Privacy – Page 11 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Oops, there it is! (now you don’t, see it)

Suddenly, there it is, almost as if it’s something new … Malware using stego, as if it might still surprise anyone whereas of course there already was this, and this, and this and this.

What next? Even smarter ad blockers ..? Will not work, as the latter are only in use with the smarter part of the bunch. And smarter ad blockers will be installed by even fewer, as the pay-off is less visible (timely enough).

No, what’s next is first an armageddon [Warning: cultural notion; propose to use the more profound Ragnarök] — of which the result hopefully … is that ads will be marginalised. A great many a socmed platform (looking at you, $FB and other (sic) unicorns) may (signifying possibility and hope) go asunder as ads are their value period

Then, hopefully, Yggdrasil will grow again. E.g., with truly egalitarian platforms; truly global (though that aspect may not have been sunk in the great flood) and free, meaning that also, the trolls can be captured and ring-fenced and not destroy some or many or the platforms / -ideas.

How philosophical one can get in dreams/dreaming, how far off today is the better-than-today’s-should-have-been.

Plus:

[All sorts of meta-info (‘nothing to protect here just move on’/ Í can see you but you can’t see me’ et al); Segovia or what was it]

No C3PO, just PO

Section 4, article 37, 1(b) of the General Data (sic) Protection Regulation ‘of 2018’ (sic): When the core activities of the controller or the processor consist of processing operations which, by virtue of their nature, their scope and/or their purposes, require regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale;, the instantiation of a Functionary for Data Protection is mandatory.
Yes this includes all organisations dabbling in web analytics… No there’s no threshold (that previously was) of 250 or 500 staff minimum.
But hey, there’s arrangements to hire a Functionary — Privacy Officer works better — for less than full-time or on an (on-going) assignment basis. Come to think of it; the mandatory full independence of the PO (party commissioner, anyone?) may sit better with a hired hand/consultant than with someone on the payroll.
Still, one better study the task list for such a PO. Not a C3PO… The bumbling-through-overly-decent butler is not quite the role model you’d want. Or… you’d want the PO to be such, a harmless nuisance. But then, you waste the PO and budget, and still will be vulnerable. The common anglo-saxon (hopefully -only but doubtful) approach that if something goes wrong, you fire the sitting duck scapegoat and hey presto no more worries all are done, satisfied and no damage’s done, will not work here if it ever did. On the contrary, purposeful negligence, wrongful act, et al., may easily be construed, resulting in long-term mismanagement (still a capital offense…! Oh why can’t we jail all the white collar criminals) the misfortune of all your employees, clients etc. will fall on the Board for once… last paragraph of this applies.

To return to the positive: When arranged well, some things in business may have to change but overall, both your processing will run more smoothly (sic) and you public posture will improve (leading to improved data quality, new clients, and the world is yours, right?).
So, draft a PO Charter and hire me.

Plus:

[Back in the days before live-cams…]

Errors of Your / Machine Learning

Any progress on the front of Machine Learning, i.e., the comparison with how/what humans learn from various teaching formats, and how machines are better at rote learning et al, and how does the perfection of machines learning facts, reflect on what is data processing, what is intelligence, and what is wisdom ..? Where the latter is the area in which of course re retreat ever more, but without the foundation of a life long of learning and experience ..?

[Intermission: Anyone out there still holding on to the ‘you only learn from experience, which is making errors and surviving’? What was so many years of school all about; you’re still no further with calculus than 1+1 equals something more than one — the max you can learn from ‘ experience’ … How did you ‘experience’ History, Science ..? Apparently, there’s quite a base of facts to learn, even (or more?? contra The Shallows) in times of Google. Or, you’ll be the doofus that can not (sic) learn to be intelligent nor wise, and will make any and all rookie mistakes in all situations everywhere, over and over again.
Seems like the base of learning, grows steadily — exponentially…]

Notwithstanding the road (path) to wisdom is through experience … which would ever less be available when machines start to take over the simple, the foundations (qua operationality of work-as-labour), and then the next stage, etc. (since none will be experienced enough to succeed pensionados that still have that subsequent level of understanding). Leaving the abstract thinkers ever more loose in the sky. Hey that’s what’s happening with accountancy, if the industry doesn’t move fast. And will happen everywhere.

But back to the main point: Has Watson-class learning (AlphaGo/Deepmind/Brain (sic), … no not Siri you m.r.n) learned us anything about learning, and/or have we changed learning since machines took over parts of rote learning? Have we changed our view on learing, intelligence, wisdom?

To the disappointed, apologies go; nothing here on how machine learning could lead to the unethics of Computer Says No… Too much of a mer à boire qua research — see here.

Plus:

[Steep, to enlightenment; Girona]

SecPoll

Finally, a competition where you can win, too, seriously.

Yes you can, I’m serious. And you win something serious…
The deal:
Your top-3 predictions, in comments, about what new ‘cyber’security stuff (#ditchcyber) will happen in 2017.
In return, if you’re the top predictor (NO.), to celebrate you’ve best found ’17’s bubbles of the year you’ll receive a perfect bottle of ’17 bubbles.
The things you describe can be of any sort, related to information security in the widest sense. Something-cloud, something-privacy, something-Docker, something- Layer 7 or 8 firewalls, something-systemic-breachlike, whatever, it’s up to you. However:

Some terms and conditions [subject to updating when needed..! My call and prerogative]:

No editing your predictions after entering them;
Three apiece;
None should not be around per second half of December 2016;
All should be measurable, and measurably the largest over 2017, suggestions for measurement/metrics should be attached.

I’ll be awaiting your wisdom / totally random stuff with:

[Who would’ve predicted the success, and beauty, of this/these, eh? DC]

Dense, but study

All about this here article. Yes I too, started out as picture browser through this. But more careful study unearthed a lot of gold, qua understanding of the issues. Even to the point of pointing out some gaps, here and there — well, the understanding did, not as much the overview — in ‘moral continuums’, that can and should be filled.
And, much work can be done on opeationalising the Obvious breaches of fundamental human rights (as per Universal Declaration) so don’t go babbling about commerce needs a chance.

[And now for a switch of goal but you’ll find the relation …!]

Where the latter is one big part often missing with ‘disruptions’ quod non:
Doing something simply illegal is just that and is not ‘allowed’ because innovation should be allowed to be tested.
Innovation should not be attempted when the new has been determined already to be illegal
How hard can it be? Laws had been put in place to protect the weak against the powerful, specifically at points where the need was obviated. IF some law has no purpose anymore, one should first do away with it, first through political ways and if that wouldn’t work out to be possible, only then, through e.g., courts for obvious unfairness (sic; if your law system is of the common type you’re hosed anyway). When you don’t succeeed in this the only legal ways, too bad that’s how democracy works, if.
If some law still has purpose but there’s negative side effects you’d want to do away with, do away with the side effects not the law; in the two ways as before doofus!

Oh well. Mock disruptors beware; the world does not need nor welcome you.
And:

[Sometimes, Classics are perfect enough; Prague]

Log not Log

About the resurgence of ‘logging’ as a thing.
In compliance, for whatever reason because everyone lost the Original purpose.
In ‘audit’ (like, checking bookkeeping — no you drop the pretense and lies that’s all there is to it!), since we (??) can now do den totalen Prozesskontrolle.
In systems management, to …:

Monitor the health of systems — note that a lot of logging will be superfluous for this purpose (lest the next bullet comes into play), and a lot of the other records will be processed near-completely-automated into nice dashboards; note also that in this environment, that seems to work whereas in enviroments where ‘dashboards’ have been promoted for ages (decades, mind you) without any success, with the cause already known just as long;
Detect/find, and process, intrusions. Being proxies for ‘fraud’ (quod non, and note that legally, there’s no such thing!) to be committed.

Most efforts of late go into the latter thing (apart from the good work (sic) done by, e.g., the Coney‘s of this world). Where we see a jump to the worst, most atrocious, of Big Brother privacy obliteration by processing each and every little in-systems program step that can be logged, traced. Even by, what could have been, proper all-out systems management integrating the traditional style of it, with IoT device management, as e.g., Splunk now is focusing on whilst leaving their core competence behind.
Missing the point that ‘systems management’ over all transactions having started with the human ones, was the Original purpose. To monitor (at the speed of annual bookkeeping ..!) the health of ‘systems’, the business as performed and understand that not all transactions could be perfectly in line with the, unthinkingly overstandardised ideal transaction patterns.

Can we now, now that we do have the mechanics (log writing speed, all-connectivity, and storage (!) and processing tools available) regain that latter part..?
Hopefully.

And:

[Modern (purpose), still also a sun dial; Barça]

Quitting a club

Where some trade association of … drum roll … chartered (sic) IS auditors declared Cybersecurity is becoming an ever bigger problem. An IS auditor should need to keep informed of the latest developments as an argument to join in some CYBER ARRGHHH! lecture,
one better leaves. I did.

Sure, I’m member of some other, global, of the same trade and tricks one might say. But to list the other arguments to quit the local (i.e., Dutch; could have characterised them as ‘provincial’ but why) one, would take ten pages (yes I have them, spelled out including various legal trespassing of the vilest kind, far from complete after some this-years developments within the club…) and I don’t want to bother you with the water under the bridge.
And sure, I re-joined yet another trade association. And try to contribute in another way, as yet not yet disclosed. And #ditchcyber.

But I’m unsure about my discretion in leaving (behind the hopeless) and would be curious about your best advice when and how (that’s two) to quit a club. Thoughts?

Oh:

[Not only T towers might need (sic) to be renamed…]

WindTalker

Right. So we have a side channel attack where your hand movements over your mobile, when typing in your key, will interfere with WiFi signal patterns in a detectable, traceable way thus revealing your key. Like this (PDF).
Would this, on a second trend note, destroy or obviate even more the need for, Active Access Control ..?

Plus:

[Mock-up for fabrics not mockery of your security; Stedelijk Amsterdam]

For members, useful insights

I’d suggest making this available widely; beyond membership only. Because it ties in so well with, e.g., this and many other issues at this.

Yes, I may be biased; just like everyone if only for having been member of this. Which (subject) plays a much more prominent role in your lives than you think, certainly in the nearest of futures. Beware.

And be aware of:

[Your ethics reasoning: All corners, leading nowhere, abandoned; Fabrique Utrecht]

Lament / Where have ‘Expert Systems’ gone ..?

Those were the days, when knowledge elicitation specialists had their hard time extracting the rules needed as feed for systems programming (sic; where the rules were turned into data, onto which data was let loose or the other way around — quite the Turing tape…), based on known and half-known, half-understood use cases avant la lettre.
Now are the days of Watson-class [aren’t Navy ships not named after the first of the class ..?] total(itarian) big data processing and slurping up the rules into neural net abstract systems somewhere out there in clouds of sorts. Yes these won out in the end; maybe not in the neuron simulation way but more like the expert system production rules and especially axioms of old. And take account of everything, from the mundane all the way to the deeply-buried and extremely-outlying exceptions. Everything.
Which wasn’t what experts were able to produce.

But, let’s check the wiki and reassure ourselves we have all that (functionality) covered in “the ‘new’ type of systems”, then mourn over the depth of research that was done in the Golden Years gone by. How much was achieved! How far back do we have to look to see the origins, in post-WWII earliest developments of ‘computers’, to see how much was already achieved with so unimaginable little! (esp. so little computing power and science-so-far)

Yes we do need to ensure many more science museums tell the story of early Lisp and page swapping. Explain the hardships endured by the pioneers, explorers of the unknown, of the Here Be Dragons of science (hard-core), of Mind. Maybe similar to the Dormouse. But certainly, we must lament the glory of past (human) performance.

Also,

[Is it old, or (still) new ..? Whatever, it’s prime quality. Spui, Amsterdam]