Bruce Schneier will be the featured guest on the Scott Horton Show, Thursday, April 10, at 12:15PM Eastern.
Bruce Schneier will be discussing his article on Wired.com from June 14th, 2007 titled, "Portrait of the Modern Terrorist as an Idiot."
Bruce Schneier is an American cryptographer, computer security specialist, writer, and author. He is the author of several books on computer security and cryptography including Applied Cryptography and Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World. He is the founder and chief technology officer of BT Counterpane.
The Scott Horton Show airs Monday through Friday from 12PM-2PM Eastern on KAOS 92.7FM. Additional feeds and archives available at Antiwar Radio.
Schneier is fine…but the show is 2 HRS…. What about IMPERATO?
You had Gravel…. What about Imperato? Do you fear this man so much that your denying him airtime on your show?
The Airwaves belong to the PUBLIC – or aint you heard?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltTZDUXTI3w&feature=related
Is there a hidden meaning is this somewhere?
Angela and Scott, we all appreciate that ya stream live on the Internets (as Bushie says) but isn’t it time you get that live video feed? I mean if Stern has one why not you?
You could get one similar to Goyette’s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dw1xzbAruU
And talk to Anders bout that video feed. Dude can do anything.
Uh, no.
OK but ya gotta admit that thing Anders did is pretty funny.
Make sure to ask him about REAL ID which he has written quite a bit of.
The article he mentioned from Rollingstone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18137343/the_fear_factory
Dang, this guy sure ain’t an economist.
Being in part a liberal hippy type myself, who would like to to save the world and to do good. The energy and drive to make a difference can be usurped by evil powers that want to misdirect it as has happened with the Save Darfur fund, ( most likely a CIA mind control program, or maybe a fund by people who profit off mis-channeling the liberal desire to make a positive difference)
This all became clear to me one day while listening to Democracy Now
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/6/4/mahmood_mamdani_on_darfur_the_politics
MAHMOOD MAMDANI: And I’m struck by the innocence of those who are part of the Save Darfur—of the foot soldiers in the Save Darfur Coalition, not the leadership, simply because this is not discussed.
Let me tell you, when I went to Sudan in Khartoum, I had interviews with the UN humanitarian officer, the political officer, etc., and I asked them, I said, “What assistance does the Save Darfur Coalition give?” He said, “Nothing.” I said, “Nothing?” He said, “No.” And I would like to know. The Save Darfur Coalition raises an enormous amount of money in this country. Where does that money go? Does it go to other organizations which are operative in Sudan, or does it go simply to fund the advertising campaign?
AMY GOODMAN: To make people aware of what’s going on in Darfur.
MAHMOOD MAMDANI: To make people aware of what is going on, but people who then, out of awareness, give money not to fuel a commercial campaign, but expecting that this money will go to do something about the pain and suffering of those who are the victims in Darfur, so how much of that money is going to actually—how much of it translates into food or medicine or shelter? And how much of it is being recycled?
Good program. Do more shows like this…….economics and foreign policy are boring after a while. Good way to expand your audience.
Two camps trying to influence McCains foreign policy, wonder what the arguments are ? one group wants to nuke Iran the other wants to just use more orthodox ways of annihilating more brown people.
Thanks, Anders. is it any wonder that he can’t keep his lies straight?
Angela and Scott, we all appreciate that ya stream live on the Internets (as Bushie says) but isn’t it time you get that live video feed? I mean if Stern has one why not you?
It is not part of Gunrah’s plan that we be seen by mortals.
…Gunrah? I thought ya meant Gurrah Shapiro.
Responses to Bruce Schneier: Right on computer security issues, 180-degrees wrong on politics.
Wrong 1) “Private security can’t work because of switching costs”: He is right in bringing up the existence of lock-in and switching costs for consumers of private goods and services. It is expensive to switch your computer operating system, and perhaps this biases his viewpoint excessively (as a computer nerd). However his very own argument of switching costs defeats his argument for government security.
With government there is NO opting-out, and there is effectively NO ability to switch providers. He argues that you have the vehicle of ‘democracy’ to affect policy change, but realistically, this does nothing to change policy in any meaningful way, and it does NOT equal the ability to fundamentally DROP the provider. Once you have a FBI, TSA, FDA, EPA, NSA, BATF, CIA, HUD etc etc in place, the democratic process can NOT get rid of them. You HAVE NO opt-out; the switching costs are unmeasurably high (violent revolution), so the services tend towards miserable and actually harmful. You actually get corrupt, expensive, harmful and even deadly “ANTI-SERVICE”.
I could go on but i’ll spare y’all the full rant.
Wrong 2) Private companies externalize costs wherever they can, hence private airline security is impossible.
Refutation A: If this were the case, then private security of any kind would be impossible. B: A society that respects property rights (libertarian or anarcho-capitalist) minimizes externalities by making private individuals and companies truly responsible for damages. As opposed to the current system, where polluters get a free ride by following regulations and bribing regulators to implement their chosen policy, in a libertarian society the courts award damages based on property damage and loss of life: in an anarcho-capitalist society private insurers negotiate damage settlements based on the same.
The existence of the externalities Schneier names are a product of the inherent, systemic failures built-in to the government monopoly on protecting individual rights (life and property).
God, i can’t stop. What a hypocrite.
The man is SELLING SECURITY for chrissake, and then says “no, you can’t trust private corporations for security”.
Where is my giant +4 frozen trout club of nerd-slaying.
U.S. on the left.
Liked the show. I could picture you having a chain smoking binge afterwards, though. Hell I wanted to wolf down a Camel light, and I haven’t touched a cig in ten years, after hearing that guy rip on libertarians.
I notice that you have been in the pattern lately of inviting well-known lefties on the show, then putting in discreet and well-placed plugs for libertarian writers and thinkers for new listeners (i.e., brainwashed leftie college kids who are vaguely discontent with being a leftie–e.g., unwittingly open to if not actively searching for something more philosophically sound) to read about.
pupnik and others;
The Libertarian approach to things like security would work a lot better if corporations always did what was in their best interests; especially in their long-term best interests. But of course they don’t. If they did, we wouldn’t have the crisis in bad loans and mortgages that we have. We wouldn’t have had Enron. Atari would still be the biggest name in video games. The “Big Three” auto makers wouldn’t have gotten their ass kicked by the Japanese in the 80s. Corporations are often plagued by short-term thinking that places emphasis on the next quarterly report, with no one thinking of the future. That’s a fact.
How does this relate to airline security? Because five or ten years from now, when there hasn’t been a terrorist attack in a long time and the urgency of security has faded from everyone’s memory, and when the airlines are in financial trouble again and need to cut costs, some bright young executive at an airline will say: “You know, security is costing us a lot, and the threat can’t really be all that bad, because there hasn’t been an attack in a long time. Better cut back on that”.
I worked in the airline industry for years; before, during, and after 9/11. Schneier was right: If you want to see what private airline security would be like after 9/11, look at what it was like before 9/11. I did. It was shit. Way worse than the TSA in every way. It was a nickel and dime operation run by the sort of outfits that give the term “low bidder” its well-deserved bad connotation.
Tell you what – if you can guarantee me that the only plane that would get hijacked by someone taking advantage of security on the cheap would be an airplane full of airline executives, and the only place it would ram into would be the headquarters building of an airline, then I’ll say fine – it’s entirely their risk to take. If you cant, then fuck you – I’ll take the TSA, warts and all. And yes, I say that as someone who got searched by the TSA virtually every day of my life for several years.
That said, the guy was wrong on arming airline pilots. One accident (that one pilot’s gun going off in flight) does not a bad program make, and his assertion that pilots shouldn’t “come out of the cockpit blasting” is based on an understanding of the program that is just factually wrong. Again, I worked in the industry and I know the program and its training. Pilots are not to come out of the cockpit during a hijack attempt or any other security threat under *any* circumstances, and are not to draw or use their weapons unless a hijacker has actually penetrated the cockpit door. At which time Mr. Schneier’s suggestion to an unarmed pilot would be to do what, exactly?
The point is that people who attribute both mystical power and mystical virtue to the state and those who attribute both mystical power and mystical virtue to the market are both deluded ideologues. Both of those institutions have pluses and minuses. There are limitations on both and things that both should not be trusted with. Neither is the answer to all of humanity’s problems. They serve best as checks and balances on each other, along with other institutions like churches, labor, and free a press.
You are entitled to your opinion Negrol.
I\’ll give it this: it\’s probably shared by the vast majority of Americans–most of them kind decent and hardworking.
But I\’ll remind you about the major difference between governments and markets. You personally choose how to govern yourself with markets via contracts, agreements, transactions. With the State, others govern you whether you agree or not with what they do to you.
One way is based on persuasion and choice, the other is based on force. Which do you prefer?
“the next quarterly report”
Who mandates that corporations have to report every quarter? The State. And who controlled security before 9/11? The State. They were private contractors, but the rules and regulations of the FAA mandated their every move or lack therof. It was a crime to resist hijackers that day. The heroes of flt 93 were all in violation of federal law for not waiting patiently in their seats for the plane to be taken to Cuba.
Meanwhile, the TSA has stoled – how many millions of dollars worth? – of property from Americans, killed at least one frightened and innocent man for – get this – getting off the plane, they’ve no-fly listed thousands of innocent people, and every time they do a test, the cops are able to sneak through any weapons or explosives they like.
Because the government doesn’t feel that financial pinch, they will keep wasting money doing everything but protecting people from terrorists.
And I’ve never seen, at least over here at Stress, anyone ascribe mystical power to the market. There is nothing mystical about it whatsoever. Libertarianism is about how humans relate with one another in the real world. Mysticism is for Sunday mornings with your preacher.
Negrol,
I understand what you’re saying. I probably would have said the same thing about a year and a half ago. But now I’m convinced that the State causes vastly more problems than it solves. It is the State, after all, that has put us in this bind over Airline security, not the free market. It is the State, through its years and years of violence and mayhem, that makes us even have to worry about terrorists, on planes or elsewhere. You could be right and private firms might bungle the security job too. But at this point I see the problem as one big festering sore that cannot be covered by either a private or State-sponsored bandaid. The solution is to get the State out of our lives. Permanently. It’s putting our survival in jeopardy.
Look, I’m normally the one defending libertarian ideas and corporations to my left-leaning family. I’m always the one saying that the difference is that a corporation can’t send men to break down my door, stick a gun in my face, and haul me away to prison if I don’t do what it likes. If I don’t like the way that Wal-Mart does business, I can pledge that it won’t get another dime of my money. If I do the same with the government, they haul me away to prison. If I don’t like the way that Disney treats its employees, I can simply decide not to work for them. If I do that with the government draft board, they haul me away to prison.
I nearly started a riot once at a holiday dinner when I pointed out that it wasn’t any corporations, but governments that ran the Soviet gulags, rounded up the Jews of Poland, invaded Tibet, shot college kids at Kent State, invented waterboarding, raped Nanking, pointed thousands of nukes at cities full of people, or turned Cuba into a 43,000 square mile prison.
But let’s get real. Schneier’s best point of all was when he said that what keeps a society stable and honest is different institutions in life – “mutually distrusting” as he put it – all keeping an eye on each other and keeping each other honest. The government, churches, business, a free press, labor – all of them are necessary in society, and none can be allowed to become too powerful at the expense of the others. History is rife with examples of the bad shit that happens when they do.
Scott; yes, the government requires corporations to file quarterly reports. And if it didn’t, they would anyway, because investors like to know how their investment is going. Which means that the same pressures would exist without the government.
Secondly, the idea that the government is responsible for the fact that the airlines hired bottom of the barrel incompetents to run pre-9/11 security is junk. The airlines could have hired someone better, and more expensive. They didn’t. They could have pushed the FAA to institute more restrictive security rules. They didn’t. Like Schneier, I’m not saying that the TSA is perfect, or where it needs to be, or couldn’t stand a lot of improvement. I’m saying that there are times when the fox guarding the henhouse just ain’t good enough.
When Enron collapsed, my dad went on and on about how we needed more government regulation. I told him we didn’t, and that Enron actually proved why we didn’t. Enron was a case of the market working exactly as it was supposed to. They ran their business badly, and their punishment was that they went bankrupt. The people hurt were Enron employees and Enron investors – all of whom took their chances on Enron of their own free will and weren’t complaining a bit while they were riding high.
But Enron was different, for two reasons. First is that when the actions you take, or fail to take, can severely negatively affect me just walking on down the street minding my own business, not having contracted with you for anything of my own free will, then the character of things changes. The majority of the people who died on 9/11 hadn’t decided to take their chances with American or United for anything that day – maybe never had and never would. They were never given the option to risk or not to risk their lives on whatever security measures United or American thought were good enough. They just showed up to their office for a day at work. Thus, the libertarian argument about choosing things of one’s own free will and accepting the consequences doesn’t apply.
The second is that the character of the argument changes with the magnitude of the consequences. Yes, it does matter that Enron’s failure just cost people money, but that failure on 9/11 resulted in the deaths of thousands of people – incinerated, crushed under rubble, making the choice to jump a thousand feet out of a building because it was better than burning alive where they were. Sorry, not everything adds to to a cash payout. If someone’s mommy is never coming home, there isn’t a check that can be written to make restitution for that. Therefore, a higher level of care is needed.
Is the TSA a higher level of care? Hey, I made as many jokes about Thousands Standing Around or the Three Stooges Administration as anybody when I was in the industry – and they were justified. But a higher level of care than what we had before 9/11? Hell yeah they are.
Last point – there’s an old couplet that goes “Tis always tempting to impute/Unlikely virtues to the cute”. Well, it’s always tempting to impute unlikely virtues to whatever it is you like. When I talk about “mysticism”, what I mean is the tendency of some libertarians to impute unlikely virtues to the free market. Like I said, what makes a corporation superior to a government is not that it is a better institution per se, but that I have a greater ability to walk away from it when it’s bad. Imputing virtues beyond that to a corporation is as deluded as singing the praises of the Great Leader.
But let’s get real. Schneier’s best point of all was when he said that what keeps a society stable and honest is different institutions in life – “mutually distrusting” as he put it – all keeping an eye on each other and keeping each other honest. The government, churches, business, a free press, labor – all of them are necessary in society, and none can be allowed to become too powerful at the expense of the others. History is rife with examples of the bad shit that happens when they do.
–You don’t need government to be one of those things.
Scott; yes, the government requires corporations to file quarterly reports. And if it didn’t, they would anyway, because investors like to know how their investment is going. Which means that the same pressures would exist without the government.
–Really? They didn’t before the government – the most short sighted, non-consequences facing institution of all – required that business become as short sighted as them. Sometimes it might be right for a business to suffer for a year or two to do the r&d it takes to keep the place going long-term. Government makes those kind of choices much more difficult.
Secondly, the idea that the government is responsible for the fact that the airlines hired bottom of the barrel incompetents to run pre-9/11 security is junk. The airlines could have hired someone better, and more expensive. They didn’t. They could have pushed the FAA to institute more restrictive security rules. They didn’t. Like Schneier, I’m not saying that the TSA is perfect, or where it needs to be, or couldn’t stand a lot of improvement. I’m saying that there are times when the fox guarding the henhouse just ain’t good enough.
–Government has not succeeded in doing a single constructive thing with airline security since they seized it. All they do is exclude innocent people, steal shit, frisk old ladies and little girls, make everyone take off their stupid shoes and otherwise get used to being the state’s little bitches. They haven’t protected anyone from anything. They are the fox. This whole country is their henhouse. And if the FBI had bothered making it clear what danger they were in, the FAA didn’t mandate acquiesence in the face of hijackers and if the Congress wasn’t ready to absorb all their losses for them – that is, without all the government intervention – the airlines would have had all the incentive in the world to protect their property effectively before 9/11.
When Enron collapsed, my dad went on and on about how we needed more government regulation. I told him we didn’t, and that Enron actually proved why we didn’t. Enron was a case of the market working exactly as it was supposed to. They ran their business badly, and their punishment was that they went bankrupt. The people hurt were Enron employees and Enron investors – all of whom took their chances on Enron of their own free will and weren’t complaining a bit while they were riding high.
–Right.
But Enron was different, for two reasons. First is that when the actions you take, or fail to take, can severely negatively affect me just walking on down the street minding my own business, not having contracted with you for anything of my own free will, then the character of things changes. The majority of the people who died on 9/11 hadn’t decided to take their chances with American or United for anything that day – maybe never had and never would. They were never given the option to risk or not to risk their lives on whatever security measures United or American thought were good enough. They just showed up to their office for a day at work. Thus, the libertarian argument about choosing things of one’s own free will and accepting the consequences doesn’t apply.
–All of those people knew, or at least had every opportunity in the world to know, that they were working in the biggest terrorist target in the world.
The second is that the character of the argument changes with the magnitude of the consequences. Yes, it does matter that Enron’s failure just cost people money, but that failure on 9/11 resulted in the deaths of thousands of people – incinerated, crushed under rubble, making the choice to jump a thousand feet out of a building because it was better than burning alive where they were. Sorry, not everything adds to to a cash payout. If someone’s mommy is never coming home, there isn’t a check that can be written to make restitution for that. Therefore, a higher level of care is needed.
–That’s no different than any other situation where people need security. How many sky marshals are there? 100?
Is the TSA a higher level of care? Hey, I made as many jokes about Thousands Standing Around or the Three Stooges Administration as anybody when I was in the industry – and they were justified. But a higher level of care than what we had before 9/11? Hell yeah they are.
–Why is before 9/11 the standard we must apply? Why not ask how good a job they are doing compared to sanity and reason? “You may not board until I look in your baby’s diaper.” Case closed.
Last point – there’s an old couplet that goes “Tis always tempting to impute/Unlikely virtues to the cute”. Well, it’s always tempting to impute unlikely virtues to whatever it is you like. When I talk about “mysticism”, what I mean is the tendency of some libertarians to impute unlikely virtues to the free market. Like I said, what makes a corporation superior to a government is not that it is a better institution per se, but that I have a greater ability to walk away from it when it’s bad. Imputing virtues beyond that to a corporation is as deluded as singing the praises of the Great Leader.
–Okay, lemme git this straight one more time. Fuck corporations. I fucking hate them. Hate. Evil. Shit. Singing praises of the great leader? I honestly don’t have any idea what the hell you’re talking about. You may have never heard or read a thing I’ve ever said in my life before today or something, but were you to go back, you could never find a single example of my religious devotion to any corporation or even capitalism itself. I am so fucking sick of this argument. “Oh, you think corporations are magic.” “You believe in them like a religion.”
Yes, and all day I pine for American “defeat” in Iraq too.
Please. Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.
I’m a bit late, I just listened to the show today.
The whole argument over quarterly reporting is stupid, it’s sensible whether a regulatory requirement or not. I heard an interview with the CEO? of Pepsi who explained how long their outlook was. I can’t remember what she said exactly, but it certainly wasn’t extremely long term. Maybe a couple of years at most.
Pupnick, Scott and others … where is there an example of a libertarian society in history? Pupnik mentioned what such and such a thing would be like in that society, is there an example or is it theory only?
james,
read this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html
There has never been a perfectly libertarian society, and since libertarianism is a philosophy on interpersonal relations, there will likely never be a 100% libertarian world – any violent crime at all would make it fall short of the ideal.
There has also never been a society whose government obeyed all libertarian law, since that would probably cease to be a government.
There have been societies with varying degrees of liberty and public libertarian ideology. The more libertarian, the more they have tended to flourish. For practically any given area in society, we see libertarian structures and approaches working in some example in history. The first real stock market was very libertarian.
There have also been societies that were mostly, for a while, stateless:
http://libertariannation.org/b/history.htm
thanks, I will read them