When compared to an FBI operation, any data security that these guys are likely to have will be almost negligible. Short of a botch on our end or a massive success on theirs, they are quite likely to remain none the wiser.
White Court, probably.
Do we know that though? Especially if we are going after their financial records, which may be held by a third party service. One which may have a greater level of electronic security because it's a big part of their job.
Point about the financial services. However, their personal digital security is unlikely to be much compared to what the FBI and, perhaps, other parts of the Government have.
We dont CARE about putting them on their guard.
Unless I'm missing something the difference is supposed to be that one vote checks Wright's phone and then only if it doesn't pan out proceeds to light hacking.
Also, some more questions:
Other way round - if our cyberattack starts with his credentials, they could figure out how his device is compromised.
Note that I wasn't talking about hacking specifically. I mentioned this previously - design is part of creating and modifying. In modern day, computer modeling is a big part of it. For example, see evolutionary antenna. From optimizing contours of a new wind turbine blades, to designing a new synthetic medicine, to developing a new piece of software via evolutionary algorithms, or making an optimized CPU, there are tons of applications of computer power in modern day engineering. And that's a core part of crafting anything technological.
Something like this, yes, only I'd add "and then get something better put in their place, while ideally getting government sanction and backing to operate for the side of angels / the good of humanity". I mean, modern government's desire to protect its citizens and to be able to punish criminals is not something bad. It's part of the social contract - citizens pay taxes, the government protects them and ensures the functionality of society. Now, modern mundane governments aren't equipped with tools or knowledge to effectively deal with the supernatural. That can be changed, as long as good practices are brought in from the ground floor.
1. Thanks. I understand perfectly well that this might run right into "rules as intended vs rules as written" contradiction, which is why I am asking. As pointed in my next post, the question was more broad than the one about hacking. Having a world's top supercomputer, only 10 times faster, where each operation takes 1/10th of what it would normally do is a tremendous advantage in a tons of areas. From high frequency trading, to protein design, to a number of other engineering problems.
Thanks for the information. Well, the second part will require a bit of a workaround, but that still allows us to type in code designed by our cyberdevils to compile and run in the supercomputer.
I don't see it that way.
Such things would work, but not as any official goverment agency.
That is true, but not pursuing this goal is betraying the trust and the mandate invested into them by the citizens. The government is elected on the basis that it will fulfill its mandate. That mandate involves maintaining national security. If it willingly abandons said mandate and obligations while keeping the benefits, it transitions from a legitimate government to... I'n not sure what, but certainly not a legitimate government.
Basically this, yes.
All this would almost certainly be done under the table.
Making people very obviously beholden to a foreign power agents of your law?
Working under the table leads to shit like Daedalus and its predecessors.
Also casualties vs Kemmler. Replacing centuries old wizards is a slow process, and their operations, including recruitment, are vastly below what they need
