3 ms·
"Tech-illiterate old guys" don't a) notice that a software update for their phone has been released b) try to install the update, c) recognize that something is
by Turing_Machine 9y ago
"Tech-illiterate old guys" don't a) notice that a software update for their phone has been released b) try to install the update, c) recognize that something is wrong and d) take the phone to spook-level IT guys to check out.
They don't even get to a), as a rule.
- iaw 9y agoKelly did the right thing here, as long as he truly hadn't been carrying/using the phone then the compromise is pretty limited. If he had been using or carrying the phone and it was a failure on the recent update that alerted him then it represents two problems: an operational security one and a scandal. I hope that his integrity holds up on this one.
- Turing_Machine 9y agoI'm still a little confused by the OP's assumption that he's a "tech-illiterate old guy". He's undoubtedly been using secure electronic communication systems for his entire career, and is certainly well-aware of the risks involved with compromised information. He's definitely more clued in than the amateurs who usually get this kind of government gig. As you say, though, that makes him more culpable if it turns out he has actually been using the phone. But my money says he hasn't been.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- iaw 9y ago> I'm still a little confused by the OP's assumption that he's a "tech-illiterate old guy". I'm not confused by that, I just plain disagree.
- cujic9 9y agoYeah, I'll admit that was a strawman so I could get to my real point about requiring some digital competency before granting access to state secrets.