Monthly Archives: June 2006

Security

Cell-phones and lightning don’t mix

2 Comments

The British Medical Journal has published a report related to the dangers of using a cell-phone during a lightning storm:

We report the case of a 15 year old girl who was witnessed being struck by lightning while using her mobile phone in a large park in London during stormy weather. The girl has no recollection of events because she had an asystolic cardiac arrest.

She was successfully resuscitated, but one year later she was a wheelchair user with complex physical, cognitive, and emotional problems, as well as a persistent perforation of the left [eardrum] with associated conductive hearing loss on the side she was holding the mobile phone.

Ouch. According to the article a cell-phone conducts the energy of lightning in such a way that it bypasses the human skin’s natural resistance and leads to greater/internal injuries.

Anyone else curious about the surrounding terrain and how many other cell-phone users there were at the time of the strike? I mean, did her particular phone increase the likelihood of being struck, or does it just increase the damage during a strike? So many cell-phones, so few struck by lightning…

I find it very odd that all the reports and news about this seem to confuse the likelihood of being struck by lightning with the increased likelihood of damage during a strike. Very different risks, which invite different user-awareness programs, let alone technical counter-measures.

I hate to say it but this seems like a good segue to making lightning-safe bluetooth headsets for people who have to work on the phone in stormy conditions (like rescue or utility teams). The opposite of lightning rods? WWBFD (What would Ben Franklin do)?

After all, once the proper risk has been highlighted (whether that be damage during a strike or causing a strike, or both) the cost of avoidance can be factored more easily. Some might be willing to pay a bit more for a lightning proof headset in order to be able to bypass the newly associated/reported risks.

History, Poetry

Bierce could be fierce

Leave a comment

His report on the assassination of a governor-elect:

The bullet that pierced Goebel’s breast
Can not be found in all the West;
Good reason, it is speeding here
To stretch McKinley on his bier.

The Wikipedia has a nice summary of the events that led to this poem:

On January 30, 1900, before the committee had formally published its findings, [Democratic candidate] Goebel was shot by a sniper as he was walking up the steps of the State Capitol building. Incumbent Republican governor William S. Taylor declared a state emergency, called out the militia, and called the General Assembly into special session. In the immediate aftermath of the events, the legislature certified the election in Goebel’s favor, although the Republicans in the General Assembly refused to accept the commission’s finding.

And speaking of death, here is how Bierce put things in his last correspondence:

Good-by — if you hear of my being stood up against a Mexican stone wall and shot to rags please know that I think that a pretty good way to depart this life. It beats old age, disease, or falling down the cellar stairs. To be a Gringo in Mexico — ah, that is euthanasia.

Sometimes I wonder if people living in the United States ever think about what life was like 100 years ago, or how things could end up if they don’t think about it…

Security

What if AT&T 0wn3d you?

Leave a comment

Here’s a creative mix of Star Wars and Telecom marketing, although the comparison is a bit harsh:

Deathstar
Worried about hackers getting your data? Consumers are being asked by a company to agree that “all your data are belong to us” before they will give you any service. Those who already have service…well, that’s not so clear yet.

SFGate has the scoop:

The new policy says that AT&T — not customers — owns customers’ confidential info and can use it “to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process.”

The policy also indicates that AT&T will track the viewing habits of customers of its new video service — something that cable and satellite providers are prohibited from doing.

Moreover, AT&T (formerly known as SBC) is requiring customers to agree to its updated privacy policy as a condition for service — a new move that legal experts say will reduce customers’ recourse for any future data sharing with government authorities or others.

And now for the two edges of the sword…

AT&T said in a statement last month that it “has a long history of vigorously protecting customer privacy” and that “our customers expect, deserve and receive nothing less than our fullest commitment to their privacy.”

But the company also asserted that it has “an obligation to assist law enforcement and other government agencies responsible for protecting the public welfare, whether it be an individual or the security interests of the entire nation.”

So this reminds me of the old Lincoln-Douglas debate topic “Should the public’s right to know outweigh national security interests?” except that no-one even close to the oratory power of Lincoln or Douglas seems to be speaking about the topic. So far I’ve only heard lawyers from AT&T say “don’t worry, this is just a minor clarification”; not exactly a heart-warming defense.

Can you imagine if the rulers of a country had to agree that the public has full and unfettered ownership of their confidential data, even when in power, before they were allowed to take office? Just curious how far the logic might extend…