Curiouser and Curiouser!

Curiouser and Curiouser! on trust http://matt.blogs.it/ RSS feed for topic trust Copyright 2006 Matt Mower Squib/0.1 self@mattmower.com self@mattmower.com en-gb Blogs as external brain packs Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:40:51 +0100 <A href="http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,53815,00.html">Wired</A>: "Seniors in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease, with mild to moderate memory loss, are writing weblogs to help them make sense of their daily lives. And the activity, they say, is slowing the onset of their symptoms." [<A href="http://www.scripting.com/">Scripting News</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » This is such a fantastic idea. It does, however, raise some serious security issues.  At the moment there is no real trust issue with what goes in a weblog.  But if someone is really going to treat a weblog as their external brain pack then their going to have to be sure that no-one can tamper with it, thereby altering their perceived reality. It puts me in mind of the <A href="http://us.imdb.com/Name?Nolan,+Christopher">Christopher Nolan</A> film <A href="http://us.imdb.com/Title?0209144">Memento</A> (with <A href="http://us.imdb.com/Name?Pearce,+Guy">Guy Pierce</A>).  </BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000228.html I don't trust your president either Thu, 10 Oct 2002 22:49:56 +0100 <A href="http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/10/stark/index.html?CP=RDF&DN=310">"The bottom line is I don't trust this president and his advisors"</A>. Not every Democrat has caved to Bush's martial fervor. Rep. Pete Stark makes it stunningly clear why he's voting against the Iraq war resolution. [<A href="http://www.salon.com">Salon.com</A>] <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> » Man, he nailed it.</BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000701.html Anybody got a wrench? Sun, 13 Oct 2002 19:30:49 +0100 So, a description of services, I should be able to whip that up in a couple of minutes shouldn't I?   Turns out its a bit of a chase your own tail problem for me. Services I can offer fall under three broad categories: <UL> <LI>Consulting <LI>Implementation <LI>Product</LI></UL> Way back, when the madness first gripped me, it was on my mind to be a consultant.  I'd done product and implementation and really wanted to move to where the decisions are made.  Unfortunately I didn't heed the warnings.  Consulting is about 80% network and 80% reputation.  You could probably survive with either and thrive with both.  But neither...?  Right. Now implementation skills I have.  No problems there.  I can hook & eye systems together with the best of 'em.  I also have a budding application in "!livetopics".  If I could just choose between them I should be okay right?  Turns out there's a problem though. Because there are no klogging consultants in the UK, there are no pilot programs already in place.  Nobody needs implementation services if they aren't implementing things.  Rats.  Well then how about product? "!liveTopics" is a knowledge-logging application built on "!radio".  But that makes it an application without a market (at least in the UK).  If there is no existing market and no consultants out there fostering a market that leaves a big hole where the customers should be.  Anyway we all now how difficult it is to be a software company post-1999. And last but not least: Where's the leaky pipe? I've referred a few times to Geoffrey Moore's <A href="http://www.rklau.com/tins/2002/09/25.html#a540">leaky pipes</A> metaphor.  That, in todays market, company's will only spend money to fix their pressing problems (their leaky pipes) and then only if it looks like the leak will get worse soon, and then only if the fix can pay for itself.  I'll also note in passing that Moore says that business by referral becomes even more important in a down market.  Nobody wants to trust a software company anymore. Hence my recent interest in framing klogging as the solution to a leaky pipe kind of problem.  I believe that if this is possible then many of the other pieces might fit into place.  But so far I haven't found the a compelling pipe for which klogging will be the wrench.  It still all too "a better tomorrow." So, that's the problems.  The challenge is in 28-days or less to turn this around and create a compelling statement of services. All suggestions warmly welcomed! http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000716.html Trusted trackback Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:00:30 +0100 I was just thinking about the coming problems with referrer tracking and trackback (et al.) and I wondered whether it would be possible to use PGP like technology to provide trusted sender authentication for pings.   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000774.html The Home Office are at it again Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:46:10 +0000 <H4>Make your stand now</H4> Paul Makepeace at Ecademy: <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=4120">Take a stand on UK ID cards [Paul Makepeace]</A>. Once again the UK govt is trying to foist a national ID system on the Brits. <A href="http://stand.org.uk/">Stand.org.uk</A> has prepared a piece to enable people to review the <A href="http://www.isness.org/idcard/">govt docs</A>, and send an email to Those In Charge. There isn't a lot of time left. If you're going to do this, do it now. It's worth noting that this kind of protest killed off the RIP bill, so it works. It's very easy - read <A href="http://stand.org.uk/">the page</A> -- lively, short and entertainingly informative -- then click on the relevant checkboxes in Step 1, edit the form they present, and then off it goes. You must edit the box as it contains instructions that would look particularly stupid if sent. Here's what I hastily threw together, Dear Sir/Madam, I was dismayed recently to learn about the Government's proposals for Entitlement Cards (aka ID cards). [<A href="http://www.ecademy.com/module.php?mod=blog">Ecademy: user blogs</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> Is restriction of liberty hardwired into politicians? [<A href="http://www.dangerous-thinking.com/">Dangerous thinking</A>] Here we go again. Part of the problem is that MP's are, by and large, horribly ill-informed about IT issues.  Couple this with a need to be seen to be doing something and you have a nasty situation where any loud voice is likely to receive widespread support. My own MP gets most of her information from the Home Office.  She's a Labour MP so I guess she feels she can trust them.  This is bad.  Of course my own guilty secret is that I was supposed to be sending them information about where they kind find other opinions about RIP.  I could have thrown in some stuff about identity cards too.  I still should. In the meantime it's off to <A href="http://stand.org.uk/">the Stand</A>.   http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001061.html Shrinking liberties... it doesn't wash with me Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:46:47 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://www.smartmobs.com/archives/000692.html">Smart Mobs</A> picks up on a <A href="http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11573&c=39">report</A> by the <A href="http://www.aclu.org/">ACLU</A> which argues that surveillance is increasing, civil liberty guarantees are shrinking, and the combined impact of surveillance data from multiple sources is far greater than the sum of its parts. Although I only follow the issues from the sidelines, I have growing concerns about corporate and governmental prying. The more my life is easily traced by following electronic trails, the more I worry about who is sniffing those trails out. Whether or not my career as a criminal mastermind is tediously pedestrian is beside the point - the fact that I have nothing to hide makes me more concerned about my actions being watched, logged, collated, catgeorised and cross-referenced. Sometimes I take comfort in the thought that the more data the government has, the less it will know what to do with it. Trying to integrate it meaningfully will be way too complicated - trying to see and understand patterns across all the disparate data streams is just a cyber-spook's wet-dream. But then I get back to cold reality. Just because they can't do it, won't stop them trying. The integration may not be meaningful - the patterns may not be understood - but patterns there will be. And in the paranoid world of the cyber-spook, an excess of false positives will be a fair price to pay for tracking down the bad guys. So my real concern is not that they're sniffing my electronic trail. Sure, it's an invasion of my privacy but it's rather an abstract invasion. My real concern is what cock-eyed conclusions someone will draw from matching this parameter with that pattern and what real-life, concrete actions they will take against me (or you, or any of the other millions of people whose profile just doesn't smell right). Paranoid? Maybe. Except, they are watching us... [<A href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0118812/">Making Connections</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> Simon neatly identifies the conumdrum facing most of us in relation to privacy issues.  We see our rights being eroded on the back of claims of this or that (today it's terrorism) but we have no trust in the custodians that they will not betray us. That the government cannot possibly assimilate all the information it eventually hopes to hold does not, however, make me feel any happier.  This is, I think, for two reasons: <OL> <LI>We have seen many times how a single idea (or cluster of related ideas) can revolutionise an industry completely.  Today they may not be able to use the data in aggregate, but they will keep it and, who knows what they will be able to do tomorrow?</LI> <LI>The data may not be useful in aggregate but it will be open to targetted abuse.  That is, if my data is separable somehow from everyone elses then what is to stop corrupt officials from selling it to those who, for their own reasons, would wish to use it against me.</LI></OL> Even if these massive TIA style super-databases are a boon in the fight against crime (and I have yet to see the cogent and persuasive arguments for this) I would, I think, still be find the countervailing arguments for liberty more compelling. Total Information Awareness and it's ilk are sledgehammer solution to the wrong problem.  We should not be asking how to catch more terrorists but how to avoid situations in which terrorists want to kill us. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001197.html Oh yeah, I trust you now! Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:44:38 +0000 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <A href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/29519.html">Windows Update keeps tabs on all system software</A>. Spy on the wire [<A href="http://www.theregister.co.uk">The Register</A>]</BLOCKQUOTE> Is this true? The use of SSL suggests a deliberate attempt to prevent me from knowing this is happening.  A deliberate attempt to decieve me.  I would not tolerate this from any other vendor.  Why should I tolerate it from M$?  And they <A href="http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,5102810,00.html">want my trust</A>? For me they have two choices: <OL> <LI>Refute the allegations with independent verification.</LI> <LI>Apologize. Destroy the data (and collateral data) & prove that they have.  Give a solemn undertaking that this will never happen again.</LI></OL> I'm turning off Windows update, now.  If I was interested in switching before, you can bet that goes ^10 now. http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001239.html