Bruce Schneier: It's Time For Technologists To Become Lawmakers (venturebeat.com)

Bruce Schneier, a well-known security guru, this week called on technologists to become lawmakers and policy makers so countries can deal with issues such as the governance of artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. From a report: "The future is coming," Schneier said, speaking at the RSA security conference in San Francisco. "It's coming faster than we think. And it's coming faster than our existing policy tools can deal with. And the only way to fix this is to develop a new set of policy tools. With the help of the technologists, you understand the technologies." The issues are a lot larger than just computer security. Schneier wants more public interest technologists in all areas.

[...] We saw the policy makers and technologies talk past each other when the FBI wanted Apple to break into an iPhone that belonged to a terrorist shooting suspect, Schneier said. The debate over Edward Snowden's disclosure of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping programs was another flash point. The need for policy makers to understand technology is clear. "This is no different than any other part of our complex world," he said. "We don't expect legislators to be experts in everything. We expect them to get and accept expertise. The second thing we need is for technologists to get involved in policy, and what we need is more public interest technologists" -- those who focus on social justice, the common good, and the public interest.

Comments

LOL, no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians are bad, but devs would be far, far worse. Just look how basically every FOSS project eventually ends up splitting because of egos, drama, etc.

Re:LOL, no thanks

[jellomizer]

The problem is everyone wants to be the problem solver and the leader.
Our current media shows the super hero leader, the guy who comes up with the creative solution, and then has the power and authority to pull it off.

A good leader isn't the problem solver, there is way too much on his plate, to sit down and work out a good solution to a problem. That is why they have specialists. Their job is to sit back, and work on a solution to the problem at hand and report it back to the leader. The Leaders job is to take a look at all the solutions, try to weigh their benefits and trade offs, pick the best solution and form a team of people who are able to implement this solution.

The best leaders are rarely the smartest guys in the room, and rarely have expertise in what they are leading. The best leaders know they are not the smartest people in the room, and do not pretend that they are. However they are involved, ask questions, challenge assumptions, and put their preconceived ideas aside, to fairly judge what is best.

FOSS project or projects maintained by technologist, have trained Problem solvers and specialists trying to lead a group of diverse people and idea's. And tend to go power mad, because they have their own solution in mind, and they have the power to enforce it. Often with the problem of ignoring better ideas.

This is also a problem with elected politics, we are so polarized on issues (solutions) that we do not vote in good leaders, but people who pretend to be these super hero "Leaders" like we see on TV. And when they get into power, they are stuck to follow the party line, because they were elected to do such.

Re:LOL, no thanks

[ceoyoyo]

The problem is that our society is set up to glorify leaders. Who wants to be the problem solver when your brilliant solution just gets passed up to a leader who takes the credit, gets paid more, and has more freedom?

What we end up with is a whole bunch of "leaders" and a few poor suckers who got stuck being problem solvers... too few to actually solve all the problems.

Re:LOL, no thanks

[squiggleslash]

Plus look at the level of psychopathy on forums like Slashdot, the complete lack of empathy, and the tendency to get suckered in by hucksters like Elon Musk. Not that politicians are immune from the latter (looking at you Rahm Emanuel, who manages actually to be an example of both), but it's a little less common.

As a group we suck. When Lessig had to give up his run at the last election, I breathed a sigh of relief.

I think good, decent, people who have some organizational skills, have lived in variety of different environments, and who have some experience working within their communities to organize them to solve their problems, probably are the best fit for politics. We don't have many of those types of people. To be honest, very few politicians are like that and the few there are (Obama would spring to mind) tend to get integrated into a system that's screwed up by those that aren't.

But adding techies will just make a bad situation worse. We're not qualified, and worse still we vastly overrate our own skills and qualifications. We would fuck up the government even more than it is already, just... differently.

Re:LOL, no thanks

[Humbubba]

I've been thinking about this for a while. Bruce Schneier's admonition for lawmaker technologists and 'public interest technologies' lets me rephrase the dilemma in a more palatable way. The following are my heart felt opinions, i.e., boring and stupid.

"We don't expect legislators to be experts in everything. We expect them to get and accept expertise. The second thing we need is for technologists to get involved in policy, and what we need is more public interest technologists."

1) Should technologists become lawmakers? It's Corporate lobbyists who write the legislation pertinent to their interest these days. Legislators don't just accept technological expertise, they let 'em write the bills, word for word. Ipso-facto, technologists, via lobbyists, are already lawmakers. Surely this isn't news to Bruce Schneier.

Even in court, there's the Frye standard or the superseding Federal Rule of Evidence 702, where an expert's reliably applied scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge is admissible if it helps to understand the evidence.

As for those 'flash points' he mentioned: Apple's shtick is that their products have the best privacy. Of course that upsets law enforcement officers, like ex FBI chief James Comey, who thinks it's better, safer if we have no real privacy at all tech wise. Whistle-blowers like Bill Binney, Ed Loomis and Thomas A. Drake have disagreed, saying it would be better to have telecommunications be 'ThinThread'ed for key words and phrases. And Edward Snowden thinks the public should have a say in the government's data collection policies.

Everyone mentioned above makes well reasoned arguments for their side. Call me paranoid, but even if the FBI/NSA/Whoever could be trusted right now, sooner or later the greedy cheats, thieves and liars will be in place to screw us over. So, I'm for encryption, no back doors and a legal system that doesn't steal our stuff. One for Apple.

2) "My expert is better than yours": the public interest isn't necessarily served by scientists [1]. Back in the day, some of the brightest scientists, like Frederick Seitz and Fred Singer worked for the tobacco industry, misleading the public and the law for decades. Many truly great scientists have gone on to deny climate change, acid rain, CFCs, and much, much more. Even now, if your company has the money, there are eminent scientists out there with enough political clout to obfuscate evidence in any field, and claim whatever "is not settled scientifically."

3) Progress: On 1/20/2019, Fareed Zakaria said that G5 will have as big an impact as the Gutenberg Press. Combined with AI, big data, genetic engineering, and advances in automation, the future looks to be a dystopian merge of Orwell's "1984" and Huxley's "Brave New World". And didn't Elon Musk say he wants us commoners to have a data plugin into our brains? What could possibly go wrong?

4) Reason interrupted: The US Constitution is based on the Enlightenment theories that say a legitimate government must have the consent of the governed, whose reason tells them they are all equal, independent and free to do as they please as long as they don't harm other's lives, health, liberty or possessions. These are noble sentiments obviously made before Darwin.

We are a cunning, sly, adaptive and flawed species, One of our many flaws is that our reason is encumbered. We make choices based on how we perceive things. Losers take more risks than winners. We can be fooled by slight-of-hand or a shill. Big data, psychographics and micro-marketing has made advertising indistinguishable from brainwashing.

Jobs are going away. Right now they are emigrating to other countries. Detroit, once nicknamed "Motor City" because it was the heart of the American auto industry, is now the buckle of the Rust Belt. In 2019, Detroit tops the list of America's Most Dangerous Cities for the forth year running. With over 30% of their population living below the poverty line, Detroit had the highest repor

Double duty

[DontBeAMoran]

He want technical experts to become efficient lawmakers while staying on top of their technical expertise at the same time?

I think he seriously underestimates what it takes to become either one.

And then he says "We don't expect legislators to be experts in everything. We expect them to get and accept expertise.". That is the real problem we need to fix. If an expert tells you that you can't crack encryption because of mathematics, stop fussing like a spoiled kid who's not getting what he's asking for.

Re:Double duty

[Anonymous Coward]

He want technical experts to become efficient lawmakers while staying on top of their technical expertise at the same time?

I think he seriously underestimates what it takes to become either one.

And then he says "We don't expect legislators to be experts in everything. We expect them to get and accept expertise.". That is the real problem we need to fix. If an expert tells you that you can't crack encryption because of mathematics, stop fussing like a spoiled kid who's not getting what he's asking for.

Lawmakers are used to lying and being lied to so of course they assume that the experts are just trying to handwave the issue by saying "it's unbreakable because of math" in order to avoid helping the government.

Re:Double duty

[Red_Forman]

Troy: What's wrong with me?
Zaius: I think you're crazy.
Troy: Want a second opinion.
Zaius: You're also lazy.

Re:Double duty

[DontBeAMoran]

This is probably what we'll end up with, or at least something along those lines, since it's the only way to satisfy both requirements: privacy rights against corporations and thieves and lawful access for governments.

Re:Double duty

[geekmux]

He want technical experts to become efficient lawmakers while staying on top of their technical expertise at the same time?

I think he seriously underestimates what it takes to become either one.

I would have to agree with you, and question Bruce's logic here, since he's not exactly ignorant of either technology or law.

I often have to explain to non-IT executives the importance and challenge every IT professional faces throughout their career to simply maintain proficiency. I often equate it to an accountant being forced to take the CPA exam every 3-5 years, or a lawyer being asked to do the same thing for the Bar.

You can automate both of these professions only so much. Asking a professional to maintain both is being ignorant of human capacity.

Re:Double duty

[getuid()]

You don't need to be the best there is, but you need to be proficient in both to be able to evaluate correctly what an expert is telling you and whether it's a fact, a well-funded professional opinion (out of many possible), or just plain BS.

It's not exactly like you don't need to spend every day in court as a lawyer, *and* spend every of your nights debugging as computer programmer. Knowing one discipline well enough to make it your main occupation while having a solid foot in the other is possible, sufficient, and necessary.

In the end, humans are not exactly insects; we *are* able to specialize in more than one thing, you know...

Captcha: manifold :-)

Re:Double duty

[bluefoxlucid]

question Bruce's logic here, since he's not exactly ignorant of either technology or law.

That happens once in a while. He's one of the foremost information security gurus in the world, but he still backs paper ballots as if they're magic. He won't even have a conversation about systemic problems in proving paper ballot integrity, in the lack of auditability of paper ballots, and so forth.

When such experts speak, people follow. That gets us HR1, the Black Box Voting Act, which threatens to cripple our democracy by expanding vote-by-mail not just to those with disabilities and other accessibility issues, but to everybody.

Imagine you go to vote. They use paper ballots.

You walk in, they have a box that was put there the previous night. It's black, sealed, and nobody can look inside. The box is also hidden behind a curtain.

You fill out a ballot, go behind the curtain, cast a vote.

Then they take the box out of the room and come back three weeks later with a different box filled with ballots that definitely came out of that box and haven't been altered. They count those.

That's vote-by-mail.

If 20% (a lot!) of votes by mail are tampered and 0.1% of votes are cast by mail, then 1 in 5,000 votes are tampered. If 50% of votes are cast by mail, that's 1 in 10. It matters.

Meanwhile, the paper ballots are the record, and they're transferred by a chain-of-custody, held in secure trust, etc.. If you open the ballots up to recount, whatever they say is the correct record.

That's not an audit trail. You don't have record of the contents of the ballot box; only that a ballot box with contents was handed off. We can duplicate or reverse seals readily enough.

To really provide an audit trail, you need data. Records that prove a set of ballots came from a particular polling center. Those records need to be produced in a manner in which the public can verify the election is not tamperable right up to the point of producing those records, and then can record those records themselves.

For plurality, you just use vote counts, as you can sum them; but plurality is hackable by adding candidates (strategic nomination).

For ranked ballots, the amount of data grows factorially with the number of candidates. It's impossible to prove ranked ballots without a computer involved. That means you need universal verifiability for electronic voting--this is a harder problem, but one I've explored; nothing today achieves this, although it's trivial to achieve.

HR1 of course outright prohibits the use of electronic records as an official count against the paper record. It doesn't make an exception when using systems of established universal verifiability.

So we've got a bill for establishing the tyranny of black box voting and insecure elections. Fucking great.

Re:Double duty

[Bengie]

All the technical expertise you ever need to know was made back in the 60s and 70s. You don't need to keep up to date with the latest variant implementation of some 60 year old concept. The fundamentals of computing have not changed since the 1600s when the first programmers became. A few centuries later, there was finally some machines to automatically run their code.

Re:Double duty

[J053]

The problem isn't whether or not crackable consumer-grade encryption can be made - of course it can. The legislature could mandate that any consumer device sold with encryption capabilities must be crackable by authorized law enforcement, and companies would have the choice of complying or losing the total market in that jurisdiction. The problem, and the question, really is, is this a good idea?

It's a fundamental conflict between those who believe

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

is an absolute, and those who are so concerned about "safety" and "security" that they are willing to allow the security forces to suveille all of the people, all of the time. This is a political (and possibly social) question, not a technological one, and technologists would be no help in trying to answer it.

Re:Double duty

[geekmux]

question Bruce's logic here, since he's not exactly ignorant of either technology or law.

That happens once in a while. He's one of the foremost information security gurus in the world, but he still backs paper ballots as if they're magic. He won't even have a conversation about systemic problems in proving paper ballot integrity, in the lack of auditability of paper ballots, and so forth...

You bring good points here (I did read your entire post), but I have a feeling Bruce was merely defending the lesser of two evils (ironically not unlike the candidates). If you think we have less accountability with paper ballots, we are marching towards no accountability with e-voting machines that have proven to be insecure as hell. At least a paper ballot tampering process takes real human effort. History has shown that all it takes is one hacker to manipulate millions of records in seconds once a database is compromised, and at the rate we're going, the American voting system will be fucking cloud-based soon. Or run by Facebook.

Sadly, I worry more about the selection of idiots we're putting on the ballot than the voting system itself. Tampering won't really matter if we're forced to choose between Mama June and Yeezy.

Re:Double duty

[bluefoxlucid]

we are marching towards no accountability with e-voting machines that have proven to be insecure as hell.

Current systems are broken. It's possible to establish something more-secure than paper (a lot more secure); and the primary attacker isn't hackers (we can trivially exclude hackers), but the electoral authority (extremely difficult to exclude). It's a big effort, though.

Sadly, I worry more about the selection of idiots we're putting on the ballot than the voting system itself

It's up to the people to decide; and that gets manipulated by the broken electoral systems we use, notably party primaries and single-vote systems. IRV is also easy to manipulate (it's a lot more effort and strategy than plurality, but I've developed the exploit to a fair degree).

Single Transferable Vote (multiple-winner) and Tideman's Alternative (single-winner) are near-impossible to manipulate, even with social media propaganda attacks. I've used those to assemble a highly-representative, manipulation-resistant electoral system called Unified Majority.

I'm going to write two books, one about sabotaging elections and one about securing elections. Maybe then, after it becomes clear any group of half-stoned college kids can hijack an election just by attacking the voting rule, people will get it through their heads.

We need mandatory diversity in government.

[Anonymous Coward]

The background of far too many legislators is the law, others are involved in business at a management level.

Relatively few are in medicine, engineering, or even retail.

They are distant and remote from the concerns of the citizenry.

We would be better off with a random lottery.

IT people need to be great IT people

[WCMI92]

Doing anything else inhibits you from being the best you can possibly be. I have been in the business since 1994. Congress is also a full time job.

Bill by the hour

[monkeyxpress]

The engineers that make the most money for their firms are the ones that find simple solutions to complex problems.

The lawyers who bill the most money for their firms are the ones that find complex solutions to simple problems.

In a business environment where profit is the driving motive, these two professions have wildly diverging motivations. If you don't believe me, just look at the mess that is patent law.

Re:Bill by the hour

[mr.mctibbs]

I'm a law student, and I've been a software developer for ten years, and this is a bad take. Efficient lawyers find the *best* solutions to their clients' problems. If the client makes it complicated, the solution's gonna be complicated. In both domains, the mark of a skilled professional is that he can help the client to identify what his real problem is and how it can be solved, and to advocate the best solution based on his experience.

Being lawmaker is worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets take a look at this week alone...

If you read/vote for a bill/amendment from the opposing party, you will be put on a list to be "primaried" and removed from office.
Declaring anti-Semitism as being wrong is unacceptable for a lawmaker now.
Having a stance that a live born baby should be protected is unacceptable.
You have to support KKK member Northam in VA.
You have to support serial rapist Fairfax in VA.
You do anything they don't like, they will investigate you and anyone who has ever helped you to attempt to jail them.
ICE now performs pregnancy tests on all 9+ year old girls coming across the border illegally, and if you think this might be a problem that should be fixed your party will attempt to remove you from office.

You would have to be literally insane to want to be a Congressperson in DC at this point.

Re: Being lawmaker is worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is talking about DOA births. Stop with the bulkshit deflection. The left voted that it is ok to actively murder a child who survived an abortion attempt and is now outside the womb. Post-natal abortion is murder. How old are you? Maybe we should extend the law to cover 12 year olds so you can be aborted for your stupidity.

Re: Being lawmaker is worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we were calling the NY law that passed horrific.
Followed by the Senate vote that the DNC refused to protect live born infants because their definition of being born is "When you take the baby home" -Feinstein.

But thanks for the strawman, I bet you thought you were effective and didn't expect someone to call out your lies.

Re: Being lawmaker is worthless

[squiggleslash]

You're right, it is sick to make people do that journey. Which is why we should probably stop fucking up countries and turning them into war zones run by tin pot warlords, so they don't have to leave.

But as long as we do fuck up their countries, and as a result they have to flee terror and violence, and as such they do make that journey, we should let them in, because it's the only humane thing to do. Not separate the adults from their kids and torturing the latter, while throwing out the former, but, you know, give them asylum, and bring them to the many parts of our nation where they can contribute and make a difference.

But I suppose you'd join Trump in preferring our country decay into a white supremacist dystopia.

Double distrust

[swillden]

Voters are distrustful of politicians, and laypeople are distrustful of technologists. In both cases it's because politicians and technologists have power, whether through the legislative and bureaucratic processes or whether through application of uncommon knowledge. Layer on top of that the fact that there's a broad segment of the US electorate that is distrustful of educated "elites", which for obvious reasons technologists tend to be, plus the fact that technologists rarely have the sort of people skills needed to win elections.

I think technologists-turned-lawmaker-wannabes are going to have a rough time getting elected.

I think it would be great to have technologically-savvy lawmakers... but I think it's better to focus on electing politicians who know how to find and take good advice about things they don't understand.

What's worse?

[bobbied]

What's worse?

Lawyers writing laws about technology they don't understand

OR

Technical people trying to write legal documents that become laws?

Either way, the result is sub-optimal.

Remember, there is a legal difference between "shall" and "will"; and lawyers are a necessary evil, just like politicians are.

Re:What's worse?

[Opportunist]

How about technical people designing legislation and having a lawyer then making it airtight?

There's no reason for either-or.

Re:What's worse?

[DarkOx]

Remember, there is a legal difference between "shall" and "will"; and lawyers are a necessary evil, just like politicians are.

Yes and that is handled just fine in technical documents. Go read and internet RFC.

In fact we probably should be using something like structured english to write laws.

Dreams of Z10n

[The_Other_Kelly]

Sad to say, but Tech people are in general, unloved, unelectable, ugly realists.

The few insanely rich ones, wish to push regulation and politics to protect their existing business position, not to further technical goals or dreams.

Perhaps if some country, such as Iceland, Serbia, or somewhere peripheral decided, they could promote STEM companies and people with Tax advantages or funding.

Ireland previously did something similar for Creative Art people: no income tax.

But short of building an artificial island, ruled by Techs, for Techs, ... there is little chance of Tech sitting at the Big Table.

Hey! Build it in the Atlantic off the coast, in International waters, then call it: Atlantis!

Re:Social Justice is a Unicorn Fantasy

[Red_Forman]

You cannot force idiots not to be dumbasses.

Moar Scientists

[cordovaCon83]

Luckily, Americans have More scientists getting elected to public office every election cycle.

Not my job

[LordHighExecutioner]

I prefer to become a lawnmaker, thank you.

That's called a technocracy,

[jenningsthecat]

and HELL NO! We DON'T need more Silly Valley-type incursions into government. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. People whose working lives are centred on technology tend to think technology has or is the solution to all problems. The sorry fact is that technology is the rampant source of many of our problems. Facebook, Google and the like need to be controlled and brought to heel, not egged on by tech-savvy fanbois who gain legislative power and try to realize their juvenile tech-topian visions. And AFAICT the tech sector has jack shit of relevance to say about the challenges we face as a result of increasing automation and the advent of true AI. That's a whole other discipline (or set of disciplines) that needs to be developed - tech definitely needs to be at that able, but they sure as shit shouldn't be anywhere close to running the show.

I'd be really interested to read what Cory Doctorow says if he decides to weigh in on this.

Re:That's called a technocracy,

[Sir_Eptishous]

Yes, and Technocracy is quite possibly the greatest punk/thrash crossover album of all time

This ecological atrocity finally
Caves in on itself...perhaps it's
All for the better
Lock your doors and say goodnight
As toxins leach out of sight
We're living in the new age
Of electronic security
Technocracy probable cause
Technocracy bending some laws
Living in fear making something
Of yourself is making fifty grand a year
The technology that spawned
Our every convenience
Creating more and more poison
Pledge of toxic allegience
Technocracy probable cause
Technocracy bending laws
All American clones
On and on their sermon drones
Rabbit at your career
It goes on all around you
Part of this insanity
Working for the technocracy
Technocracy probable cause
Technocracy bending some laws
There are limits to growth on this planet but
There is no limit to your Greed
or potential
to Exploit...
the end of Suffering
or just an Eternal scream

Technology Changes Nothing!

[oh_my_080980980]

“Corporations have basically control over free speech and censorship regardless of laws,” he said.

This has ALWAYS been true. Technology does not change this, it just makes it easier to do. Restricting speech and controlling behavior have been activities that corporations have ALWAYS done.

Look at Monsanto and how they prosecute farmers that want to re-use seed that is spilled on the ground. Monsanto claims that is theft.

Look at John Deer and other manufacturers that prosecute people who try to repair their tractors and claim intellectual property theft.

Technology did not introduce a new set of behaviors. Technology did NOT create a legal vacuum. You have a legal system that defers to corporate interests. This was not brought about by technology. This attitude is a philosophical one. It only changes when people challenge it.

One does not need to be a technologist to do so.

How About Replacing Politicians with AI's?

[silvergeek]

At the risk of deviating too far from topic, how about replacing politicians with AI's in the not-too-distant future? Not a new idea, though. I recall an Isaac Azimov short story that implied that an automation could be a more fair judge than a human judge. And, I believe a human/AI combo could do much greater justice than the current norm. Certainly, an AI politician could be designed to be more honest, and in many situations, more rational. In these times of perpetual political lies and stupid impulse decisions at the top, the AI concept is starting to look more reasonable, and safer, to me.

Re:How About Replacing Politicians with AI's?

[Sir_Eptishous]

I recall an Isaac Azimov short story that implied that an automation could be a more fair judge than a human judge.

This is already happening.
There is judicial software used by the courts in some districts that recommends whether someone should get parole or not.
Judges and courts are already using this. And there have been instances of regrettable early releases of violent offenders.

Be careful what you wish for.

Good luck

[Opportunist]

Trying to compete with lawyers (and yes, most politicians are lawyers) in their field is not easy. As soon as you become a threat, and since you don't know how to cover your ass against a legal onslaught from them, you will be gone.

Not to mention that I have real work to do. I can't sit on my ass and do nothing, leave that to the lawyers, as long as they do that, at least they don't cause worse harm.

Re:Can we shut these people UP!

[Opportunist]

You certainly have a good reason why, too, right? You just didn't present it so far because ... reasons.

Re:Not just NO, but HELL NO

[Opportunist]

I have met lawyers. I have met technologists. I can say in good faith that on average the latter have more humanity in them than the former.

I wouldn't want Zuckerberg to run my country. Then again, I wouldn't want a lot of what now runs the country to run it either, so... I honestly can't say what's worse.

Re:Perfect

[Opportunist]

I'd rather have them join forces. Technologists could explain why laws can't work on a technical level, lawyers can explain why they won't work on a legal level and if they work together, there's a chance that the result is a law that DOES actually work on both levels.

Bad idea

[TimMD909]

I write software for a living, as many of us do, and I think this is a terrible idea.

Our first implementations are almost always buggy. They're also often blind to myriad scenarios that we disparagingly call "edge cases" (since we're usually unwilling to admit we didn't think it through enough). We all like doing iterative approaches where we tweak things to see what happens, and which things break. If something is not working perfectly, we tend to throw the whole thing out to start over from scratch. We can often obsess about a narrow range of things, while completely missing the larger picture.

That's not a good approach when dealing with human lives.

In my estimation, a good compromise would be a great politician who also has nerdy hobbies/interests. I'm thinking of someone who was able to program the VCR for his/her parents as a child/teenager. I want someone who understands the technology enough to use it well, and enough knowledge of the underlying principles to not view everything as magical black box.

Re:Bad idea

[fish_in_the_c]

"ur first implementations are almost always buggy. They're also often blind to myriad scenarios that we disparagingly call "edge cases" (since we're usually unwilling to admit we didn't think it through enough). We all like doing iterative approaches where we tweak things to see what happens, and which things break. If something is not working perfectly, we tend to throw the whole thing out to start over from scratch. We can often obsess about a narrow range of things, while completely missing the larger picture."

How is that any different from law? Have you seen the health act in the united states? most laws have a myriad of unintended consequences that cause damage to other people. I would argue that the best laws are based on solid morality , not solid technology, but many people here only believe in the morality one choose rather then an absolute morality, so that doesn't work either.

Regulation is coming. Lets have good regulation

[mmkhd]

Too many comments here miss the point of what Bruce says:

Regulation is coming!

If technologically savvy people do not get engaged then technologically illiterate people will make the rules.
You could become a politician, but you can also support lawyers, politicians and (the right) lobbyists.

But no matter what, regulation is coming!

The internet and technology play a bigger and bigger rule in our daily lives and that makes regulation inevitable.
I am sorry if this offends your belief in freedom, libertarianism, small government, or whatever. Where many people become engaged there need to be rules that govern those social and economic relationships.
Wasn't "bureaucracy" an achievement in Civilisation or some similar game? Letâ(TM)s create small and few rules.

Regulation is coming ! (thank you game of thrones)

Re:Perfect

[Kernel Kurtz]

I'd rather have them join forces. Technologists could explain why laws can't work on a technical level, lawyers can explain why they won't work on a legal level and if they work together, there's a chance that the result is a law that DOES actually work on both levels.

The fact a law won't work on any level is in no way an impediment to its passage.

Politicians need to LISTEN TO THEIR ADVISERS!

[Rick Schumann]

I cannot believe that politicians and police don't have qualified technical advisers to consult with on highly techical subjects. What I do believe is that they are not listening to them! They need to start listening.

Wrong problem

[AmericaRunsOnDunkin]

You're solving the wrong problem. The issue isn't that policy makers don't understand the technology. The issue is that they don't care how the technology works.

To use the iphone example - the FBI has very smart technical analysts. They are fully aware of how hard it is to break strong encryption. That's why they want Apple to make phones that are easy for them to access. Not because they misunderstand encryption. Because they value their ability to access suspect's data more than the public's ability to protect their information.

IOW it's a clash of values. One side values privacy above crime fighting, the other doesn't. No amount of technical knowledge will resolve the problem.

Re: Ha, ha, ha!

[ArmoredDragon]

What's most telling is that he's looking for "technologists" (my god what a stupid word, more on this later) who want social justice. Then for good measure, he asks for people who want to work for the common good and public interest.

Personally, I don't know of any lawmaker who doesn't think that they aren't doing the latter two, including the ones that ultimately work toward their own benefit. Furthermore, social justice is mutually exclusive from the other two. The idea behind it is to pay lip service to making everybody equal, except for the political elite, who deserve a special status for gracing us with their political enlightenment, and what you really end up with is Venezuela: A once prosperous country that now can't afford to wipe it's own ass despite sitting on black gold while dear socialist leader eats caviar. Even if you somehow had both social justice and prosperity, you'd just end up like that movie equilibrium.

Now, more on his call for technologists: Personally I had to look up that word just to clarify what his intention is. Google defines it as an expert in a particular technology field without specifying what kind of technology (I get the feeling they're referring to information technology exclusively.) The first link (Wikipedia) expands that to just about anything relating to science, in addition to one mention of what would involve policy decisions. The second link limits it to information technology again, but also gets philosophical and almost religious, sounding a bit like another dumb word meant to sound grandiose: Scientologist. The third expands to all sciences, but says technologists work with their hands while engineers direct, plan, and design but not actually build.

In other words, there really doesn't appear to be a commonly understood meaning of that word. Given this Bruce Schneider uses it to refer to information technology, it's pretty obvious that he's just thinking in terms of what is most relevant to himself. And given he's calling just for the ones who want social justice, it's pretty clear that he's thinking in terms of his own political ideology.

So basically, here's what Bruce Schneider is saying: "I want more people like me, who will work towards my priorities, to be in office!". Gee, I wonder who else would want the same thing? Everyone, perhaps?

Technologists are too politically biased

[Hillie]

There is no way I want current technologists to be lawmakers. At least not the ones currently leading the charge. That would be Twitter, Facebook, Google.. All who are left leaning, some in radical ways. Google was helping China build it's social networking system. That is treason, and yet they were allowed to do it.

Look at all the stuff going on now with Twitter and Facebook banning conservatives left and right. All of the tech CEOs lied to Congress, and now Vijaya Gadde from Twitter is making statements on Joe Rogan's podcast that are completely false, and Tim Pool destroying them.

And then here's the other thing I didn't see (though haven't watched all of it).. When Joe said that there's hundreds of examples of white people getting mocked, she said mocking isn't the issue. Harassment is. Then he says okay well there are tons of examples of white people having racist tweets hurled their way. She says "Racism isn't the issue, again it's harassment" .. and then she applies the rules across the board. This is a LIE.

There are countless tweets, many probably still in existence where a bunch of liberals said things, for example, that Covington high school should be burned to the "mother f***** ground" with the kids locked inside. At the same time I tweeted something like "If anyone believes something like that they need to be slapped" .. I got slapped with a 12 hour suspension and was forced to delete the tweet in order to start the jail time and then get back on Twitter.

It's just absolute bunk and there is no way we can let them make the laws. They've turned the Internet into an authoritarian's dream by having a monopoly over the public square of the Internet.

And by the way, she kept repeating "targeted harassment" "targeted misgendering" ... Saying "Men aren't women" isn't targeted and neither is what I said.. I didn't tell anyone YOU need to be slapped.. Nor was I harassing them.. Vijaya accurately defined harassment as targeted, continued unwanted attention.

So saying your opinion is not harassing someone. Asking a woman out or giving her a compliment is not harassing someone. This was the slippery slope of 5-10 years ago with the Hollaback movement where they were saying that a guy asking a girl out is harassment and then basically saying it's cat calling. And basically everything is cat calling now. Ben Shapiro asking AOC to debate him is cat calling. Yes. An orthodox jew who is 100% practicing and is married with two children is cat calling another woman when the ten commandments expressly prohibits adultery. And Ben Shapiro is not a douche bag. So no. He's not cat calling you. but I digress.

I have always said that lawmakers need to learn the tech but the reason they need to learn the tech is because the tech people are lobbying for stuff that they want which is basically corruption. They want to do things to hijack the rights of developers or hackers or what have you, and law makers don't know a toaster oven from a Gigabit router. At least they didn't.

The solution though is not to have people like Vijaya Gadde or Jack Dorsey become lawmakers. That is taking the middle man out of corruption.

To be honest I think that other things are much more important right now than AI.

Re:Technologists are too politically biased

[Hillie]

1. Posting as Anonymous Coward. nice.
2. Stating the truth isn't bias. Thank you for showing highlighting your political affiliation by inverting fact and bias/opinion.

See stuff proven by factual evidence. You know like. Stuff that has actually happened, and it can be verified as truth by recorded or corroborated facts, testimonies, videos, etc. evidence.

Bias is like, when you tend to judge things with a strong emphasis using your personal position in either politics, a romantic relationship with the subject/person/etc. to heavily influence your decision.

Such as Twitter's banning of conservatives for a molehill, while allowing Mt. St. Helens of tweets from democrats and leftists to stay without so much as a warning or any kind of anything negative at all. not even a slap on the wrist.

Oh it's not just that but .. yeah the dismissing what I wrote as a wall of text.. either whether due to ignorance of not wanting to "read too much" or whether to "insult me" also highlights your intelligence level and combined with the rest, your political affiliation as well as your age.

Thanks for playing!

Phht

[argStyopa]

I'd be happy with a lawmaker that just read their own flipping emails, instead of having them printed out and laying on their desk each morning.

The average age of congress is 59 (House 58, Senate 62); this means that these people were forming their basic political ideas/views during the Cold War, the mid 70s oil crisis, post-Vietnam malaise as well as economic stagnation in the US, if not earlier.

FWIW average age of UK's house of commons is 50. House of lords is 70. Curiously this puts parliament OLDER than the US Congress at avg 61 due to the crazy number of eligible lords (800).
Germany's bundestag is avg 50.
France's parliament is 49.

We don't want that job.

[Areyoukiddingme]

The last thing any technologist wants to do is answer the tech support phone all day long. You get nothing but demands from the stupidest of people. Being a politician is that, all day every day. And you want us to volunteer for this, Bruce? Are you mad?

And what is a law but documentation of procedures. Do we do that? I mean I know we're supposed to, and we say we will, and we really do intend to write those header comments. Any day now. But let's get real. A brief survey of Github will show you that most code isn't commented, and half of those that are have a doxygen comment that's nothing more than repeating the name of the function with some spaces in it.

And finally, have you looked at politics in the world today? Why would anyone, nevermind a technologist, volunteer for that shit show? When the media in the country will see to it that you will be outright hated by 30% of the population the moment you open your mouth, and viewed with suspicion by another 30%, I can't imagine participating. That sort of thing really wears on a person (except for sociopaths and psychopaths, and we know how this turns out don't we...).

Wow, what an idea

[execthis]

What? Elect public officials with technical competence and aptitude over idiot dumbasses whose only major skill is to run a successful mass-marketing campaign?

The level of technological and scientific incompetence in public officials up to and including high offices is frankly embarrassing and at the same time catastrophic in terms of actual consequences.

Re:Wow, what an idea

[ceoyoyo]

I agree with your assessment, but I think the degree of incompetence in non-public leadership is even more catastrophic.

Politicians ==Lawyer

[bongey]

An attorney, cross-examining the local coroner, queried, "Before you signed the death certificate had you taken the man's pulse?"

"No," the coroner replied.

"Well, then, did you listen for a heart beat?"

The coroner answered, "No."

"Did you check for respiration? Breathing?", asked the attorney.

Again the coroner replied, "No."

"Ah," the attorney said, "So when you signed the death certificate you had not taken any steps to make sure the man was dead, had you?"

The coroner rolled his eyes, and shot back "Counselor, at the time I signed the death certificate the man's brain was sitting in a jar on my desk. But I can see your point. For all I know he could be out there practicing law somewhere."

one smart cookie - Technologist title arrives

[AndrewFlagg]

at last, we now know who and what we are... Technologists.... whoever came up with that one back in 1940s is one smart cookie.. oh wait.. his name is Winston Purvine, Oregon State System of Higher Education applied it to graduates of Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls Oregon https://www.oit.edu/libraries/... http://digitallib.oit.edu/digi... . PDF - Page 5 (attribution) good stuff. more to come..

Re:Perfect

[AndrewFlagg]

the law is just critical thinking on steroids with a bunch of procedural BS that gets in the way of resolving conflicts and telling or hiding the truth.

314 Action

[Misch]

I'm under the impression that 314 Action is out there to work on this effort, and had some successes in the last election.

So much wrong with this

[Baleet]

There is intelligence, there is knowledge, and there is wisdom. Wisdom is required for leadership. And probably a lot of other characteristics, but fundamentals of wisdom and good leadership are unchanging--that's what makes them fundamentals.

Wisdom is now, as always, in short supply. Just look at some of the comments below--from intelligent, capable people, but people whose expertise is not in leadership, and who are, frankly, too young in most cases to have acquired much in the way of wisdom, which necessarily takes time to acquire.

"Politicians are bad": This is another chestnut that I saw in the comments below. Well, politicians may not be perfect, but neither is democracy. If you want a better government, what are you doing about it? In a democracy, just like in an open source project, you have the option of taking some action. It is easier to complain, so that is what most people do.

Re:Perfect

[Hognoxious]

Who will explain why a particular law is a bad idea in the first place?

Re:Perfect

[Opportunist]

No, but an impediment to it working as planned. Of course you can pass all sorts of ridiculous laws, but all you get that way is a useless legal body that eventually nobody takes serious anymore.

Re:Perfect

[Opportunist]

Anyone identifying it as a bad law. Then a discussion about it can start.

What have we tried already?

[Gonoff]

We have tried politicians with 'classical' educations. They lumbered our system with Greek and Latin. They derided us for being ignorant of what they considered important and took pride of their own ignorances.

We tried lawyers and ended up with appalling legal loopholes everywhere.

We tried ones who work in the media and ended up with the media taking over society.

We tried TV "personalities" and ended up with Trump and Brexit.

Now it is suggested we get politicians who understand aspects of the modern world. Based on past selection criteria, we need to be careful...

But only one sort of technologist it seems.

[sabbede]

"Public interest technologists" is a bit of a nebulous term. One might think that "public service technologists", or, "public policy technologists" would have been more precise.

That "public interest technologists" is defined as "those who focus on social justice, the common good, and the public interest", is, once we ditch the recursive loop, half neutral but also half partisan-buzzword.

As only one party wastes time promoting that meaningless bit of vacuous twaddle, it seems Schneier only wants one party to benefit from technical expertise. An honest call would have been couched in non-partisan, non-ideological terms. This is partisan.

Re:Perfect

[Hognoxious]

Sounds great - in theory. Do you know if it's ever been successfully tried in practice?

Aptly enough

[TeknoHog]

Finnish government was dissolved today. PM Juha Sipilä was known as an engineer who wanted to lead the country as if it were a tech business, with little regard to constitutional law.

Re:Perfect

[Opportunist]

No, of course not, who cares if a law is good or bad? All a law has to do is please the ruling party or parties, that has nothing to do with its quality.

That's not how it works.

[JThundley]

That's not how it works. What we need is rich, good technologists to lobby politicians to do the right thing. Finding good, incorruptible people is the real problem that needs to be solved, and it's hard to do that when step 1 is to bribe a politician.