I feel that if a communication channel is being printed on signs and used by a government agency as to engage with the public -- there should be a certain amount of regulation involved.
@kin i don't think a government should be using a capitalism company for communication period. and i would extend that as far as the government shouldn't be using aws or azure backends either. it should all be in-house.
@bobmagicii I agree with this in principle, but in practice there are other forces that have fractured what "in-house" means within government agencies, preventing them from attracting and maintaining the domain and technical expertise they need to effectively manage everything they need to operate in a digital world--outsourcing their soul to contractors even before the platforms come into the equation.
@bobmagicii I wouldn’t be against this, as long as there is opportunity and procedures for playing with new things so they can keep up with private sector, but once it matures in adoption you bring in house.
@kin guess i would clearly define in-house as the vault underneath NIST, and some other redundant places across the country, in the case of the U.S.
im not totally insane, i wouldn't demand they print every single ciruitboard. those can be audited easier.