... which is why the institutions that assign responsibility and consequences need to make it really clear that excuse won't fly. With illustrative examples.
May I suggest a better approach to that situation?
Israel: Hey, we're gonna start bombing Iran in 15 minutes, so pick your targets! Time's a-wastin'!
US: We do not give a fuck who is meeting with who when. If you ever want to see another dime, or another spare part, or another kind word, let alone have us actually do anything, then you aren't gonna do jack shit unless and until we're goddamned good and ready. Otherwise, have fun with the blowback.
You may suggest whatever you want, but it means nothing regardless of how sane and rational of a suggestion it might be. This administration has consistently demonstrated that they are not concerned with that.
For a problem the size of Trump, the intended function of the institutions would have been removing him from office by now. Not to mention ignoring basically all of his more publicized executive orders (I don't know about more obscure ones).
The judiciary sort of holding it together to issue orders that are mostly ignored is not the system working.
Anyway, it's actually bad if there's been a problem for years, and the way it becomes widely known is by Authority(TM) legitimizing it instead of trying to stamp it out.
Russia, China, India, Singapore, Israel, South Korea, and Japan don't cooperate on stamping out these kinds of operations. Even EU states likes Italy, Czechia, Poland, Hungary, and Greece have continued to allow these kinds of organizations to operate and proliferate capabilities, so much so that the European Parliament attempted an investigation that was promptly ignored by those states because "national security" falls under national sovereignty.
When it's morals versus national security, national security always wins, and no country will leave capabilities unused in the interest of maintaining a moral high-ground.
> the way it becomes widely known
It has been widely know in the security industry for years.
Nope neither the public entity nor the private corporation... it should be the market. WE decide with our business who is worthy, or not. Nice try, comrade!
Enlighten me further. How exactly will "the market" decide where the government, or a corporation, or even an individual, chooses to buy computing services? I'm very stupid, so you're going to have to explain step by step exactly how "the market" will do this. I mean, here I thought that choices like that were the inputs to the market.
Let's do it for the corporations first. I'm Microsoft. I need the market to decide for me where I should buy motherboards for my cloud data centers. Where do I apply to get "the market" to tell me that?
You're right that corporations and individuals make those choices... that's exactly my point. Microsoft's procurement team evaluating motherboard vendors is the market working. What I'm saying is that process produces better outcomes than a government agency mandating which cloud provider everyone uses. The problem isn't who makes the choice, it's when the choice gets made for you.
Nobody's "selling it" as more reliable than it is. People are assuming it's more reliable than it is.
> People by nature are lazy and will take shortcuts given an opportunity.
So, um, the fact that humans are behaving incompetently means we should shift the responsibility onto a machine?
Suppose a human had looked at some crappy surveillance video from hundreds of miles away, and told the primary investigator "that looks like it could be her; you might want to check it out". Would that human be the most responsible person in the chain? The moron who took that as gospel and actually made an arrest has no agency at all here?
Come on, a facial recognition match? Facial recognition probably shouldn't be used because it's bad when it works, but everybody with a functioning synapse knows that facial recognition is going to get lots of false hits.
They can remove him from all his committees, including the ones that give him access to this stuff to begin with. If they really work at it, they can freeze him out to the point where he can't get anything done on this or any other issue. And they can use him revealing the information as an excuse to avoid blowback from their own constituents. It's not as bad as in the House, but it's pretty bad. Oh, and they can probably deprive him of the floor the second he starts to say anything "interesting".
Yes, there are serious problems with the way Congress is organized, but there's probably a reason that practically every parliamentary body on the planet has similar problems.
> and they can probably deprive him of the floor the second he starts to say anything "interesting".
So, move the show off the floor, never has it been easier to reach the population as an individual. Are the citizens that enraptured by "the floor" as it is? It seems to me, that if you were serious, this would be no problem at all.
> there are serious problems with the way Congress is organized
None of that is dictated by the constitution. You can change the way committees work overnight if you want. Some would argue that this happened in the 1970s and 1990s when party politics fully invaded what used to be assignments of seniority and experience.
> but there's probably a reason
Corruption. It's worth a lot of money to certain people. You can either design that out of the system or reduce the total power of that system relative to the population.
I'm not sure you can do much until you get down to the bedrock problems here.
> So, move the show off the floor, never has it been easier to reach the population as an individual. Are the citizens that enraptured by "the floor" as it is?
Nope, but his immunity from prosecution for disclosing classified information only applies during Congressional debate. Once he takes it off "the floor", they can just arrest him.
reply