Schneier on Security

Richard Steven Hack • July 14, 2011 8:54 PM

Sorry, gotta disagree. Don't like it.

The main title wouldn't mean anything to me at all at first glance other than maybe it has something to do with "bad people". The "outliers" term is not one people will recognize right away. The pun is clever, and might stimulate a casual browser to look more closely, however.

The subtitle at least shows it has some connection to the general concept of security, and security vis-a-vis society.

But then the premise that "security holds society together" is in my snap judgment a weak one (although not necessarily untrue in some sense.)
Off the top of my head the subtitle seems to indicate a stronger premise than I suspect you can prove.

Of course, presumably that's the case the book is going to try to make, so I'll withhold judgment until I read it.

Will you be discussing ways in which "security" - and the obsession with it - DAMAGES society? Since this has been a consistent theme with you, I would expect you would.

Richard Steven Hack • July 14, 2011 9:48 PM

Off-topic: 24,000 Pentagon files stolen in major cyber breach, official says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...

What does this paragraph mean? Can anyone tell?

"“Our strategy’s overriding emphasis is on denying the benefit of an attack,” Lynn said Thursday. “Rather than rely on the threat of retaliation alone to deter attacks in cyberspace, we aim to change our adversaries’ incentives in a more fundamental way. If an attack will not have its intended effect, those who wish us harm will have less reason to target us through cyberspace in the first place.”

That last sentence just boggles my brain. What the hell does it even mean? HOW do you do that?

Richard Steven Hack • July 15, 2011 7:44 PM

Echowit: Exactly what I was wondering about.

Meanwhile, another General was once again saying the main point is the US should bomb anyone who tries, which is what they appear to really mean by "denying the benefit of the attack."

Here's the bottom line: You don't break into a safe which you know doesn't have enough cash in it to make it worthwhile. Either the target is valuable or it is not. So trying to "deny the benefit of the attack" is just nonsense.

If you're talking about people breaking into systems where there is no valuable data, then you're talking about "keeping out the 'riff-raff'", not competent, committed, well-informed attackers.

Roger's abstract theory is unlikely to be able to be successfully applied to an organization the size of the US government and the US infrastructure. In fact, it's impossible. Such an approach can only be applied to a point security object and then only imperfectly. Which makes the entire theory worthless, just like the notion that one can "defend US infrastructure against terrorists".

It's the same concept, and it's completely impossible.

Richard Steven Hack • July 18, 2011 10:46 PM

Bruce: "It is a thesis of the book that security is necessary to hold a society of humans together. It's certainly not sufficient."

Since you said "a society of humans", I'll have to agree.

If you'd said "a society of rational entities", I'd have to disagree. But since human society isn't rational, you're probably right.

But then it would be interesting once again to see if you treat the areas where security does NOT help to keep human society together. Given the current state of the world and the whole issue of over-reaction to terrorism I'd say that has as much or more relevance than the converse at this point in history.

Richard Steven Hack • July 18, 2011 11:53 PM

Just saw the cover of your book in your post that appears to have disappeared from your site. :-)

I assume the red dots both inside and outside the rest of the gray dots represent the "outliers". That strikes me as a little too subtle for anyone who doesn't get the point of the title.

Also, do the rest of the gray dots represent the "liars"? :-) Given a population that lies to itself as a matter of course, I'd say that would be appropriate.