Who is the greater threat? [Heartbleed]

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by jkjkjk182, Apr 11, 2014.


Who is the greater threat?

Malicious hackers 7 vote(s) 38.9%
The government 11 vote(s) 61.1%
  1. IceCreamHorse likes this.
  2. The government is a necessary evil. That is how I put it. Government can always be improved and will always be flawed, as everything made by man. Rather deal with them versus becoming an anarchy.
    PandasEatRamen and jkjkjk182 like this.
  3. Very true, but I think this may have crossed the line. Hacking into phones and computers via NSA only routes, mass collecting/purchasing data that really only helps/affects the NSA, and spying on world leaders is not exactly expected, but still tolerated. In those situations, the main threat to personal privacy and security is mainly the NSA/government. But in this case, they were using someone else's bug, one that they knew would be used by malicious groups and that it was the biggest security threat to the public in a long time, yet they decided not to protect the people.

    Does that make sense? Lol I'm not always the best at explaining. :p
  4. If the government wanted to do something to you they could probably do it, anyways, what do the vast majority of internet users have to hide? Malicious hackers will buy stuff with your credit card, the government wont.
  5. Exactly. The government knowingly allowed one of the largest security risks on the internet to just continue on for at least two years. While the malicious hackers are worse in the end, who has overall done the worst deed in this issue? It is clearly not the creators of OpenSSl, they have no reason to create such a large PR failure. The hackers will do damage, yes, but it would require a lot of them to create damage that would be considered major. But the people who allowed such hackers to amass are those who claim to protect and help us.
  6. I would support it if it made a difference. Reports show the NSA does practically nothing to stop terrorism. In my opinion, it would seem like a good idea if:
    1. it was acctually affective
    2. they were using resources to capture terrorists, not housewives texting about their terrible husbands
    3. if they only spied on non-threats and tried to be diplomatic. They tapped the vatican when the pope was chosen. I am sorry but a little Italian man in a pointy hat is not a threat.
  7. Really? How are you to know whether it's effective or not, the government is a protector without them society would break down, everything you've worked for would be finished, how about the people go with the government, not against it. Secondly, how are you supposed to know who's a threat and who isn't. That little old lady that lives next door, how are you meant to know she's not mentally ill and is plotting to destroy New York? The government is and always will be protectors.
  8. Then why didn't they privately report the bug to the creators so that a patch could be pushed earlier, minimizing the amount of damage done? I agree that the government does protect us in ways, but I would not call them "protectors".
    slash14459, Kephras and TigerstarMC like this.
  9. Haha... protectors, really... government will not always be protecting. You think too highly of people, sad but true. Their will always be bad rulers/presidents and corrupt governments.
  10. It is not the government. It is individuals or groups of individuals that work independently or together to do these things. They have a whole spectrum of personalities, problems, and causes working in millions of positions in our government which somehow lead them to do these things.

    I think that if you put some people in certain job situations some will work hard, some will be lazy, and some will be dishonest. Give a person power and some will be honorable and some will abuse it. Some will try to be honest and eventually fail.

    In some situations, a person may be the perfect worker until something happens. They may have a bad experience at work which changes their attitude. Or they may become uncaring or bored over time and just stop doing their job as well. They may be following the crowd. They may be put in a position of trust or power which changes them. Greed and fear can be a great motivators but I don't think these things are always that simple.

    When you get certain combinations of people together under the right conditions anything is possible, good or bad. There are all kinds of examples in history to show this.

    Take police, for example. They are supposed to "protect and serve", but you often hear stories where the only people they are protecting seem to be themselves.

    I read a news article last night where the police were called to an apartment complex because someone was attacking people with a knife. When they got there, two guys came racing out the door. The guy in the lead was bloody so they shot the guy in back assuming he was the attacker. It turns out, the guy in the back was one of the victims. He was killed. In addition, the guy in front was also shot accidentally. When they got inside the police found the knife-man working on victim number three and, oddly enough, didn't shoot him. I guess they were out of bullets...

    So in the end we had one dead victim and another injured victim shot by the police, a victim that may not have been except that they were delayed getting to him because they were busy shooting victims, and a live criminal. And these guys will all get paid leave then be back to work in no time.

    I have no idea what was being protected here except maybe the police. This sort of thing has probably happened thousands of times before with better results. I can only think that it was the wrong people in the wrong situation with the wrong tools.

    Check out this video. It has a lot of strong commentary I can't say I agree with, but a lot I do. I chose this video because the other one I saw had horrible audio. If you want to ignore the commentary and skip ahead the main action starts around 3:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am6KKMdTSEk

    I feel a lot of these situations could turn out much better, but the right combination of factors are there that cause or allow people to do what they do when they are in positions of power like this. And they aren't just single factors. All of the people involved in these incidents are complex beings, with personalities, pasts, desires, and hopefully futures.

    If you look at enough teachers, bank tellers, store clerks, or whatever, you will find a certain percentage that should not be in that profession and they get in trouble. The same goes for policemen, but they are able to kill you if they are fearful in order to protect themselves or others.

    The same can be said of the NSA. There is probably a sort of environment there that breeds and perpetuates misuse of power, but that is developed and driven by the individuals in the NSA, and maybe even the environment that the individuals of the NSA have to work in, not the NSA itself.

    Yeah, I think the government is to blame.
    jkjkjk182 likes this.
  11. Its 2AM, I don't know if this is fitting... but if the UK takes over the internet, they will 'abolish' the NSA and this will happen: