This assumes
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Sep 25, 2012 12:19 PM EDT |
This assumes that any measure brought by "the administration" (as used in the article) is beneficial. Security is a distributed problem, not a centralized one. Having dictates passed down from On High is not secure. At best it's irrelevant to what people are already doing. At worst, it creates a monoculture where a zero-date exploit will get the malefactor great access to everyone at the same time. Private computer security is outside the scope and range of government anyway. It's private. Let them see to their own house, where they ought to all be using SELinux anyway. |
| jdixon Sep 25, 2012 12:46 PM EDT |
That was largely my reaction. The term "essential cybersecurity legislation" strikes me as an oxymoron. |
| gus3 Sep 25, 2012 2:35 PM EDT |
Bob_Robertson wrote:Private computer security is outside the scope and range of government anyway.Until a security breach becomes a criminal case. Even within the realm of civil litigation, if it's being litigated, then it's within the government's scope, by definition. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 25, 2012 3:22 PM EDT |
Gus3, it is the purview of the -court-, when brought before a court, I agree. So far as I can tell, this supposed disagreement is between the Legislative and Executive, not the Judiciary. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!