Matt Blaze's Congressional Testimony on Crypto Policy [pdf]
crypto.com
crypto.com
You have to connect to download it, so why not just put it on the web?! Link to the pdf from there if you simply must.
That is all.
Convincing explanations of complex technical topics are necessarily concise. Mr. Blaze, by using so many words, fails to be concise. Thus he also fails, as he put it, "to minimize his attack surface." Every additional word he types is a new vulnerability in his argument. Attackers use vulnerabilities to exploit. Thus verbosity renders an argument vulnerable to exploitation by attackers.
In politics, in particular, attackers run amuck, transacting amongst each other with exploitation as currency. Arguments are the system of politics, and the same security principles apply to both arguments and systems. As Mr. Blaze points out, maximizing system security requires minimizing system attack surface. The same applies to arguments. Maximizing argument security requires minimizing its attack surface. Literally, minimizing its word count and verbosity. The most concise arguments are the most secure.
The arguments worthy of attack are generally one in a pool of many competing arguments. Important issues generate discussion with arguments on both sides. Stakeholders present these arguments and fund their agenda.
Naturally the future of national security infrastructure is an important issue with money on both sides. Attackers are everywhere.
The number of attackers in this game ensures that any vulnerability risks exploitation. Therefore the "natural selection" process of competing arguments will select for the most secure arguments, with the minimal attack surfaces. The most concise arguments will win, purely by minimizing their attack surface.
Mr. Blaze fails to "minimize his attack surface," as he puts it, because he uses so many words. Every word is a new vulnerability in his argument.
I agree with many of his ideas but I wish they were presented more concisely. In fact the phrase "explain it to my grandmother" might apply here, considering the average age of influential congressmen and senators. I worry they will miss many of the critical portions of Mr. Blaze's argument, and simplify it by listening only to the parts they understand. When they discuss among themselves, Mr. Blaze's voice will lost. He could avoid this by writing more concisely.
(How ironic is this comment, eh?)
Congressional testimony is not really about speaking directly to the elected officials. That does happen but it's mostly for show; Congresspeople have aides doing the heavy lifting for them, especially if it's a subject well out of their wheelhouse.
There's a lot of information loss when you try to fit an idea into a list of points.
And yes, your comment is quite ironic since it is incoherent, unorganized, lengthy, and ultimately, sounds like nothing more than a bunch of whining.
Where did I say that senators do not understand? I am not implying senators cannot read.
Senators do not generally have security backgrounds. So they turn to experts. The senators remain responsible for interpreting the expertise. They must consider all input within a wider context that includes other stakeholders.
When the senators discuss the legislation amongst each other, they consider the inputs of all stakeholders. They need to condense all they learned from the experts into legislation. This requires balancing the biases of conflicting expertise. How do the senators handle the inevitable situation where telecom experts pitch an argument that conflicts with that of Mr. Blaze?
The best marketed idea will win. Experts are salesmen and their ideas are their products.
All I'm saying is that when the experts pitch their ideas, the senators are vulnerable to the same uncontrollable subconscious factors as everyone else. If an idea comes to them packaged with marketing expertise, it will have an advantage over any competing ideas.
Bullet points are good because they're good marketing.