zlacker

>>malshe+(OP)
We are pretty open here in the US, sure. I mean I'd never expect things like [0] from China, let alone (what I'd expect to be) comparatively loud work coming from academia.

I say let them keep trying, with some security tweaks here and there as needed/justified. But redouble our connections with academia. We need to harness massive growth in the face of such a conservative opponent, not more excuses to slow things down and stabilize around security so soon.

0. https://madsciblog.tradoc.army.mil

>>themod+w4
>not excuses to slow things down and stabilize around security so soon.

What sort of signal in the noise would tell us that it is indeed time to slow things down and stabilize around security?

>>remark+f7
Your enemies have more resources to gamble on openness than you do. Which they don't, not even close.

Or their espionage _and_ replication skills, given the tech and human gap, are good enough to make up for it. Which, based on the domestic defense tech we are seeing from China, is not yet even close to proven.

It's not a time to be cocky. But we must continue to leverage our comparatively open processes. That was a key lesson of the cold war.

>>themod+C8
Our open processes let the Chinese collect detailed records on every cleared person in the US when the OPM didn't bother to follow the NSA security guidelines.