What's new arround internet
| Src | Date (GMT) | Titre | Description | Tags | Stories | Notes |
 |
2018-08-20 16:06:46 | DeGrasse Tyson: Make Truth Great Again (lien direct) | Neil deGrasse Tyson tweets the following:I'm okay with a US Space Force. But what we need most is a Truth Force - one that defends against all enemies of accurate information, both foreign & domestic.- Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) August 20, 2018When people make comparisons with Orwell's "Ministry of Truth", he obtusely persists:A good start: The National Academy of Sciences, which “…provides objective, science-based advice on critical issues affecting the nation."- Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) August 20, 2018Given that Orwellian dystopias were the theme of this summer's DEF CON hacker conference, let's explore what's wrong with this idea.Truth vs. "Truth"I work in a corrupted industry, variously known as the "infosec" community or "cybersecurity" industry. It's a great example of how truth is corrupted into "Truth".At a recent government policy meeting, I pointed out how vendors often downplay the risk of bugs (vulnerabilities that can be exploited by hackers). When vendors are notified of these bugs and release a patch to fix them, they often give a risk rating. These ratings are often too low, in order to protect the corporate reputation. The representative from Oracle claimed that they didn't do that, and that indeed, they'll often overestimate the risk. Other vendors chimed in, also claiming they rated the risk higher than it really was.In a neutral world, deliberately overestimating the risk would be the same falsehood as deliberately underestimating it. But we live in a non-neutral world, where only one side is a lie, the middle is truth, and the other side is "Truth". Lying in the name of the "Truth" is somehow acceptable.Moreover, Oracle is famous for having downplayed the risk of significant bugs in the past, and is well-known in the industry as being the least trustworthy vendor as far as security of their products is concerned. Much of their policy efforts in Washington D.C. are focused on preventing their dirty laundry from being exposed. They aren't simply another vendor promoting "Truth", but a deliberately exploiting "Truth" to corrupt ends.That we should exaggerate the risks of cybersecurity, deliberately lie to people for their own good, is the uncontroversial consensus of our infosec/cybersec community. Most do it, few think this is wrong. Security is a moral imperative that justifies "Truth".The National Academy of ScientistsSo are we getting the truth or "Truth" from organizations like the National Academy of Scientists?The question here isn't global warming. That mankind's carbon emissions warms the climate is truth. We have a good understanding of how greenhouse gases work, as well as many measures of the climate showing that warming is occurring. The Arctic is steadily losing ice each summer.Instead, the question is "Global Warming", the claims made by politicians on the subject. Do politicians on the left fairly represent the truth, or are they the "Truth"?Which side is the National Academy of Sciences on? Are they committed to the truth, or (like the infosec/cybersec community) are they pursuing "Truth"? Is global warming a moral imperative that justifies playing loose with the facts?Googling "national academy of sciences climate chang | Guideline | APT 32 |
1
We have: 1 articles.
We have: 1 articles.
To see everything:
Our RSS (filtrered)
