29 ms·
Unless Chelsea Manning is trying to convince us to trust her with our private data, I don't see where the irony is. It's similar to a reformed/retired safe cra
by pyre 9y ago
Unless Chelsea Manning is trying to convince us to trust her with our private data, I don't see where the irony is.
It's similar to a reformed/retired safe cracker is telling us which safes are hard to crack. The safe cracker would be in a position to know about how difficult it would be to crack safes.
The major difference being that the safe cracker possibly stands to benefit from lying to us in an effort to make their job easier (convince us to get safes that are in reality easy to crack). In the situation with Chelsea Manning, I'm not sure where you think that she stands to benefit from us following any advice that she's giving.
- SXX 9y agoRegardless of the article that analogy with safe cracker lead nowhere. Almost every good expert in computer security was at some point black hat and you never know what they actually are now.
- dsfyu404ed 9y agoI think that's a stretch (police state definitions of "black hat" non-withstanding)
- SXX 9y agoEven so person capable of keeping software secure can as well tell you how secure it is while selling bugs in said software to 3 letter agency, some authoritarian state or basically anyone who have enough cash. Oh, I forgot that we don't call it black hat and this is totally legit business. That safe cracker from example above would be ashamed, he couldn't even dream of something like that.