Lions and Tigers and Bears, OH MY! (Data Security, app bans, and National Security)

Once again, the current US President (No 45, in this case) is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Just, in this case, not much of one, and for one of the small number of instances in his tenure as El Prez, he's actually hitting on a genuine (NOT FAKE! WOW!) issue. 

A Judge in the USA has issued a 'stay' order, preventing the US Government (USG) from denying US internet users the ability to download certain Social Media (SM) platforms, these being of Chinese origin - in this case, specifically WeChat.

Boiled down, the USG has said that the Chinese-operated SM platform, which also routinely censors information that the Chinese Government does not like (such as information on SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19), threatens US National Security through its "malicious" behaviour of seeking out and downloading user data of many forms, such as network activity, location data, and browsing and search histories.

OK, then can we expect bans for FB, Twitter, Instagram, and all the other SM platforms that apparently regularly dive into user data with apparent freedom?! No? Quelle surprise, mon ami.

Many applications (and there's another misuse of language that I'll get into in another post before long! Watch this space 😉 ) note user data, and it's not just limited to network activity, location data, and browsing and search histories; they'll look for telephone logs, activities, who you're talking to that very moment, your contact lists, and so much more besides.

For YEARS, security analysts and companies have advised users of these packages that they MUST examine the 'permissions' that these things demand access to, in order to allow users to actually use the packages, and deny those that try to overreach the amount of permission that actually need in order to operate. You really should be asking why they need access to all this information, folks. Taking a photo should not generally need, for example, access to your contact listings. Point made?

Now, while acknowledging that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (a.k.a. "TANSTAAFL"), these 'apps' also often allow 'in-app purchases', sometimes only offering the use of a credit/debit card payment system, instead of, for example, GooglePay, or PayPal, or similar (which omission also tends to breach their agreements with the major operator platforms such as Apple and Google, but that's another story).

So, by allowing these prying 'apps' access to your inside leg measurement, you're also giving them the keys to your bank as well. Really smart. Not. Remember, there have been documented cases of peoples bank accounts being plundered by rogue 'apps' (do a search on your preferred internet search engine if you want to see examples of this). Always check those permissions, people. If they are asking for odd and extensive 'permissions', you really MUST be asking "WHY?".

From a National Security angle (and I've been both a Reservist and a Civil Servant in the employ of Her Majesty's Government, so I know whereof I speak), government employees should be required to adhere to a kind of SM limitation agreement, in the form of either requirements under primary law (which we have in the UK with the Official Secrets Act), or Non Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) (which is the only option in the USA, due to the 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech). The idea that users personal data being used by the Chinese is some form of national security issue is not much of a stretch of credulity, but it is a stretch, none the less.

A more realistic threat to US National Security would be those SM users with access to classified information. Far better, I think, to require people with clearances that the USG is concerned about, to restrict them from using SM as much as they do. Enforceable Usage Policies (and specific NDAs for those forms of access) in return for clearances seems to be the best way to approach this: The willing surrender of certain privileges/speech rights in return for access seems to be a fair deal, to me.

So, while the USG and El Prez are doing a Chicken Little, and it actually is an issue, it's just not much of a National Security issue comparatively speaking, and a wholly preventable one if people use a little common sense, by having SM users engaging a few brain cells and asking if an 'app' actually needs those odd and extensive permissions.

Of course, that's another issue too: Common Sense.

Yeeeaaaah. Let's not go there today, eh? 😉

Time to wave a placard in the air and yell: "Male Rights now!"... or is it...?

BBC News - Liverpool hairdresser bans women from Barber Barber salon http://bbc.in/1AAMeFt

I think it's high time that someone took a stand for modern male rights, and this barber would appear to be the first to do so.

For me, it's the utterly tunnel-visioned mania of the feminist movement that grates. Let's look at this objectively for a moment. Having been treated like second-class citizens for a massive percentage of recorded history, women quite obviously have a damn good basis for wanting equality, and requiring that both society as a whole, and the the law, respects and upholds this - I agree that wholeheartedly. However, the way that the feminist movement, and certain band-wagon politicians, seem to imply that men-only places are bad and evil is rank hypocrisy on their part.

There are an ever-increasing number of places such as shops, gyms, and clubs that prohibit men from even being on the premises - I'm not arguing this, there's obviously a demand for such from women. And yet they're screaming blue murder about there being places that prohibit women from being on the premises, such as, oh, shops, gyms, and clubs? Hmm. What does that smell like to you?

Let's face it squarely: Without question, there IS a case for mono-sex places and establishments: At the most basic need, seperate public toilet facilities are a perfect example. In the broader sense, though, a bit of common sense is desperately needed, so, wether a stunt or dead serious, this stance by mens barber is a perfect example of why we neeed places where only men are permitted.

Politically Correct? No. Not even close. But Perfectly Sensible? Definately.

Carry on, that man!

A Political Rant this time (well, aren't they all?) - A little rant on Utility Companies, unions, and asset stripping...

OK, this may not be good news for large house owners, but for the small bloke like me it's a helping hand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7227793.stm

It seems the new round of water bills are gonna be based on home size (i.e., how many bedrooms you have, not what zone your home falls into.

About bleedin' time, Thames Water!

Congratulations for finally seeing a little common sense!

Now, if the electricity companies can do something similar, maybe, just maybe, London will start to be a little more affordable for lower paid workers!

Bleedin' eck. (sits down on soap box) I'm doin' a Dennis Leary (remember "No Cure For Cancer"?) What the heck next? A red armband with a hammer and sickle?! No bleedin' chance!

Still, it's a valid point regarding Utility Companies and their bills.

British Gas (or whatever you wanna call them, BG, or Bleedin' Greedy, maybe?) have recently upped their rates. LEB/SEBoard et all, even British Telecom (despite the fancy packaging) are all more expensive one way or another.

What is it about these companies with Captive markets? Even switching to another firm for the same product usually involved a certain level of grief in switching, then after a while, the honeymoon dies off, and they up their bills (same old same old, in other words). What, they think we're fik or sommat? (note spelling!)

I gotta say it, I'm getting the right old heave ho with the lot of them.

Who else thinks that Maggie, with the benefit of hindsight, actually had it wrong when she sold off the PUBLIC Utility Companies?

Now, I'm a Union man. I'm proud of that. I've been in two others before the T&GWU (now a division of Unite), so no surprises there. Not only, by the way, do they stand up for the individual as a collective group, they also offer all manner of benefits to their members, and that's a good thing! However, and going back to Maggie...

WITH the benefit of hindsight, and knowing now how much she despised the Union movement, how she wanted (and succeeded, unfortunately) in breaking the Union Movement to a large degree, how much do you think the selling off of the Public Utilities was to do with Union breaking as opposed to asset striping (as its' now called)?

The point is, though, these companies have shareholders they have to pay off - I mean give dividends to - instead of ploughing all the profits back into either reducing end-user costs, or making the business better, if not both.

Once again, Capitalism entered what should have remained a Public Service.

We've seen it now with the Utilities, the Railways, Buses, and soon, I suspect, the NHS.

What is it with these recent governments? have they no bloody idea how difficult it is to make a living these days?

Or are they content with sitting in their ivory towers (well, Parliament, anyhow), and remaining one step removed from reality as they pass more useless laws (where existing laws would be perfectly good enough if they were upheld properly)?

You got me, cause I haven't got a clue.

Answers on the back of a postage stamp, please.