Posts by Lucy Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: MSD's Leaky Servers, in reply to Jimmy Southgate,
Also, wouldn’t you want to know that the people you are hiring to assess your security are capable of breaking stuff like what you’re trying to deploy?
That would be why security companies spend rather a lot of money to send their employees to hacking conferences, yes. That article is the equivalent of "IRD employees know how tax returns can be falsified".
-
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Yet after the fact there’s always money to clean up the mess these things can create…
an ounce of prevention….
I’m just wondering why the then Minister of Communications and Information Technology, Steven Joyce, or current minister Amy Adams hasn’t been called on the appalling failure, thus far, of the 2011 NZ Cyber Security Strategy (links to PDF file)Strategy is, of course, very far from implementation, but the key thing about the Cyber Security group and this report is that the focus is on active attacks, not basic architecture. Look at their headings; cyber crime, cyber espionage (the nineties are calling…). As has been mentioned in the other thread, this is fundamentally a failure to perceive data security as a basic principle of operations; no-one cared enough to do the basics.
ETA: Also, keep in mind that the Cyber Security Centre has grown out of the Center for Critical Infrastructure Protection, which was a branch of the GCSB, That should give you some idea of their priorities.
-
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to barnaclebarnes,
You’re right of course but I could see that setting up a clearing house for security reports and bounties could be part of their remit. If people knew that they could go to one place and report incidents and they would be taken seriously/investigated by professionals then this could go a long way to stopping this kind of media circus. It would mean that there has to be a change in thinking where reporting, fixing and publishing bugs/security issues is seen as a good thing (much like it is in open source).
No arguments from me on that front - but as you say, the cost would probably stop it in its tracks. Much easier to outsource than commit to regular expenses. I could see a place for an independent pen-testing group, too, targeting departments at random - but, again, cost.
-
OnPoint: The Source, in reply to papango,
You’ll laugh (or cry, or both), but we actually already have one. The New Zealand National Cyber Security Centre is an actual thing. It’s got strategy documents and forms and an info security manual that runs to 297 pages. You’ll be shocked, shocked!, to learn that they are ignoring this and hoping nobody asks what it is they do again or why we’re paying for it.
To be fair, their remit runs more to "stop antagonistic powers shutting down our power grid from afar" than "manage every government department's IT security". An organization the size of MSD should really have permanent IT security staff. But, hey, that's probably one of those unimportant "backroom" jobs taking limited resources away from frontline staff.
-
OnPoint: Re: Education, in reply to Islander,
Totally agree – but, ahem, graphic novels?
It's a qualitatively different way of storytelling than, er, "regular" novels; much or most of the information conveyed is through pictures, not words.
ah, so what the point of your post?
I guess the discussion about literacy and reading to kids and engaging them in books just reminded me strongly of how much grief my parents went through trying to engage my brother in reading "proper" books, and it never taking. My own primary learning style is through written text, I'll go out of my way to avoid visual/audio media if text is available, but that isn't true for other people - and it's important to remember that it's not a failure if your kid still prefers non-written (or primarily non-written, if you like) forms of entertainment. Or, on the flip side, if a child (or adult) doesn't read for pleasure or only/mostly reads required texts, that may not be because they weren't read to or offered the opportunity. They might just not find reading an engaging thing to do.
I guess the key is in parental engagement, and reading to kids would seem to be a pretty good measure of that at least in the first few years.
Oh, I entirely agree - it is a sign of parental engagement and a very important thing to do. I wasn't responding to any over-zealousness on your part.
But the discussion of why "kids these days don't read" happens often, and I realised I'd never seen any acknowledgement of the fact that the statistic "x proportion of x population doesn't read for fun/go into bookshops/etc!" might be down to personal preference as well as the vagaries of education. The attitude is usually that if only everyone read to their kids/schools were better/classes were smaller/reading was cool then all or most adults would be not just literate in the ways necessary to participate in modern society, but engage in literacy *for fun*. And I don't think that would be true - which was, for me, a new thought. Not an original one, I'm sure.
-
OnPoint: Re: Education, in reply to Islander,
We knew how to read before we went to school.
Reason? My parents read books, mentioned books they enjoyed, had books all round the home.This is far from being a sufficient factor for love of reading as a hobby (as opposed to simple literacy), though. I can think offhand of several people I know who didn't learn to read until school or who have never become great readers despite being surrounded by book-loving parents and siblings. Some had reading disorders, some preferred other forms of media, some just weren't interested in reading for pleasure.
The Internet, by its nature, tends to attract those who really like reading, who like words, who like the complexities and intricacies of written language (well, most of the Internet - I guess you could confine yourself to YouTube.) I'd bet basically everyone who posts here is that sort of person. But it's not a universal, even given an environment conducive to developing that sort of love for reading. I remember my parents going half-crazy trying to turn my brother into an avid reader, or just a reader, and it never worked. He's smart and perfectly literate, but he prefers visual media - graphic novels are fine, actual novels not so interesting.
Obviously the greater concern is literacy, and I understand there's plenty of evidence that getting kids to *want* to read improves their basic literacy. But I think for some people you can't guarantee a lot beyond that, even absent learning difficulties/disorders - written communication is never going to be their preferred way of learning.
-
OnPoint: Re: Education, in reply to Russell Brown,
So not only is the y axis full of shit but so is the x axis?!?!?
It appears so.
The Herald could usefully consider this well-known graph. (Except I'd rather they didn't, because I can already imagine the headline.)
-
Hard News: Fox News: I know, right?, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
But I digress. If Romney had said there are plenty of "tribal" voters out there who'd never vote for him or any other Republican, I'd give him a cookie for stating the blindingly obvious. Obama could say the same without fear of contradiction from me.
There were some early initial attempts in the American media to brush Romney's statement off as the same as Obama's famous "clinging to guns and religion" statement. Except that if you go back and look at the full text of Obama's comment, it was in a speech which stated that the people about whom he was talking had been abandoned by successive administrations, had every reason to be suspicious about the odds of a new one making their lives better, and it was his campaign's job to try and convince them anyway, even if they didn't succeed. It was the total tonal opposite of Romney's comments.
-
Hard News: Reviews: #NZGT and the Herald, in reply to Gareth Ward,
Or that the margin of error on the poll is 3.6%...
Or that they report them at 1.4% in the graphic and both 1.4 and 1.5% in the text, either of which adds up to a total of 99.8 or 99.9% with all the other parties included. When the number that headlines your article is variant depending on rounding method, pick one and stick with it, guys...
-
Up Front: Choice, Bro, in reply to simon g,
You say “We’re doing marriage equality”, but if “we” means “Labour”, then the party leader has been a follower.
"We" definitely means "Labour", but "Labour" does not mean "David Shearer and David Shearer alone". You're ignoring a lot of work by a lot of people when you assume that.
