TLD: Shoo! Shoo!

Awwww was reminded today that the fallacy of Three Lines of “Defence” is a stubborn one. Debunked by a great many, among others on this blog over a year+ ago, but still much too much alive. So let me remind you with the following picture that speaks for itself (or …):
Van plank misslaan naar spijker op de kop v0.3
[No high-class design frenzy, just the blot-down in an angered jolt]

Yes, that’s right, still, and is until y’all ditch the TLD idea on the rubbish heap of history: the lines DO NOT stand between the threats and the vulnerabilities. And Boards et al can bypass the circus at their leisure. The lines (aren’t) of defense (aren’t) only stand between all that has gone wrong, and the regulators so the latter are placated with three rounds of white washing and window dressing.

In the past, everyone I discussed this with, agreed the whole thing’s a joke. A sour, very expensive, delusional one. Everybody reacts, nobody responds… Which will need to change or massive damage will occur.

OK, I’ll stop now before my language over the totalitarian, mind- and ethics-genocidal bureaucracy gets out of hand.

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]

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!]

Growth / disruption

I have a number of pics for you… As it stands, I haven’t been able to find sufficient time to write out all that I wanted to have depicted… Meaning you’ll have to do the interpretation yourself. Like, e.g., after reading Chris Anderson’s Makers. Or, see where blockchain’s DACs will strike.
Or, I will return to describe the bits and pieces in detail.

But for those worth their salt, the interpretation of the grand overall pic will be a trifle, and the same to comment. The keyboard is yours …
Dia1
[Being the full overview mentioned]

Dia2
[Starting (!) with the big corp world that domimates the business press]

Dia3
[And some things about the battle in the middle, with all the pressures from all sides]

Dia4
[Plus of course the small-scale stuff from Makers — not all hosanna]

Dia5
[The kicker, on the joblessness]

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]

Gaming comms is deadly serious

I was reading up a bit (again) in Eric Berne’s masterpiece Games People Play, and realized a great many of the Child moves in just about every game, approached how some nefarious organisations seeking sub-animal-level absolute tyrannical power under the sometimes literally completely wrong, oppositional guise of (true) religion. One thinks Middle East, and elsewhere.
Would it be possible to counterattack, apart from head-on obliteration through military force, with anti-game moves in the global and local/individual comms contra/pro these movements..? If these address the core sources of discontent, as explained here, it could work, couldn’t it ..? Sufficient experts available, one would think, on the Good (?) side.

Just a thought. This:
Keep 'em flying!
[Should be kept available…]

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 ..!?]

Guess

OK, your guess (sic) as to what these real actual companies do:
Qwerly, Zlio, Adatao, Viggle, Zoosk, Hipmunk.

Wrong. What they really do here.
Now, the next round: Loopt, Xobri, Heroku, Bump.

Who dreams up these names anyway; yes an algorithm huh your idea about my stupidity is a mirror’s reflection farther away from truth about me you can’t get. But it demonstrates the creativity levels at those start-up / boot camp sweat shops nicely that such a visible, outstandingly creative element is left to such an apparently un-truly-creative, boring machine.

No pic today; your score’s too low.

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