Sneakers...Security Old School

I was watching the movie Sneakers the other night at a recommendation of a good friend of mine. For those who are unfamiliar with the movie, the plot centers around a group of misfit tech geeks. They have a business of breaking into systems (eg banks) that are believed to be unbreakable. By doing this they provide insight onto where the organization lacks security. This movie came out in 1992 so it was before smart phones, facebook, and a lot of other programs that get people worried about safety and security.

One thing that impressed me is that the team was able to discover the password to what seemed to be a very secure system by basic surveillance--they just watched him through the window. Later on in the week I noted several people unlocking their smart phones with simple connect-the-dots patterns. THis was particularly unnerving to me, because if an unmalicious person like me could recall several electronic passcodes, how much easier it would be for someone trying to steal information.

What this all boils down to is that although I don't believe we should become paranoid; I think we should take more physical precautions in our day-to-day lives. We can put up as many firewalls and encryption devices as we want, but if physical protection is disregarded all the rest is made null.

Spooktacular Spies

A couple of things have happened to me recently that made me think about our ever greater presence on the Internet. Specifically, how the Internet is coming to know us and how other people are doing the same through its use.

The Internet's dance with us:

My friend was recalling to me how in the past couple weeks the Internet has become a little to up-close-and-personal. He was saying that LinkedIn sent him an email to join and guessing at people he may know. He then told me that he has never even come close to getting a LinkedIn, but he did know most of the people. One recommended guy was another man that was in a couple of his classes that he had never talked to. Facebook has likewise been recommending many people to him, but not just those around his age group or with similar interests--his landlord for example! You used to have to follow someone home to know where they lived, but Facebook can do it without moving an inch. I don't know about you but I wish there was a little more distance between me and Facebook; this tango is getting a little too intimate.

The Internet standing at the water cooler:

I went to Smith's today and ran into my wonderful assistant and newfound friend Chris from the quest for ribbon and bendable wire. As he helped me prepare my emergency car kit, we were talking about a lot of various things. I told him some things which then led my middle name to come out and my last name as well. At a completely different time we were talking about women needing to protect themselves and guns and all of that. Thats when I realized with my full name he could find me on Facebook, at the University, and probably a lot more info. I could then potentially be in danger. Now, I think that Chris is a really cool guy and not dangerous at all, but still it is something to think about. Stranger danger. You become a stranger to no one because the Internet is whispering your secrets all over the office.

Watch Dog at Work: Set Free or Kennel?

I understand people have privacy concerns and they want to feel like their life is personal, but at work its not. I think it is perfectly normal and in fact should be conducted. I don't believe there can be "too much trust" between employee and employer. When you accept a job, you are essentially selling yourself, or at least your time. Because of that, an employee shouldn't be using their work email for personal reasons. They also shouldn't be fiddling around on the computer when they are on the clock. I believe that realtime monitoring really can increase productivity for those employees that need an extra push.

Of course, as any tool I believe it can be used for good or for bad. I mean look at a knife. It can be used to conduct a surgery and save a life, or to stab someone and end it. It is who is yielding the tool and what they are doing with it that matters. The tool is neither bad nor good it simply is. The tough thing about now isn't being watched at work, it is determining when work ends. Most jobs now are not just 9 to 5 clock in and out. You are given a corporate cell phone or computer. You are or can be on the clock virtually all the time. 

The Future...Are we ready?

I was recently reading a couple of my techie news websites when I happened upon Microsoft’s view of the future. This little video depicted glasses that translated languages for you, seemingly transparent phones the size of business cards that kept track of your whole life, a child doing her homework ON the table, picking out recipes with family in different cities, touching the fridge to show the contents and touching the virtual rendition of the contents for recipe ideas, overall just any flat surface becoming a smart surface.

The only things it seemed to be missing were paper, real human interaction, and an explanation how to make everything secure. The people in the video seemed to keep all of their data with them at all times, which to me is incredibly dangerous. More than that, they could transfer data simply by sweeping there hand toward the location they wanted to move it.  What is to stop someone from swiping private data right into a database that could be used against you? I confidently believe that laws and protections evolve as we do, but it seems we are always chasing the latest fraud. Before we fully digitize ourselves, maybe we should begin working on protections…especially considering how long the legislative process takes. By the time it takes to agree on a national budget, your computer or phone is already exceedingly outdated.

Let’s move before the train smashes us, eh?

Categorize us into products?

I recently read an article a friend posted about her school. Apparently the school bought several iPad’s so that they could monitor who was going to what events. Afterwards, they would work out demographics to see what “kind of people” was going to each event. For some reason that really, really bothered me. I thought that it shouldn’t matter and that these were gathering unnecessary personal information about these students.

On the other hand, I could see how it could be sold that by doing this they will see that a disproportional amount of students is attending one event over another. Or maybe just keeping track of attendance in general will help to allocate funding. Still I can’t help but consider that this demographic profiling is causing us to focus on students as groups and classes of people instead of just people—just students.

What do you say? Am I up to my crazy thoughts again?

Self-destruct in 3-2-1

Twitter finally found a match? Vibe is a new application, similar to Twitter in that it allows you to send out mass messages, but different in that it provides anonymity. This is the tool to use to start a revolution. Vibes are completely anonymous and you can set the distance you want it set as well as the time of availability. So if you only want to send it to people within 15 meters from you, telling them that the cops are coming, you can send that and have it self-destruct itself within minutes.

I think this is a great tool for situations like those on Occupy Wall Street and other mini-revolutions where anonymity is desired so that a civil movement can occur without people getting hurt or protests escalating too far. What ways do you think Vibe could be used to improve communication locally and globally?

A sinister Attack on the Prime Minister

What is believed to be a Thailand native hacked into the Thailand Prime Minister's Twitter account and sent a series of tweets ending with "If she can't even protect her own Twitter account, how can she protect the country? Think about it." said the Sydney Morning Herald. Now the suspected hacker is looking at up to five years in prison and a fine equivalent to $3,200. Do you think this is fair?


I am slightly torn on this issue. For one, I think the Prime Minister should have done a better job protecting the Twitter account and that the hacker did the PM a service by exposing the vulnerability without causing major damage as he/she could have done. On the other hand, it is illegal to hack and the hacker knew he/she would be caught because it is such a public figure. What do you think? Better to attack and expose harmlessly or stay within legal boundaries and leave holes unfound?

If it leaves your brain does it leave your rights?

Today the US signed an anti-counterfeiting policy with Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea while Mexico, the European Union, and Switzerland did not, but said they would sign when it seemed "practical" for them. What does this mean for all of the file sharing over the internet? To me, not much. 


The policy is supposed to stop intellectual property theft, but we still have major players that have not signed this bill. The governments also have to try to implement this among the people. This is almost completely impossible with proxy browsers such as Tor or proxify. These proxies give the user an IP address from another part of the world and they can access whatever they would like. 


It also means something to me that the EU, Mexico, and Switzerland sat in on creating it, but do not find it "practical" to implement right now. Why? I don't know, but I can easily say that these countries can exploit this new agreement. It is not effective to go to battle agreeing to use only water guns if major players on the other sides bring their AK-47s. EVERYONE has to agree and then play by that agreement for no one to get hurt. 


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/united-states-signs-acta/

Google Privacy: An Oxymoron?

Google has a "privacy center" to tell you how private and secure Google can be. By reading more about this, I found out more shocking violations of my privacy then I had previously fully grasped. For example, I knew Google had the technology to transcribe and save your Google Talk calls, but I didn't know that it was automatic and quite some effort to stop. I also knew that Google looks at and saves my search history, but I didn't know how specifically to me they store that information. Apparently, they use previous search terms to "help find what you are looking for."

They keep track and try to personalize almost everything I am doing! It is insane to me. What do you think is next? The following video is the promotional video Google gives for their security settings:

Transparency: Clear as Mud

As much as we advocate for transparency, the American population seems to not to pay much attention when it is provided. In 2002, President Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act giving the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) more power and establish rules to make financial statements more transparent.

The Act increased transparency by  requiring 
   "...  "Real-time" disclosure.
   ...   The reconciliation of pro forma reporting with Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP).
   ...   Full financial disclosure of all off-balance sheet and related parties transactions.
   ...   Expanded disclosure in connection with internal controls -- financial as well as non-financial"
(http://www.businessforum.com/SEC01.html)


Now, financial statements have about 50 pages of disclosures for investors to read through and get a "transparent" look at the company. Still, those statements are hardly even glanced at, because investors are too distracted by the bottom-line, otherwise known as net income. 


To me, that sums up most of the transparency issue with the general public. Everyone wants transparency, but once they have it, they don't care to look inside. One thought might be to consolidate that information and make it easier to navigate. The problem with this arises when the information is condensed too much, bias gets added or there is no context and so people are misled. 


It leaves us in a Catch-22. Everyone wants more information, but when they get it they don't want to read it. The real question I have boils down to does America really believe in transparency, or do they believe in the idea of transparency?

Social Reporting

My brother was promoted, my friend got engaged, another friend got married. How did I find out about these things? I read it on Facebook and thousands of other details about my friends' lives too. People will express general posts, "Im one week and Im craving chocolate mints!!!" to specific details about their lives or the lives of other, "Long day at the ER on Saturday. August was hurt pretty bad while swimming." Is this the point of social media?


I volunteer and mentor at the US Dream Academy and there I have learned about one of the new fun things for kids to play--Weeworld. This is basically a site for kids to play games and chat with other kids, or so it was intended for. However, grown ups are able to get on as well and disguise who they are by creating a young avatar and pretending to be younger. This can put kids in danger of telling an adult particular details about their lives that put themselves in danger. 


So would an age limit help to alleviate the problem? Many sites have put an age limit on obtaining an account, but if a child's friends get around that with a fake email then why shouldn't they? Is it the parents responsibility to watch how the child is participating in these forums? Is it time to give people an internet ID like a Social Security Number? Would that cause more problems than it would resolve? Where do we go from here?

Public Parts

I go into a store, stand on the counter at check-stand #3, and start singing "Why Can't We Be Friends" at the top of my lungs in a "pitchy" or less-than-lovely voice. I can tell that story to whoever I want, because it is MY story. Or is it? Is it not also everyone in the store's story? The people who look in as they walk by? My story is their story, just with a different word choice. It is clear to see that the store is a public place and I am exposing myself and voice to the public, but on the internet it is less clear.

When I post a video on YouTube I am releasing it to the whole world, if they care to see. However, is it okay for the whole world to know what videos I am looking at? I am in my home after all; or am I? Aren't I also in the aisle of the YouTube marketplace? In real life, others in the store and the store managers can see what you are doing all the time and have a right to keep record. In fact, we encourage stores to keep track of us by signing on for their deals which help track our purchases. We don't worry about that when we are in the store, should we worry about it on the internet?

Think about when you are looking for a good place to eat in a new city. Have you ever been talking about it and a native on the bus or train overheard you and recommended a hole-in-the-wall you would have never known about otherwise, and then it turns out to be the best food the whole trip? Isn't that all data gathering is trying to accomplish: help you find other books/movies/products you might found useful? Sure, they want to make some profit off of it, but it doesn't cost you anything. Or are they maliciously exploiting you, and unfairly treating you like a rat to experiment on?

Where do we draw the line between helpful and harmful?