Comments for Predictable is Preventable

Comment on Technology vs. Privacy by Fred Carter

Fred Carter — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:48:52 +0000

Better late than never…
Three points in response to your blog posting;

1. WRONG PRIVACY ACT! Claims of “solid ground” compliance with the federal “Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, 2000″, or PIPEDA, says *nothing at all* about compliance with the Ontario (Municipal) Freedom of Information and Privacy of Personal Information Act (FIPPA/MFIPPA) - acts over which the Ontario Commissioner has authority (to receive, investigate complaints, issue orders, etc)

2. WRONG MOTIVE: You don’t need to have impure, bad or totalitarian motives to invade privacy. The biggest threats to privacy often come from incremental changes at the margins of information systems by well-meaning bureaucrats/employees in pursuit of other legitimate but non-privacy objectives (let’s save money and save lives!). Mission/function creep means that video cameras put in place for one defined purpose eventually become more numerous, more ubiquitous and used for novel, secondary purposes. Why not add remote control panning and zooming? How long before sound recording is added? What about retaining/archivingg the videos indefinitely for future uses? Could we add facial recognition to the feeds? Why not a public video feed so the public can watch too??

3. VVTC EFFICACY UNPROVEN: I am unaware of any study documenting, in empirical, measurable terms, the security claims of using CCTV in public (or private) spaces. In actual practice, the single most compelling use of CCTV is to preserve evidence in the event of an incident, which may have some deterrent/displacement value. Almost no one actually watches live CCTV feeds as this is too mind-numbingly boring an task for anyone to do credibly beyond 15-20 minutes. SO I take some issue with your four listed reasons for using CCTV.

My $0.02

Comment on Credit Card Fraud: Tips to Protect Yourself by Roger Wheatley

Roger Wheatley — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:37:07 +0000

Great post. I think in many respects (I’m just a guilty) people think of some of the points (above) as silly or not important. It’s criminals (I think) that garner the greatest rewards from such thinking. I know myself I’ve not been as diligent and fortunately I’ve been luck.

Nice to see this kind of “heads up” post. How will this change with the coming new “touch” card technology? No swiping, signatures or such? Any thoughts on that?

Comment on Why Home Builders play into the hands of Criminals! by RW

RW — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:43:14 +0000

In my opinion you’ve raised a very pertinent issue. I know that for new home and business buildings the focus appears to be more on ensuring that Internet access (cabling) is pre-wired. While this is a great feature (which increases saleability and profitability), I myself realize that I’ve purchased a home with no thought whatsoever to the security issues.

Quite frankly this has cost me money as a result of damage due to crime. Had I considered the external security of my property, I might not have had to incur wasted expense (and aggravation).

Another aspect is the ever growing trend of home owners with a home based business. I know there are also residential/commercial subdivisions being built in this area (the properties have been zoned as residential AND commercial properties where each business also has a residence in it). Needless to say this and the common home business trend, may lead to a more lucrative opportunity for crime.
Your link to that audit is a great tool.

One thing I’m considering is the installation of motion detectors and a CCTV surveillance system. Do you have any insights on this?

Comment on CCTV Controversy? Or Not? by JakeD

JakeD — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:51:19 +0000

Well thought out perspective. I think one issue business owners should be aware of is that the days of bars, window coating, etc. are over. Such visible security is a clear sign to would be perpetrators that there’s something of value for them.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting everything should be hidden either. Instead I’m suggesting that visible systems such as CCTV cameras clearly say:

“I have a record of you, that will be followed up if needed. This is not the time to participate in a crime.”

Older methods such as bars, etc. instead may give the following message:

“There’s something of value here… and there is probably nobody around when you get past the bars.”

Comment on The Risks Involved When Logging onto Your Financial Institution from Your Office Computer! by Roger Wheatley

Roger Wheatley — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:52:20 +0000

One thing I often find people are not aware of, are the social engineering aspects of garnering data from people. In this case the video is a good example of people being fooled into providing sensitive information, unknowingly.

Comment on Technology vs. Privacy by Roger Wheatley

Roger Wheatley — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:55:41 +0000

In my opinion there’s perhaps a bit of political maneuvering? After all, there’s a fair bit of money involved in a (CCTV) project of this scope. Do I need to connect the dot’s? Just my opinion…

Comment on VoIP Security Issues by Roger Wheatley

Roger Wheatley — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:42:29 +0000

One thing for viewers to keep in mind is that they have greater power to help control such issues. Of particular note is the availability of knowledge (easily searched via Google) and therefore easily beneficial to any business owner. Needless to say, when we have questions, ask a professional. In many cases there are simple answers which are often free of charge.