4 ms·
So, I think this is a problem and that encryption and data security policies and audits would be a good thing. But your parent's point also resonated with me. T
by sanderjd 7y ago
So, I think this is a problem and that encryption and data security policies and audits would be a good thing. But your parent's point also resonated with me. This isn't a shocking expose of some giant new problem. Protecting proprietary communication has been a problem for as long as organizations have existed. It was a problem when the solution at Los Alamos was safes in offices, it was a problem with memos, it was a problem with faxes, then emails, and now, yes, Slack chats. It's a problem, people should work on it, but it's not news.
- duxup 7y agoWhat qualifies as news? Does it have to be " a shocking expose"? All the things you mentioned about communication seem to apply to this article.
- sanderjd 7y agoI mean, this is a good philosophical question, and I think the answer tends to just be "whatever a news organization decides to write about", so clearly this counts. But I think what makes for interesting news are things that are new and non-obvious. The point of the thread starter (which resonated with me) is that this is neither. What rubs me wrong about the article is that it lacks context. From just this article, this sounds like a novel threat. But it's ludicrously far from that. You could write the same article about every communication system used by every business ever. For instance, tons of important stuff is still required to be done by fax, which is far less privacy-preserving than Slack. Email remains pretty much universally unencrypted. The article doesn't try to grapple with this context at all, which makes it read oddly to me.