We're potentially about to elect (assuming the primaries stay the course) one of (a) a gentleman who thinks that technology can magically just do anything asked of it or (b) a lady whose desire to use a personal Blackberry led to (at best) ignoring basic information security risks.
Despite my political leanings, and as much as I hate to admit it, I'm tempted to choose the pragmatic candidate with a business degree over the ignorant candidate with a law degree.
Btw, what is it with lawyers mistaking laws for truths? They seem to look at the world through some bizarre Borges lens where physics needs follow law instead of the other way around.
> Btw, what is it with lawyers mistaking laws for truths? They seem to look at the world through some bizarre Borges lens where physics needs follow law instead of the other way around.
Haha. I don't think anyone is trying to legislate that gravity lighten up so we can use less fuel to move around. ;-)
I'd venture it's because technology and science moved so quickly that many people still don't understand things that you consider basic. For example, I have a lot of respect for people who are artistic and spiritual. I recently tried out meditation and realized there's a whole world I've been missing. I think the same can be said of science. Some people just don't want to learn it.
That should be alright within our current system. But, in cases like this where the technology (encryption + internet) goes from near zero usage 20 years ago to more than 50% usage today, it's tough to make sure our government gets it. The average age of our representatives is around 58, so none grew up with the internet or computers. And, it's been made so easy that you didn't need to understand it to use it. So we have many people using something that most don't understand. And we have not yet been in many situations where our civil rights depend upon having representatives who understand it.
I'm probably oversimplifying but that's how I make sense of it. The way forward is to educate the public and our representatives. Hopefully over time we have more people in office who either understand such critical security issues themselves, or have a connection to someone who does.
We're potentially about to elect (assuming the primaries stay the course) one of (a) a gentleman who thinks that technology can magically just do anything asked of it or (b) a lady whose desire to use a personal Blackberry led to (at best) ignoring basic information security risks.
Despite my political leanings, and as much as I hate to admit it, I'm tempted to choose the pragmatic candidate with a business degree over the ignorant candidate with a law degree.
Btw, what is it with lawyers mistaking laws for truths? They seem to look at the world through some bizarre Borges lens where physics needs follow law instead of the other way around.