[Cryptography] Trust & randomness in computer systems

J.M. Porup jm at porup.com
Wed Mar 16 18:57:03 EDT 2016


On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 09:07:59AM -0700, Henry Baker wrote:
> I've come around to Dan Geer's way of thinking:
> look to biological systems.  They've been dealing
> with "security" problems for perhaps 2 billion
> years, so there's some chance that they have
> some tricks up their microscopic sleeves.
 
With all due respect, Dan Geer works for the surveillance 
state. After six months of reading his posts to various 
mailing lists, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that 
everything he says must be parsed through a spook filter to 
figure out how whatever view he espouses promotes espiocracy 
at the expense of political liberty and democracy.

> For example, it would seem that cell "suicide"
> is a lot more common than previously thought.
> If a cell determines that it has been overwhelmed
> by forces that it cannot control, and this is
> a threat that can overwhelm other cells, as well,
> it will commit suicide in an attempt to stop a
> pathogen from spreading.  Ditto for individual
> plants and animals; the survival of the species
> is more important than the survival of the
> individual.

This is an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. By this 
logic, the kill list ("Disposition Matrix") can be justified 
as "a little light pruning." Better to kill America's 
political enemies and justify it as in the interest of the 
species than to actually give people the freedom they were promised.

Only by holding the rights of the individual inviolate can society
restore and maintain the ideals America was founded on. Until then, 
the virus of empire rules the day.

jmp




More information about the cryptography mailing list