![]() And once any group manages to infiltrate that one source, they get access to everything dependent on it. And there are always flaws, either technical, legal (as with the government spying mentioned elsewhere in the comments), or otherwise. Centralization significantly increases the chance that all the systems involved will be safe that's what makes it so useful for individual organizations, where centralizing their operations wouldn't attract significantly more bad actors to try breaking their security than decentralizing.īut if we have centralization on the scale of a society, then anyone interested in any of the groups using that centralized source of secure data storage/transfer will be drawn to look for the flaws in that source. ![]() I think the difference here is whether we're considering the plausibility that there aren't any security violations versus the overall frequency and severity. ![]() "Now that this method has become public we are updating our transparency reporting to detail these kinds of requests." > "In this case, the federal government prohibited us from sharing any information," the company said in a statement. > In a statement, Apple said that Wyden's letter gave them the opening they needed to share more details with the public about how governments monitored push notifications. ) Consumers rationally trust the few big companies which are incentive-aligned to protect their data and government then goes after those few big companies. Look no further than the other news that came out this week re: government spying via push notifications. This rigid tendency towards homogeneity is bound to suffer a tragic systemic failure before too long. We've really done one over on ourselves by adopting the mental model that only a vertically integrated corp can deliver privacy and security to users. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |