4 ms·

Um, duh? Who would think at this point in history, with all the very public data leaks and hacks, that email does not leave an evidence trail?

askvictor 9y ago
Evidently, a lot of people. Powerful people.
- ChristianBundy 9y ago
  Yet somehow people think capitalism is a meritocracy.
  - wwweston 9y ago
    While I agree that as practiced capitalism is far from strictly meritocratic (and even in general think that any kind meritocracy is harder to achieve than many of its proponents seem to have thought about)... I don't think fuzzy conceptions of how email or other technologies necessarily refute it. Merit can be domain specific (in fact, specialized merit pretty deeply underlies most of our socioeconomic system at this point).
    - d0lph 9y ago
      I think this is not correct, because companies that act more meritocratic will be more likely to succeed, and there you have capitalism.
  - programmarchy 9y ago
    Capitalism approximates meritocracy, but democracy certainly does not.
    - _emacsomancer_ 9y ago
      Only if you 'reset' it every year. Eventually particular companies become big enough that they hard to compete against (e.g. they can artificially depress prices until their competition goes out of business) and bribe governments etc etc
      - jeoi2838 9y ago
        That’s true of every empire that’s existed It has nothing to do with the framework one uses to describe the current context and every thing to do with human behavior I’m with number theory: everyone should have the same social authority Fiefdoms and private ownership of capital should be in the waste bin It was rich people that came up with capitalism Shocking it protects the wealthy
      - refurb 9y ago
        I question just how much influence big companies have. Thing about how many big companies you know stay big for decades? There were many mammoth US companies that no longer exist or are a shell of their former self.
        adventured 9y ago
        It's a mixed bag, about half & half on the turnover part. GE, IBM, Sears, Alcoa, AT&T, GM, Ford, Xerox, Kodak, US Steel. Nobody seriously thinks of these companies as dominate giants today. Kodak and Sears are dead. Alcoa & US Steel are barely surviving in the era of Chinese production. Walmart is still holding on (with several straight years of contracting profits now), we'll see how they do the next ten years as Amazon's growth starts cutting into the muscle. A lot of people think the newer power group is exclusive to tech companies. However, Home Depot, as an example, was a far smaller company 10 and 20 years ago. Today it's worth $220 billion (with sales & profit that largely justify that). Disney is thought of as a conquering media juggernaut today. ~15 years ago it was worth $23 billion and its business was in disarray. 20 years ago Amgen was a barely a speck on Pfizer's wall. Gilead today is worth 100 times what it was 20 years ago. The same is conceptually true of Genzyme, Biogen and Celgene. Just ten years ago Netflix - which is part media company, part tech company - was worth less than two billion dollars. In the meantime it has blatantly surpassed companies like Fox, CBS, NBC, Viacom, etc. in the media game. 20 years ago 3M was a small shadow of GE, worth about 10% of what GE was. Now it's worth more than GE, with a 6x increase in valuation in that time. Boeing is thought of as a perpetual industrial titan. Not so however. As recently as 2003 it was worth a mere $15 billion. United Technologies is worth ten times what it was in the mid 1990s. Procter & Gamble was a sleepy, almost comatose, consumer goods company in the early 1990s. Johnson & Johnson was a far smaller, rather dusty company as recently as 1994, worth about ~$25 billion. Now it's worth $354 billion.
    - jeoi2838 9y ago
      Capitalism is a set of human invented rails for economic behavior that has no basis in natural law (outside humans being a facet of nature that invented it). If it did we’d call it physics, and it would be studied by physicists, and vetted by rigorous experiments What humans are doing is religion. Brainwashing the masses to abide by social norms. The control knobs being in the hands of storied families Just like society worked before capitalism was a word They repacked divine mandate as “of course in this time and place, since I have the means, my family calls the shots. To consider otherwise would be terrible.” When pre-capitalist James Madison is quoted as writing the government ought “to protect the opulent minority from the majority.” there’s no amount of mental gymnastics that will convince me otherwise. That forced social trade of our time is upheld by so-called freedom loving people as fair... yeaaah. I’ve read it all, from Kant, Freire, Rousseau, Foucault, Chomsky, etc etc... Nothing in modern society strikes me as anything more than “build a pyramid for the ruler of this fiefdom.” When the most reliable polls suggest we’d rather work on housing, feeding, and caring for each other, but we spend our time following Wall Street and SV, we’re not working for each other or ourselves
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  So why are we trying to tell them this? Isn't it in our best interest for them to remain stupid about it, so we can bust them when wrongdoing happens?
  - 3pt14159 9y ago
    The measures you need to take to actually be secure are impossible for the powerful to take on their own volition because they do not understand how insecure everything really is. They'll take shortcuts. Clinton wanted a Blackberry so she set up a email server in her garage. She didn't understand why the NSA didn't want to make her a Blackberry like they made for POTUS at great cost so she broke the rules and she got nailed. A shit ton of work goes into just keeping one person (mostly) cyber secure.
    - IncRnd 9y ago
      Ascribing any intelligence to Clinton would mean that she setup that server for other reasons, not in order to use a Blackberry.
  - elihu 9y ago
    In "Liars and Outliers" Schneier argues that perfect security (in the form of perfect compliance with all societal rules and norms) isn't the sort of society most people would want to live in, and that some degree of disobedience is unavoidable and occasionally desirable in a free society. Not that Schneier is condoning what Manafort did here. Rather, I think the implication is that if you are doing something that runs contrary to what those who control the levers of power in society would want and you don't want to leave a record of what you're doing, you shouldn't use email. Or even if you're not doing anything suspicious but just want some privacy.
wahern 9y ago
Nobody thinks that. It's just a smug implication from the title of a blog post. To quote user gscott from another thread, Even though Manafort was associated with foreign government figures it took being associated with the U.S President to be investigated. It didn't matter before... having a paper trail was ok, no one cared.[1] You can't commit a crime without leaving behind evidence. Ultimately it's a matter of managing risk and reward. Heck, even if you've never committed a crime nor even intend to a commit a crime, you have to manage the risk of being wrongly accused and even convicted. Any man in the U.S., and especially any non-white man, should understand that. Schneier certainly understands that, as he's long championed the application of economic analysis to IT security. In fairness, I don't think Scheier was being smug, and he closes his post with an argument regarding disingenuous FBI claims. Now the bored Twitter lawyer cited by the Slate article Schneier cited.... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16450378 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16450378
Alex3917 9y ago
Given that the first major email scandal was Iran-Contra, it would make more sense for the folks who got hacked to have learned something from the long history of email scandals than the other way around.

askvictor 9y ago

Evidently, a lot of people. Powerful people.

ChristianBundy 9y ago
Yet somehow people think capitalism is a meritocracy.
- wwweston 9y ago
  While I agree that as practiced capitalism is far from strictly meritocratic (and even in general think that any kind meritocracy is harder to achieve than many of its proponents seem to have thought about)... I don't think fuzzy conceptions of how email or other technologies necessarily refute it. Merit can be domain specific (in fact, specialized merit pretty deeply underlies most of our socioeconomic system at this point).
  - d0lph 9y ago
    I think this is not correct, because companies that act more meritocratic will be more likely to succeed, and there you have capitalism.
- programmarchy 9y ago
  Capitalism approximates meritocracy, but democracy certainly does not.
  - _emacsomancer_ 9y ago
    Only if you 'reset' it every year. Eventually particular companies become big enough that they hard to compete against (e.g. they can artificially depress prices until their competition goes out of business) and bribe governments etc etc
    - jeoi2838 9y ago
      That’s true of every empire that’s existed It has nothing to do with the framework one uses to describe the current context and every thing to do with human behavior I’m with number theory: everyone should have the same social authority Fiefdoms and private ownership of capital should be in the waste bin It was rich people that came up with capitalism Shocking it protects the wealthy
    - refurb 9y ago
      I question just how much influence big companies have. Thing about how many big companies you know stay big for decades? There were many mammoth US companies that no longer exist or are a shell of their former self.
      - adventured 9y ago
        It's a mixed bag, about half & half on the turnover part. GE, IBM, Sears, Alcoa, AT&T, GM, Ford, Xerox, Kodak, US Steel. Nobody seriously thinks of these companies as dominate giants today. Kodak and Sears are dead. Alcoa & US Steel are barely surviving in the era of Chinese production. Walmart is still holding on (with several straight years of contracting profits now), we'll see how they do the next ten years as Amazon's growth starts cutting into the muscle. A lot of people think the newer power group is exclusive to tech companies. However, Home Depot, as an example, was a far smaller company 10 and 20 years ago. Today it's worth $220 billion (with sales & profit that largely justify that). Disney is thought of as a conquering media juggernaut today. ~15 years ago it was worth $23 billion and its business was in disarray. 20 years ago Amgen was a barely a speck on Pfizer's wall. Gilead today is worth 100 times what it was 20 years ago. The same is conceptually true of Genzyme, Biogen and Celgene. Just ten years ago Netflix - which is part media company, part tech company - was worth less than two billion dollars. In the meantime it has blatantly surpassed companies like Fox, CBS, NBC, Viacom, etc. in the media game. 20 years ago 3M was a small shadow of GE, worth about 10% of what GE was. Now it's worth more than GE, with a 6x increase in valuation in that time. Boeing is thought of as a perpetual industrial titan. Not so however. As recently as 2003 it was worth a mere $15 billion. United Technologies is worth ten times what it was in the mid 1990s. Procter & Gamble was a sleepy, almost comatose, consumer goods company in the early 1990s. Johnson & Johnson was a far smaller, rather dusty company as recently as 1994, worth about ~$25 billion. Now it's worth $354 billion.
  - jeoi2838 9y ago
    Capitalism is a set of human invented rails for economic behavior that has no basis in natural law (outside humans being a facet of nature that invented it). If it did we’d call it physics, and it would be studied by physicists, and vetted by rigorous experiments What humans are doing is religion. Brainwashing the masses to abide by social norms. The control knobs being in the hands of storied families Just like society worked before capitalism was a word They repacked divine mandate as “of course in this time and place, since I have the means, my family calls the shots. To consider otherwise would be terrible.” When pre-capitalist James Madison is quoted as writing the government ought “to protect the opulent minority from the majority.” there’s no amount of mental gymnastics that will convince me otherwise. That forced social trade of our time is upheld by so-called freedom loving people as fair... yeaaah. I’ve read it all, from Kant, Freire, Rousseau, Foucault, Chomsky, etc etc... Nothing in modern society strikes me as anything more than “build a pyramid for the ruler of this fiefdom.” When the most reliable polls suggest we’d rather work on housing, feeding, and caring for each other, but we spend our time following Wall Street and SV, we’re not working for each other or ourselves
s73v3r_ 9y ago
So why are we trying to tell them this? Isn't it in our best interest for them to remain stupid about it, so we can bust them when wrongdoing happens?
- 3pt14159 9y ago
  The measures you need to take to actually be secure are impossible for the powerful to take on their own volition because they do not understand how insecure everything really is. They'll take shortcuts. Clinton wanted a Blackberry so she set up a email server in her garage. She didn't understand why the NSA didn't want to make her a Blackberry like they made for POTUS at great cost so she broke the rules and she got nailed. A shit ton of work goes into just keeping one person (mostly) cyber secure.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    Ascribing any intelligence to Clinton would mean that she setup that server for other reasons, not in order to use a Blackberry.
- elihu 9y ago
  In "Liars and Outliers" Schneier argues that perfect security (in the form of perfect compliance with all societal rules and norms) isn't the sort of society most people would want to live in, and that some degree of disobedience is unavoidable and occasionally desirable in a free society. Not that Schneier is condoning what Manafort did here. Rather, I think the implication is that if you are doing something that runs contrary to what those who control the levers of power in society would want and you don't want to leave a record of what you're doing, you shouldn't use email. Or even if you're not doing anything suspicious but just want some privacy.

wahern 9y ago

Nobody thinks that. It's just a smug implication from the title of a blog post. To quote user gscott from another thread, Even though Manafort was associated with foreign government figures it took being associated with the U.S President to be investigated. It didn't matter before... having a paper trail was ok, no one cared.[1] You can't commit a crime without leaving behind evidence. Ultimately it's a matter of managing risk and reward. Heck, even if you've never committed a crime nor even intend to a commit a crime, you have to manage the risk of being wrongly accused and even convicted. Any man in the U.S., and especially any non-white man, should understand that. Schneier certainly understands that, as he's long championed the application of economic analysis to IT security. In fairness, I don't think Scheier was being smug, and he closes his post with an argument regarding disingenuous FBI claims. Now the bored Twitter lawyer cited by the Slate article Schneier cited.... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16450378 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16450378

Alex3917 9y ago

Given that the first major email scandal was Iran-Contra, it would make more sense for the folks who got hacked to have learned something from the long history of email scandals than the other way around.