Eve Ensler on Security
Interesting TED talk by Eve Ensler on security. She doesn’t use any of the terms, but in the beginning she’s echoing a lot of the current thinking about evolutionary psychology and how it relates to security.
Comments
She then concluded her talk by breaking into the flawed, homebrewed crypto used by two attendees named Alice and Bob.
impressed • July 31, 2009 4:09 PM
This is the same Eve Ensler of Vagina Monologues? I’m impressed.
Russell Coker • July 31, 2009 10:33 PM
Women in the Middle-East and Africa have considerably less personal security than most groups of people in the world. So we should expect that people who spend years working with such people would have some significant insights into security.
It’s a pity that women like Eve don’t get more publicity for their work and more attention for their insights.
Bob • August 1, 2009 5:28 AM
You wouldn’t expect a cryptographer, of all people, to be so quick to trust someone named Eve…
Alice • August 1, 2009 12:52 PM
right you are Bob…
Oscar • August 1, 2009 10:58 PM
@Alice and Bob: I take issue with that. That’s no reason not to trust someone because of her name.
@Oscar: Please report to room 101.
Yosi • August 2, 2009 2:49 AM
What all this feminist “I-love-my-vagina” (whatever this mean) have to do with security?!
Women in Egypt have little-to-no rights? Too bad, but … well … kinda irrelevant.
Sexual education in schools is fun and games, but has been proven ineffective in prevention of teenage pregnancy. Also, nothing to do with security.
Overall – typical leftist talk.
Nostromo • August 2, 2009 4:26 AM
@Yosi:
You label the talk as “leftist”, and use that as an excuse for not really listening to it.
As a Reagan republican myself, I don’t have much time for the agenda of the political left and would probably disagree with Ensler about many things. But that doesn’t mean I can’t learn from some of her ideas.
If you close your mind to outside influences and new ideas you might as well be dead anyway, so “security” ceases to have any point.
Bethan • August 2, 2009 9:58 AM
it’s interesting to hear other perspectives on security, and what security-mindedness might look like to those who associate the security effort mainly with “us or them”-type people.
for me and most of the security professionals i know, security training has been empowering and enlightening, and is a holistic part of life.
bethan • August 2, 2009 10:05 AM
@Yosi
in light of never-ending political stereotyping, yes, you could say this is typical leftist talk. personally, i walked out of women’s studies and never went back, and i’m female – i can’t stand that stuff, and i’ve never sat down to listen to her vagina monologue because i have zero tolerance for any of it.
on the flip side, this had value if only to see another perspective on what ‘security’ looks like. for her it’s clearly emotional security wrapped up in physical security concepts, and it’s reactionary as much as preventative. when you’re working with others who are not security professionals, you can use her perspective to communicate your message more effectively.
that’s a perk of open-mindedness – listening to and learning other perspectives so you can articulate your own in shared language.
Yoshi • August 2, 2009 11:03 AM
@Yosi
Her point is not about feminism. That is simply her approach. Her point is people are looking at security in the wrong way and is nearly identical to what Bruce has been saying for over a year. She came to the same conclusions but from a different direction.
bduffy • August 2, 2009 6:19 PM
Her vision of security is meshed too tightly with her vision of self identity, and says more about her inability to identify with any particular group.
Drawing a parallel between the absurdity of security theater and the situation that women face in misogynistic societies is the same thought process that leads to security theatre in airports.
Security, whether you define that as not allowing a firearm on a plane or a woman being able to conduct herself in peace isn’t a thing, it’s a state of being.
Anyfish • August 4, 2009 12:32 AM
I am utterly sick of the need for feminist talk like these because people who think they are mature arent. For instance that “Imy vagina” button incident in Missouri highschool shows how intolerant and narrow minded authority wielding people often are. My reaction to it is “So you love your vagina, good for you as I couldnt heartily care less.” Not threatening her with repulsion from the school due to something that has zero effect on her education. (Now if she wasnt a dilligent student (that is, isnt learning anything about her chosen subjects) then she might be asked “Are you sure you want to waste your and our time with this?”)
Now, why do people want to be secure?
To continue living, to survive.
But by stiffling your mind arent you opening yourself up to be attacked by outwits you because you cling too fast to your ideas?
MysticKnightoftheSea • August 5, 2009 1:15 AM
My wife prefers to think of herself as a ‘Mind’, and don’t you forget it!
Haven’t listened to the talk yet, tho.
MKotS
Subscribe to comments on this entry
Leave a comment
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.
Stephanie • July 31, 2009 2:20 PM
Thank you for posting that Mr. Schneier that was marvelous!