7 ms·

I recently taught a small module on cryptography to some 13 year olds. In one lesson, I asked them to write down what they thought of companies being forced to

I recently taught a small module on cryptography to some 13 year olds. In one lesson, I asked them to write down what they thought of companies being forced to weaken encryption. This was a very typical response from the group. "I think that encryption should still be allowed because I should have some privacy in my life and everyone else can. No one wants to be watched, stalked, etc. just because a couple of criminals may be able to start a (rare) terrorist attack, there should be other ways to stop them apart from making everyone elses life uncomfortable. You might aswell have no passwords for any website, it's basically the same thing." If kids get it, I fail to see why politicians don't.

mc32 12y ago
The problem with that is that when asking kids you get sunshine. I mean, I have an opinion on this, but that's beside the point. You ask kids, what do we do about global warming --stop polluting the atmosphere! Yes obvious, it's just that things aren't as simple as that.
- mch82 12y ago
  Actually, things are exactly that simple. Look at how the WWII generation responded to the need for behavior change in order to supply raw materials and labor for the war effort. If our generation cared about the environment as much as they cared about winning WWII then we could make similar sacrifices, pay a little extra for fuel, pay a little extra for solar infrastructure, change our diets to be more sustainable, and be well on the way to reversing damage to our environment.
  - Sir_Substance 12y ago
    >then we could make similar sacrifices, pay a little extra for fuel, pay a little extra for solar infrastructure, change our diets to be more sustainable I haven't done the study, but I'd wager that those small price hikes would push the five most marginal percent currently able to afford rent into homelessness. Things are never that simple. A person who presents anything as black and white either hasn't thought about it or is lying to you.
    - AlisdairO 12y ago
      In fairness, he talked in terms of societal choices - and having the five most marginal percent be that close to the edge is also very much a choice.
    - squeeze 12y ago
      I think it's really a long, grueling process of dialogue, explanation of practicals, co-operation of all possible interests, and work. It's a systemic change kind of thing, I think. That kind of stuff isn't easy, and if one is aiming for easiness and some approximation of perfection, it requires a lot of friction between global and local changes.
    - TaylorAlexander 12y ago
      So... design your policy such that they don't affect the most poor (fund things by raising taxes on the wealthy, etc). It in fact is that simple, yet we lack the political will to make policy that disproportionately affects the wealthy. That isn't because we can't, it's because our ideology ensures we won't.
      - aragot 12y ago
        Why should global warming taxes be also an instrument to rebalance wealth? That's exactly what discredits them when I push for them as a debate: The middle class feel very insecure about "redistribution".
        lotsofmangos 12y ago
        Anything that moves money around, moves money around. Asking for a tax that doesn't rebalance wealth one way or another, is to ask for no taxes.
        littletimmy 12y ago
        Then let them feel secure. Let's tax only the super-rich. Perhaps a wealth tax on billionaires.
        quonn 12y ago
  - karmacondon 12y ago
    It is in fact not that simple. To make a noticeable difference in terms of global climate change, americans would have to do much more than "pay a little extra". The entire commercial shipping network relies on carbon fuels. That's land, sea and air. The power grid and utility structure in most communities is destructive to the environment in some way. Changing all of that would require an investment in R&D and social re-organization equivalent to entirety of ten WWIIs. It's understandable that the majority of citizens wouldn't want to pay that cost. There's sacrifice, and then there's masochism. Not to mention that China and India aren't going to give up their chance at a western energy guzzling quality of life just because we do. The idealism of children is great and all, but there's a reason that we don't let 10 year olds make major policy decisions. The naivete of youth is a very powerful thing that is responsible for some of our greatest innovations and new ideas. But it just doesn't play well with political decisions. Children don't understand the issues around encryption any more than they understand how to fix the environment. All we can do is invest in education and culture in the hope that they'll be prepared to tackle these issues when they grow up.
    - jakobegger 12y ago
      Children understand the issue of avoiding climate change very well. They just don't understand yet that grown ups don't care about climate change, despite what they say. Fixing climate change really is easy; it's just that almost every single person in the world cares more about their personal comfort right now than about their future. People say things like "Climate change is terrible", but then they choose not to do anything about it. Most people could probably halve their energy costs with little effort (and enjoy immediate cost savings), but they choose not to. It's not the children who are stupid, it's the grown ups who are.
      - collyw 12y ago
        I would be happy to avoid flying if I felt it would make a difference. At the moment though, I will inconvenience myself, while our politicians decide to build another airport. My inconvenience will have had zero effect.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - philwelch 12y ago
    Either you don't really grasp just how much the WWII generation had to change their behavior or you have far too much faith in how much people care about the environment. Nobody is going to sign up for peacetime rationing.
- emmab 12y ago
  I've seen what happens to people when they become "adults". They sit around and talk with the grown ups about really boring things like gossip. They stop playing tag. They start caring only about having relationships and stop caring about anything fun. If they aren't having fun because they just sit around and talk about boring things, maybe they don't care about the world as much.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    I'm in my mid 30s and still build forts out of cushions. I've heard about adulthood, but it sounds appalling.
  - A_COMPUTER 12y ago
    Actually fixing problems requires having and understanding relationships, and setting around and talking about boring things. Maybe that is why the adults I know having the most fun are the least political, because fixing problems is a slog and they want to have fun.
- keslag 12y ago
  Things are always that simple. Humans makes things artificially more difficult for wealth, power, and control. If you put a back door in encryption, the bad guys will stop using that encryption. All you manage to do is make the honest citizen less secure. Nothing changes this fact, and therefore nothing justifies backdoors in encryption. It really is that simple.
- BjoernKW 12y ago
  I think most things actually are as simple as that. They're just made unduly complex because the obvious solutions to these problems don't align with the ulterior motives and sinister agendas that are often involved in politics: You want to secure people's right to privacy? Defund the NSA and use the money for something that's actually useful (like leaving it to the tax payers to spend as they please). You want to uphold human rights? Stop condoning human rights violations. Close down Guantanamo today, explicitly condemn torture and prosecute those who were responsible for acts of torture in the past. You want to counter terrorism? Stop getting politcally or militarily involved in other countries' affairs. Instead, trade with people. Foster economic and cultural exchange. Educate people. Now, this is a long-term one because it obviously won't do away with terrorism instantly but it'd be a first step in the right direction. You want to solve the perpetual financial crises? Simply allow bankrupt banks to ... well ... file for bankruptcy instead of donating them tax payer's money. You want to do something against global warming? Stop subsidizing fossil fuel companies. Make more use of the abundant solar energy available in the desert regions of the planet. Admittedly, this will be expensive but given the huge amount of money that's wasted annually in first world countries it's not impossible either.
  - meric 12y ago
    I adore the purists' positions and if ever we have a government or president that will act with pure intention they will have my full support. Nonetheless without accounting for politician's and their supporter's ulterior motives they will never succeed. In an alternate universe where you BjoernKW was emperor of the United States and you pursued domestic policies that aimed to act purely in the interests of the people, without considering of the ambitions of less noble, less than two hundred years later you might be labeled by historians as a "well meaning but ineffective man". You want the people to be free from the hold of Opium? Ban it, burn it and banish the smugglers from your shores. "He issued many edicts against opium in the 1820s and 1830s, which were carried out by Commissioner Lin Zexu. Lin Zexu's effort to halt the spread of opium in China led directly to the First Opium War. With the development of the Opium War, Lin was made a scapegoat and the Daoguang emperor removed Lin's authority and banished him to Yili. Meanwhile in the Himalayas, the Sikh Empire attempted an occupation of Tibet but was defeated in the Sino-Sikh war (1841–1842). On the coasts, technologically and militarily inferior to the European powers, China lost the war and surrendered Hong Kong by way of the Treaty of Nanking in August 1842." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daoguang_Emperor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daoguang_Emperor.
- Potando 12y ago
  A lot of "it really is that simple" replies. Most big problems are simple to solve - if you only have one problem. Do we stop global warming, stop terrorism, stop government spying, stop poverty, stop high taxes, stop war, stop death from diseases, stop income inequality? Any one problem is simple to solve, but what's not simple is doing it without making other problems worse in the process.
  - sgift 12y ago
    Start with those problems hurting most people in the biggest ways, then go on until you either run out of problem solving capabilities or problems.
    - schoen 12y ago
      There are possible structures of problems and solutions in which this search strategy would get stuck in a local optimum -- if you agree that some solutions preclude others or make other problems worse.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  As many others said, things are exactly that simple. Apart from not understanding that most of what adults say is bullshit, kids just don't understand coordination problems yet - that it's not the task which is hard, it's getting all the different people, each caring primarily about themselves, to unite for a common goal. That's why wars are effective - it's easy for everyone to share a common goal if the goal is to fight for survival, or rebuild things (facilitated by shared experience of suffering).
kenferry 12y ago
This is all framing. If you had first asked if the police should be able to catch the bad guys, and then if the crypto should prevent bad guys from being caught, you'd get a different answer. Kids are kinda nuts anyway, I definitely wouldn't let one run my life. :-)

mc32 12y ago

The problem with that is that when asking kids you get sunshine. I mean, I have an opinion on this, but that's beside the point. You ask kids, what do we do about global warming --stop polluting the atmosphere! Yes obvious, it's just that things aren't as simple as that.

mch82 12y ago
Actually, things are exactly that simple. Look at how the WWII generation responded to the need for behavior change in order to supply raw materials and labor for the war effort. If our generation cared about the environment as much as they cared about winning WWII then we could make similar sacrifices, pay a little extra for fuel, pay a little extra for solar infrastructure, change our diets to be more sustainable, and be well on the way to reversing damage to our environment.
- Sir_Substance 12y ago
  >then we could make similar sacrifices, pay a little extra for fuel, pay a little extra for solar infrastructure, change our diets to be more sustainable I haven't done the study, but I'd wager that those small price hikes would push the five most marginal percent currently able to afford rent into homelessness. Things are never that simple. A person who presents anything as black and white either hasn't thought about it or is lying to you.
  - AlisdairO 12y ago
    In fairness, he talked in terms of societal choices - and having the five most marginal percent be that close to the edge is also very much a choice.
  - squeeze 12y ago
    I think it's really a long, grueling process of dialogue, explanation of practicals, co-operation of all possible interests, and work. It's a systemic change kind of thing, I think. That kind of stuff isn't easy, and if one is aiming for easiness and some approximation of perfection, it requires a lot of friction between global and local changes.
  - TaylorAlexander 12y ago
    So... design your policy such that they don't affect the most poor (fund things by raising taxes on the wealthy, etc). It in fact is that simple, yet we lack the political will to make policy that disproportionately affects the wealthy. That isn't because we can't, it's because our ideology ensures we won't.
    - aragot 12y ago
      Why should global warming taxes be also an instrument to rebalance wealth? That's exactly what discredits them when I push for them as a debate: The middle class feel very insecure about "redistribution".
      - lotsofmangos 12y ago
        Anything that moves money around, moves money around. Asking for a tax that doesn't rebalance wealth one way or another, is to ask for no taxes.
      - littletimmy 12y ago
        Then let them feel secure. Let's tax only the super-rich. Perhaps a wealth tax on billionaires.
      - quonn 12y ago
- karmacondon 12y ago
  It is in fact not that simple. To make a noticeable difference in terms of global climate change, americans would have to do much more than "pay a little extra". The entire commercial shipping network relies on carbon fuels. That's land, sea and air. The power grid and utility structure in most communities is destructive to the environment in some way. Changing all of that would require an investment in R&D and social re-organization equivalent to entirety of ten WWIIs. It's understandable that the majority of citizens wouldn't want to pay that cost. There's sacrifice, and then there's masochism. Not to mention that China and India aren't going to give up their chance at a western energy guzzling quality of life just because we do. The idealism of children is great and all, but there's a reason that we don't let 10 year olds make major policy decisions. The naivete of youth is a very powerful thing that is responsible for some of our greatest innovations and new ideas. But it just doesn't play well with political decisions. Children don't understand the issues around encryption any more than they understand how to fix the environment. All we can do is invest in education and culture in the hope that they'll be prepared to tackle these issues when they grow up.
  - jakobegger 12y ago
    Children understand the issue of avoiding climate change very well. They just don't understand yet that grown ups don't care about climate change, despite what they say. Fixing climate change really is easy; it's just that almost every single person in the world cares more about their personal comfort right now than about their future. People say things like "Climate change is terrible", but then they choose not to do anything about it. Most people could probably halve their energy costs with little effort (and enjoy immediate cost savings), but they choose not to. It's not the children who are stupid, it's the grown ups who are.
    - collyw 12y ago
      I would be happy to avoid flying if I felt it would make a difference. At the moment though, I will inconvenience myself, while our politicians decide to build another airport. My inconvenience will have had zero effect.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- philwelch 12y ago
  Either you don't really grasp just how much the WWII generation had to change their behavior or you have far too much faith in how much people care about the environment. Nobody is going to sign up for peacetime rationing.
emmab 12y ago
I've seen what happens to people when they become "adults". They sit around and talk with the grown ups about really boring things like gossip. They stop playing tag. They start caring only about having relationships and stop caring about anything fun. If they aren't having fun because they just sit around and talk about boring things, maybe they don't care about the world as much.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  I'm in my mid 30s and still build forts out of cushions. I've heard about adulthood, but it sounds appalling.
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  Actually fixing problems requires having and understanding relationships, and setting around and talking about boring things. Maybe that is why the adults I know having the most fun are the least political, because fixing problems is a slog and they want to have fun.
keslag 12y ago
Things are always that simple. Humans makes things artificially more difficult for wealth, power, and control. If you put a back door in encryption, the bad guys will stop using that encryption. All you manage to do is make the honest citizen less secure. Nothing changes this fact, and therefore nothing justifies backdoors in encryption. It really is that simple.
BjoernKW 12y ago
I think most things actually are as simple as that. They're just made unduly complex because the obvious solutions to these problems don't align with the ulterior motives and sinister agendas that are often involved in politics: You want to secure people's right to privacy? Defund the NSA and use the money for something that's actually useful (like leaving it to the tax payers to spend as they please). You want to uphold human rights? Stop condoning human rights violations. Close down Guantanamo today, explicitly condemn torture and prosecute those who were responsible for acts of torture in the past. You want to counter terrorism? Stop getting politcally or militarily involved in other countries' affairs. Instead, trade with people. Foster economic and cultural exchange. Educate people. Now, this is a long-term one because it obviously won't do away with terrorism instantly but it'd be a first step in the right direction. You want to solve the perpetual financial crises? Simply allow bankrupt banks to ... well ... file for bankruptcy instead of donating them tax payer's money. You want to do something against global warming? Stop subsidizing fossil fuel companies. Make more use of the abundant solar energy available in the desert regions of the planet. Admittedly, this will be expensive but given the huge amount of money that's wasted annually in first world countries it's not impossible either.
- meric 12y ago
  I adore the purists' positions and if ever we have a government or president that will act with pure intention they will have my full support. Nonetheless without accounting for politician's and their supporter's ulterior motives they will never succeed. In an alternate universe where you BjoernKW was emperor of the United States and you pursued domestic policies that aimed to act purely in the interests of the people, without considering of the ambitions of less noble, less than two hundred years later you might be labeled by historians as a "well meaning but ineffective man". You want the people to be free from the hold of Opium? Ban it, burn it and banish the smugglers from your shores. "He issued many edicts against opium in the 1820s and 1830s, which were carried out by Commissioner Lin Zexu. Lin Zexu's effort to halt the spread of opium in China led directly to the First Opium War. With the development of the Opium War, Lin was made a scapegoat and the Daoguang emperor removed Lin's authority and banished him to Yili. Meanwhile in the Himalayas, the Sikh Empire attempted an occupation of Tibet but was defeated in the Sino-Sikh war (1841–1842). On the coasts, technologically and militarily inferior to the European powers, China lost the war and surrendered Hong Kong by way of the Treaty of Nanking in August 1842." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daoguang_Emperor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daoguang_Emperor.
Potando 12y ago
A lot of "it really is that simple" replies. Most big problems are simple to solve - if you only have one problem. Do we stop global warming, stop terrorism, stop government spying, stop poverty, stop high taxes, stop war, stop death from diseases, stop income inequality? Any one problem is simple to solve, but what's not simple is doing it without making other problems worse in the process.
- sgift 12y ago
  Start with those problems hurting most people in the biggest ways, then go on until you either run out of problem solving capabilities or problems.
  - schoen 12y ago
    There are possible structures of problems and solutions in which this search strategy would get stuck in a local optimum -- if you agree that some solutions preclude others or make other problems worse.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
As many others said, things are exactly that simple. Apart from not understanding that most of what adults say is bullshit, kids just don't understand coordination problems yet - that it's not the task which is hard, it's getting all the different people, each caring primarily about themselves, to unite for a common goal. That's why wars are effective - it's easy for everyone to share a common goal if the goal is to fight for survival, or rebuild things (facilitated by shared experience of suffering).

kenferry 12y ago

This is all framing. If you had first asked if the police should be able to catch the bad guys, and then if the crypto should prevent bad guys from being caught, you'd get a different answer. Kids are kinda nuts anyway, I definitely wouldn't let one run my life. :-)