April 11, 2014
Take a look at my article on @HuffPostTech - http://huff.to/1ncz1vv
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Monday, March 24, 2014
The Snowden Effect: A Web of Conflict
March 24, 2014
I'm co-author of a@HuffingtonPost article, today, with Brandi Andres: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandi-andres/privacy-matters-edward-snowden_b_5009738.html about how our intelligence services violate our privacy. It's time our country's elected officials had a public conversation about whether these activities should be deemed unconstitutional and the lawbreakers (the US Senate, the CIA, the NSA, or,the whistleblowers) punished or whether this is okay and we want it. Either way, it's better for us if we know and agree to the policies in effect.
What do you think?
I'm co-author of a
What do you think?
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Senator Feinstein versus the CIA
March 12, 2014
Yesterday, the breaking headline was a very public argument between CIA Director John Brennan and Senator Diane Feinstein, Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, each one claiming the other’s organization had infiltrated their computers in an attempt to steal information regarding investigations each was pursuing with the other.
It sounds, on the face of it, like a snake swallowing its head. To me, the biggest question is, which end is the head? To whom does the CIA report? To whom does the Senate report? Who runs whom? The constitution created the Senate, but laws the Senate was a party to passing created the CIA. So, is the CIA subservient to the Senate? My belief is that this is so, but lately I’ve come to have my doubts. In the wake of the Edward Snowden affair, intelligence services in the United States seem to report to no one these days. And, of course, as I’m very fond of saying, the key mission of any intelligence service is disinformation, or lies.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids the use of the military of the United States for law enforcement purposes, with the exception of the National Guard. Coupled with the Insurrection Act of 1807, we have a set of laws that governed the President of the United States of America’s ability to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. “Posse comitatus” means “an armed body of men at the disposal of the King for the purposes of keeping the peace.”
One of the implications of the Posse Comitatus Act was that the CIA was also forbidden to operate on US soil.
The Posse Comitatus was repealed, replaced by The “National Defense Authorization Act” (NDAA), H.R. 1540. This legislation was signed into law by President Barack Obama in Hawaii on December 31, 2011. The new law codifies indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history.
Had Posse Comitatus been in effect, the CIA would have very clearly broken the law, if they have hacked the Senate’s computers. But with that law repealed, it’s hard for someone who isn’t a constitutional lawyer to determine if the CIA’s actions were illegal. If indeed, the CIA hacked the Senate.
Obama justified the NDAA as a means to combating terrorism, as part of a “counter-terrorism” agenda. But in substance, any American opposed to the policies of the US government can – under the provisions of the NDAA – be labelled a “suspected terrorist” and arrested under military detention.
We now know – courtesy of Edward Snowden – that hacking into government computers is an act of terrorism.
Is the CIA subject to the laws of the United States? Are they subject to this law? If they have hacked the Senate’s computers, is that an act of terrorism?
Is the Senate subject to this law? If they hacked the CIA’s computers, is that an act of terrorism?
Shades of Edward Snowden! Seems to me, someone needs to redefine what the NDAA implies, since its violators now include our elected and employed government officials.
Yesterday, the breaking headline was a very public argument between CIA Director John Brennan and Senator Diane Feinstein, Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, each one claiming the other’s organization had infiltrated their computers in an attempt to steal information regarding investigations each was pursuing with the other.
It sounds, on the face of it, like a snake swallowing its head. To me, the biggest question is, which end is the head? To whom does the CIA report? To whom does the Senate report? Who runs whom? The constitution created the Senate, but laws the Senate was a party to passing created the CIA. So, is the CIA subservient to the Senate? My belief is that this is so, but lately I’ve come to have my doubts. In the wake of the Edward Snowden affair, intelligence services in the United States seem to report to no one these days. And, of course, as I’m very fond of saying, the key mission of any intelligence service is disinformation, or lies.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids the use of the military of the United States for law enforcement purposes, with the exception of the National Guard. Coupled with the Insurrection Act of 1807, we have a set of laws that governed the President of the United States of America’s ability to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. “Posse comitatus” means “an armed body of men at the disposal of the King for the purposes of keeping the peace.”
One of the implications of the Posse Comitatus Act was that the CIA was also forbidden to operate on US soil.
The Posse Comitatus was repealed, replaced by The “National Defense Authorization Act” (NDAA), H.R. 1540. This legislation was signed into law by President Barack Obama in Hawaii on December 31, 2011. The new law codifies indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history.
Had Posse Comitatus been in effect, the CIA would have very clearly broken the law, if they have hacked the Senate’s computers. But with that law repealed, it’s hard for someone who isn’t a constitutional lawyer to determine if the CIA’s actions were illegal. If indeed, the CIA hacked the Senate.
Obama justified the NDAA as a means to combating terrorism, as part of a “counter-terrorism” agenda. But in substance, any American opposed to the policies of the US government can – under the provisions of the NDAA – be labelled a “suspected terrorist” and arrested under military detention.
We now know – courtesy of Edward Snowden – that hacking into government computers is an act of terrorism.
Is the CIA subject to the laws of the United States? Are they subject to this law? If they have hacked the Senate’s computers, is that an act of terrorism?
Is the Senate subject to this law? If they hacked the CIA’s computers, is that an act of terrorism?
Shades of Edward Snowden! Seems to me, someone needs to redefine what the NDAA implies, since its violators now include our elected and employed government officials.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
It Can’t Happen Here? Well, Maybe, But…
February 4, 2014
Anyone else see the economic, religious, political and cultural similarities between the United States today and Iran under the last days of the Shah?
In 1978, the Shah’s secret police, the Savak, had a death grip on the populations, fearing an uprising. They saw the uprising coming internally, but focused on military and political forces, and missed the entire cause of the unrest.
Iran in 1978 was emerging from a half-century of slow cultural diversification forced by the Shah. The country had a very small middle class. There was a growing religious right wing, whose power was deemed dangerous by the secret police. The military was clearly undecided regarding whose side they favored, and so were left out of the political equation.
The United States today is emerging from its most serious economic catastrophe in over seventy years. Our country’s middle class is swiftly growing smaller and more irrelevant as the gulf between rich and poor continues to leave the majority of Americans economically disenfranchised. The religious right wing is growing. The intelligence services – NSA, CIA, FBI, all see a growing threat within America from Americans. The political fringes – both right and left – are growing in power, leaving moderates and the military out of the “power” equation.
It’s a nightmare come true. And, we all remember how it ended up for Iran in 1979. As Frank Zappa sang with the Mothers of Invention so many decades ago, “It can’t happen here.” The song, by the way, was satire.
Was there anything that the Shah could have done to prevent his overthrow? What if he’d had a more open policy toward dissent? What if he’d gone even more the other way, and had the most repressive regime in human history? History seems to indicate that no given policy works forever, and many simply don’t work at all.
Is there a lesson here for us? Or has our regime begun to wind down? It’s an issue we should try to address, but I think it’s just too damn scary for anyone to ponder for very long, and no real answers are easy to come by.
Like global warming and the cigarettes-cause-cancer controversies, this one could play out for a long time. What comes to my mind is the old saw, ‘Nero fiddles while Rome burns.’
Anyone else see the economic, religious, political and cultural similarities between the United States today and Iran under the last days of the Shah?
In 1978, the Shah’s secret police, the Savak, had a death grip on the populations, fearing an uprising. They saw the uprising coming internally, but focused on military and political forces, and missed the entire cause of the unrest.
Iran in 1978 was emerging from a half-century of slow cultural diversification forced by the Shah. The country had a very small middle class. There was a growing religious right wing, whose power was deemed dangerous by the secret police. The military was clearly undecided regarding whose side they favored, and so were left out of the political equation.
The United States today is emerging from its most serious economic catastrophe in over seventy years. Our country’s middle class is swiftly growing smaller and more irrelevant as the gulf between rich and poor continues to leave the majority of Americans economically disenfranchised. The religious right wing is growing. The intelligence services – NSA, CIA, FBI, all see a growing threat within America from Americans. The political fringes – both right and left – are growing in power, leaving moderates and the military out of the “power” equation.
It’s a nightmare come true. And, we all remember how it ended up for Iran in 1979. As Frank Zappa sang with the Mothers of Invention so many decades ago, “It can’t happen here.” The song, by the way, was satire.
Was there anything that the Shah could have done to prevent his overthrow? What if he’d had a more open policy toward dissent? What if he’d gone even more the other way, and had the most repressive regime in human history? History seems to indicate that no given policy works forever, and many simply don’t work at all.
Is there a lesson here for us? Or has our regime begun to wind down? It’s an issue we should try to address, but I think it’s just too damn scary for anyone to ponder for very long, and no real answers are easy to come by.
Like global warming and the cigarettes-cause-cancer controversies, this one could play out for a long time. What comes to my mind is the old saw, ‘Nero fiddles while Rome burns.’
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Edward Snowden is Just The Tip of the Iceberg
October 6, 2013, D. S. Kane
For over a decade, the United States has waged war on hackers while it has simultaneously hacked into the lives of its own citizens "to protect us" from ourselves.
Since the beginning of the Snowden scandal, my friends have asked if I believe he is a hero or a traitor. For months, I've pondered an answer, since both answers have very little merit.
Snowden exposed the NSA' s despicable behavior, and for that, he is a hero. The best outcome would be a national debate leading to a national policy the majority of voters could approve (or reject). The worst outcome would be what has happened so far: Snowden is a wanted criminal, the NSA continues to hack into everyone's identities with impunity, and the hacker community is furious to the point where there will be many, many more Snowdens in our future.
In his thriller novel Black List, Brad Thor envisions a world where new technologies lead to the increasing loss of our personal privacy and inevitably leads to the total loss of our personal liberty.
It's a two-edged sword. Much that the government does for us is beneficial. My tolerance diminishes when it comes to personal privacy and liberty. Which is the sole province of our country's intelligence agencies and services. Those 1,200 organizations now number in excess of 1.4 million people. Way too much manpower unless you fear an uprising. And given the huge and expanding gulf in power and wealth between rich and poor, is that so far fetched?
So, maybe we've ignored the bigger issue. Washington is like an onion. Every scandal is a cover-up for a larger, more important issue:
This country is no longer a democracy, and hasn't been since we turned past the millennia. What we now have governing us is a group of idiots. And they control us using spy agencies and clandestine services. Maybe that's the bigger secret here. But if that's true, then I can only view Snowden as a hero.
For over a decade, the United States has waged war on hackers while it has simultaneously hacked into the lives of its own citizens "to protect us" from ourselves.
Since the beginning of the Snowden scandal, my friends have asked if I believe he is a hero or a traitor. For months, I've pondered an answer, since both answers have very little merit.
Snowden exposed the NSA' s despicable behavior, and for that, he is a hero. The best outcome would be a national debate leading to a national policy the majority of voters could approve (or reject). The worst outcome would be what has happened so far: Snowden is a wanted criminal, the NSA continues to hack into everyone's identities with impunity, and the hacker community is furious to the point where there will be many, many more Snowdens in our future.
In his thriller novel Black List, Brad Thor envisions a world where new technologies lead to the increasing loss of our personal privacy and inevitably leads to the total loss of our personal liberty.
It's a two-edged sword. Much that the government does for us is beneficial. My tolerance diminishes when it comes to personal privacy and liberty. Which is the sole province of our country's intelligence agencies and services. Those 1,200 organizations now number in excess of 1.4 million people. Way too much manpower unless you fear an uprising. And given the huge and expanding gulf in power and wealth between rich and poor, is that so far fetched?
So, maybe we've ignored the bigger issue. Washington is like an onion. Every scandal is a cover-up for a larger, more important issue:
This country is no longer a democracy, and hasn't been since we turned past the millennia. What we now have governing us is a group of idiots. And they control us using spy agencies and clandestine services. Maybe that's the bigger secret here. But if that's true, then I can only view Snowden as a hero.
Friday, February 22, 2013
3D Printing will Change Our World
February 22, 2013
One of the most interesting tech developments since nanotechnology, 3D printers may change the world faster than the personal computer did.
Imagine 3D printed body organs, crafted from 3D printed stem cells and transplanted lacroscopically. My guess is within five years. I've been following this one for a while. Kidney transplants, heart transplants, bypass surgery, pancreas transplants, breast reconstruction, dental tooth replacement, hip and knee replacement, might all be possible soon, by extractting an individual's stem cells or the cells from the actual organ within the body, copying them, and using the 3D software and printer to craft them into organs which won't be rejected. Read the entire article for a vision of this brave new world.
When I spoke with my friend Greg Koss about this, he responded:
The 3D printing idea might take some plausibly interesting turns.
Imagine you can take a picture of a key with your phone. An app will scan the image of the key, and then a 3D printer will make a copy.
Take that model a step further. Imagine using an app to quickly turn regular text into Braille to hide it from someone in plain sight.
The current media for 3D printers are restricted to plastic. But the plastic can be coated with any number of substances. Imagine using the plastic as essentially a lost wax process to create metal parts when needed. Now you can create fairly high tolerance metal parts from scratch or by photographing something.
Greg’s vision is spot on.
Let’s assume you’re working in an intelligence service and have to travel. You’ll need to change your identity and arm yourself when you arrive. How about using a 3D printer to produce a weapon? After you travel, take the photos of what you need to have to a cobbler and leave a few hours later with a gun, ammunition, a new passport, driver’s license, credit cards and other tradecraft necessities. Soon, very soon, this will be a nasty tradecraft reality.
One of the most interesting tech developments since nanotechnology, 3D printers may change the world faster than the personal computer did.
Imagine 3D printed body organs, crafted from 3D printed stem cells and transplanted lacroscopically. My guess is within five years. I've been following this one for a while. Kidney transplants, heart transplants, bypass surgery, pancreas transplants, breast reconstruction, dental tooth replacement, hip and knee replacement, might all be possible soon, by extractting an individual's stem cells or the cells from the actual organ within the body, copying them, and using the 3D software and printer to craft them into organs which won't be rejected. Read the entire article for a vision of this brave new world.
When I spoke with my friend Greg Koss about this, he responded:
The 3D printing idea might take some plausibly interesting turns.
Imagine you can take a picture of a key with your phone. An app will scan the image of the key, and then a 3D printer will make a copy.
Take that model a step further. Imagine using an app to quickly turn regular text into Braille to hide it from someone in plain sight.
The current media for 3D printers are restricted to plastic. But the plastic can be coated with any number of substances. Imagine using the plastic as essentially a lost wax process to create metal parts when needed. Now you can create fairly high tolerance metal parts from scratch or by photographing something.
Greg’s vision is spot on.
Let’s assume you’re working in an intelligence service and have to travel. You’ll need to change your identity and arm yourself when you arrive. How about using a 3D printer to produce a weapon? After you travel, take the photos of what you need to have to a cobbler and leave a few hours later with a gun, ammunition, a new passport, driver’s license, credit cards and other tradecraft necessities. Soon, very soon, this will be a nasty tradecraft reality.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Wikileaks and hacking in general
December 6, 2010
I believe all humans lie and all keep secrets. When I worked as a subcontractor for the government, one of the things I could do was lie well enough to pass a lie detector test. Most of my lies were lies of omission, but some were untruths I told. All spies lie. We have to in order to survive. Alternate identities are a lie. The way we walk is a deception: I am harmless. The way we talk is often a lie: I am not who you think. When we steal the secrets of others, we lie: I have nothing that could compromise you.
I stumbled across a secret that could have gotten me into massive trouble, had I revealed it. So, I never did. Even though its value has diminished over the years, I never will. Not telling is a lie. All secrets are, in essence, lies.
Our government tells us lies every day. Some of the lies are lies of omission, but many more are lies crafted by political parties to invoke fear into voters. Power is often maintained through a fabric of lies. When our government listens to its intelligence services for information relating to enfolding world events, it often is hearing lies. I know this, because by not telling my handler what I’d found out, I was, in effect, crafting a place where a lie could sit as its substitute. And, at least one lie did find its way into the fabric of our government’s understanding of world events because of my own actions.
When Julian Assange created Wikileaks, he and his followers worked for a world where truth can be more easily available. If no government lied to the world, what would the world be like?
Computer hackers have existed almost since the day computers were invented. Before I ever worked for the government, one of my major focuses as a management consultant was computer security. I worked on several computer crimes and solved them. I was quoted in Institutional Investor and in Pension and Investment Age on computer fraud and countermeasures and wrote an article for the Journal of Cash Management. I’ve been an expert on the topic of computer hacking for decades. About fifteen years ago, someone broke inot our house and stole documents that made it possible for them to sell my wife’s and my identity. I used my skills to track the culprit and find him (3,000 miles away). I helped get him arrested. My skills are still functional.
I think most hackers are better as fictional devices than as real people. In fiction, a writer can use a hacker to do either good or bad things. In real life, most of the hacking I know about is identity theft and its relatives. Nasty stuff. But, not all is bad. The hackers who “stole” secrets from our government and used Wikileaks to post them for all to see are doing us all a service, in my humble opinion.
The truth is out there. The hackers are setting it free.
I believe all humans lie and all keep secrets. When I worked as a subcontractor for the government, one of the things I could do was lie well enough to pass a lie detector test. Most of my lies were lies of omission, but some were untruths I told. All spies lie. We have to in order to survive. Alternate identities are a lie. The way we walk is a deception: I am harmless. The way we talk is often a lie: I am not who you think. When we steal the secrets of others, we lie: I have nothing that could compromise you.
I stumbled across a secret that could have gotten me into massive trouble, had I revealed it. So, I never did. Even though its value has diminished over the years, I never will. Not telling is a lie. All secrets are, in essence, lies.
Our government tells us lies every day. Some of the lies are lies of omission, but many more are lies crafted by political parties to invoke fear into voters. Power is often maintained through a fabric of lies. When our government listens to its intelligence services for information relating to enfolding world events, it often is hearing lies. I know this, because by not telling my handler what I’d found out, I was, in effect, crafting a place where a lie could sit as its substitute. And, at least one lie did find its way into the fabric of our government’s understanding of world events because of my own actions.
When Julian Assange created Wikileaks, he and his followers worked for a world where truth can be more easily available. If no government lied to the world, what would the world be like?
Computer hackers have existed almost since the day computers were invented. Before I ever worked for the government, one of my major focuses as a management consultant was computer security. I worked on several computer crimes and solved them. I was quoted in Institutional Investor and in Pension and Investment Age on computer fraud and countermeasures and wrote an article for the Journal of Cash Management. I’ve been an expert on the topic of computer hacking for decades. About fifteen years ago, someone broke inot our house and stole documents that made it possible for them to sell my wife’s and my identity. I used my skills to track the culprit and find him (3,000 miles away). I helped get him arrested. My skills are still functional.
I think most hackers are better as fictional devices than as real people. In fiction, a writer can use a hacker to do either good or bad things. In real life, most of the hacking I know about is identity theft and its relatives. Nasty stuff. But, not all is bad. The hackers who “stole” secrets from our government and used Wikileaks to post them for all to see are doing us all a service, in my humble opinion.
The truth is out there. The hackers are setting it free.
Spy Toys
Friday, February 25, 2011
Like most thriller writers, my secret weapons really are secret weapons.
When I was writing my first thriller manuscript, I had a conversation with James Rollins, who told me where he found out about liquid armor. He got it from the US Army’s website, and has used it in some of his Sigma series. I borrowed the tech toy from him.
One of my friends is a computer hacker. He’s helped me with the theme and tech content of one of my manuscripts.
I know some folks who’ve worked at D.A.R.P.A. and they spoke to me about projects they had cancelled. Great spy tech. Even for cancelled projects, I thought D.A.R.P.A. was off limits.
Lately, however, spy technology I know about and wouldn’t have ever put in a story has showed up on television. NCIS and other shows have used tech I thought was classified. Seeing on the tube what I thought was the province of a classified status has shaken my understanding of the rules.
So then, what are the rules? Should they be followed? I thought anything with a current field use should be kept secret. I thought anything that could be used as a weapon against my government should be kept out of my fiction. Was I wrong? If NCIS, NCIS LA, and a few movies recently released offer examples of the new rules, then fiction writers can write about whatever they want.
Live and learn.
Like most thriller writers, my secret weapons really are secret weapons.
When I was writing my first thriller manuscript, I had a conversation with James Rollins, who told me where he found out about liquid armor. He got it from the US Army’s website, and has used it in some of his Sigma series. I borrowed the tech toy from him.
One of my friends is a computer hacker. He’s helped me with the theme and tech content of one of my manuscripts.
I know some folks who’ve worked at D.A.R.P.A. and they spoke to me about projects they had cancelled. Great spy tech. Even for cancelled projects, I thought D.A.R.P.A. was off limits.
Lately, however, spy technology I know about and wouldn’t have ever put in a story has showed up on television. NCIS and other shows have used tech I thought was classified. Seeing on the tube what I thought was the province of a classified status has shaken my understanding of the rules.
So then, what are the rules? Should they be followed? I thought anything with a current field use should be kept secret. I thought anything that could be used as a weapon against my government should be kept out of my fiction. Was I wrong? If NCIS, NCIS LA, and a few movies recently released offer examples of the new rules, then fiction writers can write about whatever they want.
Live and learn.
Computer Fraud and Countermeasures
March 14, 2010
I just read an article in slicon.com about corporate cyberespionage (Cyber espionage: Firms fail to take threat seriously, by Shelly Portet, http://www.silicon.com/technology/security/2011/03/09/cyber-espionage-firms-fail-to-take-threat-seriously-39747112/).
Computer fraud has been responsible for a massive number of cases of identity theft over the last decade, and there is no end in sight. Both my wife and I have had our identities stolen, and sold to criminals. As a result, we needed an attorney’s help to work with the IRS, which thought we had an offshore bank account funding terrorism. Nasty.
Has this happened to you or someone you know? Do you track your credit reports to stop identity theft (after it’s occurred)?
From the article, it appears most corporations haven’t awakened to the possibility that a cybercriminal has hacked their corporate website and stolen proprietary information for resale or competitive response.
The author of the report recommends that corporate users not copy files to their own computers, since it would provide more targets for a hacker. But there’s a problem in not having multiple copies out there: A single copy on a cloud server provides less work for a hacker who desires to modify the file so it either contains viruses or, even worse, is no longer an accurate depiction of the thoughts of its creator. Without multiple copies, reconstructing the original version would be difficult or impossible. Seems to me, offsite, offline copies would be a better alternative.
I wrote an article years ago entitled “Cash Management Data Security,” for the Journal of Cash Management (under my real name: Volume 4, Number 5, page 74). I also was quoted on the subject of computer fraud corporate cybercrime in Pension & Investment Age on November 12, “Workstation Technology Dominates Conference,” 1984, page 26): “Nothing in the field of data security has really changed over the past seven years, only the prominence of the problem.”
Now, with cloud computing becoming prevalent, it appears we’re ripe for a bigger problem than ever.
What do your think? If the company you work for is prepared to defend itself against cybercriminals, I’d like to know about it. BUT, don’t leave your company’s name (in your blogspot comment). We wouldn’t want to tempt fate now, would we?
I just read an article in slicon.com about corporate cyberespionage (Cyber espionage: Firms fail to take threat seriously, by Shelly Portet, http://www.silicon.com/technology/security/2011/03/09/cyber-espionage-firms-fail-to-take-threat-seriously-39747112/).
Computer fraud has been responsible for a massive number of cases of identity theft over the last decade, and there is no end in sight. Both my wife and I have had our identities stolen, and sold to criminals. As a result, we needed an attorney’s help to work with the IRS, which thought we had an offshore bank account funding terrorism. Nasty.
Has this happened to you or someone you know? Do you track your credit reports to stop identity theft (after it’s occurred)?
From the article, it appears most corporations haven’t awakened to the possibility that a cybercriminal has hacked their corporate website and stolen proprietary information for resale or competitive response.
The author of the report recommends that corporate users not copy files to their own computers, since it would provide more targets for a hacker. But there’s a problem in not having multiple copies out there: A single copy on a cloud server provides less work for a hacker who desires to modify the file so it either contains viruses or, even worse, is no longer an accurate depiction of the thoughts of its creator. Without multiple copies, reconstructing the original version would be difficult or impossible. Seems to me, offsite, offline copies would be a better alternative.
I wrote an article years ago entitled “Cash Management Data Security,” for the Journal of Cash Management (under my real name: Volume 4, Number 5, page 74). I also was quoted on the subject of computer fraud corporate cybercrime in Pension & Investment Age on November 12, “Workstation Technology Dominates Conference,” 1984, page 26): “Nothing in the field of data security has really changed over the past seven years, only the prominence of the problem.”
Now, with cloud computing becoming prevalent, it appears we’re ripe for a bigger problem than ever.
What do your think? If the company you work for is prepared to defend itself against cybercriminals, I’d like to know about it. BUT, don’t leave your company’s name (in your blogspot comment). We wouldn’t want to tempt fate now, would we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
