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.
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.
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.
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.
You hired! When can you start?
His job also requires writing things that people want to read. So, you're not really qualified.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Now if there isn't a more worthless job title, I'm not sure what it is.
"Anonymous Coward" is a strong candidate.
Looks like the editors wanted to change it around a bit.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
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
I actually submitted this with a statement as the headline and the editors have decided to change it to a question. I was amazed as I didn't think the editors really existed.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Now if there isn't a more worthless job title, I'm not sure what it is.
It's an awesome job title - it means: "This guy is so froody we let him do whatever he wants with no expectations and we pay him for that."
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I don't think he'll have a problem getting a new job
Somebody has to insert the typos into the summaries.
No, there were two submissions, yours and this one by samzenpus. Evidently this got picked over yours. I voted this one down in the submissions area because of the annoying question mark.
I see. It's confusing that it's got my name in the summary.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Funnily enough, I submitted this with a different headline. I went with "Bruce Schneier is leaving his job at BT" and put the following (shorter) summary:
Looks like the editors wanted to change it around a bit ?
Here, fixed that for you.
Thanks?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
No, my mistake. I mistook samzepus as the submitter, not the editor. You are correct. However, I did see two Schneier-related posts in the submissions section. Sorry for the confusion, and you are right, it looks like your original title was altered.
Click on the "submissions" link in the upper-left margin, and then click "older" and you'll see your original submission there.
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).
His job also requires writing things that people want to read. So, you're not really qualified.
In other words: his job is actually a marketing role?
The Slashdot editors suck a big pair of balls that look vaguely like the fuzzy dice that hang from the rear-view mirror of a rusted-out '57 Chevy.
Caveat emptor.
Bruce Schneier is so cool, Chuck Norris asks for HIS autographs.
Yes, plural.
Autographs.
He has several.
BT has no future.
BT has no past.
And now Bruce is leaving? There goes the current.
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.
Given that The Register is actually wrong about at least 90% of things it says then the Slashdot heading and summary are for once probably more correct.
In this case, though, they're right and he is leaving BT.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe