Blog – Page 79 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Watson’s ID

Does Watson have an identity? Because, when it (sic; why not ‘she’ ..?) is intelligent enough to make its own decisions, it may want to, or know ways to obtain, or be bestowed with, personhood of some sorts. To which it may need an identity, and according ID.
But that all hinges on the construct of a single, identifyable instance of <something>. And all sorts of fancy dancy press announcements — where one might ask ‘Where you’ve been to come to the show only now’ — regarding deploying ‘Watson’ in some confined business context seem to start to fly around; mostly with corporates having a dire need to blow over the news of their atrocious lack of morals — but what is it they use?
Most probably only a time share (think S/36 style) or copied-instance or copied-engine of the concept / most elaborately trained instance available.
Do we have a criminal / misdemeanour system in place already for such non-human persons? No, I don’t mean the sorely failed ‘corporate’ personhood approach as that’s a hoax. People still are in charge of corporates, and are punishable per (Board!) capita for anything that anyone does on behalf of their employer XOR they are fundamentally not allowed to act independently in any society.

Only now do we have new entities coming aboard that behave like individuals but have none behind them to cover for accountability … or they aren’t individual operators. So, no choice. But as yet, no legal system to operate in. Conundrum!

On a somewhat tangential (is it?) node: Yes, AlphaGo has beaten a human a couple of times, and the other way around now, too, but that doesn’t mean the game is lost (its interest); see Chess. And, ‘who’ has beaten the human player? Is it a ‘who’ or is it (not only) an ‘it’ or not even that, is it too abstract to say that a ‘robot’ that is in fact an ‘information system somewhere out there dispersed in place, maybe even in time’ has beaten a human..? AGI has no power plug, people!

Also,

[“The” Church, Ronchamps]

Obviously today: Elk, Moose, Reindeer

As an intermission: Would you know which is which, of the above/below …?
And then, there’s continental differences …
First up, the Elk:
elk-06
Servus Canadensis, the wapiti indeed. Next up, the Elk:
130673480_moose_463656c
know as such in Eurasia including those tinny pebbles off the coast called the British Isles. Looks suspiciously like the Alces Alces that is the Canadian (oh well, and US, yes, whiners) Moose, doesn’t it?
Because it is…! But you moose’ent confuse the two with each other nor with the reindeer a.k.a. caribou:
reindeeris5
Rangifer Tarandus, since this one’s for Saami and Santa.

Are you feeling elky now ..? Or move to the Caribouan; you’ll never have problems with the above there …

Security so(m)bering

There’s this discussion going down on the merits of privacy versus security. Whether the one is part of the other, or the other way around, or both. Whereas the smarts are with considering privacy enhanced by good confidentiality settings ’cause they see that privacy is an issue of higher (abstraction) order than mere confi; achieved by it but only as infosec are the bricks and mortar when all you wanted is not bricks or so but a wall.
Through which you may reflect on compliance in infosec. Because hardly ever, is that taken to include compliance with the principles and business objectives and conditions that include being sparse with hinder to the business. Really, those that truly set only guiding rails not enforcement rails, are the unicorns of the trade. No, not those unicorns, those are just frauds anyway.
You may try to do better; really. It starts with risk … when properly applied, you would not get the remarks about ‘why, it has never happened to us before / what are the odds?’ but might even get better support for some slightly hindering process changes and better (but less end user detectable) ‘infra’ i.e., everything under the users’ level of visibility.
So, I’m not sombering or if, about the eager beaver pervasive prevalence. Because sobering up, wising up, may win the day and may be due…

We shouldn’t somber too much… Isn’t this a perfect opportunity to finally demonstrate how we do (… can …) link up information security to real business issues at the highest GRC levels. Since we shouldn’t be passive, and leave ‘privacy’ to be taken over by lawyers jumping into the current Privacy Officer void. Since we can translate all the operational and tactical work that we do on privacy, all the way up to strategic levels and still be very concrete. And not have to wait till ill-understandable “guidelines” (shackles) keep us from achieving something.
No more wannabe whining about ‘deserving’ a seat at the Board table or at least be heard; not asking to be allowed but matter-of-factly showing ‘Done.’ … if, not when, you did informtion security right all the way…

Just like that:

[“Na na nanana can’t hear you!”; Porto]

Another Art (Ac)claim

If only titled such for the alliteration allure.
But seriously, folks. This as an idea claim, more like a bucket list item “closer than you think”:
Wokking around the World.

Which is about building a collection of pictures of all the situations where The Wok applies;

Wokking in Memphis
Wokking in a Winter Wonderland
Wok the Tok (Dutchies will get the hint of chicken ;-[ )
Wokking on the Moon — OK, this may take some photoshopping…
Wokking on Sunshine — implementation to be decided
Wok like an Egyptian — either in front of some pyramids, on the borders of the Nile or Suez Canal, or with Egyptian ingredients
Wok this way, tok this way with a chicken running away from the frying pan
Wok on the wild side, at a zoo for ease of implementation
Wok (me out) in the morning dew
… Starting to sense the music theme here, right? Though seeded and mixed with general stuff…
Under the Board-wok — easy; by the sea
These boots are made for wokking — just hold them over a wok pan
Wokking in the rain — maybe not feasible to have Grace Jones do this for the picture, though
You’lle never wok alone — somewhere in the midst of. e.g., Liverpool supporters
Wokking a tightrope — obviously, just put the rope in a pan whilst holding a balancing bar over it…
Wok in someone else’s shoes — easily made visible when they’re three sizes too large
A wok in the park
Wokking on water — not too literally b/c that would be dangerous, just do it on top of some raft
Wokking the dog — maybe not literally
…
And throw in a lot of pics from around the world as well, just for the heck of it.

Well, you get my drift anyways. As said, it’s still an idea only but pleasurable to think about it, to think it through, already. Therefore, we are.
[Note: If you consider this to be in line with Extreme Ironing then yes, they’re similar in folly’ness and then what ..?]

Oh, and already:

[May be required still, for the On the Moon part; DC obviously?]

Miss Quote: Your way. Or ..?

In the series of unfortunate misquotes, a famous one:

Anything that can go wrong, will (Murphy)

As a secondary quote from somewhere:
But Edward Murphy did not say this. What he most likely did say is something along the lines of:

‘If there’s more than one way to do a job, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then somebody will do it that way’.

Which only by you with the way you do things, does indeed result in disaster, without fail. So, if you use the misquote, you should add “when I do it”…?

That was a short and easy one … so, for you:

[You picked its current spot; deep into the harbour…; Baltimore]

Art project for grabs

Putting it out there, for grabs. An art project.
Crowdfunding as the Purpose of it.
Imagine: 3D (sic) printing small parts of an existing Jackson Pollock, e.g., One: Number 31, 1950, and framing them in oversized rococo frames. Sizes of the cuts differ, depending on the amount of funding provided. Of course there should be some photo shoot (actual or virtual) of the pieces assembled, to the max of the original as possible (the frames will make completion of the puzzle impossible but that’s the point, too) and using some state-of-the-art knapsack algorithm.

No more. No fancy bits. Just this. Because you Can. Art = [I could do that] + [Oh yeah but you didn’t]

To which:

[Pieces / assembled, for strength; Royal Waiting Room, Ams Central Station]

De nieuwe KvK-registratie

Voor velen is het een klusje dat lastig is, maar er nu eenmaal bijhoort als onderdeel van ‘being in business’.
De registratie bij de Kamer van Koophandel. De basics, bij de enthousiaste start van bijvoorbeeld een zelfstandig bestaan. Het onderhoud, bij wisselingen in het verenigingsbestuur — en dan blijkt de KvK dermate relevant, dat men nog een natte handtekening vereist maar dan wel in het bekende veel te kleine rechthoekje te plaatsen waardoor de gezette handtekening welhaast per definitie niet klopt…! Hoe diep in het vorige millennium kan je achtergebleven zijn; dit toont wel aan dat de KvK welhaast niet nuttig meer kan zijn…

Maar nu is er in tijden van ‘cyber’ (#ditchcyber!) een alternatief of eerder, een vergelijkbare registratie: Bij de AP.
Jawel, de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, zo genoemd omdat de verwarring met het begrip ‘privacy’ nog niet groot genoeg was wellicht, en hernoemd om weer een decennium opstarttijd te geven voordat effectiviteit kan worden verwacht en alsdan weer een nieuwe tijd aangebroken is die vraagt om een ‘andere’ instantie ..?
Want we hebben immers de Wet meldplicht datalekken… Met 700 registraties in de eerste twee maanden (rekening houdend met een volle eerste maand nieuwjaarsborrels, dus een week of vier) is wel duidelijk dat het een kwestie is van (aan)melden en verder gelukkig niets — tenzij men pech heeft niet politiek relevant te zijn en ‘dus’ najaagbaar …

Ach, overheid; leuker kunnen ze het niet maken, wel onmogelijker…?

[En daar komt nou ook niet echt tegenwind vandaan…]

Yup, there it is …

… What took us (?) so long …?

Hybrid war

Yes, the phrase we all were waiting for, or might have predicted but hardly anyone did. But now, out there for all the FUD and fear mongering (to profit from ..!). May this be the avenue of submersion of cyber (#ditchcyber !), like a U-boat trolling and unexpectedly blowing you out of the water?
What will be, will be. Grab the money trucks!

On a side (?) note:

[Transport for the consultants /-cy fees for you, required to tackle it all; Baltimore]

Plusquote: R&R

Never let a good opportunity for R&R go to waste

Which goes on the back of ‘never let a good crisis go to waste’ which s true, but negative as it relies on crises to turn up as the best (not the only …) opportunities to get change done. But now, tries to turn it to the positive, (truly hedonistic with an epicurean twist) enjoyable by way of the proper mix of carpe diem due to memento mori. As one doesn’t know when one will die; a great many being caught short of having lived as they postponed all purpose of life by ‘saving’ that for later, always for later. Hence the balance will need to be tried, not wasting, not spending it all but also not shirking from opportunities to enjoy.
Hence a side remark that the plusquote is quite absolute whereas its application needs some ‘risk management’ balancing (including personal quality perception/prediction) but hey, that takes the fun out of the shorthand.

Oh; some may not have gotten the memo that R&R (R ‘n R) isn’t about rock and roll or so, but about Rest and Recreation. Or Rest and Restoration, whatever floats your boat.

Talking about boats … (??):

[Ship not boat! Not too much for pleasure, originally …; Baltimore again]

Short on tape

The title being a mere reference to Turing machines. Since I wanted to bring up the subject of short-sightedness of those that do not understand the fundamental nature of the Church-Turing thesis and Halting Problem deeply enough.
Because they, symptomatically, consider that humans can solve the problems associated with it hence any machine that would think similarly enough or better than humans, would have overcome the problems by sheer thinkpower. But that is simply wrong. Humans do not overcome the problem, they work around its applications — another element of what makes us human, maybe. And there is no guarantee whatsoever, or rather to the contrary, that any ASI will be able to do the same, in all situations — because any true ASI will explode to cover all of the universe hence also all of its problem areas, right ..? [Reference to Kurzweil’s books and ideas not really necessary, are they?]
Gödel’s Incompleteness isn’t just something that can be solved! It is!, whether that’s fortunate or not. And a world ‘beyond’ such axiomatic issues, well… Wovon man nicht sprechen kann…

And Good versus Evil: Also not ‘solved’ by humans. And phenomenology — not something that the ultimate abstract of Hegelian Ratio can ‘solve’. And …

In similar vein (not?):

[The eternal fight between Good and Evil, ratio versus original Natural brute force, Yin versus (!)(?) Yang; Sevilla]