3 ms·

This is probably the worst article that I've read by Schneier. In his opening paragraph he says that he's not there to answer the questions of "What's our mone

This is probably the worst article that I've read by Schneier. In his opening paragraph he says that he's not there to answer the questions of "What's our money being spent on? Do we have a government worth paying for?" And then draws a conclusion that can only be rationally argued for in the context of those very answers: "We all need to urge Congress to give it the money to [improve security]." Let's be clear information security related to tax information is a basic need and of paramount importance. But the suggestion that the answer to better security is simply to throw money at it is deeply flawed and naive if you don't know how existing funds are being used. This is true even if budgets are cut or workloads increased. Without first answering why current funds are insufficient (i.e what the money is being spent on and is it worth it) you cannot answer the question of there being insufficient budget. In fact, this line of argument is the old trick politicians to fool voters into approving ever more tax increases. During the budget year you fritter away your funds on frivolous projects and ignore inefficiencies (bonus points if you benefit friends & family along the way) while at the same time underfunding infrastructure, police, fire, etc. Then, during the election cycle, you encourage talk about how desperately underfunded these basic services are and how they are in dire need of increased funds. This talk never results in a discussion of where the money currently goes... after all, our police/fire aren't getting the money they need and you want to debate the budget!? So you go to the voters for more money for these essentials using a purely emotional appeal... and you get to eat your cake too. Sorry. Scheier is wrong until he answers those questions that he dismisses. Those spending discussions need to happen even if it's to justify additional money for something as important as security.

nxzero 11y ago
Get the sense that this was rewritten for use in the original publication references in the bklog, not the blog's readers. This post was likely done to help promo his new book. http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/13/opinions/is-data-you-send-to-irs-secure-opinion-schneier/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/13/opinions/is-data-you-send-to-i...
wfo 11y ago
Alternately, similar actions are taken by many on the right as part of a concerted effort to slash and destroy social programs. They support widely popular resolutions (tax cuts? Nobody is against tax cuts. The only debate is which section of the population gets bulk of the money, hint: it's not the poor). They shift money around and remove it from sound programs like social security so it goes bankrupt. They intentionally privatize and mismanage government programs so they fail. Then when there isn't enough money to go around come budget balancing time, whoops looks like we have to slash health care budgets. Education budgets? You only really NEED 50% of that, right? Why is the state paying to help kids go to college? These programs are horribly mismanaged and inefficient [because we have made them so], the market will do a MUCH better job if we just insert a corporate middleman between the people who need services and the people who provide them. It would be nice to let public employees exercise their rights and bargain collectively, but you know it's just too darn expensive. Those contracts we signed to give people pensions? Well it's not our fault we can't pay them now, it's just the economic reality. We all have to make sacrifices [except the rich]. Look at the adult conservatives being responsible, making the hard choices to cut things that need to be cut. Rinse, repeat, slash and burn.
- sbuttgereit 11y ago
  Which bills from left or right have removed money from the Social Security Trust Fund? The deficit in Social Security has more to do with the fact that population dynamics don't favor a scheme where younger worker's money is taken from them and given to older people when the population is declining. Let me make your The only debate is which section of the population gets bulk of the money, hint: it's not the poor statement more accurate: The only debate is which section of the population gets to keep it's money that was slated for confiscation, hint: it's not the poor since they don't pay taxes to begin with. What was the last program that the "right" actually rolled back that wasn't actually replaced with something more grand? Sure, in new programs they maybe didn't grow things as much as today's radical, er, mainstream left would like. But our compassionate conservatives have expanded government at every turn; they'll talk about reform, but the majority never mention terminating these things... even good ol' Trump makes no such claims. Ted Cruz, maybe, but most rank and file Republicans don't like him, remember? I'm sorry. But most of your arguments sound like propaganda and are disconnected from reality. I grant you so-called conservatives like to have their private/public partnerships, which are as wrong as the programs that they target. But few actually try to dismantle the programs... they simply try to structure the gravy train.

nxzero 11y ago

Get the sense that this was rewritten for use in the original publication references in the bklog, not the blog's readers. This post was likely done to help promo his new book. http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/13/opinions/is-data-you-send-to-irs-secure-opinion-schneier/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/13/opinions/is-data-you-send-to-i...

wfo 11y ago

Alternately, similar actions are taken by many on the right as part of a concerted effort to slash and destroy social programs. They support widely popular resolutions (tax cuts? Nobody is against tax cuts. The only debate is which section of the population gets bulk of the money, hint: it's not the poor). They shift money around and remove it from sound programs like social security so it goes bankrupt. They intentionally privatize and mismanage government programs so they fail. Then when there isn't enough money to go around come budget balancing time, whoops looks like we have to slash health care budgets. Education budgets? You only really NEED 50% of that, right? Why is the state paying to help kids go to college? These programs are horribly mismanaged and inefficient [because we have made them so], the market will do a MUCH better job if we just insert a corporate middleman between the people who need services and the people who provide them. It would be nice to let public employees exercise their rights and bargain collectively, but you know it's just too darn expensive. Those contracts we signed to give people pensions? Well it's not our fault we can't pay them now, it's just the economic reality. We all have to make sacrifices [except the rich]. Look at the adult conservatives being responsible, making the hard choices to cut things that need to be cut. Rinse, repeat, slash and burn.

sbuttgereit 11y ago
Which bills from left or right have removed money from the Social Security Trust Fund? The deficit in Social Security has more to do with the fact that population dynamics don't favor a scheme where younger worker's money is taken from them and given to older people when the population is declining. Let me make your The only debate is which section of the population gets bulk of the money, hint: it's not the poor statement more accurate: The only debate is which section of the population gets to keep it's money that was slated for confiscation, hint: it's not the poor since they don't pay taxes to begin with. What was the last program that the "right" actually rolled back that wasn't actually replaced with something more grand? Sure, in new programs they maybe didn't grow things as much as today's radical, er, mainstream left would like. But our compassionate conservatives have expanded government at every turn; they'll talk about reform, but the majority never mention terminating these things... even good ol' Trump makes no such claims. Ted Cruz, maybe, but most rank and file Republicans don't like him, remember? I'm sorry. But most of your arguments sound like propaganda and are disconnected from reality. I grant you so-called conservatives like to have their private/public partnerships, which are as wrong as the programs that they target. But few actually try to dismantle the programs... they simply try to structure the gravy train.