5 ms·

Seems like the government's fault. In every other area of even marginal importance we have better and more advanced authentication systems. Yet governments th

• Eisenstein 3y ago
  The problem is that there are tens of thousands of counties with more judges and cops and each county has an IT department and are you telling me that there is any way to get them all to agree to some standard procedure that they are going to have to figure out, and then pay for? The only way to accomplish this would be to centralize it at least by state, like a DMV for courts.
  • vivekd 3y ago
    You don't need a standard procedure followed all over the world. You just need some authentication procedure that's better than an easily forgable signature. I gave a few examples of the top of my head in the parent. This is why I would rather have profit hungry corporations manage things than governments. Because with government there's always a legion of people rushing to excuse and explain away even the most serious examples of ineptitude and mismanagement. Would you accept it if Facebook or Google let people login to user accounts via signed letter? So why is a signature enough for a search warrant? A signature is not an acceptable method of authentication in 2023 for important documents. I don't see how that's not obvious.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • Eisenstein 3y ago
      What does having local governments have to do with huge monolithic corporations? If google was in charge of our physical security then a) it would be a de facto government b) it wouldn't care about individuals at all. Google doesn't let you log in with a signature not because they care about your security, but because it wouldn't be profitable. The problem is that when it becomes more profitable to sell your data to Corp B, who then has as a client Stalker Creep A, then they will do that. Making motivation money instead of public good is a strange way to achieve either of those goals.
      • vivekd 3y ago
        How would google lose money if stalkers broke into my Gmail? No it's because in every other area besides government we have standards of security because government is the only place where people tolerate, accept and even defend massive security lapses There's a large group of the population that has an ideological frenzy to defend government no matter what so they're able to get away with terrible lapses like this
        • Eisenstein 3y ago
          Not sure I understand. You brought up a claim that for profit companies are better to manage people's physical and legal security needs than the courts themselves and law enforcement. That would de facto make them government -- so we are both defending government, just different forms. You think an undemocratic, for profit motivation would work to fulfill public good, and I disagree. > No it's because in every other area besides government we have standards of security I guess you never heard of NIST? I suppose private companies never get hacked and have all their customer's data stolen?
          • vivekd 3y ago
            You're getting lost in words not touching substance. I can distill it to this - If private contractors did warrants we'd be better off because there are no ideologically driven zealots who will defend and excuse it if they had weak security like a signature and nothing else. Thus they would be forced to have a basic workable security system. This can be extrapolated to every other area
            • Eisenstein 3y ago
              The problem is that when you say private interests should take over the duties of a entire branch of government, you are literally telling people you want an undemocratic system motivated by money above all else in charge of the public good. If you mean something else, then you should find a better way to articulate it. People defending against what you are literally calling for is not 'ideological zealotry', it is pushing back against extremism.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• dclowd9901 3y ago
  This isn’t even close to true. Sure, for legal documents. But any cursory check of this document would’ve led right back to the judge in the court who supposedly signed it and a quick “hey did you actually sign this” would have rendered a very specific and correct answer. Otherwise, the government uses all sorts of modern authentication mechanisms when dealing with sensitive materials.
  • spacebanana7 3y ago
    Unfortunately any information in the government can be accessed with the right legal document.