On Nov 16, 2007 11:08 AM, James Sissel jimsissel@yahoo.com wrote:

Ya, and Socialized medicine is supposed to be good for us all. Much better than Social Security, Medicare/Medicade, Welfare, and all of the other government run programs.

Has this post gone on long enough to mention Nazis yet? ;)

*Jonathan Hutchins hutchins@tarcanfel.org* wrote:

Guys,

There is a reason. It's not some sort of strange conspiracy or security back door.

They keep the data on removable drives so that the drives can be locked in a safe when they're not in use, and they are supposed to lock said drives in

said safe any time they are not actually using the data. It's that simple.

Yeah, there are flaws in the plan, but that's the reason for it.

Actually, there were well-intentioned but not viable attempts to have

drives 'Holding critical or restricted data" kept only in "multiple hardware locked" storages.

Plain english translation meaning something akin to the safes at a cash handling location which needs at least TWO mechanical keys and TWO codes AND TWO Dallas Semi"Button keys" all SIX factors of which work only during certain externally loaded times. And that unit being kept in a secured "Man Trap corridor protected area too.

Needless to say we now have 2 sorts of reply to those proposals.

Ones that are more intensely complex.

And the present blissful ignorances of security we see all around us.

"True Security is a moving target"

On Nov 16, 2007 11:53 AM, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:

--- James Sissel jimsissel@yahoo.com wrote:

...

Has this post gone on long enough to mention Nazis yet? ;)

Godwin's Law is merely an expression of the percentage chance of when Hitler will be mentioned in a long argument (the length of the argument is directly proportional to the percentage chance of Nazis/Hitler being mentioned), and has nothing whatsoever to do with when the argument ends and/or who won the argument.

However, in conventional usage, Godwin's Law traditionally has a "he who smelt it dealt it" approach to the "winner" of such an argument, in that the person who mentions Nazis/Hitler first is declared completely wrong, regardless of the validity of anything they have actually said. This of course means that Socialized medicine is good for everyone, and all the other government assistance programs are good for us as well. ;-)

Since you invoke the Godwin name let me introduce the Godwin to read deeper.

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Godwin.htm

Would that our world reconsider HIS discourses as anodyne to what we suffer now.

On Friday 16 November 2007 11:41:09 Leo Mauler wrote:

So what you are saying is that they think that a network is more easily compromised than a physical security "sneakernet"? Seems it *is* a security back door they're concerned about.

They can see a safe. They understand what a safe represents. The fact that the whole safe might be removable might completely escape them, or they may take measures to prevent this as well.

Its not a bad plan, provided you spend the money keeping the employees locked in the office with both the hard drive safe and the workstations while both are in use.

The employees are expected to follow the rules. The reasoning is that while they have custody of the data, it is their responsibility to protect it properly. It's when the data is no longer the focus of attention that the need to lock it in the safe comes into play. Employees have been the weak link in the system before, but the objective is to make sure the rest of the system does not contain the weak link.

Clearly the system isn't flawless, but there it is.