GAP in Data; New Algorithm to Keep 'em Guessing...

Two things caught my eye(s) today.

a. News that a third-party vendor of GAP had a laptop stolen; it contained personal details of almost 800,000 job applicants. No, my fingers did not hit too many zeroes. Really: 800,00.
Read it here: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695214147,00.html

Further, to make things worse, the data were not encrypted - contrary to the contract. Yes, good old plaintext so that even a 5-year-old can learn the numbers from 1 thru 800,000. There's that pesky number again!

Not sure how many times I've noted on this blog about the importance of encrypting disk drives, but I'm sure unless there's mass action against careless and negligent data owners not much will come out of any amount of outrage.

b. LAX is utilizing a thesis by a USC Ph.D. student Praveen Paruchuri to randomize vehicle inspection schedules and locations.
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-me-airport1oct01,1,5185510.story?coll=la-headlines-technology

The thesis studied the impact of random police patrol schedules on home burglaries, and similar logic is being put to use to contain/check terrorism. The idea is that terrorists will have no dependable or predictable way of knowing when the next check will occur, or more importantly, where it will occur. Definitely one way to keep them guessing, but without human intelligence, all of this can easily come to nought.

It is my strong opinion that no technology or innovation can replace simple, direct human intelligence (or 'humint'). If you have ever read up on how Israel guards her airports, one thing you'll note is that the commandos are also expert psychologists, trained very highly in the art of reading posture, body language, gait, eye movements etc. Essentially the human element is brought in a frank manner, and any suspect is sure to know he's being watched. That'll only make him/her more self-conscious, rendering the task of catching them easier. Needless to say, Israel also supposedly deploys a lot of 'regular-looking' experts so they can observe people more inconspicuously. Easier looking at a person than the business end of a machine gun, no?

Needless to say, nobody's belittling the fantastic effort from this student, but one should also get priorities right in terms of what works (well). People affect people more than technology can ever hope.
Example -- What would a hypothetical terrorist be more wary of and seek to avoid: a strict-looking police officer or a camera that reads faces and does biometric analysis? No question - both are terribly important in these times and are quite indispensable in preventing 9/11s, but then each has its own place, and say what you will - the flesh-and-blood person in uniform is infinitely more unnerving than a whirring lens.

Be safe!