Innovation (technologicallly driven) – Page 36

PIA is KIA and KYD (?)

Since the whole Privacy thing has gained new traction with both the European Data Privacy Directive regaining (some…) steam and the European Court finally deciding what all with any bits of brain already knew i.e. that ‘Safe Harbour’ was a sour joke (to put it mildly), I realized, when working on a presentation for a forum centering on/around Identity and Access Management, that any Privacy Impact Analysis work comes down to two things; an objects-side analysis in the form of Know Your Data and a subject-side analysis by means of Know your (authorised OR actual) Identities and their Access, with some Privacy By Design thrown in at the solutions end.
Since I just like sentences of the right length, being entities that contain a discrete but complete set of logically coherent and united concepts.

And for those of you in the know; the above contains all there is to Know. Sort of. Maybe add in a bit of this (in Dutch; from the FD newspaper), for implementation. For a lot of implementation…
And, things may change in the somewhat near future with the advent of drones, IoT, robotics (humanoid or abstract), and ANI/AGI/ASI, in the IAM sphere alone. Just read up your huge backlog on this blog, and elsewhere as I cannot really summarise it all here…

I’ll give you some time space for that now. With:

[At the Ragusa Ibla end but of course you knew]

‘bucks sailor went where ..?

Quite some time ago, I came across this, in Lucca:

and considered it as grossy antagonistic “Starbucks opening soon here” sign.
Later, I read up what the co. has on their own site about the logo. Which has some vague story about a 16th century Norse woodcut.
The thing being: The church (it is) in Lucca was built, and veryveryvery probably decorated, long before. So, had some Norse sailor been there? This is much more possible than latter-day non-historians tend to believe… Norsemen even had kingdoms et al. in Italy for centuries, or at least raided there quite regularly so why not? Time to dig deeper; is there really no History major who’d like to do a thesis on this? The co. we speak of, should have some nice study grant ready, right ..?

And of course there’s the research already written out here (in Italian, only just (i.e., entirely) can’t read it) about the origins of it all in the first place — the last pictures referring to the coffee you get ?? [Hm, I’m still a fan for romantic reasons, of their freshbrew]

Ambient Intelligence where is it ..?

Similar to the question two weeks ago about the whereabouts of smart dust, here now the opposite (more on that below): Where has all the Ambient Intelligence gone ..?
And I don’t mean Smart Dust of some kind that the Release of Colorado has dwarfed some niche markets elsewhere (it hasn’t, I gather?), but the dust of nanobots that could be sprayed around just anywhere and drift in the wind, as hard to detect, spread-out snooping devices. Either for the good, puffing around IoT-sensor en masse, or for the bad, (video)eavesdropping invisibly, undetected.

Ambient Intelligence then would be opposite as it would deliver seamless Intelligence of the Watson^3 kind, AGI or ASI, to just where you would find yourself in need (as detected by that intelligence before you realized it) e.g., in the form of hyper-personalized ads. When you walk by a store front window. So you’d be enticed to buy more, more, more. Yes it’s sad but that’s the most clear example that everyone apparently needs; anything more complex is too much asked of your dumbed-down, numbed, nerve center that exist for the pleasure of your iSomething these days.

Before I turn sour: The idea gained traction some five years ago. Where is it; in hiding? In some black programs by DARPA, Fubbuck, Big G et al. so much out of sight we have no clue of the massive budgets being spent to gain control over us all ..? Just a shout-out for your pointers.

And:

[Hard work and easy living, side by side, better not mix]

Vendors pitchin’ — reality’s b… moving elsewhere

Was reminded today that still, a great many vendors in the (Info)Security arena are pitching their worn-out warez to a laggerd crowd — or is it just me to see that, in particular where IAM is concerned, all eyes are still on some vault idea of data storage and systems, behind some mirage of a perimeter of the ‘data center’ (as it is presented ..!).
Luckily, I met this old friend of mine of Zscaler that see that today’s access and wider security concerns are over Cloud (storage, services) and Users (out there, anywhere). How nice would it be if not too much time would be wasted anymore on the classical, outdated (sic) model(s) and we’d all move to this new world ..?

This, for your viewing pleasure:

[Watching the ships go by, Amsterdam]

Privacy for drones, *from

Some found it odd that e.g., in Chicago, the ground floor space, the up into the air (no not that) building, and the naming rights to that building, are traded separately.
Elsewhere, one’s home comes with an expectance of Privacy, “behind one’s front door”. But not outside; that’s free game for any … usually still ..!, photographer when from public space.

But now, back gardens, previously considered safe from prying eyes, are visible from other, 3D public space: the air. Via drones.
Which takes care of the public space part, where the ‘photographer’ (?) still is without even the need to trespass ’cause the camera is unconnected to him (sic). [Apart from the argument that just about any official could claim access to the back yard as if semi-public space..?] But does it nullify the “shouldn’t have been outside” argument ..? Or is the previously invisible part of the garden also part of the interior..? As it had similar/same protection by having needed illegal means of access hence the expectance of privacy — that now, by the legality of that access not having been arranged (yet), is still in doubt and the morons “break in” regardless.

Hence the start with the above distinction: Would the air over one’s house be private property as well (How high ..? At least till levels of commercial flight, that is regulated), then possibly, flying a drone into it would be trespassing. But immediately, since camera resolutions increase so quickly, we would need protection against prying eyes from above the streets as well, looking over rooftops. Hm, we would revert to the “expectance of privacy” argument back again anyway. And the automatic ownership non-transfer would prevent shooting them down, still.

So, hopefully, I’ve made you think. Else, there’s no result … ;-[

Oh well:
20141015_132551
[Beauty exposing herself very publicly… above not under some n.rds? Voorburg]

Chronology of the birth of the information society ..?

A shout-out for pointers; as Chris Anderson noted in Makers, Western society had a breakthrough in the … 18th ..? century when patents were invented.
As they signified the realization that intellectual ideas, innovations, are actually things in themselves, existing outside of physical reality. As first step on the road to Singularity. [Oh, philosophers already had the nous idea and maths; but those alien ideas didn’t get the societal traction that inventions did … (?)]
Notwithstanding (heh: ) that patents might go the way of the scaffolding under an arch: once the keystone is placed, the scaffolding can go. Once the Information Society stands on its own, patents may go ..!?
And, there’s a separate? line from ‘programming’ labour into machines powered by humans through implementation of tools etc. (spears and onwards) via ‘programming’ through implementation of machines proper, to programmable machines, to general purpose programmable ‘computers’ and now in some catch-up wave, taking all of IoT on board and moving waaay past, into programmable human minds (psychology-as-a-science driven brainwashing; was around since the dawn of time, now can be done still buggy, somewhat (sic) reliably), past humans into Watson And Friends. With such brain (sic) power, who needs friends ..?

But this all was just some ad lib rambling. What I am looking for, is actual studies into these phenomena, preferably not Hegel-oriented… Any ideas, pointers?

And this:

[Oh the days of Machine… Amsterdam]

Where are VR, its breakthroughs ..?

Dropping another question for your tons of response … haha.
Wondered why VR hasn’t broken through to ubiquity. What’s holding it back? I mean, I understand that it’s quite complex, not just an app to be installed and there’s all sorts of physical constraints and installations to be made as portable as possible — but still, hasn’t the invention been around long enough for some, Tesla- or Watson-like breakthrough to would have been able to surface ..?
First next one through the gate, can make a fortune. Leaping over the current offerings, that have so diligently explored all details? Or is it just that there already is enough reality to still be explored with all the senses, out there? That would explain how annual airline mileage still grows so much despite the explosion of touristically oriented vlogs let alone Youtupe channels that were said to replace so much travel.

[Edited to add before publication: Oh yes there’s some chatter lately about VR but that’s mostly about brain warping and rather fundamental still — corroborating my point.]

Oh well. This:

[Get off your fat a’s, or travel by fat a boat — that’s a plane in the water.]

A quantum leap

Remember, that (not) a great many days ago I posted some bits on crypto ..? There’s a new twist to it all, after the venerable Bruce noted that some agency started a new, this time ’round bit more fundamental round, on crypto algorithms. And then, some notes on the approach of quantum computing. Well, the latter is still five to ten years off (current estimates; could be three, could be twenty, as such estimates go).
But impacting. So, the following flew by:
CryptographyChart-1-482x745
Which explains a lot, hence I just wanted to pass it on. Bye for now.

BIOS hacked; bury it! ..?

Over the past year (five Internet years), we have seen regular messages about the ‘hacking’ of BIOSes. Due to which all that we can trump up for information security, is nullified through this lowest thinkable level form of unknown, unlocked backdoors.

After a week or so, usually the news value drops and we hear very little. Mainly by this being such a deep, deep into technology issue; a showcase of a class break — it’s hardly worthwhile to think about solutions. The perpetrators, usually considered to be agencies of powers-that-be of Western, Eastern or anything in between origin, are seen to mainly fight each other and we can only be mangled in between can’t we? The one taints the BIOS on the chips that the other installs, the other does the same the other way around. And, how long ago isn’t it that you yourself were babbling in de BIOS with some assembler or even lower-level code ..?

However, and this is similar to laws against crypto (as e.g., here), those with bad intent may use the backdoors just as the good guys (the above, that work their a’s off for your privacy, right?) might. And don’t we all want to remain at least a little in control ..?

Hence the question: What would be roadblocks against a solution of ‘isolation’ of a possibly tainted BIOS ..? I’m thinking here of some form of inverse, upside-down sandbox. That isolates and screens all messaging from and to the BIOS and filters all malicious, unauthorized stuff out.

This calls for clear and complete rules about what is generally good and normal, and what is naughty. We may solve that with checksums, hashes of extensive lists of functionality we would allow. But who calculates these checksums, and how reliable is the baseline when already off-the-dock OEM stuff may contain malware in the BIOSes; who can you trust ..? And all that white listing: Isn’t there a huge context dependency regarding superficially trustable but in effect malicious messages? With a sandbox we put the problem at a somewhat higher, more insightful level. Be it also somewhat ‘higher’ in the architecture which raises the question whether the sandbox is sufficient and isolates completely, all around. And the sandbox has to run on … the chip with (support of the) BIOS…
This creates an arms’ race where the bad guys (unsafe-BIOS-wanters) will try to make the BIOS circumvent or dig through the sandbox, and where the good guys will have to build repairs, patches and new versions to plug ever new the leaks. Looks almost like the information security we all know already.

And here, too, the question is: Who can we trust? The sandbox should be made and maintained by utterly independent experts. Do we know these Lone Wolves well enough, how do we establish the sufficiency of their technical expertise, what are their interests, aren’t they secretly (and I’m thinking double secrets here, too) bribed or coerced to let that one agency in despite it all? And, how do we know the patches we receive, would be reliable? If we can’t trust the most mundane of apps or -store, how can we be sure to not download an infected sandbox?

In short, the simple question of feasibility of a sandbox over the BIOS to keep things safe, ushers in a surge wave of new questions — but those are all questions we already have on other, ‘higher’ levels of security: Are the patches of the applications we have, reliable? What about the antimalware-software we deploy (yeah, bring in the ‘haha’)? The employees and contractors of our Managed Security Provider (we chose, NB, as lowest-cost supplier)?

But also for this reason, my question is: What do I miss; are there principled, logical fallacies here or is it a matter of (tons of) effort that we put in, should be prepared to put in?

Dazzles one. Hence, for relaxation:
20150911_155809
[For the people living here, rather Mehhh of course]

Blown over — smart dust or where is it?

In all the news about IoT, where has the (admittedly far-flung) prediction about ‘smart dust’ gone ..? Where has the smart dust gone? Was it a wormhole glimpse into the future, was it some runaway brainstorm on steroids (or other stimulative substance) session’s result ..?
Where still, it looms in the background. Once information is created, will it remain in the universe, existing without a result (as it may or may not have a cause, the rebel against entropy that it is)? (Here I go in similar vein, not stimulated!)

Now, let’s first have actual working quantum computers. Similarly vague at inception and counter-intuitive — for which reason I believe it will turn out to have logical fallacies in its current models so will in the end not be feasible to realise ..! —, let that come first. In itself, already difficult enough to cope with, as a global society.

Afterwards, smart dust will look like a rough cut piece of cake, probably. But maybe the Problems of it, will stil be Hard (compute-complexity-wise), as here and elsewhere.

And this, for your blue pill:
20150911_143851
[Excellent or mundane archi; but with sublime acoustics — second (to) one in Amsterdam!]