4 ms·
I really don't see this as anything other than a gotcha argument and I feel bad for anyone you tried to use it on who couldn't defend themselves in the heat of
by verylittlemeat 9y ago
I really don't see this as anything other than a gotcha argument and I feel bad for anyone you tried to use it on who couldn't defend themselves in the heat of the moment.
The crime rate is a known political tool that is actively manipulated for political gain (stop and frisk anyone?). Everyone knows that being "tough on crime" is moral statement not a statement of fact. Outside of crime averages that operate on a continuum the crime rate is so subjective as to almost be useless.
I would say "the crime rate is down" as an argument is roughly equivalent to believing that any given president has an impact on the DJIA. Look at the cover of the NYPOST yesterday[0]. Attributing a president who has been in office for a year with anything having to do with the economy is almost always untrue [1]. In fact, if anything it's more likely that Trump is benefiting from the policies of his predecessor.
So in conclusion the "crime rate" is never up or down, it's just one tool in the political handbook to try and manipulate people with fear, uncertainty and doubt. As a basis of establishing policy it's almost always rhetoric. To further elaborate on your comment, it has less to do with when a crime is "detected" and more to do with what is a crime.
[0] https://i.imgur.com/uifDjWI.png https://i.imgur.com/uifDjWI.png
[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-presidents-economic-decisions-matter-eventually/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-presidents-economic-d...
- hueving 9y agoDon't be intentionally obtuse. The point of the comparison was to highlight that lower detection of something doesn't mean less of it.
- verylittlemeat 9y agoIt is a poor comparison. If I'm being intentionally obtuse then the parent is being willfully disingenuous. Lower detection of crime doesn't mean less crime and higher detection of crime doesn't mean more crime. The point is the crime rate as a tool to understand the effectiveness of law enforcement is useless. This is a common problem I see all the time in "fact based" circles. People care more about the fact that the needle is moving rather than questioning if they're even measuring what they think they're measuring.
- hinkley 9y agoContext is everything. There's no reason to believe Slack would ever be able to detect someone exfiltrating chat logs. That's the context. How about Crimes are being committed whether they get [identified] or not Can we all relax now?
- verylittlemeat 9y agoIt's basically advocating a conspiracy theory. "Well, we can't PROVE someone isn't exfiltrating chat logs, therefore slack can't really be secure" What is the value of this statement? How is it an indictment of slack's security? From the podcast : "Geoff also concludes that companies should encourage basic security hygiene rather than seek a silver bullet that does not exist." So despite good law enforcement people get away with crimes. What exactly is the insight there? What is the actionable information for both slack and law enforcement of these "unknown unknowns?"
- hueving 9y agoNo, it's not advocating a conspiracy theory. It's pointing out that you aren't very secure when you are operating in a model where it's even possible to leak all of your client records without even noticing. Compare slack to something with actual end-to-end encryption and you'll start to see the difference.