500 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2021
    1. New Trusted Third Parties Can Be Tempting Many are the reasons why organizations may come to favor costly TTP based security over more efficient and effective security that minimizes the use of TTPs: Limitations of imagination, effort, knowledge, or time amongst protocol designers – it is far easier to design security protocols that rely on TTPs than those that do not (i.e. to fob off the problem rather than solve it). Naturally design costs are an important factor limiting progress towards minimizing TTPs in security protocols. A bigger factor is lack of awareness of the importance of the problem among many security architects, especially the corporate architects who draft Internet and wireless security standards. The temptation to claim the "high ground" as a TTP of choice are great. The ambition to become the next Visa or Verisign is a power trip that's hard to refuse. The barriers to actually building a successful TTP business are, however, often severe – the startup costs are substantial, ongoing costs remain high, liability risks are great, and unless there is a substantial "first mover" advantage barriers to entry for competitors are few. Still, if nobody solves the TTP problems in the protocol this can be a lucrative business, and it's easy to envy big winners like Verisign rather than remembering all the now obscure companies that tried but lost. It's also easy to imagine oneself as the successful TTP, and come to advocate the security protocol that requires the TTP, rather than trying harder to actually solve the security problem. Entrenched interests. Large numbers of articulate professionals make their living using the skills necessary in TTP organizations. For example, the legions of auditors and lawyers who create and operate traditional control structures and legal protections. They naturally favor security models that assume they must step in and implement the real security. In new areas like e-commerce they favor new business models based on TTPs (e.g. Application Service Providers) rather than taking the time to learn new practices that may threaten their old skills. Mental transaction costs. Trust, like taste, is a subjective judgment. Making such judgement requires mental effort. A third party with a good reputation, and that is actually trustworthy, can save its customers from having to do so much research or bear other costs associated with making these judgments. However, entities that claim to be trusted but end up not being trustworthy impose costs not only of a direct nature, when they breach the trust, but increase the general cost of trying to choose between trustworthy and treacherous trusted third parties.

      There are strong incentives to stick with trusted third parties

      1. It's more difficult to design protocols that work without a TTP
      2. It's tempting to imagine oneself as a successful TTP
      3. Entrenched interests — many professions depend on the TTP status quo (e.g. lawyers, auditors)
      4. Mental transaction costs — It can be mentally easier to trust a third party, rather than figuring out who to trust.
    1. Users who have installed it decided to trust me, and I'm not comfortable transferring that trust to someone else on their behalf. However, if you'd like to fork it, feel free.

      Interesting decision... Seems like the project could have been handed off to new maintainers instead of just a dead-end abandoned project and little chance of anyone using it for new projects now.

      Sure you can fork it, but without a clear indication of which of the many forks in the network graph to trust, I doubt few will take the (massively) extra time to evaluate all options and choose an existing fork as a "leader" (or create their own fork) to go with continuing maintenance...

  2. May 2021
    1. David Benkeser. (2020, November 9). Another view on uncertainty associated based on Pfizer’s results. Even if you were highly skeptical about MRNA vaccines (many are [were?]) with 50% prior belief that VE ~ 0, based on an 8:86 vax:placebo case split, the posterior probability that VE > 75% is ~ 1. Https://t.co/xtBONtGHmT [Tweet]. @biosbenk. https://twitter.com/biosbenk/status/1325856366225993729

  3. Apr 2021
  4. Mar 2021
    1. Yufika, A., Wagner, A. L., Nawawi, Y., Wahyuniati, N., Anwar, S., Yusri, F., Haryanti, N., Wijayanti, N. P., Rizal, R., Fitriani, D., Maulida, N. F., Syahriza, M., Ikram, I., Fandoko, T. P., Syahadah, M., Asrizal, F. W., Aletta, A., Haryanto, S., Jamil, K. F., … Harapan, H. (2020). Parents’ hesitancy towards vaccination in Indonesia: A cross-sectional study in Indonesia. Vaccine, 38(11), 2592–2599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.01.072

  5. Feb 2021
    1. With blockchain, trust comes from the network itself. Instead of simply trusting a middleman institution, we can trust the blockchain code. The way that the blockchain is built means all parties in the system, not just the ones involved in the transaction, come to an agreement on what the facts are. And once they agree, a new block is added

      Trust in blockchain

    1. We’ve always used the term ‘social networking’ to refer to the process of finding and connecting with those people. And that process has always depended on a fabric of trust woven most easily in the context of local communities and face-to-face interaction.

      Too much of modern social networking suffers from this fabric of trust and rampant context collapse. How can we improve on these looking forward?

  6. Jan 2021
    1. unlike a traditional computer, a blockchain computer can offer strong trust guarantees, rooted in the mathematical and game-theoretic properties of the system. A user or developer can trust that a piece of code running on a blockchain computer will continue to behave as designed, even if individual participants in the network change their motivations or try to subvert the system. This means that the control of a blockchain computer can be placed in the hands of a community
  7. Dec 2020
    1. “Being under constant surveillance in the workplace is psychological abuse,” Heinemeier Hansson added. “Having to worry about looking busy for the stats is the last thing we need to inflict on anyone right now.”

      I really like the Basecamp approach (I forget where I heard this...could have been in one of the Rework podcasts):

      Don't try to get the most out of everyone; try to get the best out of them.

      If you're looking for ways to build trust in a team, I can't recommend the following books published by Basecamp:

      • Rework
      • Remote
      • It doesn't have to be crazy at work
  8. Nov 2020
  9. Oct 2020
    1. To ascertain whether this decrease in confidence was as a result of the Cummings events (a Cummings effect), we carried out analyses using two types of comparisons. First, we compared the responses for people living in England to those of people living in the devolved nations of Scotland and Wales who were asked to rate their confidence in their own devolved governments. There was no evidence of a similar large decrease in confidence in the governments of the devolved nations either descriptively (appendix p 1–3) or statistically

      Trust in government

    1. When I received Chris’s comment, my first response was that I should delete my post or at least the incorrect part of it. It’s embarrassing to have your incorrect understandings available for public view. But I decided to leave the post as is but put in a disclaimer so that others would not be misled by my misunderstandings. This experience reminded me that learning makes us vulnerable. Admitting that you don’t know something is hard and being corrected is even harder. Chris was incredibly gentle in his correction. It makes me think about how I respond to my students’ work. Am I as gentle with their work as Chris was to mine? Could I be more gentle? How often have I graded my students’ work and only focused on what they did wrong? Or forgotten that feeling of vulnerability when you don’t know something, when you put your work out for others to judge? This experience has also reminded me that it’s important that we as teachers regularly put ourselves into situations in which we authentically grapple with not knowing something. We should regularly share our less than fully formed understandings with others for feedback. It helps us remember that even confident learners can struggle with being vulnerable. And we need to keep in mind that many of our students are not confident learners.

      I'm reminded here of the broad idea that many bloggers write about sooner or later of their website being a "thought space" or place to contemplate out in the open. More often than not, even if they don't have an audience to interact with, their writings become a way of thinking out loud, clarifying things for themselves, self-evolving, or putting themselves out there for potential public reactions (good, bad, or indifferent).

      While writing things out loud to no audience can be helpful and useful on an individual level, it's often even more helpful to have some sort of productive and constructive feedback. While a handful of likes or positive seeming responses can be useful, I always prefer the ones that make me think more broadly, deeply, or force me to consider other pieces I hadn't envisioned before. To me this is the real value of these open and often very public thought spaces.

      For those interested in the general idea, I've been bookmarking/tagging things around the idea of thought spaces I've read on my own website. Hopefully this collection helps others better understand the spectrum of these ideas for themselves.

      With respect to the vulnerability piece, I'm reminded of an episode of <cite>The Human Current</cite> I listened to a few weeks back. There was an excellent section that touched on building up trust with students or even a class when it comes to providing feedback and criticism. Having a bank of trust makes it easier to give feedback as well as to receive it. Here's a link to the audio portion and a copy of the relevant text.

  10. solidproject.org solidproject.org
    1. The last login you'll ever need Solid provides for the first time a single global logon system, so that when you log into any web site, instead of having to log in with the usual 'f' and 'g', etc, blue buttons, and then be tracked by Facebook, Google, or some other large social network, instead you can log in with any Solid provider you trust, and that won't track you.
  11. Sep 2020
  12. Aug 2020
    1. The straightforward solution to integrate WPML with third party translation services was to do it via dedicated plugins. A separate plugin for each company offering translation services could do the trick. However, this approach had a few drawbacks. For example, WPML developers would need to update and test all these plugins whenever the WPML core plugins received an update, and vice versa; when the API used by the external service changed, you needed to incorporate the change to WPML and test it as well.
  13. Jul 2020
    1. "that text has been removed from the official version on the Apache site." This itself is also not good. If you post "official" records but then quietly edit them over time, I have no choice but to assume bad faith in all the records I'm shown by you. Why should I believe anything Apache board members claim was "minuted" but which in fact it turns out they might have just edited into their records days, weeks or years later? One of the things I particularly watch for in modern news media (where no physical artefact captures whatever "mistakes" are published as once happened with newspapers) is whether when they inevitably correct a mistake they _acknowledge_ that or they instead just silently change things.
    1. If you have worked with emails before, the idea of placing a script into an email may set off alarm bells in your head! Rest assured, email providers who support AMP emails enforce fierce security checks that only allow vetted AMP scripts to run in their clients. This enables dynamic and interactive features to run directly in the recipients mailboxes with no security vulnerabilities! Read more about the required markup for AMP Emails here.
  14. Jun 2020
  15. May 2020
    1. Reputational damage Failure to comply with your legal obligations may lead to users negatively perceiving your business as either incompetent or malicious. This can lead to significant and lasting damage to public trust and the reputation of your organization.
    1. I know, you don't trust Mozilla but do you also not trust the developer? I absolutely do! That is the whole point of this discussion. Mozilla doesn't trust S3.Translator or jeremiahlee but I do. They blocked page-translator for pedantic reasons. Which is why I want the option to override their decision to specifically install few extensions that I'm okay with.
  16. Apr 2020
    1. There is MiniKeePass on the iOS App Store, but I'm not sure if I trust it not to make off with my data. Also, syncing between my PC and the app would be a pain. (1Password has local WiFi sync) There is also KeeFox for Firefox integration, but I'm not sure if I trust that either. In short, I trust KeePass itself, but I'm not sure if I can trust the third-party developers of the mobile app and browser extension.
    1. wouldn't let me send a two-line memo to another department without showing it to him before I sent it. John's leadership style was oppressive. He micr0-managed everything. I learned from the hellish experience of working for him that unless somebody wants another set of eyes on their correspondence, it's insulting and a waste of time to micro-manage your team members' email messages.
    1. We've found that an incredibly effective—although certainly counterintuitive—way to earn and maintain user trust is to make it easy for users to leave your product with their data in tow. This not only prevents lock-in and engenders trust, but also forces your team to innovate and compete on technical merit. We call this data liberation.
  17. Mar 2020
  18. www.graphitedocs.com www.graphitedocs.com
  19. Jan 2020
  20. Dec 2019
  21. Nov 2019