Category: Information Risk Management

Weird infosec science

Who would have thought — that total surveillance would reach into the house, no / hardly any backdoors need to be built in even.
As explained here, and here in closer-to-humanly-readable form.

If such are the Tempest inroads, who needs the newest-of-highest-tech solutions as they all will all succumb to either trivial complexity-induced-unavoidable sloppiness of implementation, or to circumvention in the above way…?

Of course all of it is an atrocity in ethics but … I won’t be utterly negative about humanity’s future so I’ll stop now. With:
20160820_120127
[Art imitating life; Stedelijk Amsterdam]

I can see your pulse

Just to drop a note; that Big G’s Glass is still around — but the same may, on a comparative after-launch timescale (sic), possibly not be said about Big A’s Watch.
Come to think of it… Watch isn’t what it’s made for; ‘flix on your wrist would be a hard view. More like Big B-rother watching your intimate (sic) health data…

— As an intermission, this (esp. 0:00-0:11 and 2:45—) deserves many more clicks —

But as said, some competitor is still larger in pulse-racked computing, at least (without having the energy to google for actual data) when it comes to visibility and leadership of the pack.
So, let’s wait and see what v2.0 Big G will come up with next. Maybe there’s a real serious and immediately obviously useful tool lurking just around the corner, just out of sight, not out of pulse. Not like, the iProducts that started as massively dumbed-down versions of stuff already around, with a Braun rip-off design.

Oh well, never take one’s point too far so I’ll stop already. Plus:
20160820_115845
[Warped real life imitation, not usurpation]

Metaphoric company / politics

… Is the political scene of the, still…, figurehead corporatist (or would you know a more pejorative term?) country (hey, check global capita per country and weep) reflected in the developments of the business world; like, a bunch of weirdos (qua hairstyle and behavior) versus ‘governance’-oriented totalitarian bureaucrats,
or is it the other way around ..?

Just struck me. And beware that the former category would not be where the Silly Valley bunch would fit in, as if by association-through-closeness to ’60s SF. Contrarily, they fit perfectly in the latter category. As was exepelainifyed already here.

Also, both categories are so far apart that when one wins, the other will be separate and free enough to maybe not even care. Though I doubt that Latter would not at least give it a try. And possibly succeed.
Both sides really, really should be ware of Pyrrhus. Like, China or even India taking over. The Bear, not so much; internal control is the stretch to the edge already, shot-in-the-dark break-outs will be just that. Oh, and Europe will of course (? … !) be split in an East-of-Centre, Southern (sub-Rhine/Danube) and Northern (trans-Rhine) parts. That will move at very, very different speeds in very different directions…

But then, in the longer run we’ll all not be dead but this.

But then, I’d best leave you with:
DSC_0627
[Wine not whine bunker; Quinta do Vallado]

Clapton: 5 years for shooting sheriff

Singer not guilty of shooting deputy

August 9, 2016 by George Smith

A Clermont County, Ohio judge has sentenced Eric Clapton to five years in jail for shooting the sheriff. The British singer is said to have confessed in some Number 1 hit of 1974.

Clapton’s lawyer thinks the verdict is ridiculous: “They are trying to smear my client all over his home town. OK, he did indeed shoot the sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense. And all they do is shout that is was a capital offense. Plus, the original was by Bob Marley so what the heck are we talking about??”

In the court hearings, Clapton did not reveal which friends gave him a little help. He did say he felt that five years was forever, man.

Schermafbeelding-2016-08-09-om-12.26.01-670x375

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

Plusquote: Qua Quantification

Qua quantification, maximal isn’t the optimal that minimal is.

If quantification were good, or worth pursuing even anything more than a bit or minimally, Yoda would talk about hidden Markow chains not The Force.
Not all that can be counted, counts, and not all that counts, can be counted. Where ‘not all’ is to be read different than latter-day simpletonian, but as antediluvian ‘none’. Capice ..?

Many more arguments might go here. Suffice to say that ‘evidence-based’ science is a scam. Only those that are too stupid (let’s put it like it is) to ‘get’ the value of philosophy (and ethics etc.etc. as part of it), may not understand it. But as the vast masses don’t have a clue how their car works — chemical reactions within the pistons, anyone? how ’bout the programming of the cabling that controls it all? — but still use it, NO you not understanding does NOT mean it’s nonsense, in your case to the contrary.

To return to the positive of the Plusquote…: All may have a say in matters of society and the ‘control’ (quod non) of its infrastructure including all ‘critical’ sectors like energy, security and finance…

Oh that may be too much of a stretch but still…:
20160805_143215[1]
[OK, … quantify this … NO not even the qualifier Amsterdam is correct, it’s Dordrecht and even that doesn’t capture the picture…]

Quicky: For … eyes only ..?

Because all those high on Mr. Robot, looking alike but wannabe, deep down still would want to be like the center character in this (see the pic below), herewith:
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, can see me through the night in all privacy detail.
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, I never need to more can hide.
You can see so much in ev’rything about me, so much in me that’s new all my browsing history ever.
I never felt until I looked at you it hurt me to death.

For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
You’ll see what no one else every commercial extortion can see, and now I’m breaking free my privacy’s lost totally.
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
The love I know you need in me is now full graphics, 3D, the fantasy you‘ve freed in me joke about in glee.
Only for you the world to see, only for you the world to see.

For your eyes only WikiLeaks, the nights servers are never cold.
You really know me, that’s all I need about me there is to know.
Maybe For sure I’m an open book because I know you’re mineing my info right now,
But you won’t need to read between the lines.

For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
You’ll see what no one else every commercial extortion can see, and now I’m breaking free my privacy’s lost totally.
For your eyes only WikiLeaks, only for you the world to see.
The passions privacy that collide in totally is no more for me, the wild abandoned side data of me.
Only for you the world to see, for your eyes only WikiLeaks and all.

Which is indeed Number Four in line with this, this and this…

Leaving you with…:
ForYourEyesOnly_Underwater2

Own rules

When ‘Compliance’ are the Spanish Inquisition, keep them to their own rules. Leviticus, in particular; 19:19, 19:27, 24:10-16 and others (note :4 for the commoners outside the C department), and Deuteronomy, e.g., 22:11. Exodus 21:7, too.

We’re looking at a lot of pink slips, and clawbacks, if we’d be too (sic) lenient.

Oh well:
20160805_160230[1]
[Compliance through the looking glass; GlassFever Dordrecht]

Risk Chagrins

It’s just a matter of Karma…

As long as ‘risk’ ‘managers’ deal with negativity (admit it; focusing on the negative is even written into quite a number of definitions involved ..!), they’ll become the sourpusses they want to see all around (remember, the “passing back risk management to the ‘first’ line” ..?), and according to which they’ll behave ever more, finding evidence everywhere they’re on the ‘right’ track.
Quod non, but conspiracy theorists as they are, they will not listen …

Oh, and this:
20150109_145912
[Your ‘risk’ ‘heat map’, accurate picture]

Plusquote: Materiality

Discussions about materiality are not material.

This, after realizing that all too often, the discussions about materiality were/are either by Eager Beavers (not having grown above box checking zealots), or by outsiders qua experience and expertise, e.g., lawyers (q.q.) and ‘governance’ bubbletypes.
Whereas, when ‘materiality’ (or its twin-at-a-right-angle, ‘significance’) its pass-or-fail boundary is discussed, not the precise measure (and hence, rigorous definition) counts, but the very fact that there is a discussion in the first place. That is material, that points at an issue. Wise minds (q.q. probably not directly involved ..!) understand this point and will not want to join the discussion, leaving the latter to the nonderstandables.

Think about it — when the discussion arises for whatever reason, that mere fact already is a signal, which can simply be reported as such, together with all its glorious detail. Must. For it is material significant oh whatever…

Leaving you for the weekend with:
20150109_150127[1]
[“It’s only a model” it aint ..! in Rotterdam — oh wait that’s a scaled re-build…]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord