Read Time:1 Minute, 45 Second
John Kelsey and I wrote a short paper for the Rossfest Festschrift: “Rational Astrologies and Security“:
There is another non-security way that designers can spend their security budget: on making their own lives easier. Many of these fall into the category of what has been called rational astrology. First identified by Randy Steve Waldman [Wal12], the term refers to something people treat as though it works, generally for social or institutional reasons, even when there’s little evidence that it works—and sometimes despite substantial evidence that it does not.
[…]
Both security theater and rational astrologies may seem irrational, but they are rational from the perspective of the people making the decisions about security. Security theater is often driven by information asymmetry: people who don’t understand security can be reassured with cosmetic or psychological measures, and sometimes that reassurance is important. It can be better understood by considering the many non-security purposes of a security system. A monitoring bracelet system that pairs new mothers and their babies may be security theater, considering the incredibly rare instances of baby snatching from hospitals. But it makes sense as a security system designed to alleviate fears of new mothers [Sch07].
Rational astrologies in security result from two considerations. The first is the principal-agent problem: The incentives of the individual or organization making the security decision are not always aligned with the incentives of the users of that system. The user’s well-being may not weigh as heavily on the developer’s mind as the difficulty of convincing his boss to take a chance by ignoring an outdated security rule or trying some new technology.
The second consideration that can lead to a rational astrology is where there is a social or institutional need for a solution to a problem for which there is actually not a particularly good solution. The organization needs to reassure regulators, customers, or perhaps even a judge and jury that “they did all that could be done” to avoid some problem—even if “all that could be done” wasn’t very much.
