Category: Personal Reflections

In a recent post (Digital Anarchy? Not Without Identity Management) I posited that eventually Identity Management would consist of a construct of your entire life. From the beginning, all the way through your to your present day, and continuing without pause until the end. The premise is that the more that is known about you, the harder it becomes to pretend to be you. Most fraud mechanisms work on making value judgements related to ‘normal’ behaviour, so why don’t we help that process along?

Privacy and profiling issues aside of course! 🙂

So it occurred to me that if all potential employers knew exactly what I believed in, and – assuming they agreed with me – how I could provide benefit to their organisation, then a CV is almost unnecessary.

LinkedIn already provides the factual information about my previous employment, and as much detail regarding my functions / achievements as I deem fit to share. Employers can do a background check based on my online presence long before approaching me directly. So add a blog on top of that, and what else could they possibly need to make a decision regarding next steps?

References? Background Investigations? Yes, but these are final steps, as the only purpose a CV serves is to get you that first interview. As such, it is VERY hit and miss, and a shining gem of a CV to one HR pro is a not-so-polished turd to another. In the end, HR are not even your final audience, but every candidate is expected to know all about writing CVs and cover letters, as well as interview techniques and etiquette. All you end up doing is filtering out the worst candidates, not narrowing down the best.

A blog, on the other hand, shows many things, all of which have good and bad elements depending on your point of view:

  1. Communication Skills – Writing is not easy, and even doing an average job of it takes a level of skill. If you cannot get your point across in 500 – 1000 words, AND in a way that the majority can understand, you either need to work on your writing skills, your knowledge of the subject, or both.
    o
  2. Subject Matter Expertise – Blogs on specific subjects should be written by people who have relatively significant experience in their chosen profession. But that does not mean they are alway right. A blog from a ‘security expert’ with whom I vehemently disagree will be dismissed just as quickly as would a blog on intelligent design.
    0
  3. Desire to Help – While my blog [for example] was initially started because my wife told me to, it soon became an integral part of my weekly tasking. The skill-set I have (such as it is) does no good to anyone until everyone can follow the guidance I am trying to impart. Security expertise [for example] is NOT something that should be used just as a competitive advantage. There is plenty of opportunity to make a living while giving as much as you can back.
    o
  4. Thought Leadership …Or Not – One of the fastest growing buzz-phrases / clichĂ©s, but the concept is sound; Are you a person who creates the new, improves the old, or sustains the present? All of these things have their place, any one of them is not necessarily better than the others, but you need to know which you are, and so do your potential employers.
    o
  5. Skin In The Game – A phrase I’m borrowing from our American friends, it means that you are actually taking part in something, and not just sitting on the sidelines watching. Good if you’re contributing positively, bad if you’re an idiot.

Anything that fights against “But we’ve always done it this way!” is to me a good thing, and that’s where a blog really comes into its own. All of your ideas, concepts, or even random thoughts need to be put down into words that others can follow, which mean YOU have to clarify them first. Ideas catch on, but only the ideas that see the light of day.

For good or bad my blog is now my CV, let’s see how it pans out! 🙂

[If you liked this article, please share! Want more like it, subscribe!]

Or to put it another way; a life without trying much of anything new.

Just to clarify; I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to be content with your lot in life, and not wanting to try new things. In fact, I almost envy those people actually.

Almost.

But if you accept this as the definition;

REGRET
verb
1. feel sad, repentant, or disappointed over (something that one has done or failed to do).

…then it’s fairly clear – to me anyway – that if you don’t have any regrets, then you have either not done much, or you have no remorse for the bad things you did do. And we have ALL done something bad to someone at some point.

So the cliched advice to ‘live your life without regrets’ is frankly impossible if your existence is even remotely eventful. No-one is perfect, no-one gets everything they have ever wanted, and not every failure in life can be tacked up to a mere ‘disappointment’.

Not only have we all done things we wish we hadn’t (even if takes years to realise it), we have also likely had many instances of wishing we HAD done something but now it’s too late. If neither of these are true for you, what the Hell HAVE you been doing with your time? Living a perfect life? Lucky you, but for the other 99.9999…% of the population we are left dealing with consequences.

But here’s the rub; I’m not only glad I have regrets, but I actually look forward to collecting more, because it means I’ve put myself out there and I have been in positions to make decisions I can regret.  I have lived a relatively unspectacular life and have hundreds of regrets, all of which were experiences I would not trade for anything.

I am what I am now because of my mistakes and my successes, and am therefore defined not only by all of the good I’ve done, but by those regrets. Basically they make me human, they make me real.

For example; I’m at this moment happily married (my wife might not be), have a job that is ridiculously cool, loving family / friends, and enough money. But all of this was built on the foundations of countless train-wreck relationships, disastrous career moves, and a great deal of pain. My own, and the pain I’ve caused others.

To have no regrets now, or in the future, suggests that I have everything I want (I don’t), that I’m not sorry for some of the things I’ve done (I am), and that I will make no more mistakes for which I WILL be sorry down the road (I undoubtedly will). It means that I’m moving forward, I’m exercising my ‘…right to life, liberty and security of person.’ and that I will always accept responsibility for my mistakes.

But I’m proud to say that I have NO regrets based on unfulfilled wishes, mine are all based on things I didn’t do, did do, or on goals I have failed to reach [yet]. There is no room for fantasy or ‘if-onlys’ in a life of accountability and one well lived.

On the balance, I have a GREAT life, and I already know what my next regret is going to be; tomorrow’s hangover! 🙂

[If you liked this article, please share! Want more like it, subscribe!]

This is perhaps the most pointless concept I’ve written about to date, but hey, it’s my blog! 🙂

Premise: The ‘social ideal’ is clearly an average of all things, and therefore cannot be labelled one way or another. It’s neither good, nor bad, neither right, nor wrong. But no-one is average, and that’s where the challenges start. We humans need labels for context, and very, VERY few of us are perfectly content for things to just ‘be’. Too few to make a difference anyway.

Unless you’re a creationist, you believe in Darwin’s theories of evolution in some form; that of natural selection. It stands to reason – or at least argument – therefore that ANY human trait that provides a distinct advantage, should eventually become more common.

For most of human history, physical strength was the preferred trait, then cunning made its play, and now it seems to be a combination of intelligence and earning potential.

But what happens when new traits fall too far outside the socially acceptable norms? At our current level of evolution (I think we’re actually going backward now) we know what happens; we attack and destroy it because we fear what we don’t know.

Then there’s the law, which sets as many of the societal norms’ as they can lay their hands on. Yes, it’s for the common good, and yes, law should have replaced organised religion a long time ago as our moral barometer, but we still have both, and they are – in my opinion – mostly opposed in almost all facets except the biggie; a way to control the masses.

If those with a genetic pre-disposition to obey the societal norms (i.e. the laws) thrive, totally unhindered, should that trait not take precedence? Or from the other direction; if we lock up all the criminals thereby taking them out of the gene pool, would not those traits become less prevalent?

The thing with genetics is that you are always going to have vast differences between individuals, and you will never eradicate those genetically predisposed to rebel against ANY norm, no matter how good that norm is for society as a whole. I don’t think anyone will argue a case for convicted murderers or rapists, but what about those on the fringe? Where do we draw the line between acceptable and that which must be eradicated? More to the point; WHO can draw that line?

Religion had its place once (even the concept of marriage made sense by making men responsible for taking care of their offspring), but in my view, once religion BECAME man-made laws, there can be no higher purpose than that of the betterment of the species. If you read the news this is clearly not our current goal. The Matrix said it the best;

“Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is?

A virus.“

If you accept that we are VERY far from perfect, then surely the new genetic combinations that happen every day should be nurtured, not shunned? And I’m not saying it’s the law’s FAULT that we demand ‘normal’, but the constant striving for average / normal / acceptable will surely slow down our growth to a more advanced (and sustainable) species?

Of course I’m not saying that we should embrace violent criminals, but we should certainly embrace both the different, and the changes necessary to get where we need to go.

If you have not heard about the ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis) Ice Bucket Challenge (#IceBucketChallenge), you are not reading this blog, because you clearly have no phone, no computer, and no friends. It’s a viral sensation that has seen the contributions for ALS charities rise by over 1000% over last years numbers. And growing.

Before I begin, know that I am VERY much in favour of this, have done it myself (dedicated to a friend of mine who has ALS), and hope it continues until such times as ALS charities have enough money to finally buy a cure.

Now the down side, and the unfortunate point of this blog; The giving will not continue much longer, because the only thing faster than a viral topic, is its relegation into permanent obscurity.

This will not cause a fundamental shift in either our individual attitude towards charitable giving, or how charities do their fund-raising. This worked once, now it’s done, and ALS were the lucky recipients. It could have easily been Children With Cancer, or pretty much any other charity, because it’s not the disease that caught our attention, it was everyone else’s attention to the challenge that caught our attention.

But why?

Why does it take something like this to get us to give in the first place? I say US, because I absolutely include myself. I am one of the majority walking right by people holding charity buckets looking to help causes that I cannot be bothered to read. Headphones in, eyes down, my destination and my own problems effectively crowding out any thought of those less fortunate.

Does this make me a bad person? No, it makes me average, yet if you don’t do the Ice Bucket Challenge you are treated as a social leper. Our hypocrisy knows no bounds, it seems.

Yes, this is a cynical view, and I have absolutely no desire to dampen anyone’s enthusiasm, but I think it’s time for a little perspective before the true, more permanent advantage, is lost. However unattractive and un-charitable that advantage may seem, only the results count.

The truth is, unfortunately, an equally cynical proposition; that empathy is in short supply in the average human genome, but fear of being ostracised is not, nor is the need to avoid the feeling of guilt. This is why the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge went viral, and this is where most charities go wrong; they are simply not cynical – or smart – enough to manipulate either the right emotional drivers (which are seldom even approaching altruistic), or social media.

Perhaps this is the wake up call to realise that it’s really not about awareness of the disease itself, it’s about getting contributions. This is not only perfectly OK, but far more honest, and much like a homeless person’s sign”Will work for alcohol.”, when it comes to charitable giving, the end often justifies the means.

Think I’m being TOO cynical? Go and ask 10 people who have done the ALS challenge, what ALS is the acronym for, and I will be willing to bet at least half of them will not know. Ask again in a month and even fewer will.

But that’s OK too, as long as they gave, AND got 3 others to give, when prior to the challenge they had probably never heard of ALS (or its regional equivalents). This was the true genius of the ice bucket challenge, as ALS is no more deserving of either attention or money than a charity fighting children’s cancer. Just ask a friend of mine whose 5 year old daughter is fighting brain cancer where her priorities lay.

The fact is that most of us have a very limited capacity to focus on things that do not affect us directly, but when confronted in the right way, and hopefully with humour, we are ALL very generous. That we don’t give as much as we should the rest of the time does not make us bad people either, it just means those amazing individuals who have dedicated their lives to helping others need to make giving easier, and more in-line with what makes US feel good. More fun preferably, but at the very least, more interesting.

That’s sad, but inescapably true, and it’s time we embrace it.

In the end, it does not matter where the money comes from. Ask anyone with ALS if they care whether or not the cure came from someone who cared or someone who didn’t give a damn. Only getting better matters.

So if you did the challenge, that’s great, but keep your condemnation against those who didn’t to yourselves, your single act of generosity gives you no right to judge, and they may have other obligations of which you have no concept.

And charities, wake up, people will give a lot more if properly motivated, and I am more than happy to be taken [along] for the ride.

I don’t think anyone in the payments arena has any doubt that credit/debit cards, in their current form, will die over time in favour of mobile devices. It’s a natural next step to replace something ubiquitous with something even more ubiquitous.

So where does that leave the SSC, and the card schemes themselves for that matter?

You only have to look at Visa Europe’s website Visa Vision to see that they are moving towards mobile (and other innovations), and articles like The Revolution is Here, do not even mention EMV, and the only reference to plastic is in a future past-tense.

It also begs the question as to why the card schemes are pushing EMV when they themselves see an end to their reign-of-plastic. But the answer is obvious, the cost of fraud over the next 5 – 10 years far outweighs the cost of the transition. The US alone saw $7.1B in credit card fraud in 2013 (according to Business Insider), and I have estimated that the cost of EMV transition in the US is ‘only’ $12B (Why the US Will Not Adopt EMV (Chip & PIN), EMV in the US, a 12 BILLION Dollar Mistake).

So why am I so anti-EMV? Because there are technologies NOW that can replace it, are in more hands, and more widely distributed than cards ever were. Your mobile phones.

So back to my point; what WILL the cards brands and the SSC do once the plastic dies? Clearly the brands have an enormous leg-up on any new player in the cashless game, and have massive amounts of capital to invest in meeting every aspect of this [so-called] disruptive innovation; research on innovation, testing proofs-of-concept, garnering adoption within the finance community, and of course, rolling it out to end users.

Mobile phone companies made a small play, and missed, banks could have done it, and didn’t, and large retail could have had a huge impact, and haven’t. Probably because in these three case – even banks – payments is not a core function. Being PAID is core, making the payment is not, so only the card schemes have payments as their entire reason-to-be, and therefore the most motivation.

OK, so if we assume that the card schemes are going to make a huge play in every cashless payment innovation from this point forward, where does that leave the SSC? Probably in exactly the same place, with only one change in title; From Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council, to Payment Industry Security Standards Council.

Regardless of the form of payment there HAS to be a security standard around the protection of the data. Not that the current standards are anywhere near adequate, even for cardholder data, but the SSC has significant experience adopting and implementing standards globally. From mobile apps, to software PINs, to identity management (for KYC, AML etc.) to crypto-currencies, everyone developing technologies must adhere to a minimum set of protective baselines.

So am I really proposing, after so many less-than-positive blogs related to the PCI DSS and the SSC, that they be a standards body for every form of payment globally? Well, no, I’m not, but I think that if they don’t TRY to be just that (with the card brand’s backing), there is no-where else for them to go.

Despite my voluble criticisms of the card brands and the SSC alike, they ARE well placed to do good. I hope they take the opportunity now, because it won’t come again.

[If you liked this article, please share! Want more like it, subscribe!]