Goodbye, Passwords. You Aren’t a Good Defense.

Came across this interesting article on passwords in NT Times (August 9, 2008) by Randall Stross. Passwords won’t keep us safe from identity theft, no matter how clever we are in choosing them argues Randoll Stross. Some highlights -

THE best password is a long, nonsensical string of letters and numbers and punctuation marks, a combination never put together before. Some admirable people actually do memorize random strings of characters for their passwords — and replace them with other random strings every couple of months.

Then there’s the rest of us, selecting the short, the familiar and the easiest to remember. And holding onto it forever.

I once felt ashamed about failing to follow best practices for password selection — but no more. Computer security experts say that choosing hard-to-guess passwords ultimately brings little security protection. Passwords won’t keep us safe from identity theft, no matter how clever we are in choosing them.

The solution urged by the experts is to abandon passwords — and to move to a fundamentally different model, one in which humans play little or no part in logging on. Instead, machines have a cryptographically encoded conversation to establish both parties’ authenticity, using digital keys that we, as users, have no need to see.

Culture Shift: Eliminating Employee Cynicism for Good

Read this interesting article on employee cynicism. Understanding the real cause of employee cynicism is the all-important first step toward permanent eradication argues Paul Levesque in this article. Some highlights from the article -

"... There are some "constant battles" that just inevitably come with the territory. Th e fight against germs, for example, affects every aspect of life in a hospital. Those who prefer outdoor recreation will have a mosquito problem to deal with anywhere there's standing water. Similarly, employee cynicism is an existing or potential problem in virtually every business setting. But solutions do exist to keep these constants at bay. As hospitals learn how germs spread, they can more effectively prevent infection. When we understand how mosquitoes breed, we're better equipped to bring their numbers under control.

Think of five successful corporations you personally admire. Do all five provide products and services that have made—and continue to make—our society and our world better in some way? The more unequivocally you can answer "yes," the more confidently I can predict that the companies you're thinking about do not have a problem with employee cynicism. More likely, theirs are cultures characterized by high levels of employee pride, right alongside the impressive profits.

The difference is that in these cultures, prosperity is perceived to be the means, rather than the end. It's the crucial and fundamental difference between "we exist to make a lot of money" and "we exist to do a lot of good in the world, and that requires a lot of money." It's eliminating cynicism for good, so to speak.

The great paradox is that businesses driven by self-interest cultivate employees who learn to similarly put their own self-interest first—to the ultimate detriment of the business. A management obsession with profit creates a workforce disinterested in profit, and obsessed instead with working conditions, wages, and other issues of interest to the workers themselves.

Management's day-to-day actions and priorities must make it difficult, if not impossible, for even the most cynical observers to argue it's all being driven purely by self-interest. The more readily employees can point to benefits experienced by customers or by the community at large, the more the cultural scales are likely to tip toward the "employee pride" side of the balance, and away from the "cynicism" side.... "

My experience suggests that those who work, will continue to work and those who don't, really won't, whatever we do or don't do. Article appears a bit idealistic to me. May be I am wrong.

The Middle of the Road

"The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing that stands in the way" - William Blake. I was reminded of this quote when I read this short editorial in NY Times by Maura J Casey. In a world with little tolerance for eccentricity, it is hard to imagine that decision being made today, says the author. Difficult to digest, yet absolutely TRUE.

NY Times Editorial

When I saw employees of my small Connecticut town digging around a tree near my home, I feared they were getting ready to cut it down. Thankfully, they were just replacing a nearby street sign.

The tree is an ordinary maple, but it stands at the juncture of two roads. Not at the side of the road, mind you. In the middle. When you turn from one street to the other, you have to drive around the tree, which is at least 60 years old, and grows smack in the center of the pavement. It is a reminder of a slower time that always makes me smile.

The road is one of the few remaining lightly traveled ones in town. Once, all of this town’s roads were lightly traveled. Tractors and milk trucks ambled in greater numbers; now today’s busy commuters whiz by. The traffic — which at certain times of the day can be near constant — forced the town to install its second stoplight about five years ago, followed soon after by a few fast-food franchises. A Chinese restaurant moved in, and now we can pick up kung pao chicken without having to drive 15 minutes to the small city nearby. Such are the privileges and the constraints of civilization.

That’s why the site — and sight — of the tree, the silent, leafy sentinel of a slower time, is at once amusing and comforting. Sometime, decades ago, town officials decided to pave around the tree instead of cutting it down for the convenience of cars despite the fact that it probably made more sense to remove it while widening the road. But it was a perfectly good tree, and someone argued, successfully, that it be left alone. In a world with little tolerance for eccentricity, it is hard to imagine that decision being made today.

How Bad Are iPods for Your Hearing?

Today, iPods (or) products similar to iPods are quite common. But will this lead to hearing loss? Does listening to loud music through headphones lead to long-term hearing loss? Brian Fligor, director of diagnostic audiology at Children's Hospital Boston, explains how much damage your headphone habit might cause — and how to mitigate your risk, in this interesting article in Time (July 28, 2008). Some highlights from the article -

"... I don't want to single out iPods. Any personal listening device out there has the potential to be used in a way that will cause hearing loss. We've conducted studies of a few MP3 players and found very similar results across the MP3 manufacturers.

Some in-the-ear earphones are capable of providing higher sound levels than some over-the-ear earphones. That said, studies we've done on behavior show that the type of earphones has almost nothing to do with the level at which people set their headphones. It's all dictated by the level of background noise in their listening environment.

When we put people in different listening environments, like flying in an airplane — we used noise we'd recorded while flying on a Boeing 757 commercial flight, and we simulated that environment in our lab — 80% of people listened at levels that would eventually put their hearing at risk. On the subway system here in Boston, the ambient noise levels are very comparable to the level on an airplane, although it sounds very different.

The noise is sufficiently high that it induces people to listen to their headphones at excessively loud volume. But in order to listen as loud as you want, you need to be careful about how long you're listening.

I would also strongly recommend that people invest in better earphones that block out background noise. Some of the research we did studied earphones that completely seal up the ear canal. These are passive sound-isolating earphones, as opposed to the ones that are active noise cancelers that block out some of the noise.

As far as I can tell, both would allow people to listen to their headphones at their chosen level — and more likely at a lower volume than if they were using the stock earbuds...."

Social welfare organisations liable to pay minimum wages

Business Line (July 9, 2008) reports that the Madras High Court has held that payment of minimum wages would stand irrespective of whether a work undertaken by an organisation was on voluntary basis.

Citing a decision of the apex court [in Sanjit Roy vs State of Rajasthan (1983 (1) SCC 525)], Mr Justice K. Chandru ruled that neither the Government nor any other authority could evade payment of minimum wages on the specious plea that they were running a social welfare organisation.

Non-payment of minimum wages to workmen on piece rate basis, would amount to forced labour is the key decision.

'Don't Touch My Perks': Companies that Eliminate Them Risk Employee Backlash

Managing people and their expectations is a difficult job. I read an interesting article in Knowledge@Wharton (July 23, 2008) on employee perks. A few highlights -

1. Once you have the perk, to take it away is seen as a violation of a psychological contract you have with your employee.
2. Inexpensive, or no-cost, perks -- such as casual-dress days, free coffee and food discounts -- may not add much to employee morale or productivity, but they don't hurt the bottom line much either.
3. It helps a lot if the need is something driven by factors outside the firm. The need to improve share price isn't going to satisfy a lot of people.
4. Some executives turn away cash compensation in favor of use of a company car valued at much less money because of emotional reasons.
   
5. Often you have to keep these deals quiet so others don't feel their [own] deal is bad.
   
6. Cell phone companies, local restaurants, and other businesses are eager to offer discounts to employers who, in turn, pass along the discounts to their employees. Employers win because they can provide a benefit to their employees that costs nothing.

With difficulties cropping on the economic front, it will be interesting to watch how companies are going to respond. May be if there is a threat of job loss, then employee(s) may compromise and say reduce salary or benefits but don't resort to job cuts.

The Black Swan and the bomb blasts in Bangalore & Ahmedabad

The Indian Context
Serial bomb blasts rock Bangalore, says NDTV quoting PTI. A woman was killed and at least six people were injured in a series of five low-intensity blasts carried out in eastern parts of the information technology capital this afternoon. The woman, who was waiting at a bus shelter in Madivala on the Bangalore-Hosur road, was killed in the blast and her husband and another person were seriously injured, police said. There were also blasts in other areas like Panthrapalya, Audugodi and Vittal Mallya Road within minutes of each other from the first blast at around 1330 hours. These blasts led to panic in Bangalore says Economic Times. Even as I came to grips with this deadly news, comes the serial blasts in Ahmedabad. NDTV's website says 16 co-ordinated serial blasts killed 30 people and injured over 100.

The serial blasts in Bangalore may bring back to focus the probe into three bomb explosions that rocked the Andhra Pradesh capital last year killing over 50 people. The investigators into the terror acts are yet to make any breakthrough, says sify. Investigating agencies could not go beyond blaming some terror groups based in Pakistan and Bangladesh for the Hyderabad terror acts and picking up a few suspects. They admitted that not a single terrorist directly involved in the blasts was arrested and they also could not file a charge sheet in the cases.

Thus, as usual, no progress has been made in either arresting the terrorists or their supporters, so far. And in the process, some more blasts occur. As usual, after every blast and loss of life and property, we hear news that the centre had forewarned that concerned State Government about possible terror attacks. We also hear brave statements from the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the usual crowd of politicians about the fight against terror to be continued etc. The Home Ministry also sends some additional police / para military forces after every incident. (Watch) The fact is that terrorists are acting with impunity and are able to attack wherever they want - and no one is safe.

My heart goes out to those who are injured / died. This is not the first blast, nor will it be the last, knowing the way the politicians / government / police / media, works in this country. This is not the first blast in Bangalore. Earlier a Delhi IIT Professor lost his life in a terrorist attack on the Indian Institute of Science complex. Similarly, this is not the first attack in Ahmedabad. Times of India lists a chronology of 12 major attacks in India since 2003, with hundreds of casualties. Rediff raises the pertinent point that the ease with which these attacks are being conducted only gives rise to one question -- Is terrorism becoming as common as a case of theft?

Looking at the numerous incidents of terror across the country, one could come to the conclusion that it's slowly becoming a part of our life. Political parties have been using terrorism as a weapon to get back at opponents. While the mudslinging continues, fact remains that almost all incidents of terror, which have taken place across the country in the last year, remain unsolved. Terrorists are never caught and if caught they are let off because of weak laws, human rights activists and media whose hearts beats more for terrorists than for the innocent common man and women (irrespective of community, caste, region) of this country and corrupt police force.

The Black Swan

It is in this context that I remembered "The Black Swan" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Black Swan signifies - rarity, extreme impact, and retrospective (though not prospective) predictability. Taleb says Black Swan logic makes what you don't know far more relevant than what you do know. To quote from Black Swan -

"Think of the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001: had the risk been reasonably conceivable on September 10, it would not have happened. If such a possibility were deemed worthy of attention, fighter planes would have circled the sky above the twin towers, airplanes would have had locked bulletproof doors, and the attack would not have taken place, period. Something else might have taken place. What? I don't know. Isn't it strange to see an event happening precisely because it was not supposed to happen? What kind of defense do we have against that? Whatever you come to know (that New York is an easy terrorist target, for instance) may become inconsequential if your enemy knows that you know it. It may be odd to realize that, in such a strategic game, what you know can be truly inconsequential...Consider the Pacific tsunami of December 2004. Had it been expected, it would not have caused the damage it did-the areas affected would have been less populated, an early warning system would have been put in place. What you know cannot really hurt you....

The inability to predict outliers implies the inability to predict the course of history, given the share of these events in the dynamics of events. But we act as though we are able to predict historical events, or, even wore, as if we are able to change the course of history.....What did people learn from the 9/11 episode? Did they learn that some events, owing to their dynamics, stand largely outside the realm of the predictable? No. Did they learn the built-in defect of conventional wisdom? No. What did they figure out? They learned precise rules for avoiding Islamic prototerrorists and tall buildings. Many keep reminding me that it is important for us to be practical and take tangible steps rather than to "theorize" about knowledge. The story of the Maginot Line shows how we are conditioned to be specific. The French, after the Great War, built a wall along the previous German invasion route to prevent reinvasion-Hitler just (almost) effortlessly went around it..."

Taleb asks us (in the context of 9/11 commission in USA) to learn to expect the unexpected, in an informative and thought provoking article on April 8, 2004 in NY Times. Some highlights from this article -

"A black swan is an outlier, an event that lies beyond the realm of normal expectations. Most people expect all swans to be white because that's what their experience tells them; a black swan is by definition a surprise. Nevertheless, people tend to concoct explanations for them after the fact, which makes them appear more predictable, and less random, than they are. Our minds are designed to retain, for efficient storage, past information that fits into a compressed narrative. This distortion, called the hindsight bias, prevents us from adequately learning from the past.

Black swans can have extreme effects: just a few explain almost everything, from the success of some ideas and religions to events in our personal lives. Moreover, their influence seems to have grown in the 20th century, while ordinary events — the ones we study and discuss and learn about in history or from the news — are becoming increasingly inconsequential.

Consider: How would an understanding of the world on June 27, 1914, have helped anyone guess what was to happen next? The rise of Hitler, the demise of the Soviet bloc, the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, the Internet bubble: not only were these events unpredictable, but anyone who correctly forecast any of them would have been deemed a lunatic (indeed, some were). This accusation of lunacy would have also applied to a correct prediction of the events of 9/11 — a black swan of the vicious variety.

A vicious black swan has an additional elusive property: its very unexpectedness helps create the conditions for it to occur. Had a terrorist attack been a conceivable risk on Sept. 10, 2001, it would likely not have happened. Jet fighters would have been on alert to intercept hijacked planes, airplanes would have had locks on their cockpit doors, airports would have carefully checked all passenger luggage. None of that happened, of course, until after 9/11.

Much of the research into humans' risk-avoidance machinery shows that it is antiquated and unfit for the modern world; it is made to counter repeatable attacks and learn from specifics. If someone narrowly escapes being eaten by a tiger in a certain cave, then he learns to avoid that cave. Yet vicious black swans by definition do not repeat themselves. We cannot learn from them easily.

All of which brings us to the 9/11 commission. America will not have another chance to hold a first inquiry into 9/11. With its flawed mandate, however, the commission is in jeopardy of squandering this opportunity.

The first flaw is the error of excessive and naïve specificity. By focusing on the details of the past event, we may be diverting attention from the question of how to prevent future tragedies, which are still abstract in our mind. To defend ourselves against black swans, general knowledge is a crucial first step.

The mandate is also a prime example of the phenomenon known as hindsight distortion. To paraphrase Kirkegaard, history runs forward but is seen backward. An investigation should avoid the mistake of overestimating cases of possible negligence, a chronic flaw of hindsight analyses. Unfortunately, the hearings show that the commission appears to be looking for precise and narrowly defined accountability.

Yet infinite vigilance is not possible. Negligence in any specific case needs to be compared with the normal rate of negligence for all possible events at the time of the tragedy — including those events that did not take place but could have. Before 9/11, the risk of terrorism was not as obvious as it seems today to a reasonable person in government (which is part of the reason 9/11 occurred). Therefore the government might have used its resources to protect against other risks — with invisible but perhaps effective results.

The third flaw is related. Our system of rewards is not adapted to black swans. We can set up rewards for activity that reduces the risk of certain measurable events, like cancer rates. But it is more difficult to reward the prevention (or even reduction) of a chain of bad events (war, for instance). Job-performance assessments in these matters are not just tricky, they may be biased in favor of measurable events. Sometimes, as any good manager knows, avoiding a certain outcome is an achievement.

The greatest flaw in the commission's mandate, regrettably, mirrors one of the greatest flaws in modern society: it does not understand risk. The focus of the investigation should not be on how to avoid any specific black swan, for we don't know where the next one is coming from. The focus should be on what general lessons can be learned from them. And the most important lesson may be that we should reward people, not ridicule them, for thinking the impossible. After a black swan like 9/11, we must look ahead, not in the rear-view mirror.

The Indian Context (conclusions)
In a situation where there is big demographic change happening in the Eastern parts of the country, where Pakistan has been continuously supporting terrorists, when large parts of the country are already in the midst of Naxalite menace, one important conclusion is that the laws need to be tightened. The second, would be to reward people who take extreme risk to eliminate terrorism. More importantly, there is an important need to protect police / para military / anti terrorist squad officials from witch hunting / summary trial & judgement by the print/visual media and from human rights activists (whose hearts normally beat for terrorists). Third, terrorists are to be treated as terrorists and exemplary and expeditious punishment through special courts would send the right signal. Fourth, and most important is not to confuse terrorism with secularism, as the Indian media and politicians have time and again done. Terror acts cannot be prevented, but can be made more difficult by being eternally alert and by not relaxing our guard. Prevention, even if costly and time consuming is worth the effort. Anti terror measures would definitely cause inconvenience to the common man - but that's any day worth than losing several thousand countrymen, year after year. Black Swan signifies rarity - yet, unfortunately, in the Indian context of terrorism, that rarity is gone and no one is safe anywhere in India.

Suggested reading

1. Numerous articles by Sri Arun Shourie in Indian Express.
2. Third-class governance can’t give first-class response to terrorism by Sri Arun Shourie in Indian Express (August 2, 2006).
3. National security through redefinition by Sri Arun Shourie in Indian Express (August 1, 2006).
4. Articles by Sri B. Raman in Rediff.
   

I’m Not Lying, I’m Telling a Future Truth. Really.

Some tales are so tall that they trip over their own improbable feats, narrative cracks and melodrama. Yet in milder doses, self-serving exaggeration can be nearly impossible to detect, experts say, and there are several explanations. Some kinds of deception are aimed more at the deceiver than at the audience, and they may help in distinguishing braggarts and posers from those who are expressing personal aspirations, however clumsily. Psychologists have studied deception from all sides and have found that it usually puts a psychological or physical strain on the person doing the dissembling. Trying to hold onto an inflammatory secret is mentally exhausting, studies have found, and the act of suppressing the information can cause thoughts of it to flood the consciousness. When telling outright lies, people tend to look and sound tenser than usual. The findings provide another lens through which to view claims, from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s story of sniper fire in Bosnia to exaggerations of income, charitable contributions and SAT scores. As much as these are embroideries, they are also expressions of yearning, and for reachable goals. In that sense, fibs can reflect something close to the opposite of the frustration, insecurity and secretiveness that often fuel big lies. That may be why they can come so easily, add up so fast and for some people — especially around closing time — become indistinguishable from the truth. All in all, an interesting and informative article by BENEDICT CAREY in NY Times.

Women, Repeat This: Don’t Ask, Don’t Get

Came across this interesting article in NYTimes by LINDA BABCOCK. The author says that women are much less likely than men to use negotiation to promote their goals and wishes. Women should learn how to assess and strengthen their bargaining power; research, prepare and practice before their negotiations; and use strategies that won’t make them seem threatening and provoke a backlash. Some highlights -

ABOUT 10 years ago, I heard that my boss was recommending two of my male colleagues for promotion. Both of these men had joined the faculty the same year I was hired, both were good teachers, and both had published important research. They were certainly qualified to move to the next level, from associate professor to full professor.

But so was I. I figured it was just a matter of time before my boss stopped by my office with the good news that he was promoting me, too. So I waited. And waited. As time passed, it became clear that I might be waiting a very long time.

Finally, I worked up the nerve to talk to him about it. I vividly remember his reaction. A big smile spread across his face. “Well, let’s promote you, too!” he said.

When my two male colleagues had asked to be promoted, my boss, seeing that they met all the requirements, readily agreed. Since he was a busy man, he didn’t stop to think about who else was ready for promotion. A question was posed, he answered it, and he went on to the next problem.

About three years later, I held my boss’s job. While hiring two people with similar credentials, a woman and a man, I made each the same salary offer. The woman accepted the offer without negotiating. The man bargained hard, and I had to raise his offer by about 10 percent before he would agree to it.

In between these two events, I watched similar situations play out among my students and friends. Time and again, I saw women accept the status quo, take what they were offered and wait for someone else to decide what they deserved. Men asked for what they wanted and usually got what they asked for.

Prompted by these experiences, I started a research project with several colleagues to study how and when men and women initiate negotiations. In my book “Women Don’t Ask,” I laid out overwhelming evidence that women are much less likely than men to use negotiation to promote their goals and wishes.