Do you think the FBI action was intended to set a precedent? How could that precedent be used going forward?
CIO in Manufacturing, 1,001 - 5,000 employees
It's going to continue to evolve. It seems like it will follow most public law structures: Is there a public safety aspect? What's the economic impact of these particular risks? And then there will be feedback from the public through their lawmakers on what the appropriate level is for them to intercede or interject. It's going to be a long process, this is just the beginning.Managing Partner & CISO in Software, 11 - 50 employees
I think the action was done to set precedent. If this were truly an egregious act it would have gone through a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court. The PRISM surveillance program was a crazy amount of user telephone activity monitoring—that was approved and it's literally data collection on citizens. Once it was discovered the government just said, "Sorry, we won’t do that again." But it just got renamed.There's an act in front of the House which would force tech companies to build backdoors into encryption. That’s also about setting a precedent because the next step is for the government to say they need a backdoor to every company’s network. But if that happens, every hacker will also have access to all those backdoors to your networks. That's where it becomes really important for private industry to say that we're responsible for these things. Because throughout history, bad things have come from good intentions.
Content you might like
Yes28%
No, but we expect to be hit in the future.48%
No, and we don't expect to be hit by ransomware in the future.24%
242 PARTICIPANTS
CTO in Software, 201 - 500 employees
Without a doubt - Technical Debt! It's a ball and chain that creates an ever increasing drag on any organization, stifles innovation, and prevents transformation.Community User in Software, 11 - 50 employees
organized a virtual escape room via https://www.puzzlebreak.us/ - even though his team lost it was a fun subtitue for just a "virtual happy hour"
Head of Information Security in Services (non-Government), 1,001 - 5,000 employees
In my prior role, M&A was so active that we had a dedicated group for it that comprised both business folks as well as those in IT. I had about four project managers within my corporate security PMO that were strictly ...read moreYes39%
Yes, but third & Nth parties are still a concern39%
Mostly16%
No4%
Don't know1%
184 PARTICIPANTS
It makes me wonder if they approached this operation the way plaintiff attorneys approach class action lawsuits: They file many lawsuits in different areas, knowing they'll lose most of them. They just need to win one to get precedent and build from there. So in this case, the government probably did the calculus of where they'd get the approval—Houston—and then initiated the action through that court.
A California court would probably not have supported it. How likely is it that the entities they targeted were just a coincidence? It seems to me these targets had to be adjacent to something that would have caused either a ripple effect towards their endeavors or presented further risks. But we won't know this for years to come, if ever.