Artificial intelligence will make lobbying more guileful, and perhaps more successful, argue Nathan Sanders and Bruce Schneier.

Congress is currently debating bills that would ban TikTok in the United States. Bruce Schneier and Barath Raghavan argue that the side effects of such a ban would be both intolerable and ineffective.

Hacking isn’t limited to computer systems, or even technology. Any system of rules can be hacked, argues Bruce Schneier.

When is it time to start worrying about artificial intelligence interfering in our democracy? asks Bruce Schneier. "Maybe when an AI writes a letter to The New York Times opposing the regulation of its own technology. That happened last month. And because the letter was responding to an essay we wrote, we're starting to get worried. And while the technology can be regulated, the real solution lies in recognizing that the problem is human actors—and those we can do something about."

A hack is any means of subverting a system’s rules in unintended ways. In A Hacker’s Mind, Bruce Schneier takes hacking out of the world of computing and uses it to analyze the systems that underpin our society: from tax laws to financial markets to democracy. He reveals an array of powerful actors whose hacks bend our economic, political, and legal systems to their advantage, at the expense of everyone else.

Artificial intelligence has the potential to dramatically alter how we gather information, communicate and work. Experts are also raising questions about how it will affect governance and what it will mean for the future of our democracy. Bruce Schneier, a fellow at the Belfer Center, joins PBS' William Brangham to discuss.

What makes the threat of AI-powered lobbyists greater than that of the high-priced lobbying firms on K Street is their potential for acceleration, write Nathan E. Sanders and Bruce Schneier.

This fall, the Belfer Center’s Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program (STPP) brought back the popular AI Cyber Lunch seminar series to explore issues at the forefront of technology and, increasingly, public policy. The hybrid seminar series, organized by Cyber Project Fellow and HKS Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy Bruce Schneier and STPP Fellow Cathy O’Neil, brought a wide range of speakers to Harvard Kennedy School to discuss how new and emerging technologies can be harnessed to enhance, rather than harm, society.

Maintaining bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies causes about 0.3 percent of global CO₂ emissions. That may not sound like a lot, but it’s more than the emissions of Switzerland, Croatia, and Norway combined. As many cryptocurrencies crash and the FTX bankruptcy moves into the litigation stage, regulators are likely to scrutinize the crypto world more than ever before. This presents a perfect opportunity to curb their environmental damage.

The good news is that cryptocurrencies don’t have to be carbon intensive. In fact, some have near-zero emissions. To encourage polluting currencies to reduce their carbon footprint, we need to force buyers to pay for their environmental harms through taxes.

Current economic and political forces incentivize companies to skimp on security at the expense of both personal and national security. If we are to do better, we need to change the market incentives, says Bruce Schneier.