This week in computer security

outsourced to some schmuck IT company that put in the best bid
This. As it's all about national security, I honestly can't understand looking for the cheapest (and most horrible) solutions.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
I'm a big proponent of security through simplicity. They use large and unnecessary software stacks, because that's what they're used to doing. Most of the companies that provide "solutions" create raggedy bags of code, on top of a house of cards of other people's code, that just about work most of the time.

A voting machine and its software should be about as complex as a calculator, built up simply from basic principles, in as few lines of code as possible, and tested to destruction.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
The people who make the decisions are clueless technically and have too much dark matter stuffed up their asses to understand just how little they know.

The sad thing is, so much of our IT infrastructure is still feeble in terms of security and quality. Things like voting machines, critical to the functioning of democracy itself, are outsourced to some schmuck IT company that put in the best bid, and delivers crap that no-one in the government understands well enough to analyze properly.

For now, stick to paper - it works well enough, and it's not that big a deal to organise properly monitored public counts.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
Orwell's 1984 was never closer.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
Wonder if this is legal; after all the military had to ban fitbit due to tracking.

If there's any question mark over the legality, I dare say the lobbyists will sort that out in due course.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
I get why you're saying @Ripper;, but I don't find it weird that someone who's never used their car insurance pays a lower fee. Nor do I find it weird you pay less for you health insurance if you try to live a healthy life, the opposite is much stranger to me.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
3,216
Location
Sweden
No, and I have no problem with insurance companies assessing risk to determine a premium, within reason. Taking into account whether someone smokes, or their BMI, seems reasonable, to me. My objection is the requirement to wear a monitoring device, so that a company can monitor your personal activity, moment to moment. To me that's a completely unacceptable level of personal intrusion.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
No, and I have no problem with insurance companies assessing risk to determine a premium, within reason. Taking into account whether someone smokes, or their BMI, seems reasonable, to me. My objection is the requirement to wear a monitoring device, so that a company can monitor your personal activity, moment to moment. To me that's a completely unacceptable level of personal intrusion.

Well, if the device is voluntary to gain a discount I don’t see a problem with it.

I do however have a problem with car insurance companies taking your credit report in to account to figure your ins rate.

I haven’t had a ticket or accident in 25 yrs yet my insurance went up due to a credit ding because of a bad investment and business deal.

A bad business deal affecting the insurance rate of a driver with 25 yrs of perfect driving record is ridiculous imo.
 
He's late to the party …

Yes, several years late. But, I do take some encouragement when corporates take this kind of position. It's not that I find them to be very genuine in their concern, but it does as least suggest that they see a market opportunity in saying it. And that would imply that they believe it's becoming more of a concern to the public, which I think is a very good thing.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
Back
Top Bottom