Privacy – Page 9 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

The Internot Diploma

In an attempt to pre-empt all 2016 April fool’s jokes by a mile (in time and ridicule value) some Dutch Board on Cyber Security (notice the joke starts there, with ‘cyber’ since #ditchcyber) proposed to ensure all kids would get some ‘Safe Internet use diploma’.
When you know the kids regularly fail for (very, very!) basic math skill tests, can hardly write comprehensible sentences over … [fill in some number comfortably below ten] words let alone know anything about bits and bytes (but do know about birds and bees far ahead of practicing any of that — we hope) or even the most basic things about what programming is, hence are at levels of education about four or five years below their age, you can see the enormity of what’s proposed.

So, to be on such a Board, one shouldn’t know the very first thing about the subject one babbles about or one would be overqualified ..!? What an insult to all the professionals out there that try hardest.

This all stupidity tires me enormously. I’ll stop now. And:

[Continuous renewal — at least that’s something ..!]

Privvezy Protrection

An off the cuff — where’s gentlemens’ style, these days? — remark hit a nerve. When an interesting company had some very interesting speakers and me. On IAM, data leakage and … well, what was it, data protection XOR privacy …?

Because the little collateral remarks was about Privacy being the ethical imperative, but being implementable straight away, would need translation to operational Data Protection.

Yes, where the core of legislation is about the latter, in an attempt to achieve the former… to the degree feasible, achievable, and wanted.
Demonstrating that all legalese, even of the EU kind, is just about white washing whatever you’d want to get away with.

A sore reminder that when one would want (hypothetically, for the sake of the argument that such would be theoretically possible) Privacy, one’s still on one’s own. Against all that is formally formed or not as Institutions, against the windmills that all want you to believe don’t exist or have power over you…

But hey, I’m a happy bunny so I’ll leave you with:

[When Penzance would be at Bergen On The Beach]

PIA is KIA and KYD (?)

Since the whole Privacy thing has gained new traction with both the European Data Privacy Directive regaining (some…) steam and the European Court finally deciding what all with any bits of brain already knew i.e. that ‘Safe Harbour’ was a sour joke (to put it mildly), I realized, when working on a presentation for a forum centering on/around Identity and Access Management, that any Privacy Impact Analysis work comes down to two things; an objects-side analysis in the form of Know Your Data and a subject-side analysis by means of Know your (authorised OR actual) Identities and their Access, with some Privacy By Design thrown in at the solutions end.
Since I just like sentences of the right length, being entities that contain a discrete but complete set of logically coherent and united concepts.

And for those of you in the know; the above contains all there is to Know. Sort of. Maybe add in a bit of this (in Dutch; from the FD newspaper), for implementation. For a lot of implementation…
And, things may change in the somewhat near future with the advent of drones, IoT, robotics (humanoid or abstract), and ANI/AGI/ASI, in the IAM sphere alone. Just read up your huge backlog on this blog, and elsewhere as I cannot really summarise it all here…

I’ll give you some time space for that now. With:

[At the Ragusa Ibla end but of course you knew]

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]

Darn Drone-Downers

Another alliterating ad-lib post here. About the right (not) to take care of your own privacy behind your own front door. Seriously; here now is an item of societal structure that needs fixing and for once can be fixed ahead of time but still will very probably not be — because some of the many parties involved, will not see how their own tardiness leads (with certainty) to loss of life, of life’s full enjoyment, of the pursuit and realization of happiness. Is there a term for this sort of extreme autism denying one’s responsibilities, accountability beyond the mere received rational-only knowledge..?

OK, I get it; you want time to think. Delivered. And:

[Whatever floats your big a.. boat]

Nice note

Just a long-form quote this time, by Norm Laudermilch:

In addition, we should stop using the term “advanced threat” to describe the threats we see every day. It’s too common to hear a recently breached company point to a “very sophisticated cyber attack perpetrated by a nation-state”, which makes it sound like this was something undetectable and impossible to stop. Gartner analyst Neil MacDonald calls this the “dog ate my homework” excuse. More likely we find that it was just another piece of malware cranked out by one of the latest exploit toolkits, delivered via spear-phishing or targeted malvertising, perpetrated not by highly advanced nation-state adversaries but by comparatively low-tech cyber crime gangs. Even if a nation-state attacker crafts an extraordinarily unique and complex malware payload, they’re probably using the common delivery vectors mentioned above. Why? Because these attacks work every time.

Emphasis mine and I second. Until quantumcrypto is cracked, each, any and all cracks are of sophistication Zero. Or One, at most. Combining the most basic of ‘attacks’ i.e. exploits of negligence. Read the full article, and agree. Oh, and [self-plug] there could be side benefits in sloppiness, like this – IF deployed properly. And have your press release at hand, like this one.

So, …

[Surpreme court; would you want your ball there?]

Ah, your home controlled by …?

In the race to grasp as much of the market as possible, which is understandable, one party jumps in to create the API of APIs we’ve all been waiting for, among others (since this) in this domotics category.
But … will we surrender even our in-house as-yet unconnected lifeblogging data to one of the parties that don’t have the best of track records re privacy …? I mean this one. With an odd name…

Oh yes, I hear you suppress your fears … with empty words, given that even at chip level intrusion and (data) extrusion seems to have been possible, and in the wild, already for years.
So, this one party grabbing your data at software level may even be an ‘improvement’ for transparency … the devil you know (but still don’t see) – how’zat for self-censorship in your house? Even when with a required warrant, will (tending to casual, ubiquitous) surveillance in your own home be the future?

Well, I’ll go cleaning up. With said product (name) of course…. And:
DSCN1283
[Preferably, the non-scratching kind … London already a decade ago]

Oh, whatev’ – will succeed

Yes, critique hasn’t been overly enthousiastic for the HoloLens developments. Like in this here story.
Question is, though: Did the first iPod have Shuffle? Was the first iPhone even a serious phone ..? [Or was that the first iPad that had no comms; I forget due to irrelevance. But do notice how there’s now a continuum of screen sizes from smartphone via note and tablet to desktop screenlets and mega-TVs]

My take: It’ll be somewhere on the Glass–to–iPad scale: As prototype that stays (sic! Glass’s still around for very, very effective deployment in some sectors) and/or as lauch of a steep improvement curve.

Which is good. But may bring about some unforeseen consequences: What when Youth gets hooked, and unlearns what Reality is ..? Will we all follow ..?
Yes, if e.g., walls can be presented hologrammatically to a degree that hologrammar-Ns (you read that here, first!) are satisfied with reality resemblence, could an ASI take over and confine us in virtual (now for realz) boxes ..?

Dysto here, dysto there, dysto everywhere… Hence:

[Mockery … Barça]

Culpable misinformation

The inescapable Bruce was very mild, characterising Comey’s texts as a joke. Like here, on this. Whereas puppets everywhere (in NL as well, here) can show only a handful cases if any at all where mass surveillance (like this by InfoSec Taylor:

explains) has been key. Referring not to any paraphrase (here) of Ben Franklin (“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”) ..?

But the point is: Where failure to act may be culpable in the same way that acts may be, deliberate (intentful) misrepresentation by omitting knowledge and/or presenting false conclusions may be as culpable as outright lying. In particular, when in the public sphere (of income) where speaking the truth (the whole, and nothing but…) is part of the deal, however indirectly through defense of a constitution. Wilful neglect of that duty (that may include informing oneself properly!) is a scam, con, deceit, fraud.

So, come clean. And:

[F..tis didn’t get away with it; too simpleton despite pretense]

Your Things’ Id, Ego, Super-Ego

Just putting it out there; my pres at the very successful IDentity.Next conference last week in Noordwijkerhout. Though it is without any actual speaker notes, you may still get the points – or we may have a discussion about certain uncertainties therein.
I’ll stop now; too much in the unwind mode still, due to the great discussions on the spot.

So, here it is. And this:

[Things creeping up on you; Zuid-As]