4 ms·

Would it be naive to suggest that perhaps we should never have trusted it? Isn't this why spies always meet in person and go to great lengths to set up dead dr

• int_19h 8y ago
  Why shouldn't we have trusted it? It's solid math.
  • ehrtt 8y ago
    Resting on a massive assumption.. so really the opposite of solid math.
• dkonofalski 8y ago
  Maybe not naive but I think never trusting your own home is just a recipe for paranoia. You have no reason not to trust your home unless some actor had reason to do so from the onset. It's not a trivial matter to bug someone's home or bedroom without their detection unless you have free and clear access. Edit: Just now realizing that you meant we shouldn't trust encryption and phones, not our home. Whoops. Leaving my response for posterity and lulz. Spies meet in person because they're people of interest. They take the job knowing that nothing they do is ever really done in secret.
• mirimir 8y ago
  Of course not phones! I mean, "The President's Analyst" ;) But from a professional, and WWII hero: > 17. The greatest material curse to the profession, despite all its advantages, is undoubtedly the telephone. It is a constant source of temptation to slackness. And even if you do not use it carelessly yourself, the other fellow, very often will, so in any case, warn him. Always act on the principle that every conversation is listened to, that a call may always give the enemy a line. Naturally, always unplug during confidential conversations. Even better is it to have no phone in your room, or else have it in a box or cupboard. https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2016/02/some-elements-of-intelligence-work-73-rules-of-spycraft-allen-dulles-1960s/ https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2016/02/some-elements-of-intelligen...