Schneier Mulls Psychology of Security

bednarz writes "Cryptography expert Bruce Schneier says security decisions often are much less rational than one would prefer. He spoke at the RSA conference about the battle that goes on in the brain when responding to security issues. Schneier explains 'The primitive portion of the brain, called the amygdala, feels fear and incites a fear-or-flight response, he pointed out. "It's very fast, faster than consciousness. But it can be overridden by higher parts of the brain." The neocortex, which in a mammalian brain is associated with consciousness, is slower but "adaptive and flexible,"'"

Comments

Just look to government....

[Dynedain]

Too bad the Department of Homeland Security doesn't have a neocortex.

Re:Just look to government....

[FooAtWFU]

Okay. I'll look to government. I'll even be bipartisan... or antibipartisan :)

We have two parties that have issues with threats to the world, after all. The Republicans have Terrorism, and the Democrats have Global Warming. Both are real and significant threats, but neither of them really gets addressed in the healthiest way possible. There's a lot of focus on OMG-deadly high-profile terrorist attacks, and on OMG-deadly consequences of global warming. Both parties have their people propose some ridiculously broad, sweeping changes to deal with the problem which would negatively impact everyday lives; fortunately, the more ridiculous ones are more likely to fail. And, of course, both parties are willing to throw money at people who claim to have some sort of solution to their problem, whether or not it's actually anything real, meaningful, or worthwhile (like the latest stupid XYZ antiterrorist technology rollout, or the latest bio-fuel legislation/subsidy).

No, they're not the same thing, but one can draw worthwhile parallels, and both parties would benefit by comparing themselves to the other, shaping their actions to avoid these excesses.

Most people cannot define "security".

[khasim]

Bruce has more at his website.
http://www.schneier.com/essay-155.html

As he says, we really should have two different words for the "feeling of security" and "security".

Amydala feels fear

[wumpus188]

There is always Anakin to the rescue.

42

[ElephanTS]

Which is why "Don't Panic!" is such good advice.

It makes sense

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

From the article: There is a "feeling versus reality," Schneier said. "You can feel secure but not be secure. You can be secure but not feel secure. The primitive portion of the brain, called the amygdala, feels fear and incites a fear-or-flight response, he pointed out. "

That is why the real amygdala hides in the background pretending to be a mere attendant like the pitutary gland and communicates with a prominantly placed fake-amygdala using elaborate signals and esp communication. All these scientists have been fooled into studying the fake-amygdala. So they underestimate the real security of the brain. Let someone assassinate the fake-amygdala in a spaceport in Coruscant and suddenly you will see the real amygdala emerge from the shadows and assume the role as the rightfully elected Queen of Naboo.

Re:It makes sense

['nother poster]

Security through obscurity never works. ;)

Irritating.

[Elentari]

It never fails to annoy me when people take snippets of theoretical psychology and redistribute them as truth. Scientists' views of which parts of the brain are responsible for which characteristics of human life change on almost a daily basis, yet phrases such as "language centre" or "mammalian brain" are constantly being used in a way that presents them as definite fact.

It seems unnecessary to incorporate impressive-sounding terms into a speech that, quite honestly, seems to be stating the obvious. Increasing or decreasing security is a response to fear; fear is an emotion and, therefore, decisions that use it as a base will not be purely rational, but will have emotional bias, like every other human decision. You don't need vague descriptions of brain "impulses", and such, to prove that.

Schneier says no, but that's not his aim

[schwaang]

In his essay he tells a little joke about aiming for 100% security:

I remember in the weeks after 9/11, a reporter asked me: "How can we prevent this from ever happening again?" "That's easy," I said, "simply ground all the aircraft."

100% security has never been his aim. His aim, AFAICT, is to distinguish real security from BS, so we can evaluate the costs and tradeoffs and then make smart choices.

More on this philosophy:

The truth is that we're not hopelessly bad at making security trade-offs.[...]There are several specific aspects of the security trade-off that can go wrong. For example:

      1. The severity of the risk.
      2. The probability of the risk.
      3. The magnitude of the costs.
      4. How effective the countermeasure is at mitigating the risk.
      5. How well disparate risks and costs can be compared.

The more your perception diverges with reality in any of these five aspects, the more your perceived trade-off won't match the actual trade-off.

Oblig. joke

[Captain Splendid]

Too bad the Department of Homeland Security doesn't have a neocortex.

That's alright, they have a neoconcortex instead!

Sorry, couldn't help myself. You may now mod this post into oblivion...