opinion that makes it only a matter of time and willpower for some nefarious group to have access to the largest tracking database of all time. Which is exactly why we should never have started collection in the first place. There has never been an attack prevented from this information, so why is it being collected?
- et-al 10y ago> No one is 100% secure, not even the NSA. That's why we don't want NSA backdoors (among other reasons). A more accurate analogy would be that the NSA has copies of all the keys in your neighborhood hanging in a cabinet on the street with a slightly better lock (a 7-pin tumbler!). No thanks.
- ashitlerferad 10y agoI think it would be best for the NSA to keep working on creating exploits but practice responsible disclosure.