As a IT security guy, I used to read cyberattack and data breaches news, trying to learn from others missteps. However, in the past few months, it becomes impossible to keep up with those stories! There is a cyber security info explosion in mass media. Blogger, journalist, lawyers, bankers and even comedian started to comment on cyber security.
Just thinking, we may need a course to teach people how to (not to ) write about cyber attacks. Purely rely on fear factor is not helping.
Sharing of infrastructure means a lot of things, this time China GFW case taught us about sharing reputations.
Verizon EdgeCast Blog “CDNs and networks are being filtered or blocked by the Great Firewall of China.”
I really don’t like the opening story of this article but it is one of the most interesting story telling how software become part of our life and memory. Our love and hate with password will never end. Even in Sci-Fi world, Star Trek captain still needs a code to activate the auto-destruct system !
Read the stories about a mom discovered her son was gay when she researched on the password of the son’s password (“Lambda1969”) after he committed suicide, password may be serve as a will. Something the son believes that people will definitely found out after his death.
NYTimes : The Secret Life of Passwords
“Virtually all the people who revealed their passwords to me said they planned to stop using them. And yet they divulged them all the same.”
Reading a law professor letter to NYTimes, I notice a line of thoughts encroached our society: Truth, fairness and objectivity are within reach with data analytics. The author arguing against using data scores to calculate sentencing said
“Data-driven predictions grounded in legitimate factors might be about as accurate as current profiling schemes. There is no persuasive evidence that the current troubling variables add much predictive value, once criminal conduct is already taken into account. But even if they do improve accuracy, this gain doesn’t justify sacrificing fairness.”
In turn, she tried to weight traditional and data driven methods, when justices and fairness are concerned. The underlying tone is that there is a correct sentencing and judges should pursue it whenever possible.
Human hunt of fairness and objectivity goes astray. A correct sentencing doesn’t exist, no matter how we hard we try, how smart our algorithms become. Using data driven decision making tools should not let us to play God’s (or Gods’ ) role.
If we accept data is not truth and we are not God, then the seemingly unfair situation “that people should be imprisoned longer because they are poor” is a fallacy. One way of the other, judges make decision based some references point, be it his/her visit to Disneyland or prison, be it the risk score of the convicted. There is no faultless human decision.