This guy's willful hysteria pretty nearly destroys the credibility of most anything else he has to say. The sky is falling, is it?
Cry me a river. We've been nonsecure ever since we fell out of the trees and bumped our fannies on the savannah. Our locks have been openable by anyone with an interest ever since we started tying the skin to the door frame against the wind. Our shank's mare interactions--and the networks of those--are insecure, no matter the "trust level," if only from wetware malfunction.
Want security? You can't have it. You can prepare a proper reaction to whatever insecurity when that one gets exploited, even accidentally.
If you spend your energy doing so instead of hiding under the bed from a malevolent world.
Freedom is great. Let people live or die by luck and power alone, not by government guarantees of protection, paid bully boys that sit there to protect people they barely can recognize the faces of. Much better.
I've always thought it's odd how we accept really shoddy craftsmanship in programming where we would never do so in any analog (material) construct. I guess, when the choice is between doing (however poorly it's done) or not doing, we take doing (however poorly it's done). Still, it's almost a daily occurance where I complain to myself that some programmer somewhere stinks because some program, interface, site, or whatever, could have been more responsive to the wetware end of things, but wasn't. Of course, I have no idea of the limitations they were up against, either.
Eric, you make good points. It's good to procede, but with the knowledge that it's a potentially dangerous landscape.
3 comments:
This guy's willful hysteria pretty nearly destroys the credibility of most anything else he has to say. The sky is falling, is it?
Cry me a river. We've been nonsecure ever since we fell out of the trees and bumped our fannies on the savannah. Our locks have been openable by anyone with an interest ever since we started tying the skin to the door frame against the wind. Our shank's mare interactions--and the networks of those--are insecure, no matter the "trust level," if only from wetware malfunction.
Want security? You can't have it. You can prepare a proper reaction to whatever insecurity when that one gets exploited, even accidentally.
If you spend your energy doing so instead of hiding under the bed from a malevolent world.
It's not all that hopeless.
Eric Hines
Freedom is great. Let people live or die by luck and power alone, not by government guarantees of protection, paid bully boys that sit there to protect people they barely can recognize the faces of. Much better.
I've always thought it's odd how we accept really shoddy craftsmanship in programming where we would never do so in any analog (material) construct. I guess, when the choice is between doing (however poorly it's done) or not doing, we take doing (however poorly it's done). Still, it's almost a daily occurance where I complain to myself that some programmer somewhere stinks because some program, interface, site, or whatever, could have been more responsive to the wetware end of things, but wasn't. Of course, I have no idea of the limitations they were up against, either.
Eric, you make good points. It's good to procede, but with the knowledge that it's a potentially dangerous landscape.
Post a Comment