ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
So many politicians, bureaucrats, and pundits are proposing weakening our crypto to allow searches by law enforcement without understanding the issue, that I thought it'd be good to have a quick reference to explain why this is a bad idea. Feel free to copy this and send to politicians, news reporters, or anyone else you think needs to know this.
The Ten Commandments of Encryption Policy
- In Applied Cryptography (2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1996), Bruce Schneier wrote: "There are two kinds of cryptography in this world: cryptography that will stop your kid sister from reading your files, and cryptography that will stop major governments from reading your files." Therefore, anything that allows our government to read our messages will automatically put our crypto into the "kid sister" category.
- Anything that allows government to read your message will also allow hackers to read your message. Cryptography is just math, and math works the same for everybody. It doesn't distinguish between good people and bad, or who has a warrant and who doesn't.
- When strong crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will have strong crypto. The encryption genie is already out of its mathematical bottle. Weakening our crypto so our governments can read it will only make us vulnerable to hacker groups and terror organizations like ISIS, who will have no hesitation about breaking the law to use strong crypto themselves.
- "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" is a very dangerous mantra. Just ask anyone who's had their identity stolen.
- When people talk about giving law enforcement authorities access to our data, remember that they're talking about the same law enforcement authorities who illegally tapped Martin Luther King Jr.’s phones.
- Terror attacks, mass shootings, and mass hackings are all proof that we cannot rely on laws to protect us. We need to protect ourselves with math. Protecting our data is too important to be left to governments.
- Always remember that lawmakers want solutions that are visible, that they can point to and say, "See? It works." But security solutions that actually work are invisible. People go about their lives unaware of the attacks they were protected from. People don't notice the days their house doesn't get burgled.
- Don't be caught up in considering how much security you "need." You won't know how much that is until after the worst happens and it's too late. We need to be able to give ourselves every last bit of security that we can.
- Before you bring up the founders or the Constitution, remember that they themselves often communicated using ciphers. Thomas Jefferson even invented a wheel cipher for this purpose.
- We need to consider the consequences of constant observation. Every bit of human progress began as an idea that most people opposed. The last thing we want to do is make people afraid to express those ideas.
Star Wars models for DAZ
Images of available Star Wars models for your 3D rendering. Note that these are not downloads but, where possible, download links will be on the pages. Some are hi-res characters and clothing for G8 and G3 models, some are simple objects such as vehicles. I'm hoping this will be a fairly exhaustive look at both free and premium models available for Star Wars fans.
$10/month
Separation of Medicine and State
This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately as we live through the COVID-19 pandemic. What's flabbergasting to me is that I see a lot of people claiming that this somehow disproves libertarianism and proves we need government. And it's flabbergasting because, as has been incredibly well-established, this only got as bad as it did because of government screw-ups, from the initial Chinese coverups to the WHO, as well as the CDC's screwed-up testing. But I don't want to talk about the screw-ups. I want to talk about how government interference in medicine prevented us from having the tools we need to mitigate and possibly even cure COVID-19. It's interesting that, from what I've seen, no one has even tried the whole canard about how our founding fathers never could have foreseen this situation when they wrote about our right to peaceably assemble. And I think it's because, even though no one says it, they deep down know the truth: our founders were very familiar with
Why Minimum Wage Proponents Are Pseudoscientists
By viewer request, I'm posting a transcript of my 2015 video "Why Minimum Wage Proponents Are Pseudoscientists." One small problem: the folder on my archive drive that houses the source files got corrupted, so I don't have access to the original graphics. I'll try to describe them as best as I can, but any confusion can be cleared up by watching the original video. So the Minimum Wage debate continues unabated. It doesn't matter that every school of economic thought except the Keynesians agree that Minimum Wage destroys jobs for the very people it's supposed to help. It doesn't matter that it's by far the consensus of labor economists. And it doesn't matter than I've completely destroyed the research showing small Minimum Wage increases having no disemployment effects. Why? Because to lift a phrase from James Randi, they're unsinkable ducks. They're just pseudoscientists peddling their bogosity for the sake of their own political gain, going against every principle of science along
Libertarianism and Property from First Principles
By popular demand, this is a transcript of my oft-referenced video, "Libertarianism and Property Rights from First Principles."
Here's the thing about logic: it's completely objective. There is no "my logic" or "your logic"; there's just logic. So if you have a logical position, then it's an objective argument that stems from First Principles.
First Principles are foundational propositions and axioms that do not have to be defended. As long as your argument is purely from First Principles, meaning that it's linked back to these First Principles with no breaks in the chain and no fallacious reasoning, then you don't actually need empirical e
How To Argue For Tariffs
So I put it to my Patrons what the next video in this series should be, and they picked tariffs. Tariffs are basically taxes on imported goods where there isn't a corresponding tax on domestic goods, also known as "import duties" or "customs duties." With our new president promising to use tariffs to give us an advantage over other countries like China and Mexico, it's more important than ever for statists who support tariffs to formulate their arguments so they are convincing to reasonable people—which, as usual, is what they haven't done.
By the way, this video will be from an American perspective, but the concepts are universal and
© 2016 - 2024 shanedk
Comments0
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In