3 ms·

> Agreed, they’re much worse. “We’re going to spend nothing, and when something happens to you, too bad, so sad” under the guise of fiscal responsibility. 1) W

by roenxi 2y ago

> Agreed, they’re much worse. “We’re going to spend nothing, and when something happens to you, too bad, so sad” under the guise of fiscal responsibility. 1) What, Republicans don't need to drink water now? 2) I find it amazing. For decades the small government people have been arguing that centralising power to the national level is a bad idea because it creates a single point of failure. It is a real tell that people are play-acting with their concerns about the Republicans that they currently control all the major organs of the US government AND are led by Trump, but this is not enough to provoke a "gee, maybe centralising all these critical functions is a bad idea" response. The answer is still to concentrate power towards Trump and the Republican party, just to demonise them more vociferously. I mean gee. If there are a group of people who are so terrible at securing clean water, don't give them control over the water systems ~50% of the time. Let it all happen at the local or state level. Is this such a radical position?

AlotOfReading 2y ago
Do you think water systems are managed at the federal level? They're not. Municipal water supplies are primarily managed by local and state agencies. The feds get involved when there are environmental issues (EPA) or something directly under the federal prerogative comes up like federal lands, standardisation, the army, or interstate cooperation.
- roenxi 2y ago
  So from your comment it seems you see a body that is basically advisory. Would I be correct in assuming you see no issue with getting rid of the parts of the EPA that deal in water? They don't sound like they do anything particularly important. They were probably overstepping their mandate with the cybersecurity stuff if your view is accurate; nobody needs to sue them if they don't exercise any control. Those functions could be wholly coordinated by the states or direct communication between relevant bodies by the way.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    When presented with an issue that poses a real and present danger to the drinking water supply of citizens of this country your contribution is pearl clutching over notional mandates? To be clear, in your opinion "overstepping their mandate" is the bigger threat here? Here's a wild idea, how about we return to the concept of actual governance for the first time in a few decades and actually empower the EPA with both budget and enforcement rights to ensure that local and state run systems that our fellow citizens rely on aren't falling through the cracks?
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > ...your contribution is pearl clutching over notional mandates... > Here's a wild idea, how about we return to the concept of actual governance for the first time in a few decades... These two ideas are actually somewhat contradictory, I recommend picking one. You can't return to good governance by ignoring governance every time you think something needs to be done. And you don't need the EPA to be involved to defend against these sort of risks. In fact, standardising the IT approach through the EPA will might increase the risk since any vulnerabilities will be more likely to be standardised. Highly heterogeneous systems are expensive and difficult to cripple. If an adversary wants to attack there is a single point of failure they can target - the EPA process.
      - d4mi3n 2y ago
        > In fact, standardising the IT approach through the EPA will might increase the risk since any vulnerabilities will be more likely to be standardised. Highly heterogeneous systems are expensive and difficult to cripple. This is not a safe assumption to make. As an example: Standardized patching programs are very basic and reduce a lot of this risk. Without them (or incentive/budget for them), it’s typical for most private and public orgs to end up with pretty bad security posture. This is a known failure state that results in many known vulnerabilities that can be trivially exploited, regardless of how heterogeneous these various networks are. Sadly, from what I’ve seen in the news and in various reports, I don’t think many regional organizations have the funding, expertise, or incentive to run effective security programs.

by roenxi 2y ago

AlotOfReading 2y ago

Do you think water systems are managed at the federal level? They're not. Municipal water supplies are primarily managed by local and state agencies. The feds get involved when there are environmental issues (EPA) or something directly under the federal prerogative comes up like federal lands, standardisation, the army, or interstate cooperation.

roenxi 2y ago
So from your comment it seems you see a body that is basically advisory. Would I be correct in assuming you see no issue with getting rid of the parts of the EPA that deal in water? They don't sound like they do anything particularly important. They were probably overstepping their mandate with the cybersecurity stuff if your view is accurate; nobody needs to sue them if they don't exercise any control. Those functions could be wholly coordinated by the states or direct communication between relevant bodies by the way.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  When presented with an issue that poses a real and present danger to the drinking water supply of citizens of this country your contribution is pearl clutching over notional mandates? To be clear, in your opinion "overstepping their mandate" is the bigger threat here? Here's a wild idea, how about we return to the concept of actual governance for the first time in a few decades and actually empower the EPA with both budget and enforcement rights to ensure that local and state run systems that our fellow citizens rely on aren't falling through the cracks?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > ...your contribution is pearl clutching over notional mandates... > Here's a wild idea, how about we return to the concept of actual governance for the first time in a few decades... These two ideas are actually somewhat contradictory, I recommend picking one. You can't return to good governance by ignoring governance every time you think something needs to be done. And you don't need the EPA to be involved to defend against these sort of risks. In fact, standardising the IT approach through the EPA will might increase the risk since any vulnerabilities will be more likely to be standardised. Highly heterogeneous systems are expensive and difficult to cripple. If an adversary wants to attack there is a single point of failure they can target - the EPA process.
    - d4mi3n 2y ago
      > In fact, standardising the IT approach through the EPA will might increase the risk since any vulnerabilities will be more likely to be standardised. Highly heterogeneous systems are expensive and difficult to cripple. This is not a safe assumption to make. As an example: Standardized patching programs are very basic and reduce a lot of this risk. Without them (or incentive/budget for them), it’s typical for most private and public orgs to end up with pretty bad security posture. This is a known failure state that results in many known vulnerabilities that can be trivially exploited, regardless of how heterogeneous these various networks are. Sadly, from what I’ve seen in the news and in various reports, I don’t think many regional organizations have the funding, expertise, or incentive to run effective security programs.