Access Now Is Looking for a Chief Security Officer

The international digital human rights organization Access Now (I am on the board) is looking to hire a Chief Security Officer.

I believe that, somewhere, there is a highly qualified security person who has had enough of corporate life and wants instead to make a difference in the world. If that's you, please consider applying.

Posted on October 9, 2018 at 2:32 PM • 8 Comments

Comments

Little LambOctober 9, 2018 5:12 PM

a highly qualified security person who has had enough of corporate life and wants instead of make a difference in the world

That's a tall order. Are you independently wealthy? Are you able to maintain security of your personal bank accounts so you don't suddenly find them drained of money, your car repossessed, and yourself and your family served with a foreclosure or eviction notice because someone else stole your identity and borrowed a much of money on your behalf?

Have you contacted the three major credit reporting bureaus? How does that "freeze" on your credit affect your car insurance rate or the mortgage interest or down payment on the next home you are considering purchasing.

Are you allowed to rent a car, house, or apartment with a freeze on your credit?

Have a nice day, because at the end of the day you are a corporate peon like everybody else.

Clive RobinsonOctober 10, 2018 5:48 AM

@ Bruce,

I had a look through and the map shoes trn locations incliding London, however the drop doen list I got shows eight locations not including London...

Sadly I suspect the job would require not just some flying but quite a bit of it... Which is a shame because I'm still on the "Medical no fly list". Which is a real career dampener in these days of supposed "tele-presence".

echoOctober 10, 2018 6:50 AM

I'm not at all qualified in any conventional sense. Perhaps once upon a time if life had gone differently otherise I'm far too nuts and unpredicatble not to mention lackign any experience in pretty much all of the formal requirements. Me and "authority" do not get along. I'm also lazy as heck and have a talent for streamlining my job so I can spend time doing more enjoyable things. The only way I would remotely qualify is to exploit a loophole and sell unemployability as an asset.

AfterI have finished things I need to do I plan to semi-officially retire. I'm done with "work".

Denton ScratchOctober 10, 2018 9:26 AM

Sounds like we're all either shirkers, or unenthusiastic about zooming around in jets :-)

FWIW I retired a year ago, with plans to set up in some kind of lightweight business; I haven't done a stroke of work since (other than cooking and gardening).

Clive RobinsonOctober 10, 2018 3:26 PM

@ Denton Scratch,

or unenthusiastic about zooming around in jets :-)

Not "unenthusiastic" more not wanting to get another series of blood clots in legs, lungs, brain or any combination there of...

One of the reasons you know without any doubt Bill Gates is a short arse is he's happy to fly economy... I did the economy flight gig once to Auz the airline shifted my seat and gave me the option of take it or don't fly. When we arived it took them hours to get me of the plane with medical assistance. The plane apparently missed it's turn around time... Because it was their f...up when I flew back I got a free upgrade to an isle seat with plenty of leg room in the back of what passed for first class in those days, with a sub-title of "never darken our doors again" from the airline.

I've since been told I should have sued the crap out of them... But I doubt back then I could have afforded to.

echoOctober 10, 2018 5:27 PM

Another problem with this job is if you want to flannel your way through your working day what with the boss watching it would difficult posting a comment on here when you get stuck.

vas pupOctober 11, 2018 9:13 AM

Related to risks:
To crash or swerve? Study reveals which actions taken by self-driving cars are morally defensible:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181009135828.htm

"Overall, there is a general preference for staying in the lane and it is a morally acceptable default option in critical traffic situations even if it does not minimize expected loss. This simple default requires no information to be gathered by the AV's systems about alternative actions or probabilities. Despite these findings, policy makers are faced with the challenge of developing policies that are morally sound but also appeal to the general public's desire for self-preservation. Previous studies (Bonnefon, Shariff, & Rahwan, 2016, Science) have shown that subjects will show a preference for AVs that would sacrifice their own passengers to minimize the total number of casualties, but they wanted their own AVs to put a premium on passenger safety. So, while this study demonstrates a general acceptability for a default action to minimize potential losses, AV owners would prefer actions intended to save the vehicle passengers."

That is not question of morally defensibility, but of the legal liability as well.
Many years ago in former ussr there were universal for all country traffic rules, and all prospective drives required to take the test on them. In those rules it was clearly stated that in a case of emergency on the road driver must prevent accident by applying brakes. Forensic expert evaluated if that was done and based on situation was done timely. If technically drive could not prevent accident by applying breaks, no criminal responsibility on drivers side, but still civil responsibility regardless because car has potential risk of harm. Same may apply for self-driving cars. Civil liability regardless. I just curious what other type of liability applied to self-driving car company, its officials, programmers/IT for insufficient design related to risks.

Leave a comment

Allowed HTML: <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre>

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of IBM Resilient.