Only you moderators would know if it's possible to manage that, but I think the OP has a very good idea.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Suggestion: Add subforum for Security and Privacy
- Thread starter You are the One
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think it's possible without constant (unrealistic) moderation, which unfortunately devalues the discussion. Just from my small bit of experience at a security/privacy based forum -- That forum does not allow any political discussion. There's no PRSI equivalent there. Some meaningful, privacy discussion is had but inevitably politics enter the discussion. Privacy and politics are intertwined. Feathers get ruffled, moderation happens, rinse and repeat. (Also happens to a far lesser extent with security matters.)
That is always a tough spot.
What is a failing is when someone really looks in this forum for privacy and security items, they miss or discount PRSI.
No easy answer. The topic though is relevant. Question is, for how long as a thread topic.
A possible answer -- A hotlink in the heading of the forum main page for the proposed sub-forum of PRSI. Security and privacy are important enough, and I think will draw enough interest, to deserve one.
I haven't posted in this thread in awhile but thought I would add my 0.02 worth.
After reading the latest comments I'm not sure politics can be left out since politics, and government(s), do play a part in security and privacy. The summer of Snowden, and more recently the FBI vs. Apple iPhone access issue, are two security/privacy issues that come to mind.
The hard part when discussing security/privacy will be keeping the personal attacks out of the discussion. And of course there are the folks that only post to get a reaction. The latter can be dealt with by ignoring them (I know, easier said than done) but when it gets personal it's very hard to ignore.
You bring up a good point. If it was not for the OP adding a link to this thread in his signature I never would have found it because I never check the "Site and Forum Feedback" section.
I do check the PRSI area once in awhile after following something of interest that was posted on the front page. But only if I'm feeling up to it.
Jon...
After reading the latest comments I'm not sure politics can be left out since politics, and government(s), do play a part in security and privacy. The summer of Snowden, and more recently the FBI vs. Apple iPhone access issue, are two security/privacy issues that come to mind.
The hard part when discussing security/privacy will be keeping the personal attacks out of the discussion. And of course there are the folks that only post to get a reaction. The latter can be dealt with by ignoring them (I know, easier said than done) but when it gets personal it's very hard to ignore.
You bring up a good point. If it was not for the OP adding a link to this thread in his signature I never would have found it because I never check the "Site and Forum Feedback" section.
I do check the PRSI area once in awhile after following something of interest that was posted on the front page. But only if I'm feeling up to it.
Jon...
As per my previous post - there are two aspects to security. The technical implementation. I.e., "how do I secure my Mac?" and the political discussion "Is the NSA hacking people a good idea?" (for example).
Political debate has NO PLACE in a section dedicated to security how to stuff.
One half is a set of facts and industry best practice. This is not really in dispute - the processes are well known (generally, there may be some new knowledge that results in new best practice) and any deviation from known best practice is a personal decision on the basis of convenience vs. security i.e., not politically linked.
This does not need to be clouded by political ideology (i.e., discussion of the issues you list are almost totally irrelevant in a thread about technical implementation of how to do something, other than a brief mention of something like "this can be used to help mitigate <scenario X>". Whether or not you agree the government should be doing what they are doing is not relevant to the discussion in a technical context.
Last edited:
There is also the investigative and theoretical aspect. Take the current Apple FBI DOJ LEO spat(s) and leave the political out of it. The how would it / can it be done is just as relevant to me. Maybe more so. Then there is the civic aspect minus the politics.
JMTC. YOMV.
There's a big 'if only' to this well-reasoned, logical post as to how discussions should be conducted. The stats HERE say that Mods are quite busy as it is, even with subjects that don't have a hint of politics about them. Will posters read the rules and stick to a non-political discussion? Carried by the passion of the discussion and the logic of the point to be made, some will knowingly violate the rules, and there'll be those who did or didn't read the rules, who'll unintentionally do so. Tensions rise and a thread quickly becomes off-topic and a runaway.
For example, a discussion on the quality of security softwares, at some point, will probably lead to discussion about the organizations who rate or review such software. Questions arise -- Who runs the rating organizations? Privately funded and/or governmentally so? Biased because of funding source? Anti-virus vendors from XYZ country gamed the raters' testing, is this part of a larger pattern? etc. Privacy, as a topic, has far more political temptations to lead a thread to rules violations.
A commendable feature of MR is management's choice to run the forum with a relatively light (great explanation HERE) moderation hand. As a result, there's a bunch of chaff that gets mixed in with the wheat, but without such an approach part of the valuable wheat would go missing. In a non-political S&P sub-forum, the Mods would become unfairly overwhelmed and would be forced to be heavy-handed in order to maintain control. This would strain the respectful relationship that exists (as seen by my newcomer eyes) between members and Mod-members.
.02
Agreed, the forum would need to be potentially heavily moderated. Not sure what the solution to that would be other than perhaps more moderators who have control over that particular section?
Keeping the Privacy / security discussion Country Neutral would help to keep members off controversial subjects.
That sounds good however nation-state drives a lot of this. Would like be a relevant portion of the discussion. Question is how to keep the political bend out of it I think....
Any time what a state is doing is mentioned it becomes political.
And belongs in politics.
I understand what you are saying but it's not always political when a Nation State is mentioned.
Example:
"Today, the [Nation State] released a cyber threat warning about the increase in ransom ware targeted at the average consumer. They recommended people use extra caution when opening email attachments. Even from people they know. And to never open an email attachment, or click on a link in an email, from someone they do not know.
For more information, visit [nation state cyber security web site] for more internet safety tips."
For more information, visit [nation state cyber security web site] for more internet safety tips."
The above gets posted and then a discussion about email security begins. Although I can not say with 100% certainty that the discussion could not turn political, with the exception of trolls, the odds of the discussion turning political are pretty low.
Just thought I would toss that out there.
Jon...
One word: China. That one term by itself is either a driver, a participant, or a footnote when it comes to security. Most discussions are not political for this topic. At least not until we drag in government response. Now we add in Putin and the various other Russian endeavors. Let's add in what the UK is looking to do. And never forget France.
Personally, I do not see a way to keep Nation-States out of the discussion unless we really restrict the subject matter. That defeats the purpose of having a relevant discussion.
The technical methods to secure a box only have to mention "a potential attacker".
Who that may be is irrelevant.
If a hole is known a fix should be discussed.
Leave the who's doing what and why or whether it is justified, to politics.
I agree in theory. In practice many have found it is frequently relevant that an understanding of the mindset or the why is needed. What drives this can be a critical piece of the data.
I think this discussion well illustrates the challenge in separating something like "privacy", an information security discipline of keeping information confidential and "politics", where access to any information add to increasing the domination and control of power structures.
One reson for this part of the world being so difficult to navigate is that it is done so by design. The introduction of Cyberspace as one of the main pillars in the US battlespace, with air, land, sea etc. is part of the background.
Since then, one of the effects it has had on the information security industry (as we'll as politics) is the introduction of the term Cybersecurity or Cyber security or Cyber-security, whatever. The definition of cybersecurity is that the discipline include offensive (like in warfare) capabilities.
The term "cybersecurity" has come to become the substitution for the term "information security" in all areas in society where information security is important. The fake terrorism scares and false flag terrorist events staged all over the world is a factor driving the use of the term cybersecurity as well, because these bastards are good behind the keyboard and use encryption and do DDOS.
The effect of this is that the boundary between strictly military/intelligence operations and terminology as in cybersecurity (offensive) and the "civilian" part of information security designed to protect it-infrastructure from external threats (defensive), is becoming increasingly blurred.
Even european governments use the therm cybersecurity when discussing ordinary information security issues. This is no coincidence and perhaps indicate the influence the military-industrial complex has over politics.
In this context, discussing something like privacy from the information security perspective of confidentiality will not take long before a bigger picture needs to be taken into account and that is the role the system of domination and control plays in this.
So, yes, separating the two will be a challenge.
One reson for this part of the world being so difficult to navigate is that it is done so by design. The introduction of Cyberspace as one of the main pillars in the US battlespace, with air, land, sea etc. is part of the background.
Since then, one of the effects it has had on the information security industry (as we'll as politics) is the introduction of the term Cybersecurity or Cyber security or Cyber-security, whatever. The definition of cybersecurity is that the discipline include offensive (like in warfare) capabilities.
The term "cybersecurity" has come to become the substitution for the term "information security" in all areas in society where information security is important. The fake terrorism scares and false flag terrorist events staged all over the world is a factor driving the use of the term cybersecurity as well, because these bastards are good behind the keyboard and use encryption and do DDOS.
The effect of this is that the boundary between strictly military/intelligence operations and terminology as in cybersecurity (offensive) and the "civilian" part of information security designed to protect it-infrastructure from external threats (defensive), is becoming increasingly blurred.
Even european governments use the therm cybersecurity when discussing ordinary information security issues. This is no coincidence and perhaps indicate the influence the military-industrial complex has over politics.
In this context, discussing something like privacy from the information security perspective of confidentiality will not take long before a bigger picture needs to be taken into account and that is the role the system of domination and control plays in this.
So, yes, separating the two will be a challenge.
This is something that could go in the proposed sub-forum.
https://www.cybergrandchallenge.com/
http://www.techinsider.io/darpas-cyber-grand-challenge-2016-7
This is going a bit slow 
Privacy-discussions? Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, etc. etc.
Privacy-discussions? Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, etc. etc.Wow, it's been so long since the last post I totally forgot about this thread.
It was a good try though and I see you still have a link to this thread in you signature. Guess most folks on MR are not concerned or get their security/privacy info other ways.
To be honest I had to stop listing to the Steve's Security Now podcasts because it was getting overwhelming and making me a little paranoid....hahaha. And 15 min's of commercials at the beginning drove me nuts.
So I continue to be in condition yellow/orange, and sometimes red, when connected to the Internet, am cautious about what I download, don't open email from unknown senders or attachments, and assume everything I do online is monitored and is out there forever.
It will be interesting to see if bringing this thread back to life generates any interest.
Jon...
It was a good try though and I see you still have a link to this thread in you signature. Guess most folks on MR are not concerned or get their security/privacy info other ways.
To be honest I had to stop listing to the Steve's Security Now podcasts because it was getting overwhelming and making me a little paranoid....hahaha. And 15 min's of commercials at the beginning drove me nuts.
So I continue to be in condition yellow/orange, and sometimes red, when connected to the Internet, am cautious about what I download, don't open email from unknown senders or attachments, and assume everything I do online is monitored and is out there forever.
It will be interesting to see if bringing this thread back to life generates any interest.
Jon...
Wile I would still like to see this, due to the cyclic nature of the topic, will it have enough content / participation to justify it?
Hmmm...
Hmmm...
The biggest revelation for me is how we have all been suckered into giving our personal data so freely regardless of the platform.
I usually DL it and skip the commercials
Security and Privacy is something that always is current and users will be able to benefit from understanding the principles.
[doublepost=1524627611][/doublepost]
Facebook and other social media were created with the intention to operate as an intelligence gathering platforms, in cooperation with or even driven by intelligence services.
During the Obama campaign, information from Facebook harvested and analysed by Cambridge Analytica was used up until election day.
There are multiple other information harvesting companies that collect the same information from FB and others.
So yes, education regarding Security and Privacy is very important.
Last edited:
I usually DL it and skip the commercials
Yup I get the podcasts. I also get the feeds from ( @SGgrc ) that he uses for updates to the podcast so I know what the topic for the week is.
I believe having this added as a sub-forum would be a welcome addition to the site. I would find it very useful.