Innovation – Page 21 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Hiding or in plain sight (IoT dev’t)

In IoT development, there seems to be a disconnect between the hype and the underlying developments. By which I mean that of course, the hype will not play out according to itself, but according “We overestimate short-term impacts and underestimate the longer-term ones”. But moreover, I also mean that there’s a variety of development speeds for IoT. Since there is various types, categories of IoT developing.
As in this here one of my previous posts.

Oh right away:
DSCN8649
[Your office ‘life’, Zuid-As again]

So… what we’re seeing, is certain differences in speeds:

B-inhouse IoT develops rapidly; after some decades of slow introduction of robot-driven factories, we’re on the verge of a breakthrough at less than light speed where the same factories will be linked up to form semi-small, mid-size ‘local’ 3D printing warehouses. Maybe. But certainly, the factories will go the way of data centers, that can be anywhere around the world with only rump staffing locally and control being … anywhere else around the world. With the premise that in the ‘Western’ world, there will be sufficient sufficiently educated staff to control the factories elsewhere. So that ‘manufacturing’ may ‘return’ to the West its origination (Industrial Revolution and since). Nearness of production cutting the costly transport now that labour costs become less relevant, and leaving the most pollutive production where locals still don’t have the economic power to fight the externalities. Short-changing economic development in many places where it had barely started in earnest (no ‘trickle down’ yet). Unbalancing global power developments. We’ll see… Or not; these ‘secret’ in-house developments (in particular, within large conglomerates that can pilot) may not be too visible before their join-or-die breakthrough.
B2B IoT: Same, somewhat. Moving ahead with cutting out the middle men, DACcing all around. Pure economics (power play by big corp’s; ROI et al.) will determine speed(s) here. Join-or-die aspects play here, too; less in outright competition but more in missing out in cooperation, being left in the dust.
C2B IoT: Out in the open, where all the hype is. No concern – as for secrecy of developments; heaps of concerns re e.g. privacy ..!! Critical Mass (as defined in Yours Truly’s seminal graduation thesis of, already, 1990 (on office automation incl e-mail, where it played then) yes a great many years before it was to be called) Network Effect, or – Tipping Point may be the key point for development fits and starts in this one; in publicity, actual adoption and fruitful use.
C-internal: Same. Slower due to legacy. I.e., houses already out there. Some have been around for centuries. Massive update ..? [Edited to add: this here toytoolset seems helpful in this area]

We’ll see…

Flavours of IoT

In my on-going attempts to get a grip on IoT, I recently developed a first, for me … Being a broadest of classification of IoT deployment, with characteristics yet to work on:

B-internal; the ever more intelligent, ever more (visually) surroundings-aware robots in factories, replacing extorted laborers thus taking away the last options to life they had. On the other hand, freeing humanity of toils at last ..? If not when there’s a Hegelian end…
B2B; having near-AI ‘machines’ as the new middlemen, if at all or incorporated on the sell- or buy-side.
C2B; as with most lifelogging e.g., through wearables. You didn’t really think your health data was for your private consumption, did you!? If so, only as a weak collateral product of insurer’s ever better reasons to turn you down the more you need them. No escape.
C-internal; maybe, here and there, with domotics. And with this; will already a blend with the previous, probably.

To which I would then add some form of mapping to the various layers of discourse (as in:

but then, much more stacked with OSI-like layers and elements performing various functions like collection, aggregation, abstraction. Seems relevant to do a risk analysis on all those levels and points/connections.
Yes, it’s rather vague, still. But will work on this; to see whether the classification can shed some light on various speeds of adoption, and where privacy concerns et al. may be worst. Your comments, additions and extensions are much welcomed.

I’ll leave you for now, with:
[From an old analog to digital time, still SciFi ..?]

Not yet one IoTA; Auditing ‘technology’

[Apologies for the date/time stamp; couldn’t pass.]
First, a pic:
20140226_113554
[Classy classic industrial; Binckhorst]

Recently, I was triggered by an old friend about some speaking engagement of mine a number of years back. As in this deck (in Dutch…).
The point being; we have hardly progressed past the point I mentioned in that, being that ‘we’ auditors, also IT/IS auditors!, didn’t fully adapt to the, then, Stuxnet kind of threats. (Not adopt, adapt; I will be a grammar and semantics n.z. on that.)
As we dwelled in our Administrative view of how to control the world, and commonly though not fully comprehensively, had never learned that the control paradigms there, were but sloppy copies of the control paradigms that Industry had known for a long time already, effectively in the environment of use there. As in this post of mine. Etc.

But guess what – now many years later, we still as a profession haven’t moved past the administrative borders yet. Hence, herewith

A declaration of intent to develop an audit framework for the IoT world.

Yes, there’s a lot of ground to cover. All the way from classification of sensors and networks, up to discussions about privacy, ethics and optimistic/pessimistic (dystopian) views of the Singularity. And all in between that auditors, the right kind, IS auditors with core binary skills and understanding of supra-supra-governance issues, might have to tackle. Can tackle, when with the right methodologies, tools, attitude, and marketing to be able to make a living.

Hm, there’s so much to cover. Will first re-cover, then cover, step by step. All your comments are welcomed already.
[Edited to add: Apparently, at least Checkpoint (of firewall fame oh yes don’t complain I know you do a lot more than that yesterday’s stuff; as here) has some offerings for SCADA security. And so does Netop (here). And of course, Splunk). But admit; that’s not many.]

To watch: Firebase

Was tipped via this article. Firebase to be the next thing. Promising, in its a tempo development; seems to be one element of what the world needs right now in terms of moving forward, innovation. Though maybe it may remain out of sight for most consumers, businesses may build a whole new, upgraded set of tools for users on top of this data handling platform.
And be better at using your data than just flat invasive (sic) analysis. The battle field will be compliance with (new) EU privacy regulations. E.g., re transparency of the controllers and processors; that will be a tad more difficult to pull off than now.

Though entirely your opinion on this development now being in the hands of Big G.

Anyway, again from here:
[How many tourists would see this ..? Tar’ga Catalunya]

Wired / Tired / Expired, November 2014 edition

DSCN1324
[Weirdo’s – closing at 17:00h … doesn’t time melt for this artist, in this country (sic) …?]

Yes here’s the November edition of my Wired / Tired / Expired jargon watch overviews, a mixed bag again:

WIRED	TIRED	EXPIRED

Yik Yak, Ello, Tsu	The other anons (?)	Whatsapp et al
As in this, where as only the very old folks remember fubbuk started. And the other ones, here.	Already not making it past the tipping point? I mean, where are Whisper / Kik / Telegram / WeChat / Line / Viber / Wicker / Threema / surespot ? And this, as elsewhere on this blog.	Mehhh, as in the elsewhere mentioned on the left.

Poodle	Beast	Heartbleed
Because it’s “not much of an issue” as it affects end point consumers only … OUTRAGE! They are your customers, they are the huge numbers, they are the incapable to cure (also since a fraction of B2C’s doesn’t effing care). If only server-owning companies were the vulnerable, with their very few numbers, their resolution capacity, and their economic interests.	Yeah, yeah, working on it.	Really? Still?

Taking action	Taking symbolic action	Taking no action / denying any problems (tie)
E.g., by forking out another $250M, not just peanuts. Because pay the peanuts, get the monkeys.	… Or is the previous still only window dressing ..? Maybe some, silent, action might’ve cost much less. Anyway, symbolic action will prove to be the infosec czar’s new clothes.	Legally invalid. Demonstrating incapacity to function normally in today’s business world.

Docker	Google Docs	‘Private cloud’
Just as in this, and this and this – since the latter two.	Into the main stream.	Dumb outsourced data center, virtual or not. With all the privacy ramifications, without scalability (!) or efficiencies.

IoT detailing ever further	IoT! Mixed up with Wearables et al.	Cloud, ROSI etc.etc.
This kind of details … And these.	Pls learn to discriminate or you mess up the discussions. Which will be, at all levels of abstraction and everywhere, as under W.	Totalitarian Bureaucrat talk.

Not caring (to be seen)	Faux 1% philantropy	Posing
Hanging out at http://www.beriestain.com/ for example, just among like-minded self-sufficients (for peace of mind, not needing external recognition).	Clearly, this.	Uggg-gh!

OK, any suggestions for next month’s edition ..?

Flexing work vans

A thought just popped into my mind: If people are expected to be ever more flexible as for place of work, why would we still be tied up in concrete offices ..? Even if we move around, it is from concrete intensive-people-farm to the next, however flexible and nice it all may look. And all the flex space flex rent stuff is similar; tying people up to addresses.

Rather, wouldn’t it be of use if there were another variant suitably professionally organized, I mean not something like this:
[Hey, it’s someone’s office …]

But rather something a tiny bit more upmarket. Like:
[or just a little less conspicuous, with more actual desk space, filing possibilities (still, in this time and day), etc., for, probably, some quite a bit more affordable investment money and maybe a little more like above-linked ‘offices’ that this out-of-fashion posh]

So that the great many that aren’t at Queen Bee level that everyone flocks to – i.e., everyone, in the near future, in the flat(ter) network ‘organisations’ – can simply drive to the gathering places (previously known as parking lots) of choice and nearness to whatever client, and hook up the fully-equipped office to some power (charging the car battery and the equipment) and network to just do whatever work needs to be done. Could be downtown, could be at the park or beach front.

Oh well. It was just an idea….

Cuffed to happen

This here masterpiece of course was bound to happen. Although with WiFi access, one would wonder about cloud sync / storage …
Oh WiFi hotspot no less…
Pic, again next time.

In that Case, No.

Is your organization still replying on ‘business’ ‘cases’ to fund projects? Then there’s a special place for you in Dorchester.
When building such business cases – apologies for not mocking that newspeak already –, have you ever come up with one that did not pass the hurdle rate ..? Or come across a case where no business case was needed because the case for investing was so obvious or it wasn’t most clearly but someone of the Board wanted it so whatever dreadful return was expected all still had to be done?

Which made business cases the spider web that catches the little flies when the big ones simply smash on through.

And the insects that game-change and disrupt your feeding/business model and/or market share, don’t even fly near your web or turned inedible.

How many start-ups go through formal business cases for every investment or pivot ..? And only just making the 10% rate ..? With all costs so exactly calculable as you present those (the 100%+ error rates you leave out ’cause band widths are too difficult to understand by the ones with the money bags. You presume that, they deny that vehemently because it would show them to be the emperors in their newest clothes (but with piggy-fat pay checks), but you are certain of not being able to mark the averages for the cost items so you take lowest estimates), and the benefits monetized [my italics, auth.] to fabulously inflated figures. With oh so many unethical rounds of ‘adjustments’. Newspeak for: cooking the books of your business case. By lack of the hardest of scientifically concrete counterevidence you maintain your weakest of kindergarten estimates still hold.
Again, not very much like the start-ups you envy. You envy for their success rate. Ah, you now say the failure rate of start-ups is dismal. How about the failure rate of your projects; if they had been single initiatives, wouldn’t they have gone bankrupt at an even higher rate? Aren’t your successes the panting hanging-in-by-the-thread shrill-shouts of objectives achievement? Where the start-ups are considered successful only after passing the … maybe 500% return rate; reflective of … business value through non-monetary returns you could only dream of.

Don’t feel like I’m just bullying you like all the rest, with the weapon of slight. I’m trying to provide ammo so you can be allowed to move away from the bleak common business case of ‘decks’ full of PPTs where the content would be much, much better presented in Word and the 6 words shoud be per sheet not per half inch; unreadable, not made to understand. [Why!?!? Why use PPT; why are you using a truck to get a dozen of eggs from the Walmart ..!?]

So, what pointer can you provide to beat the business case system; not to game it but to replace it with another that might actually be useful, functional, in (larger) organisations …?

Unfreeze, the quest for ~ in business

How do Those In Business that deal with the all-sorts of überbureaucratisation, think the Second Law, of thermodynamics of course, wouldn’t apply to their work as well?
Let’s kick off with:
DSCN8580
[Appropriately named the Airplane building. Zuid-As]

Happened to attend a conference last week. And was able to read back a great many days of twitter feed. Due to the utter boredom. Because the presentations were all about … introducing control frameworks, under the guise of governance frameworks, that aren’t (fact).

Still, all was presented as if there would be little in place already;
Still, it appeared none looked past ‘first-time’ implementation. Albeit that some (not all…) mentioned the repeat of the PDCA (some, as just an element of a PDCA cycle they, how Ecce Huomo, completely erroneously mixed up with the management control cycle!), none seemed to have had any experience with an actual (hence very shoddy) implementation of ‘GRC’ let alone found the root cause of its continued, law-of-nature certain decline. Law of nature, as the system of control of which we speak, having entropy-aversion as its rationale, will suffer from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The entropy of a closed system never decreases. These systems, leak all the way, and aren’t rigorously consistent and/or stable in the first place. I.e., all these systems tend towards Chaos; no Man, half-god or god(s) has ever been able to (or wanted to!) prevent this.
As if the concept of Life Cycle wouldn’t apply to the totalitarian system of bureaucratic control that GRC is; the Decline has been set in everywhere as it has set in throughout the Culture Of GRC.
As if there weren’t already serious errors in the system itself: Trying, repeat ad nauseam, in vain to control the uncontrollable, to capture the thing that is defined by its escape from control, i.e., Risk.
As if it were a good thing to consider GRC as necessarily (sic) one-size-fits-all within an organization; all elements should be in all corners. That is not ‘governance’ (which already is nothing in itself) but genocide-by-dehumanization-and-slavery over all involved.
As if GRC isn’t self-defeating or rather, self-destroying by crushing initiative (that necessarily is over the edge of Control’s allowance; the more perfect GRC the more so!) and hence straightjacketing anything and everyone into tighter and tighter harnases whilst the competition, muddy-ocean to blue ocean whatever, would not overrun and eradicate your organization. ‘The fish starts to rot at the head’, here too.
As if… as if the step-wise activities approach still depicted, would possibly work anywhere and not fit, as any day at the office (sic) would be swamped with all activities all the time in an insurmountable mix.
Where the likes of Nassim Taleb did already prove that when one thinks to control better by being displayed less variance in some results variable, that is only a sign of the powers of nature prepping up for the big Bang that kill those very results. Which is the force of nature, demonstrated since the dawn of humanity to having plagued all systems of cooperation and society: The Apollo side may think to triumph, but the Dionysos side in Man will get even no matter what. The more the latter is pushed aside, tha harder it will strike back in unforeseen directions. No doubt; fact of godly nature.

You get it. I hope. Now, go understand Road to Nowhere.

Not so self-driving

Errrm, after reading this Slate article, what is the ‘self-driving’ the car does ..? It’s just fitting into the template of the world laid out, not self-driving with ‘self’ being autonomous and aware.
Though I’m not fully in agreement on the conclusion, I do recognize the comparison in the early paragraphs: The G’s self-driving one as the Newton. But that was handsomely overtaken (intended) by the handhelds of all sizes that are ubiquitous today. As the article already hints, it’ll be a matter of AI creeping into our cars in all sorts of ways, when we suddenly realize how close we are to (or past the point of) true autonomy. But we’re not very close to that, yet; the jumps to be made may be much bigger than the Newton-to-Android-phablet one. Not being able to cope with any but the finest weather … Ugh, if one had known that, no-one would have claimed anything about self of driving, right? Where are the permits to road-legality (CA, probably already, UK 2015/2016 it was?) going to if mere sleet and fog may destroy safety?

By the way, did you notice the similarity with what happened to Glass ..? “Yes indeed, where has that gone!?” Well, it turns out it was a good try for Big G and now has vanished due to the public denouncement, through ridicule and physical backlash. So… next time, the tech will be inobtrusive, secretive, so you’ll not be able to detect or defend against it… Big win, not. So it will go with cars. Till the next round; then: Sneeking up on you, then be inevitable.

OK, I’ll leave you with yesteryears’ gloomy perimeter defences: