The rise of the internet has resulted in many companies building business plans on invading the privacy of their users and selling the data to those wishing to track those users. For many companies this model of behavior has always been obvious. I never created an account on Facebook because of how strongly focused they have always been on invading privacy and selling that data. The distain for Facebook finally became more than a side note in 2018 (though there has long been some push back against them). Though still most people continue to use Facebook even as the extent of their bad behavior has come to light.
Certainly other companies (Google etc.) also practice gathering and aggregating information about individuals in order to profit. I have used Google from the beginning though I have reduced such use in the last few years (still using them quite a bit). Duck Duck Go has long been my primary search engine though I do also use Google. I added Fastmail years ago, but still use some gmail accounts.
The integration of online tracking and offline tracking (via credit agencies, credit card companies etc.) has greatly increased over the last 5 years with Google planning a central role (along with, of course Facebook and many others).
One of the worst behaviors by internet companies is to collect phone numbers in order to facilitate selling and integration of private information while pretending it is somehow a security issue. Though security experts all say using phone numbers for security adds security risks instead of using much more secure methods such as a security key. Companies that use deceptive security methods to collect phone numbers in order to sell the private information of their users make it very hard to trust what else they are doing.
Twitter has long claimed a security reason to collect phone numbers [update in 2020 - Twitter faces $250 million fine from the US FCC for these practices abusing the private information of users]. Now they have locked one of my Twitter accounts (because I sent a string of 5 reply comments) and refused to allow me to regain access without adding a tracking phone number (I had no phone number before). For this reason I won't be using Twitter any longer.
This experience once again shows the risks of promoting connections via a system that can lock you out when they chose. It is much safer to use systems like (blog, where you own the domain, email... that are within your control). Of course nothing is 100%, email can blocked (people that try to run private email servers find they are challenged by systems setup to distrust such email). But investing time in building communities (say on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter...) is risky. At any time they can change the rules and harm what you have built.
I suggest avoiding investing in Facebook, Twitter, etc.. To some extent it may make sense to invest some time in such communities but I suggest focusing most effort on things that are not built on the model of invading users privacy and selling that data to others.
One of the many things Apple is doing well is positioning themselves to protect user's privacy. With so many other businesses built on invading that privacy it provides Apple both a real opportunity to help and also a marketing advantage. Other organizations and tools are also filling a need to protect people from spying and malware (some of which is getting hard to distinguish from business practices of large privacy invading companies) such as EFF's Privacy Badger, ublock origin and Ghostery.
It is extremely difficult for individuals to protect their private information. It is essentially impossible. When companies built to sell that private information and create business processes to ease their business practices they often create a situation where their actions have resulted in false information created that somehow becomes the individual user's responsibility to fix (so when those privacy selling companies allow a person's data to be mis-used it is then called "identity theft" though it is not, it is companies misusing information and then putting on the individual the burden of fixing the errors). Europe has much better privacy rights than the USA does. But much more and better efforts are needed from governments to protect citizens from having their lives thrown into turmoil by the abuse and misuse of their private information.
Related: Governments Shouldn't Prevent Citizens from Having Secure Software Solutions - Businesses Misusing Required Private Information - Living Through Your Society Becoming a Police State - I Can Spy on You, But You Can't Spy on Me - Freedom Increasingly at Risk
Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
Friday, December 28, 2018
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Businesses Misusing Required Private Information
It should be the law that if you are required to provide private information such as phone number, address etc. to a business that they cannot use that information without expressed written permission.
So if a financial institution requires a physical address due to the laws our politicians have passed they shouldn't be allowed to then use that to send you junk email, sell your name and address to others to send you junk mail, etc.. If they have a legal requirement to send you something, fine.
I had a large financial institution send junk mail and then refuse to not send junk mail without a phone call from me. I can buy and sell stocks online, I can send big amounts of money to and from the account online, but I can't stop them from misusing my private information without calling them.
Such institutions also call me to marketing various services (though usually there is some way to stop them doing so if you can figure out where they have hidden the process to stop them from misusing your private information). Again they should be required to separately collect private information for marketing efforts (or to sell it to others...).
It is unacceptable we are required to provide private information and then need to jump through hoops to not have it misused. They should have to request the information specifically for their own marketing and other purposes. They should not be able to misuse legally required private information. They should have to collect private information from you explicitly for such purposes.
So if a financial institution requires a physical address due to the laws our politicians have passed they shouldn't be allowed to then use that to send you junk email, sell your name and address to others to send you junk mail, etc.. If they have a legal requirement to send you something, fine.
I had a large financial institution send junk mail and then refuse to not send junk mail without a phone call from me. I can buy and sell stocks online, I can send big amounts of money to and from the account online, but I can't stop them from misusing my private information without calling them.
Such institutions also call me to marketing various services (though usually there is some way to stop them doing so if you can figure out where they have hidden the process to stop them from misusing your private information). Again they should be required to separately collect private information for marketing efforts (or to sell it to others...).
It is unacceptable we are required to provide private information and then need to jump through hoops to not have it misused. They should have to request the information specifically for their own marketing and other purposes. They should not be able to misuse legally required private information. They should have to collect private information from you explicitly for such purposes.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
An Advocate for Open Access and Privacy Has Been Nominated to be the Librarian Of Congress
The Librarian Of Congress sounds like an unimportant position but it actually is very important for the influence they have over copyright policy in the USA (and the world because of how the USA prioritizes copyright over important national interests).
President Obama Nominates New Librarian Of Congress Who Supports Open Access, Fights Against Surveillance
This is very good news. The broken copyright system is a deadly diseases for the USA economy and has done great damage for a long time. This is a one small step that could reduce the damage that is done. It is good to see President Obama taking a good step in this direction given how much damage he has done with his many other policy decisions, including Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and TTIP.
Not blackballing someone because they believe in privacy is also somewhat remarkable given the consistent efforts of President Obama to greatly enhance the survailence state in the USA.
In President Obama's statement he says
This is a good step. I hope she is confirmed. But it is one decision moving the right direction compared to a huge number of initiatives making copyright more damaging to the USA and globaly economy. So while I am glad for this one step, it doesn't come close to erasing all the damage his adminstration has done.
Related: Why Copyright Extension is a Very Bad Idea (2009) - Librarians Standing Up to the Madness (2009) - Library of Congress in Washington DC - I Strongly Support Elizabeth Warren and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
President Obama Nominates New Librarian Of Congress Who Supports Open Access, Fights Against Surveillance
Hayden was one of the leading voices speaking out against surveillance. As President of the American Library Association at the time when the PATRIOT Act was being debated, she was vocal in opposition, especially to Section 215, which was used to create the phone metadata program that Ed Snowden revealed. What many people forget is that it was the librarians who were most vocal about Section 215 when it was first proposed, as many people thought it would be used to demand things like library records to see what was being checked out -- and librarians are big supporters of privacy.
She's also spoken out for years about the value of free access to information. Here's a 2003 profile of Hayden in Ms. Magazine (where she was named Woman of the Year) in which she notes:
“Libraries are a cornerstone of democracy—where information is free and equally available to everyone. People tend to take that for granted,” says Hayden. “And they don’t realize what is at stake when that is put at risk.”
This is very good news. The broken copyright system is a deadly diseases for the USA economy and has done great damage for a long time. This is a one small step that could reduce the damage that is done. It is good to see President Obama taking a good step in this direction given how much damage he has done with his many other policy decisions, including Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and TTIP.
Not blackballing someone because they believe in privacy is also somewhat remarkable given the consistent efforts of President Obama to greatly enhance the survailence state in the USA.
In President Obama's statement he says
Her understanding of the pivotal role that emerging technologies play in libraries will be essential in leading the Library of Congress as it continues to modernize its infrastructure and promote open access and full participation in today's digital world.
This is a good step. I hope she is confirmed. But it is one decision moving the right direction compared to a huge number of initiatives making copyright more damaging to the USA and globaly economy. So while I am glad for this one step, it doesn't come close to erasing all the damage his adminstration has done.
Related: Why Copyright Extension is a Very Bad Idea (2009) - Librarians Standing Up to the Madness (2009) - Library of Congress in Washington DC - I Strongly Support Elizabeth Warren and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
USA Encouraging Governments Worldwide to Spy and Hack Globally is Very Dangerous
I think as bad as just the USA governments global spying and actions shredding the US constitution are the even greater damage is the encouragement the USA government policy gives for every other country to spy on every person, business and government across the globe.
I do believe the USA government is unlikely to have a huge amount of criminal information security spun off their massive spying efforts. But you can just look at all the examples of TSA agents (and others - that have been cleared by the TSA to work jobs inside the "security bubble") stealing from people forced to go through security theatre to see it is certainly possible for the USA governments actions are aid criminal enterprises including those by USA government employees.
Those risks are real. They will lead to damage to USA citizens. But they are small, I believe, compared to the damage USA citizens will suffer due to the mass increase in the global surveillance culture the USA has spearheaded the last 10+ years. Granted few countries have government so rich that they can afford to spend so much money on global internet surveillance and hacking (as the USA has done).
But there are at least 10 that have money and or resources that can do a huge amount of damage if they follow the USA's lead (lets just list a few China, UK, Germany, Japan, Korea, Brazil, India, Russia, Turkey, Taiwan). Some countries have more cash, some have large hacking (not just criminal hacking or government sponsored hacking but just software hacking talent in general wether for good, questionable good and/or questionably legal or downright bad definitely illegal) talent pools, some have large experience with large scale surveillance operations. and/or Certainly the USA has no justification to argue that any country can't do what the USA claims it not wrong for it to do. And the number of countries that could do a huge amount of damage with focused global surveillance and hacking is very large indeed and will grow going forward.
The result of the risks to everyone globally, including those in the USA, to the practice of massive government intrusion into private communications, internet activity, etc. of everyone is extremely damaging.
Related: Watching the Watchmen - Disregard for the Rule of Law by Government - NSA Spying on Apps Shows Perils of Google+, ‘Candy Crush’ - Little Watchmen - Freedom Increasingly at Risk
I do believe the USA government is unlikely to have a huge amount of criminal information security spun off their massive spying efforts. But you can just look at all the examples of TSA agents (and others - that have been cleared by the TSA to work jobs inside the "security bubble") stealing from people forced to go through security theatre to see it is certainly possible for the USA governments actions are aid criminal enterprises including those by USA government employees.
Those risks are real. They will lead to damage to USA citizens. But they are small, I believe, compared to the damage USA citizens will suffer due to the mass increase in the global surveillance culture the USA has spearheaded the last 10+ years. Granted few countries have government so rich that they can afford to spend so much money on global internet surveillance and hacking (as the USA has done).
But there are at least 10 that have money and or resources that can do a huge amount of damage if they follow the USA's lead (lets just list a few China, UK, Germany, Japan, Korea, Brazil, India, Russia, Turkey, Taiwan). Some countries have more cash, some have large hacking (not just criminal hacking or government sponsored hacking but just software hacking talent in general wether for good, questionable good and/or questionably legal or downright bad definitely illegal) talent pools, some have large experience with large scale surveillance operations. and/or Certainly the USA has no justification to argue that any country can't do what the USA claims it not wrong for it to do. And the number of countries that could do a huge amount of damage with focused global surveillance and hacking is very large indeed and will grow going forward.
The result of the risks to everyone globally, including those in the USA, to the practice of massive government intrusion into private communications, internet activity, etc. of everyone is extremely damaging.
Related: Watching the Watchmen - Disregard for the Rule of Law by Government - NSA Spying on Apps Shows Perils of Google+, ‘Candy Crush’ - Little Watchmen - Freedom Increasingly at Risk
Friday, May 03, 2013
The last thing you want to do is increase the amount of hay you have to search through
Continually growing the "security-inustrial-complex" decreases safety. Bruce Schneier again explains the insecurity our leaders are creating with their poor understanding of how to make society safer.
It also wastes huge amounts of money to create security theatre that we don't have to waste. That we allow so many billions to be used to deny our liberty and decrease our safety is disastrous.
Related: The TSA doesn’t give a hoot about security - Society is being shaped for us while we are busy making other plans - Liberty Again Denied, I am Sad at How Little We Seem to Care - Anti Liberty Sentiment in Congress
Piling more data onto the mix makes it harder, not easier. The best way to think of it is a needle-in-a-haystack problem; the last thing you want to do is increase the amount of hay you have to search through. ... Before we start blaming agencies for failing to stop the Boston bombers, and before we push "intelligence reforms" that will shred civil liberties without making us any safer, we need to stop seeing the past as a bunch of obvious dots that need connecting.Sadly it is not only security we sacrifice due to our leaders failures but also the core principles our nation supposedly stands for: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
It also wastes huge amounts of money to create security theatre that we don't have to waste. That we allow so many billions to be used to deny our liberty and decrease our safety is disastrous.
Related: The TSA doesn’t give a hoot about security - Society is being shaped for us while we are busy making other plans - Liberty Again Denied, I am Sad at How Little We Seem to Care - Anti Liberty Sentiment in Congress
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The TSA doesn’t give a hoot about security
Jobs I am Glad I Don't Have
I think you raise the wrong question. I think your question is similar to a CEO saying to Taiichi Ohno:
I care most about quality - providing excellent products to the customer. Either add more inspectors or tell me we have enough inspectors and tell me who we need to replace. The answer Taiichi Ohno would give is to change the way we work to be better, not just add more resources to try and cope with a bad system. More of my thoughts on the topic the TSA doesn't give a hoot about security.
There is another choice - find effective methods to improve quality (better security), reduce waste ($ spent by TSA, people wasting time in line...), respect people. There are many bad things about the current situation at airports they include:
Both should be fixed. As well as reducing waste. And the way to do so is to change the system - not either add to or take away from what is done now.
The front line TSA people are in a horrible situation. This is the classic situation where Dr. Deming would empathize with the employees and blast the senior leadership who have failed their customers and their employees.
Related: Bikinis For Liberty - Freedom Increasingly at Risk - Exposing Bad Behavior
So, it appears that the TSA has a choice. Be vigorous in its inspection and be blasted for invasion of privacy, or use less rigorous methods, and face the consequences of missing dangerous materials.
I think you raise the wrong question. I think your question is similar to a CEO saying to Taiichi Ohno:
I care most about quality - providing excellent products to the customer. Either add more inspectors or tell me we have enough inspectors and tell me who we need to replace. The answer Taiichi Ohno would give is to change the way we work to be better, not just add more resources to try and cope with a bad system. More of my thoughts on the topic the TSA doesn't give a hoot about security.
There is another choice - find effective methods to improve quality (better security), reduce waste ($ spent by TSA, people wasting time in line...), respect people. There are many bad things about the current situation at airports they include:
- poor security measures (not well designed to reduce risks), and
- far too intrusive
Both should be fixed. As well as reducing waste. And the way to do so is to change the system - not either add to or take away from what is done now.
The front line TSA people are in a horrible situation. This is the classic situation where Dr. Deming would empathize with the employees and blast the senior leadership who have failed their customers and their employees.
Related: Bikinis For Liberty - Freedom Increasingly at Risk - Exposing Bad Behavior
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Bikinis For Liberty
The United States Transportation Agency is choosing to take extremely controversial tactics. See the video for details. I am amazed that this hasn't been shut down extremely quickly. Normally such lunacy is not allowed to continue, no matter what fear tactics people try to use to justify their extremely disturbing actions. Such failures to watch the watchmen are often taken when it just seems easier to ignore that bad action because we can hope it won't happen again. This is just a nightmare it seems to me for all those who currently have already failed to stop this behavior. I will be amazed if senior officials are not gone within 1 month for allowing this to last more than 1 day. But I have been amazed before, so...
Reddit, an online community, has a significant number of people that have been galvanized by this attack on liberty and want to take action to bring about change in how our government acts. And the first step is to look at bringing attention to the misdeeds.
A response to this attack on liberty requires a campaign. I ran across an wonderful idea as a comment on We Won't Fly. I wouldn't see this idea as the lead but as supporting campaign. There seem to be some powerfully good ideas that could form the foundation for a campaign, already. The idea is that you have a way to opt out of those 2 degradations (the "naked" scan or being groped) - go to the airport in a spedo or bikini. It seems to me creative ad people could make something good with that.
The idea isn't mine, I saw a comment from Clark:
I wonder, if some brave souls go to the airport in bikini or speedos would they be exempt from both types of searches?
I think it actually is a good option for people to chose. It is sad the government is forcing people to make such a choice, but given the governments options of degradation, this option, it seems to me may well be less degrading for most. And I can't image how they could try and require you to subject yourself to one of those degradations if you did make nearly everything visible.
It also has the advantage of providing some good news footage making visible the lengths people have to go to to avoid the governments heavy handed actions. It would seem to me a whole mass of people could go to the airport dressed like that for flights and it would make a pretty good photo op. Also it is the least confrontational of any of those such ideas (at least that I have seen).
I really am sick of how our country has allowed itself to degrade liberty to such an extent http://curiouscatlinks.blogspot.com/2008/04/freedom-increasingly-at-risk.html
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Martin Niemoeller
I understand there are risks the government is trying to mitigate. The actions they are taking now are not acceptable. They need to think and find much better solutions. And if they can't come up with them they need to resign and then be replaced with some people that can.
Related: Tired of Incompetent Government Harassment - Librarians Standing Up to the Madness - Failure to Address Systemic SWAT Raid Failures - Preaching False Ideas to Men Known to be Idiots - Shining the light on the actions of those in power
Pointless security - Unions tell pilots to avoid body scanners at airports - Growing anxiety over airport pat-downs and scanners
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Tip/Wag - TSA, Bert & Dogs<a> | ||||
| ||||
Reddit, an online community, has a significant number of people that have been galvanized by this attack on liberty and want to take action to bring about change in how our government acts. And the first step is to look at bringing attention to the misdeeds.
A response to this attack on liberty requires a campaign. I ran across an wonderful idea as a comment on We Won't Fly. I wouldn't see this idea as the lead but as supporting campaign. There seem to be some powerfully good ideas that could form the foundation for a campaign, already. The idea is that you have a way to opt out of those 2 degradations (the "naked" scan or being groped) - go to the airport in a spedo or bikini. It seems to me creative ad people could make something good with that.
The idea isn't mine, I saw a comment from Clark:
I wonder, if some brave souls go to the airport in bikini or speedos would they be exempt from both types of searches?
I think it actually is a good option for people to chose. It is sad the government is forcing people to make such a choice, but given the governments options of degradation, this option, it seems to me may well be less degrading for most. And I can't image how they could try and require you to subject yourself to one of those degradations if you did make nearly everything visible.
It also has the advantage of providing some good news footage making visible the lengths people have to go to to avoid the governments heavy handed actions. It would seem to me a whole mass of people could go to the airport dressed like that for flights and it would make a pretty good photo op. Also it is the least confrontational of any of those such ideas (at least that I have seen).
I really am sick of how our country has allowed itself to degrade liberty to such an extent http://curiouscatlinks.blogspot.com/2008/04/freedom-increasingly-at-risk.html
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Martin Niemoeller
I understand there are risks the government is trying to mitigate. The actions they are taking now are not acceptable. They need to think and find much better solutions. And if they can't come up with them they need to resign and then be replaced with some people that can.
Related: Tired of Incompetent Government Harassment - Librarians Standing Up to the Madness - Failure to Address Systemic SWAT Raid Failures - Preaching False Ideas to Men Known to be Idiots - Shining the light on the actions of those in power
Pointless security - Unions tell pilots to avoid body scanners at airports - Growing anxiety over airport pat-downs and scanners
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Bad Security on Government Required RFID e-passports
Those that understood security and RFID said from the beginning embedding RFID chips in passports was a very bad idea. Now the Feds are saying you need to make sure you completely encase your e-passport inside something that blocks RFID transmission or take security risks. That sure is a recipe for disaster - how many millions of people are going to fail to do that. We sure do need the government to start making better technology decisions now that such decisions are so critical to the functioning of society.
Insecurity of Homeland Security RFID passports shown by researcher
Insecurity of Homeland Security RFID passports shown by researcher
The current EPC Gen 2 RFID tags used in the wallet-sized Homeland Security passports use no encryption, and are unable to selectively transmit any data. Instead, the RFID tags broadcast sensitive information, enabling anyone with the proper equipment -- such as Chris Pagent -- to collect information that could potentially be used for identity theft, or other nefarious purposes. "The passport card is a real radio broadcast, so there's no real limit to the read range. It's conceivable that these things can be tracked from 100 meters -- a couple of miles," he was quoted as saying.
Chris had no trouble collecting -- and copying -- information from the RFID passports of six people, in a half-hour of driving around.
Chris had no trouble collecting -- and copying -- information from the RFID passports of six people, in a half-hour of driving around.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Little Watchmen
Little Brother is the novel by Cory Doctorow about individuals using technology to turn the tables on Big Brother. It was an enjoyable read, but I think the enjoyment will have much to do with your political views. If you believe in putting your trust in government (like the mode was for at least 6 of the 8 years of the Bush Presidency) you probably won't like it. If you prefer free speech and freedom from government control, and big brother style spying by government you probably will enjoy it. It also has a dose of techno-geek culture.
Corey Doctorow understand the new possibilities technology allows. The content of the book is also available for free online
Giving away ebooks gives me artistic, moral and commercial satisfaction. The commercial question is the one that comes up most often: how can you give away free ebooks and still make money?
For me -- for pretty much every writer -- the big problem isn't piracy, it's obscurity (thanks to Tim O'Reilly for this great aphorism). Of all the people who failed to buy this book today, the majority did so because they never heard of it, not because someone gave them a free copy.
For me -- for pretty much every writer -- the big problem isn't piracy, it's obscurity (thanks to Tim O'Reilly for this great aphorism). Of all the people who failed to buy this book today, the majority did so because they never heard of it, not because someone gave them a free copy.
A particularly nice little lesson on the paradox of false positives from the book:
If you ever decide to do something as stupid as build an automatic terrorism detector, here's a math lesson you need to learn first. It's called "the paradox of the false positive," and it's a doozy.
Say you have a new disease, called Super-AIDS. Only one in a million people gets Super-AIDS. You develop a test for Super-AIDS that's 99 percent accurate. I mean, 99 percent of the time, it gives the correct result -- true if the subject is infected, and false if the subject is healthy. You give the test to a million people.
One in a million people have Super-AIDS. One in a hundred people that you test will generate a "false positive" -- the test will say he has Super-AIDS even though he doesn't. That's what "99 percent accurate" means: one percent wrong.
What's one percent of one million?
1,000,000/100 = 10,000
One in a million people has Super-AIDS. If you test a million random people, you'll probably only find one case of real Super-AIDS. But your test won't identify *one* person as having Super-AIDS. It will identify *10,000* people as having it.
Your 99 percent accurate test will perform with 99.99 percent *inaccuracy*.
That's the paradox of the false positive. When you try to find something really rare, your test's accuracy has to match the rarity of the thing you're looking for.
...
This is the paradox of the false positive, and here's how it applies to terrorism:
Terrorists are really rare. In a city of twenty million like New York, there might be one or two terrorists. Maybe ten of them at the outside. 10/20,000,000 = 0.00005 percent. One twenty-thousandth of a percent.
That's pretty rare all right. Now, say you've got some software that can sift through all the bank-records, or toll-pass records, or public transit records, or phone-call records in the city and catch terrorists 99 percent of the time.
In a pool of twenty million people, a 99 percent accurate test will identify two hundred thousand people as being terrorists. But only ten of them are terrorists. To catch ten bad guys, you have to haul in and investigate two hundred thousand innocent people.
Guess what? Terrorism tests aren't anywhere *close* to 99 percent accurate. More like 60 percent accurate. Even 40 percent accurate, sometimes.
What this all meant was that the Department of Homeland Security had set itself up to fail badly. They were trying to spot incredibly rare events -- a person is a terrorist -- with inaccurate systems
Say you have a new disease, called Super-AIDS. Only one in a million people gets Super-AIDS. You develop a test for Super-AIDS that's 99 percent accurate. I mean, 99 percent of the time, it gives the correct result -- true if the subject is infected, and false if the subject is healthy. You give the test to a million people.
One in a million people have Super-AIDS. One in a hundred people that you test will generate a "false positive" -- the test will say he has Super-AIDS even though he doesn't. That's what "99 percent accurate" means: one percent wrong.
What's one percent of one million?
1,000,000/100 = 10,000
One in a million people has Super-AIDS. If you test a million random people, you'll probably only find one case of real Super-AIDS. But your test won't identify *one* person as having Super-AIDS. It will identify *10,000* people as having it.
Your 99 percent accurate test will perform with 99.99 percent *inaccuracy*.
That's the paradox of the false positive. When you try to find something really rare, your test's accuracy has to match the rarity of the thing you're looking for.
...
This is the paradox of the false positive, and here's how it applies to terrorism:
Terrorists are really rare. In a city of twenty million like New York, there might be one or two terrorists. Maybe ten of them at the outside. 10/20,000,000 = 0.00005 percent. One twenty-thousandth of a percent.
That's pretty rare all right. Now, say you've got some software that can sift through all the bank-records, or toll-pass records, or public transit records, or phone-call records in the city and catch terrorists 99 percent of the time.
In a pool of twenty million people, a 99 percent accurate test will identify two hundred thousand people as being terrorists. But only ten of them are terrorists. To catch ten bad guys, you have to haul in and investigate two hundred thousand innocent people.
Guess what? Terrorism tests aren't anywhere *close* to 99 percent accurate. More like 60 percent accurate. Even 40 percent accurate, sometimes.
What this all meant was that the Department of Homeland Security had set itself up to fail badly. They were trying to spot incredibly rare events -- a person is a terrorist -- with inaccurate systems
"I'd recommend Little Brother over pretty much any book I've read this year." - Neil Gaiman
I wouldn't agree with that but it is a fun read, though with quite a strong worldview that some will find overwhelms the story. I myself and tired of tired of incompetent government harassment, so that wasn't a problem for me.
Related: Watching the Watchmen - Freedom Increasingly at Risk - Systemic Failure of SWAT Raids - Photographers are not a Threat
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Watching the Watchmen
Unfortunately I have grown to question the trustworthiness of the system of justice. This doesn't mean I think it is totally corrupt but I think the amount of lawlessness by those given the responsibility to serve society has grown too large. It seems to me more oversight is needed. And unfortunately those with such responsibilities are doing the opposite. For example, the despicable political actions by the Justice Department undermine the public's confidence in honest government just when we need to have a government we can trust to protect us from terrorism and increasingly well armed criminals.
Cop Busters is a program that is headed by a man that is most likely in it significantly for the publicity. I would wager the vast majority of those in the law enforcement community are honest and law abiding, in general. However, the community seems to be far too tolerate of abuses by those in their ranks. Given that shows like cob busters may help. Why doesn't the law enforcement community itself find the corruption and illegal practices and eliminate those involved themselves?
Gotcha!
What we need are watchmen inside the government that are trustworthy and vigilante. What we need are people at the Justice Department that put the safety and security of the public first. What we need are people that put the rule of law above the rule of their personal desires.
10 years ago (whether I was right or wrong) I would not have said the abuse of law enforcement authority was a huge concern. Yes, any time you have many thousand of people involved in something, some are going to abuse their authority. But I thought on the balance that abuse was minimal and the danger from such abuse was much less than the danger from actual criminals. Now I am sadly much more inclined to side with the founding fathers worries about the unchecked power of the government.
As those in law enforcement fail to address these problems they make the situation much worse. People are losing the ability to rationally believe the law enforcement community is most interested in enforcing the law. Seeing so many examples of abuses of power by the watchmen is a dangerous thing for society. And when the law enforcement community is more interested in protecting those inside their ranks engaged in unlawful behavior than in upholding the law it is very dangerous for society.
It is not acceptable for those with the awesome responsibility to protect society from criminals to behave as too many are now.
Related: Freedom Increasingly at Risk - Tired of Incompetent Government Harassment - Photographers are not a Threat - More SWAT Failures
Cop Busters is a program that is headed by a man that is most likely in it significantly for the publicity. I would wager the vast majority of those in the law enforcement community are honest and law abiding, in general. However, the community seems to be far too tolerate of abuses by those in their ranks. Given that shows like cob busters may help. Why doesn't the law enforcement community itself find the corruption and illegal practices and eliminate those involved themselves?
Gotcha!
There was no probable cause. So a couple of questions come up. First, how did the cops get turned on to the house in the first place? Cooper suspects they were using thermal imaging equipment to detect the grow lamps, a practice the Supreme Court has said is illegal. The second question is, what probable cause did the police put on the affidavit to get a judge to sign off on a search warrant? If there was nothing illegal going on in the house, it's difficult to conceive of a scenario where either the police or one of their informants didn't lie to get a warrant.
Cooper chose the Odessa police department for baiting because he believes police there instructed an informant to plant marijuana on a woman named Yolanda Madden. She's currently serving an eight-year sentence for possession with intent to distribute. According to Cooper, the informant actually admitted in federal court that he planted the marijuana. Madden was convicted anyway.
Cooper chose the Odessa police department for baiting because he believes police there instructed an informant to plant marijuana on a woman named Yolanda Madden. She's currently serving an eight-year sentence for possession with intent to distribute. According to Cooper, the informant actually admitted in federal court that he planted the marijuana. Madden was convicted anyway.
What we need are watchmen inside the government that are trustworthy and vigilante. What we need are people at the Justice Department that put the safety and security of the public first. What we need are people that put the rule of law above the rule of their personal desires.
10 years ago (whether I was right or wrong) I would not have said the abuse of law enforcement authority was a huge concern. Yes, any time you have many thousand of people involved in something, some are going to abuse their authority. But I thought on the balance that abuse was minimal and the danger from such abuse was much less than the danger from actual criminals. Now I am sadly much more inclined to side with the founding fathers worries about the unchecked power of the government.
As those in law enforcement fail to address these problems they make the situation much worse. People are losing the ability to rationally believe the law enforcement community is most interested in enforcing the law. Seeing so many examples of abuses of power by the watchmen is a dangerous thing for society. And when the law enforcement community is more interested in protecting those inside their ranks engaged in unlawful behavior than in upholding the law it is very dangerous for society.
It is not acceptable for those with the awesome responsibility to protect society from criminals to behave as too many are now.
Related: Freedom Increasingly at Risk - Tired of Incompetent Government Harassment - Photographers are not a Threat - More SWAT Failures
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Charity Abuse
Getting repeated calls over and over again every day from 201-535-3618 (follow the link for people bothered by this telemarketer). You can thank the people that the Secretary of State in the state of Washington says employee, and have employed, these people, Outreach Associates, Inc:
Children's Defense Fund
Common Cause
Environmental Defense, Inc.
Habitat For Humanity International, Inc.
Jane Goodall Institute For Wildlife Research, Education & Conservation
League Of Women Voters Of The United States
Phillips Collection, The
Public Citizen, Inc.
Sierra Club
Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc.
and many more
They will claim they are a charity exemption from the do not call list. So perhaps they are to breaking the law, who knows. But tarnishing their clients with the extremely bad practice of calling people over and over and not leaving a message tells you what they value - and it certainly isn't you. I suggest telling any charity you support that you will not support them supporting a company that intentionally bothers you. If they do not make a public statement condemning such practices and publicly state they will not work with any contractor that behaves this way don't give them your money.
Any of the charities listed are welcome to add a comment linking to your response that you will not do business with such companies and specifically what you have done about this company.
Related: Make $500 for Every Illegal Telemarketer Call to You - Charity Telemarketers are Bad - Make the World Better - Microfinancing Entrepreneurs (Kiva doesn't support bothering you like those above do)
Children's Defense Fund
Common Cause
Environmental Defense, Inc.
Habitat For Humanity International, Inc.
Jane Goodall Institute For Wildlife Research, Education & Conservation
League Of Women Voters Of The United States
Phillips Collection, The
Public Citizen, Inc.
Sierra Club
Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc.
and many more
They will claim they are a charity exemption from the do not call list. So perhaps they are to breaking the law, who knows. But tarnishing their clients with the extremely bad practice of calling people over and over and not leaving a message tells you what they value - and it certainly isn't you. I suggest telling any charity you support that you will not support them supporting a company that intentionally bothers you. If they do not make a public statement condemning such practices and publicly state they will not work with any contractor that behaves this way don't give them your money.
Any of the charities listed are welcome to add a comment linking to your response that you will not do business with such companies and specifically what you have done about this company.
Related: Make $500 for Every Illegal Telemarketer Call to You - Charity Telemarketers are Bad - Make the World Better - Microfinancing Entrepreneurs (Kiva doesn't support bothering you like those above do)
Monday, December 24, 2007
Gmail Security Tip
The problem has supposedly been fixed but here is what happened. User logs into Gmail. User visits site with infection code. Site injects a filter into Gmail to have the users email matching the filter to be forwarded to any email they like.
Google’s GMail security failure leaves my business sabotaged
If you see any filters you don't want - delete them. You also might want to forward any evidence of illegal action to the authorities. Unfortunately I am not convinced they invest enough in policing internet crimes. But hopefully they can be encouraged to actually prosecute such crime.
Google’s GMail security failure leaves my business sabotaged
If you use GMail, it’s absolutely vital that you check your account settings now.
Here's what to do:
When logged into GMail, click on the 'settings' tab in the upper right of the screen. Then check both the 'Filters' and the 'Forwarding and POP' sections.
Here's what to do:
When logged into GMail, click on the 'settings' tab in the upper right of the screen. Then check both the 'Filters' and the 'Forwarding and POP' sections.
If you see any filters you don't want - delete them. You also might want to forward any evidence of illegal action to the authorities. Unfortunately I am not convinced they invest enough in policing internet crimes. But hopefully they can be encouraged to actually prosecute such crime.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Saturday, February 17, 2007
The Dangers of Default Passwords
The Dangers of Default Passwords:
Researchers at Symantec Corp. have devised a series of "proof-of-concept" exploits that show how an Internet user running any one of several name-brand, $50 - $100 routers under the default factory settings could be in a world of trouble in a very short time, just by browsing to a malicious Web site. One of the easiest ways to commandeer a factory-set wireless router remotely is through the use of Javascript, a powerful Web programming language that makes it easy for Web sites to monkey with or otherwise manipulate a computer's settings.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Don't They Know
Don't They Know:
Awesome.
Howard Yermish reports:
This evening, my 4-year old daughter came downstairs for some ice cream. When the commercial for the Little Mermaid DVD came on, she said, "We don't need to see that commercial. Don't they know we already bought that movie?"
This evening, my 4-year old daughter came downstairs for some ice cream. When the commercial for the Little Mermaid DVD came on, she said, "We don't need to see that commercial. Don't they know we already bought that movie?"
Awesome.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
WiFi Security Tips
Coffee shop WiFi for dummies
If your company provides you with VPN access on your laptop, use it. That's a sure fire way to ensure that everything you send and receive is encrypted, and it makes your surfing much safer.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)