Just to be different, I started using a Mac to do some IIR. One of my quick fixes for security was Little Snitch, a firewall for OSX. It monitors outgoing network traffic and alerts you if a program you’re running is trying to contact a strange server. This could be a shell or a program that snaps photos using your webcam or one that takes screenshots and sends them to an outside server.
In the industrialized countries, a person’s Internet profile is given far too much credence. If you become involved in Investigative Internet Research, then you must combine the Internet profile you develop with authoritative public records and content from a variety of database aggregators.
This is of critical importance as more than one person often uses the same screen name or a screen name may be used maliciously. The more data you collect, the more likely that you will attribute some data to the wrong person.
Mapping a person’s identity is nothing more than comparing gender, race, location, religion, friends, family, car, pictures, etc. to what you know about the subject and what you find in a variety of sources. This ensures that all the data is consistent and relates to only one person. It will also identify inconsistencies in the collected data, which you may choose to investigate. The identifiers are the subject’s name, along with age, gender, race, employer, location, religion, friends, family, car, pictures, etc..
The Old YouTube Scrape Trick
Don’t be fooled by the old YouTube scrape trick. A scrape is an old video downloaded from YouTube which is then presented as a new and original eyewitness account of a different event.
Defeating The Old YouTube Scrape Trick
Amnesty International provides a handy tool called YouTube DataViewer. Enter the video’s URL and it will extract the clip’s upload time and all associated thumbnail images. This data isn’t readily accessible via YouTube, however, this two-pronged approach allows you to identify the earliest upload, which is probably the original version. Conducting a reverse search on the thumbnails often uncovers web pages containing the original version of the video along with other uses of it.
Shooting down a passenger jet has exposed some good old-fashioned Soviet-style propaganda. It’s not as good as some of Putin’s efforts, but it’s interesting to watch.
The Wayback Machine has captured some very interesting evidence that Russian-backed terrorists shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. In a post by Igor Girkin on Vkontakte, Russia’s Facebook clone, the Ukrainian terrorist leader who is also known as Strelkov, claimed his forces downed what he thought was a Ukrainian military transport plane.
The Russian-backed terrorist claims he shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was caught by the Wayback Machine and publicized on their Twitter account, @InternetArchive (https://twitter.com/internetarchive/status/490302564240334848). See The Christian Science Monitor article that translates the content and provides a timeline of the attempts by the terrorists to hide this and blame the Ukraine government.
Meanwhile over at Wikipedia, the Twitter account @RuGovEdits monitors Wikipedia edits by the Russian government. It reveals Russia’s efforts to shift the blame to the Ukrainian government. Putin’s office and Russian media outlets made multiple edits to the page for the murder of the MH17 passengers to blame the “Ukrainian military”. @RuGovEdits should be trustworthy as the Wiki-twitterbot code is widely available on Github.
Growing up, my mother always told me not to believe everything I read. This was good advice, but it doesn’t go far enough.
Critical thinking is an ancient concept but the actual term began to appear in the mid-20th century. In the information age, developing this skill is essential. It is an intellectually disciplined process of actively analyzing and evaluating information. It transcends all subjects, sources, or problems. Critical thinking protects us from biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or prejudiced content and ideas. It insulates us from improper assumptions and implications. It prevents undesirable consequences.
Critical thinking is not the application of logic for selfish purposes. Selfishness often appears under the guise of critical thought to skilfully manipulate ideas to promote a vested interest. Fortunately, this usually becomes apparent upon close examination because selfishness typically accompanies lies and an intellectually flawed argument. Examining the issue fair-mindedly, and with true intellectual integrity, the selfish analysis falls apart. Of course, the selfish minded individuals will call the product of true critical thinking idealism, using that term in a pejorative sense, thus further identifying their selfish motives.
Salman Farooq Sheikh, had been the Tory candidate in the Pickering-Scarborough East riding until just before he was arrested on 14 charges in cases of identity theft, credit-card fraud, stolen and forged cheques, and fraud related to mortgages obtained in people’s names without their knowledge.
From media reports his entire background was a sham that would have been apparent had a proper due diligence process existed in the Tory party.
Dr. Robert Hare claims there are 300,000 psychopaths in Canada, but that only a tiny fraction are violent offenders like Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen. Who are the rest? Take a look around
This is an excellent article recounting Dr. Hare’s ground-braking work that now makes it easier to recognise psychopaths.
This 1921 book represents a system of stereotyping people. This book, no doubt, sold to people striving to simplify their understanding others to nurture their biases. I’m sure this is as reliable as Phrenology and terrorist profiling. (This is also a fine example of what one can find on the Internet if you have too much time on your hands.)
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Executives who paint a rosier picture than the numbers suggest speak differently, new research suggests
If you hear your boss use the phrase “what an incredible year the company has had,” when reporting the latest results, it might be time to dust off your résumé, a new study suggests.
Using inflated language and third-person phrases such as “the team” and “the company” rather than “I” and “we” can be cues that an executive is lying or covering up a bad situation, according to research by David Larcker, director of the corporate governance research program at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, and doctoral student Anastasia Zakolyukina.
They published their findings in a paper called “Detecting Deceptive Discussions in Conference Calls”.
Deceptive bosses tend to make more references to general knowledge and refer less to shareholder value. They also use fewer “non-extreme positive emotion words”. Instead of describing something as “good”, they call it “fantastic”. The aim is to “sound more persuasive” while lying.
It never ceases to amaze me how gullible people are. Let’s look at two examples recently in the news.
First, the case of Shirley Sherrod, the black U.S. Department of Agriculture official accused of racism. The evidence of her racism was a short, edited video clip offered up by a partisan web gadfly, Andrew Breitbart, who has a small empire of web sites. This guy knew such a controversial and inflammatory out-take would drive millions to his web sites. This huge burst of site traffic is money in Brietbart’s pocket.
What surprised me was that the NAACP and the Obama administration swallowed this hook, line, and sinker. They didn’t review the full video, interview people present at the event, or evaluate Breitbart’s motives for publishing the edited video.
Second, the leaked military documents that now appear on the WikiLeaks site need closer examination.
The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is what a judge would describe as an unreliable witness. He pleaded guilty to 25 charges of hacking in Australia; and according to the National Post, “Before he set up the website in 2006, Julian Assange spent years hacking into government and company computers, including those of the U.S. Department of Defense, as part of a group calling themselves the International Subversives.”
With Assange’s talk about “war crimes” and his background, it isn’t hard to understand that this guy has an agenda. How his agenda distorts the picture of events depends upon what documents he publishes from this large volume of previously classified material. We will never know what he didn’t publish and this creates a very similar situation to the selectively edited video clip published by Breitbart.
The following short article is quite good and it has an excellent bibliography. If you conduct interviews, this stuff is important.
How to Prevent Crime BEFORE it Happens
Written by Damian Ross
Crime is never unpredictable. Before a lie is spoken, a pocket is picked, or an assault is inflicted, each and every criminal gives off silent cues. They can be as subtle as a shrug of the shoulder, a pointed finger, or an averted gaze. But together, they make up a nonverbal language that speaks loud and clear if you’re trained to see it…
Judging Honesty by Words, Not Fidgets
by BENEDICT CAREY, Published: May 11, 2009 in The New York Times
In several studies, Dr. Colwell and Dr. Hiscock-Anisman have reported one consistent difference: People telling the truth tend to add 20 to 30 percent more external detail than do those who are lying. “This is how memory works, by association,” Dr. Hiscock-Anisman said. “If you’re telling the truth, this mental reinstatement of contexts triggers more and more external details.”
Not so if you’ve got a concocted story and you’re sticking to it. “It’s the difference between a tree in full flower in the summer and a barren stick in winter,” said Dr. Charles Morgan, a psychiatrist at the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, who has tested it for trauma claims and among special-operations soldiers…
This approach, as promising as it is, has limitations. It applies only to a person talking about what happened during a specific time — not to individual facts, like, “Did you see a red suitcase on the floor?” It may be poorly suited, too, for someone who has been traumatized and is not interested in talking, Dr. Morgan said. And it is not likely to flag the person who changes one small but crucial detail in a story — “Sure, I was there, I threw some punches, but I know nothing about no knife” — or, for that matter, the expert or pathological liar.