The auditors usually won't need access to open-ended person search tools, they mostly just check existing cases.
And the top-level auditors (auditors of auditors) should probably be rotated and/or lent cross-agency so that a bad apple doesn't have time to spoil an entire agency.
Nothing is 100% foolproof; it's a matter of reducing average risk.
So how can I personally profit off the bursting of this decade's AI bubble?
Nah, yours are too micro & soft
management wanted..."built to last"
... typo'ed as "built to blast"
Be very afraid if they tell you you're "fired"
When I complained to the store (Sears) they said that all washing machines are made that way now [90's]
That's a really dumb justification for suckage. "Sure, we suck, but so do our competitors now." I see now it's not just limited to telecoms and presidential candidates.
I suppose the appliance makers could argue that power-saving regulations limit their ability to make the "big iron" washers you talk about. Some of the older stuff from say the 50's were tough, stable, lasting, and easy to repair, but were also power-hogs.
By the way, our semi-old washer only has that problem if you wash big items like winter blankets or jackets. One has to be home to monitor it during such, else it dances around the garage. Being in a warmer region, it's usually not a problem.
Most if not all of the machines from the 80s and 90s were dumb. They'd walk across the floor if the load's unbalanced.
What? I thought that was a feature. "Thank you, Mr. Machine, for bringing me my fresh laundry."
Now I gotta get it myself.
"A.I. took away thinking jobs, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a thinker."
I have stocks in both UPS and FedEx. Thumpo!
I purchased both of them during the dot-com bubble. I was itching to get in on the "dot com profits", but did feel the companies were overvalued. My reasoning was that the Internet as a whole would continue to grow, but that existing companies were individually too unpredictable.
Thus, I looked for stocks that would grow as a side-effect of the Internet rather than direct Internet stocks. I cannot say all my stock picks were good decisions, but this set in particular mostly was.
The solution is pretty simple, but often skipped:
1) The reason for every search should be required and logged by the searcher.
2) The logs be randomly spot-checked by an auditor(s) who verifies the reasons given by interviewing the person(s) who searched.
But to check it the auditors need detailed access to the records. So who audits THEM?
This kind of question has been asked repeatedly since at least the Roman Empire.
(The U.S. answer to "Who guards the guardians?" , at least for direct abuse of person under color of law, is the Fourth and Fifth amendments and the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine: Fail to follow the law and you don't get a conviction, because misbehaving police are FAR more of a problem for the population than even a lot of violent private-enterprise crooks going back to work. But while it does reduce the incentive, it doesn't block the behavior.)
Not one organization I have ever worked for has seriously cared about IT security.
When it comes to rolling out new products, ignoring security is the norm.
This is because the "window of opportunity" is only "open" for a short time - until the first, second, and maybe third movers go through it and grab most of the potential customers. Companies that spent the time to get the security right arrive at the window after it closes.
This happens anywhere the customers don't test for and reject non-secure versions of the "new shiny" - which means enterprises sometimes hold suppliers' feet to the fire (if the new thing doesn't give them an advantage commensurate with, or perceived as outweighing, the risk) but consumer stuff goes out wide open.
Then, if you're lucky and the supplier is clueful, they retrofit SOME security before the bad guys exploit enough holes to kill them.
I expect this will continue until several big-name tech companies get an effective corporate death penalty in response to the damages their customer base took from their security failings. Then the financial types will start including having a good, and improving with time, security story (no doubt called "best practices") among their check boxes for funding.
In England they call this "penny wise, pound foolish".
That one's old enough that it made it into American English (where it is still in use despite more than two centuries on a non penny-pound currency.)
And the reason you cannot do this with radio is that the noise from the transmitter is greater than the received signal.
Actually you CAN manage it with radio - very difficultly, with very careful antenna design.
But the combined antenna has to be far from anything that reflects, absorbs, or just phase-shifts any substantial amount of the transmitted signal energy. If not, the discontinuity destroys the careful balance that nulls out the transmitted signal at the receiver. That gets you back to the "transmitter shouts in the receiver's ear much louder than the distant communications partner" case. So it's not very practical in the real world.
but what are the chances of finding a good vintage of scotch to go with all of this breaded goodness they are going to be having up there?
Alcohol is definitely going to space. Ballantine's zero-gravity glass is made in cooperation with something called the Open Space Agency, which also has a design for an automated Dobsonian telescope. Ardbeg is going to space. And a vacuum still is an old science-fiction trope.
I asked "isn't anyone watching", she replied: "yeah, that's my job".
Auditors should also be subject to audits.
Although there's sometimes legitimate reasons for their illegitimate searches....Many officers are not allowed to associate with known criminals.
Then their search-log should say, "Checking personal acquaintance due to NAWKC rules."
To downgrade the human mind is bad theology. - C. K. Chesterton