4 ms·
They could at least provide help to properly secure the state election systems instead of reacting after a breach. Why not try to secure the systems to a higher
by Globz 10y ago
They could at least provide help to properly secure the state election systems instead of reacting after a breach. Why not try to secure the systems to a higher standard and be proactive?
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago"Securing" as in reaching in and making changes? Or "securing" as in publishing guidance around best practice? Latter, I'd be fine with. I'd even go so far as to requuire it by law. The former amounts to an unelected federal body with a nasty history tampering with election electronics.
- Globz 10y agoPublishing guidance around best practice should be mandatory when dealing with government infrastructure, these election systems are not "low level" target they can potentially influence the course of history if they are rigged.
- neom 10y agoThis is why groups like 18F are very important and need to be really well supported by the American People. IMO 18F shouldn't be a part of GSA and should live on it's own.
- niels_olson 10y ago18F is too small to live on its own in the federal beuracracy. GSA is the correct parent org by alignment. Mandating it's existence in US Code would be helpful, though it may be premature to define it's scope yet.
- neom 10y agoThat's fair, and I agree today it's not appropriate for it to live outside of GSA, I more meant in a perfect world it would be the office of the CTO or something similar where they had real mandate and power to improve things, that being said I'm relatively new to this government stuff so I'm not sure what can and cannot be done.