Monthly Archives: April 2008

History, Security

Microsoft General Counsel Compares Windows Success to Urban Crime

Leave a comment

Oh, ok, not really. But close…

He actually says the “digital population growth” is the problem.

Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith used the rapid urban population growth in the 19th century to illustrate how COFEE is supposed to work. As more packed cities led to an increase in urban crime, digital population growth today creates the same nooks and crannies for the seedier elements of a society. Microsoft’s goal in partnering with various law enforcement agencies is to give police officers more effective tools for peering into such dark spaces; hopefully preventing predatorial attacks before they begin.

Not sure about you, but a more appropriate analogy for COFEE might be a safe manufacturer selling backdoor keys to “partners”.

Seriously, though, this is a sales/marketing strategy to provide a sense of security? It’s like Microsoft might actually believe the broken-window theory of economics works, rather than being a fallacy. I mean who qualifies as a partner?

Here’s a real gem from the Microsoft marketing team:

One area we are clearly having successes in is our work to identify and anticipate new trends in cybercrimes.

Really? Would those trends have anything to do with operating systems that are released to the public full of security bugs and weak configurations?

At least they came up with a cute acronym. Everybody loves coffee.

Food, Security

How the FDA squashed the miracle berry

Leave a comment

This is not about the Blackberry. A conspiracy-theory laden report in the BBC tells how the US sweetener (corn?) industry manipulated the FDA to crush competition:

Legal advice and contact with the FDA had led Harvey to believe that the extract from the berry would be allowed under the classification “generally recognised as safe”. Having been eaten for centuries in Africa, without anecdotal reports of problems, it could be assumed not to be harmful.

But the FDA decided it would be considered as an additive which required several years more testing. In the poor economic climate of 1974, this could not be funded and the company folded.

“I was in shock,” says Harvey. “We were on very good terms with the FDA and enjoyed their full support. There was no sign of any problem. Without any opportunity to know what the concern was and who raised it, and to respond to it – they just banned the product.”

One might also suspect Harvey was naive, or there was a general lack of planning on his part, or his financial backers threw in the towel. However, other aspects of the story suggest industrial interference played a role.

A car was spotted driving back and forwards past Miralin’s offices, slowing down as someone took photographs of the building. Then, late one night, Harvey was followed as he drove home.

“I sped up, then he sped up. I pulled into this dirt access road and turned off my lights and the other car went past the end of the road at a very high speed. Clearly I was being monitored.”

Finally, at the end of that summer, Harvey and Emery arrived back at the office after dinner to find they were being burgled. The burglars escaped and were never found, but the main FDA file was left lying open on the floor.

A few weeks later the FDA, which had previously been very supportive, wrote to Miralin, effectively banning its product. No co-incidence, according to Don Emery.

“I honestly believe that we were done in by some industrial interest that did not want to see us survive because we were a threat. Somebody influenced somebody in the FDA to cause the regulatory action that was taken against us.”

All questions of “if you suspected foul play why didn’t you plan to defend yourself” aside, I have to wonder why it was only a product marketed for the US. Barclays was a backer, so surely they were aware of market options in Europe, let alone Asia.

Security

CA regulates cell-phone use in cars

4 Comments

Cell-phones will be regulated in CA for drivers starting July 1, 2008:

The first [law] prohibits all drivers from using a handheld wireless telephone while operating a motor vehicle, (Vehicle Code (VC) -23123). Motorists 18 and over may use a “hands-free device.” [The second law states] drivers under the age of 18 may NOT use a wireless telephone or hands-free device while operating a motor vehicle (VC -23124).

The Q&A section is fascinating. Note that texting and dialing are not regulated, only speaking with one hand next to your head.

Q: Does the new “hands-free” law prohibit you from dialing a wireless telephone while driving or just talking on it?
A: The new law does not prohibit dialing, but drivers are strongly urged not to dial while driving.

“Strongly urged”? Compliance authoring is definitely not an exact science.

Q: Will it be legal to use a Bluetooth or other earpiece?
A: Yes, however you cannot have BOTH ears covered.

Q: Does the new “hands-free” law allow you to use the speaker phone function of your wireless telephone while driving?
A: Yes.

Q: Does the new “hands-free” law allow drivers 18 and over to text message while driving?
A: The law does not specifically prohibit that, but an officer can pull over and issue a citation to a driver of any age if, in the officer’s opinion, the driver was distracted and not operating the vehicle safely. Sending text messages while driving is unsafe at any speed and is strongly discouraged.

Texting is surely more dangerous than speaking, as is dialing. I guess it’s a start.

Security

Human mistakes are predictable

Leave a comment

A study has found that routine mistakes are predictable:

Monotonous duties switch our brain to “rest mode”, whether we like it or not, the researchers report in Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences.

They found mistakes can be predicted up to 30 seconds before we make them, by patterns in our brain activity.

Sounds like an Asimov novel is about to come true.

The team hopes to design an early-warning brain monitor for pilots and others in “critical situations”.

The scientists say the device would be particularly suitable for monotonous jobs where focus is hard to maintain – such as passport and immigration control.

Robots handling passport and immigration control? No, this group predicts that they can help people by forcing their brains to stay alert instead of switching to “autopilot”. I wonder if there is a trade-off in terms of risk or health costs.

“Autopilot would be a better metaphor,” he explains. “We can assume that the tendency to economise task performance leads to an inappropriate reduction of effort, thus causing errors.”

Since this state begins about 30 seconds prior to a mistake being made, it could be possible to design an early-warning system that alerts people to be more focused or more careful, said the researchers.

Alternatively, maybe human jobs could be made less monotonous so that the brain is not tempted to economize? What if, for example, people were rotated and given shorter shifts, with more breaks?