Talk:Bruce Schneier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

schneier is said to belong to the 'cypherpunk' category but there's zero evidence or 'sources' for the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.226.23.229 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


debate[edit]

"He also believes that changes to airport security since 11 September 2001 have done more harm than good and defeated former head of the Transportation Security Administration, Kip Hawley, in an Economist online debate by 87% to 13% regarding the issue.[17]"

so? if 90% agreed with the idea that the post-911 airport security changes did more harm than good, then he lost the debate. i would like to compare what people believed before the debate to after. (the source is paywalled by the economist or something). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sboosali (talk • contribs) 22:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how to say it?[edit]

Is it pronounced "shn-EYE-er" or "shn-EE-er"? —User:17.206.16.106 23:44, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

The first one. —User:Mulad (talk) 00:13, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
Are you completely sure? (How do you know?) Also, could this information maybe go in the article? It's what I came here looking for, and it's something useful that a lot of people want to know about him. Glenn Willen (Talk) [[]] 00:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's a movie of a talk given by Schneier here, and he's introduced as "shn-EYE-er". — Matt Crypto 01:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You pronounce it "Shneyer On Fire"! :-)--169.232.119.242 (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation Security Administration[edit]

Was there some airline-related work we should mention in this article? Ojw 2 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)

Lack of criticism?[edit]

Is there any serious criticism of Schneier's work? Ludvik 13:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is - cryptanalysis of his ciphers and criticisms of some positions he takes. But those belong on the entries about those things, not here. For example, here are some responses to 10 risks of PKI: [1] [2] — ciphergoth 15:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Lost PGP key[edit]

Is it true that he lost a PGP private key and, since then there were no revocation measures, he still receives mail he can't decypher?

Yup. See the comment (footnote, I think I remember) in Practical Cryptography. ww 06:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in da Vinci Code[edit]

From the 15 May 2006 edition of Crypto-Gram:

As an aside, I am mentioned in Da Vinci Code. No, really. Page 199 of the American hardcover edition. "Da Vinci had been a cryptography pioneer, Sophie knew, although he was seldom given credit. Sophie's university instructors, while presenting computer encryption methods for securing data, praised modern cryptologists like Zimmermann and Schneier but failed to mention that it was Leonardo who had invented one of the first rudimentary forms of public key encryption centuries ago." That's right. I am a realistic background detail.
There is nothing Schneier can do about getting gratuitously name-dropped, but that piece of trivia does not belong in WP. Appearing in a sentence like that makes him look like a bit of an idiot by association. Leibniz 13:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the bit about Leonardo inventing public key encryption makes mention of Schneier really unimportant. In the presence of a major whopper, the little ones don't get much noticed. ww 03:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did it already happen to one of you?[edit]

While reading Secrets & Lies, I have a feeling that Schneier is always saying behind the written lines: HIRE ME, HIRE MY COMPANY, HIRE MY BUSINESS, etc, etc. Is it a cryptography expert subliminal trick??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.136.57 (talk • contribs)

These aren't the subliminal mind tricks you're looking for. Schneier can go about his business. Move along. — ciphergoth 08:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Haha. Help me, Bruce Schneier. You're my only hope. --JHP (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates[edit]

I've tried to format the citation templates according to their documentation. The relevant parts are as follows:

Template:Cite book:

  • date: Full date of publication edition being referenced, in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, eg. 2006-02-17. Must not be wikilinked.
    • OR: year: Year of publication edition being referenced, and month: Name of the month of publication. If you also have the day, use date instead. Must not be wikilinked.
  • pages: pp. 5–7: first page and optional last page. This is for listing the pages relevant to the citation, not the total number of pages in the book.

pp. is an abbreviation used when citing multiple pages (p or p. is the abbreviation for "page").

Template:Cite web:

  • date: Full date of publication, preferably in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format, e.g. 2006-02-17. May be wikilinked.
    • OR: year: Year of publication, and month: Name of the month of publication. If you also have the day, use date instead. Must not be wikilinked.

By default these dates appear as ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD dates, but this can be changed easily in your preferences for any full date. Unfortunately, the Rebecca Blood reference only lists year and month, and so can't be automagically reformatted.

I published the Bruce Schneier interview on January 31, 2007. Rebeccablood 18:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

»  [3]

Hopefully that clears it up? —GrimRevenant 04:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that currently, MediaWiki only reformats dates that are linked, e.g., [[2006-02-17]]. The "accessdate" field is automatically linked, but not the "date" field. -- intgr 07:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I didn't link that one was that the template specified "Must not be wikilinked", so I assumed that it would be taken care of automatically. Anyone have any idea why linking the date would be a bad idea? —GrimRevenant 08:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It breaks the template, to put it simply. Templates are currently inconsistent (even internally: cite web accepts wikilinked date attributes, but insists on unlinked ISO format for accessdate) and always will be to some extent. Where the template does not auto-link dates presented unlinked in ISO format I always use a wikilinked "human" layout, i.e. 20 April 2007, which makes it easier for editors. Chris Cunningham 08:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

attack tree reversion[edit]

BS is one of the pioneers of the technique, and has written several published articles on it (eg, in Dr Dobbs). It is quite relevant to this article. ww (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose merging the contents of Individual-i into this article. That stub, long unattended, lacks any assertion of notability sufficient for stand alone status, but it may be relevant within the context of the biography of the symbol's creator. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sole comment on this topic took place here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New reference[edit]

I think that the "citation needed" should be removed from the line that states that Schneier has authored and coauthored hundreds of cientific papers. I suggest replacing it with a reference such as: List of articles authored or coauthored by Bruce Schneier, on Google Scholar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.187.6.252 (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in 24[edit]

In the episode of the Fox Television show 24 aired on Monday; March 16, 2009 the character played by Carlo Rota suggested that the designer of Blowfish encryption designed a back door into it. Bruce was not mentioned by name, only Blowfish, and it was unclear how much fact and fiction was being mixed. I figured it was worth recording here. mattclare (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blowfish was published as open source, and has been available for many years. It's from a group of well-respected crypto designers, and lots and lots o feyes have looked through it. Schneieir denies, and no one else has suggested, that there is a backdoor of the sort probably implied here. My best estimate is that the ratio of truth to fiction in this instance approaches 0 very closely. In short, no there there, despite the show's well known truthiness in all other respects. ww (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly unlikely that the producers/directors of the show did any research on Blowfish beyond its name. They probably just threw the "backdoor" in because it was convenient and a form of technical mumbo-jumbo that the audience would understand. My guess is that there is exactly 0 thought behind such a statement. The show is fiction, remember. B-Con (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciphers and algorithms[edit]

I added Bruce_Schneier#Ciphers_and_algorithms as other than his publications they are his main work. If anyone knows of any additional algorithms please add them. -Ravedave (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sent him an email asking of the list was correct and he replied: "Add Helix. Both Helix and Phelix are stream ciphers. Yarrow and Fortuna are PRNGs. Blowfish, Twofish, Threefish, MacGuffin are all block ciphers. Sloitare is a stream cipher. Skein is a hash function." -Ravedave (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bruce a book?[edit]

There's been a recent disagreement ([4][5][6]) about whether this article should be in Category:Computer security books. I still don't think it should, because the topic of this article is not a book. (See also Category talk:Computer security books.) It's certainly true that "Applied Crypto is [a book], it's canonical in its field", but I don't think that justifies the inclusion of the author in the "Book" category. If the book is so important - and I agree it is notable enough - perhaps we should create an article (even if it is just a stub for now) and add that article to the category instead of this one. Comments anyone? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than using up all of those bytes above, you could have created a couple of categorised redirects by now. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the category to the Applied Cryptography redirect. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects says that it is appropriate to place redirects in categories if the target title is incompatible with the category. Hut 8.5 15:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for that. I've remove this article from Category:Computer security book again, because it's not needed, as the book article/redirect is in the category. (In particular, I think that this article is sufficiently similar to the Vestibules / Radio Free Vestibule example in WP:Categorizing redirects that the example gives clear support to the removal.) Mitch Ames (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

Last time I checked, M. Schneier was alive ( ;) ). Does this page not fit in the "living person biography" category and thus deserve a protection against edits? #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 11:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how protection is used in Wikipedia. The protection policy does allow biographies of living people to be protected if there are heavy and persistent violations of the policy on biographies of living people, but that isn't the case here. There isn't any practice of protecting all biographies of living people whatever the status of the article, as you seem to think. Hut 8.5 12:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my bad, then, and thank you for the explanation. #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 13:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early employment?[edit]

The "Early life" section should be expanded (and the information about honorary degrees, hardly part of his early life, moved elsewhere). I'd like to see some information on where he was working in the years after he graduated from university. Wasn't he a DoD employee for some years? 188.24.89.163 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, yes - where is "personal life" like in so many other WP articles? Wife? Kids? The "squid" factor? All of these are mising — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.70.43 (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis or New York[edit]

The article is in the lists List of people from Minnesota and List of people from New York. Which one is correct? The article mentions that Bruce Schneier grew up in Flatbush, which lies in New York, but doesn't really mention Minneapolis. Can anyone with knowledge clear this up? --Athaba (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Master in Computer Science[edit]

... and got his master's degree in computer science in 1988. Does the AU offer such a degree? And yes, I read the source ... and the AU site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.20.115 (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bruce Schneier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Age[edit]

I think he is born in 1963, not in 1952.—Sung Kyun Kwan (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sung Kyun Kwan: The current birth date (1952) is supposedly based on his Facebook profile, although the profile no longer contains his birth date/age. Do you have a reliable source for your claim? -- intgr [talk] 17:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, citation 7 as of 31-Dec-2017 claims he graduated with a bachelor's degree in 1984 so it is highly unlikely (but possible) that he was born in 1982. What's the high bar for birthdate verification on WP? Buzzm (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruce Schneier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published warning in Viewpoints section[edit]

Given that the Viewpoints section is clearly just stating what Bruce's views are, wouldn't the use of his blog posts be allowed Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF as there is not going to be a more verifiable source of his views than his own statements?

In other words, can't we remove that template? Calumapplepie (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bruce_Schneier&oldid=1207847558"