We're talking about a no fly list which every airline in the world has a copy of. There's at the very least hundreds, if not 10s of thousands, of employees of airlines alone that have access to this list.
If people had such an innate propensity to divulge secrets, surely the employees who setup that faulty jenkins server would have already sent you a copy of the no fly list, right?
And I would agree that it has been leaked, probably a lot, and that any halfway competent government intelligence agency in the world has copies if they feel they need them.
That isn't really a counter-example to my point which is just that it is stupidly naive to suggest that Maia is somehow exempt from these concerns.
If you want to argue that its all pointless secrecy theater, then I'd agree with that entirely.
Probably thousands of airline and US government employees have had access to this list over the years. Yet neither you nor me can see anything on it, here in January 2023.
This is why such a list should be public. You don't trust random grey hat hacker at .gay TLD to distribute the list to people who won't do harm with it. I don't trust the government to not distribute it, accidentally or otherwise, to people who want to do harm with it.
In fact, the government does do harm with it, by putting people on it without telling them (they might send a letter, that's not guaranteed), and you only get to find out a few hours before your flight when you get rejected at security.
Furthermore, this particular government fails to properly secure info all the time. Seems the last two presidents have been just leaving classified papers strewn all over the place.
No, I'll trust the gay hackers over the government, thank you very much.
Sure. But that isn't the naive position that just because someone is Good(tm) that they will be careful with secrets. That's just the position that keeping secrets and having Kafkaesque bullshit is itself bad, so it doesn't matter, and the right thing to do is just post it on a pastebin hosted in Russia and call it a day.
Depends what exactly they mean with "demonstrate". It can mean email from J. Random Person with "pinky promise I will use this list for good", or it can mean "well-known journalist with a clear public track record".
You literally immediately falsified that assertion:
> and only offers to if someone can demonstrate they will use it responsibly.
And nobody ever lies of course.