Q&A: Crypto-guru Bruce Schneier on teaching tech to lawmakers, plus privacy failures – and a call to techies to act

Pie in the Sky, the Phantom Traded Stock of Parasitic Political Pygmies and Wannabe Caesars?

Politicians are, by and large, clueless about technology, and it's going to be up to engineers and other techies to rectify that, even if it means turning down big pay packets for a while. This was the message computer security guru Bruce Schneier gave at last week's RSA Conference in San Francisco, during a keynote address,...

It's never going to happen, Bruce, for it is more than just a waste of creative time ..... for such will be counter-productive and that is never going to be accepted by anyone working/majoring/pioneering in ITs myriad immensely explosive/fundamentally disruptive fields.*

Just imagine all those newly clued up politically incorrect minions, in the very dangerous position of being given a little more knowledge about vast bit and byte fields in which they are merely spectators and ignorant passengers, presuming to regulate and direct to the satisfaction of their other chosen lobby factions and secret benefactors, Proprietary Intellectual Property that recognises and treats them as toxic parasitic.

If you see the future in another light with a different picture painted by media, show how it will be realised please whenever you now know what it is surely to be arraigned against as both its competition and/or opposition.

* ... Fields which can very easily, very quickly extraordinarily render politicians the choice of being seen as being a totally unnecessary drain on public resources or rearranged as a dumb tool for future techies to fool around with and program better.

Pro Bono? TINSTAAFL

Tech companies are already providing pro bono advice to lawmakers .... it's called lobbying. The tech companies push their point of view and the politicians modulate it with whatever gets them reelected. This is happening at Federal and State levels in the USA - looks like the same game is going on in the UK too. It illustrates the root problem with politics these days - it's a job that needs no qualifications other than the ability to fool most of the people every now and then. We elect stupid politicians, smart politicians, and occasionally good politicians but most of the time we can't tell the difference until after the election.

It's like feeling sick one day and deciding to hold an election to appoint someone to treat you. Yes, a doctor or surgeon could run for the position - but would they get elected if other candidates offered free beer, comfy beds, or a five course dinner every evening? This is how we end up picking someone with a second class BA degree in geography to run the country and look how well that's working out.

"it's going to be up to engineers and other techies to rectify that, even if it means turning down big pay packets for a while." - why? It's not like politicians are low paid...

Willful Clueless

My personal experience with many non technical users is they can be roughly be divided into 2 groups. The first will defer to the technical experts and will try to get a shallow but deep enough understanding of the issues. This group realizes they do not have the knowledge to make a competent decision without consulting others. The second group will pontificate on a technical issue without any knowledge of the subject nor will they ask some who is reasonably knowledgeable the subject what is feasible.

Power?

"As employees, technologists wield enormous power." Not when any one technologist can break the strike, and many technologists happen to be living in poor countries like India. For that matter, mainland China, a totalitarian dictatorship, has many people who are trained in technical specialties related to computers. So here, I'm afraid, Bruce Schneier is being very unrealistic, and is proposing a solution which won't happen in the real world - which distracts us from what we need to do instead.

The implicit message

What appears implicit in Mr Schneier's argument is that—

1. Politicians are clueless and largely unwilling to make decisions on an ethical basis

2. The employees of large enterprises are far more likely to make or support ethical decisions than their management and executives.

Both of these things are obviously true, as history has demonstrated for basically ever and as can be seen proven again today with a cursory glance at the Conservative and Republican idiocracies in the UK and US respectively, imbecile triumph-of-the-juvenile phenomena like Brexit and Trump, and the disgusting behaviour of Facebook, Volkswagen, Google and most of Big Pharma to name but a few.

So not a surprise but a source for despair, that we start yet another discussion on how to govern our own species with the unchallenged, almost unremarked assumption that its most powerful and wealthy groups, and its leadership, are comprised of so many greedy, shameless, hypocritical, dishonest—and in the particular case of the politicians, stupid and ignorant—well, for want of a better word, scum.

The eternal tragedy of humanity and why, very possibly, it is doomed.

"Those who crave power should never be allowed to wield it."

I wish this quote were true, "As employees, technologists wield enormous power."; but, as a cog on the wheel of a many geared machine I can tell you that for most of us this is not the case. The biggest problem for tech works in NA, imho, is outsourcing and not just to other NA companies but outside the country. This gives companies a huge amount of power over salaries and even whether they are willing to employ in the countries of their origin, from which they take all or the bulk of their income. Companies of almost any size can have their work done in lower cost countries for wages on which we, in developed economies, cannot exist due to cost structures with no equalizing union or regulation to equalize wages. Globalization is only the friend of the wealthy. Those same companies still want to strip money from us though at the highest possible price while selling the same or similar products at greatly reduced prices in lower cost countries. So, what we have now are companies operating globally with no way for workers in developed economies of competing for work at competitive wages. Then there is, of course, technological advancement and the diminishing requirement for the number of employees aside from the non-competitive wage scale in developed economies.

For every technologist, for every politician.......

......there are thousands, millions of "ordinary citizens" who are quite content with "convenience".

*

In general, these are people who care less about technology, who care even less about the implications of technology, and who have never even thought about "unintended consequences". But if encouraged to have their "friends" "only a click away", they will cheerfully adopt whatever it is they are being sold.

*

So....it's not "technology" that needs more air time -- no one cares. It's the consequences that need more air time. And I for one don't think that even that will make one iota of difference. Evidence: Snowden, Cambridge Analytica, endless data breaches (TJ Maxx, Equifax, etc etc etc), Amazon passing conversations to third parties....none of these have made the slightest difference to the public appetite for digital "convenience".

*

Only when THOUSANDS, MILLIONS of "ordinary citizens" start voting for the things Bruce Schneier is advocating will anything change. Not in my lifetime!!

The Blind Leading the Blind is for Madness in Mayhem. Open up your Minds, ...

.... Enter Other Beta Spaces with Novel Places.

What would you have one do when governments do not partake of leading tech advice as it relates to the security of their position?

And what advice have they been receiving and/or dismissing from leading tech advisors?

Anything outrageous which they don't fully understand? Is that the political stumbling block, covetous ignorance delaying pioneering engagement with awesomely disruptive programming for Future Events to Present as a Today with New Beginnings to Build Upon Every Day?

And surely you realise the greater the sharing of its 0Daily Programs the More ACTivated and Energised be Immaculately Skilled Mind Sets rendering your Future Spaces for Work, Rest and Play.

Both a Fearless Friend and Feared Foe alike be they.

Some chill chilling vibes now which are quite spooky, and suggest a path well travelled before ? ..... I Was A Teenage Anarchist

Not really

"Tech is new. Tech is specialized and hard to understand."

Technology just isn't amenable to the sorts of social negotiations that politicians excel at. You can't just slap a few (honest) scientists on the back, buy another round of drinks and get an answer that better suits your agenda. Engineering may provide multiple solutions. But it demands that you assign weights to each parameter and then optimize the solution (as best is possible) given a systematic approach. In other words, putting all your cards on the table. That's not the way many lawmakers like to operate.

Pols needn't know anything.

They are whores and are told how to vote - and do vote as they are instructed. Staff write the legislation, oft times several years in advance.

If they displease, their pay stops. If they really piss someone off, their plane crashes.

It's the job

Everything Bruce says about tech is also true of the law as a discipline. It's incumbent upon lawyers -- and legislatures -- to keep up, or they're not doing their jobs. Back in the 40's legislatures and government executives in the US had to become experts in military logistics and war strategy to make the decisions necessary to defeat the Axis. Later, in the 50's they had to tackle the task of funding the engineering feat that became the US interstate highway system. There are lots of other examples showing politicians being forced into the uncomfortable position of having to learn new stuff. Frankly, if any individual politician isn't up to the job, they should get out and go run a sandwich shop franchise. I'm really tired of the excuses. A demonstrable understanding of the most basic tech should be mandatory for anyone who is going to vote on tech policy. It should not be optional.

not a bad thing, in itself

Lawmakers are reluctant to disrupt the enormous wealth creation machine that technology has turned out to be.

That's ... not a bad thing, in itself.

Obviously it can't be allowed to simply override all other concerns, but it's hardly an invalid concern of its own. Without enormous wealth creation machines you have poverty, which is best when avoided.