Skip to main content

And that's the last of the DPhil Interviews completed...

It feels momentous, but probably isn't, but today, the last of the DPhil interviews were finished.  This does bring some major factors into consideration, the main one being that I have close to twenty hours of recordings to transcribe.

I can feel carpal tunnel setting in already.

On a serious note, some very busy people have given generously of their time, to what was in most cases a complete stranger asking odd questions for which the potential benefit to themselves was probably nothing except the chance to have a chat about things that interest them and help someone out.

It is good that so many were prepared to talk to me.  Of course, I should remember that an equally large number said no politely, failed to turn up for agreed interviews, stopped answering phone calls and emails, or just told me to go away.  I know how those poor chaps providing unsolicited Microsoft support from a shed in India feel...... 

However, the memory I shall choose to retain is that there are some really good people out there, and I have been lucky in that everyone I have interviewed has been extremely likable - as well as clearly knowing their stuff and being prepared to share their knowledge and expertise.  Maybe that is a level of self selection - only the nice people get interviewed?

Despite dreading this particular aspect of the research (generally being far more comfortable in a dark room with a computer)  I have really enjoyed all the interviews.

So thank you to everyone who helped.  It is greatly appreciated.

(Cross posted from DPhil research record.)


Popular posts from this blog

Non-Academic Publishing

As part of the PhD process that is now (thank heavens) rapidly approaching its end, there have been several discussions suggesting that publishing some papers in 'respected academic journals' would be 'a good thing'.   There are a number of chapters in the PhD that could be carved out and turned into stand alone papers, but I have to be honest, after nearly four years, I am more likely to tear them out and burn them. 

I digress.

Having spent four years reading academic journals, I'm  not so sure about the value of contributing to them.  If I want to have a pointless debate about issues of definition I can do that when taking the kids to school. (This morning's starter for ten:  "Now that my son is 18 and technically an adult,does this mean my daughter is an only child?"  Son's view is no, daughter's view - well you can probably guess).

I digress again. 

The issue for me (and if you are one of my 12 regular twitter followers you will know this)…

AI and the Internet: Sometimes it feels like the 1990s again

Over the past few months I have been (as well as editing the thesis) looking at the world of Artificial Intelligence developments, mainly in relating to working it into a module on an undergraduate BA course called Technology and National Security. (That's the name of the module which is 13 two hour lectures and 13 two hour tutorials, covering everything from the nature of war, through military ethics, to robotics, drones and automated weapons, with a quick detour through cyber-security and global security governance.  Very interesting if intensely depressing subject matter. Much more on this module in posts over the next few months as I finish up the materials).

Anyway, the over-riding feeling I was getting when looking at the state of AI developments was that it was just like the commercialisation of the Internet in the 1990s.    In brief:

1. Nobody is too sure how it is going to play out in the long term. 

Just like the commercial Internet in the 1990s there is a huge question …

So why are the NCSC so relaxed about Huawei?

I am struggling to work out why the NCSC seems to wedded to their capability to mitigate risks associated with Huawei kit in the UK telecoms network.  The current argument is very much about the risks are less about being Chinese and more about being not very good. It's worth noting that this is not why HCSEC was set up in 2010 and is in fact only a concern that was first fully referenced in the 2016 Oversight Committee report so the argument is possibly somewhat disingenuous.

It may well be that the reasons are completely mundane - it is very embarrassing for GCHQ to admit that after ten years of saying they can mitigate the risks to start claiming they can't and their arguably petulant reaction to the RUSI report shows that they do not like being publicly embarrassed.

So why are the NCSC/GCHQ so relaxed about Huawei?  Some (fairly random) thoughts:

1. They really can mitigate the risk of Chinese equipment in the UK telecommunications infrastructure.  This is what they would …