Not since Crown Sterling have we had this level of insight. To be fair, it's only RSA Conference, where this sort of thing is the norm rather than the exception.
Security wasn't an "afterthought". Instead, it's a separate layer based on the belief that there cannot be a one-size-fits all security solution. rsaconference.com/library/Blog/u…
In other words, they didn't come up with SSL right away, but they came up with an architecture in which SSL and many competing solutions (like IPsec) can be layered on top of the existing infrastructure.
That we have different layers in the network stack, instead of solving everything in one brittle layer, is a brilliant design.
By the way, it's why we have TCP/IP instead of TCPIP. In the beginning, the functionality of TCPIP was going to be in a single layer. Then they split the functionality into two layers, TCP and IP.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's literally not super racist. It's like how the phrase "muslim terrorist" does not mean "all muslims are terrorists", but that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 where practiced Islam.
It literally says "all men are created equal", and while the Founders struggled to put that in to practice (with subjugation of natives and enslavement of Africans), it's an aspiration we've been struggling to live up to this entire time.
I mean, four score and seven years later, somebody famously pointed out that we were failing to live up to ideals of the Declaration, and that we needed a rebirth of freedom.
50 years ago, people didn't know what we know now about climate. There were lots of studies with predictions all over the place, including many predicting cooling. (No, there was no consensus on cooling like today's consensus on warming).
What some people do is go backwards in time and cherry pick those things that agree with modern knowledge and claim "they knew all along" while ignoring all the rest of the stuff where people believed other things.
Nobody sees themselves as a "special interest". They believe they are fighting the good fight against "special interests". That's the attitude shown below.
The people fighting for "privacy" are not working in the public interest. They've given you a popup on every website you visit asking if you want to accept cookies, which is meaningless and stupid.
Privacy invasion is in the public interest. For example, Apple and Google maps can tell you the time to your destination and route your around traffic jams because they get all this information about traffic by monitor phone locations.
Victim blaming is to become the basis for cyber policy in Washington. It's easier to punish the victims inside our country than going after the bad actors in other countries. voanews.com/silicon-valley…
Most people believe that cyber victims are guilty of some moral weakness: ignorance, sloth, greed, lust, etc. Thus, whenever cyberattacks happen, they blame the victim for being weak.
That's why you see phrases like "basic cyber hygiene". That's not a thing. There's no standard anywhere that defines this. Ask 10 experts what those steps are and you'll get 12 different answers.
So I looked in this.
Committing crimes like arson won't get your license suspended.
It's ethics violations like lying to the court that gets your license revoked.
The court cited numerous clearly false statements by Giuliani claiming election fraud.
Giuliani's defense is that he didn't know all those election fraud statements were lies. The court doesn't believe him. The breadth of his lies was so huge it wasn't difficult for the court to document them. cnn.com/2021/06/24/pol…
Note that these aren't things that people still disagree about, that some believe are true.
These are statements which the court proves are untrue, which even Giuliani admits were not true.