[Discussion] discussions & debates videos

videos with subject matter more suited to d&d than everything else. to be discussed and / or debated, with offshot threads if discussion on a particular video or subject warrants it.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Probably the best vote for me ad I've ever seen.

Wow. Message and production quality are outstanding.

I am sure there is a bunch of Texas voters thinking the helicopter wouldn't have crashed if a man was the pilot. I agree this ad is excellent but at three and a half minutes the only people who will ever see it are people online who would vote for her anyway. There is no way this is breaking through the insulated republican bubble.

Yeah, great message and seemingly great candidate but a really slow burn. A better ad company would have tightened that the f' up.

That is outstanding! It's especially outstanding that the highest rated comments are telling off the trolls.

I was also pleased to see her mention that she really enjoyed some of these movies, reminding us once again that we can enjoy some media, even though parts of it may be problematic.

My hometown police showing their professionalism.

http://www.unionleader.com/mancheste...

I wonder what they're high fiving and bro slapping about? /rhetorical

Schneier talking about his new book about cyber security and policy issues.

Mixolyde wrote:

Schneier talking about his new book about cyber security and policy issues.

It's interesting to me that he promotes government regulation as the solution after he points out the fundamental problem: governments are terribly self-interested entities when it comes to technology. No one trusts the NSA to certify something as secure, because they have a vested interest in it not being secure. No one trusts Chinese-produced hardware because their government has been known to compromise it. Nothing is going to change that in the forseeable future, and thus government regulation of technology is untrustworthy in a way that far exceeds other fields. This has been repeatedly demonstrated over the last few years with Equifax, Facebook, Stuxnet, and numerous other incidents.

Further, adding more punitive regulation to this space hurts actual security, which relies on openness. Its been shown time and time again that closed-source corporations will hide vulnerabilities and refuse to disclose incidents to avoid embarassment, so imagine the lengths they will go to in order to avoid serious financial penalties. (And those lengths, of course, will still be far cheaper than actual security, in exactly the same way that lobbying is always cheaper than competing). For a perfect example, look at the current state of voting machines. We do not want all software development going down that road.

Further, he's wrong about what the market offers currently. The market doesn't just offer bottom-of-the-barrel insecure products. Instead, it offers an huge spectrum of products in a wild variety of forms and functions that address all different kinds of good-fast-cheap tradeoffs. It's absolutely possible to obtain and use software and products that are reasonably secure, but there are costs to that (and often not monetary ones). In fact, most of the actually secure software in the world is free software, developed in an open collaborative model.

And that's the way it should be. People should be able to make their own choices about their own security needs, and balance their own needs against the costs.

Because, as we all know, the market and corporations only ever operate in the best interests of their customers.

And the government is a singular body with only one purpose.