Category: Privacy

Progress: Hacked (short note)

OK, so there’s progress… hackers (of the ethical kind …! …?) actually improving security, as per your Nest thermostat.
Contrary, of course, to the hacking of your home security system as spelled out here and already ‘predicted’ by means of requiring solutions, quite some time earlier here…

For their, and your, viewing pleasure:
019_19[The ‘old’ shouldn’t be underrated by not being rated well enough…]

Mind posting/reading

This new Mindmeister feature looks interesting:

Except for two things:

  • It will create a bucketload of ‘Tourettists’ at all sorts of public venues (coffee shops, terraces, the beach, side walks, etc.) when all sorts of, mostly, self-inflated hipsterlaggerds start recording their every doodle out loud instead of just clicketing it to Kik / Tele- / Instagram / WeChat / Line / Viber / Wicker / Threema / surespot et al. Yapping out somewhat loud will be even more annoying…
  • Who reads your doodles at the back side ..? Yes this is already an issue with like programs, in particular if (not when) one would use them to sketch outlines and content ideas for concepts / posts / columns / articles / books that might be construed to reflect a societal(ly -) or political(ly less wanted) opinion of sorts.
    Already now, of course, who reads what you’re working on, even when stored off-line ..? But this will become an even greater issue when even the slightest of your mind’s burps might get captured immediately by your own doing.
    How far till this turns into actual mind reading?
    Would someone (AI (yes, being someone), or human if you’re still in old school thinking mode) be able to immediately present you with position-changing tweets etc.?

Well, we’ll see… Singularity, here we come! We want you! After that, we’re done.

Hopefully, CitizenMe will be trending

This may be a trend: Decide yourself what personal data to ‘sell’, and for how much. First step: Know what you ooze out. Hopefully, through this we’ll awake and implement Jaron Lanier’s dreams…

And even before this post came out, there’s an [update] to do … With this.

And then, of course:
DSCN0088[‘goza just like that, for no apparent quality or reason]

IoTsec as expected

Yawn. A decade of humongous growth in Information security is coming. To tackle the likes of this.
Think of where the somewhat organized, somewhat budgeted, somewhat up to it corporate world now is. (With the public organization world lagging, seriously, on all counts.) Then think of what it would take to make the general public ‘safe’.

And then think of how many InfoSec professionals would be needed. Yeay! Indeed, as in:
DSCN0449[Onto Val d’Orcia, as you spotted]

Welcome to Hotel SV

Just a short note; tinkering with more ‘cybersecurity’ songs (to support (or not) #ditchcyber), I came across the following snippets…:

“Welcome to the Hotel California”
“Such a lovely place”
Such a lovely face
Plenty of room at the Hotel California
Any time of year
You can find it here”

“Bring your alibis”

“Mirrors on the ceiling”

And she said “We are all just prisoners here, of our own device”

Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
“Relax, ” said the night man,
“We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave!”

How’zat (sorry (no I’m not Canadian) USofA, culturally you’re still 99% British so you should get that reference) for the famous search engine’s approach ..?

And, of course:
000022 (13)[Yeah Breck is CO not CA, about two decades back]

Zwarte Lijst ..?

Euhm, als een ‘contract’ zo is opgesteld dat deze bedoeld is om te misleiden of in ieder geval om onleesbaar te zijn voor een van de contractpartijen (en geen onderhandeling of wat dan ook mogelijk is; slechts een Hobson’s Choice), zijn dan niet betreffende clausules of het gehele contract bij voorbaat illegaal ..?

Zoals in (dank @ictrecht):

Bewijs van legitieme identiteit

Bij wijze van vraag aan @iusmetis / @ictrecht …:
In het dagelijks Nederlands taalgebruik kennen we nog (…) het verschil tussen legitimatie en indentiteit, als in -bewijs respectievelijk -sbewijs. De laatste ook nog equivalent gezien met ‘ID’.
Waarbij de vragen komen:

  • Bestaat er ook juridisch (nog) verschil tussen beide ..? Waar komt dat verschil if any vandaan, hoe wordt het (nog) toegepast?
  • Hoe is de ‘mapping’ naar (identificatie,) authenticatie en autorisatie zoals die termen in de ICT van vandaag worden gebruikt..?

Met name dat laatste lijkt me bestuderenswaardig omdat a. de juridische termen lang hebben gehad om uitgekauwd te raken, en ‘dus’ nog relevante verschillen naar voren kunnen brengen met de relatief pas oh zo kort geleden ontwikkelde ideeën over toegang tot systemen/gegevens.
En het verwarren van de functie van ‘elektronische’ ID met ware identiteit en de dubbelrol van b.v. een ‘user-ID’ is ook nog wel wat beschouwing waard.

Maar goed, eerst maar eens e.e.a. definitietechnisch helder naast elkaar zien te krijgen.

En uiteraard het plaatje van de dag:
DSCN9834[Hey kèk nâh ze hadden hier in Lucca al heel vroeg Starbucks…?]

Quick note: Privacy is about Info, not Data

Just a quick note to drop it, here, already before my holiday. May elaborate on the subject later, in a much extended form. The idea being:

Privacy is about Information, not about Data. Privacy sits on the divide, or jump, from data to information, as in this previous post.

Data doesn’t mean a thing. And yes there’s use in protecting data, but that’s only part of the picture. To discuss ‘directly or indirectly identifying data’ one needs to understand the value, and information, in data combinations. So you’ll have to keep the information value in mind always.

Which also means that if you discuss topics with various categorically-not-understanding-anything-other-than-bonuses stakeholders under the common header of personal data protection, you have lost connection to them. By giving up before you started; they will not ‘get it’. They know ‘data’ only in the abstract, as something to stay away from. If you don’t keep the (distinction AND connection) in mind and exepelainify it extensively ‘externally’, you lose.

Same, if you don’t bridge the gap ‘internally’ in your in-group. Only when an exhaustive search for all meaning of any combination of data has been completed, would one know what data elements could possibly be necessary for identification and hence are privacy-sensitive.
This would probably set the threshold very low indeed. But hey, that’s your problem right there. Offer perfect protection of get sued into oblivion.

I’ll return on this. Thank you:
20140306_151133[1]
[Kei-good design.]

Iconic clarity failure (privacy edition)

Got a pointer to the icons that are in the EU Privacy directive.
Wow. I can’t even … (did I just write that ..!?)

See whether you’re able to guess the meaning of the following:
Icons

A big Nope, huh …? The answers, after the break… Continue reading “Iconic clarity failure (privacy edition)”

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord