Chris, 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. -Mara > On 21 Dec 2015, at 08:50, Chris Rohlf <[email protected]> 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. > > Chris > > On Saturday, December 19, 2015, <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > 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/> > > > > --dan > > _______________________________________________ > Dailydave mailing list > [email protected] <> > https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave > <https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave> > _______________________________________________ > Dailydave mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
_______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list [email protected] https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
