3 ms·

Right so what I'm imagining is basically (for lack of a better term) a QA framework that tests that the instrumentation for tracking access...etc is legit. You

Right so what I'm imagining is basically (for lack of a better term) a QA framework that tests that the instrumentation for tracking access...etc is legit. You could say that blowing up even one nuke without proper oversight is unacceptable and thus we have mechanisms in place to make sure the right bells and whistles are trigged. EOD launching a nuke and using PRISM data are keystrokes on a computer.

corin_ 13y ago
Sure they're keystrokes, but if the software/audits/etc. are run by the same people who might want to abuse it, it doesn't mean much. And put yourself in their shoes: if you abuse a secret database, you likely won't get found out. If you abuse the nukes you most likely will.
- briancaw2 13y ago
  Right so it's more difficult to do, but you can separate out the testing team or do other things to be rigorous about detection. At the very least you can make it more difficult than sitting down at a terminal and hitting go. One sort of simple solution I can think of is having passwords just like nuke authcodes that have similar restrictions that are passwords for access and decryption...etc.
  - corin_ 13y ago
    And if the government (right at the top) decides they want to start accessing it regularly without the public knowing (like the current situation), they control those separate testing teams, and can authorize secret access at any time?
  - briancaw2 13y ago
    I think if it involved Presidential and Congressional approval and had things like exact query logging and required declassification prior to prosecution than that would be reasonable.
TallGuyShort 13y ago
No - launching a nuke results in a thermonuclear explosion detectable from space - not just keystrokes on a computer. Keystrokes on a computer can be hidden, those mechanisms can be by-passed - and no satellite from space is going to detect all that and alert us to the problem in the reliable and impartial way that would be necessary.
- briancaw2 13y ago
  My point was that even 1 unauthorized nuke is completely unacceptable and we have mechanisms to prevent it.
  - TallGuyShort 13y ago
    I see. I understand that a little more. I still disagree, however. There's a huge incentive for the government to keep those mechanisms working, and we'd all know it if they didn't. That's definitely not the case with the NSA. How will we know there isn't some secret backdoor?

corin_ 13y ago

Sure they're keystrokes, but if the software/audits/etc. are run by the same people who might want to abuse it, it doesn't mean much. And put yourself in their shoes: if you abuse a secret database, you likely won't get found out. If you abuse the nukes you most likely will.

briancaw2 13y ago
Right so it's more difficult to do, but you can separate out the testing team or do other things to be rigorous about detection. At the very least you can make it more difficult than sitting down at a terminal and hitting go. One sort of simple solution I can think of is having passwords just like nuke authcodes that have similar restrictions that are passwords for access and decryption...etc.
- corin_ 13y ago
  And if the government (right at the top) decides they want to start accessing it regularly without the public knowing (like the current situation), they control those separate testing teams, and can authorize secret access at any time?
- briancaw2 13y ago
  I think if it involved Presidential and Congressional approval and had things like exact query logging and required declassification prior to prosecution than that would be reasonable.

TallGuyShort 13y ago

No - launching a nuke results in a thermonuclear explosion detectable from space - not just keystrokes on a computer. Keystrokes on a computer can be hidden, those mechanisms can be by-passed - and no satellite from space is going to detect all that and alert us to the problem in the reliable and impartial way that would be necessary.

briancaw2 13y ago
My point was that even 1 unauthorized nuke is completely unacceptable and we have mechanisms to prevent it.
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  I see. I understand that a little more. I still disagree, however. There's a huge incentive for the government to keep those mechanisms working, and we'd all know it if they didn't. That's definitely not the case with the NSA. How will we know there isn't some secret backdoor?