Wait, wait, explain me this: the very party that just spent most of a campaign season as a Terrifying Example of what happens when older folks try to be "hip" or "with it" and make with the e-mail like kids these days--
--Has a huge overlap with the people sneering at Mr. Trump for being skeptical about using computers in the White House 'cos he thinks they're inherently insecure?*
Okay, then.
This is one of the few things Mr. Trump has talked about that I agree with wholeheartedly: if you want something to be secure, keep it off the 'Net. The Internet is, by design, the very opposite of secure.
Just ask Ms. Clinton.
________________________________
* You what I love most? None of the people talking about this -- not
either side -- actually know a damned thing about it, and would refuse
informed advice if offered. It's to the point where you could use a
random-number generator to pick opinions and do as well.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
3 comments:
Been saying that same thing for years. I have never understood why vital infrastructure is accessible via the public Internet (regardless of whether it's behind a VPN or not; what's kludged on can be kludged off). Cutting on-site personnel costs for overnight shifts doesn't seem like a good enough reason when millions or billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure is at stake.
I agree. The only way for a computer system to be (reasonably) secure is to not have it connected to the internet at all. Secure information, by it's nature, does not need to have that kind of accessibility. That, and the fact that 'public' systems (banks, hospitals, internet companies) don't have a very good record for security in my eyes.
Shades of the Battlestar Galactica reboot.
Post a Comment