←back to thread

293 points doener | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
gberger ◴[] No.23831049[source]
The justification is that the equipment presents a national security risk.

If that's true, how is it reasonable to allow this equipment to operate in the UK for 7 more years? Doesn't that mean the UK is willingly under national security risk for 7 years?

Unless, of course, there was never a security risk...

replies(8): >>23831063 #>>23831079 #>>23831096 #>>23831098 #>>23831127 #>>23831131 #>>23831440 #>>23831555 #
1. goalieca ◴[] No.23831098[source]
I see you've never been in charge of risk mitigation measures. I do them as part of my job and am tasked with scoring risks and possible mitigation responses. Sometimes the mitigation is so effective that it can eliminate the risk but other times it is practically useless.

Decision makers then need to asses those risks and possible mitigations and weigh them against a million other factors.