schneier

Even Bruce Schneier says that the way that you actually change these things is through the political process.

Generally, though, and without intending snark: If you're discussing MTE v ETM, and Bruce Schneier comes up, the answer is ETM.

Wake me up when TechCrunch starts echoing Schneier about the surveillance economy fueling the internet.

The Schneier article is still true, but the linked microsoft research article needs an update.

Go read the full Bruce Schneier article that was also posted on HN.

To me, it is Schneier at his best, and it makes a perfect retort to the most pessimistic interpretation of what Schmidt said.

In this particular disagreement, the technologists' position supports that of Valley firms, so TC can namecheck Diffie, Rivest and Schneier to argue their case.

As Schneier said earlier, the US has the most to lose out of all the countries by actively trying to keep the web vulnerable.

And bravo to Schneier for doing so in a timely manner.

Even the ever-critical Bruce Schneier understands and recognizes this reality.

For there to be enough users, we need public proclamations of support from Bruce Schneier or and maybe Moxie, celebs like that.

> I believe that the whole notion of 'privacy' is actually a learned social construct I, and many others, including Schneier think you are wrong.

This and the security issue lead to what Schneier calls the "feudal system": pick a provider, trust them with everything, hope for the best.

Also, let us not forget what Bruce Schneier said: "Unicode is just too complex to ever be secure." Maybe it would be a good idea to stop spiraling the complexity out of control??

If you read Bruce Schneier's post, you will find a few (there are tons) examples of this.

Not sure if you've ever heard of Bruce Schneier, but he is regarded by many as the father of modern cryptography.

I posted it on Schneier's blog and elsewhere as an example of good research that tries to solve a root problem (i.e.