5 ms·

Security is a judicial procedure, which is why we try and convict spies of espionage using evidence gathered by investigations rather than disappearing and exec

by austinz 13y ago

Security is a judicial procedure, which is why we try and convict spies of espionage using evidence gathered by investigations rather than disappearing and executing people suspected of being traitors. > Did we need to have a formal court trial with a smoking gun before we decided Dual_EC_DRBG was untrustworthy? No, because you can't try algorithms in a court of law. Algorithms don't have moral agency and can't act of their own accord. This analogy is unhelpful. > Did we say 'yes, it's the NSA'... The implication being that the NSA, an untrustworthy actor, created the PRNG and hence the PRNG is suspicious. That's reasonable. What's the analogy in the case of Qian? That he had been strongly linked or associated with activity or actors that were engaged in espionage? Fair enough. If you are claiming that his ancestry alone justifies as much suspicion in him as the provenance of Dual_EC_DRBG justifies suspicion in that PRNG...then we may have to agree to disagree.

gwern 13y ago
> Security is a judicial procedure, which is why we try and convict spies of espionage using evidence gathered by investigations rather than disappearing and executing people suspected of being traitors. No, it can escalate into judicial procedures if security agencies decide to make an example of someone, but it is not inherently judicial. When someone is denied clearance, it is not because they were put on trial by a jury of their peers and found guilty by majority vote after an extended trial with all the safeguards afforded citizens by the constitution. > Algorithms don't have moral agency and can't act of their own accord. This analogy is unhelpful. The analogy is apt. Both people and software are part of systems (have we learned nothing from social engineering?) and are attack surfaces. > That he had been strongly linked or associated with activity or actors that were engaged in espionage? Fair enough. If you are claiming that his ancestry alone Yes, that his loyalties may be divided because he came from China and not some obscure country like New Zealand. And let's not forget, it's not just his 'ancestry' - he wasn't born in Peoria Iowa. He was born and raised in China and came to the USA for higher education. That's much closer ties to China than 'ancestry'.

by austinz 13y ago

gwern 13y ago

> Security is a judicial procedure, which is why we try and convict spies of espionage using evidence gathered by investigations rather than disappearing and executing people suspected of being traitors. No, it can escalate into judicial procedures if security agencies decide to make an example of someone, but it is not inherently judicial. When someone is denied clearance, it is not because they were put on trial by a jury of their peers and found guilty by majority vote after an extended trial with all the safeguards afforded citizens by the constitution. > Algorithms don't have moral agency and can't act of their own accord. This analogy is unhelpful. The analogy is apt. Both people and software are part of systems (have we learned nothing from social engineering?) and are attack surfaces. > That he had been strongly linked or associated with activity or actors that were engaged in espionage? Fair enough. If you are claiming that his ancestry alone Yes, that his loyalties may be divided because he came from China and not some obscure country like New Zealand. And let's not forget, it's not just his 'ancestry' - he wasn't born in Peoria Iowa. He was born and raised in China and came to the USA for higher education. That's much closer ties to China than 'ancestry'.