Re: Even if
"These crusty old law makers could look at the algorithm, they probably wouldn't understand it anyway."
Let's examine your ageism.
First of all, look at the summary from the table here http://parliamentarycandidates.org/news/the-age-of-the-new-parliament dating from 2015
18 - 29 2% 30 - 39 14% 40 - 49 32% 50 - 59 32% 60 - 69 16% > 70 4%
How does this compare with your concept of "crusty old". BTW, without looking it up, how do you think those 4% over 70 are distributed between parties?
Now let's think what we might consider as an ideal age distribution. I think most of us would like our MPs to have some practical experience of the world they're trying to administer. My least ideal candidate would be a newly graduated or even younger policy wonk who has no concept of life outside of their own party machine. Such an MP isn't going to come into Parliament without being well into that age distribution, is going to spend some extra years broadening their experience in dealing with governance at all levels from constituency matters upwards and then should remain there so that their experience adds value. Does that distribution seem particularly unreasonable.
There's also the notion implicit in the A/C's statement that somehow it's only the young who are aware of algorithms. So here, my young A/C is a little research exercise for you. Who are Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman? How old are they? Why do you think they should be unable to understand what algorithms are much less understand them? And, if you bothered to look up the answer to the question I posed earlier about >70 MP's parties, how did that fit you preconceptions?