3 ms·
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?
by 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 agoThe 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 agoAscribing any intelligence to Clinton would mean that she setup that server for other reasons, not in order to use a Blackberry.
- elihu 9y agoIn "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.