Slashdot Mirror
Is Bruce Schneier Leaving His Job At BT?
hawkinspeter writes "The Register is hosting an exclusive that Bruce Schneier will be leaving his position at BT as security futurologist. From the article: 'News of the parting of the ways reached El Reg via a leaked internal email. Our source suggested that Schneier was shown the door because of his recent comments about the NSA and GCHQ's mass surveillance activities.'"
I DON'T KNOW
It's OK to speak your mind ... just make sure your resume is up-to-date before hand.
Now if there isn't a more worthless job title, I'm not sure what it is.
We're back to the wild west days of the early Internet. Nothing is secure and new strategies will have to be devised for a model that assumes that no part of a network connection is secure, both in hardware and software. Remember software bloat? Welcome to encryption bloat.
Does Slashdot bother to read the articles they link to?
maybe
Translation: His contract to remain on, after the acquisition ran out.
He may have been the CTO of counterpane, but not enough room for two CTOs of BT after the acquisition.
Naturally, the CTO of the acquirer would normally keep the position.
security futurologist
In the future, security will include bio-metrics and brain scans. And one day, the IT security will be able to capture the RF of the user's brain electrical signals.
And eventually in the future, computers will be hooked directly into the brain.
I mean really, I'd just read Science Fiction all fucking day long, plagiarize the ideas and then put'em into a memo - BIG MONEY!
Actually, write script to search for key terms in ebooks automatically downloaded from Amazon. of course with luck, I'd get some sci-fi porn and my report would be "He inserted his penis into the security scanner ...."
The other day he posted a story about how the existence of a security threat, even if is not exploited, creates mistrust. So given we know that the NSA and GCHQ are spying, we are naturally suspicious of BT, even if they are not part of the spying. Now if they are ejecting a person critical of the spying, we are even more suspicious, even if they are not doing anything wrong.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I have just received the 3rd copy of his December newsletter - all to the one email address that he has for me. I don't know what is happening.
Any good team of futurologists could have predicted his departure.
He is Bruce Shneier, author of Applied Cryptography.
https://www.schneier.com/
One of the most credible persons on the subject of cryptography and security in general.
One might expect someone who cares about security to know who he is. If he needs an introduction, you need an education on cryptography.
And you get an extra stick up your pretentious ass if you knew that BT was British Telecom.
No.
Maybe someone should rewrite the headline, since the question mark at the end makes it sound much more fictitious than it actually looks to be.
If we can trust Betteridge's law of headlines, the answer is no, he is not leaving, and yes, a headline in the form of a question does not sound like proper news. Even for nerds. And especially for stuff that matters.
Dr Superlove 300ml. I use my powers for awesome
Are you sure? When I google him it says he's American, and there's a great picture of his buff bod. Isn't BT something to do with Bitcoin Trading?
Here's the best available data we have on Bruce: http://www.schneierfacts.com/
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Whatever, you've not been paying attention to the BEAST, CRIME, and TIME attacks. They very well could be accomplished by your slightly above average skript kiddie.
I don't think he'll have a problem getting a new job
The "who gives a fsck" still stands. /.
Really. Unless he was the one posted this, who the fsck care about it.
Why would this material even end up on
Buff Bod? Are you confusing him to Chuck Norris again.. that tends to happen..
BT has no future.
In the past BT has often kept on people from acquisitions even though they have no real job for that person. This isn't only for CxO people in the acquired company but can happen to anybody. I ended up in this situation and hung on for 4 years doing not very much but collecting a good salary even by London standards. Eventually though, it gets old and you need to move on.
Perhaps BT also, has woken up to the fact that there are too many people in the company that do not do productive work and they are getting better at identifying those people. When I was there I went through 3 of their voluntary redundancy programs and every time my request to leave was denied even when I took pains to inform my whole management chain how useless I was and how I had no more than a few hours a week of real work to do.
See? That's the big difference (that little hook at the end). Posing the article as a question, you get the benefit of having a scoop (OMFG!!! Bruce the Schneier got fired by the NSA) as far as Slashdot's second-hand stories go, while not getting burned if the story turns out to be false (duh, Bruce isn't leaving).
Never believe anything until it's officially denied.
Bruce Schneier is so cool, Chuck Norris asks for HIS autographs.
Yes, plural.
Autographs.
He has several.
Been there, couldn't take NewStart because I was one of the few who apparently hadn't taken C++ off my CV so had legacy skills.
After the third failed attempt I handed my notice in. There are still loads of folks on the bench going through crap who aren't getting their NewStart :-/
I just read the article from "The Register". The quote from Bruce at the end completely contradicts the falsehood presented in the /. headline.
Way to go /. /. Mis-informing the Internet population for how many years now?
Brilliant point about corporate and government secrecy and power. I've thought for a while (inspired by the book "Honest Business" by a founder of MasterCard) that an innovation in corporate law would be to insist corporations have no right to privacy or internal secrecy. Makes me think of the "Culture" series where AIs can keep their thoughts private, but all databanks and communications are public (although when an AI "Mind" runs a world-sized ship as a de-facto government, perhaps there are some issues there...)
You might like some related ideas which touch on cybernetic dynamics by Langdon Winner in his book "Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought". He makes a similar point about people being replaceable components in organizations, and if they don't perform to standards, they will be replaced. This limits how humane or long-term-oriented a CEO in a typical US corporation can be, for example. Still, Winner suggests that there are moralities implicit in the things we choose to design -- so he suggests that for large systems, it is not so much that they can be used for good or evil as in that there are implications present in the idea about distribution of power and social implications...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langdon_Winner
And I'd add, there is the risk that the design will emphasize the "irony" in my sig, about great potential for abundance used in ignorance and fear of scarcity.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security. The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone."
BTW, not sure fully what it does, but your JavaScript simulation looks cool. Interesting moral issue -- someone perhaps unintentionally creating A-life just by visiting a web page! I did a couple simulations of self-replicating robots myself back in the 1980s, but in ZetaLisp and C.
Might well be true, from your homepage: "We are all the same Universe, each experiencing the one self from different perspectives..." If so, it can still be hard to work out the implications in a universe apparently built around Yin/Yang dualities like fire/ice, meshwork/hierarchy, competition/cooperation, etc. I mention that in my "rant" link included here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4556777&cid=45691707
Mentioning both A-LIfe simulation and corporations, you might find of interest this post I madein 2000 (it mentions simulation earlier):
"[unrev-II] Singularity in twenty to forty years?"
http://www.dougengelbart.org/colloquium/forum/discussion/0126.html
"Obviously, corporations are not all powerful. The world still has some
individuals who have wealth to equal major corporations. There are
several governments that are as powerful or more so than major
corporations. Individuals in corporations can make persuasive pitches
about their future directions, and individuals with controlling shares
may be able to influence what a corporation does (as far as the market
allows). In the long run, many corporations are trying to coexist with
people to the extent they need to. But it is not clear what corporations
(especially large ones) will do as we approach this singularity -- where
AIs and robots are cheaper to employ than people. Today's corporation,
like any intelligent machine, is more than the sum of its parts
(equipment, goodwill, IP, cash, credit, and people). It's "plug" is not
easy to pull, and it can't be easily controlled against its short term
interests.
What sort of laws and rules will be needed then? If the threat of
corporate charter revocation is still
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Also, it is theoretically impossible to forge a Bruce Schneier autograph.