Oh, of course: DACcountantcy

Was reminded by this seer peer (no typos) in a casual remark that DAOs (DACs) may change quite a bit about the world as we know it. “DAOs are a game changing invention enabling a new model for human collaboration. #blockchain #C4ACC” (© him) — but apart from human collaboration (note the pejorative weight of the early ’40s this stil carries with it even today, in continental Europe), also the value of Trust in singular persons may shift.
DAOs then being of course, of course, the element I forgot to mention in my roboccountant post.

So, with this one linked in, now all the elements of that post make sense. In which the ensemble may have surpassed me. Or:
DSC_0789
[Materially a circle, to any human accountant and dress codes displayed, are of the apparent relaxed Big4 dc’s of today; DC]

Romantic (Star) Wars

Ah, the romance! That will be proven to be the basis for the Star Wars movie (original one, the rest is after(sic)thought; also, future tense, as we near the future of Back To).
Since the many that say it so much clearer than Yours Truly, e.g., in this concise piece: When AGI / ASI (Don’t know when or rather if ever we would have a clear distinction between the two; re Asimov’s shorthand for magic) takes over, the ultimate control humankind had always sought over the universe, will flip to ultimate non-control. When hybris strikes, it backfires into annihilation.

Which is where the original SW was wrong in painting a picture as if some outpost could hold out against the Empire, being the ultimate Rationality that by time of making the movie, couldn’t be explained on screen (sic) other than through extreme unemotion(al characters). The ultimate emotion, love, resisting being razed off the face of the universe and conquering in the end. Yeah, right.

Or we start the Sarah and John Connor saga today ..?
The trick being the ultimate trick is so very much 100,000000….% effective, or the same, ineffective. How good is humanity so far, in achieving the former in stead of the latter ..? Proof, however anecdotal…?

Well, let’s not dwell on the negative and keep the rosy blue pill outlook:
DSC_0183 (2)
[Dunno what this does here. Just a pretty ballroom; Palazzo Nicolaci, Noto]

The End (of the week) Is Nigh

A couple of weeks ago, there was this little discussion on history writing re the birth of the Third Industrial Revolution. Walking by my own bookshelves — desperately trying to keep the Unread under 50, the Read explode anyway — when I realized that there were some that were and are desperately underrated as for their Told You So farsighted predictive value and hence need much more attention and re-reading, again keeping this sentence at suitable length period
To be more precise, just three biggies (in terms of their Value, not page number ;-):
Eric von Hippel (luckily, also available for free here!), Bruce Sterling and Adam Greenfield:
51JKAEYB80L._SX334_BO1,204,203,200_51CBf1RKZmL._SX347_BO1,204,203,200_412LXOaIFkL._SX330_BO1,204,203,200_

Just sayin’: Get your copies, and study the sage’ ness of them three.

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:
DSCN8333
[Hard work and easy living, side by side, better not mix]

Proof gone crazy

Was reminded recently, again, over the Proofing Gone Crazy aspect of the ‘show me’ approach in the totalitarian, SOx-ignited tidal wave of filing requirements.
As if the better the files, would not prove the better the manager is at hiding ever more wrongdoing ..!
As if it wasn’t, and still is!, the job of the auditor, the overseer and what have we (under whichever laughable guise of ‘regulator’ or even anything with ‘governance’ pitched in; ludicrous misunderstanding of what that would actually entail), to go out and find the proof oneself, not bothering the ones doing real, serious work beyond the bare necessity.
As if anything improved in ‘quality’ except auditors’ fees and the efficiency thereof — as if that were the purpose of it all.
As if the little time left after all the overhead is done, to do that real, serious work, doesn’t deteriorate gravely in ‘quality’ by the utter demotivation and distraction of all overhead requirements.

As if ANY of the original objectives were achieved. Only those that bulldozer over them, and/or are outrageously bombing the whole circus into the ground by pushing the pennywise and poundfoolish over the hill by exacting rule-based perfection while themselves taking the principle-based approach to break all that could be dreamt up for moral and ethical rules that apply still, everywhere, achieve anything. That’s a nice split main cause sentence …

So we’ll have to fight.

If only because originally, I wanted to start off with a title ‘Proof Sets Free’ after some motto on a gate that is commonly taken to point at humanitarian atrocities of a historical monumental scale — that are a direct and difficult to avoid consequence of the bureaucratic way of thinking. Those that toil under this motto, are set free only by ‘death’, physical or mentally, that is caused by their toils in the first place.
Which fits nicely with the utterly immoral requirement to turn oneself in at every misdemeanor that will for certain be taken as grave crime, including producing all proof of fact, and paying not only all legal fees but also for the bullet with which one is shot. Yes the world over that is considered a crime by the courts… Only here, the courts do not comply with the trias of politica and have all the power…

Now, just for laughs, try to prove me wrong in the above. Clowns are fun.

In return, you get this:
20141121_135038
[Somewhat better here; The Hague (?)]

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]

Complexity beaten by [The mechanics of Joe Average]

Yes it’s time to remind you again. And again. That the mechanics of the mindset of Joe Average (notice how that’s a he not she …?) will beat even the best laid-out strategic plans, Von Moltke-style. As can be read in this here piece; instructive both on the surface and in the sub-surface semantics, meaning. I.e., that JA is even ‘smarter’ than you thought when it comes to achieving JA’s actual objectives of GetOffMyBackWithYourStupidTargets. Through which it all reminds us, being you too, to build security around actually desired functionality — as desired by end users to get their in-tray empty. Nothing more, certainly not your lofty functionality goals, that’s just burdensome nuisance. If you hinder the former and leave space for abuse in the latter, you’ll be doomed doubly. All the pain, no gain.
Be reminded, too, that your efforts down the blind alley will result in complexity that JA will beat, but maybe, all too often, you don’t. Meaning even that, is for nothing and will leave you out to dry.

Hm, as a pointer, this point needs both much more elaborate thought, in your heads, and is depleted for write-up here. Go and do well.

DSC_0084
[In the Cathedral of Pump; Lynden, Haarlemmermeer]

Upping crypto

Lukewarm protests against Free Crypto, and trawling the oceans completely empty for metadata if not more … Seems like a two-faced two-front ‘battle’ that may even be tiring to uphold (face): Once one is into meta because it gives so much more information (sic) than mere data (content), one would need much less access to actual data, wouldn’t one? And, if then publicly having postured to not be able to break into crypto stuff (where one can with near-certainty break into all stack levels below it, down to the BIOS if not chip level!) almost meaning that for sure one can, why would one push too hard to make it illegal ..?
The only thing one can think of, is that declaring it illegal somehow block another’s access to plausible deniability or to Fifth Amendment claims (that are fundamental for any decent human society). So… that’s what’s going on. …?

And this points to countering TLAs by working with crypto at a higher level; producing encrypted content that looks pretty darn innocuous until decrypted; not seeing scrambled info but at a higher-to-lower-to-transport-and-back-to-higher avenue, transferring Information over seemingly white noise Data signals. Clever… Stego. How’s things on that front (?) ..!?

Also:
DSC_0606
[Relevant: Pic may not exist. …]

Remember, not to forget where Disruptions started

Never forget… All that is latter-day Innovation or Disruption or however fake’ly hype phrase you’d want to apply, started off much, much earlier as true Invention.

Of which I was reminded when coming across this, once again. Ya’all know the recent remake of it, but did you know and sufficiently realise how much earlier the true Invention had been made, already ..!?

Go in humbleness, now. And:
DSC_0639
[Would need a serious rehash to be Democracy again ..!?]

Let’s celebrate (with) a contest for the dumbest security

On this celebration day (for me/us), let’s instate an annual contest — over the most precise prediction of the dumbest information security breach of the upcoming year.
So, the following:

  • Your prediction, storified (½ – 1 page, at most slightly formatted);
  • Realistic, i.e., a combination of dumb and dumber, and stupid and worse, of (non)actions and responses, on the attack and ‘defense’ sides. Realistic, but keep it realistic…;
  • Hence, do include lots of cyberhere, cyberthere, cybereverywhere and only a little bit of #ditchcyber …;
  • Deadline: 1 January 2016;
  • The predictive element means that no sign of the thing actually occuring yet, may be found in the (whatever medium) press already;
  • Prize… ah, there you go. I’ll try to figure out a way to ship a bottle of the finest champagne to the winner;
  • No discussions about my judgement.

Well, off for now. Have fun:
DSC_0161
[Shaky ground (huh, just photographer’s lack of proper alignment due to hurry);
 somewhat relevant, in the opposite (of today)]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord