Starting with Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, Bruce Schneier has attempted compiling a list of recent/current US intelligence community whistle-blowers.
He counts 6 (possibly 7) of them.
This Warren Buffet quote seems relevant
Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Wednesday April 22 2015, @03:34AM
that feel responsible to their community even if the entity hiring them does not agree. I believe all of us have limits to our obedience to authority.
Push us beyond that and we will snap. I believe all of us have that point when we will fail to impose someone else's will on others.
This leads me to what I feel is a very irresponsible action: placing so-called "secure" backdoors into computer operating systems and executables into data - such as javascript and those mechanisms that allow phishers to infect peoples machines with malware when one as much as opens a Microsoft document to read it.
( Yes, I am on my high-horse again. I just received another one of those ACH transaction phish letters, with attached .DOC file. Again operating out of dropbox... ). Why businesses still use those .doc files is completely beyond me. Its beyond irresponsibility. Opening Microsoft doc files is just about as responsible as unprotected sex.
This reminds me of when I was a kid watching Ali-Baba and the 40 thieves... AliBaba would come up to a door and say "Open Sesame" and it would magically open.
We are just one leak away from having anyone in the world get onto the internet and go into any participating business ( one who runs Microsoft products), say the magic word, and their business methods, customer lists, accounts receivable and payable, and all their trade secrets are opened for inspection, modification, or deletion.
( Of those three, modification is probably the most destructive, as the participating business will not know their database is all screwed up for probably several weeks, and by that time the modifications have been incorporated into all their backups as well. Businesses seem quite tolerant of this, or they, not me, would be posting stuff like this.)
I believe computers can be made trustworthy, as inherently they have no desire of their own to alter the future. They just do as instructed.
I get the very strong idea that elimination of the "hold harmless" clause in exchange for "copyright protection" of paid software would do the trick.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday April 22 2015, @10:44PM
Regarding CRUD [wikipedia.org], I'm leaning towards the notion that reading data is the most devastating. You argue that subtle, malicious modification would dominate where backups are insufficient. However, unauthorized reads may have an adverse effect which exceeds the value of the organization.
1702845791×2