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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
So why increase military spending?
450 billion for a plane that isn't yet flying gets an increase yet you bitch and moan over 1 billion. Talk about pinching pennies to waste hundreds.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
The typical conservative response is that we're protecting the world. How that translates to wasting truly historic amounts of money- a degree of expenditure never seen before in human history- on utterly useless pork projects for the military... well that's beyond them.