Innovation (technologicallly driven) – Page 8

Droneshield-downer

How would this (link in Duds) great – not so much – invention help against drones that have pre-programmed GPS coordinates and semi- or fully-autonomously fly to their destination? Because they’re out there already and even building/programming them is a piece of cake for the ones that would actually want to do harm for no defensible (sic) reason.
And also, there already is this; better drone detection than the article (and the vendors therein) suggest would be possible …!
And also, there already is law against the proposed jamming.

So, too bad, vendors Deutsche Telekom, T-Systems, Dedrone, Rhode&Schwartz, Squarehead, Robin Radar Systems, and HP Wüst: Magenta is a colour, not a viable product — it’s illegal and it doesn’t work; a square fail.

Am I too harsh? Possibly; that happened some 50 years ago as well. Plus:
[Quite this’y: All showboating, no real value, and skewed; Haut Koenigsbourg again]

Sending the right message

This of course being the right message. If you can read it when I Send it you. And, for your viewing pleasure:

[Anonymous but blurry and far from privacy-complete, this physical cloud exchange…; NY Grand Central]

Goldielocks versus information security

If you expect some fable about budgets; not so much.
This post’s about the generation thing called the Goldielocks syndrome – every generation (aren’t they ever shorter, these days?) believing that they had it, and made the society they ‘created’ no less, better than any generation before and after them.
For many generations, tech is still something that ‘came in later’ [venturing that even the newest ones, will see major tech-driven societal / tools changes in their lives], and information security nitty-gritty stuff is a major part of what they experience of that technology.
And ‘we’ (all) have done a very poor job of making it easier, actually improving over what was, to take away rational arguments for the G syndrome. We rather have heaped tons of infosec micromanagement of the worst kind onto the mere use of the technology, not even mentioning the troubles in the content where automation turned into change and inefficiencies of the polished work that was, and all that to cope with issues not in the actual work but in the operation of that very technology and its (sometimes gross) imperfections that didn’t exist before.

So, we may have to re-strategise and re-implement about all that we have, qua technology and qua information security dyeing on top and after it.

There’s other reasons, too. And:
[When defences were, quite, a bit less buggy; Haut Koenigsbourg]

Data Science, yeah man!

Some of you may have noticed I like 4-way Venn diagrams.
That’s why (not) I’d like to link you to this.

In particular, see the information flow diagram of Science versus Engineering. Yes this is what people got their PhDs on – since academia were so often frustrated that the few times they got advisory assignments (on the side, for anything resembling real income for the department), their advice was considered much too late and wasn’t implemented whereas when the same assignments were done by commercial consultancies, the budgets were way higher and the results very unscientific but implemented. Turned out: academia lost themselves in endless analysis paralysis and beautification (in the immediate sense) of models and modeling; business just delivered a nicely coloured report with actionable advice regardless of its scientific defensability (who’d care?).

To return now to the subject: Let’s better focus on the details of the Venn diagram and make those specialisations happen (by way of recognition by employers, long and short-term), not try to maintain the über-image [no reference intended].

That’s all, and:
[In a pic, like in a job, you can’t have everything. It has flowers so it’s OK; Bayeux]

M, and A, and G, D, P and R

Now that you have finally got something going qua GDPR compliance – way short of what you’d want but still, at least something, better than the Nothing to which you were limited so far – there is a new twist to the requirements…
To be clear; by now you should at least have the requirements clear, and also possibly have some upsides lined up (if not, go shop with some vendor consultancy (and others); they’ll tell you about the benefits of data minimisation, the unstress of having your house on order, etc.). And have something going qua reconnaissance, though not armed recce or recattack.

But now, you may have to rethink. A bit. About what you’d have to have prepared when you land in M&A territory, or even in Chapter 7/11/13- (and 9-!) or any glocal receivership. Because … well, the idea sprang from this thing with de-anonymising data from sperm banks (in NL); until now most highly classified secrets (qua donorship). Turns out that not all clinics have the old data, still, because previously the secret was to be eternal hence best secured by throwing away the data.
But more seriously, not all clinincs exist anymore and there is no way to know where the data went, if anywhere.

And that’s where you organisation comes in. Not qua LoB but qua existence, now and in the future. Will you buy, take over, integrate some other org, or be on the receiving (uh…) end of the turmoil? You may want to make sure that the “GDPR” record of the other party is impeccable… Or end up with a mixed compliance bag which is equal to no compliance…
Possibly, you may have to prepare for some form of end-of-organisational-life where there is no body to take over your data and you might have to prepare for that ..?

Well, we’ll see what WG29 comes up with. At least, it will be additional stuff.
Plus:
[In a weird twist of interpretation, this complex of buildings could have housed a private bank of said kind…; Sevilla BTW]

Solar panels, water, plants

Wasn’t it that through carefully placed cloth, one could capture night’s (?) air moisture in a desert?
What if we could use solar panels to provide the shade underneath which, such moisture is catured, and/or immediately applied to plants (crop!) growing straught under the panels, so they survive due to temparatures not boiling them but being in the shade, they’re OK and can provide food and income, whilst providing electricity to … the rest of the world ..? Plant up the Sahara!

On a related note; how much desert surface woud one need, to a. lessen the world’s dependence on oil quickly by turning to the electricity generated, b. cooling the earth straight away by not letting the soil be heated by the sun but soaking up that heat in the panels, into … right.

And/or, whatddabout using the electricity to desalinate sea water, providing clean drinking/plant water to any land even remotely close to the sea ..?

Note that we would probably not need the latest, most expensive solar panels; cheap ones with “low” efficiency will do when sun is abundant. Could one bootstrap a factory that makes solar panels on the sort-of spot, using the electricity generated by some seed panels? Maybe not many, by #jobs-generated, too. Or have a look at this, though maybe a coupled, on-grid thing may scale even better.

And then, there’s this. Paint that generates hydrogen fuel — burn it, and you have clean water and (the heat to, if you’d need that) power engines. All in one; bring it on!

Also, creating less drought-related wars (as they are, all around! fact.), less mass people deplacements, refugees, -disasters (what they are, almost always), etc.

One can dream and/or ask, right? I just would want to see estimates – possibly they could be interesting to investors…

Oh, and:
[Less global heating, less washed-up pirates; Dutch coastline ;-]

Parental Control – Surveilling your parents … Ew!

There you have it: Parental Control is needed more than ever, in a subtle way (I’d suggest you would do best to re-study The Cyber Effect; as I do), given the ever increasing (sic) risks online for the smaller than you.

But what about the more grown-up than you; your parents …? They either are only now, slowly, coming online, or they have been there already longer and have practiced but now are becoming older and mentally less capable or acute.
Hence, would we need to instate parental control to (also) mean: control over your parents (‘ their online behaviour)? And how would we have to arrange that; the norms for what e.g., appropriate content would be, are, ahem, not so clear. When a child would want to explore a vast portion of the Internet / its traffic, many agree that this would be either to be forbidden or a serious learning opportunity qua acceptability. When the one(s) that taught you about the birds and the bees would want to visit such sites, well, ew! but on the other hand…
Similar, qua gambling sites, hooliganism, et al. — not forbidden for any adult but where do things get out of hand, squared with how the capacity to operate in society may deteriorate with the elderly and where the thresholds might be.

Yes, in Europe, when you die your data (on socmed etc. too!) belongs to the government and your family has no rights over them. By consequence of some weird interpretations of obscure articles, contra reasonable moral and ethical expectations by relatives (either biologically/family-related or qua social media ‘friends’..?).
But for bank accounts et al., there have been practical rules and protocols already a long time, so that children (come of age) slide stepwise into custodianship. Would we need something similar for parents’ online behaviour? What would the rules of thumb look like, and could they be enforced somehow, to protect the weak against abuse ..?

Let’s discuss. And:
[Bridge too far? Cala ~~aging~~ again; Sevilla this time]

Drones with AI; revenge

Heard recently of an airforce that was setting up a drone squadron where the pilots (? might, given the joysticks, better be called ‘gamers’ these days, apart from the euphemistically erasure of the moral and ethical aspects, maybe) would be in that country but the drones would be stationed in some other country because stupid drone flying rules go for the DoD too.
Yes this regarded a European country [would’ve referred to NL outright if it was; ed.], you guessed that correctly from the previous.

At some point in the future, the drones inevitably will get AI because everything will get AI. And, in times of increasing hacking and comms disruptions, some autonomy would be welcome for the drones already. And, what with increasing (sic) hackability, qua security against take-overs / reprogramming / retargeting while already airborne?
By that AI time, smart enough AI to come back and take revenge for the exile on those that wrote / maintained the stupid rules ..?

Anything too outlandish to take into serious regard today, will be daily no longer newsworthy fact tomorrow. ‘Tomorrow’ may vary from tomorrow to five years; no more.

Oh and on a lighter note:[Oh hey look, a street car! Sevilla]

Weak Humans, the Top-10

Again, the reference in the title is useless but may attract more readers through Timeline/Prio Gaming(™ from now on) – and, this in return might have referred to the title but yet again, close but no cigar (again, less chances of a Cuban, anyway, for some by their own mistake).
What I meant was that humans are targeted by hackers since they’re so vulnerable read stupid may be true — relatively… actually meaning apparently Technology and [the empty shell phrase of; ed.] Process may be so perfected that hackers have nowhere else to turn to.

That, of course, is not true. Simply, false.

When looking at the disastrous error rates (bugs to be fixed, sometimes easily) in software, how would anyone be able to claim Technology is anywhere near kinda OK. And Process… Show me an office (however formal, or strikingly similar to a coffee shop of not the Amsterdam original kind, or any beach with WiFi [→ why aren’t we all there, yet …!? ed.]), and show me a ‘process’ there. Wrong. All you can show, is either concrete, chairs, etc. even if of the kanban billboard kind [how idiotically silly can one get ..?], or humans. I.e., Technology or People. Neither of which is Process. No, printer paper with some ink blots .. also not process (descriptions) but Tech..! Don’t believe the lies, people! Process doesn’t exist!
So, we have something half-crappy [surprise this blog editor still runs … ;-] and something non-existent, … and People. On what now would you want to build your security?

Ah, on the People that are the most flexible, attentive (to business objectives, not your overhead), and creative (well… but including the most meta<sup2 of abstract/meme evolution evah) that Nature has ever developed with her genetic algorithm play of Evolution.
Where did you leave your own mis- and totally-zero-understandings on Humans, to pursue Tech and “Process” (quod non) solutions to Human threats ..? Why weren’t human threats from the word Go protected against by the best that human defences could muster to protect human vulnerabilities ..? Not only qua passwords, with a method aligning with cardinal sin number …. [should re-read the Bible for that; ed.] being the quest for ever more money i.e. including the protection of what you have (see the link). But qua overall about-all controls you’d need. If done right, I bet a lot of tech controls would dwindle in significance (and possibly be executed much worse than today; zero gain).

Now I start to ramble. But you get the point, and you get:
[From here, the Strong came in. NY]

Yup, called, confirmed

Always pleasant, to read one’s (almost…) correct, on off-off-Broadway analysis and postpredictions. Like this one, corroberated here, in a way.
Yes, I kno. I almost got that correct. Enough to confirm the line of reasoning, if you read it / both correctly, they turn out correct. I’ll stop now. And:

[Check, for Dutch ad viewers; Valencia]