[LINK] Security efforts hindered by untrained users

[Craig Sanders]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 07:05:15AM +1100, Stilgherrian wrote:
> On 31/1/08 6:49 AM, "Craig Sanders" <cas at taz.net.au> wrote:
> > there's also the fact (which can be attested to by anyone who has
> > ever done tech support) that many otherwise quite intelligent people
> > suddenly become incredibly stupid when faced with any technology
> > more complicated than a toaster.
>
> I think part of the problem is that many geeks blame perfectly
> intelligent people who may be well-informed and capable in their
> own field(s) for not immediately understanding the complicated,
> non-intuitive (except to other geeks) and rapidly-changing technology
> which we've forced upon them.

no, that's not it at all.

i'm talking about otherwise intelligent people who become useless
idiots who aren't capable of and don't even bother trying to learn or
understand even the simplest things about computers, no matter how often
or how patiently you try to teach them.

it's like their brain just switches off - they've made the decision that
it's too hard or too much effort (or that it's "easier" to get someone
else to do it for them) and they revert to being a pathetic, helpless
child.

> If perfectly intelligent people have trouble with the technology, then
> it's our fault for making poor technology, our fault for not training
> them, and our fault for alienating them by calling them idiots.

partly.  mostly, though, it's THEIR fault for refusing to even attempt
to learn anything about it....worse than refuse, they actively resist
and resent any attempt to teach them.

(and, frankly, anyone who *chooses* not to even attempt to learn even
the basics about something that's important to their daily personal
and/or working life *IS* an idiot. no matter how smart they might be
otherwise).


BTW, on a related note: to borrow a misused term, there is such a
thing as "irreducible complexity" - but not in the sense that loony
creationists mean it. for a computer to be able to do all the things
that people need it to do, a general purpose computing device for word
processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, email, and numerous other tasks,
absolutely *requires* at least a minimal level of complexity. it will
not and can not ever be as simple to operate as a toaster (or even a
VCR - something which otherwise intelligent people also have difficulty
with).



> It's also partially the fault of marketing departments for pushing the
> idea that complex technology is something you "should" understand "at
> the push of the button",

yes.  definitely.  they've created and fostered unrealistic
expectations.

> but geeks aren't helping.

actually, many geeks ARE helping. many geeks have the same attitude
to tech support that I do (i.e. "teach rather than spoonfeed when
possible/appropriate") and many are (also like me) very good at
translating complex technical concepts into everyday English that
non-techs can understand - and frequently encounter resistance,
resentment, and hostility for our efforts.

many people actively do not want to learn.   

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

BOFH excuse #48:

bad ether in the cables