Tuesday, 4 December 2018

Panda Arcade interview

It's been a while since I contributed to Digitally Downloaded, but I'm quite proud of this particular one: an interview with the Richmond (Melbourne) based indie developers Panda Arcade.
Panda Arcade are in the process of making a new mobile game, Pico Tanks. Essentially, it's a modern incarnation, online multiplayer, version of the good old Combat game that came bundled with my Atari 2600. Having played it at last year's PAX as well as this year's, I can report a family favourite in the making.
I'll quit while ahead and send you to read the interview here.

Thursday, 6 September 2018

ASS Access Submission

Following is the submission I have made with regards to Australia's proposed ASS Access bill.
I do not pretend for this submission to be exemplary in any way; I knocked it off rather too quickly in between other things I have to do in life. However, I am publishing it here in the hope it would help others file their own submissions. We only have a few days left to make an impact!

Dear sir/madam,

I would like to express my objection to the proposed Assistance and Access Bill 2018 (The Bill). As I will outline below, The Bill demonstrates deep misunderstanding of contemporary telecommunications, The Bill will jeopardise the security of Australians as well as the rest of the world, and The Bill runs the risk of turning Australia from a society of free thinkers into a society of East Germany like people worried about their every move.

To start, the explanations provided in support of The Bill on The Bill’s internet page itself (see https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/consultations/assistance-and-access-bill-2018) demonstrate the government’s lack of understanding in the areas it is aiming to regulate so aggressively through the proposed Bill.
For example, the page cites a sex offender whose use of Snapchat and Facebook Messenger prevents the Victoria Police from collecting evidence on the case. However, in real life that will not be the case: Snapchat is probably one of the least secure popular messaging platforms, and should allow the police to easily retrieve all communicated data using existing procedures (e.g., a warrant). Given court approval, a police appointed hacker will have no problems retrieving message data, although it should be even easier for the police to acquire the data from Snapchat itself.
Similarly, Facebook Messenger should not pose much of a problem to the police, either. By default, Facebook Messenger does not use end-to-end encryption. Further, Facebook collects messages’ metadata, which it will serve the police when issued with a warrant, therefore allowing the police to connect the dots even if encrypted messaging was put to use. And let us not ignore the fact the police can already collect most, if not all, of the evidence it requires from the victim’s phone.
To summarise the point, there is nothing in the single example cited in support of The Bill that cannot be achieved, and easily so, using legal methods currently available to the police. This example not only demonstrates lack of understanding in matters of technology on behalf of the government proposing The Bill, it actually demonstrates quite effectively the rather redundant nature of the proposed Bill when it comes to crime fighting.

Further, I - as well as all cybersecurity and encryption experts, who are unanimous on this - argue that the proposed Bill will harm the cybersecurity of Australians rather than improve it. In actual fact, it would harm the cybersecurity of all the citizens of the world, since we all rely on the same technology and mathematics to protect our banking, commerce, private messaging, and even nude photos that we would prefer to keep to ourselves. (I know nude photos do not sound like much in comparison with commerce and banking, but they do seem to carry a lot of significance with a large proportion of the population.)
The reason The Bill will be harmful to the security of Australians and the rest of the world is that its implementations would create backdoors into otherwise private online interactions. While The Bill claims it will not create a backdoor, that is exactly what it will create: there is no other way to break the encryption algorithms in current use other than a backdoor; it is mathematically impossible. The only point of contention remains the exact definition of the term “backdoor”, but semantics aside, a backdoor by any other name is still a backdoor.
The problem with such backdoors is that, once created, we cannot prevent them from being used only by “the good guys”. Nor can we prevent their abuse, which is likely to be high given the complete absence of oversight offered by The Bill and the oppressive measures it will enforce on those informing the public of its application (measures that might befit Putin’s oligarchy, but certainly have no place in Australia).
For example, if Apple develops a way for Australia to hack into iPhones, that same method can be used by Russia, China, and the entire collection of criminal hackers who would love to put their hands on the sensitive data we all store on our smartphones these days. There is simply no other way about it, which is exactly why The Bill would be harmful to the interests of Australia’s citizens and put Australian businesses at a disadvantage against their international competition. It is obvious international companies would prefer to avoid the potential scrutiny of the Australian government.
Eventually, the proposed Bill would put the entire world at risk. Examples for the problematic way in which government backdoors can go wrong include the famous WannaCry, which was originally developed by the NSA as a backdoor. WannaCry then fell into the hands of people on the wrong side of the fence, probably North Koreans, and shut down the UK’s health services for a while. It  still continues to harm the world economy, putting all manufacturing at Taiwan’s TSMC, the world’s largest computer chip manufacturer, to a halt just the other month (refer to https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/chipmaker-tsmc-wannacry-attack-could-cost-us170-million-a-11285 for details). I am thus very much puzzled by an Australia that seeks to walk down the same path and put the world’s cybersecurity at risk: if the NSA with its multibillion dollar budget, the biggest and mightiest in the world, can fail to protect its trade secrets, what chance does Australia stand?

Lastly, I will argue the proposed Bill stands against the core values of Australian society. The values that make Australia the great country it is, a society of free thinkers, where entrepreneurship is encouraged, and individual initiative is highly regarded.
Do we really want to subdue the free spirit of our society by creating, instead, a country where people know every form of communication they have with their fellow citizens is monitored and surveilled by others (be it government agencies, but also - as previously noted - foreign governments and criminals?).
Science has already told us people behave differently when they know they are being observed (refer to the Observer Effect or the Hawthorne Effect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect). Australians do not need to experiment on ourselves to know what a society of mass government surveillance would be like: we need only look at China. China’s internet resembles the one our Bill aspires to create: an internet where no one can keep a secret from the state through the abduction of all form of privacy. All this has been achieved by delegalising all manner of encryption.
Let there be no doubt about it: these days, removing the means with which people can securely and privately communicate electronically amounts to removing people’s core freedom; electronic communications are where the bulk of today’s communications lie. For some people it represents the entirety of their communication with the world at large.
We therefore need to ask ourselves: Do we want to become another China? I think that is a rhetorical question. I doubt any Australian would prefer to live in China over Australia; similarly, Australia is often cited as one of the best countries in the world to migrate to, whereas I am yet to hear of anyone who seeks to migrate to China.

I therefore urge for the Assistance and Access Bill 2018 to be dropped. As I have demonstrated, it has been wrongfully raised in the first place; it will put Australians at a disadvantage; and it will actively harm Australians as well as the rest of the world.
Let us keep Australia as one of the best places in the world to live at. Let us not imitate the East German Stasi ideal. Let’s stop this bill and keep Australians free.

Wednesday, 5 September 2018

A Message from Our Government

Authorised by the Department of Home Au Pairs, Canberra

Submit your comments on the ASS Access bill to this email address by 10 September 2018.
For advice on how to make a submission, see here.

Saturday, 25 August 2018

Survey of current Bluetooth noise cancelling headphones

These days, it seems everyone on the street is armed with some type of headphones, yours truly included.
Yours truly used to aspire towards audiophile quality headphones that work well when they’re powered by smartphones (like the Sennheiser Momentum I reviewed here). Then yours truly gave noise cancelling headphones a try, in the shape of the Bose QC25; and since then, noise cancelling has been deemed to be the most important quality as far as headphones are concerned, at least by yours truly‘s book.
The reason is simple. Most of the places where I listen to music are noisy: be it the street, the train, the plane, or even the office - there is always noise about. Under such circumstances, the headphones’ ability to convey the most accurate depiction of a recording’s sound does not matter much. Those tiny details are masked by all that noise.

Enter noise cancelling: by cancelling the noise, to one extent or another, a good pair of noise cancelling headphones allows listeners to enjoy more of that quality without having to raise the volume to eardrum defying levels. As MasterCard put it rather eloquently, that ability to listen to music or podcasts on the train at whisper quiet sound levels and genuinely enjoy it - priceless!
Naturally, noise cancelling comes at a price. The process of sampling the noise outside the headphones, then deducting it from the music's signal while taking into account whatever it is that's going on inside the headphones, is a rather complex one (both the inside and the outside need to be sampled, then some formula needs to be applied); the end result will not be perfect, sound quality wise. That process also requires power in the shape of a battery, creating more bulky headphones and the need to associate oneself with spare batteries or a charger.
Probably the biggest drawback of noise cancelling headphones these days is that they are but a rare few that are made with high quality sound in mind. There are multiple reasons for that: for example, it is hard to make good sounding noise cancelling headphones that are not pretty expensive. However, by far the biggest problem when it comes to making good noise cancelling headphones lies with the fact one company, Bose, holds the bulk of patents on noise cancelling techniques; all other companies have to work around these patents through all sorts of compromises if they want to offer some competition.
Another twist to the scene of noise cancelling headphones was created by Apple upon its release of the iPhone 7, some two years ago. That was the first major smartphone to abandon the till then generally universal headphone plug standard, which meant that - from that point onward - Bluetooth was pretty much the way to go when it came to headphones. Even non Apple smartphones “imitated” the trend, to one extent or another; and given the hefty cost of noise cancelling headphones, Bluetooth is now a requirement if you want a future proof option.
On one hand, Bluetooth releases us listeners from the tangles of wired headphones; that feeling of liberation when one moves from wired headphones to a Bluetooth pair is clear and present. However, Bluetooth also means a reduction in sound quality due to the format’s incapacity to wirelessly convey the level of detail available. And it also means one needs to suffer through the occasional “why won’t my phone talk to my headphones” moments of pairing trouble, which always seem to happen when one is in a hurry and carrying stuff.

With all that in mind, I thought I’d take you through my personal observations of the most dominant noise cancelling Bluetooth headphones on the market today.
Let’s have a look:

Bose QuietComfort 35 II (aka QC35):
Regardless of the aforementioned patent related reasons, there can be no doubt the QC35 is the king of the active noise cancelling. No other headphones can kill the surrounding environment sound as effectively as these ones.
This doesn’t mean I like these headphones, though. I find the QC35, with their classic Bose sound, too uncomfortable on the ears; that non natural metallic sound curve seems to pierce right into my ears. Which contradicts the headphones' fit comfort: there can be no denying they are the most comfortable headphones to wear in this survey. It's just a shame their sound is so ear piercing.
Version II of the QC35 comes with Google Assistant. Both that and the older versions can be used with a Bose smartphone app that has been identified to send listener’s listening records over to Bose (to be resold to advertisers, no doubt), so bear in mind that these are no privacy activist’s headphones; on the other hand, all these smart features can be disabled to one extent or another.
In Australia, the QC35 II normally sell in the low $400 territory, but the occasional discount can have them in the mid $300 territory. If you want to try the QC35, try heading down to an Apple shop: in addition to selling its own headphones, Apple sells Bose's and should be able to let you try them on.

Beats Studio3:
Generally speaking, I am no fan of the Beats traditional bass heavy sound. However, it may surprise you to know that sound does not apply to the Studio3. I was very much surprised with the natural sound these headphones produce. I will not mince words, I love these headphones!
If you’re in Apple territory, they’d give you the bonus of beating able to easily switch between all your Apple devices. Also, that initial Bluetooth connection experience is solid in its reliability and speed.
There is only one negative I can put against these headphones (other than the obligatory “definitely not as good as Bose's noise cancelling"): build quality. Like most Beats headphones, build quality is less than inspiring, to the point I wonder how long they’d last or whether they'd have much resale value. My original pair proved faulty through a clickity-clackity symphony taking place on the left headphone each time I took a step; luckily, being an Apple product with Apple grade service, they were quickly replaced with a brand new pair that has been working well since.
I will also note the short lived battery, that doesn’t last much longer than 15 hours per charge (but does charge quickly).
In this imperfect world of noise cancelling headphones, the Studio3 are my personal choice. Apple sells them for $450, but you can get them at Costco for $310. Regardless, if you head to an Apple shop you can easily try them with your phone and make your own mind up; you can even return them to Apple within a month to get your money back, if you fancy a long tryout.
It is probably important to point out at well substantiated rumours Apple is planning on releasing Apple branded flagship headphones during 2018, probably in time for the Christmas shopping season; these will probably downgrade the Studio3's status.

Bowers & Wilkins PX:
Sold as the audiophile’s choice, the B&W PX do offer sound quality that is significantly superior to all other Bluetooth headphones I have tested and can almost rival that of high quality wired headphones. Which is not an achievement to be trifled with.
They also feel “newer” and “fresher” than the rest, offering a USB-C charging cable (as opposed to the older Micro USB standard the utilised by the old guard).
Problems lie with the PX’ noise cancelling. Or should I call it noise smearing? What I’m trying to say is, their noise cancelling is pretty much worthless in any environment that is not already pretty quiet. Even a passing car in a generally quiet suburban street render me unable to interpret speech or enjoy music, let alone the noisy environment of a train or a busy city street. Which is a big shame, because the PX sport the best passive noise cancelling around (through tight, yet comfortable, ear pieces).
Couple that noise cancelling of a joke with a price tag of $550 or so, and I can only regard the PX as a major league disappointment. Sure, all the hi-fi magazines drool over it, but in the real life environments where noise cancelling is supposed to make or break one’s listening experience these are total failures. If I was to do rate these headphones, I would give them 1 out of 5 stars; that is the level of disappointment these headphones put me through.
I would advise you to only approach these headphones if you are after the best Bluetooth can offer and are only planning to use your headphones in the [dead] quiet of your home.

Sony WH-1000XM2:
Sony does know how to attach sexy names to its products, doesn’t it?
OK, I will admit right from the start that I have minimal personal experience with these headphones; I only included them here because they are widely  considered to offer the second best noise cancelling option (Bose being the first).
My one time go at them, in the middle of a noisy shop, seemed to indicate at very musical headphones and good noise cancelling. Who knows, maybe they are superior to the Studio3, but I will probably never know for sure because I have no reliable way of testing them (without forking out $300-$400). Let’s hope Sony can learn a page or two from Apple here and offer testing opportunities.

In conclusion...
I will add there are other, more technical, considerations to bear in mind when choosing your noise cancelling headphones. For example, some can operate without power but with a cord, which can be fairly handy when the battery runs out or if you just want to reserve power (you will be giving up on the noise cancellation, though); with some, you cannot listen while charging; and others have the ability to charge quickly, giving you an hour or two of operation with a mere 10 minute charge. If any such consideration applies to you, I urge you to do your research to ensure you are not getting yourself an expensive pair of useless headphones.

Obviously, all of the above relies mostly on personal observations and your own mileage may vary. The main point to take, though, is that not all noise cancelling is created equally; yet, at least in this survey, 3 out of the 4 headphones offer a level of noise cancellation that slices through daily train commutes like it was creme chantili and can make long flights slightly less intolerable. Which, by my book, goes a long way towards being able to enjoy music and sound wherever I may be.

Sunday, 12 August 2018

Top Crab reminder

Just a reminder that over at Crab Juice, my reviews blog, I recently picked my favourites of the year (for the 12th time!).
Click the link to see what my favourite movie, video game, podcast and others are.

Monday, 6 August 2018

Follow the Apps

Most people take mobile apps for granted and never stop to consider the implications of using them. Well, there are implications, and privacy is one of them: when you use an app, you are - effectively - giving up on your ability to know what this app is doing on your behalf.
One very common thing for apps to do is to share your information with various players who make their money by collecting and harvesting our information. I’m talking Google, I’m talking Facebook, but I’m also talking about thousands of other companies most people have never heard of who make billions by selling our data. And, almost exclusively, they do so behind our backs (because we wouldn’t let them do it if we were aware of what was really going on).

There are ways for one to check on one’s apps.
One free and all conquering tool is Wireshark. You set it up on a computer in your network and it will tell you of everything going in and out; you can then examine it to see, in detail, what goes in and out of your phone when you use certain apps. The problem, however, is that for the laymen it can be pretty hard to identify the relevant from the irrelevant. Or, for that matter, it could be pretty hard to set Wireshark up in the first place.
Another way to check what’s going on in your internet connection is to use deep pocket inspection facilities available on some routers and switching equipment, particularly the more professional ones. For the purpose of the current discussion, I will assume this is either unavailable or is too technically demanding.
The easier and accessible for all way to see what apps are doing is to use a proxy app on your mobile device. When it’s running, all outgoing network traffic will go through that proxy app, and if it is designed for that purpose then it will allow you to peek into that outgoing traffic: where it is going, how much of it is going, and what is it that is going (as in, the actual contents). With regards to the contents, things are getting harder to assess given most apps use encryption (a much welcomed positive!), but the metadata at one's disposal is usually sufficient to make some educated assessments. For example, you can tell if an app of yours is uploading your photos to an online server.
My proxy app of choice for iOS is called Charles Proxy. I can attest that aside of having a lovely name and a lovely icon, it delivers when it comes to overseeing one’s apps.
Regardless of tool, the first thing you will see when examining traffic going in and out of an iOS device is just how often your phone calls home to Apple (and I assume the situation is very similar with Android phones calling Google home). It’s all encrypted, so you can’t tell what it is, exactly, but it does looks like Apple keeps track of opened and closed apps (probably for the purpose of assessing app popularity and such). The problem is, it’s all done behind closed doors so one cannot really tell what’s going on; regardless, we should all be aware of the fact our phones report a lot of stuff about us to the powers that be. It is something we all need to be aware of when we use our phones: you are not alone; someone is watching behind your back.
For now I will note that, given I ran my tests below on iOS, I have ignored mentioning whether apps call on an Apple service. It comes down to the fact that if you are using an Apple phone, you cannot hide from Apple. The same applies to Google and Android phones; Apple and Google’s surveillance is only limited by how far they are willing to go. In Apple’s case, it claims to be quite pro privacy (e.g., it offers navigation facilities using Apple Maps that don’t record where you are) yet it lacks in transparency. Google’s case is vastly different, with the company making its money out of its users’ data, causing it to often cross what’s acceptable (examples include tracking users’ location using cell tower data even when the user disables location services; there’s plenty more). I will put it this way, there are very good reasons why I happily pay Apple the inflated prices it charges for its devices.

Once you do start looking into apps’ behaviour, you’d be able to detect a pattern. Apps tend to come in one of the following flavours:
1. Apps that work just fine without calling any external party or any user tracking.
2. Apps that call home to Google.
3. Apps that call home to Facebook.
4. Apps that call home to a slew of other trackers, advertisers, and data harvesters.
I will note the above order of app escalation is not random. That is to say, apps that call Facebook seem to unanimously call Google, too. Similarly, apps that call on “other” trackers will not leave Google or Facebook behind.
It’s worth mentioning there are legitimate reasons for apps to call on the external resources of companies such as Google and Amazon. For example, Signal, one of the most secure and private messaging app out there, uses Amazon’s services. Similarly, there are apps that use Google’s storage facilities. However, part of the Google “contract”, if you will, says that they provide services in return for tracking. Similarly, Amazon Web Services is the engine that runs a lot of our internets, but Amazon is also a retail company running pretty sophisticated operations in the tracking and data harvesting department.

To demonstrate my point regarding apps and the tracking they come bundled with, I will point out real life examples for apps that behave differently to one another when it comes to respecting their users’ privacy. Obviously, there are a lot of apps to go through (in the millions!), but for now I will stick with three popular use cases of mine.

Camera apps:
Halide: Doesn’t call anyone.
Camera+ for iPad: Doesn’t call anyone (but do note there is a newer iteration of that app).

Photo editing apps:
Darkroom: Calls the dev’s home, a couple of analytics tools (Heap Analytics, HockeyApp), Apple’s iCloud (probably because that’s where my photos are stored).
Affinity: Calls the dev’s home and Amazon’s AWS.
Enlight: Calls Google, Facebook, and numerous others. Guess that's one app that quickly gets deleted off my phone.

Video playback apps:
VLC: As can be expected (?) from an app of such noble origins, VLC doesn’t call anyone.
Infuse: Doesn’t call anyone, but I will note I am using the old Pro version 4.
PlayerXtreme: Despite me paying for the premium app (there is also a free version), the app calls Google, Facebook, and numerous other trackers. It’s hard to tell what it is, exactly, that is shared; however, since I am not sure I would like to share what videos I watch with such entities, I’d rather stick with the likes of VLC.

PDF annotation apps: (I will add I grouped here several apps offering significantly different, yet overlapping, functionality)
GoodReader: As per its own statements, GoodReader does not share your information.
Notability: While this app offers superior annotation facilities (e.g., OCR, Apple Pencil support), it does calls home to Google.
GoodNotes: Very similar to Notability in form and function (though it had OCR years earlier), GoodNotes calls home to both Google and Facebook.
LiquidText: This otherwise incredible app for studying texts is also quite productive in the tracking department. It calls home to liquidtext.net looking for something called ad-pack.zip (does the name tell us all we need to know here?). It also calls Facebook and various analytics/trackers like Apptentive, Crashlytics, and AppsFlyer.

I will add I find the above findings odd. In the case of Halide I actually communicated with the devs, who told me their apps don’t send anything, but then again my device clearly shows some [yet little] mobile data use by the app. It could have been a one off or a bug.
In the case of Camera+, I distinctly remember the iPhone version calling home with each use. Perhaps the iPad version is different, or maybe they changed their approach.
I guess my point is, if you see an app sending your information away then you know it does it; if you don’t, that does not preclude the app from sending information away at some later point in time. That said, I highly recommend Halide as my favourite camera app on the iPhone, and I think it is clear the developer has all the right intentions.

You might have noticed I did not include games in this survey. Which is rather odd, given games are known to be some of the worst offenders when it comes to tracking users. Especially the free ones, some of which are pretty blatant platforms for not much more than tracking their users.
My answer there is rather simple: Sure, there are plenty of ethical games out there that do not track their users. Regardless, given that the bulk of games do not need the internet to run (I will add: given the better games do not need the internet to run), the easiest way of dealing with their user tracking is to simply go offline when playing them.
Sometimes, the crude “old style” solution is the best solution.

Yet another solution for bypassing the tracking imposed on users by apps is to use a good old browser instead. That is, instead of using an app to perform an action (say, buying an item on eBay), go to the eBay website and perform the exact same action.
The reason for choosing the browser over the app is simple: on a browser, you can take control over who can track you or not by using ad blockers and numerous other tools that are widely available out there. On a desktop browser you can install add-ons such as uBlock Origin (ad blocker), Ghostery and Privacy Badger (tracker blockers that utilise different approaches to the blocking).
On iOS Safari, on the other hand, you can utilise ad blockers such as Firefox Focus, AdBlock, or one of the flavours available from Disconnect. The Firefox iOS browser itself comes with ad blocking built in, to various degrees, but it is not on by default. Then there is my favourite iOS browser, Brave, which comes with idiot proof tracker blocking built in and even offers script blocking for the more advanced user. Indeed, Brave has become my go to recommendation whenever the layman asks me for the easiest way to avoid tracking; it is, literally, idiot proof.
Sure, nothing here can completely solve the tracking problem, but this approach lets us, users, take some initiative.

If there is a way for me to summarise this post, it will be by stating that, the way things currently are, there is no way for a user to know whether or not certain apps come with user tracking or not without (a) paying for them first, and (b) testing them yourself while, at the same time, letting the harvesters harvest by virtue of your testing. Given the above examples, it is clear I would have never bought certain apps given the availability of others that do the same (more or less) but come without that extra burden of user tracking.
With the caveat of never knowing for sure before you actually bought the app, I will add there are certain indicators that can help. Some apps “smell” right while others don’t. Take VLC as an example: it’s open source, it’s a free download and has been for eternity, and therefore I wasn’t surprised to learn it doesn’t try to track me.
In contrast, all the apps that make a living through advertising are clearly prime time suspects, if only because of the fact those same advertising companies whose contents they show are also (usually) data trackers/harvesters. Clearly, this makes paid apps less likely to use trackers than free apps (with the notable exception of the ideologically driven apps, of the likes of VLC and Signal). It’s probably worth noting that trackers do not stop tracking even after you pay the extra fee to remove the adds, as is often an option.
Bottom line, probably the most effective way of assessing whether an app will exploit you for your data’s worth or not - other than paying and testing the app for yourself - is to try and figure out how, exactly, is the app developer planning to finance their operation. In most cases, us users can tell that in advance; sure, it takes time and effort to do this research, but on the other hand it is always worthwhile to ensure you’re installing quality stuff on your devices in the first place. For the same reasons you don’t pick garbage from the street to put in your house, don’t do it with any odd garbage you find at your nearest App or Play Store.
One last thing: If you do stumble upon an ethical developer that does the right thing, do support them! Give them some of your money, because they deserve it. And try to point to your friends and colleagues the virtues of those developers. The biggest problem a developer faces is obscurity, and if we can help the good guys with that then we are actively improving the world we live in.

Monday, 28 May 2018

Now broadcasting in HTTPS

You might have noticed this blog and my other blog are now using secure HTTPS connections (as opposed to the so previous decade HTTP). Then again, you might have not, given how rarely I’m posting anything these days.
Still, it’s good to know you are more securely accessing my blogs nowadays.

I would like to add a short clarification to explain what you gain and what you do not gain by using an encrypted HTTPS connection as opposed to the open communication of HTTP.
Essentially, when using a well implemented HTTPS connection (in this case, as it is organised by Google, we can safely assume it is), you’re making it way harder for third parties (that is, everybody other than you and the site[s] you’re connecting to) to know what it is that you’re doing at the site.
However, you do not gain anonymity through the use of an encrypted connection. That is to do with many factors. For example, your internet provider has the ability to know who your first port of call is by virtue of providing you with that access. The main point, however, is that most of the rest of the world can tell, too, if they really want, by virtue of the mechanism with which your computer finds the location of the website you are after. That mechanism is called DNS (which stands for Domain Name System, in case you cared), which acts like a the phone book of websites: you want to go somewhere, say, to Google in order to run a search? Your computer will head to the DNS directory assigned to it in order to find out where this Google thing that you are after is. And the problem, on the anonymity side of things, is that those DNS queries are (but for a tiny few exceptions) always done in the open and without encryption.
And the lesson is: an HTTPS connection is likely to improve your security, but that by itself may not have benefits for your privacy.

Monday, 30 April 2018

Employable We

Questions about the way we tend to unquestionably accept society’s assumptions regarding work trouble me on a regular basis. As I have stated before, I consider the 8 hour working day my biggest enemy [at this stage of life, when health is not yet an issue]. Simply put, I fail to understand why at this, humanity’s most affluent time ever, the majority of us are still working for such a large portion of our lives. Worst, I question why those of us that are no longer able to participate in the work game get treated like scum (pay a visit to an old people’s place near you for a demonstration of what I am talking about; or just pay attention to the way the unemployed or the homeless are being treated by our government).
All these questions were amplified by the ABC’s recent reality TV series Employable Me. The series, in case you’ve missed it, follows a series of people with various neuro-diverse conditions (usually young, usually autistic) as they search for a job and as they keep bumping into solid brick walls while searching for a job.
Although Employable Me suffers from the regular fallacies of reality TV, there are a lot of repeated motifs in the stories it depicts that we should probably pay attention to. For example, one by one our challenged job seekers are telling us how bad their school years have been, and how they were the favourite prey of their schools’ bullies. Why we continue accepting that, and why society fails all autistic people to such a degree as to traumatise them for the rest of their lives (while glossing over the fact) is beyond me.
For now, I would like to focus on the jobs/work side of the equation, rather than the deficiencies of our education system. Basically, I want to ask - why is it so important for these kids to find a job in the first place, especially given all the other problems their lives are forcing them to deal with?
Oh, I hear you say, the answer is very simple. They need money, and the easiest way for a person to make the money they need for a living is to work for it. As in, a person - most persons - writes off a huge chunk of hours from their lives in order to “make a living”.
It’s not just that, though, is it? I do not question the need to have money to live with; that is a much bigger matter than the one I am eluding to here. What I am pointing a finger it is the fact none of us regards work as simply a means to an end, a tool with which we can get a roof above our heads, dinner on our plates, and a smartphone in our pocket. Fact of the matter is, we derive a large part of our identity through the work we do.
I will put it this way: when someone asks you “what do you do?”, you do not answer with an “I’m a sleeper, I sleep 7.5 hours a day”, “I’m a runner, I run 10km three times a week”, or “I’m a reader, I read science fiction books”. Your answer will almost always be a rather flattering description of the paid work you do for a living.
Noticed that expression, “for a living”, as if your life has little meaning on its own without that work that you do? I refuse to take the company line on this one; I am not defined by what I do in order to acquire money. I am many things: I am a parent, I am a person who likes to tinker with computers and gadgets, I am a person who likes spicy food, I am a hummus aficionado, and yes, unlike most of the rest of us I also spend a significant portion of my life engaged in activities I do not necessarily love and would have otherwise preferred to avoid and play the latest video game instead if I could but I can’t.
I bet you are more than your job. I also bet the vast majority of the people of this world, engaged as they are in mundane, boring, and often unhealthy jobs would agree with me on this one.

As a “further reading” point, I would like to add that acquiring our identity from the job we do for money is dangerous in other respects. Take, for example, the good old perception that it is the father of the family that is supposed to be its main bread winner. For better or worst (clearly worst), this is the standard society still goes by; it is for this reason that single mothers are generally treated with utter contempt by the authorities.
Now, consider a male “father” who has lost his job and is thus reliant on the income made by his female partner: Consider the mental harm that failing to live up to the stereotype by which the rest of society judges him can have on that person in addition to the fact he is out of a job and is therefore likely to endure financial hardship