4 ms·
It 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 an
by verylittlemeat 9y ago
It 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.