Personal observations.


Blogroll
Sharing Our Spaces
Oklahoma Observer
CarTalk
Esther's Photos
Where's Esther
ec-432
OKBID.ORG
Oklahoma Economics

 
The Choicepoint security breech was a low-tech scam of a high-tech company. It becomes a textbook case of one of the most common misconceptions in the digital age.

I remember being embroiled in a discussion over whether high stakes contracts (such as real estate deals) could ever be consummated online. The main concern from the title insurance industry was how they could have ironclad confidence in the identity of the person signing the deal.

I agreed we had new challenges, but to expect 100 percent security in a virtual deal when we had lived with far less for centuries seemed unrealistic.

Choicepoint holds an immense amount of financial data on people. It is a vault of valuable information just as a bank vault may hold physical tender or other valuables. Choicepoint is a natural target for thieves.

While conceivable that very clever crackers might find a way to get into the Choicepoint computer system and steal information, it is instructive that the big theft did not happen that way. A group of scam artists simply set up several bogus companies and then subscribed to the information under Choicepoint’s small business plan. They knew to collect only enough information at any one attempt to avoid setting off abuse alarms.

The lesson here for cyber security professionals is that all the systems analyses and lockdowns are worthless if you don’t cover the front door. Every business and every computer system have legitimate entry points. Why else would it be operating? Each entry point, even the legitimate ones, presents a risk just as the front door of a bank presents a risk of bank robbery. Even the normal processes of a bank, from loans to withdrawal procedures, present risks. Theft does not have to be one dramatic incident. It can come in a series of seemingly normal transactions.
posted by Unknown at 8:28 AM

 
Friday's Blog for America offered a review of the President's proposed budget from a labor organization.

Blog for America: "The International Labor Communications Association, a North American organization of labor communicators, today released a statement that President Bush's budget will be hard to swallow for most low-income Americans by creating additional tax cuts for the wealthy, while at the same time cutting funding to many programs for middle- and low-income families:

# The budget would more than double the co-payment many veterans pay for prescription drugs and would charge some of them a new $250 annual fee for government health care. Some veterans hospitals would be shut down or have their services cut back.

# The budget would cut $1.1 billion from the federal food stamp program over the next 10 years, leaving 300,000 very low-income working families without aid.

# Medicaid would be reduced by $45 billion over 10 years.

# Among $56 billion in education cuts, Bush wants to end Perkins loans, which provide low-interest loans to low- and middle-income college students.

# Steep cuts - at least $1 billion - in community development block grants that help cities help low-income residents with everything from affordable housing to job training and childcare."
posted by Unknown at 7:43 AM

 
We Democrats are hearing we need to be more competitive on the abortion issue. The solution, however, is to change our focus rather than our position.

I have yet to meet anyone who is pro-abortion. Democrats have never argued that women should get abortions. We have always argued that some women will seek abortions whether safe, legal procedures are available or not. When the procedure is outlawed wealthy women get safe abortions and poor women get dangerous procedures done by poorly trained charlatans.

Recognizing that people have differing opinions over when a pregnancy must be aborted and when it is improper to abort it, Democrats support leaving the decision to the person most effected and her doctor. Our stand is one affirming the sanctity of an individual's responsibility.

The one common ground between people who support allowing women to make their own decisions and those who want to return to the days when a woman couldn't get safe medical treatment to end a pregnancy is the common belief that an abortion is never desired. We should be working together to find ways to reduce the incidence of abortion.

If we took that approach we might find far fewer abortions performed than we would be simply banning a medical procedure that isn't going away whether it is legal and licensed or an act prohibited by law.

The subtle differences between former Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer and Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York demonstrate some choices Democrats are toying with. Roemer opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother.

Roemer included his stand on the subject in a warning to the party as he dropped out of the race for Democratic National Committee chair.

Clinton recently told an audience of pro-choice supporters that abortion is a terrible choice and one that we all should work to make as rare as possible. She also affirmed her continued support for Roe v Wade and said she'd continue to fight for access to safe medical treatment for all women that includes all options for ending pregnancies.

Not everyone will work together. Suspicion runs deep in both camps.

We should find common ground and support women in all aspects of reproduction. We should look for ways to reduce teenage pregnancies that really work and quit relying solely on abstention.

We should find ways to reduce surprise pregnancies and make morning after pills available to rape victims. We should also give more support to women who find themselves with a surprise pregnancy. Maybe with more support (in prenatal medical care and counseling or even in financial assistance) women could comfortably choose alternatives to aborting the pregnancy.

However, we should also reaffirm our commitment to keeping all medical procedures available through qualified doctors, performed in safe environments.


posted by Unknown at 10:46 PM