Tweet
Yes it's true. I think.
We're always racing against time being reactive and trying to adapt to new situations, new exploits, new technology and new demands (security field).
However, I think the whole setup is twisted. We're asking ourselves the wrong questions, as in "how can we secure this information 100%". The real answer is we never really can. It's as simple as that. Should that even be the goal?
So people come up with pretty good ideas, pretty good implementations of those ideas to secure information. Encryption, for example, is pretty damn strong. We can have extremely secure communication these days. I'm sure there's lots of countries with their own departments, but since NSA can't keep anything inside so we know about some of the things they have (as opposed to not knowing what others have, not making it worse by the way). So those guys were on top of the crypto world for a long time until few people just came up with the same techniques by themselves because they were ****ing smart bunch of individuals. They also happened to make that information public, because they were in the academia. This naturally was a positive thing, since after that individuals could have their own secrets as opposed to government monopoly on secrets, as well as the crucial information could be now more secure because people were pushed to do more and develop better technologies.
So it's a race and it'll never end. When we truly realize this, then we understand the nature of it. We can never win it. We can only do damage control. It's a game, it's all just a game. You can either accept it or deny the reality.
So as we come up with better solutions and try to get to know the opponents better and better, you bet your ass some solutions require loss of all privacy. Now, my own suggestions to combat and track down the more elusive players is somewhat tricky, because it breaks all the moral and ethical codes known to man. And it's still not 100% proof.
But I find the IDEA interesting. I find it to be a model to be inducted into the game. But the problem is, I have knowingly given up all the moral and ethical considerations while working the solution.
Do I really want things like this to be implemented? No. It is way too intrusive. It basically deals with my speciality, that is modifying the behaviour of people into more secure personal conduct and action. So as we are installing thoughts into people and enforcing them by rules, monitoring the process with intrusive methods, I find myself asking the question of ... sure, this is just theory, but what if people take this so seriously as to actually do this?
To me it's like developing more destructive weapons. Do I want to be known as the person who came up with it? If it's out there, it will be used. Some part of blame must fall on that person. So should that be my legacy?
I can always suggest methods that are more suitable considering the rights of people and workers, however people in charge will be more interested in the "ok let's think outside the box, this is something more hardcore... warning you can't actually do this".
It's almost guaranteed it will be done. I've talked about it with few people who know my work and they're like it's OK but I know some people are jerks and would be glad to focus on securing information with ways that far exceeds the ethical codes we as people should follow.
So I don't know how I should feel about it. I'd go to speak to a bunch of people, an audience, waiting for me to explain how things basically work and what the current alternatives are. And all those alternatives have to do with changing the behaviour of people rather subtly but efficiently.
We're always racing against time being reactive and trying to adapt to new situations, new exploits, new technology and new demands (security field).
However, I think the whole setup is twisted. We're asking ourselves the wrong questions, as in "how can we secure this information 100%". The real answer is we never really can. It's as simple as that. Should that even be the goal?
So people come up with pretty good ideas, pretty good implementations of those ideas to secure information. Encryption, for example, is pretty damn strong. We can have extremely secure communication these days. I'm sure there's lots of countries with their own departments, but since NSA can't keep anything inside so we know about some of the things they have (as opposed to not knowing what others have, not making it worse by the way). So those guys were on top of the crypto world for a long time until few people just came up with the same techniques by themselves because they were ****ing smart bunch of individuals. They also happened to make that information public, because they were in the academia. This naturally was a positive thing, since after that individuals could have their own secrets as opposed to government monopoly on secrets, as well as the crucial information could be now more secure because people were pushed to do more and develop better technologies.
So it's a race and it'll never end. When we truly realize this, then we understand the nature of it. We can never win it. We can only do damage control. It's a game, it's all just a game. You can either accept it or deny the reality.
So as we come up with better solutions and try to get to know the opponents better and better, you bet your ass some solutions require loss of all privacy. Now, my own suggestions to combat and track down the more elusive players is somewhat tricky, because it breaks all the moral and ethical codes known to man. And it's still not 100% proof.
But I find the IDEA interesting. I find it to be a model to be inducted into the game. But the problem is, I have knowingly given up all the moral and ethical considerations while working the solution.
Do I really want things like this to be implemented? No. It is way too intrusive. It basically deals with my speciality, that is modifying the behaviour of people into more secure personal conduct and action. So as we are installing thoughts into people and enforcing them by rules, monitoring the process with intrusive methods, I find myself asking the question of ... sure, this is just theory, but what if people take this so seriously as to actually do this?
To me it's like developing more destructive weapons. Do I want to be known as the person who came up with it? If it's out there, it will be used. Some part of blame must fall on that person. So should that be my legacy?
I can always suggest methods that are more suitable considering the rights of people and workers, however people in charge will be more interested in the "ok let's think outside the box, this is something more hardcore... warning you can't actually do this".
It's almost guaranteed it will be done. I've talked about it with few people who know my work and they're like it's OK but I know some people are jerks and would be glad to focus on securing information with ways that far exceeds the ethical codes we as people should follow.
So I don't know how I should feel about it. I'd go to speak to a bunch of people, an audience, waiting for me to explain how things basically work and what the current alternatives are. And all those alternatives have to do with changing the behaviour of people rather subtly but efficiently.
Comment