5 ms·

Because … the White House is interested in phishing? What?

by ugh 15y ago

T-hawk 15y ago
The grandparent has a point, but didn't state it very well. The NSA and CIA and other three-letter federal agencies do have a reputation for grabbing any telecommunications data they can get. One could think that they might be monitoring and capturing activity on the White House site, to correlate with persons of interest, or even just collecting everything for future use. (And it's not necessarily evil either; we'd cheer if they intercepted a source of terrorist funding by using account credentials that matched something carelessly entered into this site.) The scenario is somewhat far-fetched, but not entirely out of the question for secretive unaccountable US government agencies.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  No matter what system they use, someone will find it fundamentally objectionable. It,s too simple. It's too complex. There's too much security. There isn't enough security. Give people a window on the administration, and the first thing they'll do is whine about the curtains.
  - lukejduncan 15y ago
    I wasn't whining. I was asking if the conversation is being had. It's a question of fostering trust. So I'll ask again: Is anyone talking about the potential concerns here? Has this been asked and answered? Is there a technical solution that alleviates the concerns? I don't think this is whining, just starting a conversation. If the goal of the forum is to open a dialogue is there a way of doing so that ensures the security of citizens?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - anigbrowl 15y ago
      I'm not saying you are, just that some people will be dissatisfied regardless of what solution is put in place. That said, I don't really consider this particular conversation worth having. You want some level of unique ID on a site like this to deter casual/not spamming, but if you implement strict ID then you'll either drive people away and/or make them paranoid. This is meant to function as a barometer of sentiment, and there's no point in over thinking it. If/when Congress allows some sort of formal petitioning mechanism that guarantees some degree of legislative procedure, then an audit trail and a balancing of transparency with privacy will need to be in place. That wouldmrpobably involve use of a social security number or similar to ensure only citizens can participate.
- lukejduncan 15y ago
  This is what I meant, I don't think it's that far fetched. Certainly not worth being down voted. Whether the white house intended to or not, it's essentially a database of citizens passwords that WILL be used by some three letter agency somewhere.

Because … the White House is interested in phishing? What?

by ugh 15y ago

Because … the White House is interested in phishing? What?

The grandparent has a point, but didn't state it very well. The NSA and CIA and other three-letter federal agencies do have a reputation for grabbing any telecommunications data they can get. One could think that they might be monitoring and capturing activity on the White House site, to correlate with persons of interest, or even just collecting everything for future use. (And it's not necessarily evil either; we'd cheer if they intercepted a source of terrorist funding by using account credentials that matched something carelessly entered into this site.) The scenario is somewhat far-fetched, but not entirely out of the question for secretive unaccountable US government agencies.

anigbrowl 15y ago
No matter what system they use, someone will find it fundamentally objectionable. It,s too simple. It's too complex. There's too much security. There isn't enough security. Give people a window on the administration, and the first thing they'll do is whine about the curtains.
- lukejduncan 15y ago
  I wasn't whining. I was asking if the conversation is being had. It's a question of fostering trust. So I'll ask again: Is anyone talking about the potential concerns here? Has this been asked and answered? Is there a technical solution that alleviates the concerns? I don't think this is whining, just starting a conversation. If the goal of the forum is to open a dialogue is there a way of doing so that ensures the security of citizens?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    I'm not saying you are, just that some people will be dissatisfied regardless of what solution is put in place. That said, I don't really consider this particular conversation worth having. You want some level of unique ID on a site like this to deter casual/not spamming, but if you implement strict ID then you'll either drive people away and/or make them paranoid. This is meant to function as a barometer of sentiment, and there's no point in over thinking it. If/when Congress allows some sort of formal petitioning mechanism that guarantees some degree of legislative procedure, then an audit trail and a balancing of transparency with privacy will need to be in place. That wouldmrpobably involve use of a social security number or similar to ensure only citizens can participate.
lukejduncan 15y ago
This is what I meant, I don't think it's that far fetched. Certainly not worth being down voted. Whether the white house intended to or not, it's essentially a database of citizens passwords that WILL be used by some three letter agency somewhere.