3 ms·

I've been thinking that the "State actors like..." argument is rather weak because it seems like the more we learn about "State actors" from anywhere the more

I've been thinking that the "State actors like..." argument is rather weak because it seems like the more we learn about "State actors" from anywhere the more it seems like they can get around anything. If they happen be be focused on your or your organization it seems like it's just game over no matter what you try to do. Luckily, I guess, securing yourself against state level actors keeps you safe from everyone else that's trying to do bad things, so, win/win?

kbenson 8y ago
A "state actor" focusing on you should be considered at least as dangerous (and semi-impossible) to guard against as a dedicated adversary that wants to infiltrate you specifically. Just as with a dedicated adversary, it's no justification not to make it hard for the average or law-abiding citizen and what they can easily come up with. We don't have locks on our front doors to make it impossible for unwanted people to get inside our houses, we do it to prevent the average person, deter the interested criminal, and hopefully give us warning when it is or has happened. > Luckily, I guess, securing yourself against state level actors To be clear, there is no securing yourself against state level actors. You can harden yourself, and reduce your target area and/or footprint, but there's no way to actually make yourself secure.
- mirimir 8y ago
  > To be clear, there is no securing yourself against state level actors. You can harden yourself, and reduce your target area and/or footprint, but there's no way to actually make yourself secure. Yes. Your best bet is hiding. Once you're identified, it's basically over. It's just another facet of the state monopoly on force.
  - apk17 8y ago
    The force monopoly has little to do with it - few institutions would have the resources to win against the US govt.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Resource monopoly is rather a subset of force monopoly, no? I mean, consider guns. In the US, citizens can own guns. And armed private security is OK, too. But there's consistent push-back against private militias, armies, etc. Unless they work only outside the country, in acceptable contexts.
- apk17 8y ago
  Re state actor: I guess secure-or-known-to-have-failed is attainable on a personal scope. Securing a company, no matter what size, is futile.
- Santosh83 8y ago
  > To be clear, there is no securing yourself against state level actors. You can harden yourself, and reduce your target area and/or footprint, but there's no way to actually make yourself secure. You can, if you gain the support of an opposing, comparable state actor. That's what Snowden has employed. But 100% security is still a myth, not only against state actors... reality itself is just not like that. Unless you can hide inside a black hole.

kbenson 8y ago

A "state actor" focusing on you should be considered at least as dangerous (and semi-impossible) to guard against as a dedicated adversary that wants to infiltrate you specifically. Just as with a dedicated adversary, it's no justification not to make it hard for the average or law-abiding citizen and what they can easily come up with. We don't have locks on our front doors to make it impossible for unwanted people to get inside our houses, we do it to prevent the average person, deter the interested criminal, and hopefully give us warning when it is or has happened. > Luckily, I guess, securing yourself against state level actors To be clear, there is no securing yourself against state level actors. You can harden yourself, and reduce your target area and/or footprint, but there's no way to actually make yourself secure.

mirimir 8y ago
> To be clear, there is no securing yourself against state level actors. You can harden yourself, and reduce your target area and/or footprint, but there's no way to actually make yourself secure. Yes. Your best bet is hiding. Once you're identified, it's basically over. It's just another facet of the state monopoly on force.
- apk17 8y ago
  The force monopoly has little to do with it - few institutions would have the resources to win against the US govt.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Resource monopoly is rather a subset of force monopoly, no? I mean, consider guns. In the US, citizens can own guns. And armed private security is OK, too. But there's consistent push-back against private militias, armies, etc. Unless they work only outside the country, in acceptable contexts.
apk17 8y ago
Re state actor: I guess secure-or-known-to-have-failed is attainable on a personal scope. Securing a company, no matter what size, is futile.
Santosh83 8y ago
> To be clear, there is no securing yourself against state level actors. You can harden yourself, and reduce your target area and/or footprint, but there's no way to actually make yourself secure. You can, if you gain the support of an opposing, comparable state actor. That's what Snowden has employed. But 100% security is still a myth, not only against state actors... reality itself is just not like that. Unless you can hide inside a black hole.