Lost Fingers
-
Bruce Schneier, one of the foremost computer security experts, gave an interview recently on the state of cryptography. It's kind of short and my impression was that the interviewer was hoping for some more flashy answers. The only real interesting thing is that Schneier thinks that we're making progress on the SPAM problem and cryptography won't help here.
I read his monthly Crypto-Gram newsletter because it's always an interesting set of thoughts and essays. And some very interesting links on things that mostly relate to security, not necessarily cryptography. I used to think it was cool to be a crypto guy until I started looking at the mathematics involved. Maybe it's just me, but as someone who's had 9 semesters of calculus, I was blown away and quickly realized that wasn't my field.
He looks at things in an interesting and fascinating way. Ways that bring to mind how a criminal or terrorist might assess a situation. I'm not an expert, but it often seems to me that much of the way we implement security, at least in the US, is based more on making people feel safe than actually trying to prevent criminals from doing things.
In the April issue, he talked about a new threat in biometrics. Cars being secured by fingerprint readers to prevent theft. Not a bad idea and probably works pretty well in abstract, like if you're on an airplane. In this case, the criminals cut off the finger of the driver and used that. In Russia, more security devices on cars have resulted in more carjackings where the drivers are around. Criminals constantly prove themselves to be smart.
Now take that fingerprint reader off the data center door. I'd prefer a good old fashioned key. One I can give up.
Steve Jones
-
Here in Minnesota, one of the local grocery store chains has just introduced a payment method using your fingerprint and a code. Scan your index finger and payment for your groceries comes right out of your checking account.
No thanks, I'll pass.
Scott
-
The perception of safety is always been the key or finger for the premise of security, not the actual prevention of crime. The circle of logic that exists in the 'its against the law to defeat the security measures' will always assure that fact.
I suspect I will digress ....
Increasing security measures must always result in a loss of personal freedom. And in all honesty, personal freedom is what seems to be issue, not differing religeous paradigms, although that maybe the vessel by which it is passed through.
The flying of planes into buildings is wrong on so many levels and does warrant a response of similar magnititude. For 'pluralism and freedom' are worth fighting for and 120,000,000 and 1 at least think so. The saddening part though it seems both 'pluralism and freedom' are lost in the fight, the difference being I guess that exists here (the west) is that policy can be changed through electorial process.
Or is that just the perception of safety?
(BTW ... it might seem like I was poking holes into Monroe directives, I can through verbal circles, (as many left leaning media types can) create the misunderstanding and gloss over other social accoutrements, some of which include equal rights for men and women, public institutions with cheques and balances, such as schools, parks, centers, that are not predominately tied to any religeon, ones that foster community rather than dogma. All of which are keystones to the need to foster them and repell others who would threaten some might call 'modern' schools of thought.
The soapbox is now free.
-
"The soapbox is now free."
OK. Ahem... "Consider the lily..."
Yep, security is silliness. Man's desire to surpass natural law and guarantee things that cannot be guaranteed mixed with his laziness: Want it to be really secure, but also want it to be easy for me to get to...
-
Heh, great point Steve .. I never really liked them biometric scanners either .. Just the thought of some criminal phunk cutting off min finger, just to get access to my custommers data.. *sight* Not me ..
-
I feel I can speak with great authority on this subject. I'm not referring to the fingerprint scanner. Instead, I'm speaking of loss of a finger. You see, I actually did cut off one of my fingers years ago. I definitely DO NOT recommend this to ANYONE. Besides, wouldn't a fingerprint scanner be discriminatory towards people like me!
-
Have you looked under the couch... whenever I lose anything I look there first.
-
Hahaha! Great one GPF2^192 ...
Ohh, and mcape, sorry about Your finger ..
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply