2007-02-23
Woman Wins Turing Award
When a co-worker first sent this to me, I thought the point was that a woman has passed the Turing test, convincing the referee that she was not a computer! (or something like that. What would it mean if a human *failed* the Turing test?)
2007-02-10
Following the obvious
Atheists refuse to believe in God for lack of evidence.
Well, to be hard-nosed about it, all there's evidence for is awareness and its contents. There's no way to tell whether the story told by the stream of images, smells, sounds, thoughts, and emotions that pass through awareness have any correspondence with any "external" reality.
Thoughts about "I" or "me" are just thoughts in the stream. They have no more evidence backing them up than any of of the other thoughts or impressions that flow through.
There's no telling where the objects in awareness come from -- they simply seem to arise, have their moment on the stage, and pass away.
Well, to be hard-nosed about it, all there's evidence for is awareness and its contents. There's no way to tell whether the story told by the stream of images, smells, sounds, thoughts, and emotions that pass through awareness have any correspondence with any "external" reality.
Thoughts about "I" or "me" are just thoughts in the stream. They have no more evidence backing them up than any of of the other thoughts or impressions that flow through.
There's no telling where the objects in awareness come from -- they simply seem to arise, have their moment on the stage, and pass away.
2007-02-07
"90 percent more energy than it consumed"
First I read it on slashdot and thought, "Surely they got the quote wrong."
So I went to Purdue's website and found the claim in the very words quoted on slashdot.
The idea of an electrical generator running off trash is great. I'd even settle for one that produces 90 percent of the energy it consumes. If we have a machine that produces 90 percent more energy than it consumes, we have a way of getting free energy and it's time to rewrite all the text books cause it sounds like Purdue has found a way to reverse entropy.
Commenters on slashdot hypothesize that this statement means that the electrical energy produced is equivalent to 1.9 times the energy injected into the system at the beginning in the form of diesel fuel. But the way it's stated in the original news release does sound like a violation of the second law. I like that interpretation better.
So I went to Purdue's website and found the claim in the very words quoted on slashdot.
The idea of an electrical generator running off trash is great. I'd even settle for one that produces 90 percent of the energy it consumes. If we have a machine that produces 90 percent more energy than it consumes, we have a way of getting free energy and it's time to rewrite all the text books cause it sounds like Purdue has found a way to reverse entropy.
Commenters on slashdot hypothesize that this statement means that the electrical energy produced is equivalent to 1.9 times the energy injected into the system at the beginning in the form of diesel fuel. But the way it's stated in the original news release does sound like a violation of the second law. I like that interpretation better.
2007-01-11
No offense
Why do people say "No offense" right after or before saying something offensive? As in, "No offense, but [fill in offensive tirade here]"? Perhaps if I say, "No gravity" just before I leap from the top of the Empire State building, I'll be able to fly.
2007-01-04
Toward Totalitarianism: Reading Your Mail
According to the New York Daily News, President Bush has claimed the authority to open and read Americans' mail without a warrant. This claim was made in a "signing statement" on December 20, 2006, contrary to existing law as well as the bill he was signing into law.
2006-12-31
Toward Totalitarianism: Digital Millenium Copyright Act, attack lawsuits
The original intention of the DMCA was to prevent copyright infringement. According to EFF, "the DMCA and DRM (digital rights management) have done nothing to stop 'Internet piracy'." Rather, the DMCA has become a threat to fair use, competition, innovation, free expression, and scientific research.
In MGM vs. 321 Studios, the DMCA was used to attack backup software, the research-oriented discussion of cryptology, and competitive innovation.
In Universal vs. Corley, a movie studio sued journalists who posted a link to DVD decryption software that had been posted on the Internet, making it difficult to even discuss the topic as a news story.
In Felten v. RIAA, the recording industry association threatened to sue academic researchers who had discovered and wanted to publish a paper discussing weaknesses in the cryptographic system used in the industry's recently standardized digital rights management.
In MGM vs. 321 Studios, the DMCA was used to attack backup software, the research-oriented discussion of cryptology, and competitive innovation.
In Universal vs. Corley, a movie studio sued journalists who posted a link to DVD decryption software that had been posted on the Internet, making it difficult to even discuss the topic as a news story.
In Felten v. RIAA, the recording industry association threatened to sue academic researchers who had discovered and wanted to publish a paper discussing weaknesses in the cryptographic system used in the industry's recently standardized digital rights management.
Toward Totalitarianism: Patriot Act
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed shortly after the 9/11 attack in 2001. It removed restrictions on law enforcement's use of surveillance and investigative techniques, potentially jeopardizing traditional civil liberties, privacy, and democratic traditions in the US, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
According to EFF, the PATRIOT Act allows the US government to monitor citizens' web surfing, access ISP records, wiretap citizens and their associates. The provisions of the PATRIOT Act are not limited to terrorism, only requiring that a government investigator suspect that a person is engaged in illegal activity to justify surveillance, wiretaps, and other intrusions. The PATRIOT Act makes it easier for foreign intelligence organizations to spy on Americans.
While eliminating or reducing privacy rights for citizens on the one hand, the Act creates more secrecy for government activities, making it more difficult for citizens to hold their government accountable. Under PATRIOT, government investigators are authorized to use "sneak and peek" warrants to enter private premises without the permission or knowledge of the occupant and without informing the occupant of the search in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors, whether or not such crimes are related to terrorism.
According to EFF, the PATRIOT Act allows the US government to monitor citizens' web surfing, access ISP records, wiretap citizens and their associates. The provisions of the PATRIOT Act are not limited to terrorism, only requiring that a government investigator suspect that a person is engaged in illegal activity to justify surveillance, wiretaps, and other intrusions. The PATRIOT Act makes it easier for foreign intelligence organizations to spy on Americans.
While eliminating or reducing privacy rights for citizens on the one hand, the Act creates more secrecy for government activities, making it more difficult for citizens to hold their government accountable. Under PATRIOT, government investigators are authorized to use "sneak and peek" warrants to enter private premises without the permission or knowledge of the occupant and without informing the occupant of the search in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors, whether or not such crimes are related to terrorism.
2006-12-30
Toward Totalitarianism: watch lists
John Graham writes about the experience of discovering himself on the "national terrorist No Fly Watch list." He can't find out how his name got on the watch list. He can't appeal his status. He can't get his name removed from the list. His career speaking on civic action and leadership around the world is potentially threatened since "plane travel is key to my livelihood." He compares such measures to Pinochet's Chile and Germany
in 1930.
Even government employees and members of the US armed forces are being delayed and hassled because their names appear on watch lists.
Schneier has written on the problem of false positives, which is exactly the problem exemplified in the stories referenced above. Watch lists raise the personal price of travel, leading to loss of privacy, loss of control of one's movements, even loss of one's reputation. Soon the price of travel will be prohibitive for most people. Remember how citizens of Iron Curtain countries couldn't travel freely during the Cold War?
in 1930.
Even government employees and members of the US armed forces are being delayed and hassled because their names appear on watch lists.
Schneier has written on the problem of false positives, which is exactly the problem exemplified in the stories referenced above. Watch lists raise the personal price of travel, leading to loss of privacy, loss of control of one's movements, even loss of one's reputation. Soon the price of travel will be prohibitive for most people. Remember how citizens of Iron Curtain countries couldn't travel freely during the Cold War?
Toward Totalitarianism: ePassports
The US government has mandated that US passports will contain radio frequency identification (RFID) chips by the end of 2006.
According to the Department of
State website, the chip embedded in the cover of the new ePassports will contain the holder's name, birthdate, gender, birthplace, passport issuance and expiration dates, passport number,
and image of the holder. The claim is that the anti-skimming device and basic access control technology incorporated into the passport will prevent unauthorized access to the information encoded in the chip.
However, Bruce
Schneier encourages his readers to renew their passport now to get a low-tech non-RFID-enabled version before they become unavailable. He points out that short-term attempts to crack or clone the RFID passports have had some success. While the State Department claims that the chips will only be readable from a few inches, what determines the distance is the power and sensitivity of the reader, and that the passports have been read at much longer distances. Schneier points out that the security measures in the passport (which Schneier deems inadequate) have to last for the life of the passport -- ten years.
Do you want to avoid the identity theft risks associated with having your passport information read illicitly? Don't get a passport. Need to travel outside the US? Too bad. Remember how citizens of Iron Curtain countries couldn't travel freely during the Cold War?
According to the Department of
State website, the chip embedded in the cover of the new ePassports will contain the holder's name, birthdate, gender, birthplace, passport issuance and expiration dates, passport number,
and image of the holder. The claim is that the anti-skimming device and basic access control technology incorporated into the passport will prevent unauthorized access to the information encoded in the chip.
However, Bruce
Schneier encourages his readers to renew their passport now to get a low-tech non-RFID-enabled version before they become unavailable. He points out that short-term attempts to crack or clone the RFID passports have had some success. While the State Department claims that the chips will only be readable from a few inches, what determines the distance is the power and sensitivity of the reader, and that the passports have been read at much longer distances. Schneier points out that the security measures in the passport (which Schneier deems inadequate) have to last for the life of the passport -- ten years.
Do you want to avoid the identity theft risks associated with having your passport information read illicitly? Don't get a passport. Need to travel outside the US? Too bad. Remember how citizens of Iron Curtain countries couldn't travel freely during the Cold War?
2006-12-26
Toward Totalitarianism: Automated Targeting System
The Automated Targeting System assigns a "terrorist threat score" to each American traveling abroad. Almost everything about your score is secret. You can't know what it is or how it was determined. You can't appeal it. It will stay in US government records for 40 years and may be shared with federal, state, local, and foreign governments, NGOs, and domestic or foreign private contractors, just not with you. Want to keep your information out of the database? Don't travel abroad. Remember how citizens of Iron Curtain countries couldn't travel freely during the Cold War?
2006-12-24
Chain letters come to blogging
Seth Godin has posted a non-z-list. Looks like Mack Collier started the fun here.
Sooner or later, this approach will start exhibiting the same issue as a chain letter or other pyramid scheme -- the folks at the top will get lots and lots of clicks, but once a quarter to a half the available population is participating, there won't be enough clicks to go around.
Of course, no "real money" is involved, so it's okay, right? Well... maybe. On the other hand, maybe clicks are the new currency. Where do you want your clicks (eyes, attention) to go? What do you want to recommend to your friends?
Perhaps you trust Seth enough that you're willing to look at the blogs on the list he posted, even though he admits that he hasn't had time to look at them all. I prefer to post my own list of favorite blogs. I have looked at and enjoy these regularly:
Indexed
xkcd
Schneier on Security
Martha Barnette's Orts
Sooner or later, this approach will start exhibiting the same issue as a chain letter or other pyramid scheme -- the folks at the top will get lots and lots of clicks, but once a quarter to a half the available population is participating, there won't be enough clicks to go around.
Of course, no "real money" is involved, so it's okay, right? Well... maybe. On the other hand, maybe clicks are the new currency. Where do you want your clicks (eyes, attention) to go? What do you want to recommend to your friends?
Perhaps you trust Seth enough that you're willing to look at the blogs on the list he posted, even though he admits that he hasn't had time to look at them all. I prefer to post my own list of favorite blogs. I have looked at and enjoy these regularly:
Indexed
xkcd
Schneier on Security
Martha Barnette's Orts
2006-12-13
Why the US should not be the world's bully..., er, I mean policeman
11. Throwing our weight around just pisses everyone off, even our allies.
10. Now they don't just want us to leave, they want us to clean up the mess we, er, I mean, the insurgents have made.
9. There's no consensus on what democracy means. Is it voting for one's leaders? Is it voting for electors who choose one's leader's? Does it include an independent judiciary? Who says? I'll show you democracy you lame brain... See what I mean?
8. There's no consensus on what freedom is. Does it mean freedom to do what you want? Wear a burka? Kill infidels? Worship as one pleases? Wear miniskirts? Be gay? Get AIDS? Use drugs? Visit prostitutes? Be a prostitute? Make fun of one's leaders? Make fun of other people? Make fun of oneself?
7. How do you tell an insurgent from a freedom fighter?
6. We can't afford the human cost -- lives lost or disrupted, emotional fallout, lost productivity -- both for ourselves and those we "help".
5. We can't afford the financial cost.
4. We can't fix political situations others have created. Only the people involved in the politics can resolve political problems. How would US citizens feel about another country attempting to impose a different form of government in the US?
3. We can't satisfy ourselves that our own elections are free and fair. Why would anyone trust us to run theirs?
2. It never seems to take long for those we "liberate" to go from gratitude to radicalized terrorists, the ungrateful wretches. I just don't get that.
1. Most of us are too fat to fit into the uniform.
10. Now they don't just want us to leave, they want us to clean up the mess we, er, I mean, the insurgents have made.
9. There's no consensus on what democracy means. Is it voting for one's leaders? Is it voting for electors who choose one's leader's? Does it include an independent judiciary? Who says? I'll show you democracy you lame brain... See what I mean?
8. There's no consensus on what freedom is. Does it mean freedom to do what you want? Wear a burka? Kill infidels? Worship as one pleases? Wear miniskirts? Be gay? Get AIDS? Use drugs? Visit prostitutes? Be a prostitute? Make fun of one's leaders? Make fun of other people? Make fun of oneself?
7. How do you tell an insurgent from a freedom fighter?
6. We can't afford the human cost -- lives lost or disrupted, emotional fallout, lost productivity -- both for ourselves and those we "help".
5. We can't afford the financial cost.
4. We can't fix political situations others have created. Only the people involved in the politics can resolve political problems. How would US citizens feel about another country attempting to impose a different form of government in the US?
3. We can't satisfy ourselves that our own elections are free and fair. Why would anyone trust us to run theirs?
2. It never seems to take long for those we "liberate" to go from gratitude to radicalized terrorists, the ungrateful wretches. I just don't get that.
1. Most of us are too fat to fit into the uniform.
2006-12-02
Stories
A story is a sequence of perceptions, not events. An event is indescribable. A perception, like a description, is from a particular perspective.
2006-11-25
Same behavior, different outcomes?
I wonder how this event was different from this one?
In the first (most recent) story, an elected city councilman who held an alleged thief at gunpoint was himself arrested because the police saw him pointing the gun at the suspect. In the second (older) story, a state senator held four teens he suspected of having broken into a warehouse he owned at gunpoint. The story says he "brandished" the gun and told the suspects to "put their hands up", then gave them chocolate chip cookies. It doesn't say anything about the state senator pointing the gun or what the arriving sheriff's deputies saw.
I guess the moral of the story is, if you're going to hold someone at gunpoint, don't let law enforcement see you pointing the gun, and give your suspects chocolate chip cookies.
In the first (most recent) story, an elected city councilman who held an alleged thief at gunpoint was himself arrested because the police saw him pointing the gun at the suspect. In the second (older) story, a state senator held four teens he suspected of having broken into a warehouse he owned at gunpoint. The story says he "brandished" the gun and told the suspects to "put their hands up", then gave them chocolate chip cookies. It doesn't say anything about the state senator pointing the gun or what the arriving sheriff's deputies saw.
I guess the moral of the story is, if you're going to hold someone at gunpoint, don't let law enforcement see you pointing the gun, and give your suspects chocolate chip cookies.
2006-11-19
How many times did you vote?
How many times did you vote?
Once? Twice? Zero? For most of us, there's no way to know.
I pointed this out to my wife as we left our poll yesterday evening. Her response: "Why does that matter? We've never been able to tell in the past."
True. This has been a weakness in US election practice for a long time. What would be a sensible solution?
I'd like to receive a printed copy of my vote with a unique code on it. The vote tallying process could then populate a website where I can look up my code and verify my vote. I should also be able to 1) download the vote data and satisfy myself that it has been counted correctly, 2) not see any personally identifying information connected to any vote.
Several issues would have to be address: How do I know that the data I get from the website reflects real vote data (as opposed to data someone made up)? How do we adequately secure the vote verification website? How do we ensure that the website has enough horsepower to support the traffic it will receive? How do we ensure against redirection or phishing style attacks (in which the attacker persuades the voter to believe data from a bogus website)? How do we protect the vote verification website against denial of service attacks?
Once? Twice? Zero? For most of us, there's no way to know.
I pointed this out to my wife as we left our poll yesterday evening. Her response: "Why does that matter? We've never been able to tell in the past."
True. This has been a weakness in US election practice for a long time. What would be a sensible solution?
I'd like to receive a printed copy of my vote with a unique code on it. The vote tallying process could then populate a website where I can look up my code and verify my vote. I should also be able to 1) download the vote data and satisfy myself that it has been counted correctly, 2) not see any personally identifying information connected to any vote.
Several issues would have to be address: How do I know that the data I get from the website reflects real vote data (as opposed to data someone made up)? How do we adequately secure the vote verification website? How do we ensure that the website has enough horsepower to support the traffic it will receive? How do we ensure against redirection or phishing style attacks (in which the attacker persuades the voter to believe data from a bogus website)? How do we protect the vote verification website against denial of service attacks?
2006-11-18
SustainabilityRiff
Natural processes tend to be circular. The byproduct or waste of one organism becomes the fuel or food for another. Everything produced by one process gets consumed by another.
Artificial processes tend to be linear. Waste plastic and hydrocarbons have no natural consumers. Recycling is an attempt to close the loop and reuse the waste materials we produce, but it takes a lot of effort and attention, something that tends to diminish compliance.
To live in a truly sustainable way, we need to find ways to make our processes circular without requiring a lot of effort.
Artificial processes tend to be linear. Waste plastic and hydrocarbons have no natural consumers. Recycling is an attempt to close the loop and reuse the waste materials we produce, but it takes a lot of effort and attention, something that tends to diminish compliance.
To live in a truly sustainable way, we need to find ways to make our processes circular without requiring a lot of effort.
An experiment of one
What I used to eat:
- quarter pounders with cheese
- other kinds of hamburgers
- French fries
- Combos
- full fat potato and/or corn chips
- fried or grilled chicken
- weight: 260 (height: 6 feet)
- typical blood pressure: 140/95
- BMI: 35.3 ("severely obese" according to the BMI calculator at http://www.bariatricedge.com)
- steel cut oats (.5 cup for breakfast)
- frozen fruit (berries, melon, mango, peaches, grapes, pineapple)
- frozen vegetables (carrots, snap peas, brocolli, asparagus, etc.)
- fresh fruit: grapes, apples (in season), melon (in season), citrus, etc.
- fresh vegetables: kale, spinach, sugar snap or snow peas, carrots, edamame (green soybeans), cherry tomatos
- dried fruit: apricots, raisins, etc.
- boiled potatos (with ketchup, mustard, barbecue sauce, yum!)
- beans
- Subway veggie sandwiches
- weight: 195
- typical blood pressure: 109/70
- BMI: 26.4 ("slightly overweight" according to http://www.bariatricedge.com)
2006-11-11
ESPoiler
Check out Clifford Pickover's "ESP Experiment". Pretty amazing, huh?
Well, watch this! I can do it, too, and you don't have to click anything!
Pick a letter from the list below and say it out loud:
A B C D E
Got your letter? Okay, now scroll down....
Look at this list:
1 2 3 4
Hey, presto! I've removed your letter!
Okay, okay, so I removed *all* the letters. I *did* remove yours, didn't I?
Look back at Pickover's site. The first list of cards are:
Khearts, Jclubs, Kspades, Qdiamonds, Qclubs, Jdiamonds
Depending on which "eye" you click on, there are two "exit" lists with "your" card "removed":
beta1: Qhearts, Kclubs, Jhearts, Qspades, Kdiamonds
beta2: Kdiamonds, Qspades, Jhearts, Kclubs, Qhearts
Notice: NONE of the cards on the first list appear on either of the exit lists.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Pickover's experiment is the set of responses it gets (well, the set of responses he has posted, anyway). They range from simple mystification to extremely complex hyptheses attempting to explain the "result". Some respondents clearly "get it" while others appear to "get it", but offer jargon and obfuscation to play along with Pickover's misdirection. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between a response from someone who was honestly tricked and is offering a hypothesis to explain the mechanism of the "telepathy" and someone playing along with the illusion. (My wife suggests that Mr. Pickover may have simply made up *all* the responses.)
Perhaps the funniest responses are the ones that say, "Nope, you screwed up. My card was still in the final set." The only way this could happen is if the person simply got confused and remembered, for example, Qdiamonds as Qhearts. (Or lied, my wife points out.)
Could it be that *all* our religious, metaphysical, spiritual explanations are this kind of over-explanation of simple changed lists?
Well, watch this! I can do it, too, and you don't have to click anything!
Pick a letter from the list below and say it out loud:
A B C D E
Got your letter? Okay, now scroll down....
Look at this list:
1 2 3 4
Hey, presto! I've removed your letter!
Okay, okay, so I removed *all* the letters. I *did* remove yours, didn't I?
Look back at Pickover's site. The first list of cards are:
Khearts, Jclubs, Kspades, Qdiamonds, Qclubs, Jdiamonds
Depending on which "eye" you click on, there are two "exit" lists with "your" card "removed":
beta1: Qhearts, Kclubs, Jhearts, Qspades, Kdiamonds
beta2: Kdiamonds, Qspades, Jhearts, Kclubs, Qhearts
Notice: NONE of the cards on the first list appear on either of the exit lists.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Pickover's experiment is the set of responses it gets (well, the set of responses he has posted, anyway). They range from simple mystification to extremely complex hyptheses attempting to explain the "result". Some respondents clearly "get it" while others appear to "get it", but offer jargon and obfuscation to play along with Pickover's misdirection. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between a response from someone who was honestly tricked and is offering a hypothesis to explain the mechanism of the "telepathy" and someone playing along with the illusion. (My wife suggests that Mr. Pickover may have simply made up *all* the responses.)
Perhaps the funniest responses are the ones that say, "Nope, you screwed up. My card was still in the final set." The only way this could happen is if the person simply got confused and remembered, for example, Qdiamonds as Qhearts. (Or lied, my wife points out.)
Could it be that *all* our religious, metaphysical, spiritual explanations are this kind of over-explanation of simple changed lists?
2006-11-02
Musings on The Shape of the World
The legal system is always behind. It can only respond to what has already been done. An act must be committed before it can be recognized as contrary to the public interest, eventually defined as a crime, as being against the law (the law being simply what someone has decided is in the public interest).
Historic trends, like agriculture at the dawn of history, trade during the Middle Ages, the Industrial Revolution, commercialism in the 1800's and early 1900's, the Information Revolution, and, most recently, globalization, cannot be resisted effectively. There are (at least) three responses one can make: futile resistance, attempted exploitation, or attempted shaping.
These historic steamrollers tend to flatten those who resist them. The nomadic hunter-gatherers who declined to join in the agricultural revolution were pushed out to the least desirable land, treated as uncivilized, and sometimes harassed or killed. The gentry who tried to control or limit trade in the Middle Ages found themselves outflanked -- if trade were disallowed here, it sprang up over there. The Luddites who violently resisted the Industrial Revolution are now a historical footnote.
In each revolution, some managed to exploit the trend of things effectively. Some became fabulously weathly by understanding the dynamics of the new way of things and aligning themselves to profit from it. Marco Polo, Henry Ford, and Thomas Edison are examples of those managed to ride the wave of their respective revolutions and won big. Others tried but failed in one way or another.
In every revolution, there was the opportunity, not always taken, to moderate and shape the effects of the revolution to help those displaced by it find their way in the reconfigured world.
Sources:
- The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman
- Protecting America's Health by Philip J. Hilts
Historic trends, like agriculture at the dawn of history, trade during the Middle Ages, the Industrial Revolution, commercialism in the 1800's and early 1900's, the Information Revolution, and, most recently, globalization, cannot be resisted effectively. There are (at least) three responses one can make: futile resistance, attempted exploitation, or attempted shaping.
These historic steamrollers tend to flatten those who resist them. The nomadic hunter-gatherers who declined to join in the agricultural revolution were pushed out to the least desirable land, treated as uncivilized, and sometimes harassed or killed. The gentry who tried to control or limit trade in the Middle Ages found themselves outflanked -- if trade were disallowed here, it sprang up over there. The Luddites who violently resisted the Industrial Revolution are now a historical footnote.
In each revolution, some managed to exploit the trend of things effectively. Some became fabulously weathly by understanding the dynamics of the new way of things and aligning themselves to profit from it. Marco Polo, Henry Ford, and Thomas Edison are examples of those managed to ride the wave of their respective revolutions and won big. Others tried but failed in one way or another.
In every revolution, there was the opportunity, not always taken, to moderate and shape the effects of the revolution to help those displaced by it find their way in the reconfigured world.
Sources:
- The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman
- Protecting America's Health by Philip J. Hilts
2006-10-29
Another Example
Over a period of years, several commentators have documented that since airlines have started allowing passengers to print their boarding passes at home before leaving for the airport, boarding passes are easy to alter. Bruce Schneier documented the problem here in 2003 and Andy Bowers of Slate, documented it here in 2005.
But nothing was done about it. More recently, in an effort to focus more attention on the issue and get it fixed, Christopher Soghoian, a graduate student at Indiana University, set up a website that made it easy to forge a boarding pass for Northwest Airlines. (Boing Boing story is here.)
So do we fix the problem? No! Of course not!
Far from thanking Chris and calling for the security hole to be fixed, Congressman Edward Markey of Massachussets calls for the arrest the student. (Boing Boing story here.)
Hours later, the student was visited at home by FBI agents who ask him to take the website down. He complies. (Boing Boing story.)
Chris chose to spend that night somewhere other than his home. When he returned the next day, he found that his house had been ransacked and computers and other belongings removed. (Boing Boing story.)
The system is broken. Instead of addressing problems, it harasses the messenger.
It seems to me there are several problems with this:
But nothing was done about it. More recently, in an effort to focus more attention on the issue and get it fixed, Christopher Soghoian, a graduate student at Indiana University, set up a website that made it easy to forge a boarding pass for Northwest Airlines. (Boing Boing story is here.)
So do we fix the problem? No! Of course not!
Far from thanking Chris and calling for the security hole to be fixed, Congressman Edward Markey of Massachussets calls for the arrest the student. (Boing Boing story here.)
Hours later, the student was visited at home by FBI agents who ask him to take the website down. He complies. (Boing Boing story.)
Chris chose to spend that night somewhere other than his home. When he returned the next day, he found that his house had been ransacked and computers and other belongings removed. (Boing Boing story.)
The system is broken. Instead of addressing problems, it harasses the messenger.
It seems to me there are several problems with this:
- The problem doesn't get fixed.
- Innocent people trying to do the right thing and help out get punished.
- This "whack-a-mole" approach to problems is not scalable. What if two or three hundred geeks put up such websites? Would the FBI have the manpower to intimidate them all into silence?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)