[161453] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: WW: Bruce Schneier on why security can't work
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (oscar.vives@gmail.com)
Fri Mar 15 07:33:47 2013
In-Reply-To: <9051372.9866.1363283782699.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
From: " ." <oscar.vives@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:33:12 +0100
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 14 March 2013 18:56, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/03/security-when-the-bad-guys-have-tech=
nology-too-how-do-we-survive/
>
> Three words: "desktop gene sequencing", "ebola", "script kiddies".
>
> I dunno how to fix it either.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
This is a problem for the future to solve. Not us.
In bioweapons, I think we are still on the "happy hackers era", where
people in a biochemical laboratory in Liverpool have access to some
fungus that can wipe half the city, but don't do, because have a lot
of fun studying the fungus to learn new antibiotics, or maybe to cure
baldness. Scientist are, of course, hackers. Fun people that make
this question: Exploitability. Can this fungus be used to cure
baldness? Can this fungus be exploited to remove plastic from our
oceans?.
Exploitablity is a fun good word, and I never see a person like Bruce
Schneier talk about it (how fucking awesome is exploitability). So
reading people like Bruce Schneier you only get half the picture.
We exist only because the carbon based chemistry is exploitable to the
x900000. If carbon where less exploitable, like silice, maybe life
will not exist. Similary, maybe you need exploitability to have a
internet.
--=20
--
=E2=84=B1in del =E2=84=B3ensaje.
