That's a pretty typical example of the cheap rhetoric used in these discussions. You dismiss the opinions of others as "theoretical", yet your only argument to support your own position is that something makes you worry - without even trying to show this worry would be justified.
You feel that something is needed, and the lack of it "makes you worry". OK, that's your opinion. Now, if you want to convince someone else of it, you need some factual arguments beyond just stating this is how you feel.
If a lack of policies actually endangered your physical safety, that would be a different thing. But if it only makes you worry, that's not necessarily any worse than the worrying caused by such policies, and depending on design they can also cause practical harm. Policies should not be used as another form of "security theater" to keep people from worrying when they do not help against real threats.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: What a horrible approach to this discussion!
Date: 2012-11-04 05:16 pm (UTC)You feel that something is needed, and the lack of it "makes you worry". OK, that's your opinion. Now, if you want to convince someone else of it, you need some factual arguments beyond just stating this is how you feel.
If a lack of policies actually endangered your physical safety, that would be a different thing. But if it only makes you worry, that's not necessarily any worse than the worrying caused by such policies, and depending on design they can also cause practical harm. Policies should not be used as another form of "security theater" to keep people from worrying when they do not help against real threats.