Tag: Risk Management

Prediction16

Yawn. Or not. The following will get real serious in 2016. Like,

Well, for the list with everything and their dog:

  • Some Exits: Green Egg, ‘Cyber’everything, disruption/uberization, privacy, and, certainly and very much hopefully, “Like us on Facebook” … and very, very certainly hipsters let alone their ‘beards’ (quod non).
  • Entrat to replace the latter, hopefully, some actual non- or anti-bureaucratic frameworks of mind.
  • Also out, to be replaced by … [as yet unknown]: Vlogging or what have we, in socmed space, with 100k-1M+/++ followers as being he thing to aim for. As it becomes clearer and clearer in 2016 that only the 10M+/++ leaders (??) can make a dime from it, or barely a living. Who are the big winners, in all of this? User data / experience farmers?
  • Risk Management 3.0 will grow to be the Next Thing in managementspeak. If you’d need any proof, go read back the ton of posts on your perennial Truth site.
  • Also, we might get a last blip from SMAC(T) as a trend summary.
  • All of the points made by The (some) Man. Obviously. And some of this as well though this may all show to be overblown.
  • Still a wave of interest in Rise of the Robots. Combined with AI through and through, like in this. With support at an angle, from this.
  • A further blend of cloudsourcing and deperimetrisation putting your infra and all of your data naked and out there in the cold.
  • Oh almost forgot: A lot more on APTs, 3D printing (when will we finally get 4D printing …!?), MehhDrone stuff, blockchain, IoT, et al.
  • But we may hope, the latter two get much more innovative applications; one the one hand with simpler explications, on the other, truly innovating e.g., into the DAO realm.
  • Ah, DAOs; let’s first see more of this in 2016.
  • Offering a simple list copy from HBR:
    • Algorithmic personality detection: Yes
    • Bots: Yes
    • Glitches: Mwah; we indeed will see scores of them, ever bigger and more impactful (also b/c complexity explosions of the mixed e and physical worlds), but they’re somewhat of the mehhh category for the purpose of Here.
    • Backdoors: See APTs et al; much more of them yes but again, mehhh
    • Blockchain: As mentioned
    • Drone lanes: Hmmm, interesting…
    • Quantum Computing: Probably hung in there from previous (many) years’ lists; mine, too. May, might, but for the same token may not
    • Augmented knowledge: Definitely. Hopefully, in a good way. But maybe even hopefully, steered towards safe use, after a hopefully indicative but small-enough dystopian-style mishap ..?
  • CloudIAMming. IAM, renewed, for federated use in ‘the’ cloud. Yes, this will have a whole new lease of life, as a management field, and a consultancy field as well.
  • This just in: Forgot to mention VR as a thing in 2016. Definitely.
  • I may want to do an update halfway through the year…
  • Oh, and of course our motto for 2016: A CEO with you, is still a CEO.
    #gosubstitute[ _X, _Y | fool, a tool ]

After which there’s only:
DSCN7943
[Purposefully unsharp. Berlin, some years ago.]

Common meltdown

Ah, indeed a meltdown is approaching; maybe not even of the common kind of just something breaking down in ‘IT’ — the inverted s… hits the fan scenario — but a larger-scale one. Being the lack of budget / approval for IT staff to do continuous education of all sorts. [As in here, in Dutch.]
Which will inevitably lead to ever larger of the small- to midsize collapses mentioned, possibly one triggering the other till past the critical point where the chain reaction feedback loop switches from negative to positive.

By which time it will be too late, much too late, to hyperventilatingly engage in counteractions. Both against the root cause problems in IT, as in the edjucayzional category within those. Because, au fond, so many of IT’s ails were and are, increasingly, driven by lack of (continued) education. Causing problems in the user’s specs (at the highest levels) and subsequently, 2nd Law of thermodynamics, spawning all of the subsequent complexity developing into unmanageability, and error stacking that breeds like viruses.

Even more poignantly in InfoSec corners. You know, the outposts of IT — yes, yes, I know that the I is of so much greater import than the T but get real, instead of 20% InfoSec is 85-95% T still, these days ..! — where the real commandos and fancy-dancy ‘Delta teams’/SEALs operate.

Can we all please get our act together ..? If we don’t turn this supertanker around quickly, we don’t even need to bother about global warming because we’ll have no industrialised world to worry about…

Après nous la deluge …
DSC_0196
[Mosquito hunt; Edinburg]

A simple link to a profound article

Today, just a simple link to an article you’ll find interesting — or find yourself not that.
As in: this here piece.

After which:
ubx15

Uhhh okai then: The point of the matter is that here, we still have that idealistic vision in which AI would augment us, improve us, near-eugenetically though with prostheses, leaving so-hard-they-become-easy-by-not-being-recognized choices of the Hobson kind for the ones with least ethical scrupules, the early adoptors to collateral on the others. Early adoptors through the need for compensation of already lacking (basic…) capabilities…

Before becoming too negative, this:
DSC_0026
[Think, self-rule, et al.; Dunedin again]

Grendel’s mother

This indeed a repost. As matters in global politics made this material utmost relevant again, a couple of weeks ago. Has the news since addressed the below already, or will we learn from history that we don’t learn from history ..?

When the short summary doesn’t do justice to the core of the problem… Where the core is both a misreading of the depth and a misreading of its intentions.
As this here few little paragraphs have.
There’s no light way of putting this: Go read the … thing in its entirety and then, do understand it in all of its cultural superiority to today’s news accounts.

Yes, for the simplest of minds it may read like just a story. Hero, this, that, done. But to the slightest of more careful reader, it is overwhelmingly clear: The book contains so much profundity on the core of politics, societies, and clashes of war. Then you see that it’s not about slaying Grendel and some afterthought. It is about slaying the symptom, the fed, and only then can you get to fighting the real cause that (literally) both birthed and feeds the symptoms, the Mother of Evil. Pointing, too, at the continuity through generations of that concept.

Oh and did it mention anything about brothers or (maybe even worse ..?) sisters ..? Opening up all sorts of options for prolongation through the ages of this tension between what one (sic) could regard as Good and another (sic) as Evil? Mother doesn’t see Evil, she sees her pride, her son displaying the most beautiful (s)he can imagine. Yo don’t even know which side you’re on! Etc.

Yes indeed. It is simply not simple. It is The World As We Know It, and Man cannot change much about it…

For the latter, see how Western ‘powers’ led by the one, try to meekly and halfheartedly subdue Grendel in the Middle East; just enough to safeguard their own interests. Where they don’t see the full depth of mother’s lair, nor her issues. For those less ‘sues’, read this and see the eternity of the problem.

For now, this:
DSC_0088
[A museum. Hence, still very relevant; Edinburg.[Earth isn’t flat, you know…]] ]]]] ]

Hard coating emaille

If you’re well-seasoned, you may have turned a bit sour by all the silver bullet news even when that was targeted at point problems/solutions. And, you may even be old enough to recall Why Johnny Can’t.
Seems there’s a new version of the latter, with a similar conclusion. Too bad for all of us.

Oh well…:
DSCN0414
[Also ‘old’, also of a ‘no photo allowed inside’ site. Guess which]

The Good Bad and Bureaucrats

Musing with the distinction between Bad and Evil (as here), and how Anger of the right kind (good to be bad b/c without/opposing evil intent) would be neither but the diametrical opposite of the former two’s effects in bureaucracy.

Noting that praxis makes the things get mixed up, as in:
DSC_1024
[Supreme distort; DC]

Oh, of course: DACcountantcy

Was reminded by this seer peer (no typos) in a casual remark that DAOs (DACs) may change quite a bit about the world as we know it. “DAOs are a game changing invention enabling a new model for human collaboration. #blockchain #C4ACC” (© him) — but apart from human collaboration (note the pejorative weight of the early ’40s this stil carries with it even today, in continental Europe), also the value of Trust in singular persons may shift.
DAOs then being of course, of course, the element I forgot to mention in my roboccountant post.

So, with this one linked in, now all the elements of that post make sense. In which the ensemble may have surpassed me. Or:
DSC_0789
[Materially a circle, to any human accountant and dress codes displayed, are of the apparent relaxed Big4 dc’s of today; DC]

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:
DSCN0770
[When Penzance would be at Bergen On The Beach]

Define ‘Risk’…

This should be an easy one, by pointing at ISO 31000 and its definition the effect of uncertainty on objectives. But that same easy def also raises more questions than it answers, e.g.,

  • How to define [ hence | and ] classify effects,
  • How to define [ hence | and ] classify uncertainty (a biggy …!),
  • How to define [ hence | and ] classify objectives,
  • How to establish measurement of effects,
  • How to establish measurement of uncertainty,
  • How to establish measurement of objectives

that all have an impact on, and are impacted by, the definition. Hopefully, I don’t have to elucidate define hence classify, define and classify or establish measurement regarding effects, uncertainties or objectives. I’ve been at the subject before (here and many posts since) so much that it hurts, me too. But still, many won’t listen and remain stuck in their proven (sic) mistaken belief that the World we’re dealing with, can be caught in models to ‘predict’ the future and/or at the same time remain stuck in, by now approaching hilarious, classifications like Basel II-IV’s… or the slowly but steadily outdating of the classical information security mantra of CIA — those three classes of objectives don’t cut it anymore.

For the more advanced reader (approx. 90% by now — hopefully), the question remains: How to define and classify uncertainty, effect(s!) and objectives ..? Standard classifications all had their stab at it, but failed for the fuzzy nature of those phenomena. Some leaned to the Uncertainty side, trying foremost to classify threats. Some, to the effects side with their vulnerabilities-first approach — via the Impacts classification. Some even had Objectives in mind when pondering the downside potentials of loss-of-upside potential, including scour-for-opportunities to any (0-100%) degree. And then, there’s the abovementioned surefire laugh over ‘Event’ driven analysis… yes consistency, completeness and orthagonality remain essential.
But above all, none captured the time-fluctuation confluence of causes, effects, impacts, … [what have we] that all have such unanalysable structure. Due to their continuous nature; contrasted to the discrete nature often but cannot-be-more-false’ly assumed. [If you don’t get the fundamental difference between discrete and continuous phenomena, go study core math in depth, length and breath. Which is helpful against so great many ills of mind…] And due to the enormously-over-three body problem of interactions [link is about grand business not the petty risk analysis kind but the link therein is valid for the above, too].
Modeling in order to understand may work, but only to understand the exaggeratedly dumbed-down model, the conclusions of which if normative are (in this case, there is such a thing as absolute) certain not to apply or work so why bother. Oh, maybe you may bother, to get a feel of your inadequacy. [Note: I don’t feign to be above that. But I don’t allow you to assume you are as that is both a theoretical and practical logical error.]

Yesy, yes, I know; there very probably is no One Classification Fits All, then. But we may dream, and strive for it, don’t we ..? And at least be very, very clear about it — it being the approach we do take, and what it might potentially (with the probability being above zero but certainly being far off 100%) achieve. Aren’t GUTs, like the Standard Model or the hyperdimensional string theories, the dreams that stuff are made of, too ..?
As always, your suggestions, please. And:
DSC_0643
[Just wait till Etna Says Boom. Or don’t.]

Old, new, borrowed, blue or is it?

Some claimed Über was (sic) disruptive. Others try to figure out how to ‘disrupt’ themselves or their (?) industry. Mostly, the latter comes down to analysis of how things are / are done in the industry, and finding radical improvements.

Now here’s three things re the taxi ride market:
a. Where traditionally, supply and demand happened to be present at the same location in the street, or demand waited for supply to show up, we now have a pre-match. Or hold it: that existed by calling a taxi co.
b. Supply has been upgraded in quality. Nothing revolutionary here; premium services have always been available.
c. Rules as set by democratic society, are circumvented. E.g., rather operational/technical minimum requirements, pricing standards (against driver/customer extortion and surge pricing and similar Hobson’s Choice trapped-demand ploys) and limits to (over)supply, by taxi regulations. In many places, the newcomer just did the outright illegal. Huh, quite a feat but should remain culpable.
d. [I dislike proper counting] There’s a feedback option on the quality from and to both sides. Drivers, and customers. Obviously doing the latter a sizeable disservice they still seem to swallow (possibility for recourse!? legally required per privacy laws, where they exist; maybe not the USofA…). Doing the former a further tie-down into a minion’s position (far beyond what also already existed, called a phone, you know, those things with curly wires?), enslaving.

Now, by my guess, of the above only most minor, gradual differences apply. If nothing at all radical is disruption …

I’ll leave you on the curb with:
DSC_0854
[Disrupted lives, but of the ultimate Honour kind that the above is the opposite of; Arlington Nat’l]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord