4 ms·

If your on a government officials bad list, then all you said applies. Deserved or otherwise. Being placed on list is still a fight. Give politicians free rei

If your on a government officials bad list, then all you said applies. Deserved or otherwise. Being placed on list is still a fight. Give politicians free reign to everyone’s browser history/social media account, well Suddenly a lot of people are on a bad list.

cheschire 6y ago
Well, not everyone. The politicians themselves will have everything encrypted because they'll call it CUI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Unclassified_Information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Unclassified_Inform...
- CapricornNoble 6y ago
  Where I work "CUI" is just the header we slap on all of our PowerPoints on NIPR[1], and basically means "don't email this to your civilian email account, or otherwise share it with people outside of work"...but it's still feasible, from a technical standpoint. It's just wrong from an administrative policy perspective. CUI doesn't automatically entail/require encryption. Most people don't even bother to encrypt their emails in Outlook even when chock-full of CUI documents, or worse, high-impact PII/PHI. If politicians want encrypted comms they'll probably have a //SECRET Blackberry or iPhone. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIPRNet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIPRNet
  - inetsee 6y ago
    Years ago I worked on a Special Access project. Everything that got thrown away went into the burn barrels, whether it had a classified label or not. Of course, when California took away our license to burn stuff, we acquired a grinder type shredder.
    - novok 6y ago
      That is just an easy general policy to adopt, secret project or not. At this point I would call it as basic as using HTTPS, just a general good practice.
    - treeman79 6y ago
      Shredder on Grinder? I’m going to burn for that one :)
MayeulC 6y ago
> Give politicians free reign to everyone’s browser history/social media account I'd argue that this is the core issue: everyone is on a list now. Where did the presumption of innocence go?
davidwitt415 6y ago
I'm in favor of the Black Mirror approach for politicians; Give the people full transparency into politicians' activities. This shouldn't be so controversial, given that they work for us, but of course, that is when you would see some real concern for privacy!
- dddbbb 6y ago
  > This shouldn't be so controversial, given that they work for us, Pretty suspect line of reasoning when you apply it to literally any other scenario.
  - freshhawk 6y ago
    Sure, if you compare it to scenarios that aren't remotely the same. I think we were supposed to take it as an obvious given that this applies to scenarios where the side giving away the power is watching the side that was given the power.
- dejavuagain 6y ago
  A. They think you work for them. B. They write the laws. For example is illegal for USA politicians to do business with the children of foreign leaders, but it's not illegal for children of USA politicians to do business with foreign leaders.

cheschire 6y ago

Well, not everyone. The politicians themselves will have everything encrypted because they'll call it CUI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Unclassified_Information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Unclassified_Inform...

CapricornNoble 6y ago
Where I work "CUI" is just the header we slap on all of our PowerPoints on NIPR[1], and basically means "don't email this to your civilian email account, or otherwise share it with people outside of work"...but it's still feasible, from a technical standpoint. It's just wrong from an administrative policy perspective. CUI doesn't automatically entail/require encryption. Most people don't even bother to encrypt their emails in Outlook even when chock-full of CUI documents, or worse, high-impact PII/PHI. If politicians want encrypted comms they'll probably have a //SECRET Blackberry or iPhone. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIPRNet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIPRNet
- inetsee 6y ago
  Years ago I worked on a Special Access project. Everything that got thrown away went into the burn barrels, whether it had a classified label or not. Of course, when California took away our license to burn stuff, we acquired a grinder type shredder.
  - novok 6y ago
    That is just an easy general policy to adopt, secret project or not. At this point I would call it as basic as using HTTPS, just a general good practice.
  - treeman79 6y ago
    Shredder on Grinder? I’m going to burn for that one :)

MayeulC 6y ago

> Give politicians free reign to everyone’s browser history/social media account I'd argue that this is the core issue: everyone is on a list now. Where did the presumption of innocence go?

davidwitt415 6y ago

I'm in favor of the Black Mirror approach for politicians; Give the people full transparency into politicians' activities. This shouldn't be so controversial, given that they work for us, but of course, that is when you would see some real concern for privacy!

dddbbb 6y ago
> This shouldn't be so controversial, given that they work for us, Pretty suspect line of reasoning when you apply it to literally any other scenario.
- freshhawk 6y ago
  Sure, if you compare it to scenarios that aren't remotely the same. I think we were supposed to take it as an obvious given that this applies to scenarios where the side giving away the power is watching the side that was given the power.
dejavuagain 6y ago
A. They think you work for them. B. They write the laws. For example is illegal for USA politicians to do business with the children of foreign leaders, but it's not illegal for children of USA politicians to do business with foreign leaders.