As I ponder how info should be conveyed to consumers/citizens, two situations from today come to mind.
Living Social was hacked, affecting 50 million people. Now, I think people want to know when companies get hacked. I don't believe they become indifferent to each incident as there are more of them. Cumulatively it probably alerts them that their data isn't necessarily safe from hackers and they either need to take steps themselves to protect themselves or they need to demand more security on the part of the companies they deal with.
And then there is this. Would it be better not to tell people that these companies can unexpectedly fold and they will lose their money?
Study: 45 percent of Bitcoin exchanges end up closing (Wired UK): "A study of the Bitcoin exchange industry has found that 45 percent of exchanges fail, taking their users' money with them. Those that survive are the ones that handle the most traffic -- but they are also the exchanges that suffer the greatest number of cyber attacks."
Seems to me that with all the info being exchanged in the world these days, people are going to get warnings about all sorts of things. I don't think that is going away and I don't think people actually want it to go away. My guess is that they do want to be warned about the hazards and then if they choose to ignore those warnings, so be it. I also think there would be a bigger backlash if info is kept from them than if they are warned about dangers that might not turn out to be so worrisome.
The government's neverending quest to make America "safer" has turned on itself, making Americans less safe.
Considering that there are all sorts of government groups, I think that statement is rather broad.
As for the issue of providing info to consumers, imagine everyone wearing Google glasses, and as they look at everything in front of them, up pops info about that object, person, or place.
That could be quite useful. You could see what's in the food you are about to eat, the medicines you are about to take, the hazards in your surroundings.
People like me actually do pay attention to info like that.
People already appreciate traffic info, telling them when there's an accident ahead. People have also appreciated weather warnings, even if sometimes the weather is more or less severe than predicted. We can get both traffic and weather updates minute-by-minute and some people like all of that info.
So I don't know that the issue is to reduce the info people get. Whenever I have to sign a medical consent form, for example, I actually read it and learn about the potential hazards for the procedure. That leads to a discussion with my doctor. That's a good thing, I think.
What may seem to be overkill to some people may be insufficient info/warnings to others.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe this isn't about cyber security at all, it's about money?
And what, exactly, does it say about a government when it has come to the point where the most beneficial thing it can do for its populace is nothing at all.
I'd love to see massive changes in campaign finance and corporate lobbying, but when Congress itself determines those issues, it's hard to get the changes made. Maybe if enough voters demand the changes, something will happen. Of course, if states find ways restrict who can vote, that limits change, too.
Saying that CISPA doesn't do enough to protect privacy is a little like saying that the death penalty doesn't do enough to protect the people on death row
I'm not sure if I am interpreting your comment as you meant, but my thoughts on all the CISPA discussions is "What privacy?"
Over and over again I read about companies proudly saying how they can cross-reference everything about everyone. They gleefully tell marketers and investors that they know all the details of our lives.
Most of the commercialization of the Internet at this point is about eliminating privacy. So how can CISPA protect what isn't there to begin with?
I think it might be better to make government better rather than to eliminate it and give all control over to private enterprise, which often would prefer to operate without any supervision or regulation at all.
What I should have written:
I think it might be better to improve government rather than to eliminate it. I'm wary of a system that allows private enterprise to operate without any supervision or regulation.
'Cybersecurity' in government-speak, where 1950's technology is used but looked upon with suspicion, refers to obtaining and selling personal information without restriction or accountability.
That's what companies like Google and Facebook want: obtaining and selling personal information without restriction or accountability. They're the ones who have the biggest vested interest in keeping privacy laws in their favor rather than in citizens' favor.
Re: Re: Maybe this isn't about cyber security at all, it's about money?
Do you seriously believe that all the people in the house and senate could conduct such a ploy?
These guys can barely agree on the proper way to exit a paper bag, let alone how to stiff a bunch of corporations for millions of dollars.
Actually I think his theory is reasonable. There are quite a few politicians who have figured out that the best approach to stay in office while not pissing anyone off is not to pass anything.
The goal of many Internet companies days isn't to protect you. It's to protect themselves.
They want to know as much about you as possible and to use that to their advantage. They are monitoring you as fast as the technology allows them to do so and looking for ways to profit from that. There will be monitoring devices in every home, every street corner, and on every device you carry. Not because government wants it or has the manpower to do anything with that flood of data, but because companies can make money from all of that surveillance.
These companies are interested in security ... to protect their own operations. Sometimes that means working pro-actively with government.
This is the nuance that needs to be addressed. This is a bill that benefits private enterprise. You can't isolate government from private enterprise. Among the companies that collect data, privacy is not one of their concerns, and they will look for laws that protect them as they collect data and share it/selling; and hope to eliminate laws that prevent them from data collection and sharing/selling.
Thinking that private enterprise is your friend and that government is your enemy can distract you from some of the issues. I think it might be better to make government better rather than to eliminate it and give all control over to private enterprise, which often would prefer to operate without any supervision or regulation at all.
It’s privacy versus cybersecurity as CISPA bill arrives in Senate | PCWorld: "CISPA would let private companies share data with law enforcement officials and government agencies if the data qualifies as what the bill calls 'cyber threat information' that could help solve a crime. That term’s vagueness is a big part of the privacy problem, says Jeramie Scott, national security fellow at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. 'It uses terms like "vulnerability to a network" and "threat to the integrity of a network" in its definition that are left to the private sector to interpret,' Scott says.
Definitions covering data are vague enough to invite oversharing
"CISPA’s vagueness gives private companies a lot of wiggle room to overshare information."
Not surprising, considering how tight Barry is plutocrat phone monopolies.
This isn't limited to phone companies. Lots of companies are compiling data. If anything, the phone companies have far less of it than other companies.
CISPA suffers setback in Senate citing privacy concerns | Politics and Law - CNET News: "The Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act, commonly known as CISPA, permits private sector companies -- including technology firms, such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft, among others -- to pass 'cyber threat' data, including personal user data, to the U.S. government.
"This means a company like Facebook, Twitter, Google, or any other technology or telecoms company, including your cell service provider, would be legally able to hand over vast amounts of data to the U.S. government and its law enforcement -- for whatever purpose it deems necessary -- and face no legal reprisals."
Look at this. Technology is providing so many ways to monitor people and their activities now, and companies don't want these doors closed to them. There's a ton of money in monitoring because it gives you more insight into what people do, and you can sell that. You can completely toss government aside, and companies will still monitor people.
New Technology Inspires a Rethinking of Light - NYTimes.com: "Recognizing this, other companies, like the newly renamed Sensity Systems (formerly Xeralux) are reimagining lampposts as nodes in a smart network that illuminate spaces, visually monitor them, sense heat and communicate with other nodes and human monitors."
We already have massive citizen monitoring by private companies right now. They are already cross-referencing different data sets so they know what people do on and offline.
What's being worked out now is what happens with the data and who is protected. The companies want to continue to monitor people, save the data, and act on the data, but they want to cover themselves so that they don't get in trouble for all of this monitoring.
You will likely see laws drafted or regulations dropped to protect the companies. It's not about citizen privacy because that would kill what these data gathering and data selling companies are doing.
According to the linked article, "The Wiretap Act limits the ability of Internet providers to eavesdrop on network traffic except when monitoring is a 'necessary incident' to providing the service or it takes place with a user's 'lawful consent.'"
The data gathering companies are already eavesdropping (with user's consent through the service agreement). If government got out of the security business and just handed it over to private enterprise, we'd end up with as much or more monitoring than we have now, but that would skirt some of the politics of government being involved.
I keep point out that companies want to monitor people and are already doing it. They will get their way, given the way things work in DC.
Here's a good piece on why we're probably not in the usual business cycle and why putting your money in the market on the assumption that good times are just around the corner may be faulty thinking.
Re: when you look around the stock market for the mark...
the stock market USED to be what -in effect- kickstarter, etc is today: a means of raising capital for REAL business purposes...
now ? a rigged game for the uber-rich to milk the masses even more; and algo/millisecond trading is simply another tool to do that...
I'd say that's how lots of people view it today. Decades ago people formed investment clubs and did their own research and invested in companies that they felt had long term potential.
Now, with trades happening so quickly and for reasons that often have nothing to do with the quality of the corporations, why would people want to put their hard earned cash into the market?
And further, when you see CEOs rewarded even though their companies are doing badly, how much faith should one have in the entire financial system? And of course, there have been the financial bailouts. How many people believe Wall Street knows what it is doing?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Algorithmic control and fast trading
There was a time when entering retirement people had relatively predictable investments they could make to hold whatever money they had accumulated during their working years: certificates of deposit, AT&T, utilities, government bonds. The overall economy was growing and there were a range of investment opportunities from very conservative to increasingly risky.
Between the change in the world economy (growth is much less assured now) and the changing nature of investments, that range of investment opportunities just isn't there anymore. And if you look at who is making money, it isn't the majority of people in the country. They are treading water at best. The population as a whole isn't reaping any rewards from whatever investment opportunities there are.
actually, there ARE reasonable investments available, you just need to be careful where you invest. Diversify, for one- the more investments you have, the less a collapse in one will hurt you. Second, do some research on companies before you buy them- are their profits dropping? rising? do they have any debt? dividend? (I like to see at least a 5% dividend)
I was talking about someone approaching 65. Yes, if you are young enough and have you enough years ahead of you, then putting money into the S&P 500 is a good idea. But if you are approaching retirement, there are fewer safe places to put your money. Either they are volatile or don't pay much in the way of a return.
Every training course I have ever been on in relation to share markets and the various means of trading has always emphasised that it is a form of gambling, there are risks involved.
What happened to a lot of Baby Boomers is that they were saving for retirement and then saw their portfolios take major hits several times since 2000. Now they really can't afford to take more risks and don't want to get back into the market.
There aren't really any great investments right now, particularly safe ones, but at least if you hang on to cash, given the low inflation rate, you won't lose that.
The people who have money to lose, have money (which they are throwing into property, the market, art, and angel investing). A lot of other people don't any money to lose. As income inequality increases, the participation in the market will likely continue to shrink.
The stock market no longer has an aura as a place to improve your lot in life.
During the dotcom boom, when there were a lot of stock bulletin boards, "pump and dump" was quite common. You had to pay attention to who was giving you "news" on a company to know if it was trustworthy.
But with the rapid trades now, it is increasingly a sucker's game unless you have ultra-fast computers. It's sad that some of the best minds in the country have been used to create computer programs to shuffle money around rather than actually doing something to help humanity.
On the post: If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
Re: Think in terms of info, then
Living Social was hacked, affecting 50 million people. Now, I think people want to know when companies get hacked. I don't believe they become indifferent to each incident as there are more of them. Cumulatively it probably alerts them that their data isn't necessarily safe from hackers and they either need to take steps themselves to protect themselves or they need to demand more security on the part of the companies they deal with.
And then there is this. Would it be better not to tell people that these companies can unexpectedly fold and they will lose their money?
Study: 45 percent of Bitcoin exchanges end up closing (Wired UK): "A study of the Bitcoin exchange industry has found that 45 percent of exchanges fail, taking their users' money with them. Those that survive are the ones that handle the most traffic -- but they are also the exchanges that suffer the greatest number of cyber attacks."
Seems to me that with all the info being exchanged in the world these days, people are going to get warnings about all sorts of things. I don't think that is going away and I don't think people actually want it to go away. My guess is that they do want to be warned about the hazards and then if they choose to ignore those warnings, so be it. I also think there would be a bigger backlash if info is kept from them than if they are warned about dangers that might not turn out to be so worrisome.
On the post: If Everything Is A Threat, Then Nothing Is
Think in terms of info, then
Considering that there are all sorts of government groups, I think that statement is rather broad.
As for the issue of providing info to consumers, imagine everyone wearing Google glasses, and as they look at everything in front of them, up pops info about that object, person, or place.
That could be quite useful. You could see what's in the food you are about to eat, the medicines you are about to take, the hazards in your surroundings.
People like me actually do pay attention to info like that.
People already appreciate traffic info, telling them when there's an accident ahead. People have also appreciated weather warnings, even if sometimes the weather is more or less severe than predicted. We can get both traffic and weather updates minute-by-minute and some people like all of that info.
So I don't know that the issue is to reduce the info people get. Whenever I have to sign a medical consent form, for example, I actually read it and learn about the potential hazards for the procedure. That leads to a discussion with my doctor. That's a good thing, I think.
What may seem to be overkill to some people may be insufficient info/warnings to others.
On the post: As Expected, Senate Has No Interest In CISPA; Planning Its Own Cybersecurity Bill Instead
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe this isn't about cyber security at all, it's about money?
I'd love to see massive changes in campaign finance and corporate lobbying, but when Congress itself determines those issues, it's hard to get the changes made. Maybe if enough voters demand the changes, something will happen. Of course, if states find ways restrict who can vote, that limits change, too.
On the post: As Expected, Senate Has No Interest In CISPA; Planning Its Own Cybersecurity Bill Instead
Re:
I'm not sure if I am interpreting your comment as you meant, but my thoughts on all the CISPA discussions is "What privacy?"
Over and over again I read about companies proudly saying how they can cross-reference everything about everyone. They gleefully tell marketers and investors that they know all the details of our lives.
Most of the commercialization of the Internet at this point is about eliminating privacy. So how can CISPA protect what isn't there to begin with?
On the post: DOJ Helped AT&T, Others Avoid Wiretap Act, Promised Not To Charge Them If They Helped Spy On People
Re: Re: "We the people" = "We the money"
I think it might be better to make government better rather than to eliminate it and give all control over to private enterprise, which often would prefer to operate without any supervision or regulation at all.
What I should have written:
I think it might be better to improve government rather than to eliminate it. I'm wary of a system that allows private enterprise to operate without any supervision or regulation.
On the post: As Expected, Senate Has No Interest In CISPA; Planning Its Own Cybersecurity Bill Instead
Re:
That's what companies like Google and Facebook want: obtaining and selling personal information without restriction or accountability. They're the ones who have the biggest vested interest in keeping privacy laws in their favor rather than in citizens' favor.
On the post: As Expected, Senate Has No Interest In CISPA; Planning Its Own Cybersecurity Bill Instead
Re: Re: Maybe this isn't about cyber security at all, it's about money?
These guys can barely agree on the proper way to exit a paper bag, let alone how to stiff a bunch of corporations for millions of dollars.
Actually I think his theory is reasonable. There are quite a few politicians who have figured out that the best approach to stay in office while not pissing anyone off is not to pass anything.
On the post: DOJ Helped AT&T, Others Avoid Wiretap Act, Promised Not To Charge Them If They Helped Spy On People
Re: Re: "We the people" = "We the money"
The goal of many Internet companies days isn't to protect you. It's to protect themselves.
They want to know as much about you as possible and to use that to their advantage. They are monitoring you as fast as the technology allows them to do so and looking for ways to profit from that. There will be monitoring devices in every home, every street corner, and on every device you carry. Not because government wants it or has the manpower to do anything with that flood of data, but because companies can make money from all of that surveillance.
These companies are interested in security ... to protect their own operations. Sometimes that means working pro-actively with government.
On the post: DOJ Helped AT&T, Others Avoid Wiretap Act, Promised Not To Charge Them If They Helped Spy On People
Re: "We the people" = "We the money"
Thinking that private enterprise is your friend and that government is your enemy can distract you from some of the issues. I think it might be better to make government better rather than to eliminate it and give all control over to private enterprise, which often would prefer to operate without any supervision or regulation at all.
It’s privacy versus cybersecurity as CISPA bill arrives in Senate | PCWorld: "CISPA would let private companies share data with law enforcement officials and government agencies if the data qualifies as what the bill calls 'cyber threat information' that could help solve a crime. That term’s vagueness is a big part of the privacy problem, says Jeramie Scott, national security fellow at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. 'It uses terms like "vulnerability to a network" and "threat to the integrity of a network" in its definition that are left to the private sector to interpret,' Scott says.
Definitions covering data are vague enough to invite oversharing
"CISPA’s vagueness gives private companies a lot of wiggle room to overshare information."
On the post: Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many attacks by domestic terrorists have we had?
On the post: DOJ Helped AT&T, Others Avoid Wiretap Act, Promised Not To Charge Them If They Helped Spy On People
Re:
This isn't limited to phone companies. Lots of companies are compiling data. If anything, the phone companies have far less of it than other companies.
CISPA suffers setback in Senate citing privacy concerns | Politics and Law - CNET News: "The Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act, commonly known as CISPA, permits private sector companies -- including technology firms, such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft, among others -- to pass 'cyber threat' data, including personal user data, to the U.S. government.
"This means a company like Facebook, Twitter, Google, or any other technology or telecoms company, including your cell service provider, would be legally able to hand over vast amounts of data to the U.S. government and its law enforcement -- for whatever purpose it deems necessary -- and face no legal reprisals."
On the post: DOJ Helped AT&T, Others Avoid Wiretap Act, Promised Not To Charge Them If They Helped Spy On People
Re: Data sharing
New Technology Inspires a Rethinking of Light - NYTimes.com: "Recognizing this, other companies, like the newly renamed Sensity Systems (formerly Xeralux) are reimagining lampposts as nodes in a smart network that illuminate spaces, visually monitor them, sense heat and communicate with other nodes and human monitors."
On the post: DOJ Helped AT&T, Others Avoid Wiretap Act, Promised Not To Charge Them If They Helped Spy On People
Re: Data sharing
What's being worked out now is what happens with the data and who is protected. The companies want to continue to monitor people, save the data, and act on the data, but they want to cover themselves so that they don't get in trouble for all of this monitoring.
You will likely see laws drafted or regulations dropped to protect the companies. It's not about citizen privacy because that would kill what these data gathering and data selling companies are doing.
On the post: DOJ Helped AT&T, Others Avoid Wiretap Act, Promised Not To Charge Them If They Helped Spy On People
Data sharing
The data gathering companies are already eavesdropping (with user's consent through the service agreement). If government got out of the security business and just handed it over to private enterprise, we'd end up with as much or more monitoring than we have now, but that would skirt some of the politics of government being involved.
I keep point out that companies want to monitor people and are already doing it. They will get their way, given the way things work in DC.
On the post: Fake Tweet And Algorithmically Twitchy Financial Markets Lead To Market Swing; But Is That So Bad?
Here's a good piece
Solutions Remain Elusive After Financial Crisis - NYTimes.com
On the post: Fake Tweet And Algorithmically Twitchy Financial Markets Lead To Market Swing; But Is That So Bad?
Re: when you look around the stock market for the mark...
now ? a rigged game for the uber-rich to milk the masses even more; and algo/millisecond trading is simply another tool to do that...
I'd say that's how lots of people view it today. Decades ago people formed investment clubs and did their own research and invested in companies that they felt had long term potential.
Now, with trades happening so quickly and for reasons that often have nothing to do with the quality of the corporations, why would people want to put their hard earned cash into the market?
And further, when you see CEOs rewarded even though their companies are doing badly, how much faith should one have in the entire financial system? And of course, there have been the financial bailouts. How many people believe Wall Street knows what it is doing?
On the post: Fake Tweet And Algorithmically Twitchy Financial Markets Lead To Market Swing; But Is That So Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Algorithmic control and fast trading
Between the change in the world economy (growth is much less assured now) and the changing nature of investments, that range of investment opportunities just isn't there anymore. And if you look at who is making money, it isn't the majority of people in the country. They are treading water at best. The population as a whole isn't reaping any rewards from whatever investment opportunities there are.
On the post: Fake Tweet And Algorithmically Twitchy Financial Markets Lead To Market Swing; But Is That So Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Algorithmic control and fast trading
I was talking about someone approaching 65. Yes, if you are young enough and have you enough years ahead of you, then putting money into the S&P 500 is a good idea. But if you are approaching retirement, there are fewer safe places to put your money. Either they are volatile or don't pay much in the way of a return.
On the post: Fake Tweet And Algorithmically Twitchy Financial Markets Lead To Market Swing; But Is That So Bad?
Re: Algorithmic control and fast trading
What happened to a lot of Baby Boomers is that they were saving for retirement and then saw their portfolios take major hits several times since 2000. Now they really can't afford to take more risks and don't want to get back into the market.
There aren't really any great investments right now, particularly safe ones, but at least if you hang on to cash, given the low inflation rate, you won't lose that.
The people who have money to lose, have money (which they are throwing into property, the market, art, and angel investing). A lot of other people don't any money to lose. As income inequality increases, the participation in the market will likely continue to shrink.
The stock market no longer has an aura as a place to improve your lot in life.
On the post: Fake Tweet And Algorithmically Twitchy Financial Markets Lead To Market Swing; But Is That So Bad?
Re: Deliberate manipulation
But with the rapid trades now, it is increasingly a sucker's game unless you have ultra-fast computers. It's sad that some of the best minds in the country have been used to create computer programs to shuffle money around rather than actually doing something to help humanity.
Next >>