OT

Off Topic

Google’s “Shared Endorsements”

A lot of people are concerned about Google’s new “Shared Endorsements” scheme.

However, one should give credit where credit is due.  This is not one of Facebook’s functions, where, regardless of what you’ve set or unset in the past, every time they add a new feature it defaults to “wide open.”  If you have been careful with your Google account in the past, you will probably find yourself still protected.  I’m pretty paranoid, but when I checked the Shared Endorsements setting page on my accounts, and the “Based upon my activity, Google may show my name and profile photo in shared endorsements that appear in ads” box is unchecked on all of them.  I can only assume that it is because I’ve been circumspect in my settings in the past.

Outsourcing, and rebranding, (national) security

I was thinking about the recent trend, in the US, for “outsourcing” and “privatization” of security functions, in order to reduce (government) costs.  For example, we know, from the Snowden debacle, that material he, ummm, “obtained,” was accessed while he was working for a contractor that was working for the NSA.  The debacle also figured in my thinking, particularly the PR fall-out and disaster.

Considering both these trends; outsourcing and PR, I see an opportunity here.  The government needs to reduce costs (or increase revenue).  At the same time, there needs to be a rebranding effort, in order to restore tarnished images.

Sports teams looking for revenue (or cost offsets) have been allowing corporate sponsors to rename, or “rebrand,” arenas.  Why not allow corporations to sponsor national security programs, and rebrand them?

For example: PRISM has become a catch-phrase for all that is wrong with surveillance of the general public.  Why not allow someone like, say, DeBeers to step in.  For a price (which would offset the millions being paid to various tech companies for “compliance”) it could be rebranded as DIAMOND, possibly with a new slogan like “A database is forever!”

(DeBeers is an obvious sponsor, given the activities of NSA personnel in regard to love interests.)

I think the possibilities are endless, and should be explored.

Click on everything?

You clicked on that link, didn’t you?  I’m writing a posting about malicious links in postings and email, and you click on a link in my posting.  How silly is that?

(No, it wouldn’t have been dangerous, in this case.  I disabled the URL by “x”ing out the “tt” in http;” (which is pretty standard practice in malware circles), and further “x”ed out a couple of the letters in the URL.)

Thoughts at the library drop slot

A couple of days ago, I happened to walk over to the library in order to return some items.  When I got there, as all too often is the case, a parent was allowing two of his children to put their returns back into the (single) drop slot.  He noticed me, and offered to take my stuff and return it when they were done.  (Parenthetically [as it were], I should note that, in the five years since the new system was put in place, this is only the second time that a parent, in such a situation, has taken any notice of the fact that they were delaying matters.  The previous one, about a year ago, asked her children to stand aside and let me through.  I digress, but not completely.)

I immediately handed over my pile (which included a recent bestseller, and a recent movie).  (We are all creatures of social convention, and social engineering is a powerful force.)  But, being a professional paranoid, as soon as I walked away I started berating myself for being so trusting.

I was also thinking that his actions were pedagogically unsound.  While he was, at least, assisting me in avoiding delay, he was, just as much as the majority of the parents at that slot, teaching his children that they need have no regard for anyone else.

(And, yes, before I left the library, I checked my account, and determined that he had, in fact, returned my items.  Auditing, you know.)