3 ms·

Typewriters are subject to attack, but it's a much more laborious and non-scalable process. It requires social engineering, infiltration, or else planting bugs,

Typewriters are subject to attack, but it's a much more laborious and non-scalable process. It requires social engineering, infiltration, or else planting bugs, intercepting shipments, etc. It can be done, and certainly was done, back in the age of typewriters. But it requires some old-fashioned, boots-on-the-ground fieldwork. It's a lot tougher to place bugs in embassies today than it was in the 1970s. And in some respects, it's logistically tougher than hacking into computers, which can be done from any location on Earth. (Which is not to say that computer hacking doesn't benefit from social engineering strategies, of course). "Unhackable" is a poor choice of words -- more like "practically speaking, tougher to hack." This is a speed bump, not a roadblock. Of course, if the US were to adopt this sort of strategy, we'd have to make sure we're manufacturing the typewriters domestically. Which probably means setting up a puppet company somewhere in the States, purely for the sake of making typewriters for government contracts. And then you'd have to make sure that company isn't socially engineered, infiltrated, or hacked. And so on, and so forth.

lukifer 12y ago
> Typewriters are subject to attack, but it's a much more laborious and non-scalable process. I definitely subscribe to the idea that security is not about making unauthorized access impossible (no such thing), but rather about making it prohibitively expensive (both in terms of resources and risk). In that light, it should surprise no one that government agencies have always had the ability to spy on citizens when sufficiently motivated. What is truly concerning is that per-capita, it is becoming more and more affordable for agencies to spy on every single person everywhere, all the time.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  "I definitely subscribe to the idea that security is not about making unauthorized access impossible (no such thing), but rather about making it prohibitively expensive (both in terms of resources and risk)." Exactly. There is no such thing as a foolproof security strategy. Anyone who tells you his plan is foolproof has already proven himself a fool. Security is about protection, mitigation, and contingencies. It is not about full-stop prevention. Build a 100-foot wall, and I'll build a 101-foot ladder. (Proverbially speaking, of course). "What is truly concerning is that per-capita, it is becoming more and more affordable for agencies to spy on every single person everywhere, all the time." This is probably 50% of what concerns me. The other 50% is the coming revolution in analysis. I use that word so strongly as to place it in <em>sterisks. Advances in machine learning will allow us to find needles in the mountains and mountains of haystacks that we're collecting now. It is truly marvelous (and also scary, depending upon your point of view) to consider what one could make of the most seemingly mundane of patterns and breadcrumbs.
dllthomas 12y ago
You might just need a sufficiently sensitive microphone on a computer in the next room.
- pygy_ 12y ago
  ... or in a smartphone in the target's pocket.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  Very good point. Though I am writing from the assumption that any organization sufficiently paranoid/sensitive enough to revert to the inconvenience of typewriters is also sensible enough to keep them in secure, externally-controlled locations, with sufficient air gaps, both electronically and accoustically. Basically, a "stone age saferoom." :)

lukifer 12y ago

> Typewriters are subject to attack, but it's a much more laborious and non-scalable process. I definitely subscribe to the idea that security is not about making unauthorized access impossible (no such thing), but rather about making it prohibitively expensive (both in terms of resources and risk). In that light, it should surprise no one that government agencies have always had the ability to spy on citizens when sufficiently motivated. What is truly concerning is that per-capita, it is becoming more and more affordable for agencies to spy on every single person everywhere, all the time.

jonnathanson 12y ago
"I definitely subscribe to the idea that security is not about making unauthorized access impossible (no such thing), but rather about making it prohibitively expensive (both in terms of resources and risk)." Exactly. There is no such thing as a foolproof security strategy. Anyone who tells you his plan is foolproof has already proven himself a fool. Security is about protection, mitigation, and contingencies. It is not about full-stop prevention. Build a 100-foot wall, and I'll build a 101-foot ladder. (Proverbially speaking, of course). "What is truly concerning is that per-capita, it is becoming more and more affordable for agencies to spy on every single person everywhere, all the time." This is probably 50% of what concerns me. The other 50% is the coming revolution in analysis. I use that word so strongly as to place it in <em>sterisks. Advances in machine learning will allow us to find needles in the mountains and mountains of haystacks that we're collecting now. It is truly marvelous (and also scary, depending upon your point of view) to consider what one could make of the most seemingly mundane of patterns and breadcrumbs.

dllthomas 12y ago

You might just need a sufficiently sensitive microphone on a computer in the next room.

pygy_ 12y ago
... or in a smartphone in the target's pocket.
jonnathanson 12y ago
Very good point. Though I am writing from the assumption that any organization sufficiently paranoid/sensitive enough to revert to the inconvenience of typewriters is also sensible enough to keep them in secure, externally-controlled locations, with sufficient air gaps, both electronically and accoustically. Basically, a "stone age saferoom." :)