

Matt Blaze's Congressional Testimony on Crypto Policy [pdf] - bgentry
http://www.crypto.com/papers/governmentreform-blaze2015.pdf

======
mg1982
I. Hate. PDFs.

You have to connect to download it, so why not just put it on the web?! Link
to the pdf from there if you simply must.

That is all.

------
chatmasta
Bullet points, please.

Convincing explanations of complex technical topics are necessarily concise.
Mr. Blaze, by using so many words, fails to be concise. Thus he also fails, as
he put it, "to minimize his attack surface." Every additional word he types is
a new vulnerability in his argument. Attackers use vulnerabilities to exploit.
Thus verbosity renders an argument vulnerable to exploitation by attackers.

In politics, in particular, attackers run amuck, transacting amongst each
other with exploitation as currency. Arguments are the system of politics, and
the same security principles apply to both arguments and systems. As Mr. Blaze
points out, maximizing system security requires minimizing system attack
surface. The same applies to arguments. Maximizing argument security requires
minimizing its attack surface. Literally, minimizing its word count and
verbosity. The most concise arguments are the most secure.

The arguments worthy of attack are generally one in a pool of many competing
arguments. Important issues generate discussion with arguments on both sides.
Stakeholders present these arguments and fund their agenda.

Naturally the future of national security infrastructure is an important issue
with money on both sides. Attackers are everywhere.

The number of attackers in this game ensures that any vulnerability risks
exploitation. Therefore the "natural selection" process of competing arguments
will select for the most secure arguments, with the minimal attack surfaces.
The most concise arguments will win, purely by minimizing their attack
surface.

Mr. Blaze fails to "minimize his attack surface," as he puts it, because he
uses so many words. Every word is a new vulnerability in his argument.

I agree with many of his ideas but I wish they were presented more concisely.
In fact the phrase "explain it to my grandmother" might apply here,
considering the average age of influential congressmen and senators. I worry
they will miss many of the critical portions of Mr. Blaze's argument, and
simplify it by listening only to the parts they understand. When they discuss
among themselves, Mr. Blaze's voice will lost. He could avoid this by writing
more concisely.

(How ironic is this comment, eh?)

~~~
sirseal
Are you serious? You are incapable of reading and understanding an 8 page
document? Or learning general strategies of where to find summary information
(hint: the beginning and end of every paper).

There's a lot of information loss when you try to fit an idea into a list of
points.

And yes, your comment is quite ironic since it is incoherent, unorganized,
lengthy, and ultimately, sounds like nothing more than a bunch of whining.

~~~
chatmasta
> Are you serious? You are incapable of reading and understanding an 8 page
> document?

Where did I say that senators do not understand? I am not implying senators
cannot read.

Senators do not generally have security backgrounds. So they turn to experts.
The senators remain responsible for interpreting the expertise. They must
consider all input within a wider context that includes other stakeholders.

When the senators discuss the legislation amongst each other, they consider
the inputs of all stakeholders. They need to condense all they learned from
the experts into legislation. This requires balancing the biases of
conflicting expertise. How do the senators handle the inevitable situation
where telecom experts pitch an argument that conflicts with that of Mr. Blaze?

The best marketed idea will win. Experts are salesmen and their ideas are
their products.

All I'm saying is that when the experts pitch their ideas, the senators are
vulnerable to the same uncontrollable subconscious factors as everyone else.
If an idea comes to them packaged with marketing expertise, it will have an
advantage over any competing ideas.

Bullet points are good because they're good marketing.

