Efficiency is not a discrete event; it is an enduring commitment. For an investment to be a truly efficient use of resources, it needs to rest on a lasting foundation. Yet many of the technologies we champion and rely on are engineered to go fast, not far. Will technology be safe to use well into the future? At the Institute for Security and Technology, we ask whether technologies are socially and societally sustainable, and that means investigating their security implications.
Take code. Every device, application, or process we rely on multiple times a day can be unnecessarily susceptible to security vulnerabilities. In 2011, Marc Andreessen observed that software is eating the world. Just over a decade later, not only do our lives depend on code for routine actions, code underwrites how we evaluate the world, making it essential to our ability to assess progress or failure in human advancement.
And yet, it is not possible to measure effectiveness without code. Troublingly, as the recent log4j open source software security vulnerability illustrated, one cannot and should not have confidence in measurements without ensuring that the code developers used security best practices and that the code maintainers will similarly exercise sustainable security practices—including responsible disclosure and patching policies in the code’s ongoing use.
Today, too few organizations incorporate such practices, let alone prioritize them. Extended to tomorrow and beyond, not only have organizations failed to incorporate security, the products—services and devices— they develop and sell will have been further incorporated into daily life and riddled with insecurities and the attendant untold risks, including extended risk to human life.
To address this long term risk, society needs a community that prioritizes technology security for the greater good. The EA community can answer this call.
Just as there are privacy advocates and environmental advocates, there must be technology security advocates. Members of this community need not be experts themselves. Rather, they must recognize the significance of technologies now and in the future, and advocate for approaches to technology that consider broader security implications. This includes whether a new platform, system, or tool is ultimately a net benefit or net negative to society.
By asking about a technology’s security provenance and maintenance, not only can the EA community influence these technology’s immediate societal impact, they can also have confidence that assessments of such impacts are accurate and make appropriate, fact-based adjustments and investments for future generations.
At IST our mission is to consider these opportunities and associated risks. Join us.
The Future of Altruism is Sustainable Technology
The Future of Altruism is Sustainable Technology
Efficiency is not a discrete event; it is an enduring commitment. For an investment to be a truly efficient use of resources, it needs to rest on a lasting foundation. Yet many of the technologies we champion and rely on are engineered to go fast, not far. Will technology be safe to use well into the future? At the Institute for Security and Technology, we ask whether technologies are socially and societally sustainable, and that means investigating their security implications.
Take code. Every device, application, or process we rely on multiple times a day can be unnecessarily susceptible to security vulnerabilities. In 2011, Marc Andreessen observed that software is eating the world. Just over a decade later, not only do our lives depend on code for routine actions, code underwrites how we evaluate the world, making it essential to our ability to assess progress or failure in human advancement.
And yet, it is not possible to measure effectiveness without code. Troublingly, as the recent log4j open source software security vulnerability illustrated, one cannot and should not have confidence in measurements without ensuring that the code developers used security best practices and that the code maintainers will similarly exercise sustainable security practices—including responsible disclosure and patching policies in the code’s ongoing use.
Today, too few organizations incorporate such practices, let alone prioritize them. Extended to tomorrow and beyond, not only have organizations failed to incorporate security, the products—services and devices— they develop and sell will have been further incorporated into daily life and riddled with insecurities and the attendant untold risks, including extended risk to human life.
To address this long term risk, society needs a community that prioritizes technology security for the greater good. The EA community can answer this call.
Just as there are privacy advocates and environmental advocates, there must be technology security advocates. Members of this community need not be experts themselves. Rather, they must recognize the significance of technologies now and in the future, and advocate for approaches to technology that consider broader security implications. This includes whether a new platform, system, or tool is ultimately a net benefit or net negative to society.
By asking about a technology’s security provenance and maintenance, not only can the EA community influence these technology’s immediate societal impact, they can also have confidence that assessments of such impacts are accurate and make appropriate, fact-based adjustments and investments for future generations.
At IST our mission is to consider these opportunities and associated risks. Join us.