Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

True security isn't keeping information from your enemies.  True security is being safe even if your enemies have that information.

[Starver]

My actual broad two-stroke approach to information security is:
1) Endevouring to deny usable information to those who should not have it, and
2) Endevouring to ensure continuing access to usable information to those who (currently) should.

If truth be told, I'm much better in my personal life in adhering to the first (the number of times I've lost sole copies of data to drives that suddenly went kaput, or forgotten the password to some online resource I maybe didn't manually log into often enough) but I like to think that I have on balance managed to maintain both during professional engagements in the field (which I'm not doing in my current situation).

And if you rely upon being safe merely through knowing that, even with the correct decrypption tools, some password/key is required (or multiple!) then it can be good, but even better if nobody has unfettered access to the decryptor and/or enciphered data as well. This is a balance. A single copy of data on a "self-destruct if wrong password is used eight times" USB dongle might not be any good at all if Alice and Bob would suffer as much from interference by the disinterested Mallory (actively malicious, a disruptor) as from any hypothetical Eve (eavesdropper) assisted by Craig (password cracker) and the rest.

Defence-in-depth (and defence against chance, as well as intent) is the thing. Like security through obscurity doesn't hurt, but shouldn't at all be the only thing you do to wrap up vital data. This whole discussion being pointless without going into an actual case-study, though, as every situation has its own range of potential 'solutions', and every likelihood of being blindsided by some future revelation of a risk (either way) not even considered, whether some zero-day method of rapidly cracking your toughest encryption algorithms or some novel ransomware/data-denial vector indiscriminately sweeping the world... And I'm under no illusions that I could ever prevent all such trouble, perhaps jot even know how to predict what's even possible. And it's not my job to, right now, even if the pondering remains somewhat of a subtle hobby of mine, and the (slightly rusty) experience is but a little polishing away from being of some small use once again if someone so desires it of me.

(Which I'm sure won't happen; there are definitely better people than myself out there, fully polished and kept sharpened sufficiently already... But I like to think I'd be a good third-tier candidate straight off the bat, if anyone is desperate enough to try to find me willing. )

[EuchreJack]

Just an FYI, hector13 has seen fit to continue the argument via PM. See below:

It wasn’t a personal attack? I mean… this is the second or third time you’ve attempted to equate Trump taking super duper confidential files and then trying to obstruct an investigation into that with Clinton’s email server that she cooperated with the investigation into, and said investigation concluded it what she did was stupid but not criminal.

My comment was in the context of that, and remembering you said if Trump had won the election Putin wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine back around Spring time, with all that implies about the Democrats and Republicans. You’re a Trump supporter, I was putting that into context for the person who posted before me, not making an attack.

… and a low character limit in the subject line so can’t make silly jokes.

That last message wasn’t edited very well and somehow I managed to send it while trying to put in a subject line? Who knows, I just have fat fingers apparently.

There’s nothing wrong with being a Trump supporter, but while you’re entitled to offer your opinion on something, other folks are entitled to retort.

I understand the unwavering support for your political leaders. I support the SNP in Scotland, and the current leader was involved in a scandal involving what she may or may not have known about the previous leader, who was accused of sexually harassment by various women who worked for/with him. She was further accused of trying to cover it up, and throughout that I was quite willing to view the various twists and turns in the most positive/least negative light.

It’s human nature to look at people you like along those lines. I’m not faulting you for it.

My response, for full disclosure:

You don't understand me at all.
You're imprinting upon me your biased views of Americans in general, and self-professed Republicans specifically.

Frankly, you're a pompous ass and I don't want any more PMs from you on this topic.

[Vector]

Resolving things privately would be the thing to do to stop an escalating argument without moderator involvement.

[EuchreJack]

Resolving things privately would be the thing to do to stop an escalating argument without moderator involvement.

Continuing the argument is NOT resolving things privately, it's escalating things privately where there is less scrutiny.

Like, what if I started discussing YOUR issues via PM, arguing with you? Would that be "fair"?

[hector13]

You want me to stop but post publicly an attempt at clarifying and resolving this privately?

Whatever man.

[Vector]

Resolving things privately would be the thing to do to stop an escalating argument without moderator involvement.

Continuing the argument is NOT resolving things privately, it's escalating things privately where there is less scrutiny.

Like, what if I started discussing YOUR issues via PM, arguing with you? Would that be "fair"?

That is a literal experience I have had with well-meaning people who wanted to turn the heat down before somebody got banned. It generally worked pretty well, since this isn't Twitter where you get mobbed by people in DMs.

I want to be explicit: the person I remember most was in favor of a total ban on abortion even though his wife had almost died in childbirth and talked regularly in the happy thread about watching movies like Saving Private Ryan with his toddler-aged son. I'm not talking about some person I shared any fundamental views with.

[Random_Dragon]

Okay yeah, dragging this argument back out into the public forum only makes things worse, EJ.

[KittyTac]

jfc

[delphonso]

EJ agreed to drop it in another thread, so let's just bury this and move on.

Here's some gooder news:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/

Obama had a similar law to make publicly funded research free to the public (you know, because we paid for it). Journals found loopholes to keep that research behind their paywalls. This tightens up some of those loopholes, so we should have a year of freely accessible research before they figure out the new loopholes.

[EuchreJack]

I thought the below was interesting about the Trump case:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/05/politics/trump-special-master-mar-a-lago-ruling/index.html

... didn't guess Trump getting out of this by one of his appointed Judges fixing it for him. Kinda feel stupid for not guessing that.

[webadict]

If it makes you feel better, proximity to T**** is directly related to intellect. I'm pretty sure he's listed under Prop 65 in California. Hold on, I have to check that one... Oh, yep, it's listed right there under "reproductive harm"!

[Lord Shonus]

I thought the below was interesting about the Trump case:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/09/05/politics/trump-special-master-mar-a-lago-ruling/index.html

... didn't guess Trump getting out of this by one of his appointed Judges fixing it for him. Kinda feel stupid for not guessing that.

This doesn't get him out of shit. The review that is being "halted" is already annouced to be completed - right now they're in the "processing" stage that can continue. Moreover, the "special master" reviewing the case (for any of Trump's personal papers that the government doesn't have the right to, they can't dismiss the material that is actually legally dangerous to Trump) will have to have clearance for all the documents in question. The number of such people who have those clearances (remember, we have confirmation that some of this is "born secret" material that maxes out the secrecy level) is very small - quite possibly in the low four digits. Even if there's some magic argument that the special master could make to magically make things go away, the odds of finding somebody in this extremely small group who is willing to put their neck on the line to do so is, to put it mildly, infinitesimal.

The best case scenario for Trump is that this buys a few months to a year delay before returning to the exact same doomsday tract, and maybe Something Else will happen to buy him more time after that. The worst case for him is that the DOJ appeals and the judge immediately says "what the fuck was she smoking" and throws it out. Middle case is that they find a special master, this person goes through it in a week or two and finds anything that has to go back to Trump, and things proceed as if the ruling had never happened. The realistic case is somewhere between worst and middle.

[hector13]

I don’t know if this will affect the mid-terms.

The Democrats are mobilizing folks based on Roe being rescinded, maybe he’s hoping this does the same for Republicans?

It seems unlikely, given Trump supporters are already quite active, but it’s worth considering.

Equally so he could just be buying time to get rid/take advantage of the documents he retains so he can make bank and/or shred them so he doesn’t get in (more) trouble.

[EuchreJack]

I don’t know if this will affect the mid-terms.

The Democrats are mobilizing folks based on Roe being rescinded, maybe he’s hoping this does the same for Republicans?

It seems unlikely, given Trump supporters are already quite active, but it’s worth considering.

Equally so he could just be buying time to get rid/take advantage of the documents he retains so he can make bank and/or shred them so he doesn’t get in (more) trouble.

I look at it the other way: If Republicans Win one of the houses, how will that effect this proceeding? Or both houses?