8 ms·

The UK government seems to be doing the right thing in IT, again and again.

by underdeserver 4y ago

mnd999 4y ago
Probably breaking their own ‘Computer Misuse Act’ in the process though.
- switch007 4y ago
  I’m not sure we’ve invented a measurement sufficiently small to measure how little recent governments have cared about breaking the law.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    That'll be the Planck shit-given unit.
mijoharas 4y ago
I believe Alex Van Someran recently took over as head of the UK NCSC. He's someone that I trust to make the right decisions, so I'm quite glad of this fact. (NOTE: I have no idea if this specific link is related to Alex or anything he's done)
core-utility 4y ago
Agreed, but if the US Government were doing this there would be outcry of "spying" and "Government overreach". And before anyone says that the US Gov has lost its trust, let me remind you that UK has GCHQ.
- xav0989 4y ago
  NCSC is GCHQ
- alias_neo 4y ago
  NCSC is the public "arm" of GCHQ, they provide cyber-security guidance to businesses and the general public etc. They are a great source of information for current best-practice regarding cyber security.
torpid 4y ago
Sure, if you value authoritarianism and an intrusive nanny state. The government jiggling the door handles of everyone's house to see if it's unlocked crosses a huge line.
- noja 4y ago
  "nanny state" is a purposefully skewed statement that pre-presumes that doing something for the common good is always bad. It's a lazy way of not making an argument. Why is scanning web servers for vulnerabilities bad?
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    Yeah, scanning for vulnerabilities in a controlled way isn't bad I suspect those opposing it are the ones that eventually get caught with glaring vulnerabilities and then we have to hear BS like "they care for security and privacy" when they didn't even use password hashes
  - archsurface 4y ago
    "pre-presumes that doing something for the common good is always bad" No, it refers to a state that is intrusive into personal choices. "pre-presumes"?
    - autoexec 4y ago
      scanning for and reporting vulnerable web servers does nothing to limit someone's personal choice to operate one. I just hope they make the data public so that I can make the personal choice to block traffic to/from people who make the personal choice to operate insecure devices on the global internet.
      - unknownaccount 4y ago
        Who gets to pay for all the extra traffic they send? the time spent by security guys to review the false positive attack logs they generate? the time spent by operators to bring the services back online when the government probing crashes something?
IshKebab 4y ago
I'd say they aren't doing it wrong 100% of the time. They still massively cock up from time to time, e.g. their anti-encryption campaigns, the stupid attempt to require ID for porn, the disastrous NHS digitisation. But the gov.uk website is pretty good and they did replace IT with computing in schools.
hanoz 4y ago
Now there's a sentence I never thought I would read.

The UK government seems to be doing the right thing in IT, again and again.

mnd999 4y ago

Probably breaking their own ‘Computer Misuse Act’ in the process though.

switch007 4y ago
I’m not sure we’ve invented a measurement sufficiently small to measure how little recent governments have cared about breaking the law.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  That'll be the Planck shit-given unit.

mijoharas 4y ago

I believe Alex Van Someran recently took over as head of the UK NCSC. He's someone that I trust to make the right decisions, so I'm quite glad of this fact. (NOTE: I have no idea if this specific link is related to Alex or anything he's done)

core-utility 4y ago

Agreed, but if the US Government were doing this there would be outcry of "spying" and "Government overreach". And before anyone says that the US Gov has lost its trust, let me remind you that UK has GCHQ.

xav0989 4y ago
NCSC is GCHQ
alias_neo 4y ago
NCSC is the public "arm" of GCHQ, they provide cyber-security guidance to businesses and the general public etc. They are a great source of information for current best-practice regarding cyber security.

torpid 4y ago

Sure, if you value authoritarianism and an intrusive nanny state. The government jiggling the door handles of everyone's house to see if it's unlocked crosses a huge line.

noja 4y ago
"nanny state" is a purposefully skewed statement that pre-presumes that doing something for the common good is always bad. It's a lazy way of not making an argument. Why is scanning web servers for vulnerabilities bad?
- raverbashing 4y ago
  Yeah, scanning for vulnerabilities in a controlled way isn't bad I suspect those opposing it are the ones that eventually get caught with glaring vulnerabilities and then we have to hear BS like "they care for security and privacy" when they didn't even use password hashes
- archsurface 4y ago
  "pre-presumes that doing something for the common good is always bad" No, it refers to a state that is intrusive into personal choices. "pre-presumes"?
  - autoexec 4y ago
    scanning for and reporting vulnerable web servers does nothing to limit someone's personal choice to operate one. I just hope they make the data public so that I can make the personal choice to block traffic to/from people who make the personal choice to operate insecure devices on the global internet.
    - unknownaccount 4y ago
      Who gets to pay for all the extra traffic they send? the time spent by security guys to review the false positive attack logs they generate? the time spent by operators to bring the services back online when the government probing crashes something?

IshKebab 4y ago

I'd say they aren't doing it wrong 100% of the time. They still massively cock up from time to time, e.g. their anti-encryption campaigns, the stupid attempt to require ID for porn, the disastrous NHS digitisation. But the gov.uk website is pretty good and they did replace IT with computing in schools.

hanoz 4y ago

Now there's a sentence I never thought I would read.