This is a very confusing time in politics in the US, but this instance is really beyond most of us. The two major parties cannot agree to not use data stolen by hackers in campaign ads.
It really doesn't matter why they didn't agree. This is an amazingly complicated issue. Can political parties use data that they know to be stolen (it shouldn't matter whether a hacker took it or an insider planted by the party that publishes it)? So far, the answer is yes - the wrong answer. That encourages theft of data.
Campaign security has to get better all around. There are holes in the pre-employment screening, in network security, in internal document security (including email), handheld and mobile security, vetting of opposition research, and a host of other things that are typical of trusting groups that have to rely on their members for much of the security that is done. They say they cannot afford to pay for professional security services, which is a story we have all heard before in government and in industry. They have to pay for it, and there is no excuse for not doing it.
Beyond that, the use of data stolen by a criminal is already established in law. So, it is illegal to steal it, illegal to buy it, and illegal to use it knowing it is stolen. Yet, it is a $1.7 Trillion industry. Lots of people are doing all of those things, and that doesn't count security services doing the same thing for political gain.
Congress is debating - and can't agree - about the wrong issues. They need agreement on prohibiting the hiring of hackers or thieves, directly or indirectly. Unfortunately, both parties do that. They hire companies that hire companies and isolate themselves from "knowingly" buying any data that is stolen. Not all of the data produced is stolen because research companies take advantage of the posting of government data on public sites. That needs more legislation as well.
The other side of this is ethical and not just legal. How much ethics is left in politics?
No comments:
Post a Comment