Slashdot Mirror
House Bill Slashes Research Critical To Cybersecurity
dcblogs writes: A U.S. House bill that will set the nation's basic research agenda for the next two years increases funding for computer science, but at the expense of other research areas. The funding bill, sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chair of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, hikes funding for computer science, but cuts — almost by half — social sciences funding, which includes the study of human behavior. Cybersecurity uses human behavior research because humans are often the weakest security link. Research funding social, behavioral and economic sciences will fall from $272 million to $150 million, a 45% decrease. The bill also takes a big cut out of geosciences research, which includes climate change study, from $1.3 billion to $1.2 billion, an 8% decrease. The insight into human behaviors that comes from the social science research, "is critical to understanding how best to design and implement hardware and software systems that are more secure and easier to use," wrote J. Strother Moore, the Computing Research Association chair and a professor of computer science at the University of Texas.
that research-thingy is so techo-whatever.
because every area facing cuts is always "critical".
And it's impossible for anyone to make software easy to use without government money to run a study.
I don't disagree with the climate change cut. After all, the studies are already done. We've already decided to ignore them (both sets). So what good does funding more studies to tell us what we already know (or believe we know) do?
At this point, what difference does it make? If the Secretary of State can run her own email server at home, what does it matter how much money is spent on "cybersecurity"?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
The black budget funds all the spy agencies that defeat and make holes in the security anyway.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
when the governors were so far behind the curve of technology that it caused physical pain to watch them at work.
Is a powerful Senator hell bent on false god belief any less harmful to the future prosperity of mankind than a 4th World Jihadi member of ISIS?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Heh, the SJWs are mad their pseudo science is being seen as the threat to rationality that it is.
The entire field of social science is chock-full of "studies" with horribly small sample sizes furthering changes of law to further ideological goals. Not only should we cut funding, but we should probably investigate these pro-authoritarian idiots who are becoming a big threat to many of our constitutional rights.
Go ahead, look at the programs affected (and not just one or two), I fucking dare you.
"Social" junk "science".
These jackasses cut funding for research, for the poor, for the middle class and yet can give these extremely wealthy parasites tax cuts. They don't cut corporate welfare, they increase an already bloated defense budget. What ass**les.
It's hard to credit the behavioural science claim.
Since we already know how to social engineer our way into secure areas, secure building (including nuclear and military facilities), and to get people to give their passwords or reset someone else's password, and even get the police to respond with deadly force to a perceived threat by an otherwise innocent third party (e.g. SWATting), and get them to click on crap they shouldn't click on in emails, and get them to insteall "media player updates" that aren't, anti-mallware that's actually malware, and so on...
How is additional funding for behavioural science in this area going to make us any more secure by making us even more aware of the exploits we already know, such as those being used by Mitnick prior to 1995 to get into the phone company?
We already understand the human behaviour which allows these attacks to work -- and so does Microsoft, and they're not really spending any effort fixing their software over this knowledge.
So how *exactly* will additional spending in this area impact cybersecurity again? Will it make anyone less likely to believe someone pretending to be from the IT department? Will it make someone less likely to let you on the premises when you pretend you want to talk to the property manager "or someone else in charge" about purchasing land adjacent to an otherwise secure facility?
I kind of don't think so.
But... BOOGA! BOOGA! Cybersecurity! Cyberwarfare! Fund us, fund us!
Why do we continue to allow people without a clue about what they are trying to legislate from being able to vote on stuff they have no idea about? There used to be a department for technology assessment (or some such name) that would advise Congress about tech stuff, but naturally the Republicans defunded it and shut it down...
It's quite the logical leap to go from
cuts — almost by half — social sciences funding
to
House Bill Slashes Research Critical To Cybersecurity
only based on the vague claim that
Cybersecurity uses human behavior research because humans are often the weakest security link.
The submitter had to really stretch things to get enough almost-tech-related and republican-hating to have his story accepted.
Timmothy, I beg of you and Dice for a -1 Racist Moderation. I know where hes going with this and don't like it. Obama did not personally make his Obama Care Bill bad and the parent portrays him in a negative light because of this. We need to have a discussion here and Stop. The. Racism. Now.
The bill also takes a big cut out of geosciences research, which includes climate change study, from $1.3 billion to $1.2 billion, an 8% decrease.
I thought the Republicans were concerned that the "science wasn't certain yet" on climate change? Strange they would cut the funding to keep looking into it then. Unless... they know damn well what the science has already figured out and will keep figuring out and know it won't sit well with their oil industry fatcat buddies and doubt-peddling narrative.
It's hard to credit the behavioural science claim.
Yes, for types of cybersecurity that matter - such as not having foreign hackers clean out your bank account, it's not really clear that behavioural science is all that important. And for types of cybersecurity like predicting the next insider to blow the whistle on government misconduct, it's far from clear that such security is even desirable.
But research in the field of social, behavioral and economic sciences generally is extremely valuable. There are huge differences between countries in terms of how easy it is for someone to have a secure comfortable life. And there are huge differences between individuals in terms of having successful interpersonal relationships. Essentially, there's a way for pretty much everyone in a country to have secure comfortable lives with good interpersonal relationships but we don't yet know all the details of what that way is. The answer exists, we just haven't spent enough time looking to have found it.
It is a sad day on Slashdot when there is wailing and gnashing of teeth by (alleged) Slashdotters when funding for Computer Science is INCREASED and funding for pseudo-science is decreased to cover the boost for Computer Science.
A sad, sad day indeed.
... if this research is so obviously critical, it's not like only the government benefits from or cares about network security. Let those who think it is so critical pay for some.
Geez. Don't worry about it. The US political system will eventually iron it out and things will be rosy again for everyone.
Not quite as bat-shit crazy as Scientologists. But these are the ones that believe everything can be healed by prayer. So its no wonder that scientific research into human behavior would be rejected by their members.
But then most religions are suspicious of any kind of investigation into the sanity of people who think invisible people living in the sky are talking to them.
Have gnu, will travel.
...just sayin'.
This is a clearly reframed (clumsily, too) story that someone cobbled together to try to fool the /. crowd.
Doesn't seem to have worked, looking at these comments.
I'm sorry. There's so much other stuff that is at stake, this is just not something I care enough about to get excited. Obviously, someone else does care, but casting it as "critical for cybersecurity" is a bad joke.
At least, we should be thinking of the children...
Captcha: "losing"
You mean the same guys who banned AP History classes because they, "make America look bad"?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
And how would Republicans know junk science, anyway? As they are fond of saying when asked about climate change or evolution or vaccinations or whether the Earth revolves around the Sun, "Well, I'm not a scientist". I mean, they're not generals either, but they all sure got an opinion on whether or not we should bomb Iran, ain't they? They're not God, but they sure as shit think they know what "God wants".
http://www.politicususa.com/20...
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/0...
http://www.politicususa.com/20...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...
Those are the fucking people you trust to know good science from bad science? Jeez louise, I wouldn't trust them to know a graduated cylinder from their fuzzy pink asses.
You are welcome on my lawn.
, it's not really clear that behavioural science is all that important.
No, you missed the point completely. Behavioral sciences are important, but we have known enough behavioral science to get anything we want for decades. Nigerian prince (419) spam gets new labels all the time, but it's the same scam. Tricking users into giving you information requires no more psychology than we had 40+ years ago. Spending "more" on this is pretty silly, because it's not providing anything "new". Tricks for scamming Russians is not different from Germans, but the payoff is less.
A tiny fraction of that may go to cybersecurity; most of it goes to research intended to demonstrate economic and social inequalities, victimization, discrimination, etc., carried out by people with political agendas.
So let's say Microsoft had some idea to reduce Social Engineering. How will they figure out whether it's Security Theater without trying it out on people?
How is that not behavioral science?
Huff Post about Lamar Smith http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Why worry?
"Smith, however, has worked to undermine climate science in his position as chairman of the committee. He's investigated National Science Foundation grants to researchers working on climate change on the premise that those grants aren't in the "national interest."
Nor does he seem particularly interested in finding out more about climate science. His committee has held more hearings on aliens than they have on climate science in the 113th Congress. "
"The chair of the Science, Space and Technology Committee" looks good on his resume. I'm sure he'll get a job as a lobbyist for some right wing corp if he ever decides to move on.
Before whining about decrease in next period - it would be nice if someone explained what did US citizens get for their $272 million spent on "social, behavioral and economic sciences" and $1.3 billion "geosciences research, which includes climate change study" spent in previous period.
Do you even know what RACIST means?
Please kindly show us in what way GP is 'racist'
Much oblige!
So let's say Microsoft had some idea to reduce Social Engineering. How will they figure out whether it's Security Theater without trying it out on people?
How is that not behavioral science?
I'm pretty sure Microsoft can fund this research, if they even actually want to fund it. Probably they don't: they learned their lesson, when people were satisfied with XP, and really didn't want to buy newer operating systems: "Good enough is the enemy of repeat sales".
There are three issues here 1) overall science funding, 2) geosciences funding, 3) social science funding.
This is a funding proposal that increases NSF (aka "basic science") funding by the government by 3.4%. It increases computer science funding at NSF by 14%. The government already provides more basic and applied research funding per year than the combined angel and VC annual investment in all US startup companies. That's pretty damn good. Government funding is not the rate limiting factor in scientific advancement.
Geoscience is primarily funded through NASA and DOE (both have bigger budgets in this area). This NSF cut will get a bunch of people on record as saying more global warming study is needed. Then politicians can play a big game of "gotcha" in committee meetings later. Short version: this is a trap. Modern politics sucks. The more geoscientists say "more study is needed," the more ammunition folks like Ted Cruz will have to put off solving the problem. It's really not fair, but geoscientists need to take the cut.
Lastly, social sciences. They knew this day was coming. These poor guys are a victim of the ($300M per year) BRAIN Initiative and the associated strong political support for hard science based cognition research. Their funding, plus some, is going to NIH to be gobbled up by neuroscientists. Coincidentally, all of the major centers administered by this branch of NSF finish a 10-year funding cycle this year. Maybe it's actually time for a change, maybe they're getting a raw deal, but now is a reasonable time to start major renovations in the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic sciences.
So, overall science budget is going up. Minor budget battles in climate research may do more harm than good (and that might be on purpose). And behavioral research is moving to a different agency.
The correct statement is : were other area increased , like military ? If yes, what is the justification to increase military expenditure at the expanse of science, when really the budget already is so humongus that other country in the world match it by an order of magnitude, and you really have no threat from your nearest neighbors (Mexico, Canada do not have a comparable budget by any order of magnitude, and your east/west neighbors are fishes).
I hold that the military US budget could be made to be constant or lowered. Science should on the other hand not.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It's hard to credit the behavioural science claim.
Especially as studies of deception, phishing, online fraud, and so on are often conducted by social scientists in computer science departments with funding that is nominally directed towards computer science. Anyone who is actually working on these areas is likely to be either in a computer science department or in an interdisciplinary team working with computer scientists, so will not have a problem getting funding.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Which is probably why it's a good idea for the Feds to fund it instead.
FWIW, his name is J Strother Moore, not J. Strother Moore (with a period after the J) as written in the post.
Say you have legislators that believe the Liberal Arts breed BOOGA! BOOGA! communism and that the only social philosophers of merit are Friedman, Mises, and Rand -- the one's you'd hear about in B-school. In order to get social research funded, you would need to find some way to tie it to national security.
are never happy.
Let those who think it is so critical pay for some
Which is why they increased funding for Computer Science and decreased it for Social Studies and Psychology.
Meanwhile, the CIA (whose mission requires them to be more pragmatic and less capricious) has been pursuing a dedicated effort since 2009 to prepare for the [now inevitable] geopolitical perils that global warming will produce, and they have warned that global warming is the most significant threat to the national security of the USA.
https://www.cia.gov/news-infor...
Which is probably why it's a good idea for the Feds to fund it instead.
Yes. Because the Feds are much more trustworthy.
Lamar Smith, who I assume doesn't know jack about computer science or cyber security, probably uses the same code on his luggage as for all his passwords: 1-2-3-4-5
The social sciences are a massive scam. Consider that NASA and DoD are at least partially privatized -- as part of appropriated spending, they have strong oversight, verification, and validation of requirements and performance. That's why our military is top notch, and many of our space missions succeed.
Contrast that with "social spending". Often the requirements are just based on absurdities. Strategies to diversify the workforce, or just payouts to Democratic Party voters -- the legacy of "Great Society Programs" that were based on emotional rhetoric, not the scientific method. It's disgusting. The K-12 education hierarchy, all public unions, is 78% female. If the Crown Jewel of the public indoctrination system can't diversify, who are they to criticize the private sector?
Slavery has been history for well over 100 years, but damn near every day, every black person in America is saturated in school, or in the two Los Angeles / New York propaganda streams, with negative imagery. What aren't they told? About 20 black men will die each weekend, from the tragedy of the stupid drug wars. It's black-on-black, with no white cop present, making the deaths wholly uninteresting to the Modern Democrats and their victim group agenda.
In reality, all of the President's cabinets should be privatized. Like the DoD and NASA, there should be a small shim of government employees, highly qualified requirements and performance analysts, that report on success and failure.
The 4,000,000 words of IRS Tax Code giveaways are even worse. The IRS was founded in 1913, with a simple three-level tax formula. Today, the code is 4,000,000 words of loopholes and giveaways, bought and paid for by a Sea of K Street Lobbyists and Lawyers, drowning the American Worker in a sea of red ink. The agency itself has plead for reform for many, many years. These loopholes just bypass the entire tax and spend system, crippling the nation's funding and oversight systems, and making a mockery of Taxation with Representation.
How about we redirect some of the defense budget into this social sciences research (in the name of "being able to better detect suspicious behavior on the part of a potential terrorist at an airport" if we need to motivate it to the "Won't someone please think of the terrorists" crowd?)
By one set of measurements on the Wikipedia page, we spend about 4 and a half times what China does in military spending. We outspend China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, France, Japan, India, Germany, and South Korea COMBINED. If we redirected or cut 10% from the military budget, we would "only" outspend China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UK, France, Japan, and India. I wouldn't think Germany and South Korea are huge threats to the US.
By the other list on that page, we only outspend China 2.8 to 1, we outspend China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, and India combined and cutting our spending by 10% would cause us to outspend China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, and the UK.
Which is probably why it's a good idea for the Feds to fund it instead.
Because if the feds fund it, and the research gets actual results we don't already know, Microsoft is going to run out and implement it and make the next version of Windows the same headache for themselves that XP has been turning out to be?
What does it matter *who* funds it, if no one implements anything based on the results (if any) of said research?
Scratch that... I guess it matters to currently unemployed behavioural scientists, although they are likely more concerned*that* it's funded, rather than *who* is funding it...
The reason I like Federal funding of this stuff is that it means you don't get weird market-based distortions.
For example if Microsoft funded it they would actually be breaking multiple business ethics rules if they let anyone else us it, because their major ethical duty is to make sure their shareholders get paid. That means incorporating the research into Windows and then using it as a selling point. To get away with letting Google and Apple use the research they'd have to have evidence the PR value was greater then the research cost.
OTOH if the Feds do it through their science budget it's public domain, and anyone can use it.
Once people wake up to the joke that many of these fields have become (the worst realization will be medicine), what is going to happen? Ask yourself this when considering whether it is worthwhile to fund a project: Does their proposal cite ANY previous literature that has made an accurate quantitative prediction? Will the methods they propose allow them to come up with a theory capable of one of these scientific predictions?
If not, I'd say funding pure data collection without any particular goal in mind and making it public is a better idea.