The BBC highlights a study that shows humans can actually sense danger with smell, assuming prior experience/exposure:
The 12 volunteers were exposed to two “grassy” odours, and none of them could accurately tell the difference between them.
After they were shocked while smelling one of them, they developed the ability to discriminate between the two.
Do they mean marijuana? Was this really a study to get people with addictions to steer clear? Imagine the impact to the cocaine market if convicted addicts were conditioned so the smell would turn them away.
Ethical questions abound, but it also makes me think about the discussions I often have with risk managers. They do not smell danger while the technical security engineers do, and thus a discussion erupts about who is right and what is real. In the end, the primary issue I see with the study above is that it shows pre-conditioning response as opposed to the ability to actually smell danger itself.
Based on the recent research that showed passwords were stored in memory and could be accessed through a cold-boot attack, a new tool has been announced at CanSecWest. The Register reports:
DaisyDukes is a memory sniffer that resides on a USB device. A researcher can plug it into an unattended machine that is turned on but has been locked and reboot the machine off a compact operating system contained on the drive. Depending on the user’s needs, it can be configured to capture the entire contents of a computer’s memory, or sniff out only certain types of data – say a password to access the company network or unlock a user’s private encryption key
Wish I had a memory sniffer for real life. That would be a real time saver.
You should look carefully the next time you see a squirrel running around carrying a nut. It could be a critter enlisted by law enforcement to carry the latest in surveillance technology, as the BBC reports:
“With these cameras, anywhere a tiger went or whatever it did, we could keep on filming it. They were the ultimate filming devices.”
Mr Downer added: “This sort of thing hasn’t been done before.
“It is a bit of a bonkers idea, and in my wildest dreams, when I thought about the challenges of filming tigers, I never thought we would suceed in doing what we did in this way, but now it seems the most natural thing in the world.”
Honestly I think I have seen this on snowboarders and other extreme sports fanatics. If you are going to film wild things in the wild, you have to assume some form/degree of participation with those you investigate; the technology enhances the art of spying but does not transform it entirely.
According to the Star Bulletin a hospital in Hawaii actually caught the sneaky horse when it arrived on the third floor:
The patient’s relative was intoxicated, said Lani Yukimura, spokeswoman for the hospital. And he called from the lobby to say he was bringing the horse up about 7 p.m., after employees at the front desk had gone home.
He never made it to the man’s room. Security stopped him as he got off the elevator.
“It’s a very dangerous thing,” Yukimura added. “Our greatest concern is patient care.”
Still, hospital staff brought out the patient to see the horse, but the relative was wrong on two counts — it was the wrong horse and didn’t even belong to the patient.
Wrong horse. At least he had the right hospital. The front desk employees had gone home? Perhaps security saw a horse on surveillance, or maybe they smelled something funny…
Note how the hospital spokesperson turns such an embarassing incident into a marketing message about concern for patient care. Nicely done, but you really can’t get away from the fact that a horse was able to visit the third floor.