If you have ever downloaded a song (and who hasn’t?), pause for a moment to pay your respects for the software that made it all possible. It suffered greatly and gave its life so that iTunes and Spotify could live, and it forced an industry that threw up a great big middle finger to the idea of changing its business model for the better, to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new era.
Posts Tagged ‘Technology’
Yesterday, Google Sr. Veep and Chief Counsel David Drummond posted what amounts to the Silicon Valley version of a hissy fit on Google‘s official blog. His complaint? That Microsoft and Apple are teaming up to try to stifle Android by using what Drummond refers to as “bogus patents.”
The patents being referred to here are patents owned by Novell that Microsoft and Apple are jointly bidding on. If they were to be successful, it would impact Android because technology covered by those patents is being used in Google smartphones. Google, naturally, is not thrilled about this. Drummonds screed would not be so much justified, but you could at least understand it… were it not for the fact that Google indeed had an opportunity to bid on these patents. Not only did it have the opportunity to bid and not put one forth, it was invited to bid jointly with Microsoft and turned that down as well.
Twitter is something that I personally think is a complete waste of time 99% of the time. It’s the 1% in situations like this that it becomes like a train wreck… you can’t not look. Brad Smith, Drummond’s counterpart at Microsoft, tweeted this in response to Drummond:
Brad SmithGoogle says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no.
Brad –Sorry for the delay in getting back to you — I came down with a 24-hour bug on the way back from San Antonio. After talking with people here, it sounds as though for various reasons a joint bid wouldn’t be advisable for us on this one. But I appreciate your flagging it, and we’re open to discussing other similar opportunities in the future.I hope the rest of your travels go well, and I look forward to seeing you again soon.– Kent
Earlier this year, the DHS conducted a test at various government facilities and the facilities of some the companies that our government contracts with. The test was simple: leave USB drives and CDs in the parking lots of the building, and watch what happens when the employees notice them.
Now any one of my friends that work in I.T. could have answered this question within a few seconds: The majority of employees picked them up, walked in the building and immediately chunked said USB drive into a slot, or, in the case of the CDs, opened a CD tray, inserted the CD, and closed the door. That answer, of course was correct, but lets get into the details of how correct it was. Of the total number of employees that picked up the items, 60% installed them on their work machines. Another interesting part of the test was that some of the thumb drives/CDs had official-looking logos on them. Of those, 90% were installed.
Welcome to what security professionals talk about when they mention the term ‘social engineering.’ I.T. security hardware and software has made monumental leaps forward in the past 20+ years. Human security has not. Human security is why laptops disappear from Los Alamos and why Picassos disappear from San Francisco art galleries. Why is this? Don’t think about it in terms of trying to decipher what makes people tick at a granular level. Instead, apply a little of the ol’ Occam’s Razor, and think about the inherent differences between computers and humans. When you do that, you can boil it all down to one, all-encompassing, overriding principle:
People can choose. Computers can’t.
I had a CIS (Computer Information Systems – what they called computer science majors when I went to college) professor in college that loved to say the following quote so often that we got tired of it. By the way, the religious reference comes from the fact that he was Boston Irish Catholic.
“Next to Gahd, computahs ah the most pehfect beings on the planet. They only do what you tell ’em to do.”
Us being nerds, we all looked at each other to see who would start the philosophical argument as to whether God was actually “on the planet” and whether computers were in fact “beings.” But on a certain level, the guy had a point. The nugget of clarity that you should take away from this bit of insanity is the combination of the concept of perfection and the lack of its association to people. The guy clearly viewed a perfect being as something that executed your commands immediately upon receiving them, assuming those commands are valid.
A computer not only does that but it does it billions of times per day. I can certainly think of a whole host of humans who today will not execute ten commands, of any level of complexity, in a day. Not only does a computer execute these commands, they can be configured to also remember the commands and the results of those commands indefinitely (just ask any executive or politician who has every had an ancient email dug up with something incriminating on it), or until its storage media gives out, whichever comes first. I can’t remember the complete sequence of how I got out of bed this morning… or rather, my brain can, but retrieving that information is a whole different animal.
When it comes to security however, it almost always boils down to a matter of choice. Computers don’t get to make their own choices without us defining what those choices are, and that’s what separates them from us. Along with sentience (awareness of our own existence), it is what makes us the masters and computers the tools. To all the nerds in the house… if you’ve ever programmed an IF statement, then stand up, raise your sword high and exclaim “I HAVE THE POWER!!!!” because you have just defined the criteria to allow a computer to make a choice it did not previously have the power to make.
Humans, on the other hand, are a two-fold problem. The first problem that choice presents is the choice to ignore best practices and procedures that have been repeated to them over and over and over again. From the perspective of I.T. workers everywhere, this is the one we are all familiar with. The desire of a few to have a safe and secure network in which to get your day’s work done does not hold a candle to the desire of the rabid frothing masses to stream porn, listen to Pandora, play Farmville and Mafia Wars while chronicling every nanosecond of their personal lives in 200 character burst transmissions, instant message, download hacked games without paying for them, or to have a mouse cursor with a cute little animated kitty chasing it. Let’s face it… productivity just isn’t sexy anymore.
The second part of this problem is the 5% that choose to exploit the stupidity of those mentioned in the paragraph above. These are the folks that scamper behind the bushes tittering after they leave the thumb drive out in the parking lot. Why do they do it, because 1) they choose to, and 2) they are, as Paul Newman described himself in The Color of Money…
“I am a student of human moves.” – Fast Eddie Felson (Paul Newman) from The Color of Money
They know how you think. They study how you behave. They know that the bulk of the world, on a certain level, will behave as you do… which means you will behave without thinking. And they exploit that.
And there is the rub. The organization that achieves near impenetrable security is the organization that can get its humans to think a little more critically about security related issues. Maybe you should think before hitting the submit button. Think before downloading that file. Think before uttering what should be un-utterable… your password. Think about the fact that when you fuck up the network, it ruins people’s work, costs the company money, and directs everybody’s anger at the I.T. department and not your dopey ass. And think about human moves and how about changing them would make the job of the cracker/phisher/black-hat/etc. that much more difficult.
If you have Excel, you can. Here’s a link to a really good tutorial that will get you what you need in less than 5 minutes.
Everloop is a social networking site directly geared toward users between the ages of 8 and 15, although younger users are allowed to open accounts. It encourages, but does not require parental involvement and the site is COPPA compliant. It also just secured $3.1 million in additional funding from such investors as vFormation, Band of Angels, Deena Burnett-Bailey, Envoi Ventures, Richard Chino, and Wayne Goodrich… and this is over and above the funding it secured previously. There are other sites trying to market social networking for kids. Clearly Everloop is the one the VC crowd thinks is the most viable.
The problem I have with Everloop is not because of Everloop, but because of facebook. Everloop is trying to solve a problem that facebook has no desire whatsoever to solve, and that is the problem of the consequence of children using social networking with little or no supervision, though the argument of exactly whose responsibility it is to ensure safety is a debate for another article. To Everloop, children seem to be a class that needs some semblance of protection even though somehow that class fits into its revenue stream (rest assured, Everloop will advertise the hell out of those kids). Facebook has so many users already, it can operate under the same premise the Chinese government operates under: Use ’em however you want. There’s more where they came from.
The douchebag that stole it – Paolo Votano (bottom photo, guy on the far right)
Prey – the software that helped him find the perpetrator.
The blow-by-blow of how he got it back with the help of Twitter and some chick who will be forever known as “The girl in the purple sarong.”
It all starts: A mystery client hires top PR firm Burson-Marsteller to execute a smear campaign against Google by claiming that Google’s Social Circle violates the privacy rights of Gmail users.
May 3, 2011: John Mercurio of Burson-Marsteller tries to convince a blogger to write an op-ed piece critical of Google which Mercurio claims he can get re-printed in outlets like The Washington Post, Politico, The Huffington Post, and other “top-tier media outlets. After turning down the opportunity with a skeptical “Who’s paying for this?” The email exchange is made public on the internet.
May 6, 2011: USAToday publishes an article outting former CNBC news anchor Jim Goldman and former political columnist John Mercurio as the two Burson employees behind the campaign.
This week, RIM began shipping the 7-inch tablet. After spending a couple days with the final product, it’s clear that the PlayBook is a useless device whose development is unfinished.
The initial reports began on the evening of April 20, one day after the PlayBook was released, though most users reported the problem after a few days of use.
As of 5p PT on April 25, RIM’s support staff has not yet responded to the users on the support forum, and several users who called RIM said the support staff had no solution. RIM also did not respond to InfoWorld’s inquiry.
Not good. The worst low-level helpdesk drone knows you don’t wait five days to get back to your now pissed-off users. A simple “We don’t have a solution yet, but it’s a high-priority issue and we’re working on it round the clock,” would have bought them some extra time to try to figure out why RIM’s supposedly hot-rod tablet PCs are turning into very expensive coasters.
I had this issue and found a fix for it.
PlayBook will not charge if powered off. Cant charge if PlayBook can not boot up.
Connect to the supplied PlayBook power charger, press and hold the power button for 10 seconds to force a reboot.
During the rebbot it will charge up.
Connect to desktop manager (use latest version please) with your PC using the Micro USB cable and press and hold the power button down for 10 seconds.
Are you kidding me? You can’t charge the thing if it’s powered off? Who designed this piece of crap? My first generation iPod could charge when off with a drained battery.