When does too much security become, well, too much? According to Steve Riley (pictured below), senior security strategist at Microsoft, it becomes too much when the cost of mitigating the risk outweighs the cost of that which you are trying to protect...It would be interesting to ask Steve how many Americans need to be lost before "the cost of mitigating the risk outweighs the cost of that which you are trying to protect?"Steve applied this same train of logic to other, more worldly scenarios. Child kidnapping for example - apparently American parents are paranoid about kidnapping, and so forbid their children to talk to strangers. The result, according to Steve, is a generation which can't ask for help when the only source of help is a stranger, and a general and unacceptable reduction in human interaction which is the basis of any civilised society.
He prefers to tell his own kids that "...most adults are kind and honest and will help you if you need helping. But no adult needs your help to find their dog." Teach them to recognise the attacks, rather than react negatively to an imagined fear.
And this goes all the way up to the US's so-called "War on Terror". According to Steve, are any of us really made safer by taking our shoes off to go through metal detectors? Surely X-ray scanners which can see right through people's clothing is an unacceptable breach of privacy? At the very least, do we want to live in a society where this is the accepted norm?
Hat Tip S. Wallace
This dickwad is a senior security strategist at Microsoft and this is his approach to security issues? You're joking, right? If not, sell Microsoft short.
ReplyDeletethat's why i own a Mac.
ReplyDeleteTo Steve (the commenter, NOT Riley):
ReplyDeleteMe, too. But wouldn't that be iOwn?
(just kidding)
Had Macs since 1987, and have never had a virus or any other hack attack!
Hey -- I'm all for ending all government protection of Microsoft.
ReplyDeleteGiven the source it is not surprising to see ridiculous and absurd claims come out of Redmond.
ReplyDeleteMaybe some money could be saved by using pirated MS software or just switching to non MS software.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first commenter. How committed is MS to its so-called security and that of its so-called customers?
Linux box here.
ReplyDeleteSounds pretty stupid alright -- but is it really? Are we in fact made any safer by having to take our shoes off at an airport security checkpoint?
ReplyDeleteA number of reliably righty bloggers have commented on the hopeless inadequacy and incompetence of the TSA and Homeland "Security." I share that opinion. So, I suspect, does Riley. One can actually draw a rough analogy between computer security and real-world security. Mac and *nix boxes are highly secure & resistant to malware largely because they allow zero freedom to applications: no app can go anywhere or do anything without presenting its ID papers to the OS and humbly requesting permission. OTOH, early versions of Windows let apps go pretty much anywhere and do pretty much anything without needing permission. Windows has gotten somewhat more secure over the years, but that new security has been instituted piecemeal using brute-force tactics in an attempt to lock down everything, usually after a major attack, and it's left a lot of holes. Now it's to a point where its worst security issue is the loose nut behind the keyboard. No security system can protect stupid users against themselves.
Hmmm... you know, that sounds familiar. Like instituting the "scan everybody's shoes" requirement after Richard Reid, while rigidly refusing to apply profiling to passengers or enforce security on airport employees.
A tangential thought, aimed at Mac/*nix users: do you really want to have your life run the way a *nix box runs its permissions system?
"Are we in fact made any safer by having to take our shoes off at an airport security checkpoint?"...
ReplyDeleteFunny but blaming the need for safety on Homeland Security instead of Richard Reid is kind of bizzare...
So if taking one's shoes off (as an airline employee I do this sort of irritating ritual daily) doesn't make one safer what alternative to YOU have to offer?
"A number of reliably righty bloggers have commented on the hopeless inadequacy and incompetence of the TSA and Homeland "Security." I share that opinion"...
Hmmm, who are these, "reliably righty bloggers" and what alternatives did they offer in correcting the alledged incompetence of the TSA and Homeland Security?
"rigidly refusing to apply profiling to passengers or enforce security on airport employees"
Interesting comment and only partly right... Airport employees (assuming those in position are doing their jobs - albeit a big assumption) are strictly screened now...
Regarding profiling, well who can you look to that starts hollering the loudest when it comes to profiling?
Liberals and Democrats maybe?
He's talking about what? He's from Microsoft for god's sake. These guys don't the meaning of security. Tell him to go back to his padded room. Geeks like this need to be kept locked up.
ReplyDeleteMicrosoft has security experts? Amazing
ReplyDeleteKen Hahn