Zenith2017 t1_jegedkx wrote

It kills me that this person is so close to the truth. Yes, devices are constantly recording and using your data, but it's so far abstracted away from an individual as to be intangible. Nobody is sitting in a cube farm with headphones scoping out your conversation and taking notes to blackmail you with. Nobody is really important


Zenith2017 t1_jefa8cq wrote

I mean, Housing First isn't based on hearsay, it's based on evidence. The Linear model is also evidence based and both have drawbacks. I don't think one can accurately state that housing first flat out doesn't work. (INB4 Cicero house study, so poorly conducted I can't handle it)

I reckon the greatest hurdle is funding. These programs cost a shit load of money, and our leaders choose to spend it on other things, same as any funding issue. But I'll hear you out on the greatest hurdle you see in the process


Zenith2017 t1_jef5xb0 wrote

Well, I tend to follow the Housing First model, which is not an abstinence-only program. Both that and the linear model have real flaws - for example, someone who wants to move to abstinence only doesn't have the social support in a HF program to do so compared to a linear program.

I took your meaning from your previous statements like "you can't have someone in a shelter doing meth", "you don't get someone off drugs by handing them a house", "you can't [stop drug use with housing], you need to solve the mental health or addiction problem first". All of these would collide with the Housing First model, and so I came to believe that you did not want shelters services to be available to individuals who weren't drug-free. Is that accurate?


Zenith2017 t1_jd3kai5 wrote

I have respect for hackers who stick it to giant behemoth companies, who pursue an agenda of conscientious hacking and target shitheads and bad guys, and who do it for fun more than harm.

But people who hack a hospital? Straight to the boiler room of hell. What level of shit head do you really have to be? And I know these are just schmucks employed by a state actor but God damn have some spine to you


Zenith2017 t1_jd3jo50 wrote

Nobody can be fully protected, but I think it might shock you to see the reality out here. I have Fortune 50 customers whose security programs are woeful. Seriously, that bad. Cringeworthy, nail biters. Hell, my mom worked for a top 3 insurance company for years and from day 1 she was an admin on her laptop, handling HIPAA compliant data locally. It is often that bad, and a lot of companies are hardly trying.


Zenith2017 t1_jd3j6xb wrote

Cyber guy here. I totally agree that protections and consequences need to be heavier, and I'd like to see that extend to organizations that get breached due to negligence and poor practices. The patients are the victims here 100%, but this medical org also has potential culpability based on what they did or didn't do to prevent and contain a breach