3 ms·

> This is the problem with cyber security: Even if you're the most knowledgeable organization on earth you still fuck it up. Any one person can fuck up any one

> This is the problem with cyber security: Even if you're the most knowledgeable organization on earth you still fuck it up. Any one person can fuck up any one thing and if it isn't part of your predetermined threat vector analysis then it gets through and you lose everything. It isn't just cyber security but surveillance infrastructure in general. If you cultivate a large group of surveillance assets (even people) with a method of collection that can be effectively attacked, you are creating something worth the effort to attack. By creating a position that can be attacked, you will get attacked. And given enough attacks you will get attacked successfully sooner or later. It is safer to not build the surveillance apparatus in the first place because you _always_ lose control of it sooner or later.

chronic193 9y ago
> It is safer to not build the surveillance apparatus in the first place because you _always_ lose control of it sooner or later. I'd rather be able to watch and data mine citizens for 6 months to a year, before control is lost. And companies do.
3pt14159 9y ago
I disagree with your conclusion, but I think your comment has a ton of truth to it. It's like that meme with the smiling black guy: "You can't write any bugs if you don't write any code." But the truth is that all the infrastructure for surveillance is going to be built anyway, if not by us then by our enemies or private industry. It's better to accept that it is going to be built and use our resources as best we can to protect the world.
- AFNobody 9y ago
  > But the truth is that all the infrastructure for surveillance is going to be built anyway, if not by us then by our enemies or private industry. It's better to accept that it is going to be built and use our resources as best we can to protect the world. Of course. And then you attack _their_ surveillance infrastructure and take the fruit of their investments periodically. Attacking surveillance infrastructure (tbh) seems more productive than building it.

chronic193 9y ago

> It is safer to not build the surveillance apparatus in the first place because you _always_ lose control of it sooner or later. I'd rather be able to watch and data mine citizens for 6 months to a year, before control is lost. And companies do.

3pt14159 9y ago

I disagree with your conclusion, but I think your comment has a ton of truth to it. It's like that meme with the smiling black guy: "You can't write any bugs if you don't write any code." But the truth is that all the infrastructure for surveillance is going to be built anyway, if not by us then by our enemies or private industry. It's better to accept that it is going to be built and use our resources as best we can to protect the world.

AFNobody 9y ago
> But the truth is that all the infrastructure for surveillance is going to be built anyway, if not by us then by our enemies or private industry. It's better to accept that it is going to be built and use our resources as best we can to protect the world. Of course. And then you attack _their_ surveillance infrastructure and take the fruit of their investments periodically. Attacking surveillance infrastructure (tbh) seems more productive than building it.