http://www.thenation.com/article/208481/how-private-contractors-have-created-shadow-nsa

How Private Contractors Have Created a Shadow NSA

A new cybersecurity elite moves between government and private practice, taking state secrets with them.

Tim Shorrock May 27, 2015 | This article appeared in the June 15, 2015 edition of The Nation.

<snip>

This small company, and INSA itself, are vivid examples of the rise of a new class in America: the cyberintelligence ruling class.

These are the people—often referred to as “intelligence professionals”—who do the actual analytical and targeting work of the NSA and other agencies in America’s secret government. Over the last 15 years, thousands of former high-ranking intelligence officials and operatives have left their government posts and taken up senior positions at military contractors, consultancies, law firms, and private-equity firms. In their new jobs, they replicate what they did in government—often for the same agencies they left. But this time, their mission is strictly for-profit.

<snip>

Well, enough, you might say: Isn’t this simply a continuation of Washington’s historic revolving door?

The answer is no. As I see it, the cyberintelligence- industrial complex is qualitatively different from—and more dangerous than—the military-industrial complex identified by President Eisenhower in his famous farewell address. This is because its implications for democracy, inequality, and secrecy are far more insidious.

<snip>

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2015/05/the_revolution_will_not_be_for.html

May 18, 2015
The Revolution Will Not Be Formalized
Posted by Mike Shulman

After a discussion with Michael Harris over at the blog about his book Mathematics without apologies, I realized that there is a lot of confusion surrounding the relationship between homotopy type theory and computer formalization — and that moreover, this confusion may be causing people to react negatively to one or the other due to incorrect associations. There are good reasons to be confused, because the relationship is complicated, and various statements by prominent members of both communities about a “revolution” haven’t helped matters. This post and its sequel(s) are my attempt to clear things up.

<snip>

What is the future of computer-verified proof? Is it the future of mathematics? Should we be happy or worried about that prospect? Does it mean that computers will take over mathematics and leave no room for the humans? My personal opinion is that (1) computer-verified proof is only going to get more common and important, but (2) it will be a long time before all mathematics is computer-verified, if indeed that ever happens, and (3) if and when it does happen, it won’t be anything to worry about.

The reason I believe (2) is that my personal experience with computer proof assistants leads me to the conclusion that they are still very far from usable by the average mathematician on a daily basis. Despite all the fancy tools that exist now, verifying a proof with a computer is usually still a lot more work than writing that proof on paper. And that’s after you spend the necessary time and effort learning to use the proof assistant tool, which generally comes with quite a passel of idiosyncracies.

Moreover, in most cases the benefits to verifying a proof with a computer are doubtful. For big theorems that are very long or complicated or automated, so that their authors have a hard time convincing other mathematicians of their correctness by hand, there’s a clear win. (That’s one of the reasons I believe (1), because I believe that proofs of this sort are also going to get more common.) Moreover, a certain kind of mathematician finds proof verification fun and rewarding for its own sake. But for the everyday proof by your average mathematician, which can be read and understood by any other average mathematician, the benefit from sweating long hours to convince a computer of its truth is just not there (yet). That’s why, despite periodic messianic claims from various quarters, you don’t see mathematicians jumping on any bandwagon of proof verification.

<snip>

https://nuclearrisk.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/solving-a-riddle-wrapped-in-a-mystery-inside-an-enigma/

Solving “a Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma”
Posted on May 25, 2015 by Nuclear Risk

Most people have heard Winston Churchill’s description of Russia as “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” I also suspect that most took it as I did: Who can figure out that crazy nation?

So it was a real surprise when I read the entire quote: “(Russia) is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.” Now that makes sense!

<snip>

When Churchill saw that it was in his interest to understand Russia, he did so. But when he failed to see anything in it for him, Russia became a rogue nation in his mind. We are doing the same thing today, and not just with Russia. North Korea is seen as a rogue nation run by a nut job, and Iran is portrayed as not much better. But, as I’ve pointed out, most of our puzzlement is due to our failing to understand North Korea’s and Iran’s perspectives.

<snip>

I can attest from personal experience that it also makes sense to work at understanding others in interpersonal relationships. Since we got our relationship on a good basis, every time that my wife’s behavior has seemed crazy to me, I’ve found that there was a good reason behind her behavior that I was missing.

<snip>

By “getting curious, not furious,” (a great expression that a friend told me when I related this story), not only did I avoid an argument, I got a better outcome than what I thought I wanted going into the disagreement. I got a car that I love to drive, whereas I thought I wanted Dorothie to stop looking at new cars.

<snip>