Another nice, big topic from Bruce. :-)
It's an impassioned debate
Not really. The math is clear for these things in the same way the science is clear for many other issues. An agenda of false balance allows the water to be muddied by special interests. There is no debate over the fact that weakening cryptography makes everyone less secure. Neither would there be a debate were it a separate issue that evidence of crimes would be easier to gather if encryption could be nullified. The problem is conflating the two, and trying to impose bad encryption on everyone for everything, when instead the proper approach would be to mandate circumventable encryption only for those transactions/communications that are otherwise reasonably subject to disclosure.
We need policymakers who understand technology, but we also need cybersecurity technologists who understand -- and are involved in -- policy. We need public-interest technologists.
The problem is that you still need to address those special interests who sow division in the public and deny the scientific underpinnings of what technologists bring to the table. Even the public denies what is in their best interest! What we more fundamentally need is better science communication, and serious consequences for those who instead deliberately choose to spread harmful lies.
That quote speaks to the three places for intervention.
In my experience, the bulk of the failings fall squarely on the "misarticulated demand" side of things. I look around me and I see a world full of talent that is tired of working on projects that aren't serving the public interest. There's simply no place for them to go, and no job market that actually addresses their wants and needs. I have applied for a technology position at the EFF, and it was handled in the exact same dehumanizing way I've come to expect from any other soulless corporate HR machine. I've even tried to do volunteer work for non-profits, but they often want you to jump through the same kinds of privacy-eroding hoops that were put in place for (I assume) criminals who are appointed to court-ordered community service.
That means technologists now are relevant to all sorts of areas that they had no traditional connection to: climate change, food safety, future of work, public health, bioengineering.
And the job boards lock them out of those openings because the algorithms don't make them a good enough match. But that's still ultimately a "demand" failing, because the companies aren't doing a good job of writing ads for technology-related positions that are more than just a list of "hot" skills. I swear, I want to scream/laugh/cry every time I see a job posted that highlights HTML knowledge as though it were some special, magical skill that is hard to find in a Senior Software Engineer.
The world needs all of our help.
Yeah, but it doesn't want our help.
f60f34180a220ef7aab065752d5ab44621990e2f21f6d1cdfe7e29f91483a164