double secrets – Page 4 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Pitting the Good against the Others

When the recent rumours were, are valid that some patches were retracted — and this was because they accidentallt disables other exploits not yet outed in the stash, this would bring a new (?) tension to the surface or rather, possibly explains some deviant comms of the past:
Where some infosec researchers had been blocked from presenting their 0-day vulns / exploit-PoCs, this may not have been for protection of the general public or so, but to keep useful vulnerabilities available for the TLAs of a (variety of?) country(-ies).
Pitting the Ethical researchers against the bad and the ugly…

No “Oh-oh don’t give the bad guys valuable info and allow even more time to the s/w vendors to plug the holes” but “Dammit there go our secret backdoors!”
Makes much more sense, to see the pres blocking in this light. And makes huge bug bounties by these TLAs towards soon to be a bit less ethical researchers, more possible and probable. Not as yet better known, though. Thoughts?
[Takes off tinfoil movie-plot security scenario hat]

Oh, and:
[All looks happy, but is looked upon from above …; Riga]

Collateral (un)patching; 0+1-day

Is this a new trend? Revealing that there had been a couple of exploitables, backdoors in your s/w when you patch some other ones and then have to roll back because you p.’d off the wrong ones since you accidentally also patched or disabled some hitherto secret ones.
At least, this is what it seems like when reading this; M$ stealthily (apparently not secretly enough) patching some stuff in negative time i.e., before-zero day. When later there’s rumours about this patch(ing, possibly parts of) is retracted.

For this, there appear (again) to be two possible reasons:
a. You flunked the patch and it kills some Important peoples’ system(s);
b. You ‘flunked’ the patch and you did right, but the patch effectively killed some still-not-revealed (in the stash) backdoors that the Important peoples (TLAs) still had some use for and were double-secretly requested to put back in place.

I’m in a Movie Plot mood (come to think of it, for no reason; ed.) and go for the second option. Because reasons (contradictory; ed.). Your 2¢ please.

Oh, and:
[So crowded and you’re still much less than a stone’s throw from a Da Vinci Code (was it?) big secret — I may have the pic elsewhere on my blog…; Barça]

What should also be in the GDPR

At least, as an idea: Foreign countries that interfere with privacy in the EU, should be included in the penalisation stuff. Same levels, like; 4% of GDP for e.g., registering political opinions of citizens of the EU even when they’re also citizens of that foreign, alien, enemy country, without explicit opt-in consent. [This happened, happens..!] For every transgression. Then enforce via trade sanctions and import taxes [after checking the trade balance will effect the ‘payment’ of the fines; won’t be stupid].

Oh, and:
[Or the supreme leader goes to jail for a long, long time and is struck by lightning; unrelated, Ottawa]

Common(s) as privacy and vice versa ..?

Remember from your econ class that concept of The Commons, and how problematic it was? Is?
There was this intriguing post recently, on how Free Speech might be considered and deliberated in terms of the commons being exhausted by undue over-use (abuse) — for its use alone ( → ). Leading to aversity of the concept not of the abuser or his (sic) apparent locally recognised but globally not, ‘valid’ reason(s) for over-use.

Which, as is my wont of the moment, driven by personal business interests, I took to be applicable to Privacy as well. Maybe not in the same way, but … This will need quite some discussion between me on the one hand, and peers and others on the other who would actually know what they’re talking about. Throwing in a bit of anglo-american data-isn’t-yours versus European (‘continental’ — will brexit – which starts to sound like a lame Benny Hill kind of joke ever more – change that ..??) data-is-datasubject’s-always divides, and some more factors here and there. Complicating matters, but hey life’s not perfect.

Waddayathink? In for a discussion ..? Let’s start!

And:
[Not so very common-s; Toronto]

Ben still has all the Ayes

There is no end to the need to repeat the, somewhat but simply never sufficiently, quote by the Ben you know best:
Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

How valid today. How utterly moronic in comparison all that would allow crypto-backdoors (for other reasons, too), and covert catch-all dragnet surveillance. Etc. Etc…

Oh and for the few that are still interested in the United States Constitution, they shall refer to article 1, section 7, clause 2 , that has not ayes and nays but yeas and Nays. Just wanted that off my plate.

Leaving you with:
[You’ll be naked and that will not be pretty; Barça]

Right. Without -s

So, we’re into this era of giving up control over our lives. Where we’re either dumb pay-uppers, or (also) victims. Which in turn leads to questions regarding who will have any income at all, to pay for the service of being allowed to sit as stool pigeon until shot anyway.
Because the latter is what follows from this here nifty piece; Tesla not giving your data unless they can sue you. The EU push for human-in-the-loop may need to be extended considerably, but should, must. Possibly similar to the path of the Original cookie directive, from weak opt out to strong double opt in plus all privacy requirements (purpose / functional necessity, minimalisation, etc.etc.).

Do we recognise here again the idea that though your existence creates it and would be different for every human on earth (plus orbit), your data isn’t yours ..? Quod non! When someone takes what you produced (however indirectly! – inferred and metadata and all) without payment, that is theft or worse in any legal environment.
Is there anywhere a platform where the consequences of this global delineation are more clearly discussed, between Your Data Isn’t Yours Because We Process It, versus My Data’s Mine Wherever ..?

I’d like to know. And:
[Your fragile fortress…; Barça]

Your unbody double

So, there now is a thing being Artificially Intelligent 3-D Avatars. As per here. How nice.
And then you realise time travel may be possible once you don’t have the physical duplication problem anymore. Though we still would have the other problems; bummer.

But still, one of the problems has been solved. The others, actually … may need re-study. Because, there may now be differences in travelling forward (possibility approaching, when ‘time’ in your physical life needs to stay synchronised in some form or another with others, and your AI3DAvatar can speed up ..?) but then, returning to Now might (creation of possibility here) be equivalent or the same [which aren’t] to travelling back in time. Duh. Too bad it’s still so hard to reason (positive-)logically and consistently about this.

And, it will make the ‘need’ to have dirty, planet-soiling flesh-and-blood humans around, much less. There’s no such thing required anymore as people being trapped in The Matrix and then wanting blue or red pills, but rather it’s the attachment of AI3DAvatars to the Singularity Machine; their subsumption into it (removing duplicate or false/inconsistent memories – that will be there IF the AI3DAvatar’s anything like you) leading to their disappearance — all they ever (in the future) were, had already been included (thought out on its own) by the SingMach.

For now, we’re still here; individually. And:
[“Tape”copies of the views from up there, will be loaded to your AI3dAvatar in a millisec; no need for that either; CNN Tower, Toronto]

FOMO as FOYA gone bad

The enslavement to socmed seems to be a generation- … less thing: Unfortunately, all too many seem to need to be connected — mistakenly, just liking things will not lead to a true connection; how many are there that actually grow into such? Only on apps that are specifically aimed to that –swipe-left– otherwise, not so much. Or hardly. Most socmed like-affiliations are a. for sheeple attaching themselves to some brand(s), indicating their lack of self-esteem by submitting themselves as consumer-onlies, b. for lack of dare to actually do something for a Good Cause but wanting to be associated with Successful-in-life people [i.e., actual do-somethings] nevertheless. No c. to think of, qua ‘most’.

What remains, is a hard to miss impression of the truth, being that socmed attachments (mostly to the worst-on-ethics corp behemoths rather than anything) are panicked FOMO symptoms to the world, signalling a much deeper problematic psyche, being the Fear Of Youself As-is; FOYA.
That’s right. Individualism having gone so far as to drive all those that subconsciously cling to group belonging much more than is societally acceptable ( or so it seems!), i.e., the vast majority (of Like-serfs), to seek ways to still attach to something that can slurp up their feeling of insecurity (on their own) and return a pat on the back for group support.

You get it. Can ramble on, but have little time. And:
[An affiliation choice!; Amsterdam]

Explicitation of Risk — scaring yourself into victimhood

As may be clear, Sloterdijk’s explicitation ideas don’t hold on metaphysics levels of abstraction alone.
It works for all the mundane stuff like ‘risk management’ [disclaimer for the contradictio], too.

And, by making explicit what previously was ‘there’ already, but implicitly and hence not in any beholders’ eyes, in this case all one gains is not understanding (per se) but especially, systemic, existential scare.
Because the Unknown is identified, explicitised into existence. The Unknown that is, by (now) definition, the primordial Chaos contra the Order of Zeus and Apollo in his wake. In turn turning your existence into some degree of insecurity. [In a practical sense, not in the Schäume/Über-sphere sense of Peter Big-S]
And then, ‘risk management’ is the continuation through treatment of that Uncertainty with the addition of other means. [Italics mine, to correct towards the Original quote.] Because, you see, ‘managing’ the risks, even if for the moment we purely hypothetically consider that to be the case in any above-absolute-zero factual degree even for the most trivial, operational form, means having to acknowledge the fundamental impossibility of it. The harder ‘modelling’ types throw their weight [ah, yes, a very-big-if assumption, Pinocchio/Calimero’an again] against the uncertainties, the bigger the resistance is; the harder the chaos-theoretical unpredictability of the future bounces back. The further pushed, the more the full weight of the Universe pushes back.

You get that drift.

Well, then. What remains in nearby sight is the loss of naïvety that would give room for human growth. No guts, no glory! Where the guts are taken out of the picture, when they once were the area where gut feelings pro and contra any action or inaction were properly weighed, now only stupidly-crippled-rationality weighted.
But on the other hand; believing in the efficacy of ‘risk management’ in principle, will lull to sleep in a most blue pill sense.

Just don’t force all to take that colour; some actually want to succeed in Life.
And:
[Aim for clarity, deal with reality; Amsterdam (Lights Festival tour)]

Non Dad Bots

With all the attention having gone to the not-so-Russian-or-are-they hacks, and some ransomware and CES17 news, over the past couple of months, one could have forgotten that not too long before, there was the wavelet (not like this) of hype over the, then, sudden exponential roll-out of bots in all sorts of customer-interactive sittuwaysjons.
Have these non dad bots, contrary to the MAMILs, disappeared from the streets ..? Or where are they; not like “out there in the cloud” which means a. they’re on someone’s machines, still, geo-bound as physically these are and hence under someone’s (non!)privacy control, b. nobody cares. But in a sense of ‘market share’ by any measure (which?), and who are the big players, what are the typical products/services and what metrics are there to compare these?
[Edited to add after scheduling the first version: this]

Just wanted to know. Surreptitious developments are ominous in their invisibility already. And working worse than ever… — some help may be thinkable, not yet on its way I’m sure, but that’s a long way off what we’d need…
Oh and I didn’t mean the idea of botnets for attack purposes; that’s done deal and yesterday’s weapons technology, right?
And also not robots, as they have a physical presence which enables some form of physical override options, at least in theory, when required and not hindered…
Not even the personal at-home quasi-sentient devices limiting your world view ever more whilst plucking you bare for unwanted purchases behind your back.
But did mean the kinda chat bot-ish software working in the background…

Until then, we’re stuck with bad not dad bots not bods … With:

[Physical protection, if of the obese/obsolete kind; Nancy (sic)]