First Blog

Freedom vs. Security It is said that by the second century of our era that ancient Romans during the reign of Trajan (Roman emperor from 98 to 117 CE) that at least one provision of current social justice was popular even then, that it is better that the guilty remain unpunished than the innocent to be condemned.  This is a thorny issue plaguing us all today. However, and of more subtle distinction was at this time Romans loved security too much to be capable of freedom.  The distinction should not be lost on modern times.  At least one party in most western countries promotes security above everything else.  In their version of politics, they work to attract groups that venerate security, having persuaded them they never had it and that it is the primal goal to achieve.  Security, however, comes at the price of surrender of power, of thought, and of freedom in all forms. It surrenders to the provider (usually government) virtually unlimited power over their well-being. Freedo

One political type made an accurate point about all the Hillary emails, of which there have been thousands, that being none from Bernie or Donald have appeared.   He asked why we haven’t seen any from Trump?   Could be the Trump group has better security?   Absolute security is easy and almost free, if you want to use it.   It is a certainty that Hillary was careless about security.   The reason is simple.   Neither she nor her team fully understood how easy hacking can be.  One thing I've learned is many of those at premier levels do not respond well to new things.  To plea d ignorance or amat eur status , they expos e themselves to themselves and to others.  Old hands have trouble with new events and new concepts. So, they hide it or ignore what's happening.  Another reason exists, perhaps about Trump but certainly about others.   We generalize beyond Donald as he is unlikely to win the election.  Why can it not be so that multiple, maybe hundreds, of important po

The Clinton-Trump debate has come and gone.   It seemed Trump was baited mercilessly.   He fell for it completely. What a mistake.   She prepared; he did not.   She did seem scripted; he ad-libbed mostly stuff from his stump speeches, and poorly.   But on the security issues, both were dismal.    Both demonstrated a total lack of knowledge, detailed or general on national security of all kinds.   Here, we can excuse Trump as simply being ignorant.   But Clinton, also ignorant, should understand from experience the gravitas of computer security and hacking.   But her delivery was rehearsed and delivered with no apparent personal understanding. Both said security was big and important, but neither have a clue on what to do.   "We will get top people to fix it," was the extent of their answers.   Hint. Already, the top people the government has ARE working on it and failing.   Corporations usually give short shrift to the costs of better security.   Us everyday folks d

Note.   Just a few days ago... "A  pilot claims he saw an unmanned aircraft hovering dangerously close to a passenger jet above New York—prompting safety fears as well as an FBI investigation."  Though this may be nothing more than a toy in the air, it does signal a rather deep concern by Americans about drone intrusion in their lives.  Is airborne surveillance really here?    (See: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/03/05/fbi_investigating_pilot_report_of_drone_sighting_by_jfk_airport.html) ____________________________________________________ Drones are a tool of the modern age.  They have benefits.  They have faults.  They have become the secret agents of the past whose role was to observe and thwart, as needed.  They are a modern technology with which no governmental leader has a real, life-long experience.  They are new.    Indeed, their scope of use is evolving as the minutes tick. Types.   Some drones are outfitted to only monitor the country-side and

The Two Generals What is so utterly unbelievable about the Generals Petraeus and Allen is their apparent naivety.  Here they are experts at secure communications.  Here they are intelligent and capable military officers.  What could ever overcome them to believe that any communications on the open net is secure and undiscoverable?  These firms actually do a lot of data mining, well beyond most of our comprehension.  (Just use your favorite search engine on any topic.  You will get thousands of hits.  Imagine the computing power this requires.   During the nights when few are hitting on searches, these servers do not rest. )  Anything appearing interesting is flagged. Even I know this. This is why it is good advice never post anything of any salacious, sensitive, or derogatory nature through these messengers.  But if you must... Use a messenger that supports encryption, such as PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), very difficult, no incredibly difficult, to decrypt.  Make certain your mess