BlueHorse, chips in animals aren't for security; they're for identification.
All a chip does is identify the chip in the person. Add a determined person with an x-acto and tweezers or a depraved surgeon to the fray, fake the chip and we're even worse off.
Conversely, a suicide bomber wouldn't care if they're ID'd.
path: Identification can be forged. The front page post proves it. Beyond identity theft, people talk about national IDs for counterterrorism and the like. This won't work...for the very reason identities are faked and assumed, nonwithstanding the implications around a centralized database. But that's another topic.
A national ID I fear most. Right now, to assume an identity, there are steps and phases. A birth certificiate, driver's license, social security number...they all add up to build identity. A national ID would carry so much weight, that when faked, that's all you need.
When it comes to identity theft or any attempt to get unauthorized access, social engineering—a college word for tricking people—is bar none the most powerful and effective tool (outside the potential for a national ID).
Take what James Rinaldo Jackson did to find out about Steven Spielberg:
He started by calling the Screen Actors Guild and tricking an operator into sharing the name of the guild’s health care insurance provider. Then he called the provider’s toll-free number and pretended to be an administrator at a medical provider looking to verify coverage for billing purposes. Helpful operators spat back Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, and other private information. “All I needed was a name,” he said. Then, he would start his “prowl.”
All it takes is a little information. Each bit allowed him to social engineer the next more valuable piece.
As far as identity goes, as "James Rinaldo Jackson", he didn't have access to medical records. But internal account managers do. All he had to do was pretend to be one, verifying coverage. He faked identity (account manager) and a reason (verifying coverage). They are both plausible to the person on the other end of the phone.
The trouble is, even if the health care provider only allowed the real account manager to such information, all he had to do was find out that person's name and assume it. Like I said, identity is a very poor security practice.
Intent is key...and identity has very little to do proving intent. I use the "identity" the_they. It doesn't prove I intend to have kids someday. It doesn't matter if my name is John, Jacob or Penelope. That's the difference and its weakness. We use identity to prove intent and people can pretend to be other people.
Identity is not security; it just confirms who I say I am. Every piece of information makes the picture of "me" that much clearer and easier to find the next piece.
It does not prove intent. Whoever can do this will make security in itself, secure.
And that, my monkeys, is the most powerful social engineering tool. Intent. Coupling faux intent with a culled identity is gold—all in a phone call.
I just wish I knew what to do about it.
A Google comes up with two utilities for 2k.
Taskbar Sorter and ButtonBoogie.
XP I'm not so sure about. A quick gander suggests that XP implements the taskbar differently.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Theoretically, had it a been a poor post, the quidnunc kid did something that saved it and SideDish played it.
Show me your MoFi and I'll show you mine.
*hands the quidnunc kid and SideDish a peeled nana*
There is no prevention, only recovery.
I aim to learn from the mistake of my parents. :D
Along those lines, why can't we take bad posts and massage them into what we know and love in MoFi? Play the hand and recover them? If you see a bad post, activate your MoFi-twin powers. Add a little humor and I think others here would run with it.
A possible solution maybe? Find the bannana and run?
The quidnunc kid got out of his car and exclaimed excitedly, "What's up with the weather yo? Why all the hilarious hooptedoodle uptalk about your pain? Has the dark night and 40% chance of rain got to ya? Damn weather peoples. They can't commit to whether it is going to rain or not. Jeepers, now that I think about it, this whole weather thing has got me down too. Hey, nice pants, flashboy."
I pledge to the MoFi constituentcy that I will not partake in any heathen monkery. Count me in SideDish!
I want to make the angry dance and eat mock cheese.
*sits on the floor cross-legged, peels open a brick of Velveeta and waits for vexed hoofers*
I find in academic writing, "argues" suffices quite nicely when there is a firm stance.
Ben argues, "It was a dark and stormy night."
Kimberly argues, "And I was all, And she was like, And then I'm all like ..."
Mmmm. Quite amusing.
"It's too hot out, ya'll!" she exclaimed loudly in her sun dress that no longer had the original buttons. The buttons were brown instead of green and looked like beady little eyes.
*BEADY EYES*
It reminds me of a guy who once skewered my writing on a website. He called it monkeypoo. Why? I don't know...he didn't critique it. I Googled his email address and found his website chock full of cliched writing.
I didn't bother writing to him. Sadly, I know that would've dismissed my critique of "My heart is stone" and "I feel a black void inside" because he believes I cannot write. Possibly, he might have also seen it as a personal vendetta.
I felt bad for him. Hopefully he'll find that slinging bananas is much more fruitful.
For creative writing though, rules were meant to be broken. I bet a good writer could break every single one of the rules in Mr. Leonard's article and turn out a fine piece of writing.
Aye. Yet the proverbial good writer breaks rules to knowningly capture whatever he is looking for. Many of the points brought up in pyrrthon1's and Gyan's links are for people who don't know that breaking those rules, unless carefully crafted, often weaken writing something fierce.
Someone appreciating meaninglessness would appreciate it, whereas someone who didnt get it wouldnt be helped by an explanation.
I have a t-shirt from Despair, Inc. that states, "I found the cure for hope."
It was always a challenge to explain to someone why it was funny.
That just might do it.
posted by the_they 20 years ago
BlueHorse, chips in animals aren't for security; they're for identification. All a chip does is identify the chip in the person. Add a determined person with an x-acto and tweezers or a depraved surgeon to the fray, fake the chip and we're even worse off. Conversely, a suicide bomber wouldn't care if they're ID'd.
posted by the_they 20 years ago
path: Identification can be forged. The front page post proves it. Beyond identity theft, people talk about national IDs for counterterrorism and the like. This won't work...for the very reason identities are faked and assumed, nonwithstanding the implications around a centralized database. But that's another topic. A national ID I fear most. Right now, to assume an identity, there are steps and phases. A birth certificiate, driver's license, social security number...they all add up to build identity. A national ID would carry so much weight, that when faked, that's all you need. When it comes to identity theft or any attempt to get unauthorized access, social engineering—a college word for tricking people—is bar none the most powerful and effective tool (outside the potential for a national ID). Take what James Rinaldo Jackson did to find out about Steven Spielberg: He started by calling the Screen Actors Guild and tricking an operator into sharing the name of the guild’s health care insurance provider. Then he called the provider’s toll-free number and pretended to be an administrator at a medical provider looking to verify coverage for billing purposes. Helpful operators spat back Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, and other private information. “All I needed was a name,” he said. Then, he would start his “prowl.” All it takes is a little information. Each bit allowed him to social engineer the next more valuable piece. As far as identity goes, as "James Rinaldo Jackson", he didn't have access to medical records. But internal account managers do. All he had to do was pretend to be one, verifying coverage. He faked identity (account manager) and a reason (verifying coverage). They are both plausible to the person on the other end of the phone. The trouble is, even if the health care provider only allowed the real account manager to such information, all he had to do was find out that person's name and assume it. Like I said, identity is a very poor security practice. Intent is key...and identity has very little to do proving intent. I use the "identity" the_they. It doesn't prove I intend to have kids someday. It doesn't matter if my name is John, Jacob or Penelope. That's the difference and its weakness. We use identity to prove intent and people can pretend to be other people.
posted by the_they 20 years ago
Identity is not security; it just confirms who I say I am. Every piece of information makes the picture of "me" that much clearer and easier to find the next piece. It does not prove intent. Whoever can do this will make security in itself, secure. And that, my monkeys, is the most powerful social engineering tool. Intent. Coupling faux intent with a culled identity is gold—all in a phone call. I just wish I knew what to do about it.
posted by the_they 20 years ago
In "Curious George: Where Are My Socks?"
They took them.
posted by the_they 20 years ago
In "Curious, George"
A Google comes up with two utilities for 2k. Taskbar Sorter and ButtonBoogie. XP I'm not so sure about. A quick gander suggests that XP implements the taskbar differently.
posted by the_they 20 years ago
In "A/S/L?"
As a boy, I had temper tantrums sort of like the Hulk, less the testosterone. Now, I'm like a puppy
posted by the_they 20 years ago
In "Self-policing rehash"
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Theoretically, had it a been a poor post, the quidnunc kid did something that saved it and SideDish played it. Show me your MoFi and I'll show you mine. *hands the quidnunc kid and SideDish a peeled nana*
posted by the_they 20 years ago
Yes, there are bannanas here too.
posted by the_they 20 years ago
There is no prevention, only recovery. I aim to learn from the mistake of my parents. :D Along those lines, why can't we take bad posts and massage them into what we know and love in MoFi? Play the hand and recover them? If you see a bad post, activate your MoFi-twin powers. Add a little humor and I think others here would run with it. A possible solution maybe? Find the bannana and run?
posted by the_they 20 years ago
In ""
The quidnunc kid got out of his car and exclaimed excitedly, "What's up with the weather yo? Why all the hilarious hooptedoodle uptalk about your pain? Has the dark night and 40% chance of rain got to ya? Damn weather peoples. They can't commit to whether it is going to rain or not. Jeepers, now that I think about it, this whole weather thing has got me down too. Hey, nice pants, flashboy."
posted by the_they 20 years ago
In "Self-policing rehash"
I pledge to the MoFi constituentcy that I will not partake in any heathen monkery. Count me in SideDish! I want to make the angry dance and eat mock cheese. *sits on the floor cross-legged, peels open a brick of Velveeta and waits for vexed hoofers*
posted by the_they 20 years ago
In ""
I find in academic writing, "argues" suffices quite nicely when there is a firm stance. Ben argues, "It was a dark and stormy night." Kimberly argues, "And I was all, And she was like, And then I'm all like ..." Mmmm. Quite amusing.
posted by the_they 20 years ago
"It's too hot out, ya'll!" she exclaimed loudly in her sun dress that no longer had the original buttons. The buttons were brown instead of green and looked like beady little eyes. *BEADY EYES*
posted by the_they 20 years ago
naxosaxur, criminy! Two question marks? Jeebus!
posted by the_they 20 years ago
It reminds me of a guy who once skewered my writing on a website. He called it monkeypoo. Why? I don't know...he didn't critique it. I Googled his email address and found his website chock full of cliched writing. I didn't bother writing to him. Sadly, I know that would've dismissed my critique of "My heart is stone" and "I feel a black void inside" because he believes I cannot write. Possibly, he might have also seen it as a personal vendetta. I felt bad for him. Hopefully he'll find that slinging bananas is much more fruitful.
posted by the_they 20 years ago
For creative writing though, rules were meant to be broken. I bet a good writer could break every single one of the rules in Mr. Leonard's article and turn out a fine piece of writing. Aye. Yet the proverbial good writer breaks rules to knowningly capture whatever he is looking for. Many of the points brought up in pyrrthon1's and Gyan's links are for people who don't know that breaking those rules, unless carefully crafted, often weaken writing something fierce.
posted by the_they 20 years ago
In ""
Someone appreciating meaninglessness would appreciate it, whereas someone who didnt get it wouldnt be helped by an explanation. I have a t-shirt from Despair, Inc. that states, "I found the cure for hope." It was always a challenge to explain to someone why it was funny.
posted by the_they 20 years ago
I take showers in the morning.
posted by the_they 20 years ago
In "The austere lifestyle of Kim Jong ll"
Legend has it he sported a bouffant hairstyle because being a dictator and all, he couldn't be the last to know when it rains.
posted by the_they 20 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)