![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
To build a better mousetrap, one must first invent the universe....no, wait, that's not it.
"As technology advances, the technology to fool it advances as well."
Unsurprisingly, this is a truism first taught in nature, as the many attempts of children to capture small insects, reptiles, and amphibians demonstrates handily. Eons of evolution along the twin tracks of evasion and capture produce all sorts of ways of hiding in plain sight and adaptations to penetrate defenses. Then come the humans, who think they're special, and the cycles begin anew, just in different theaters.
We like these kinds of exercises. We have lots of war-analogue games, where a vital part of the strategy element is misdirection, laying traps, hiding moves, and knowing when to change from attack to defense and back again. We often start with "simple games", which these days means "computers can play them perfectly." After things like chess and checkers, some move on to "team sports", where they play squadron-based tactics against other squadrons, while others advance on to playing command simulations. Sometimes both.
Technology plays a crucial role in both. The rules have to be rewritten and revised here and there to take advantage of that - video replay, better pads, composite-fiber sticks, scientifically-engineered balls, and perpetually more-powerful and well-trained athletes. Faster computers, better intelligence, and more ability to analyze everything at minute amounts tries to reduce the amount of incomplete information available for any conflict, mock or real. For tactics to succeed, they have to be able to reintroduce uncertainty and ambiguity into the calculations. (Thankfully, Global Thermonuclear War is a solved game with zero uncertainty as to how it will come out.) For every Radar Dome and GPS satellite, there will eventually be a Gap Generator. Every infrared camera produces thermoptic camoflauge.
The greatest game of Janken going on, though, is on the Internet and other networks, where programs are looking for known vulnerabilities and people are looking for more and new vulnerabilities. A disclosed vulnerability gets patched, eventually. The spot in between, from when the issue is discovered to when its patched, is where the advantage is gained. Whether for crime, whether to gather intelligence, or to sabotage, those exploits are all the difference.
Which is why all of the information released showing how much of our equipment and connections are already compromised by government agencies and fiats is profoundly disturbing. Any vulnerability in a system is an exploitable one, and ones that are baked in are just waiting to be found and exploited by someone other than the intended audience. Really, the only way to have something potentially secure is for everything about it to be known and to be publicly examinable to find any weaknesses. It won't protect you against a new creative force being able to put two and two together to make five (like Heartbleed), but it will at least prevent entities from using secret knowledge to exploit your highly popular software program or operating system to do horrible, awful things to other people.
We should make our government hackers that don't officially exist work damn hard for their salaries and illegally-obtained intelligence. Just saying.
Of course, after a certain point, for many things, it goes completely out of the range of the hobbyist, out of the range of the amateur, and completely into the range of someone who devotes their life and and remaining free time to doing that single thing. If it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert at something, then only those who devote themselves to it wholeheartedly achieve that expertise. Which often means making it your professional life and finding a way to make money at it.
The funny thing is, most of the financial incentives available to help develop expertise are intended for those that show aptitude for the thing, often at a very early age. Competitive exercises, scholarships, schools, programs, and equipment are geared toward those that already show skill, not those that already show interest. If someone has enough privilege and resources, they can continue to pursue interests and build their skills, but if they don't, it's going to take assistance, which means showing aptitude early. And even then, for each step of the way, there are the heavily competitive elements that basically whittle down the talented and interested into the lucky few. And the social attitudes that encourage or discourage certain groups to participate. It's a pretty inefficient way of helping everyone achieve the expertise they want and allowing them to be happy with their lives.
Surely, we can do better.
"As technology advances, the technology to fool it advances as well."
Unsurprisingly, this is a truism first taught in nature, as the many attempts of children to capture small insects, reptiles, and amphibians demonstrates handily. Eons of evolution along the twin tracks of evasion and capture produce all sorts of ways of hiding in plain sight and adaptations to penetrate defenses. Then come the humans, who think they're special, and the cycles begin anew, just in different theaters.
We like these kinds of exercises. We have lots of war-analogue games, where a vital part of the strategy element is misdirection, laying traps, hiding moves, and knowing when to change from attack to defense and back again. We often start with "simple games", which these days means "computers can play them perfectly." After things like chess and checkers, some move on to "team sports", where they play squadron-based tactics against other squadrons, while others advance on to playing command simulations. Sometimes both.
Technology plays a crucial role in both. The rules have to be rewritten and revised here and there to take advantage of that - video replay, better pads, composite-fiber sticks, scientifically-engineered balls, and perpetually more-powerful and well-trained athletes. Faster computers, better intelligence, and more ability to analyze everything at minute amounts tries to reduce the amount of incomplete information available for any conflict, mock or real. For tactics to succeed, they have to be able to reintroduce uncertainty and ambiguity into the calculations. (Thankfully, Global Thermonuclear War is a solved game with zero uncertainty as to how it will come out.) For every Radar Dome and GPS satellite, there will eventually be a Gap Generator. Every infrared camera produces thermoptic camoflauge.
The greatest game of Janken going on, though, is on the Internet and other networks, where programs are looking for known vulnerabilities and people are looking for more and new vulnerabilities. A disclosed vulnerability gets patched, eventually. The spot in between, from when the issue is discovered to when its patched, is where the advantage is gained. Whether for crime, whether to gather intelligence, or to sabotage, those exploits are all the difference.
Which is why all of the information released showing how much of our equipment and connections are already compromised by government agencies and fiats is profoundly disturbing. Any vulnerability in a system is an exploitable one, and ones that are baked in are just waiting to be found and exploited by someone other than the intended audience. Really, the only way to have something potentially secure is for everything about it to be known and to be publicly examinable to find any weaknesses. It won't protect you against a new creative force being able to put two and two together to make five (like Heartbleed), but it will at least prevent entities from using secret knowledge to exploit your highly popular software program or operating system to do horrible, awful things to other people.
We should make our government hackers that don't officially exist work damn hard for their salaries and illegally-obtained intelligence. Just saying.
Of course, after a certain point, for many things, it goes completely out of the range of the hobbyist, out of the range of the amateur, and completely into the range of someone who devotes their life and and remaining free time to doing that single thing. If it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert at something, then only those who devote themselves to it wholeheartedly achieve that expertise. Which often means making it your professional life and finding a way to make money at it.
The funny thing is, most of the financial incentives available to help develop expertise are intended for those that show aptitude for the thing, often at a very early age. Competitive exercises, scholarships, schools, programs, and equipment are geared toward those that already show skill, not those that already show interest. If someone has enough privilege and resources, they can continue to pursue interests and build their skills, but if they don't, it's going to take assistance, which means showing aptitude early. And even then, for each step of the way, there are the heavily competitive elements that basically whittle down the talented and interested into the lucky few. And the social attitudes that encourage or discourage certain groups to participate. It's a pretty inefficient way of helping everyone achieve the expertise they want and allowing them to be happy with their lives.
Surely, we can do better.
