Liars and Outliers | Bruce Schneier | Talks at Google
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 авг 2024
- Human society runs on trust. We all trust millions of people, organizations, and systems every day -- and we do it so easily that we barely notice. But in any system of trust, there is an alternative, parasitic, strategy that involves abusing that trust. Making sure those defectors don't destroy the cooperative systems they're abusing is an age-old problem, one that we've solved through morals and ethics, laws, and all sort of security technologies. Understanding how these all work -- and fail -- is essential to understanding the problems we face in today's increasingly technological and interconnected world.
Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist and author. Described by The Economist as a ""security guru,"" he is best known as a refreshingly candid and lucid security critic and commentator. When people want to know how security really works, they turn to Schneier. 
Наука
The Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution have not entirely erased the feudal mindset from our culture. There is still a general feeling that our superiors (employers, government) should be responsible for our welfare. Why, for example, should the healthcare debate center on who is to pay for insurance rather than on alternatives to the insurance based system?
It's pretty frustrating that there's no competition on privacy not because of corporations, but because of individuals not wanting to think about it.
"What's going to happen in 5 to 10 years to make things different [about what will be tolerated,etc]?" Coronavirus and COVID-19 raises its hand and says me! Possible contact tracking apps, health histories needing to be known, etc. Wonder where all that will take us.
The more I listen to Bruce Schneier, the smarter I get.
Thank you Bruce Schneier for the information I learned something new tonight.
But as computing becomes cheaper it becomes more financially feasible to do all your computing on a PC. The increased use of cloud services is really due to faster internet and luser storage demands driving lazy convenience thinking.
Would be awesome if you could see a transcript of the whole talk.
The last cryptographer who questioned Bruce Schneier was found floating face-down in his own entropy pool.
3:28 I think a better comparison would be a car that has no locks and is easy to hotwire. All of the antivirus is aftermarket door locks and a chipped key.
So, effectively, your car belongs to anyone with a little bit of know-how. E.g. a 90's honda civic. ;)
I would recommend listening to this talk in conjunction with Daniel Suarez's TED talk "The kill decision shouldn't belong to a robot". Mr Suarez raises the same issues with regards to centralized power and surveillance. Also Google for John Robb's blog post "BigTwitter is Here".
ml
Other than some meta data, there is nothing to stop people from lying about themselves on social networks. Not that I advocate dishonesty, but I don't think there is anything wrong with trying stay in control of one's own personal data. Facebook doesn't need to know where you were born, your age or who your mother is. "If you're not paying for It; you're the product" is probably a good rule of thumb for any internet service you use, but you have some control over the quality of info you provide.
Agreed, though when he discusses metadata, it makes this seem like a pretty small (likely still worthwhile in the interim) step towards privacy.
It would be great if you could publish those talks as mp3 with an rss feed.
Isn't it ironic that it was held at big brother Googles?
It all goes down to the type of punishment for free riders at group selection level (a notion abandoned in the 70s). All leaders are weary to whatever gossip goes around. I'm pretty sure their ears popped already and they're scratching their heads
Eric Drexler wrote about limiting execution of code.. in the context of MNT... Have those ideas been applied to 3D Printing?
The issues he raises are so complex and overwhelming I can only conclude that it must end in disaster. We aren't smart or mobile enough even if we were to mitigate them. Most notably the open and immense power that the individual will have going forward to do harm on a huge scale - biological viruses, etc.
Bill Joy has been voicing this same issue and his one suggestion is that we limit access to such information. Ok how? It's utterly impossible in the grand scheme of things.
Yes, I agree. If you extrapolate far enough it would seem that we will ultimately settle on absolute authoritarianism or destroy every living thing on earth.
Authoritarianism always ends in an uprising.
Do you wonder why some people want to get off of Earth?
Ultimately the only way to sustain technologically advanced humanity is for their to only be one human, supported by a large network of automation.
So, really authoritarianism isn't a possibility. It's destruction of all human life or just one human.
But ultimately nothing lasts forever. So whatever that human uses to extend their life will eventually fail.
And... again... humans will die out likely long before the sun goes dark or a large asteroid hits earth. We are not stable enough to use our own creations.
So... with that in mind, as someone who likes tech and likes to make tech, what in the world should I make? It will either fall into obscurity or end up fueling our own destruction.
I guess I should just make some video games. Those can't hurt anyone, right? ;)
If I was there I would purposely use Bing just to make everyone mad >:)
Limiting access to information is a capability reserved for corporations and governments. Enabling governments and corporations to limit access to information is dangerous. I think Schneier agrees, which is why he emphasizes the necessity of net neutrality [among other things.]
You may be overestimating the capabilities of an individual to do massive harm. I would maintain that the harm an individual can do dwells in comparison to the harm certain governments and corporations can do.
This is what I see when I click the Transcript link: "The interactive transcript could not be loaded."
18:45 Surveillance is sousveillance, perhaps?
@34:50 What does the audience member say?
... common sense ignored... why is privacy and secrecy in government itself such a big deal?
Where *does* he get those shirts?
Dollar General Store, or Target Store. Being Famous and Rich + Smart= CHOOSING to not be a FASHION NERD. He used to have a POCKET PROTECTOR in his Shirt with a SLIDE RULE!
Hey! Remember that Geeky Egg Heads with Slide Rules Designed the Internet. THE SOURCE , therefore, IS Slide Rules.
I was very proud to have one when I went to Radio-Electronics School in 1973, and they were not difficult to use.
The best www.sliderule.ca/pickett.htmPickett N600-ES Speed Rule
This is the slide rule that went to the moon (well, not
this actual one, presumably). Pickett heavily advertised the fact that
they were the official slide rule supplier to the Apollo program, and
this model slide rule was apparently carried along on 5 Apollo missions.
A nice little slide rule, the N600 features log-log scales rarely
found on pocket rules. As you can see on the high resolution scans,
this particular rule is little worn in places, but still functional.
The leather pocket case is made of richly coloured saddle leather,
although also a little worn. The case features the smart adaptation of a
small leather flap on the back that when pulled raises the slide rule
out of the case. A very well made and readable little rule!
Me too!
Feudalism changed because in England the Barons were powerful enough to fight the King for power because the King had to go to the Barons for money to fight foreign wars. This dynamic does not exist on the Internet. Where will our driver for change come from?
Propaganda in one yellow box: yes please! Google you have a prototype in the new gmail UI already: one more tab please!
The more I try to read his books, the dumber I realize I am :)
And you would end up getting mad when Microsoft comes back with the wrong results for your searches?
1. A self-regulating free market requires a very large number of substantially equal players. Competition is considerably reduced in a market where there are only a few dozen players and is almost nonexistent in the cellphone market where there are only a few players.
2. Rather than trying to identify some messages as containing propaganda while others do not it might make some sense to identify the kind of propaganda (political vs commercial, for example) contained in a message.
#1 is completely NOT correct. A free market propels those who provide best what consumers want to the top and those who don't to the bottom. Equality is not necessary (or for that matter even possible.)