Another Interview
I was interviewed by MinnPost.
Page 22 of 47
I was interviewed by MinnPost.
The new Snowden revelations are explosive. Basically, the NSA is able to decrypt most of the Internet. They’re doing it primarily by cheating, not by mathematics.
It’s joint reporting between the Guardian, the New York Times, and ProPublica.
I have been working with Glenn Greenwald on the Snowden documents, and I have seen a lot of them. These are my two essays on today’s revelations.
Remember this: The math is good, but math has no agency. Code has agency, and the code has been subverted.
EDITED TO ADD (9/6): Someone somewhere commented that the NSA’s “groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities” could include a practical attack on RC4. I don’t know one way or the other, but that’s a good speculation.
EDITED TO ADD (9/6): Relevant Slashdot and Reddit threads.
EDITED TO ADD (9/13): An opposing view to my call to action.
I made the list of Wired’s best “Government and Security” blogs.
My blog has made the Time magazine “The 25 Best Bloggers 2013 Edition” list.
I can’t believe this was published ten days ago, and I’m only just finding out about it. Aren’t all you people supposed to be sending me links of things I might be interested in?
I have been awarded a fellowship at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, for the 2013–2014 academic year. I’m excited about this; Berkman and Harvard is where a lot of the cool kids hang out, and I’m looking forward to working with them this coming year.
In particular, I have three goals for the year:
I’m not moving to Boston for the year, but I’ll be there a lot.
I’m now on the board of directors of the EFF.
Another audio interview; this one is mostly about security and power.
Last week, I gave a talk at Google. It’s another talk about power and security, my continually evolving topic-of-the-moment that could very well become my next book. This installment is different than the previous talks and interviews, but not different enough that you should feel the need to watch it if you’ve seen the others.
There are things I got wrong. There are contradictions. There are questions I couldn’t answer. But that’s my process, and I’m okay with doing it semi-publicly. As always, I appreciate comments, criticisms, reading suggestions, and so on.
EDITED TO ADD (6/30): Two commentaries on the talk.
EDITED TO ADD (8/1): To date, 14,000 people have watched the talk.
I was on the Lou Dobbs Show earlier this week.
Ray Wang makes an important point about trust and our data:
This is the paradox. The companies contending to win our trust to manage our digital identities all seem to have complementary (or competing) business models that breach that trust by selling our data.
…and by turning it over to the government.
The current surveillance state is a result of a government/corporate partnership, and our willingness to give up privacy for convenience.
If the government demanded that we all carry tracking devices 24/7, we would rebel. Yet we all carry cell phones. If the government demanded that we deposit copies of all of our messages to each other with the police, we’d declare their actions unconstitutional. Yet we all use Gmail and Facebook messaging and SMS. If the government demanded that we give them access to all the photographs we take, and that we identify all of the people in them and tag them with locations, we’d refuse. Yet we do exactly that on Flickr and other sites.
Ray Ozzie is right when he said that we got what we asked for when we told the government we were scared and that they should do whatever they wanted to make us feel safer. But we also got what we asked for when we traded our privacy for convenience, trusting these corporations to look out for our best interests.
We’re living in a world of feudal security. And if you watch Game of Thrones, you know that feudalism benefits the powerful—at the expense of the peasants.
Last night, I was on All In with Chris Hayes (parts one and two). One of the things we talked about after the show was over is how technological solutions only work around the margins. That’s not a cause for despair. Think about technological solutions to murder. Yes, they exist—wearing a bullet-proof vest, for example—but they’re not really viable. The way we protect ourselves from murder is through laws. This is how we’re also going to protect our privacy.
EDITED TO ADD (6/18): The Onion nailed it back in 2011.
Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.