Slashdot Mirror
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.
[...] 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.
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.
#DeleteFacebook
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.
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.
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
“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.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
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)
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.