Brain Enema of a Savage Mind

Nuke it from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

Google has been addressing users privacy concerns in regards to Google Buzz.  Not only have they worked to amp up the privacy settings (at least attempting to put them on par with rivals), they added an option that allows a user to completely remove Buzz from there account – taking with it any posts or updates that were made as well as removing that user from the list of anyone who might have added them in Buzz.  Kudos to Mountain View for taking the problem seriously and adding a way for people who have no interest in to to be removed completely.

From your GMail account you can go to settings.  Select the Buzz tab, then click on the link for “Disable Google Buzz”.  This will take you to a page to confirm that you really want to do it.  Once you confirm it, that’s it, it’s all gone.

Buzz off!

So Google has unleashed its latest “we want to own all your data” demon in to the wild.  Google Buzz is Google embracing the social media madness.  It’s not terribly surprising that Google is entering this arena.  With the popularity of both Twitter and Facebook it’s hard to ignore to potential for generating a lot of traffic to your site (and by site I mean to the people who advertise on your site).  I know I’m not a fan of Google, and I don’t like the idea of them having huge amounts of my data.  While my few Twitter posts aren’t exactly private or important (same goes for anything I’ve ever put on Facebook), I like less watching one company becoming the soul gateway to all things internet.  No, they haven’t done anything where I can point to and say “See, they’re evil!”.  I don’t necessarily think they plan on doing something horrendous that violates the privacy of millions.  I’m more wary of the massive potential for them (or someone obtaining access to their systems) to essentially control the flow of a great amount of personal information.

While some I know have initially been favorable towards Buzz, I find myself looking at it in a different light.  Of course I have to admit that I am not much fun of “social media” or most of the things with the “Web 2.0″ label.  My involvement with them is mostly limited – checking and posting occasionally merely because a great many people I know use them frequently, and in some cases short of calling them is the only way I have to contact them.  With Twitter I never go to the website if I can avoid it.  It’s hideous, and has already had incidents of being compromised.  I use a Twitter client that is nice, uncluttered, and sits in the background until I’m bored enough to skim it.  Facebook, another site with history of compromises, seemingly changes their layout, privacy controls, and way you interact with it on a weekly basis.  I look at it once or twice a week, but damn I wish it’s popularity amongst the people I knew would wain.  All of this basically goes to say that Google Buzz, from the get go, is not likely to be my cup of tea.  It also should be pointed out that I haven’t touched it at all yet.  I’ve never liked webmail (I find it handy to have at some times), so I deal with all my e-mail via a client.  I can’t remember the last time I logged in to my GMail account via the web.  To be fair I probably should try it, but I’m not one to falsely claim that anything I write here is “Fair and Balanced”.  Generally it’s more “Biased and Obscene”.

Somehow what was meant to be a skeptical look at the idea of Google Buzz turned more in to a rant of my loathing of social media.  I like long rambling posts.  I like actually taking the time to read things.  The short form “thought bursts” or more colloquially “tweets” or “status updates” are fine and well but there is no substance and often times I find myself yearning for me.  Perhaps it’s my background in English literature, but I prefer substance to form, rambling to quips, and long diatribes to a simple pronouncement like: “Social Media Sucks”.

Oh Comcast, you so silly!

Provide horrible customer service?  Constantly disconnecting users from the internet?  Charging highly obscene unadvertised penalties for users using too much data?  Throttling back network connections because your users dare actually use their available bandwidth?  All of this giving you a horrible corporate image that day after day takes more hits in the media?  If so, then there is only one way to make it all better, rebrand yourself!  Why bother actually addressing consumer problems and improving your network capability when you can spend all that money on changing your name!  IN ALL CAPS!  XFINITY!

This is the reason that the US is lagging behind the rest of the modern world in home network infrastructure.  The so-called “gate keepers” of the internet have no real desire nor incentive to fix the ever growing list of network problems.  Because there is a severe lack of provider options in this country, and little to no regulation, companies use rebranding tactics in an attempt to dazzle people in to forgetting their internet sucks.

Nice try, but your 90′s edgy naming attitude ain’t going to cut it Com… er XFINITY.

What, me be evil?

I’ve mused before about Google having power because of their access to amazing amounts of data.  Well one of the things I feared seems to be a step closer to reality.  It appears Google and the NSA are formalizing an agreement to work together.  The motives, on their very surface, seem innocent and practical enough.  The NSA is going to help Google by giving them access to data of corporate hacks so that they can dissect them in order to find ways to protect their own network.  Certainly that doesn’t sound all that evil.  Still, the NSA hasn’t exactly endeared itself to the American public after evidence of massive warrantless wiretapping of the population were brought to light.  The more paranoid amongst us might see this as a step on a slippery slope of the NSA having access to an extraordinary amount of data that could be mined for all sorts of personal details that go far beyond the scope of simply ease dropping on phone calls.

Remember people, privacy isn’t ever going to be a valued commodity until we say enough is enough and make it one.  Exercise your power and your freedom of speech whilst it’s still available to you.

Network connections, the ticking time bomb.

I stumbled upon an interesting article comparing the safety of the internet to both a wild west frontier, and a place ruled by the “laws of the jungle”.  The article details data that was collected about the number, frequency, and scale of attacks on major corporate and governmental networks.  The scary part isn’t that this attacks happen, but how successful they can be.  Each iteration of attack is more sophisticated than the next.  This is going beyond the mere script kiddie attacks that have been common for quite awhile.  The level of sophistication used shows and organization of the attacks, and some sort of infrastructure.

The news has recently talked about these so-called “cyber attacks” by China on various governments and companies around the globe.  While these are the more publicized attacks, the majority of them appear to be coming from highly technical criminal enterprises.  The motive is the same as it always has been with these types of organizations: money.

Companies don’t want to talk about it when these things happen.  Even if they are successful in fending off would-be black mailers or corporate data hijackers, they don’t want to report the attempts.  Fear of a decline in stock prices, giving off the appearance of being weak or vulnerable, or just the all to common veil of corporate secrecy are some of the reasons that these situations are never made public.

What’s even more frightening is that in this time of recession, companies are cutting their security budgets.  They are trying to make due with less.  Meanwhile those who would plunder them are increasing their resources and finding new ways to infiltrate protected networks.  When there are threats on someones physical well-being the typical response isn’t to slash the number of security personnel protecting them, it’s to increase it.  Yet when it comes to data, the life blood of corporate America, this is exactly what they are doing – cutting back security in an attempt to save a couple of bucks.  It’s another striking example of short-sightedness that can end up costing companies more in the long run.

Protecting our networks against these threats is a monumental task.  The internet is a global entity, policing it is near impossible as all governments work under their own set of laws, seldom working well with others.  Attempts at working together often lead to tangled, and slow moving bureaucracies.  Governments are not designed to be quick and responsive, however the internet is an ever changing rapidly evolving place.  It requires a quickness of response.

There’s not a clear cut solution to this.  Just as with any other type of crime there is no fool-proof system that can’t be cracked.  Education and ever evolving security practices can minimize the risk.  Just like you shouldn’t walk through a bad part of town with a wallet stuffed with cash, corporate networks shouldn’t leave their data out in the wind, unprotected where someone with a little technical aptitude can get at it.