Schneier Mulls Psychology of Security

bednarz writes "Cryptography expert Bruce Schneier says security decisions often are much less rational than one would prefer. He spoke at the RSA conference about the battle that goes on in the brain when responding to security issues. Schneier explains 'The primitive portion of the brain, called the amygdala, feels fear and incites a fear-or-flight response, he pointed out. "It's very fast, faster than consciousness. But it can be overridden by higher parts of the brain." The neocortex, which in a mammalian brain is associated with consciousness, is slower but "adaptive and flexible,"'"

Just look to government....

[Dynedain]

Too bad the Department of Homeland Security doesn't have a neocortex.

Re:Just look to government....

[Walt Dismal]

Another way of looking at the amygdala is to consider it a Priority Interrupt Controller. Other parts of the brain evaluate success or impending failure of certain goals, such as survival, and the amygdala chooses the strongest and most important issues and flags them for highest attention. This can be overriden by conscious rationality, but that is slower. I believe the amygdala evolved to handle fast decisions needing urgent attention or the cave bear would eat you by the time you reasoned out how to rationally respond.

Re:Just look to government....

[FooAtWFU]

Okay. I'll look to government. I'll even be bipartisan... or antibipartisan :)

We have two parties that have issues with threats to the world, after all. The Republicans have Terrorism, and the Democrats have Global Warming. Both are real and significant threats, but neither of them really gets addressed in the healthiest way possible. There's a lot of focus on OMG-deadly high-profile terrorist attacks, and on OMG-deadly consequences of global warming. Both parties have their people propose some ridiculously broad, sweeping changes to deal with the problem which would negatively impact everyday lives; fortunately, the more ridiculous ones are more likely to fail. And, of course, both parties are willing to throw money at people who claim to have some sort of solution to their problem, whether or not it's actually anything real, meaningful, or worthwhile (like the latest stupid XYZ antiterrorist technology rollout, or the latest bio-fuel legislation/subsidy).

No, they're not the same thing, but one can draw worthwhile parallels, and both parties would benefit by comparing themselves to the other, shaping their actions to avoid these excesses.

Re:

[mattkime]

>>Both parties have their people propose some ridiculously broad, sweeping changes to deal with the problem which would negatively impact everyday lives; fortunately, the more ridiculous ones are more likely to fail.

You can't get anywhere in politics if you allow the more radical elements to represent their party. Ignore them.

In the interest of bipartisanship you've equated the wholesale removal of civil rights with the suggestion that we shouldn't use so much oil.

Thats what I call Fair and Balanced.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

In the interest of bipartisanship you've exaggerated the intentions of those concerned about terrorism and understated the intentions of those concerned with with global warming.

That's what I call a double straw-man.

Re:Just look to government....

[Lord Ender]

There's a lot of focus on OMG-deadly high-profile terrorist attacks, and on OMG-deadly consequences of global warming.

Terrorism could cause a tiny handful of people to die. Warming could cause a mass extinction. Do you understand what I mean by mass extinction? I mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction [wikipedia.org].

One of these is a minor annoyance to the human species. The other is the end of life as we know it. Some have even suggested that run-away global warming caused Venus to become the hell-hole it is today. These are very different problems.

You are right that politicians, in general, care more about the appearance of solving problems than actually solving problems. But don't equate global warming with the relatively trivial issue of terrorism.

Re:

[monkeydo]

Yes, just like the dinosaurs and every other living species that has lived or will live on the earth, humans will one day be extinct. I find it ironic that the same camp that refuses to see anything unique or sacred in human life is now whinnying about our eventual extinction. Come on, we're just masses of cells, masses of cells die!

Some have even suggested that run-away global warming caused Venus to become the hell-hole it is today.

How did humans get to Venus to cause all that global warming?

Re:

[Lord Ender]

Humans will be extinct? That's a bold statement.

We are the only lifeforms with high intelligence. We are the only lifeforms with space travel. It would be stupidly reductionist to assume that we are just another lifeform.

Re:

[monkeydo]

And forever is a long time.

Re:

[zukakog]

We are the only lifeforms with space travel.

It would be stupidly reductionist to assume that we are the only lifeforms with space travel in the entire universe . . . or multiverse . . .

Re:

[FooAtWFU]

Terrorism could cause a tiny handful of people to die. Warming could cause a mass extinction. Do you understand what I mean by mass extinction?

I appreciate that. But consider, from the text of the article itself:

... people "exaggerate risks that are spectacular, rare, beyond their control, talked about, international, man-made, immediate, directed against children or morally offensive," Schneier noted.

Okay. Mass extinction. Rare? Ehh, depends-how-you-define-it. Children? Eh, not so much ("our children wil

Re:

[Joey Vegetables]

Libertarians tend to believe in global warming, though not necessarily human-caused global warming. However, they also believe in voluntary cooperation, rather than government force, as the only morally acceptable solution to this or any other problem. Forcing people to act contrary to their own interests, even if it is for a "good cause," invariably makes problems worse and not better.

My personal take is that global warming is here, and is a GOOD thing, regardless of who caused it. It is likely to hav

You're overreacting

[arevos]

One of these is a minor annoyance to the human species. The other is the end of life as we know it.

Says who? The Earth's biosphere has undergone climate changes many times more rapid and many times more devastating than it is currently undergoing. Increased CO2 emissions are unlikely to be doing it any good, but nor is it the end of the world by any stretch of the imagination. How can you react so rationally to the threat of terrorism, and yet so irrationally to the threat of global warming?

That said, the side effects of global warming will likely result in a far higher death toll than terrorism. But at

Oblig. joke

[Captain Splendid]

Too bad the Department of Homeland Security doesn't have a neocortex.

That's alright, they have a neoconcortex instead!

Sorry, couldn't help myself. You may now mod this post into oblivion...

Stupid new moderation thingy

[Soulfader]

I couldn't find the -1 Oblivion mod. A little help here?

Re:

[CelticWhisper]

-1 Morrowind will work just as well.

Re:

[djh101010]

3000 Americans died from terrorism in this entire young century. Meanwhile, 40,000 Americans died in auto crashes last year alone. I vote we use some of the "homeland security" money on guard rails.

Right, because even though we were promised followup events that "will dwarf 9/11" and they haven't happened, _obviously_ that money has all been wasted, is that it? As far as the auto crashes...I've been an EMT for a dozen years or so. I've never been to a fatal accident where the person who died was wearing a seatbelt. Not once. Spend all you want but when some idiot doesn't even take advantage of the basic safety equipment they've already been provided in their vehicle, there's no helping them.

Most people cannot define "security".

[khasim]

Bruce has more at his website.
http://www.schneier.com/essay-155.html [schneier.com]

As he says, we really should have two different words for the "feeling of security" and "security".

Re:

[Short Circuit]

As he says, we really should have two different words for the "feeling of security" and "security".

I thought we called that "comfort". As in, "I'm comfortable running Linux." or "I'm uncomfortable running Windows without antivirus software."

Re:

[Otter]

As he says, we really should have two different words for the "feeling of security" and "security".

Not a bad point, but it somewhat flies in the face of the idea that Bruce Schneier is an expert on any topic (neurophysiology, today) that remotely pertains to any definition of "security".

Re:

[MythoBeast]

[i]As he says, we really should have two different words for the "feeling of security" and "security".[/i]

Unfortunately, this would have about the same effect has having two words for "thinking" and "acting as if you'd thought about it." People would only apply the term for a "feeling of security" to others, and it would quickly be labeled derogatory and non-PC.

Amydala feels fear

[wumpus188]

There is always Anakin to the rescue.

Re:

[CyberLord Seven]

Even though this subject is a dupe, this comment is FUNNY!

Brain region for thinking about security

[cold fjord]

Most thinking about security seems to be centered in the nullcortex.

42

[ElephanTS]

Which is why "Don't Panic!" is such good advice.

It makes sense

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

From the article: There is a "feeling versus reality," Schneier said. "You can feel secure but not be secure. You can be secure but not feel secure. The primitive portion of the brain, called the amygdala, feels fear and incites a fear-or-flight response, he pointed out. "

That is why the real amygdala hides in the background pretending to be a mere attendant like the pitutary gland and communicates with a prominantly placed fake-amygdala using elaborate signals and esp communication. All these scientists have been fooled into studying the fake-amygdala. So they underestimate the real security of the brain. Let someone assassinate the fake-amygdala in a spaceport in Coruscant and suddenly you will see the real amygdala emerge from the shadows and assume the role as the rightfully elected Queen of Naboo.

Re:It makes sense

['nother poster]

Security through obscurity never works. ;)

It must be said...

[Doctor Memory]

primitive portion of the brain, called the amygdala, feels fear and incites a fear-or-flight response

This should actually be fight-or-flight response. Fear is the stimulus, the amygdala merely chooses (or rather, "strongly suggests", as the article points out) the reaction to it.

Re:

[powerpants]

In terms of Hamming distance, it's actually closer to "fear-of-flight," aka aviophobia. Think about it.

Re:

[DoofusOfDeath]

"Shut up brain or I'll poke you again with a Q-tip!!!"

(H. J. Simpson)

Re:

[monkeydo]

IMO, Schneier has two problems. The first is that he thinks he is an expert in everything, and he thinks he is always right. Now he is an expect in human psychology. The second is that for some reason people are unwilling to stand up and say when he is full of it. Some days his blog is nothing other than Bush bashing under the guise of writing about security. That being secure and feeling secure are different is not news. That even in business people make decisions based on emotions instead of underst

Re:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

The first is that he thinks he is an expert in everything, and he thinks he is always right.

That's not a problem if he is actually right. He's a security expert, which implies at least some competence in related areas. If someone thinks they are right, it's not a fault if they are actually right.

The second is that for some reason people are unwilling to stand up and say when he is full of it.

Where is he full of it? And why are people supposedly such cowards when it comes to standing up to him?

Some days his

Re:

[David Gould]

Some days his blog is nothing other than Bush bashing under the guise of writing about security.

It's true that some of Schneier's posts are very critical of the Bush Administration's security efforts. But, of all the statements that get attacked as "Bush-bashing", I'd say those posts are among the best cases for which to invoke the defense that:

"No, it's just that reality has an anti-Bush 'bias'."

repeat?

[tomstdenis]

Didn't we have an article about this already? Oh wait, that was about the fact that he was going to speak at the con, now we have an article about the talk he just gave?

Good lord, I want that guys press agent!

Tom

Re:

[schwaang]

Yes, but this article actually has content.

Security - 100%

[in2mind]

Is there something like "100% Security" for anything? I doubt it.

Re:

[John Frink]

Like the rest of us learned in sex-ed, abstinence is the only way to have 100% security.

Why I hate metaphors

[IthnkImParanoid]

Abstinence doesn't prevent unauthorized physical access. Besides, penetration testing is a vital part of security.

Now I need to go take a shower.

Schneier says no, but that's not his aim

[schwaang]

In his essay [schneier.com] he tells a little joke about aiming for 100% security:

I remember in the weeks after 9/11, a reporter asked me: "How can we prevent this from ever happening again?" "That's easy," I said, "simply ground all the aircraft."

100% security has never been his aim. His aim, AFAICT, is to distinguish real security from BS, so we can evaluate the costs and tradeoffs and then make smart choices.

More on this philosophy:

The truth is that we're not hopelessly bad at making security trade-offs.[...]There are several specific aspects of the security trade-off that can go wrong. For example:

      1. The severity of the risk.
      2. The probability of the risk.
      3. The magnitude of the costs.
      4. How effective the countermeasure is at mitigating the risk.
      5. How well disparate risks and costs can be compared.

The more your perception diverges with reality in any of these five aspects, the more your perceived trade-off won't match the actual trade-off.

Re:

[nine-times]

Well, in essence, security is not about being "100% secure". 100% never happens, and can't even happen theoretically. The 100% only way to prevent unauthorized access to a computer is to prevent any kind of access whatsoever. The only way to prevent anyone from ever accessing a particular piece of data is to never create that data anyway, or else destroy it immediately. Even then, you face a possible breakdown: what about the mechanism for preventing that data from being created, or for destroying it?

Re:

[fermion]

#4 and 5 is where many people miss the boat, and really shows whether they are more interesting in showing security rather than creating security. For instance, some of the new immigration laws at the state level are frankly discussed as unenforceable. They are nearly 100% ineffective as a physical deterrent, and are only mildly effective as a physiological deterrent. This is not so bad in itself, but such laws create additional real and psychological risks, which may significantly outweigh any possible

Re:

[sehlat]

The answer is yes.

In the grave.

Irritating.

[Elentari]

It never fails to annoy me when people take snippets of theoretical psychology and redistribute them as truth. Scientists' views of which parts of the brain are responsible for which characteristics of human life change on almost a daily basis, yet phrases such as "language centre" or "mammalian brain" are constantly being used in a way that presents them as definite fact.

It seems unnecessary to incorporate impressive-sounding terms into a speech that, quite honestly, seems to be stating the obvious. Increasing or decreasing security is a response to fear; fear is an emotion and, therefore, decisions that use it as a base will not be purely rational, but will have emotional bias, like every other human decision. You don't need vague descriptions of brain "impulses", and such, to prove that.

rich techie blowhards

[wsanders]

People like to go on and on about "feh the authoritees are stoopid", like all the ass-talking over the incident in Boston last week.

But the real world doesn't work that way, unless you live in Mensa-Fascist-Fantasy-World and fantasize the state killing those that don't behave with Klingon-like rationality. Basically, you have to take the stupid, irrational people into account. (Damn Customers!)

Many public (law enforcement) agencies have a motto: "Could You Explain It On 60 Minutes?" That pretty much sums it

Re:

[Rob the Bold]

But the real world doesn't work that way, unless you live in Mensa-Fascist-Fantasy-World and fantasize the state killing those that don't behave with Klingon-like rationality.

Damn those Klingons and their rationality! It's always "Logic dictates this" and "Humans are irrational and impulsive" with them. Smug jerks.

Re:

[grammar fascist]

Damn those Klingons and their rationality! It's always "Logic dictates this" and "Humans are irrational and impulsive" with them. Smug jerks.

I thought Klingons paraded about quoting Shakespeare. Huh.

Re:

[oatworm]

You're thinking of Vulcans, you insensitive and probably sarcastic clod!

Re:

[Lemmy Caution]

I agree completely: the problem is that the alternatives are usually worse. While the popular abuse of materialist explanations is often fraught with cliches and crude caricatures from evolutionary psychology or cognitive neuroscience, the alternative winds up being an appeal to older folk-methods of explanation, such as substance-dualistic or even religious ones (whether explicit or covert - it is startling how much of the metaphysics, epistemology and ethics of Western-educated people who think themselves

Re:

[ashtophoenix]

Precisely. People take terms like "Consciousness", which mean totally different things for different kinds of people and for most people it doesn't even hold a meaning (since most haven't pondered about it). To talk about anything even faintly human, or even animal, in terms of consciousness, one needs to include the physical, vital, emotional, mental and the spirit (which many people may call an inner-daemon, guide or just feeling). At least the author needs to provide a definition of what he means by cons

mammalian brain theorists

[lionel77]

It never fails to annoy me when people take snippets of theoretical psychology and redistribute them as truth. Scientists' views of which parts of the brain are responsible for which characteristics of human life change on almost a daily basis, yet phrases such as "language centre" or "mammalian brain" are constantly being used in a way that presents them as definite fact.

Tell me about it, those mammalian brain theory advocates are getting on my nerve lately, too. I mean, the existence of so called mammals

Re:

[DerekLyons]

It never fails to annoy me when people take snippets of theoretical psychology and redistribute them as truth.

Bruce Schneier has been doing this ever since 9/11 - parlaying his reputation (well earned) in cryptography into a career as a security pundit (without any actual credentials).

Re:

[monkeydo]

He's been doing what you say since before 9/11. He wrote in the introduction to "Secrets and Lies" that he had an "epiphany" one day that security isn't about cryptography (like it was when he was just a cryptographer), but that it was about managing risk. Oh, and by the way he had just founded the company that you should hire to manage your risk for you. So, Bruce Schinier was transformed from a cryptography to a "security expert" (read, risk manager). He's not a bad writer, and he seems to be able to

Re:

[DerekLyons]

He's been doing what you say since before 9/11. He wrote in the introduction to "Secrets and Lies" that he had an "epiphany" one day that security isn't about cryptography (like it was when he was just a cryptographer), but that it was about managing risk.

Then he's extraordinarily ignorant of his own field - I first encountered the idea that security wasn't just about cryptography in the mid 70's while reading Kahn's The Codebreakers (itself written in 1967). The more general idea that security is about

Re:

[vicaya]

It irritates me to no end, when somebody just brand something they don't understand with "theory" or "theoretical". Just like the ID folks who like to call evolution a "theory". This time, it's neither "theoretical" nor psychology. It has much to do with "experimental", biophysics, biochemistry, physiology, neurology and neuroscience in general. May I recommend that you read "Principles of Neural Science" by Kandel et. al, which is often assigned as a textbook for many undergraduate and graduate neuroscien

A point easily proven

[TinBromide]

People care more about problems that they can't control than ones they can prevent.

For example: Airplanes. How many people feel more secure behind the wheel of a car than on a long flight with turbulence?

Put your hands down, now the sheer probability of getting into a car accident in one's lifetime (if one drives) is a miniscule number below one. Death statistics are somewhere around 1 in 237 of a car type accident. The odds of an airplane death are like 1 in 5051 source [nsc.org]

However, people are freakishly nervous about planes... So, by induction (the bane of an engineer's existance) we can extrapolate (another fancy bane) that security people will ignore the dangerous mundane and fixate on the extraordinary rarity.

Re:

[CyberLord Seven]

Hmmmm, I dunno. Seat belts, air-bags, Anti-lock brakes, roll-bars on convertibles. I think people care a lot about things they can control. IF...they can control them.

Ralph Nader to the RESCUE!

Re:

[Chosen Reject]

Having been on a flight just over the weekend that had some wicked turbulence all I can say was it was awesome. My wife didn't like it a whole lot, but I thought it was better than Six Flags. I swear there were times the whole plane must have just dropped 20 feet or so. It was so exciting I almost got back in line after we arrived.

Re:

[bill_mcgonigle]

Having been on a flight just over the weekend that had some wicked turbulence all I can say was it was awesome. My wife didn't like it a whole lot, but I thought it was better than Six Flags. I swear there were times the whole plane must have just dropped 20 feet or so. It was so exciting I almost got back in line after we arrived.

Did you fly through a thunderstorm? That's the best. There are even flashy lights going off all around you.

The major downside is the smell of vomit that permeates the cabin. Ga

Re:

[ashtophoenix]

That doesn't say anything to me. The fact is that if you get into a car crash, there are chances that you may survive. In an airplane, thats it! End of Story! No second chances! Maybe that is the cause of the fear, don't you think? And a legitimate one at that. Given a choice would you rather be in a car crash or a plane crash, the consequnces of both aren't disclosed to you yet?

Deaths per Mile

[bill_mcgonigle]

That doesn't say anything to me. The fact is that if you get into a car crash, there are chances that you may survive. In an airplane, thats it! End of Story! No second chances! Maybe that is the cause of the fear, don't you think? And a legitimate one at that. Given a choice would you rather be in a car crash or a plane crash, the consequnces of both aren't disclosed to you yet?

The important measure isn't odds of death in a crash, it's odds of death per mile traveled.

If you drive from Boston to San Diego y

Re:

[fmoliveira]

Lets say that the average person in this statistics travel twice a day with their cars, and twice a year they take a plane. And this ratio is just 237/5051.

If your numbers are correct, cars are much safer than planes. This statistic manipulation to tell planes are safe is just an old lie.

Re:

[etully]

Hmmm... that's an interesting point. So what are the real numbers?

Let's say:

Airborn Hours = total # hours that all humans spend in the air in a year
Driving Hours = total # hours that all humans spend in a car (either passenger or driver) in a year

So I want to know how (Automobile Deaths / Driving Hours) compares to (Airplane Deaths / Airborn Hours).

Re:

[Lord Ender]

the sheer probability of getting into a car accident in one's lifetime

Hey Mr. Statistics: Care to use some meaningful numbers? What are the chances of dying PER HOUR of being on a plane compared to the chances PER HOUR of being in a car?

I haven't looked it up, but I assume a two-hour flight is more likely to kill you than a two-hour road trip. That's a pretty good justification to fear the flight more than the drive.

Not to take away from your argument, but I HATE bullshit statistics.

Re:

[TinBromide]

not to poke holes in your argument, but in an hour and a half flight will get me roughly 440 miles (distance from tallahasse to ft. lauderdale). If i were to drive that distance, it would take me 7 hours (give or take traffic and pee breaks). So, in a 2 hour flight, you may cover 500 miles (or more), but in a 2 hour drive, you may only cover 100-160 miles. So you have to consider deaths per mile as well as deaths per hour. So, even if the deaths per hour is equivalent, if you were to take that 2 hour drive,

Re:

[Vegeta99]

Ah, statistics:

Motor Vehicle: 1.3 deaths per million miles driven (by all vehicles, that is, if a million cars drove 1 mile, 1.3 drivers would die)

Air Carriers: 1.9 deaths per million miles flown by all aircraft.

Now wait a second! Whatshisface grandparent said planes were SAFER!

Well, OK. There are less planes than cars, but more people, so:

Yearly, 1 out of every 7,700 people die in a car wreck.
Yearly, 1 out of every 2,067,000 people die in an airplane wreck, but by that measure, motorcycles are safer than c

Re:

[Lord Ender]

This started as criticizing people for feeling anxious on flights. The point I demonstrated and you failed to refute is that a person is closer to death on an airplane than in a car, so if anxiety is at all reasonable, it is more reasonable to be anxious while on a plane than in a car.

The safest way to travel a given number of miles (what you seem to be talking about) was never an issue.

Re:

[Cthefuture]

Ugh, I have to point this out every time someone makes this assertion.

The fact of the matter is every Tom, Dick and Jane moron drives. If the vehicle accidents only showed people with actual driving skill then you could compare to flying in a plane but throwing in the general population against trained maintenance staff and pilots is rediculous. Now I know there are times when even the best driver may not be able to avoid a bad situation but the statistics don't make any distinction between driving skill

Re:

[Kirth Gersen]

To TinBromide re comparing car and plane deaths:

You forget that you are much more likely to die *per hour* in a plane than a car.

Average people travel by plane perhaps ten hours per year; by car perhaps 700 hours per year. (My numbers, made up on the spot.)

So the lifetime death should be 70 times lower, if the death rate per hour were the same. But it isn't: it's about 20 times lower (via your numbers). So while you're in a plane, you're three or four times more likely to die than while you're in a car.

Also

Difficulty Factor

[Bryansix]

I think that the true dichotomy of the situation that plays out in people's minds is 1) Spend the time and effort to secure this system the right way and stress out all the time 2) Be lazy and just do what will get us by and at least buy us some security even if it's security through obscurity.

instant vs. considered responses

[smellsofbikes]

Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink" [amazon.com] talks a lot about the differences between first impression and actual, thoughtful reaction to a situation, including some interesting studies on what happens when the two conflict and how measurement of the effects of those conflicts on reaction time can tell us a lot about how the brain is processing material. There's controversy around some of his conclusions but I strongly recommend the book and everything else Gladwell has written.

Re:

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I strongly recommend the book and everything else Gladwell has written.

Blink has been on the verge of being added to my reading list for a long while. I've read some other stuff by Gladwell and frankly, while I found it sort of entertaining, I also thought his "logic" was spotty at best. Maybe he understands how to draw logical, supported conclusions, but he sure doesn't present it well and some of his assertions seem to be sheer nonsense. My main motivation for reading it would be to understand his argu

Re:

[smellsofbikes]

I learned a lot from both it and "the tipping point" -- the width of his coverage is amazing. The material is *very* attractive to business- and new-age-types who will leave with nothing more than the conclusions, but I think it's the background and support material that's more interesting: the primary sources. Check it out from a local library and give it a shot. I don't think you'll find the time wasted, even if you completely disagree. There's a rebuttal book out there called "Think" that might also

Re:

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I learned a lot from both it and "the tipping point" -- the width of his coverage is amazing.

So I read "the tipping point" and found it interesting, but upon looking a little harder I realized the research was very backwards. It looks like he started with a few premises, then looked specifically for data to support that, resulting in a wholly improper application of statistics. Gladwell even admits in later interviews that he no longer believes some of the concepts he espoused after seeing others evaluat

Re:

[smellsofbikes]

What you're talking about is a very deep problem. Everyone is biased. Gladwell absolutely cherry-picks his evidence to support his thesis. The problem is: most people don't realize that, and don't go looking into the greater picture. Obviously you do. It's really frustrating to talk to people who don't. Gladwell's stuff is ripe for cherry-picking in its own right -- quoting the most convenient parts to support what a person believes, and even more misleading when the source for the convenient parts is

Consciousness?

[ashtophoenix]

This may be a little off the point of TFA but I am not sure what the author means when he refers to the part of the brain that is related to "Consciousness". Neither am I clear on what the author means by the term "consciousness" here. Is consciousness, per the author, limited to the brain? What about the emotional, vital parts of a human being and what about that "inner voice" or daemon or feeling many people talk about? Are those not parts of consciousness? Coz then I would like to make them a part of the

Re:

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I am not sure what the author means when he refers to the part of the brain that is related to "Consciousness". Neither am I clear on what the author means by the term "consciousness" here. Is consciousness, per the author, limited to the brain?

The model of human consciousness, to which the author refers is one that normally maps us to three layers, each of which corresponds to an evolutionary stage. The first layer is pain/pleasure and even very small organisms with no real brains, can respond to this s

No doubt I will be flamed for this

[Rumagent]

But, I wonder how much attention we would pay to a psychologist speaking on computer science. Is the only qualification to speak on anything non-technical, the ability to pick up a first year text book and leaf through it?

As much as I respect Schenier, I would no sooner trust his assertions on psychology, than I would trust those of Dr. Phil. If he had co-written a couple of articles with someone relevant and had them published in a proper journal things would be different. But after reading the (otherwise

Re:

[schwaang]

So flame me, but Schenier has little authority when he speaks of psychology.

If you read the essay you'll see that he isn't inventing his own psychological theories. He's doing a survey of several fields that have produced results relevant to security, and showing how those results affect decision-making and perception around security.

He may make mistakes in applying theories from other fields, but it's only by publishing his applications that the academic conversation can occur. Cross-disciplinary stuff

Too complicated

[Billosaur]

His view is far too complicated. The essence of security is: people think they are secure. They happily type their data into web sites without considering where it goes because in most cases, they have no clue what systems are in operation. Past the words "computer", "database", and "Internet (or Web)" the average person has no concept of how any of it works. Someone, their bank say, sends them a link to a website -- the first problem is, they really have no way to verify it is from their bank, other than going to their local branch and asking, which seems to be beyond anyone's capability. Now, once they've accepted that the link is "legitimate", whether it is or not, they plow ahead and begin banging on the keyboard and typing in their info. Screens come and go, they are admonished occasionally when they don't enter something right, and finally some message pops up thanking them and that's that. Whether the whole transaction was legitimate or not never enters into it.

"Security" is a misnomer -- you are no more secure against possible data theft or manipulation on the Internet than you are physically safe crossing the street in a crosswalk. The only security you can have is in being vigilant in what you do and following up everything you do to make sure it is legitimate. Past that, you're on you own.

Security and panic disorder

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who suffers with panic disorder and who is also a network security person by trade (CISSP consultant, unfortunately) I can attest to the irrationality of the "lower" brain. Persons with my condition frequently find it unbearable to do something as simple as stand in line or get in an elevator as even the smallest perceived loss of freedom is enough to send the heart rate soaring. On a particularly bad day I had to excuse myself from a post office line for 15 minutes to pretend to be filling out

Obvious action item here

[Hortensia Patel]

The primitive portion of the brain, called the amygdala, feels fear and incites a fear-or-flight response

Hire River Tam [wikipedia.org] as your chief security officer.

Got that right

[Master of Transhuman]

"The primitive portion of the brain, called the amygdala, feels fear and incites a fear-or-flight response, he pointed out. "It's very fast, faster than consciousness. But it can be overridden by higher parts of the brain."

But rarely is, in ninety-eight percent of the known cases, i.e., humans.

"The neocortex, which in a mammalian brain is associated with consciousness, is slower but "adaptive and flexible,"

Again, rarely - about two percent of the known cases at best.

Chimpanzees simply don't do well with the

Re:

[TheLink]

Unlike bankruptcy, death is regarded by "primitive gut-feel" as being a bit more permanent.

Primitive perhaps, but it has worked well enough for a very long time. I'd say any of that "new fangled" stuff needs maybe millions more years (or more) to prove that it's actually better.

Overridden by higher parts of the brain

[brownaroo]

As a programmer I find (in regards to security) that fear is often overridden by laziness