Tag: people

Bring on the Future; it belongs to ME

Some say self-driving cars / autonomous vehicles will take over driving as if they will take over all driving. But the intermediate phase [where autonomous persons and autonomous masters with slave (!) persons] will see ‘driving’ turn into a pastime, a hobby, of thrill seeker persons. Yes, even with Insurance rates getting somewhat higher. Not much higher, let alone skyrocketing, because the lone drivers that hold out, will find more and more very defensively behaving autonomous tin cans opposite them, scaring the latter (to steer) off the road…! Hence, aggressive drivers will not (provably) cause many accidents, autonomous vehicles will in all their panic. Hence, autonomous humans will not have staggering Insurance rates

and will keep on driving because of the fun of it, the feeling of independence and self-control, the thrill sought and found…

After human chess players could no longer win against ‘computers’, humans still play chess. After humans were outpaced by cars of all kinds, humans still try to win gold medals at the very event. After humans lost Jeopardy against Watson, humans still compete on ‘intelligence’ everywhere; opportunistically retreating ever further on the definition of ‘intelligence’.
Hence, humans will not drive ‘cars’ en masse, in the near+ future. But they will upgrade the purpose of driving, and will drive.

I sure will, for fun. With so many ‘lectric autonomous thingies on the road moving the sheeple, I’ll have or get myself all the road space I need… The road will belong to ME ME ME ..!

And
20150109_144728
[One perfect artist does NOT outdo others; Gemeentemuseum Den Haag]

Really Bad Life

The recent spat on (team, in particular) sports not being the character building they’re supposed to be, has a pendant in other realms of game as well. The former, here; the latter, here.

Where, similar to other areas of enticement (link and other posts on this blog), the idea of a level paying field not through the starting positions but through procedural justice, seems to want to jump over the weaving errors of our societies being the unevenness and inequality of the starting positions. Also eloquently explained (with a moral take-home) here. Typical in the RBC article above-linked, in the base (sic) of the great game of golf with its handicap system. But still; this doesn’t diminish the feelings of inequity, either on the non-compensated-for-bad-luck-starting-points side, or on the feeling-bad-for-having-lost-the-advantages-of-an-advantaged-starting-point side.

Wouldn’t wars be over and world peace break out when the problem that eluded some of the most eminent (economics- and others) thinkers, as here and certainly here and here, be solved ..? What transformation away from a bad one, would that require of the world society ..?

I’m seriously interested to hear any pointers and partial work already …

dsc_0950
[On the edges of Nature and Appolonian order…, and perfection (in horizon balance) is boring; Ancy-le-Franc]

Help determine this rock

I have an inkling of what this piece of art means, but would there be anyone out there that, under strict confidentiality of course, could provide a full explanation ..?
In particular — but including full context — what the link is between a book, possibly obscure but a tip as pleasurable read and this in Joinville:
dsc_0794

It’s just all too odd to not have a connection … Including this, perhaps ..?

Simply, stats

Just putting it down there.

With some discussion, OK, OK…:

  • Fubbuck still the largest, “of course”, but by less of a margin than previous (?);
  • Because FB ‘messenger’ oh horrendous thing, is listed separately. Prob with reason. At least, because reasons;
  • QQ and QZone still biggies, to grow ..!?
  • Tumblr’s big this time. Let’s dig for demographics, et al., to see whether some specific user group is biasing stats. The age-old subject that the Internet was invented and invaded for, may be a big one in this;
  • LinkedIn larger than Pinterest. A #first ..? And not by much. Cause? Sturdy growth, hanging in there, holding out and succeeding by others falling back; or has some take(n)-over played a role here …?
  • Insta quite big but maybe not living up to the hype (or what’s its growth), Snapchat rather flat. Is Millennialhyping a thing from the past already ..?

statistic_id272014_most-famous-social-network-sites-2016-by-active-users

Contra Bruce, for once

For once, Bruce is not at the right end. Maybe not opposite of it, but.
As per this here blog post of his — a repeat of one of his, and others’, thread.

The argument: We make things, like, security, too difficult for users and hence (?) we shouldn’t try to change them into secure behaviour.
The contra: ‘Guns kill people’, or was it that the men (mostly) firing guns, kill people? And the many toddlers shooting their next of kin since, being at the approximate maturity of the Original gun pwner, they have no clue.

The Contra, too, and much more to the point when it comes to ‘information’ ‘security’: We should make cars run at maximum 5Mph … Since ‘users’ are waaaay too stupid to drive carefully.
Just don’t mention that ‘security’ is a quality not an absolute pass-or-fail thing, and that ‘information’ could not be more vague. [Except ‘cyber’, that’s so vacated of any meaning that it’s a black hole.] And don’t mentoin we still seem to let cars be used by any other moron that once, possibly literally decades ago before ‘chips’ were invented, passed some formal test — the American idea of the test coming very, dangerously, close to … was (sic) it the Belgian? system where one could pick up one’s driver’s license at the post office. Able, allowed, to buy cars that drive not just 5 but 250Mph, on busy roads, without protection against using socmed mid-traffic… One thing could be to introduce Finnish-style booking for unsafe behaviour (if caught, not when as per next paragraph [think that through…]), and/or huge fines for the producers of bad equipment (hw/sw) comparable to fines on car makers, or outright laws to build airbags in, etc.

And then, if we’d design ‘secure’ systems, e.g., the Apple way, we’d end up with even worse Shallows sheeple that have so much less clue than before… And all in the hands of … even in ultra-liberal countries one would suggest either Big Corp, or Big Gov’t, both options being Big Brother literally in such an atrocious Dystopia of humanity.

So, you want safe systems? You get the loss of humanity before actual safety.

[Yes I get the Humans Are The Cause Of Much Infosec Failure thing (including Human Flexibility Can (still!) Solve More Than Machines Can, Against System (!) Malfunction), but also I am completely in favour of both the Humans Must Through Tech Be Completely Shielded From Being Able To Do Anything Wrong and Humans Should Retain All Freedom To Act Responsibly solutions.]

Pick your stand. And:

[Use G Translate if you have to, from Dutch. Typifying the driver, probably, if only for picking the brand/car…; London]

Plusquote: Beaton

Be daring, be different, be impractical, be anything that will assert integrity of purpose and imaginative vision against the play-it-safers, the creatures of the commonplace, the slaves of the ordinary.

Thus wrote sir Cecil Beaton.

And right he was. And is, and will be, more than before. Since times are a’changing ever faster, too. Which means the risk, nay certain penalty of not venturing out into the future by one’s own action, increases by the day, as well. Live, or not — the characterisation of those of the ordinary is apt.

With thoughtful salutations, I thee present:
dsc_0043
[One feels invited to have to wait here, only; Royal waiting room entrance, Amsterdam CS]

Teh business, does it exist ..?

On purpose, teh. Plus a spoiler: No.

Though this is a tell-tale sign your infosec program, of whatever kind, will #fail, wholesale.
’cause If you can’t specify all stakeholders, at their various levels of detail required, beyond swiping them up under the ‘the business’ nomen, Then you might as well call it ‘teh’ business, as you are vague to the point of irrelevance, as you will be regarded by ‘the business’ and since that’s where 99.9% of your security sits (including budget holders…), fugeddabout effectiveness.
Endif. No Else.

So, stop using ‘the business’ as a stopgap designation for your lack of understanding of the infosec problems that you claimed you could tackle hence you demonstrate to know no thing about the swamp of root causes to the problems that you said to go solve.
You n00b.

Oh well…:
dscn1150
[Some specific business; Madrid]

Data Classinocation

I was studying this ‘old’ idea of mine of drafting some form of impact-based criteria for data sensitivity when, along with a couple of fundamental logical errors in some of the most formally adopted (incl legal) standards and laws, I suddenly realised:

In these times of easily provable easy de-anonymisation of even the most protective homomorphic encryption multiplied with the ease of de-anonymisation throught data correlation of even the most innocent data points, all even the most innocent data points/elements must (not should) be classified at the highest sensitivity levels so why classifiy data ..!?

This may not be a popular point, but that doesn’t make it less true.
In similar vein, in European context where one is only to process data in the first place if (big if) there is no alternative and one can process for the Original intent and purpose only,

To prevent data from unauthorised disclosure internally or externally, without tight need-to-know/need-to-use IAM implementation, one already does too little; with, enough.

That’s right; ‘internal use only’ is waaay too sloppy hence illegal — it breaks the legal requirement for due (sic) protection, and if the use of data is, ‘by negligence’ not changing a thing here, let possible, the European privacy directive (and its currently active precursors) do not allow you to even have the data. This may be a stretch but is still understandable and valid once you take the effort to think it through a bit.
Maybe also not too popular.

Needless to say that both points will not be understood the least by all the ‘privacy officer’ types that have rote learned the laws and regulations, but have no experience/clue how to actually use those in practice and just wave legal ‘arguments’ (quod non) around as if that their (song and) dance is the end purpose of the organisation but cannot answer even the most simple questions re allowablity of some data/processing with anything that logically or linguistically approaches clarity. [Note the ‘or’ is a logical one, not the sometimes interpreted xor that the too-simpletons (incl ‘privacy officers’) interpret but don’t know exists.]

OK. So far, no good. Plus:
dscn0990
[Not a fortress, nor a real maze once you see the structure; Valencia]

Tugging on with Thoreau

It’s not enough to be industrious; so are the ants. What are you industrious about?

As a warning to the many that just continue to be ‘compliant’, letting their best, and next in line their mehhh, drain and be crowded out by meek submission. Which is what some Others live off, totally.

Hey, don’t just point out this all sounds rather negative: It’s Monday, right ..?
Switch to the Useful, creative, productive life! Yes, sirmadam, so can you! And you and you! And:
dscn0983
[If only life were always like this Valencia …]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord