

Schneier: The Dishonest Minority: Security and its Role in Modern Society - FilterJoe
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/05/status_report_t.html

======
ChuckMcM
"But none of these systems, with the possible exception of some fanciful
science-fiction technologies, can ever bring that dishonest minority down to
zero."

This is a concept that is very useful to internalize. In systems its the 'no
subsystem will operate 100% correctly all of the time' in social justice
scenarios its 'there will always be people who are poor'.

While the first part of that "things break" or "shit happens" to be
colloquial, is accepted easily the latter 'there will always be poor people'
is less easily so. But as Schneir has eloquently pointed out in his thesis
statement humans are just another system composed of independent actors who
are nominally out for the collective good.

Understanding this core systems concept can really help you understand where
you will need to focus systemic processes or tools which will maintain the
systems primary function.

~~~
ender7
I fail to see what connection the article has to poor people. Poor people are
neither "uncooperative" (indeed, they tend to occupy some of the most
cooperative jobs where they are told what to do and then do it), nor
"parasitic" (they tend to work very hard at jobs that benefit society), nor do
they deviate from the "social norm." Nor, in many societies, are they a
minority.

I suspect you have confused poor people with criminals, dissenters, or
activists.

~~~
awj
No, he's just shifting from Schneier's original point out to "no system will
operate 100% correctly", then from there to economic inequality.

~~~
ender7
Schneier's original point is "every cooperative system will always contain
parasitic elements; while these elements can be deleterious to the correct
functioning of the system, they are also a critically important source of
diversity and change."

If all the reader gets out of the article is that "systems never perform at
100% efficiency" then they are ignoring the entire point of the article. As
such, the root post seems to be hijacking the topic rather than talking about
what Schneier actually said.

~~~
hugh3
The poor _are_ a parasitic element, if we're talking about the same "poor".
I'm not talking about the hard-working folks who bring in a crappy wage
because their skillset sucks, I'm talking about the folks who have decided
that it's a better idea just to stand on a street corner with their hand out
hoping to take advantage of the compassion of others.

~~~
anigbrowl
If by poor you mean lazy, then say lazy. Right now you are poor in karma
because you were too lazy to articulate your idea more clearly, and have
obviously offended several people enough to get downvoted. I wasn't one of
them, but statements like 'the poor are a parasitic element' are pointlessly
antagonistic.

------
joelangeway
It's interesting that so many commenters take issue with the term "dishonest
minority." I agree that honesty is usually the best policy, but I would lie to
the Nazis about the Jews in the addic. This is the value in the dishonest
minority and the conflict that the term implies to people who equate
dishonesty with evil is central to the point.

~~~
wazoox
Schneier is Kantian, here. He probably has read the "Critique of practical
reason." Let me tell you of the debate between Benjamin Constant and Immanuel
Kant in 1797 IIRC, after the Critique's publication.

Kant affirmed therein that lying, as a general rule, is always wrong. Constant
contradicted this idea, asking : how should you manage the case when someone
comes to you and ask for protection from some bandits about to kill him, then?
Shouldn't you tell the truth to the violent mob, that the guy they're looking
for is indeed hidden in your closet?

Kant replies that the right thing to do is to lie to protect the innocent, but
knowing that it's as a constrained exception to the absolute rule : "you
should not lie". The fact that you commit a wrong for a greater good doesn't
entirely excuse the wrong or alter the rule.

Most people, however, fail to adhere to this subtle analysis. Hence their
displeasure with the word "dishonest".

~~~
silverbax88
The issue that I have with the term 'dishonest minority' is that it isn't
accurate in the groups that he is attempting to describe. I love his
underlying concepts, but inclusion of all rule-breakers as 'dishonest' is
problematic.

The issue isn't whether lying is wrong or right. The issue is whether breaking
a man-made rule is always wrong or right. "Dishonest" is not as accurate as
"insubordinate" when including all murderers who break the law in with someone
who blocks traffic to protest civil rights injustice. They are both breaking
the rules, but is the second person actually 'dishonest' or rather, non-
compliant?

The overall issue is that it's pretty clear the term 'dishonest minority' was
chosen for the shock value, not accuracy. In a technical book that seems so
promising, using a carnival barker tactic to raise interest seems to belittle
the underlying content.

~~~
rst
Schneier himself makes the same point even more forcefully. Quoting:

"The term 'dishonest minority' is not a moral judgment; it simply describes
the minority who does not follow societal norm. Since many societal norms are
in fact immoral, sometimes the dishonest minority serves as a catalyst for
social change. Societies without a reservoir of people who don't follow the
rules lack an important mechanism for societal evolution. Vibrant societies
need a dishonest minority; if society makes its dishonest minority too small,
it stifles dissent as well as common crime."

~~~
silverbax88
The usage of the term 'dishonest', is, by very definition, a moral judgement.
Saying a word means something else doesn't make it true.

~~~
Goronmon
But if the author redefines a word within the context of an article or other
piece of work, it seems a tad trite to continue to complain about how it's use
doesn't agree with some standard definition.

So yes, I would argue saying a word means something can make it true with the
context of the author's writing. It basically becomes variable declaration at
that point.

Do you disagree?

~~~
silverbax88
Yes, I disagree. Because what you are describing is what's known as 'informal
logic'.

If I can convince someone that something is true, such as "red is equal to
blue", even when it isn't, then it allows an entire logical argument to be
built on that falsehood. The argument may be perfectly sound as long as
everyone agrees with the original falsehood.

If I say 'red is equal to blue' and you agree, then I can follow up and say,
'bulls must, therefore, get angry when they see the color blue'. This is a
silly example but it's commonly used in politics and newspapers daily.

I might accept that an author could redefine a word temporarily, in some
instances of fiction; however, never in a technical or nonfiction work could
this be considered acceptable or even credible.

~~~
Goronmon
I guess I'm not understanding your perspective.

From my perspective it seems you are being overly rigid when you are
complaining about the usage of the word 'dishonest'. And I don't find your
example useful because I believe it's triviality ignores what makes arguing
over the definition of a word difficult in the first place.

Plus, from my perspective, I'd have no problem with the statement "bulls must,
therefore, get angry when they see the color blue" if "blue" was previously
redefined as meaning "red".

~~~
UnFleshedOne
Not to nitpick, but bulls are color blind...

------
tzs

        All complex systems contain parasites. In any system of cooperative
        behavior, an uncooperative strategy will be effective -- and the system
        will tolerate the uncooperatives -- as long as they're not too numerous
        or too effective. Thus, as a species evolves cooperative behavior, it
        also evolves a dishonest minority that takes advantage of the honest
        majority. If individuals within a species have the ability to switch
        strategies, the dishonest minority will never be reduced to zero. As a
        result, the species simultaneously evolves two things: 1) security
        systems to protect itself from this dishonest minority, and 2) deception
        systems to successfully be parasitic.
    

That would be a pretty good description of IP. IP is in economic terms non-
rival and non-excludable. It turns out that a free market does not work for
goods that are non-rival and non-excludable (by "work" I mean reach a
theoretical optimal allocation of resources to production). We developed a
cooperative behavior in order to make it so a free market would work for such
goods--basically by _PRETENDING_ that IP is rival and excludable.

Some chose not to cooperate, and ignore that. As long as they are not too
numerous, the system as a whole does not break down. The majority pretends
that IP is rival and excludable, so pay creators for their creations, and
creators get paid roughly in proportion to the demand for their works, and
thus creators tend to create the works that the consumers want.

DRM has been developed to attempt to limit the effects of the uncooperative,
and the uncooperative have developed systems to try to make it harder to
detect piracy.

~~~
chc
I would argue that it's a subset of the IP holders who are the parasites here,
using their wealth to increase their rights beyond what is reasonable and in
the interests of those with whom they are supposed to be cooperating. Piracy
is the reaction Schneier mentions to the noncooperatives becoming too numerous
and too effective. DRM is yet another strategy to limit the rights of those
who continue to cooperate.

~~~
A1kmm
There is more than one kind of parasite.

Copyright and other intellectual exclusion (IE) laws were introduced in good
faith to ensure that (1) it is rational to undertake intellectual endeavours
and (2) the number of people who benefit from intellectual endeavours but
don't support its development is limited.

Then the background against which IE had been written changed; now, some IE
holders began to abuse their monopoly (a form of parasitic behaviour), and
they came to informal understandings with lawmakers (who also put their own
personal interests ahead of the collective interest, which is again parasitic)
to strengthen the IE laws.

The real problem with IE laws is that as more people use intellectual works,
the value to society increases, but due to the exclusionary nature of IE laws,
they discourage widespread dissemination. The best solution would be a
separate parallel economy for intellectual works where all consumers pay an
amount from the primary economy that doesn't depend on how many intellectual
works they consume, but producers receive an amount that depends on how much
utility consumers directly or indirectly extract from their work (in
proportion to all other intellectual works). That would open a number of
difficult issues, and current parasites under the IE scheme have amassed
enough power to resist it strongly, so I doubt we would see it any time soon
even though it would be collectively beneficial.

------
stretchwithme
Unfortunately, the dishonest minority has learned to disguise itself and move
into enforcing things that benefit the state at the expense of the populations
it feeds upon. With democracy and a lot of influence by government over the
media, it can often even dupe those populations into thinking that the
population is in control and are the beneficiaries.

------
seanalltogether
While not related specifically to security, I've always been fascinated with
the fact that Japan recognizes their 'dishonesty minority' the yakuza as
legitimate organizations. While most countries run around declaring war on
their black market parasites, Japan has allowed them to slice of their piece
of the pie and avoid the nastiness.

~~~
guelo
That's not unique to Japan, criminal organizations have been able to gain
differing levels of legitimacy and tolerance in just about every society, from
the current Russian government to the American mafia in Nevada to too many
examples of corruption around the world to list. And no, it is not
commendable.

------
zipdog
It's interesting to jump between his opening comment on society 'tolerating'
the uncooperatives (as long as they're not too numerous or too effective) to
his end-point that the dishonest minority serves as a catalyst for social
change.

His statement of toleration of uncooperatives doesn`t seem to capture that
society is better off with some of them (the dissenters) and that its actually
in the interests of the governors to tolerate a certain amount of
uncooperatives - not just because it overly onerous not to, but because
otherwise stagnation will make the whole society vulnerable to an outside
competitor.

~~~
zaphar
His statement of toleration wasn't meant to illustrate the fact that society
is better off with some dissenters. The two facts:

    
    
       * Society tolerates a certain level of dissension
    
       * Society is better off with a certain level of dissension
    

are not necessarily connected, other than their focus, and one does not
necessarily imply the other. They can be viewed as two distinct facets of the
phenomenon he is exploring.

------
unwind
All I know about publishing is from reading Charles Stross' blog (especially
[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2010/04/common-m...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2010/04/common-misconceptions-about-pu-1.html)), but doesn't
manuscript-submit in November 2011 and publishing in February 2012 seem
awfully fast?

~~~
tlb
It also seems very slow. Why does proofreading and typesetting take more than
2-3 days?

~~~
rprasad
Manuscripts come filled with errors, and it takes a lot of time to find all of
them and correct them. Errors include punctuation, spelling, grammar, word
choice and even style. It's not just something you can leave to a speedreader
or a computer program.

Typesetting is the precursor to (web) page design. There's a lot of work
involved. Programs like Adobe inDesign streamline the tedious aspects of page
design, but not the work that goes into actually _designing_ the look of each
page.

------
bh42222
Bruce seems to be associating dissent with sabotage here: _Vibrant societies
need a dishonest minority; if society makes its dishonest minority too small,
it stifles dissent as well as common crime._

I disagree with this vehemently. Dissent is _not_ crime.

And his argument that society needs a bit of dishonesty is also a bit odd. I
see it as something any large cooperative system is doomed to end up with.
This is also what his first paragraphs explains. And I think there have been
software simulations which show how both "criminals" and "cops" naturally
arise in a complex cooperative system.

I think his attempt to link dissent with crime and dishonesty is a terrible
way to defend the need for dissent.

~~~
pmichaud
Dissent IS crime though. For example, stealing is dissent from the accepted
notion that property can be owned. It's an assumption so baked into your brain
that you accept it implicitly, but it's not a law of physics or anything.

Any deviation from the rules of the system is a challenge to those rules. I
think the distinction between crime and dissent in your mind is actually just
whether you agree with the person doing it or not.

Civil Rights activists were criminals. Until they weren't.

~~~
hugh3
_Dissent IS crime though. For example, stealing is dissent from the accepted
notion that property can be owned._

That proves crime is (in some loose sense) dissent, not that dissent is crime.

Besides, stealing generally doesn't come from a dissent about the nature of
ownership. The average thief doesn't believe that property can't be owned --
he knows that you own your property, and he intends to make it _his_ property.

 _Any deviation from the rules of the system is a challenge to those rules. I
think the distinction between crime and dissent in your mind is actually just
whether you agree with the person doing it or not._

Well no, because:

a) "Rules" != laws" -- breaking "rules" isn't a crime while breaking laws is,
and

b) You can quite easily _disagree_ with the law without breaking it. I think
it should be legal to serve alcohol to eighteen-year-olds in the state of
Kansas, but I've never done it.

~~~
tlb
Merely disagreeing with a law doesn't lead to eventual change. You have to
break it more and more visibly until they prosecute you, and then get enough
people to rally around you and win the case, and the appeal, etc.

~~~
hugh3
_Merely disagreeing with a law doesn't lead to eventual change. You have to
break it more and more visibly until they prosecute you, and then get enough
people to rally around you and win the case, and the appeal, etc._

No, that's _one_ way of changing a law, and I generally don't think it's the
best. The best way is to go round persuading people of your case.

If you declare that it's morally alright for folks to break laws just because
they happen to disagree with them, then the biggest problem you encounter is
that folks' opinions on what laws are unjust are often just plain wrong. For
instance, if Fred Bloggs believes that it should be legal to beat up queers,
then he's perfectly entitled to that opinion, and to try to use his free-
speech rights to persuade others that we ought to change the law so that it's
legal to beat up queers. But it doesn't make it on some level okay for him to
start beating up queers.

Or a more morally neutral example: some people think we should drive on the
left, some people think we should drive on the right. But civil disobedience
is _really_ bad way to sort that one out.

~~~
oconnore
What do you propose for a group of people who have little to no political
power, and are being oppressed by some current law? They can run around
telling people their argument all day long, but it is protests, and civil
disobedience that have always forced those in power to address their
grievances.

In regards to you gay-bashing example, civil disobedience is by definition
non-violent. If a law was passed that required people to give gay people high
fives, and Fred Bloggs chose to refrain, THAT would be civil disobedience.

------
mkramlich
Based on the quality of the author's writing and the clarity of his thinking,
I'm looking forward to reading that book. His book Applied Cryptography was
one of the best written CS books I've ever seen.

------
chopsueyar
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Sr>.

