Japan's cyber-security minister has 'never used a computer'(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Japan's cyber-security minister has 'never used a computer'
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46222026
11 comments
If this should happen in a developing African country like mine, it would have been perceived as outright corruption and will be all oer the news media. Hmmm.
What does "Legitimate Interest" in the Cookie Window even mean? And why is it allowed to be pre-selected?
Does consent even mean anything if all Ad companies have legitimate interest to track you?
Does consent even mean anything if all Ad companies have legitimate interest to track you?
Sorry for not summarising, but you'll find most of what you need here: https://www.gdpreu.org/the-regulation/key-concepts/legitimat...
He has the best security posture of any cyber-security minister. He is literally in hackable. A modern day Djikstra working on a medium he didn’t use himself (at first).
He's air-gapped.
An eccentric and irrational part of me feels that this is perfect.
If I was responsible for the cyber security of a whole country, I certainly would stop using computers.
That's an entirely separate issue from whether a background in computers would be helpful or required.
One thing, you could get hacked, which would at best be embarrassing, and two, when your job is talking to people about important things, the fewer written records the better.
I once naively asked at work why we didn't simply record a regularly scheduled meeting and use voice recognition for a first pass at the notes, instead of having someone take them manually. Even in correcting them, it would be so helpful to be able to rewind and play back a recording. I got an withering look and a comment to the effect that people don't expect to be recorded.
It reminded me of how I read long ago that the official transcript of what is said in Congress gets extensively edited before it is final, even to the point of inserting speeches that weren't made in reality.
That's an entirely separate issue from whether a background in computers would be helpful or required.
One thing, you could get hacked, which would at best be embarrassing, and two, when your job is talking to people about important things, the fewer written records the better.
I once naively asked at work why we didn't simply record a regularly scheduled meeting and use voice recognition for a first pass at the notes, instead of having someone take them manually. Even in correcting them, it would be so helpful to be able to rewind and play back a recording. I got an withering look and a comment to the effect that people don't expect to be recorded.
It reminded me of how I read long ago that the official transcript of what is said in Congress gets extensively edited before it is final, even to the point of inserting speeches that weren't made in reality.
You're not wrong, but, for me, it's the nostalgia for when politicians weren't aware what computers even were ("it's not a big truck, it's a series of tubes!") before crypto and social networks.
Computer can't get hacked if you don't have a computer to get hacked. Though it might not be as practical.
My mathematics professor used a windows 98 (or 95) computer and created the exams in word. Not connected to the internet, obviously.
This was in 2017.
This was in 2017.
(2018)