As if the local agencies are somehow less dangerous for the individual politician than the foreign agencies.
The actual costs, "millions", are rather irrelevant.
As if the local agencies are somehow less dangerous for the individual politician than the foreign agencies.
The actual costs, "millions", are rather irrelevant.
So your point is the German IT sec agency BSI is as dangerous to German politicians as the Russian GRU and SWR?
I bet they earned your trust for a reason. Nevertheless it should be the decision of the specific MP to assign IT responsibilities for the own hardware/software.
"The Federal Office for Information Security (German: Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, abbreviated as BSI) is the German Upper-level Federal agency in charge of managing computer and communication security for the German government. Its areas of expertise and responsibility include the security of computer applications, critical infrastructure protection, Internet security, cryptography, counter eavesdropping, certification of security products and the accreditation of security test laboratories."
Ironically you repeated it under every post I made. ..while claiming I repeat mistakes you assume.
We Germans love the "conspiracy"-hammer even for minor contextual differences in our debate.
Beyond that, they are also responsible for the (quite unenviable) tasks of certifying/auditing the intelligence services IT infrastructure, not just in terms of security but also in terms of whether it stays within the bounds of the laws limiting what can be recorded and shared. From what was revealed in the parliamentary hearings prompted by Edward Snowden's leaks, they didn't do a very thorough job.
Remeber that this is not about the BSI.
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/cyberattacke-auf-bundesta...
1. The problem arose because the parliamentarians did not use experts from the BSI but have no clue but do it on their own with their own people. The BSI protected government network is not affected.
2. The German interior intelligence agency is not "involved" as you put it - what agenda do you have? - the article says parliamentarians need to decide if they want to ask the counterespionage department of the German interior intelligence agency, what some don't want.
Oh lol. Whatever you say I guess.
And in what way are they dangerous? And if not these experts, who should do this (expert) work?
The other question is pretty easy: Every involved party should use own trusted experts for the hardware/software part it manages.
If you are a parlamentarian and it feels suspicious to you that a secret service wants to get your phone: Don't hand it.
At the moment, this is not even well disclosed.