5 ms·

> Should all uploads and content transmissions be locked for employees with foreign ties to an adversarial country? Profiling works. Profiling is abhorrent to

> Should all uploads and content transmissions be locked for employees with foreign ties to an adversarial country? Profiling works. Profiling is abhorrent to most people in 1st world countries, but it works exceedingly well. If the hire is from an adversarial country, they should not only be locked but on a watch list. Our 3 letter organizations should be proactive toward information security. We're in the Information Age now. It's time our society treated that information like the gold it is.

a_gnostic 3y ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Like the Muslim-ban? No, like the way it wouldn’t be possible for an American national—whether of Chinese descent or not—to get a job at a Chinese missile research laboratory.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  "Muslim-ban" is not accurate because it did not ban on the basis of being Muslim or not. It was a ban on travel to the US for 90 days from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. There are many predominately Muslim countries it didn't include and it was specifically about travel from those countries.
  - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
    "Muslim ban" is what the person who initiated it called it, not a description of the actual effects.
    - mikeyouse 3y ago
      Right - he repeatedly said he wanted a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country and then directed his legal staff to find a legal way to do so… pointing at the hamfisted EO that attempted to toe the line of the clearly unconstitutional order to excuse it is pretty obviously bad faith.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
lupire 3y ago
It's a lot more nuanced than that. Racial profiling only works if it's impossible for an adversary to recruit a member who doesn't match the profile. $ says that won't happen. Information security meanwhile, doesn't need profiling because it applies to everyone.
- jlawson 3y ago
  Nonsense. It works if it's more difficult for the adversary to recruit a member who doesn't match the profile. It doesn't need to be "impossible". Of course it doesn't work perfectly, but no security is ever perfect.

a_gnostic 3y ago

[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Like the Muslim-ban? No, like the way it wouldn’t be possible for an American national—whether of Chinese descent or not—to get a job at a Chinese missile research laboratory.
nonethewiser 3y ago
"Muslim-ban" is not accurate because it did not ban on the basis of being Muslim or not. It was a ban on travel to the US for 90 days from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. There are many predominately Muslim countries it didn't include and it was specifically about travel from those countries.
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  "Muslim ban" is what the person who initiated it called it, not a description of the actual effects.
  - mikeyouse 3y ago
    Right - he repeatedly said he wanted a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country and then directed his legal staff to find a legal way to do so… pointing at the hamfisted EO that attempted to toe the line of the clearly unconstitutional order to excuse it is pretty obviously bad faith.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

lupire 3y ago

It's a lot more nuanced than that. Racial profiling only works if it's impossible for an adversary to recruit a member who doesn't match the profile. $ says that won't happen. Information security meanwhile, doesn't need profiling because it applies to everyone.

jlawson 3y ago
Nonsense. It works if it's more difficult for the adversary to recruit a member who doesn't match the profile. It doesn't need to be "impossible". Of course it doesn't work perfectly, but no security is ever perfect.