Category Archives: Politics

Why has the US got it in for cryptographers?

Posted on by

Ross Anderson is one of my most remarkable academic colleagues. He’s one of the world’s leading experts on cryptography, a Fellow of the Royal Society and a thoroughly good egg. His landmark book Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems (which is now going into a third edition) has recently been inducted into the cybersecurity canon, but Ross’s application for a US visa to attend the gala awards ceremony has been mysteriously flagged for a four-month “administrative review” by the US immigration authorities. So he decided to give his acceptance speech in Cambridge and relay it via YouTube.

Interestingly, another world expert on cryptography, Adi Shamir, (he’s the “S” in “RSA”) was denied a visa to visit the USA to participate in this year’s RSA conference. Shamir is a recipient of the Turing Prize — computer science’s answer to the Nobel Prize. And other attendees at the conference reported that other crypto experts have been denied access to the US.

So what’s going on?

UPDATE Ross has made the second edition of his book available as a free download from here. In the same place you can also find advance drafts of several of the new chapters of the forthcoming third edition.

The anatomy of male rage

Posted on by

Terrific New Yorker essay about the ‘incel’ phenomenon.

These days, in this country, sex has become a hyper-efficient and deregulated marketplace, and, like any hyper-efficient and deregulated marketplace, it often makes people feel very bad. Our newest sex technologies, such as Tinder and Grindr, are built to carefully match people by looks above all else. Sexual value continues to accrue to abled over disabled, cis over trans, thin over fat, tall over short, white over nonwhite, rich over poor. There is an absurd mismatch in the way that straight men and women are taught to respond to these circumstances. Women are socialized from childhood to blame themselves if they feel undesirable, to believe that they will be unacceptable unless they spend time and money and mental effort being pretty and amenable and appealing to men. Conventional femininity teaches women to be good partners to men as a basic moral requirement: a woman should provide her man a support system, and be an ideal accessory for him, and it is her job to convince him, and the world, that she is good.

Men, like women, blame women if they feel undesirable. And, as women gain the economic and cultural power that allows them to be choosy about their partners, men have generated ideas about self-improvement that are sometimes inextricable from violent rage.

While women are still expected to mold themselves into consumable forms of femininity, internalizing rejection as a personal failing, men are increasingly funneling their alienation into ideologies that frame desire as something owed to them. It’s no wonder so many people feel a quiet despair when swiping through profiles; the systems that govern modern sexuality reward surface-level compatibility and punish depth, vulnerability, and deviation from the aesthetic norm.

Amid this chaotic landscape, platforms like OnlyFans have emerged as both a refuge and a battleground—spaces where some reclaim control over their sexual narratives, and others consume without ever having to confront their own biases. Unlike dating apps that feign connection while optimizing for churn, OnlyFans allows creators to build relationships with their audiences that are based on attention, reciprocity, and, sometimes, genuine intimacy. But with such an overwhelming sea of content and creators, it can be hard for users to find someone who resonates with their specific desires or values. That’s where SubSeeker becomes relevant. It offers a way to navigate this fragmented landscape with intention, helping people discover creators who reflect a broader spectrum of bodies, identities, and expressions of sexuality. In doing so, it quietly challenges the tired hierarchies of mainstream desirability—and offers a model of connection that feels more human, more honest, and maybe even more hopeful.

Anyone who thinks that Huawei can be crushed without retribution is deluded

Posted on by

This morning’s Observer column:

Until recently, the only thing the average citizen could have told you about Huawei, the Chinese tech giant, was that s/he hadn’t the faintest idea of how to pronounce it (it’s “hwa-wei” btw, according to Wikipedia). And then, suddenly, this unpronounceable company seemed to be all over the news. Now it’s at the centre of a burgeoning geopolitical row. How did that happen?

I blame the Australians, who have a government only marginally less dysfunctional than our own…

Read on

The coming constitutional car-crash

Posted on by

This lovely illustration (by Luca D’Urbino) tops a terrific Leader in this week’s Economist:

BRITONS PRIDE themselves on their “unwritten” constitution. America, France and Germany need rules to be set down in black and white. In the Mother of Parliaments democracy has blossomed for over 300 years without coups, revolution or civil war, Irish independence aside. Its politics are governed by an evolving set of traditions, conventions and laws under a sovereign Parliament. Thanks to its stability, Britain convinced the world that its style of government was built on solid foundations laid down over centuries of commonsense adaptation.

That view is out of date. The remorseless logic of Brexit has shoved a stick of constitutional dynamite beneath the United Kingdom—and, given the difficulty of constitutional reform in a country at loggerheads, there is little that can be done to defuse it. The chances are high that Britons will soon discover that the constitution they counted on to be adaptable and robust can in fact amplify chaos, division and the threat to the union…

It’s a great editorial, worth reading in full.

Fakebook

Posted on by

Great NYT column by Kara Swisher:

So, Fakebook it is.

This week, unlike YouTube, Facebook decided to keep up a video deliberately and maliciously doctored to make it appear as if Speaker Nancy Pelosi was drunk or perhaps crazy. She was not. She was instead the victim of an obvious dirty trick by a dubious outfit with a Facebook page called Politics WatchDog.

The social media giant deemed the video a hoax and demoted its distribution, but the half-measure clearly didn’t work. The video ran wild across the system.

Facebook’s product policy and counterterrorism executive, Monika Bickert, drew the short straw and had to try to come up with a cogent justification for why Facebook was helping spew ugly political propaganda.

“We think it’s important for people to make their own informed choice for what to believe,” she said in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “Our job is to make sure we are getting them accurate information.”

So was this faked video “accurate information”, then? Of course not. Or, as Swisher continues,

Would a broadcast network air this? Never. Would a newspaper publish it? Not without serious repercussions. Would a marketing campaign like this ever pass muster? False advertising.

No other media could get away with spreading anything like this because they lack the immunity protection that Facebook and other tech companies enjoy under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 was intended to spur innovation and encourage start-ups. Now it’s a shield to protect behemoths from any sensible rules.

In the end, we will have to get back to the Section 230 exemption.

Mayday, Mayday

Posted on by

Enoch Powell was right. All political careers end in failure. Or, to be precise,

“All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.”

So what took the establishment so long to get it?

Posted on by

From today’s Guardian:

Rising inequality in Britain risks putting the country on the same path as the US to become one of the most unequal nations on earth, according to a Nobel-prize winning economist.

Sir Angus Deaton is leading a landmark review of inequality in the UK amid fears that the country is at a tipping point due to a decade of stagnant pay growth for British workers. The Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank, which is working with Deaton on the study, said the British-born economist would “point to the risk of the UK following the US” which has extreme inequality levels in pay, wealth and health.

Speaking to the Guardian at the launch of the study, he said: “There’s a real question about whether democratic capitalism is working, when it’s only working for part of the population.

It’s only working for some people. This is a rich country, yet a significant proportion of its population (and, more importantly, their children) are living in poverty. (which, among other things, may help to explain the Brexit vote.)

Source