Blog – Page 72 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Said, not enough

Here’s a trope worth repeating: Humans are / aren’t the weakest link in your InfoSec.

Are, because they are fickle, demotivated, unwilling, lazy, careless, (sometimes! but that suffices) inattentive, uninterested in InfoSec but interested in (apparently…) incompatible goals.

Are, because you make them a single point of failure, or the one link still vulnerable and through their own actual, acute, risk management and weighing, decide to evade the behavioral limitations set by you with your myopic non-business-objectives-aligned view on how the (totalitarian dehumanized, inhumane) organisation should function.

Aren’t, because the human mind (sometimes) picks up the slightest cues of deviations, is inquisitive and resourceful, flexible.

Aren’t, because there’s so many other equally or worse weak links to take care of first. Taking care of the human factor may be the icing, but the cake would be very good to perfect for making the icing worthwhile…!

Any other aspects ..? Feel free to add.

If you want to control ‘all’ of information security, humans should be taken out of the (your!) loop, and you should steer clear of theirs (for avoiding accusations of interference with business objectives achievement, or actually interfering without you noticing since your viewpoint is so narrow).

That being said, how ’bout we all join hands and reach for the rainbow ..? Or so, relatively speaking. And:

[Where all the people are; old Reims opera (?)]

Plusquote: ‘Big’ Data

People never lie so much as before an election, during a war, or after a hunt.

Otto von Bismarck was right. The bias for socially acceptable answers plagues all analysis when that concerns data gathered from humans. Before an election, during a law suit, or after one has by the most unthinkable Luck (after most irrational stamina kept you going) stumbled upon a unicorn like here.
That’ll be all for today! Plus:

[(The quoted general was) solid as a rock; Amersfoort of course]

From Top-10 to Bottom

Dawn. Of a new association.

That there are still quite a lot of folks around, that are happy with any ranking of themselves / their organisation, on just any Top-something list. Even when not at the very Number 1. Which of course means people are happy about some very, very random and insignificant external motivator. For, if they would care about real motivation, they wouldn’t need any outside recognition.
Just like most business KPIs or what have we, are poor, paltry proxies for the performance one would want, which, to signify anything, for sure would not be measurable outright.

Leading to those that cherish the wrong thing, to be ranked Bottom. Dev0. Etc.
Your arguments, please. No, not mere countering ‘did not’s; arguments.

George Hamilton, VIII+, and Roderick W. Kennedy criticize the elites

“The elites have lost sight of the underlings.”

By William Mayflower

The American elites are playing havoc on Democracy. This harsh statement is issued by George Hamilton, VIII-and-counting, and Roderick Wendall Kennedy of the seventh consecutive lifetime U.S. Senator family branch. ‘The upper crust has completely lost it,’ as they write in a pamphlet that they graciously allowed the press to receive at their Jackson Hole cabin-of-sorts.

‘One should be sensible governors again,’ posits the Founding Father (heir) while taking a serious pinch from his snuff box. ‘The elites of today are much too cosy with the UN and IMF, and with the disconnected multiculturals.’ “Wendall Rod” concurs from atop Butch, his thoroughbred. ‘When one may see protests in the street, that will be all on the elites and as lords protector of democracy will have to drive the peasants back to Mexico again.’ His Colt Python E’s are fully loaded.

The right honorable gentlemen have come up with a solution to the arrogance of the elites. ‘The self-styled leaders should for one thing stop doling out leadership jobs to one another. It is about time that they pass the gavels of power to common men like us.’
[Original, in Dutch, on the Speld; translated with permission]

Golden Oldie Pic of the Day

Once again, there you are. Because Monday:
autocars

Is it New (enough) ..?

After bemusement and annoyance with all Pokesheeple (They think trespassing (or worse) is OK in some game hunt? Preventative (hospital) detention is on order — no-one of their abilities is too stupid to not have to just stick to the law ..!), and the business model of selling simpleton crowd control to e.g., shopping malls has come out of the closet, my question is: How new is that ..?

Seriously; is it an ‘innovation’ that isn’t recognized (yet) as such, or is it a minor application of some other one’s idea ..? What (hopefully (??), non-game tied) variants can we expect in the near future ..? Or will we devolve into a real-life GTA game nation, with some 0,1%ers pulling all the strings?

Leaving you with this dystopian twist, but serious about the question before that, and with:

[Upside-down Voorburg]

~vergent predictions, Do or Don’t

This idea, or lack of it, crossed my mind:
When it comes to predictions, following the lead of Tetlock’s Superforecasters may very well work (though note much of it starts with the, sort-of, mental, 50-50 approach of soberly realizing that one may improve, by admitting imprecision and those that claim precision or high scoring rates are wrong) … for issues and questions that converge on one, somewhat exactly determinable, outcome. This, all being within the realm of said book which is very much recommended by the way.
Where some questions, like “What is the best strategy?” may not have such a single outcome; the world changes, and (business-like) having a vision is a grand prediction already. Let alone that the ‘mission’, one’s desired place in that vision of how the world will be in the future, (often / always without a miss) skips the implicit choice issue of what one’s future place could be within that, vaguely defined, future state of affairs. Even if you shoot for the moon [and end up in an infinite and infinitely cold vacuum, among the stars but near-infinitely dwarfed by them] and miss, you may end up in a not-first but still pretty comfortable position; no hard feelings. … This, as an explication of what I’d call diverging predictions: Wide-ranging future states that you might ‘predict’ but most probably in a vocabulaire that will not be valid or understood in the future so traceability of your predictions is … quite close to zero hence your advance predictions have no worth ..! This of course is also in the book but still, too often not realised.

Now, let’s combine this with Maister’s Advisor let alone simple consultancy …

Oh well. Plus:

[Predicting quality of resulting still wines … for second fermentation, mariage, and onwards — priceless; Ployez-Jacquemart]

Silent majority presents new spokesman

David Walker will ‘smash the oppositions with considerate nuance’

By John Neighdor and Harry Lydell

The silent majority wants its voice back. Today, it presented a new spokesperson: David Walker.
It will be Walker’s mission to give the silent majority a new identity, a new voice once again. “We have been silent for way too long, and it is time we start to communicate to The Others what really goes on inside our heads. We might continue to whisper to each other that we actually are a majority, but we’ll not convince The Rest with that.”

The silent majority will stay in character by remaining nuanced, moderate, and politically correct and decent, but its voice will from now on be heard. Walker: “The essence of the silent majority is that we do not tend to raise our voice. We often think before we say anything but therefore we often don’t say too much. Where in the past, the focus was on the thinking part, I would consider laying more stress on the other part, possibly and where appropriate. It’s not just about how one would say something, but also about saying anything in the first place.”

David Walker even hints at ‘smashing the oppositions with considerate nuance’ when a debate might polarize: ‘When both extreme sides are just yelling at each other, I could for example outdo them both: “You both have some arguments worth considering so why don’t you try for once to see the other’s valid points! Maybe we could even reach a compromise! We can only be successful if we arrive at a bipartisan solution! If you keep yelling at each other, you’ll not achieve much!” or something like that.’

The appointment of David Walker was a surprise. Gallup polls had shown a clear victory for D. Trump as new spokesperson.

[Original, in Dutch, on the Speld; translated with permission]

Plusquote: Your organisational environment

If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into a committee – that will do them in.

Just putting it out there — from Bradley’s Bromide yes. And very true, of …, well, whatever environment you find yourself in. And, as a ‘solution’ to the ever-growing power of ASI, leapfrogging past AlphaGo-or-was-it-DeepMind and Watson. If those (sic) in the latter category don’t see the stupidity of our common ways and do away with it altogether even when (not if) that would mean doing away with humans as minor collateral damage.
Hopeful, eh?

[Strange Quine: The artwork is High Humanity, the depicted, not so much (or is it??); Stedelijk, Amsterdam]

Right. Explain.

Well, well, there we were, having almost swallowed all of the new EU General Data Protection Regulation to the … hardly letter, yet, and seeing that there’s still much interpretation as to how the principles will play out let alone the long-term (I mean, you’re capable of discussing 10+ years ahead, aren’t you or take a walk on the wild side), and then there’s this:

Late last week, though, academic researchers laid out some potentially exciting news when it comes to algorithmic transparency: citizens of EU member states might soon have a way to demand explanations of the decisions algorithms about them. … In a new paper, sexily titled “EU regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a ‘right to explanation,’” Bryce Goodman of the Oxford Internet Institute and Seth Flaxman at Oxford’s Department of Statistics explain how a couple of subsections of the new law, which govern computer programs making decisions on their own, could create this new right. … These sections of the GDPR do a couple of things: they ban decisions “based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces an adverse legal effect concerning the data subject or significantly affects him or her.” In other words, algorithms and other programs aren’t allowed to make negative decisions about people on their own.

The notice article being here, the original being tucked away here.
Including the serious, as yet very serious, caveats. But also offering glimpses of a better future (contra the title and some parts of the content of this). So, let’s all start the lobbies, there and elsewhere. And:

[The classical way to protect one’s independence and privvecy; Muiderslot]