6 ms·

The Moral Failure of Computer Scientists

94 points by ___ab___ 11y ago

lukifer 11y ago
At last, we've found the counter-example to Betteridge's Law of Headlines.
- r-w 11y ago
  There are many counter-examples. The important part isn’t that the answer is “no”, as the Law states, but that the story is tired enough to need a question in its headline in the first place. Andrew Marr’s explanation focusses especially on this aspect of the Law: “A headline with a question mark at the end means, in the vast majority of cases, that the story is tendentious or over-sold. It is often a scare story, or an attempt to elevate some run-of-the-mill piece of reporting into a national controversy and, preferably, a national panic. To a busy journalist hunting for real information a question mark means ‘don’t bother reading this bit’.” He makes a few assumptions, but I think the overall takeaway of “question mark equals clickbait” rings true.
  - DyslexicAtheist 11y ago
    the title has been changed to include a ? when posting here it seems, (or they changed it on theatlantic.com). Nevertheless your comment about ? equalling clickbait really made me think. Edit: ok I just realized that the summary at the top was used as the title when posting here. I don't feel there is anything wrong with this.
    - r-w 11y ago
      Agreed.
- tomjakubowski 11y ago
  There's a corollary to Betteridge's Law: when someone posts an article with a question mark in the headline to Hacker News, someone will inevitably post a comment to the article that mentions Betteridge's Law.
r-w 11y ago
I wish this article were more particular about what cryptologists are doing wrong? What exactly could they have done instead? Without that info, it just seems like pointing a finger at cryptologists and saying, “This is your job! Do something!”
- cdavidcash 11y ago
  Rogaway wrote an companion essay for his invited talk that is rather accessible: http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/moral-fn.pdf http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/moral-fn.pdf
- tptacek 11y ago
  That's probably not a fair criticism. This is reporting about an extremely famous cryptographer pointing his finger at other cryptographers. Here's more about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10657540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10657540
  - waqf 11y ago
    Thanks for that pointer. I agree with GP's criticism, though, at least the way the article is written. I was trying to understand it through the lens of the nuclear analogy and failing drastically, because whereas those scientists were developing PRO-nuclear technology, these ones are (a priori, to first order) developing ANTI-surveillance technology.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Rogaway's paper starts with an extended discussion of the role of scientists in the nuclear arms race.
    - ethbro 11y ago
      The nuclear analogy is a little odd, given that one of the reasons we don't have even more nuclear weapons / more states with nuclear weapons / nuclear weapons out in the wild is not technological... but because of international treaties and enforcement.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
In short: no. This is a political problem that must be solved by laws that people push for. People have been supporting surveillance state or apathetic. Hence, it's winning and their combo of police power + secrecy + immunity is stronger than crypto.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- woah 11y ago
  Wrong. The surveillance state does not follow laws, and it has all the dirt it could ever want on politicians. Laws are not a solution here. The first rule of security is "don't trust the network". Computer scientists and developers who build systems that require users to trust the network are uniquely culpable. This is an unpopular opinion here because many of us would like to continue collecting hefty paychecks while washing our hands of any responsibility for our actions.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    You're way off. The people and politicians knew to get a grip on this decades ago when they discovered all the abuses of CIA, etc. They had two main choices: 1. Create accountability mechanisms a la GAO working alongside these organizations ensuring they follow the law and imprison offenders. 2. Create a court that approves most of what they do, never imprisons offenders, and operates in secret. America went with No 2. Further, most of those caught red-handed didn't do time. Americans also didn't push hard for reform with their votes. Intelligence and oversight fought back and forth but effective immunity let their corruption and power expand over time. It went into overdrive post-9/11 where people not only didn't do crap: they encouraged giving secrecy, vast power, and criminal immunity to the very groups that failed pre-9/11. So, this didn't happen in a vacuum and isn't today. American's apathy and frankly ignorance is what gave scumbags a series of blank checks with immunity. Americans didn't do anything learning about Iraq WMD's, 2008 frauds, Snowden leaks, and so on. Largely nothing but griping. Meanwhile, in Iceland, they straight up overthrew their dirty government after 2008 abuses and passed new laws protecting their citizens. Exactly what Americans have to do. Let's say they don't. Then, Congress continues passing police state style legislation, secret agencies bribe our ISP's/whoever, fabs eventually get compromised, dissidents are harassed via many means, opponents with dirt are jailed via parallel construction, patent system will be used against tech companies trying to solve it, and so on. Damn near pointless to try to technologically solve a problem that a country's citizens and politicians are creating and expanding with laws that can attack users of the tech. All this shit is Americans' fought. Their common sense should've told them giving God-like knowledge and power to already-dirty groups was stupid. Doing it with secrecy and immunity was stupider. Not doing anything post abuses was foolish. My money is on them still being fools aiding surveillance state 5 years from now. They have to wise up and remove the internal threats' legal authority before technical solutions have a chance.
adrtessier 11y ago
Yes, cryptographers should take on the surveillance state. So should developers, and entrepreneurs, and politicians, and the common citizen that thinks AES is some foreign sports conference or IND-CCA is a new trade agreement. I'm growing tired of watching journos try to point the fingers of "encryption is good, says cryptographers" and "encryption is bad, says this guy in a federal law enforcement position" and completely miss the greater point that unless everyone takes on the surveillance state, everyone will lose. The intelligence community is made up of humans. Some of them are there idealistically; others are there solely for power, just like in any megapolitical organization. Should <x> take on the surveillance state is a shit clickbait title. It can always be reduced to: Should you take on the surveillance state? If you care at all about a semblance of privacy and the expression of individual ideas, the answer is always yes. Of course, there's a whole lot less to write about there to generate ad revenue. Any approach in which a single subculture, whether it is thought leaders or soccer moms, tries to enact meaningful change in a system that at least pretends to be a representative democracy, will not be enough to reach a critical mass to actually do something. Cultures correct negative behavior through consistent reinforcement of a norm. Until people want privacy as a norm, and fight for privacy as a norm, the flames fueling a surveillance state are simply being retarded, not extinguished.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  " tries to enact meaningful change in a system that at least pretends to be a representative democracy, will not be enough to reach a critical mass to actually do something. Cultures correct negative behavior through consistent reinforcement of a norm. Until people want privacy as a norm, and fight for privacy as a norm, the flames fueling a surveillance state are simply being retarded, not extinguished." That's my exact point. The laws need to change to reduce what they can do, punish offenses, and optionally encourage the better approaches. To get that, a huge amount of people have to lean on Congress. That will only happen if they start valuing their privacy or at least have common sense that scumbags + unlimited power/knowledge + immunity is a bad idea. Cryptographers, past speaking out, can't solve that problem and hence are just irritating to opponents who continue to win while laws enable them to.
- api 11y ago
tptacek 11y ago
Whoah: this title sucks all the oxygen out of what is a very interesting article centering on an interview with Phil Rogaway, one of the world's great cryptographers. The title should instead be the one The Atlantic chose, which closely mirrors Rogaway's recent paper: "The Moral Failure of Computer Scientists". Submitters to HN are meant to use the original title from the article where possible, unless that title is so bad it detracts from the article.
- dang 11y ago
  Sorry, our mistake. Fixed.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    J'ACCUSE! Please, sir, read the HN guidelines, which I've helpfully linked here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please don't editorialize titles. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do that. We've asked you this before!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

94 points by ___ab___ 11y ago

lukifer 11y ago

At last, we've found the counter-example to Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

r-w 11y ago
There are many counter-examples. The important part isn’t that the answer is “no”, as the Law states, but that the story is tired enough to need a question in its headline in the first place. Andrew Marr’s explanation focusses especially on this aspect of the Law: “A headline with a question mark at the end means, in the vast majority of cases, that the story is tendentious or over-sold. It is often a scare story, or an attempt to elevate some run-of-the-mill piece of reporting into a national controversy and, preferably, a national panic. To a busy journalist hunting for real information a question mark means ‘don’t bother reading this bit’.” He makes a few assumptions, but I think the overall takeaway of “question mark equals clickbait” rings true.
- DyslexicAtheist 11y ago
  the title has been changed to include a ? when posting here it seems, (or they changed it on theatlantic.com). Nevertheless your comment about ? equalling clickbait really made me think. Edit: ok I just realized that the summary at the top was used as the title when posting here. I don't feel there is anything wrong with this.
  - r-w 11y ago
    Agreed.
tomjakubowski 11y ago
There's a corollary to Betteridge's Law: when someone posts an article with a question mark in the headline to Hacker News, someone will inevitably post a comment to the article that mentions Betteridge's Law.

r-w 11y ago

I wish this article were more particular about what cryptologists are doing wrong? What exactly could they have done instead? Without that info, it just seems like pointing a finger at cryptologists and saying, “This is your job! Do something!”

cdavidcash 11y ago
Rogaway wrote an companion essay for his invited talk that is rather accessible: http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/moral-fn.pdf http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/moral-fn.pdf
tptacek 11y ago
That's probably not a fair criticism. This is reporting about an extremely famous cryptographer pointing his finger at other cryptographers. Here's more about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10657540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10657540
- waqf 11y ago
  Thanks for that pointer. I agree with GP's criticism, though, at least the way the article is written. I was trying to understand it through the lens of the nuclear analogy and failing drastically, because whereas those scientists were developing PRO-nuclear technology, these ones are (a priori, to first order) developing ANTI-surveillance technology.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Rogaway's paper starts with an extended discussion of the role of scientists in the nuclear arms race.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    The nuclear analogy is a little odd, given that one of the reasons we don't have even more nuclear weapons / more states with nuclear weapons / nuclear weapons out in the wild is not technological... but because of international treaties and enforcement.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

In short: no. This is a political problem that must be solved by laws that people push for. People have been supporting surveillance state or apathetic. Hence, it's winning and their combo of police power + secrecy + immunity is stronger than crypto.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
woah 11y ago
Wrong. The surveillance state does not follow laws, and it has all the dirt it could ever want on politicians. Laws are not a solution here. The first rule of security is "don't trust the network". Computer scientists and developers who build systems that require users to trust the network are uniquely culpable. This is an unpopular opinion here because many of us would like to continue collecting hefty paychecks while washing our hands of any responsibility for our actions.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  You're way off. The people and politicians knew to get a grip on this decades ago when they discovered all the abuses of CIA, etc. They had two main choices: 1. Create accountability mechanisms a la GAO working alongside these organizations ensuring they follow the law and imprison offenders. 2. Create a court that approves most of what they do, never imprisons offenders, and operates in secret. America went with No 2. Further, most of those caught red-handed didn't do time. Americans also didn't push hard for reform with their votes. Intelligence and oversight fought back and forth but effective immunity let their corruption and power expand over time. It went into overdrive post-9/11 where people not only didn't do crap: they encouraged giving secrecy, vast power, and criminal immunity to the very groups that failed pre-9/11. So, this didn't happen in a vacuum and isn't today. American's apathy and frankly ignorance is what gave scumbags a series of blank checks with immunity. Americans didn't do anything learning about Iraq WMD's, 2008 frauds, Snowden leaks, and so on. Largely nothing but griping. Meanwhile, in Iceland, they straight up overthrew their dirty government after 2008 abuses and passed new laws protecting their citizens. Exactly what Americans have to do. Let's say they don't. Then, Congress continues passing police state style legislation, secret agencies bribe our ISP's/whoever, fabs eventually get compromised, dissidents are harassed via many means, opponents with dirt are jailed via parallel construction, patent system will be used against tech companies trying to solve it, and so on. Damn near pointless to try to technologically solve a problem that a country's citizens and politicians are creating and expanding with laws that can attack users of the tech. All this shit is Americans' fought. Their common sense should've told them giving God-like knowledge and power to already-dirty groups was stupid. Doing it with secrecy and immunity was stupider. Not doing anything post abuses was foolish. My money is on them still being fools aiding surveillance state 5 years from now. They have to wise up and remove the internal threats' legal authority before technical solutions have a chance.

adrtessier 11y ago

Yes, cryptographers should take on the surveillance state. So should developers, and entrepreneurs, and politicians, and the common citizen that thinks AES is some foreign sports conference or IND-CCA is a new trade agreement. I'm growing tired of watching journos try to point the fingers of "encryption is good, says cryptographers" and "encryption is bad, says this guy in a federal law enforcement position" and completely miss the greater point that unless everyone takes on the surveillance state, everyone will lose. The intelligence community is made up of humans. Some of them are there idealistically; others are there solely for power, just like in any megapolitical organization. Should <x> take on the surveillance state is a shit clickbait title. It can always be reduced to: Should you take on the surveillance state? If you care at all about a semblance of privacy and the expression of individual ideas, the answer is always yes. Of course, there's a whole lot less to write about there to generate ad revenue. Any approach in which a single subculture, whether it is thought leaders or soccer moms, tries to enact meaningful change in a system that at least pretends to be a representative democracy, will not be enough to reach a critical mass to actually do something. Cultures correct negative behavior through consistent reinforcement of a norm. Until people want privacy as a norm, and fight for privacy as a norm, the flames fueling a surveillance state are simply being retarded, not extinguished.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
" tries to enact meaningful change in a system that at least pretends to be a representative democracy, will not be enough to reach a critical mass to actually do something. Cultures correct negative behavior through consistent reinforcement of a norm. Until people want privacy as a norm, and fight for privacy as a norm, the flames fueling a surveillance state are simply being retarded, not extinguished." That's my exact point. The laws need to change to reduce what they can do, punish offenses, and optionally encourage the better approaches. To get that, a huge amount of people have to lean on Congress. That will only happen if they start valuing their privacy or at least have common sense that scumbags + unlimited power/knowledge + immunity is a bad idea. Cryptographers, past speaking out, can't solve that problem and hence are just irritating to opponents who continue to win while laws enable them to.
api 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago

Whoah: this title sucks all the oxygen out of what is a very interesting article centering on an interview with Phil Rogaway, one of the world's great cryptographers. The title should instead be the one The Atlantic chose, which closely mirrors Rogaway's recent paper: "The Moral Failure of Computer Scientists". Submitters to HN are meant to use the original title from the article where possible, unless that title is so bad it detracts from the article.

dang 11y ago
Sorry, our mistake. Fixed.
- tptacek 11y ago
  J'ACCUSE! Please, sir, read the HN guidelines, which I've helpfully linked here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please don't editorialize titles. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do that. We've asked you this before!

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]