- Is it okay for your usage to be recorded comprehensively by a third party?
- What data is actually transmitted to Carrier IQ or by Carrier IQ to other companies? In terms of wiretapping legality, this is the rub.
Saturday, December 03, 2011
Android/Blackberry "Rootkill"?
All your keystrokes and GPS locations "are" belong to 3rd party company Carrier IQ. According to Forbes magazine, Carrier IQ has a deeply embedding surveillance application found on Android (Samsung, HTC, Nokia) and RIM devices. System administrator Trevor Eckhart uncovered unsolicited and comprehensive tracking and storing of data usage including URLs, app usage, texts of smartphone users. There is a potential for violation of a 1986 federal wiretapping law on a massive scale. Carrier IQ issued Eckhart a threatening cease-and-desist letter but an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation came to the defense. Is Carrier IQ a bully or just afraid of slander? Readers weighing in parse the issue in two ways:
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Rose-Colored Americans
Honor Code
Is the honor code an American phenomenon? I had assumed it was the commonly understood standard by which all people expect themselves and others to live up to; however, a friend from France/Belgium/Angola told me the idea of an honor code is an American concept. She tells me for the rest of the world if you can get away with it while advancing yourself, the ends justify the means. A crude definition of the honor code: honestly taking credit for your own work (giving credit where credit's due). Friends from India corroborate the lack of this "American" code by pointing out the rampant cheating that occurs in schools, particularly note passing during exams. My Indian friends somewhat rationalized it by saying how difficult tests are in India; everyone there is doing it and you are at a disadvantage if you don't do it yourself. Another way to look at this is the opposite of honor: what is shameful? According to the honor code, dishonest gain is intrinsically shameful. In a society where such a code is not commonplace, the only shame is getting caught in the dishonest act. So my Indian friends tell me if you choose to not advance yourself for the sake of honesty, you are considered a fool.
Why is this is so important? Society cannot be sustained by perceptions. We need concrete, usable production and real results. Without the honor code people will try to and have cut corners. An example of this is the melanin-milk scandal in China: Use watered-down milk mixed with melanin to give the impression of "normal" protein content. Sell this pseudo-milk to families which feed it to their babies, whom then suffer permanent kidney injury and death. Whatever happened to taking pride in the quality of the work you do? Is this how things devolve when there is no one to answer to?
Perhaps it is not American per se as reflected by past European discourse on virtue. Instead it looks "American" because the erosion of the West's Judeo-Christian ethic ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor") has not penetrated the U.S. as deeply. A universal outcry still arises when we catch someone taking credit for another's work. So in may places there remains an expectation of honor in others but not of yourself because you want to keep your vices. This is also is hypocrisy. "Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue." (Francois de la Rochefoucauld)
Win-Win
Is the concept of win-win also an American phenomenon? At least in the West, it is an understood bargaining position. A manager in manufacturing went to Korea to help set up a plant. In his efforts to bargain he found they never heard of win-win. He tried to provide a "win-win" compromise however the Korean negotiators said they didn't understand win-win. So he explained it meant both his company and their company benefited from this setup. Their response was, "We don't care whether your company wins. I want to win. I want to win." I want to think this is an issue of something loss in translation; otherwise, how could negotiations proceed?
These two ideas of honor code and win-win make me think there is a sort of naivety that American's have of the world around them. People do not play by the same rules. This isn't a call for cynicism but a look at our assumptions. The U.S. is not above greed nor selfishness but our cross-cultural discourse need such awareness.
Is the honor code an American phenomenon? I had assumed it was the commonly understood standard by which all people expect themselves and others to live up to; however, a friend from France/Belgium/Angola told me the idea of an honor code is an American concept. She tells me for the rest of the world if you can get away with it while advancing yourself, the ends justify the means. A crude definition of the honor code: honestly taking credit for your own work (giving credit where credit's due). Friends from India corroborate the lack of this "American" code by pointing out the rampant cheating that occurs in schools, particularly note passing during exams. My Indian friends somewhat rationalized it by saying how difficult tests are in India; everyone there is doing it and you are at a disadvantage if you don't do it yourself. Another way to look at this is the opposite of honor: what is shameful? According to the honor code, dishonest gain is intrinsically shameful. In a society where such a code is not commonplace, the only shame is getting caught in the dishonest act. So my Indian friends tell me if you choose to not advance yourself for the sake of honesty, you are considered a fool.
Why is this is so important? Society cannot be sustained by perceptions. We need concrete, usable production and real results. Without the honor code people will try to and have cut corners. An example of this is the melanin-milk scandal in China: Use watered-down milk mixed with melanin to give the impression of "normal" protein content. Sell this pseudo-milk to families which feed it to their babies, whom then suffer permanent kidney injury and death. Whatever happened to taking pride in the quality of the work you do? Is this how things devolve when there is no one to answer to?
Perhaps it is not American per se as reflected by past European discourse on virtue. Instead it looks "American" because the erosion of the West's Judeo-Christian ethic ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor") has not penetrated the U.S. as deeply. A universal outcry still arises when we catch someone taking credit for another's work. So in may places there remains an expectation of honor in others but not of yourself because you want to keep your vices. This is also is hypocrisy. "Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue." (Francois de la Rochefoucauld)
Win-Win
Is the concept of win-win also an American phenomenon? At least in the West, it is an understood bargaining position. A manager in manufacturing went to Korea to help set up a plant. In his efforts to bargain he found they never heard of win-win. He tried to provide a "win-win" compromise however the Korean negotiators said they didn't understand win-win. So he explained it meant both his company and their company benefited from this setup. Their response was, "We don't care whether your company wins. I want to win. I want to win." I want to think this is an issue of something loss in translation; otherwise, how could negotiations proceed?
These two ideas of honor code and win-win make me think there is a sort of naivety that American's have of the world around them. People do not play by the same rules. This isn't a call for cynicism but a look at our assumptions. The U.S. is not above greed nor selfishness but our cross-cultural discourse need such awareness.
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Hitchens Lennox Debate
The debate on "Is God Great" between atheist journalist Christopher Hitchens and Christian pure mathematics professor John Lennox at University of Alabama Birmingham was an event where two individuals not only appealed to reason but also to emotion. I found Lennox more capable of grasping philosophical and logical angles. Hitchens' arguments hinge not on debating creation vs. evolution but on two main posits:
Responding to the first posit, Lennox also plays the "cruelty" card. Atheism permits only the impersonal forces of material interactions. For Lennox, the random forces of chance are cruel in rendering all things meaningless and worthless: you are just a combination of programmed responses to physical stimuli and chemical reactions. As for the second, Lennox points out that, logically, a purely atheistic system precludes any objective morality, thus the system is permissive of atrocities. He keenly points out that, yes, people identifying as Christians have committed atrocities but this is in violation of Christianity; whereas, atheists commit atrocities without violating atheism. The amoral atheistic system results in an endgame where Might does make Right; the fittest do survive; and Nietzsche's Übermensch–a superior race–should dominate. The fallacy in Hitchens' worldview then, is the absence of objective goodness, which if Hitchens is to remain consistent, he could not deign something or someone as "not great"–as his book title proposes. In this debate Hitchens partially concedes this lack of objective morality in Atheism, but he still admits that he still thinks morality does exist.
What is considered cruel then? For both individuals, cruelty takes on forms of determinism. Hitchens essentially asks: If God is [omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, good and loving], does He orchestrate the entire composition and circumstances of an individual, knowing full well that this very person is thus fated to commit evil, reject God, and be sentenced to Hell? Is one unavoidably faced with harm and folly? Does God orchestrate the suffering of millions over time? Such questions address the problem of evil and destiny that any worldviews should attempt to answer.
Lennox counters by portraying the cruel determinism of atheism. Under such a system we are irrevocably compelled to act and behave because we as electrochemical-soup-sacks are all "dancing to our DNA" (quoting Richard Dawkins). No matter how terrible our actions or their consequences, everything and everyone is just moving, colliding, and drifting for no reason at all. Disaster strikes, suffering happens without any explanation. Life is meaningless. Atheism doesn't allow you to "make your own meaning" because you're just fooling yourself.
Coming from a Christian background, I propose the overlooked characteristic in [blue list] is that God is also just. If God's measure of goodness is perfection then His measure far exceeding human standards. Bring justice in and everyone is left guilty and at fault with God. Does this then remove choice and free will? Not necessarily, a choice is to be had but the reward and consequence are in stark contrast: eternity with God or eternity separated from God. Is such an opportunity to choose even offered? According to the Christian worldview, the Book of Acts shows that, "Yes," this is the offer:
Such questions seem much more critical than the question of origin (creation-evolution debate). It is ironic then that Hitchens claims solace only in science but directs his efforts at philosophical issues removed from science. My minor gripe for Lennox is that he states that God bestowed on humans "infinite value." Yes, we cannot put a price on human life, but are humans of infinite value? Wouldn't that warrant redeeming everyone? By Lennox not providing further justification, I believe he actually meant intrinsic value.
- God is cruel for creating all things while allowing suffering and designating individuals for Hell; and,
- Individuals claiming to follow or represent God commit atrocities.
Responding to the first posit, Lennox also plays the "cruelty" card. Atheism permits only the impersonal forces of material interactions. For Lennox, the random forces of chance are cruel in rendering all things meaningless and worthless: you are just a combination of programmed responses to physical stimuli and chemical reactions. As for the second, Lennox points out that, logically, a purely atheistic system precludes any objective morality, thus the system is permissive of atrocities. He keenly points out that, yes, people identifying as Christians have committed atrocities but this is in violation of Christianity; whereas, atheists commit atrocities without violating atheism. The amoral atheistic system results in an endgame where Might does make Right; the fittest do survive; and Nietzsche's Übermensch–a superior race–should dominate. The fallacy in Hitchens' worldview then, is the absence of objective goodness, which if Hitchens is to remain consistent, he could not deign something or someone as "not great"–as his book title proposes. In this debate Hitchens partially concedes this lack of objective morality in Atheism, but he still admits that he still thinks morality does exist.
What is considered cruel then? For both individuals, cruelty takes on forms of determinism. Hitchens essentially asks: If God is [omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, good and loving], does He orchestrate the entire composition and circumstances of an individual, knowing full well that this very person is thus fated to commit evil, reject God, and be sentenced to Hell? Is one unavoidably faced with harm and folly? Does God orchestrate the suffering of millions over time? Such questions address the problem of evil and destiny that any worldviews should attempt to answer.
Lennox counters by portraying the cruel determinism of atheism. Under such a system we are irrevocably compelled to act and behave because we as electrochemical-soup-sacks are all "dancing to our DNA" (quoting Richard Dawkins). No matter how terrible our actions or their consequences, everything and everyone is just moving, colliding, and drifting for no reason at all. Disaster strikes, suffering happens without any explanation. Life is meaningless. Atheism doesn't allow you to "make your own meaning" because you're just fooling yourself.
Coming from a Christian background, I propose the overlooked characteristic in [blue list] is that God is also just. If God's measure of goodness is perfection then His measure far exceeding human standards. Bring justice in and everyone is left guilty and at fault with God. Does this then remove choice and free will? Not necessarily, a choice is to be had but the reward and consequence are in stark contrast: eternity with God or eternity separated from God. Is such an opportunity to choose even offered? According to the Christian worldview, the Book of Acts shows that, "Yes," this is the offer:
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. -Acts 17:26-27
Such questions seem much more critical than the question of origin (creation-evolution debate). It is ironic then that Hitchens claims solace only in science but directs his efforts at philosophical issues removed from science. My minor gripe for Lennox is that he states that God bestowed on humans "infinite value." Yes, we cannot put a price on human life, but are humans of infinite value? Wouldn't that warrant redeeming everyone? By Lennox not providing further justification, I believe he actually meant intrinsic value.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Steve Jobs
An orphan, dreamer, dropout, Steve Jobs became an icon in business, innovation, marketing,
design, music, art, education. He was opinionated, driven, emulated,
visionary, and inspiring as a futurist. He lived and spoke as if every
moment of each day mattered and every decision informed by
uncompromising quality (and aesthetic). His intensity and attention to detail
resembled Howard Hughes' days of brilliance also burning bright and
ending too soon. Disney's Iger put it well in noting: "...it feels like
he was just getting started." His commencements speech at Stanford
best showed an understanding and familiarity in his struggles. With Pixar and Apple, Steve Jobs built company cultures of pursuing greatness, never less, and always moving forward. Consumers
remain in continual anticipation of the next wonder. And for the tech industry, Jobs seemed to have
exclusive access to the "crystal ball" to when and which new ecosystems were to spawn. Forgoing market research groups, Steve
was uniquely attuned to the human experience. He looked past the digital and worked in ideas,
emotions, and meaning to somehow distort reality and captivate. Ultimately he was so effective in connecting and leading because he loved and was a true believer in what he did.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Grizzly Man - Movie Review
I watched the documentary Grizzly Man narrated and arranged by filmmaker Werner Herzog. The film is a character study of Timothy Treadwell, the self-proclaimed protector of grizzly bears, one of which violently tore apart and ate both Timothy and his girlfriend. The last character-study-type film I saw was There Will Be Blood, also a tragedy but I find myself reacting so differently. This was reality. Timothy Treadwell was both lost, wanting to get lost, and became lost in such different senses. A back injury had ended his college diving scholarship; thus his schooling and the path of life became so easily unhinged. Acting pursuits fizzled and many relationships were fleeting. He so desired and sought after a significance he could not find in humanity.
Treadwell was an unconventional naturalist, an emotionally mixed up nature worshiper and who became increasingly paranoid and angry at human beings. Most naturalists would work to preserve by minimizing the human footprint, and acknowledged a difference in the nature of man and the nature of animals. Treadwell repeatedly wanted to and did become entangled in nature and thus many say he lacked a healthy respect for nature and the boundary that separates humanity from nature. He had an acute sense of loneliness and did not have answers and was drawn towards nature which cannot choose to reject you in its indifference. Instead, nature became idealized, fantasized, and creatures were anthropomorphized as innocent children. Treadwell seemed to voice both the danger he put himself in while simultaneously overlooking or ignoring its savagery.
It is here we are offered some insight into Werner Herzog whom says the common denominator of existence is not innocence but violence. Herzog was visibly shaken on hearing the audio recording of the two individuals being mauled to death and told a former girlfriend of Timothy's to destroy the tape. Herzog also interjects to differentiate himself from Treadwell when Herzog observes bears as examples of the soulless indifference of nature.
Herzog touched lightly on the psychiatric medication that Timothy was once prescribed, a move likely to minimized additional ammunition to those calling Treadwell "crazy." However, there is enough description of the medication to suggest that bipolar disorder may have been a diagnosis. The film's depiction could also suggest a borderline type personality. Such individuals are characterized as having such a deep sense of emptiness that they are driven to be charming or possessive out of a fear of rejection. Their relational emotions are dialed to express either love or hate but not the in-between. Such diagnoses are only hypothetical musings.
Treadwell was an unconventional naturalist, an emotionally mixed up nature worshiper and who became increasingly paranoid and angry at human beings. Most naturalists would work to preserve by minimizing the human footprint, and acknowledged a difference in the nature of man and the nature of animals. Treadwell repeatedly wanted to and did become entangled in nature and thus many say he lacked a healthy respect for nature and the boundary that separates humanity from nature. He had an acute sense of loneliness and did not have answers and was drawn towards nature which cannot choose to reject you in its indifference. Instead, nature became idealized, fantasized, and creatures were anthropomorphized as innocent children. Treadwell seemed to voice both the danger he put himself in while simultaneously overlooking or ignoring its savagery.
It is here we are offered some insight into Werner Herzog whom says the common denominator of existence is not innocence but violence. Herzog was visibly shaken on hearing the audio recording of the two individuals being mauled to death and told a former girlfriend of Timothy's to destroy the tape. Herzog also interjects to differentiate himself from Treadwell when Herzog observes bears as examples of the soulless indifference of nature.
Herzog touched lightly on the psychiatric medication that Timothy was once prescribed, a move likely to minimized additional ammunition to those calling Treadwell "crazy." However, there is enough description of the medication to suggest that bipolar disorder may have been a diagnosis. The film's depiction could also suggest a borderline type personality. Such individuals are characterized as having such a deep sense of emptiness that they are driven to be charming or possessive out of a fear of rejection. Their relational emotions are dialed to express either love or hate but not the in-between. Such diagnoses are only hypothetical musings.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Contagion - Movie Review
I recommend the movie Contagion. I admit, I approached the film with some cynicism: "How many ways can you make an outbreak-type movie?" I was pleasantly surprised. This is Steven Soderberg's treatment of cocaine in his 2000 movie Traffic now applied to diseases. It has less action but is better pacing. Again we have a star-studded ensemble cast, and the aim was realism over melodrama (keeping it true to Soderberg form). What would really happen if humanity faced another race-killing pandemic or at least bring it on the verge of dystopia? The writer Scott Burns did his homework regarding epidemiological investigation and in identifying major players. Well done Burns in laying out a plausible scenario.
Without providing any spoilers, some questions to address after seeing this movie are:
Addendum: It turns out the pathogen antagonist in the movie is based on actual emerging virus.
Without providing any spoilers, some questions to address after seeing this movie are:
- From public health/safety/security perspectives, how can we promote the good and minimize the harm?
- How can we deal with issues of motivating/controlling human behavior?
- How do we choose whom to protect/save when resource, time and options are limited?
- How can we disseminate information and resources in a trustworthy manner that would not create mass panic/riot and infrastructure breakdown?
Addendum: It turns out the pathogen antagonist in the movie is based on actual emerging virus.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Increasing Sophistication of Scammers
China-based website bitlifesciences.com (Bit Life Science) has been e-mail targeting researchers and physicians with fronts of conferences that have attendance fees from the hundreds to thousands of dollars. The victims are invited as guest speakers however there is no mention of honorarium or stipends in the invitation. Credit card information is transferred and the conference does not seem to ever materialize.
These conferences often go by some grand global title involving the words: Annual, World, International, Congress, Con, Conference. The heading is completed by a pairing with various fields, such as Vaccine, Forensics, Genetics, Protein and Peptide, Molecular Biology, Cardiology, Cancer, Stem Cell, Microbes, Drug Discovery, Immunodisease, Environment, Greentech, Carbon, Biotechnology. Such Internet hording of conference names is akin to patent trolling or more like domain squatting.
The sophistication is that the webpages of these bogus conferences will feature guest speakers whom are actually known figures in their respective fields. The Scientist investigated by contacting these speakers and uncovered that such speakers were unaware they were being pegged to speak at conferences they never heard of. In addition, the webpages provide apparently convincing conference schedules. The Scientist also contacted the conference centers and found that they too were unaware of themselves hosting such conferences and the bitlifescience contact person was neither in their database nor schedule.
A quick check of bitlifesciences.com by Norton Safe Web and McAfee SightAdvisor both show a clean profile; however, the absence of malware does not mean you are safe from being scammed.
These conferences often go by some grand global title involving the words: Annual, World, International, Congress, Con, Conference. The heading is completed by a pairing with various fields, such as Vaccine, Forensics, Genetics, Protein and Peptide, Molecular Biology, Cardiology, Cancer, Stem Cell, Microbes, Drug Discovery, Immunodisease, Environment, Greentech, Carbon, Biotechnology. Such Internet hording of conference names is akin to patent trolling or more like domain squatting.
The sophistication is that the webpages of these bogus conferences will feature guest speakers whom are actually known figures in their respective fields. The Scientist investigated by contacting these speakers and uncovered that such speakers were unaware they were being pegged to speak at conferences they never heard of. In addition, the webpages provide apparently convincing conference schedules. The Scientist also contacted the conference centers and found that they too were unaware of themselves hosting such conferences and the bitlifescience contact person was neither in their database nor schedule.
A quick check of bitlifesciences.com by Norton Safe Web and McAfee SightAdvisor both show a clean profile; however, the absence of malware does not mean you are safe from being scammed.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Love & War & The Sea In Between
I'm really into Josh Garrels' music right now :)
Here's some stuff:
•playlist of songs: YouTube Mix for Josh Garrelsby YouTubePLAYLIST25 videos
•A live acoustic performance:
and
•Finally, Josh's homepage offers a FREE download of his latest album in its entire 18-song wonderfulness.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Quiet Desperation
Henry David Thoreau wrote "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them." It appears as if such quiet desperation repeatedly plays out among undergraduates and graduate students. Away from the moorings of home, undergrads conform to the "Animal House" mythology for parties where alcohol flows freely, weed and experimentation is accessible, peer pressure is at an apex. For most with still developing identities, escapist hedonism appears the most ready answer; but hedonism is unrealized. Pleasure is sought but, devoid of substance, many are left searching without a compass.
For post-college days, many have given up this search and settled for an unsatisfying morass of just being in the presence of others. Perhaps it is the atmosphere of economic downturn and job scarcity but they've entered a haunted insomniac pursuit: over-entertained but lacking introspection. There is no patronizing here but a observation of many contemporary young adulthood. The light in all this is that being young and educated there remains room for hope.
For post-college days, many have given up this search and settled for an unsatisfying morass of just being in the presence of others. Perhaps it is the atmosphere of economic downturn and job scarcity but they've entered a haunted insomniac pursuit: over-entertained but lacking introspection. There is no patronizing here but a observation of many contemporary young adulthood. The light in all this is that being young and educated there remains room for hope.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Tulmultuous Times for Christians
2010 ended sadly for the rights and lives of many Christians and their sympathizers:
1. The Alexandria, Egypt Coptic Christian Christmas and New Year holiday church bombing drew attention once again to the threat faced by many Christian minorities.
2. Pakistan's ambiguous blasphemy law allows for continued persecution of Christians. The woman Asia Bibi was accused by fellow farm workers for insulting the Prophet Mohammad during an argument. Imprisoned since November 2010, she has been sentenced to death. Expressions of sympathy or leniency towards her have led to violence, in fact 37 people have been murdered for having any implied support of this woman. Among these deaths is the brutal assassination of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer by his own bodyguard after Taseer appealed for this woman's pardon. By this act, his bodyguard, Malik Mumtaz Hussein Qadri, garnered popular support from the public, attorneys, and clerics. With many Pakistani officials being mum on the assassination or siding with clerics, Islamic extremism continues to be on the rise and the hunt for "blasphemers" continues to expand.
1. The Alexandria, Egypt Coptic Christian Christmas and New Year holiday church bombing drew attention once again to the threat faced by many Christian minorities.
2. Pakistan's ambiguous blasphemy law allows for continued persecution of Christians. The woman Asia Bibi was accused by fellow farm workers for insulting the Prophet Mohammad during an argument. Imprisoned since November 2010, she has been sentenced to death. Expressions of sympathy or leniency towards her have led to violence, in fact 37 people have been murdered for having any implied support of this woman. Among these deaths is the brutal assassination of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer by his own bodyguard after Taseer appealed for this woman's pardon. By this act, his bodyguard, Malik Mumtaz Hussein Qadri, garnered popular support from the public, attorneys, and clerics. With many Pakistani officials being mum on the assassination or siding with clerics, Islamic extremism continues to be on the rise and the hunt for "blasphemers" continues to expand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)