nanog mailing list archives
Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work
From: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:07:14 -0400 (EDT)
----- Original Message -----
From: "." <oscar.vives () gmail com>
This is a problem for the future to solve. Not us.
Seriously?
In bioweapons, I think we are still on the "happy hackers era", where people in a biochemical laboratory in Liverpool have access to some fungus that can wipe half the city, but don't do, because have a lot of fun studying the fungus to learn new antibiotics, or maybe to cure baldness. Scientist are, of course, hackers. Fun people that make this question: Exploitability. Can this fungus be used to cure baldness? Can this fungus be exploited to remove plastic from our oceans?. Exploitablity is a fun good word, and I never see a person like Bruce Schneier talk about it (how fucking awesome is exploitability). So reading people like Bruce Schneier you only get half the picture. We exist only because the carbon based chemistry is exploitable to the x900000. If carbon where less exploitable, like silice, maybe life will not exist. Similary, maybe you need exploitability to have a internet.
You very well might. But never before have the stakes been this high. As Spenser is so fond of quoting Clausewitz: you plan not for your enemy's intentions, but for his capabilities. In the next 3 years, it will become possible to build an autonomously navigating aircraft that can a) cross the Atlantic and b) carry a nuclear weapon. The surveillance someone advocates in another posting won't help you there; your first warning will be "Manhattan goes boom". Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra () baylink com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Current thread:
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work, (continued)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Jay Ashworth (Mar 14)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Eugen Leitl (Mar 15)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 15)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Darius Jahandarie (Mar 14)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Suresh Ramasubramanian (Mar 14)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Patrick (Mar 14)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work . (Mar 15)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Patrick (Mar 15)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Owen DeLong (Mar 15)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Reply-To: Patrick (Mar 15)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Patrick (Mar 15)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Jay Ashworth (Mar 18)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Jimmy Hess (Mar 18)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Jay Ashworth (Mar 18)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work David Walker (Mar 18)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Eugen Leitl (Mar 19)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Dobbins, Roland (Mar 19)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Owen DeLong (Mar 15)
- Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work Eugeniu Patrascu (Mar 17)