3,000,000 visitors to GlobalRiskInfo.com!! October 27, 2016Posted by Chris Mark in Uncategorized.
Tags: cnn, fox, GlobalRiskInfo, national review, security, visitors
add a comment
I want to personally say “THANK YOU!” to everyone who has taken the time to visit and read this blog. Today we officially passed 3,000,000 unique visitors! Considering that in January, I had just passed 1 million, this is a big milestone!. I have published nearly 500 posts and some odd posts get real traction. RPR Review is over 100,000 (a review of a rifle!)…Chinese stealing of Titanian Dioxide is over 100,000. Sometimes you just don’t know what will resonate! Again, Thank You!!
Active & Passive Deterrence and the Escalation of Force Cycle October 24, 2016Posted by Chris Mark in cybersecurity, Uncategorized.
Tags: deterrence, escalation of force, force continuum, game theory, john lott, john nash, rational actor, van neuman
1 comment so far
Recently I was debating some security topics with a coworker and the idea of ‘active deterrence’ was again brought up in the context of cybersecurity for organizations. I felt this was a good time to discuss deterrence (active and passive) and once again talk about the Escalation of Force Cycle. So, what is deterrence? (warning…long post)..pic of the author off the cost of Somalia doing anti-piracy operations)
The History of Deterrence Theory:
The concept of deterrence is relatively easy to understand and likely extends to the earliest human activities in which one early human dissuaded another from stealing food by employing the threat of violence against the interloper. Written examples of deterrence can be attributed as far back as the Peloponnesian War, when Thucydides wrote that there were many conflicts in which one army maneuvered in a manner that convinced the opponent that beginning or escalating a war would not be worth the risk. In the 4th Century BC, Sun Tzu wrote: “When opponents are unwilling to fight with you, it is because they think it is contrary to their interests, or because you have misled them in to thinking so.” While most people seem to instinctively understand the concept at the individual level, contemporary deterrence theory was brought to the forefront of political and military affairs during the Second World War with the deployment of nuclear weapons against Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
The application of deterrence during WWII was the beginning of understanding that an internal value calculus drives human behavior and that behavior could be formally modeled and predicted with some degree of accuracy. (more…)
The Danger of Biometrics for Personal Use – Limited Legal Protection October 17, 2016Posted by Chris Mark in Uncategorized.
Tags: 4th amendment, 5th amendment, biometrics, Breach, Chris Mark, Data, fingerprint, hack, privacy, security
1 comment so far
I have never been a proponent of using Biometrics and have frequently made jokes about not wanting “the man” to have my finger prints. Well, it looks like my position may have been well founded.
Recently, it was reported in Forbes.com that on May 29th, 2016 the US Government had filed a motion for the court to require residence in a Lancaster, California home to provide their fingerprints to open an iPhone. More disturbingly, the motion called for: “authorization to depress the fingerprints and thumbprints of every person who is located at the SUBJECT PREMISES during the execution of the search and who is reasonably believed by law enforcement to be the user of a fingerprint sensor-enabled device that is located at the SUBJECT PREMISES and falls within the scope of the warrant.” In short, they didn’t just want the finger prints they wanted to force the residents to actually ‘use their finger’ to open the phone. The warrant was not available to the public, nor were other documents related to the case. Like many people, I asked “how can the courts do this?” It would seem to me like an invasion of privacy (among other things). Marina Medvin of Medvin law said: ““They want the ability to get a warrant on the assumption that they will learn more after they have a warrant. “Essentially, they are seeking to have the ability to convince people to comply by providing their fingerprints to law enforcement under the color of law – because of the fact that they already have a warrant. They want to leverage this warrant to induce compliance by people they decide are suspects later on. This would be an unbelievably audacious abuse of power if it were permitted.” Unfortunately, it was indeed permitted.
Is it legal? According to the article in Forbes:
“In past interpretations of the Fifth Amendment, suspects have not been compelled to hand over their passcode as it could amount to self-incrimination, but the same protections have not been afforded for people’s body data even if the eventual effect is the same. Citing a Supreme Court decision in Schmerber v. California, a 1966 case in which the police took a suspect’s blood without his consent, the government said self-incrimination protections would not apply to the use of a person’s “body as evidence when it may be material.”
It also cited Holt v. United States, a 1910 case, and United States v. Dionisio, a 1973 case, though it did point to more recent cases, including Virginia v. Baust, where the defendant was compelled to provide his fingerprint to unlock a device (though Baust did provide his biometric data, it failed to open the iPhone; after 48 hours of not using Touch ID or a reboot Apple asks for the code to be re-entered.).
As for the Fourth, the feds said protections against unreasonable searches did not stand up when “the taking of fingerprints is supported by reasonable suspicion,” citing 1985′s Hayes v. Florida. Other cases, dated well before the advent of smartphones, were used to justify any brief detention that would arise from forcing someone to open their device with a fingerprint.”
We do know that the warrant was served. It does appear that you cannot be forced to give up a passcode as it could amount to Self Incrimination under the 5th Amendment however you do not have the same protections for biometrics. This is another instance where the law has not kept pace with technology. For this reason, and others I will not use biometrics for personal security.
Why I am still voting for Trump…and you should, as well. October 10, 2016Posted by Chris Mark in Uncategorized.
Tags: Benghazi, clinton, email, GOP, Hillary, HRC, ISIS, Satisficing, travelgate, Trump
The last 48 hours has been tough for me. I have waffled in my already reluctant support of Trump and I have even gone so far as to claim I will “not vote for either idiot”! This is only half true. I want to thank those Recondos and Snipers, and numerous others who passionately debated with me on the topic over the past day. In particular JJ Brown of the Recon and Sniper Foundation who had particularly insightful comments.
Let me be clear. I do not like Trump. I am quite sure I would not like him as a person. I was initially angered by his latest comments. In reflection, I was angered by the fact that he allowed yet another comment to get out of control. Have I said vulgar things in private? Of course. Name a Marine who hasn’t and I would say you have not met a Marine. As Eleanor Roosevelt said: “The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!”. So why am I still voting for Trump? Easy. It is all about what economist and Nobel Prize recipient Herbert Simon called Satisficing. In this election we only have 2 real choices. Granted I feel like the options are akin to being ask whether you prefer stepping on a Lego in the middle of the night or hitting your little toe on a table as you walk to the bathroom at night…but those are our options. We have to select the best of the two available options.
I have been reminded (often in no so polite terms) Hillary Clinton is simply an untrustworthy person who has allowed Americans to die under her watch in Benghazi and has supported groups by selling them weapons that have killed Americans. This was further supported in recently disclosed documentation around her support of Libyan and Syrian rebels. In addition to TravelGate, her laughingly defending a child rapist, her compromise of national security, and numerous other transgressions, I simply cannot and will not ever vote for her. As I have said before, I would vote for my Rottweiller Bo before I would vote for Hillary Clinton. She represents the worst of politics.
Is Donald Trump a perfect human? No. Is he likable? Probably not to a lot of people. Is he crass and vulgar? Yes. Has he said stupid things? Of course. All of these things describe me and my own friends. Putting emotion aside, I am willing to overlook personal flaws but cannot overlook calculated actions that result in the destruction of Constitutional rights, the compromise of national security, and the death of Americans. This particular election has greater implications than simply bragging rights. The next president will get to nominate at least 1 Supreme Court Justice. This Justice is going to likely be the ‘tie breaker’ on numerous Constitutional issues to include the 2nd Amendment. For these reasons, I must put aside my personal feelings and vote for the party that represents the platform I support as opposed to not supporting a person that I do not like.
This election will likely be one of the most important in our lifetimes. We have two intensely flawed candidates. One is personally flawed, the other is personally and professionally flawed. One has said rude and crass things while the other has allowed Americans to die under her watch and compromised national security for her own purposes. To me, the answer is now clear. While I do not ‘support Trump’, I support the Republican party platform and I will NEVER support Hillary Clinton who has allowed my own brothers to die on her watch. Thanks for reading!
A Challenge to Colin Kaepernick- by a Marine Combat Veteran August 31, 2016Posted by Chris Mark in Uncategorized.
Tags: BLM, Colin, Kaepernick, National Anthem, Recon, Scout Sniper, Travis Cox, USMC
Recently, professional football player Colin Kaepernick made a political statement by refusing to stand for the National Anthem. Former (I know..you are never a “former Marine”) Marine Sgt. (Recon Marine, and Scout/Sniper) Travis Cox recorded a video explaining to Mr. Kaepernick challenging him to ‘do more’ than just ‘sit’. I agree with Travis and want to add that respect is fundamentally different than ‘pride’. I believe that Kaepernick’s actions were simply disrespectful. Please share.