[Dailydave] Reminder: I attend painful meetings so you don't have to
marasawr at gmail.com
Mon Dec 21 12:44:18 EST 2015
While I take your point, my experience is that the technical explanations for why regulatory and policy regimes may not be fit for purpose absolutely do matter.
The Wassenaar Arrangement in particular is a regime whose coherence and efficacy derive from technical precision. It has been necessary to demonstrate both the formal (technical) and functional (economic) failings of the 2013 Plenary Agreements over the past 7 months of concerted engagement on this issue. The dichotomy between technical and economic arguments is a false one. Both are required, but both need to be substantiated and made relevant to the process / objectives at hand.
To be blunt, ‘deep technical reasons’ are not often adequately contextualised such that their relevance is clear to government. That should not, however, be confused with ‘no one cares’. When technical analysis is presented such that its implications are clear, everyone cares. Sergey’s contribution to the most recent TAC meeting at Commerce attests to this fact.
> On 21 Dec 2015, at 08:50, Chris Rohlf <chris.rohlf at gmail.com> wrote:
> Im going to go against the grain here. With all due respect to those on this list/reply, this is why things rarely go our way when it comes to policy and regulation. In general, the government proposes something they believe is sane. In response, the industries loudest voices respond in ways that devolve into threads about LangSec. I don't want to spoil the ending for you but *No One Cares*.
> Yes this is just a thread on Daily Dave but its illustrative of how the direction of these arguments often go for us. We need to speak their language or be doomed. As the intrusion software controls grow and change please call the Dept of Commerce and say "This regulation threatens American business interests. Here are our top 5 reasons why...". Any regulation that makes it difficult for you to compete globally will have long lasting economic implications. This matters far more than any high level description of esoteric weird machines we can think of.
> I sincerely fear over regulation of what we do and while the deep technical reasons for why are important, they are not the argument we need to be making right now.
> Andrew writes:
> | > Dr. Sergey Bratus did an excellent job of looking at how there is NO
> | WAY TO DEFINE THE STANDARD EXECUTION PATH OF A PROGRAM.
> | Really?
> Search term for this: LANGSEC
> Or simply go to http://langsec.org <http://langsec.org/>
> Papers from last workshop: http://spw15.langsec.org/papers.html <http://spw15.langsec.org/papers.html>
> CFP for next workshop: http://spw16.langsec.org/ <http://spw16.langsec.org/>
> Dailydave mailing list
> Dailydave at lists.immunityinc.com <>
> https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave <https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave>
> Dailydave mailing list
> Dailydave at lists.immunityinc.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dailydave