Thread

1. jacobgold · 1790110395 · focus · HN ↗

   At this point, no one seems capable of keeping a large database safe. I assume all medical and biographical information that exists is in the hands of the major state actors.

   China hacked 22.1 million records of US government employees:

   <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;2015_Office_of_Personnel_Management_data_breach" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;2015_Office_of_Personnel_Manag...

   1. coldpie · 1790111715 · focus · HN ↗

      It is unthinkable to me that anyone believes there is such a thing as computer security after so many years of nonstop hacks and leaks. If you have a computer and it is connected to a network with access to the Internet, assume that computer is semi-public. Meaning, if someone was interested enough in accessing your computer, they could do it. Do not hook any computer with access to anything that would be devastating if it was made public to the Internet. Do not put anything that would be devastating if it was made public onto someone else&#x27;s Internet-connected computers.

      For example, do not hook your goddamn water or traffic or electricity infrastructure up to the goddamn Internet, and then, do fire the guy who suggested it.

      The correct analogy for computer security is not locks and keys and doors and gates. It is a house in a floodplain. Your house will not survive the flood of it hits you. Do not store anything critical or irreplaceable in that house.

      1. shepherdjerred · 1790112734 · focus · HN ↗

         It used to be that nothing was secure but that was OK because at least adversaries would have to expend effort. If you are one of a million companies why would anyone hack you. Maybe if you are a target you need a lot of investment, but most orgs only prevent the most egregious of vulnerabilities.

         The calculus has certainly changed. Hacking is becoming even more frequent and… I’m not really sure what the equilibrium looks like.

         It’s not really an option to stop using computers or networks. But it’s going to be way too expensive (or maybe even impossible) to secure even just critical systems.

         Maybe banks and governments can secure themselves (and that’s a big IF) but it really feels like something fundamentally has to change.

         1. throwup238 · 1790112996 · focus · HN ↗

            &gt; It’s not really an option to stop using computers or networks. But it’s going to be way too expensive (or maybe even impossible) to secure even just critical systems.

            Admiral Adama says otherwise.

            1. shepherdjerred · 1790113433 · focus · HN ↗

               The military has significantly different incentives.

               Even just consider banks and e-commerce. They are hugely lucrative and making them even a tiny bit less accessible directly impacts their revenue. As an example, Amazon seeing that latency has a measurable effect on purchase behavior.

               Maybe the military (fictional or otherwise) can go back to the ARPANET but most economic activity created by the internet cannot afford to disconnect

               1. what · 1790129202 · focus · HN ↗

                  People buying less shit on Amazon (or e-commerce in general) would be side benefit. So much waste.

                  1. shepherdjerred · 1790137457 · focus · HN ↗

                     You can argue the merits of that all you want. It doesn&#x27;t change reality.

                     Companies that are online have more economic opportunity. They are going to outcompete brick-and-mortar retailers regardless if you think that it&#x27;s consumeristic or wasteful

                     Even putting that aside, economic growth (like the growth e-commerce has provided) is generally positive for a population

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.