Schneier on Security

quincunx • November 24, 2006 10:04 PM

‘The glib answer is that it is the “narrow biological” creatures that design, use and pay for them (ie You, me and maybe a few other readers of this page ;)’

If by pay, you mean I have money extracted from me by the threat of imprisonment then yes, I do pay. Though I think robbed is the more appropriate term.

‘On a more serious note if you look at systems like “general coverage” or “Street” “Crime Prevention CCTV” in towns they no longer work. Why because they are static and cannot evolve as fast as those they are observing.’

Correct, but I could have told you that without bringing in evolution theory. I would have just told you that demand for privacy leads to methods of finding a supply.

‘It is one of the reasons you have the teenage “Hoodie” wandering about your average town center. Interestingly not because the majority of them are criminals / vandales / sociopaths etc, it is partly the culture, and partly as a response to the CCTV and the attitudes of the “biological” back up systems.’

A large element of this ‘culture’ is produced by systematic disemployment of the youth by public policy and compulsory schooling. Hardly a natural occurrence.

‘If when designing a system you do not take evolution into account then your system becomes either usless or increasingly vulnerable, eitehr way it’s a wasted oportunity and wasted resources (Think TAX dollars).’

That in no way proves that CCTV are ineffective (notice I take no side). What it does prove is that CCTV on government roads, built by government contractors does not work. In the sphere of politics one can not tell which solutions will work because they are implemented by force and one-size-fits-all compromises.

I understand that it’s a waste of resources, but to whom? It is clear that there are beneficiaries who have a central bureau to go to and enforce their ideas on what ‘security’ means. The manufacturers have a keen interest in colluding with the state, opinions of security-minded intellectuals not with standing. All that is necessary is to sell the idea to the state. The question is do we want to have an organization funded by robbing the masses, and handing out money & concessions to third parties?

‘Likewise anti-virus companies are indicating that zero day and other new attacks are now being reserved for specific not general attacks by crackers joining the payrole of cyber criminals. The apparent intent is “for profit” not “for braging points”‘

The question is what fuels these emerging profits?

And what is holding back solutions?

Well, you know my answer.

quincunx • November 27, 2006 6:59 PM

“You might be taken more seriously if you presented your ideas in a practical way. You propose a goal, yet you never mention how that goal can be achieved.”

That is true, but it is a very difficult procedure that is bound to come up against powerful special interests.

The best way, unfortunately is the slow way: a general delegitimation of the state.

“In other words, how could such a transition happen?”

When more people know who the enemy is.

Once that happens people will seek alternate institutions for their security needs. I encourage this practice.

“As a profitable 20-year business owner, I recognize the value of social and economic stability. It lets me focus on running and expanding my business, instead of on defending my life and property.”

I have much respect for entrepreneurs. I too recognize that stability is a good thing. I just don’t see this it. I see short-term stability and nothing more.

“If a percentage of my profit goes to the government, at least I know what that percentage is and can account for it in my business planning, practices, and pricing.”

You know what they are NOW, do know what they will be?

I know nothing about your business, but I suspect that having double digit inflation and double digit interest rates, like they were in the 70s, would not be good for your business. Nor will the immense amount of ad-hoc legislation that will be introduced during this period.

I suspect that we will face this problem soon. I have many reasons for this speculation, which I will not delve into.

‘The “overhead costs” or percentage I already pay to the government today might be less than the percentage I would have to pay tomorrow for private contractors to provide the same level of stability in your end-state.’

That is impossible. Removing de jure monopolies and oligopolies can only increase the standard of living. If you need empirical proof of this look no further than eastern Europe.

Actually a much better example is: the internet. What happened once the NSF removed it’s commercial restrictions AND released it’s routing table to private companies in 1992?

Now imagine that same outcome (which we all know) spread out as wide as possible.

“You pitch a rosy future, but return on investment, transition costs, and cost/benefit are all unquantified in your proposal.”

They are unquantified for a good reason. I am not selling snake oil.

Supply & Demand will have to adjust for every industry that is freed. This adjustment will be imputed back into the basic elements of land, labor, capital.

The longer we allow the state to grow, the harsher will the adjustment have to be. And seeing as how history is riddled with failed states, I do not hesitate to think that the same fate awaits our society as well.

‘As a rational risk-minimizing capitalist, it hardly seems like a risk worth taking.”

Fine. But why not encourage the more risk-taking capitalists? And investing in them if it works out?

“If you know of some plan for reaching your proposed goal, you might improve your credibility by describing it, even in general terms.”

I doubt that I can improve my credibility by describing an all encompassing central plan that will lead to the goal. In fact I refuse to do it precisely because all central planning is pretentious and snake-oil selling. In trying do so, I invalidate my goal.

quincunx • November 27, 2006 11:24 PM

‘You have no discernible track record making accurate predictions, so I don’t know what credence to give your forecasts. You could be right or you could be wrong. There’s no way to tell.’

I rely only on good economic theories, specifically the ones that state that you can’t infuse trillions of dollars of fiat currency into an economy, engage in a war, and not expect a depression, especially with the 20th century record.

‘There’s no way to tell. I’m not asking for a “centralized plan”, just any kind of plan, suggestion, or recommendation.’

OK, I’ll give it a shot. These are of course generic, not necessarily for you. I can only suggest individual peaceful action on both moral and practical grounds.

Use e-gold.
Use private arbitration.
Buy more foreign goods.
Do not buy gov bonds.
Do not use banks. (if at all possible, not the case for most).
Boycott all government-sponsored corporations.
Use all the legitimate loopholes when doing your taxes.
Support institutions with the same goal.
Allways go to court for traffic & other minor violations.
Buy guns. Practice shooting them.
Insist that the state follows its own rules (ie point out that compulsory schooling, jury duty and military service all violate the 13th ammendment).
Continue to point out the crimes of the state against civil society.

Encourage more people to do the above, to the personal extent possible.

As far as political action, the best ones are the ones that limit the supply of money to the government. All the rest follow.

I encourage the abolishion of the withholding tax (that WWII emergency measure that never seems to go away, [thank you Milton Friedman]), the income tax, the federal reserve, etc.

I do not have practical strategies that will work against the tremendous special interests, other than hopeful legislation, that will be immediately blocked.

Most importantly rail against all legislation that does not remove previous legislation.

‘It’s one thing for, say, the Soviet Union to crumble from within. It’s another thing entirely to try pushing it over if it’s not ready to crumble.’

Woah, you make it sound like the SU crumbled by some mysterious forces outside of individuals acting on such a desire to crumble it.

‘You seem to have a lot of theoretical knowledge but very little real experience with hands-on capitalism: the actual operation of business. ‘

I think that is the case for many intellectuals in their ivory towers, yet they seem to have a lot of opinion on essentially economic matters as well. For some reason in their case, book- reading works just as well as business-making.

‘If you really believe what you’re saying, I encourage you to build a business with it’

Working on it, need to save up more. I appreciate the sincere suggestion.

‘On the other hand, if all you do is make pseudonymous posts on another person’s security blog, well, one really has to question the quality of your message.’

Bah! Most people do that!

quincunx • November 28, 2006 9:04 PM

‘Thanks for the list of recommendations. It turns out I’m already doing many of them. The ones I’m not, well, the reasons vary.’

I am glad that I was able to provide what you wanted.

‘Not sure how to read that: as agreement or rebuff.’

I meant that most people post with pseudonyms comment on this blog. It’s sorta the common thing. That is all I meant.

‘In other words, talk is cheap, actions count, and so on.’

I agree. Though this proverb is a little harsh, talk is action, too 🙂