Estonian tax and customs board has reduced its size by 30% over the last ten years all the while having cost of euro collected and percentage of euros collected figures trending up to the point of being in top three globally in both terms. Smart use of tech and a rock solid identity scheme help.
Commodity hardware in the sense of “it is made but impossible to get hold of outside the place its made or Leningrad or Moscow and half what you get is wildly out if spec” as Soviet reality tended to be. Only aluminum plates were really a commodity where I grew up in the 80s.
I’ve done a conference paper and had another one accepted. For me, the hardest is finding good places to publish. Conference levels fluctuate and magazines carry different weight - this is not necessarily obvious for a bystander.
I’d recommend visiting Finland. In these parts, there’s basically 3 months of optimal visibility. The rest is fog, rain, snow, sleet and road conditions that would shut down most of US. Yet people drive and do so safely. “What people can do” is a bit different from “what an average us driver can be expected to do”
Blockchain is a collection of technologies rather than a single one. Like a car. Yes, one can claim their motorboat runs on “car technology” because of the internal combustion engine. But it would be strange to do so.
This only applies, if you treat privacy as limiting information collected. If you take the view that privacy is a peocess integrity issue instead (all data is effectively personal, the goal is to make sure access to it is transparent and restricted) him asking for such law makes much more sense
SpectX is a tool that can run fast sql-like queries on top of distributed text files. It was initially built to parse logs by an infosec team. Hope it helps!
But, God forbid, we issue people identifiers and keep a full tally of the citizens. You either have a proper identity management or stories like this (and identity theft and fraud and many other unpleasant things). It is the conscious choice of the society not to maintain proper records for the fear of overreach and these are the consequences.
Think of it like so: you have a robot that anybody can ask anything and that will answer any and all questions truthfully. Whose fault is it if you deliberately tell the robot non-public information?
A computer cant be bribed. Move transactions online, cut out the middleman and corruption goes down. To do this, you need a strong national identity scheme. Aashaar is a good start but would need to be augmented with derived authentication mechanisms (preferably pki) to reduce reliance on the biometrics
I guess that encapsulates the difference in attitude perfectly. Very real consequences in terms of people dead vs. something that might happen in the future and where guns might help. Do you fear the future or not.
By the way, the article does its own share of data-wrangling by happily omitting the kinds of guns people own and how. In US one can simply buy an assault rifle. Down in Europe you need training, screening and physical exams of your home to get a gun. Both count as “a gun owned”
We used to do that stuff using frames back in the day. You’d have a hidden frame, change its url and look at what that dom contains. At scale, too. I was amazed at all the hoo-haa around that “new” xmlhttp API
Having lived pieces of that and seen survivors, I’d say it was pretty bad and quite a bit worse than the article describes. Unless you belonged to the nomenclatura and were ok with being at the mercy of the Aparat.
The entire thing is a great case of cultural challenges. From one hand, you’d like to encourage open discussion about everything. Because innovation and out of the box thinking. On the other, discussing some ideas leads to conflict. A culture of free ideas is one of the best ways to attract talent, restricting it will commercially detrimental. So is loosing talent over conflict like this. It is a leadership challenge. A very complex one. But one that does not seem to be handled with a ton of grace. Maybe because there is no good solution
Security is an emergent property of a system consisting of users, software and hardware. Thus, a programmer cannot prove security of a system but merely assert its certain behaviour. Langsec does just that. No, it can never be used to build secure systems. Yes, it can be used to solve practical problems making things more secure.
Yay, System Dynamics! Contrary to the claim, this sort of thing has been actively researched since the 50s. Not sure what the “playbook” approach brings or why it could be claimed to be universal.