Killer Robots By Accident or On Purpose?

There are companies like Lockheed Martin making autonomous killing robots, and there are companies like Google making self-driving cars (which kill people by accident or poor design). At least cars don’t tend to kill on purpose, and the Google self-driving car hasn’t had a deadly accident (or one it caused, of any kind). So, what’s worse? Intentionally creating machines that can destroy humans, or accidentally doing it? Let’s aim at neither.

Many people have seen the Sci-Fi movie Terminator and Terminator 2. They were made before the WWW, and before Skynet seemed like a possibility. Now we have 3D printers, we have walking and flying robots who can shoot, and we have a global intelligence network those machines connect directly to. We need to be very cautious in Artificial Intelligence development over the coming years, or a small group of people could make a mistake that could cost millions (billions?) of lives.

ConCalls: Documentary Underway

I was interviewed for the E-Day documentary film being wrapped up this Summer. What’d I say? You’ll have to wait until it’s been all put together. I can’t wait!

Please help Peter put this movie in front of thousands of Canadians.

Hilldog16 on SnapChat?

I have a Snapchat account. I’ve not used it in years because it was making my cell phone too full. Imagine if Hillary Clinton had a Snapchat account too, for government business? Her’s would be used for an illegal purpose, like her personal email was. You may recall Sarah Palin got into trouble (without apparent consequence) for this sort of thing too.

Borg at #UofR on Privacy

MP for north shore Montreal, Charmaine Borg, made a presentation at the UofR this morning.

Of the things she noted was that cell phones are tracking devices, and Canadians have no way to follow their information to know who has it.

Charmaine met Erin and said she had an important question for him. She instantly asked him the question Hoback did; it was funny.

Privacy contracts are not decipherable by some lawyers let alone teens.

Borg: it’s “extremely problematic” the Conservatives scrap a census as a “#privacy violation”, while using cyber back door to violate us.

Continue reading

#HeartBleed Bug is a Pun You Should Care About

Your passwords used on the Internet are likely known to bad people if you’ve recently logged into Yahoo, the CRA, or other popular websites. You should consider changing all of your passwords next week if you’ve used them on the Internet, in case they were exposed by an attack using the “heartbleed” bug. This flaw in OpenSSL security allows attackers to get a “heartbeat” response from affected servers, including your password in an unencrypted form.

With computer security, if you have high convenience, you’re likely experiencing a low level of security. So throw away those old passwords, and pick some new ones to use with different websites. The more passwords you have, the fewer sites you’ll lose access to if one password is learned by an attacker.

Passwords Holding the Web Together

I noticed another person with a CIBC 2-factor authentication fob on their key chain last week. It displays a seemingly random number that actually only a special server knows, so if a password is stolen, so too must the fob containing the random number code that changes every minute. Without both the password, and the fob, a thief is unable to log into a stolen account.

Passwords make the Web work, so we can have ‘our’ stuff, and keep unwanted and very unwelcome people from viewing it and changing our own information. So a title like “Kill the Password: Why a String of Characters Can’t Protect Us Anymore” should be very, very concerning to people and businesses depending upon computers alike.

This Forbes headline caught my eye recently, and I have mixed feelings about it. “Kill the Password: Why a String of Characters Can’t Protect Us Anymore”. Is it going to work to keep computer information secure? My scepticism is sky-high following the Snowden leaks of NSA and related world spying agencies overstepping their constitutional bounds. Could we really design a technology where it’s secure enough to trust the government to implement it for us? I’d trust it only after an intelligent group of individuals who understand encryption very well, give it a thumbs-up. Someone who has worked with WikiLeaks, and works on an anonymous Web system called Tor is Jacob Appelbaum. If Jacob gave a system the thumbs up, or a thumbs down, I’d take his word for it. Even better, he could explain why a system works, or does not.

Is another security technology on the horizon going to change the Web almost overnight in a very drastic or revolutionary way? I wish I had the answers. Maybe the NSA has the answer already? We can’t trust them, however.