Schneier's Take: Decoding the Intricacies of Today's Security Landscape

Clive Robinson brought up the “Resonant Computing Manifesto,” a hot topic that’s got the cybersecurity world buzzing in a recent chat, . This manifesto, though lacking a clear reference, has some folks raising their eyebrows. Why? Well, its vague language could be twisted to paint a pretty picture, much like “greenwashing” in the environmental sphere.

The Deception Dilemma

So, who’s pulling the wool over whose eyes? New tech proposals often get a warm welcome, with folks genuinely eager to make a difference. But here’s the kicker: that optimism can be a bit of a trap, especially when we misread or overlook the true intentions of the other side. As Upton Sinclair once said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

Self-Interest and Hidden Motives

This idea isn’t just about paychecks; it’s about all kinds of self-interest, particularly among those who feel entitled. What might seem harmful to many could be seen as an “unquestionable right” by others. This tug-of-war between individual rights and social responsibilities is at the heart of the debate. To really get a handle on this, we need to look at the proposal from all angles—its strengths, its potential pitfalls, and its likely shortcomings.

Critiquing the Resonant Computing Manifesto

The “Resonant Computing Manifesto” has been called out for its pie-in-the-sky vision, which some argue is a bit out of touch with reality. The manifesto suggests that AI will lead us to this utopia, as long as we follow certain principles. But critics aren’t buying it. They argue that current AI systems, like Large Language Models (LLMs) and Machine Learning (ML) systems, aren’t truly intelligent. These systems can’t reason independently; they’re just complex filters that match and add noise, lacking the ability to understand cause and effect.

Key Points to Consider

Tools are agnostic to use: Tools like knives are designed for specific functions and can be used for both good and bad purposes.
Social problems lack technological solutions: Cutting a throat with a knife doesn’t solve underlying social issues; it merely removes a replaceable entity.
The directing mind decides the use: The choice to use a tool for good or bad lies with the directing mind, not the tool itself.
All actions have a defense: The morality of an action is subjective and based on individual perspectives.
Acts of agents are deniable: Corporations often carry out actions through intermediaries, allowing for plausible deniability and dilution of responsibility.

Corporate Responsibility and Deniability

One big issue with corporate actions is the use of middlemen to do the dirty work. This setup allows for plausible deniability and scapegoating, shielding the bigwigs from direct blame. Plus, the use of committees can further muddy the waters, making it tough to pinpoint accountability beyond a reasonable doubt.

Greenwashing and Misleading Practices

Greenwashing is when companies that pollute the environment try to pull the wool over our eyes, making themselves look good. This idea can be stretched to fit the tech industry, where misleading info can hide harmful practices. The dictionary defines greenwashing as: “The dissemination of misleading information that conceals abuse of the environment in order to present a positive public image.”

For more on the criticisms of the Resonant Computing Manifesto, check out this insightful analysis.