December 28, 2005 at 10:42 pm
(Science/Technology)
A few months back, I noted my lack of confidence in The Bank of America’s online security.
Perhaps to quell the fears of people with similar discomfort, BofA is set to launch a new system called SiteKey. In this scheme, the user is asked to enter their login (that string of numbers I complained about last time) and the website (if it already has a cookie on the user’s computer) shows the user a predetermined picture and caption which is intended to prove that the user has accessed the correct site (and thus to assure them that they are not about to become the latest victim of a phishing scam.)
This feature attracted some criticism, but it’s not what bugs me the most. Our user is forced to answer not just one but three “security questions” along the lines of “where did you go to school”, etc. And whereas someone of my suspicious nature might typically answer these questions with fake answers, should a user try to login with a computer that does not have a cookie already, he’ll be forced to answer one of those questions before being allowed to proceed. In other words, unless our user has reliably fake information (i.e., he can remember all the fake answers he fed it), he’ll be stuck using real information. And that means our user must feed one more website information about his personal life. It’s not impossible to believe that BofA wouldn’t use the information for its own purposes (i.e., our user’s parent’s birthplace is the same city in which he now resides, hence he doesn’t move around much. Now, how useful would that be? I don’t know. But I really distrust marketing types and figure they could abuse that info somehow.)
It’s a good sign at least that BofA is thinking about security, but let’s hope they get it right someday.
1 Comment
December 21, 2005 at 8:46 pm
(Culture)
Strangely, my business travels over the past three years (almost all of which has come in the past three months) have taken me to five states, all but one of which (California) are in the South. This week brings me to Arkansas. I’ve been talking this trip up quite a bit to the people I’m around (mostly because for me it was exciting to be traveling somewhere other than where I’ve been stationed the last few months.) And the people I’ve talked to, including some former Arkansas residents, suggested that I’d long for the sophistication of rural Kentucky after a few days in Arkansas. I’m happy to report however that this isn’t entirely the case, at least not in the Wally World/University of Arkansas corner of the state. Now sure, if someone here were to talk bad about Kentucky, I’d punch them in the nose (well, ok, not quite.) And sure, you’re even more sure you’re in the bible belt here than in Kentucky. But there are signs of intelligent life here in abundance–things like thriving technical businesses and sophisticated radio. Perhaps even better, this area has managed to retain some semblance of small-town ma&pop life that I really didn’t expect to see in Wal-Mart’s backyard.
I suppose I’ve known enough people from the state to know things couldn’t be that bad. But it’s nice to finally get a chance to see that up close.
Comments
December 16, 2005 at 10:00 pm
(Culture, Social/Economic)
Right on the heels of my post critical of Michael Moore’s belief that GM workers deserved to remain employed, in Flint, MI, I found a very similar argument coming from another self-labelled leftie regarding Nissan’s decision to move it’s North American HQ to the Nashville area. (My post on that subject is here.)
You can see my departure from traditional liberal thinking on this issue–forcing companies to be locked into their labor market in perpetuity makes no sense. It makes companies completely unable to adapt to changing market conditions (change in the cars demanded and aging equipment in GM’s case; high costs of living in Nissan’s case). Imagine if the reverse were true and employees couldn’t quit, even if they found a better job elsewhere? That doesn’t sound fair, does it?
I disagree even more with the blogger’s view because I suspect (although I don’t know) that being a national headquarters, many people will probably be invited to move with the company and many are probably already mobile; the ones that aren’t are probably still skilled office workers who will have an easier time finding new jobs than did Moore’s neighbors in Flint.
Comments
December 13, 2005 at 11:29 pm
(Culture, Social/Economic)
I finally saw “Roger and Me” today. Oddly, I’d been thinking of Flint, Michigan earlier in the day. It wasn’t that I’d been thinking about watching the documentary later in the day–in fact, that just happened to be the movie Netflix threw up. In fact I’d been thinking about the type of people who still buy GM cars. And in particular, a roommate of mine who had a GMC pickup. He came from a town near Flint called Davison. Hence the thought.
So, Michael Moore (or at least the one of the late 80’s) thinks that the automaker owes its workers job security. I think to some extent, workers are owed something…but I think there must be some sense of reality. If market conditions suggest jobs would be better placed elsewhere, it seems unrealistic to ask that they remain. Perhaps the lesson that corporations learned or should have learned is that constantly encouraging employees to improve themselves will pay more dividends than thinking of them as unchanging “cogs.” And I think this lesson has been learned, not only by companies that may be somewhat progressive/”liberal” (I think of Chipotle and their English classes for employees), but also by bigger (ie corporate Evil) companies such as my employer.
But perhaps an even bigger ramification of changing workforces and the newly flat earth may be something that far fewer people are thinking of: what will happen when there is no longer a reliable pool of “unskilled” laborers? In a nation where we pride ourselves on highly segmented labor and where the top jobs are service-industry related, who will pick our vegetables? Intellectual Socialist thinkers believed that eventually everyone would pick up the yoke for a small portion of the time, but that was, after all, Utopian thinking. I recall the discussion in “Office Space” about the guidance counselor question “What would you do if you had a million dollars?” And the ensuing comment that if everyone did what they loved, there wouldn’t be any janitors.
So without Utopia or cheap (or desperate) labor, what will we do?
Comments
December 12, 2005 at 8:20 pm
(Political)
Sometimes you hear unsubstantiated rumors that just make you smile. With Bush’s emphasis on loyalty, it seems like a long shot. But, uh, we could use a Defense secretary who has a conscience, or at least one responsive to the conscience of the people. And Bush’s poll numbers could use a little more help…so you never know.
Comments
December 12, 2005 at 7:59 pm
(Political)
The New York Times ran a biting editorial on the failures of rebuilding New Orleans.
We could blame ourselves for this. We’ve allowed the Federal goverment to take over certain things that are better handled at the state or local level. Bad enough that the top level of our government has to deal with the things that lower levels can’t adequately deal with, but now it is asked to deal with complicated local issues (such as whether to rebuild levies). In other words, it is asked to micromanage. No wonder it is paralyzed.
Comments
December 1, 2005 at 10:20 pm
(Political)
Rep Tancredo has a description of his district, Colorado’s Sixth Congressional District. Good thing his constituents were smart and left those awful tree-lined streets in Denver.
Anyway, I’m trying to figure out why Rep Tancredo is so terribly concerned about illegal immigration. True, there is some farmland in his district. But the majority of it is comprised of affluent suburban and exurban areas. If his constituents are seeing a large number of Mexicans, it’s because they’re being served by them at one of Douglas County’s garish supermalls. And since they’re working for a chain store, well, they’re probably in this country legitimately. Sorry, whitey.
More on this later.
In other news, I think Ralph Nader should sue. This guy looks too much like him. Brand dilution!
Comments
