4 ms·

I think this title should be de-editorialized. The actual article’s title accurately reflects the situation even if accurately reflecting the situation is contr

I think this title should be de-editorialized. The actual article’s title accurately reflects the situation even if accurately reflecting the situation is controversial.

somenameforme 4y ago
It seems to me that one primary issue is that the article doesn't really bother to even try to discuss the pros and cons of the device, instead focusing entirely on partisan angles. The device itself could drive interesting conversation. It's effectively a hardware level packet sniffer (possibly router - it was not specified whether the device can unilaterally drop packets, or just sniff) installed on government level networks offered by a third party. The sniffer then engages in an opaque process to flag and collect any packets that trigger its opaque filter, and then engages in a further opaque processing from there with the data in an effort motivated by improving network security. There's a fairly obvious pro/con argument to be had here. When used benevolently, it could be potentially useful, though it's utility is going to be ultimately constrained by the incompetence of the actors they hope to work against. When used maliciously it'd be quite awful since you're sending arbitrary data sent to government organizations to a third party, and simply trusting them to behave responsibly with that data. But when you blindly jump in with labels, both political and just arbitrarily labeling it an "election security device" (even if that is one of the ideal purposes of it), all discourse is going to degenerate to the level of green goo sliding down a sewer drain.
- FateOfNations 4y ago
  Yeah, it's really just a managed IDS solution targeted at state/local/tribal governments that often lack access to sophisticated network security capabilities (they provide a 24/7 Security Operations Center capability). It uses netflow data and commodity/open-source components and wouldn't be capable of interfering with traffic (monitoring only). The Cyber Security and Infrastructure Agency contracts Center for Internet Security to provide the service to local governments (with cost sharing). https://www.cisecurity.org/services/albert-network-monitoring https://www.cisecurity.org/services/albert-network-monitorin...

I think this title should be de-editorialized. The actual article’s title accurately reflects the situation even if accurately reflecting the situation is controversial.

somenameforme 4y ago

It seems to me that one primary issue is that the article doesn't really bother to even try to discuss the pros and cons of the device, instead focusing entirely on partisan angles. The device itself could drive interesting conversation. It's effectively a hardware level packet sniffer (possibly router - it was not specified whether the device can unilaterally drop packets, or just sniff) installed on government level networks offered by a third party. The sniffer then engages in an opaque process to flag and collect any packets that trigger its opaque filter, and then engages in a further opaque processing from there with the data in an effort motivated by improving network security. There's a fairly obvious pro/con argument to be had here. When used benevolently, it could be potentially useful, though it's utility is going to be ultimately constrained by the incompetence of the actors they hope to work against. When used maliciously it'd be quite awful since you're sending arbitrary data sent to government organizations to a third party, and simply trusting them to behave responsibly with that data. But when you blindly jump in with labels, both political and just arbitrarily labeling it an "election security device" (even if that is one of the ideal purposes of it), all discourse is going to degenerate to the level of green goo sliding down a sewer drain.

FateOfNations 4y ago
Yeah, it's really just a managed IDS solution targeted at state/local/tribal governments that often lack access to sophisticated network security capabilities (they provide a 24/7 Security Operations Center capability). It uses netflow data and commodity/open-source components and wouldn't be capable of interfering with traffic (monitoring only). The Cyber Security and Infrastructure Agency contracts Center for Internet Security to provide the service to local governments (with cost sharing). https://www.cisecurity.org/services/albert-network-monitoring https://www.cisecurity.org/services/albert-network-monitorin...