if someone has installed a keylogger on your computer and now has your username, password and whatever other stuff the bank requires you to have to log in?
Installing a key logger on my PC would be my responsibility to protect against. I would actually argue that it's easier for a teller to photo copy my information and mail it somewhere than it is for someone to install a key logger on my PC without knowledge.
I reformat my PC every 6 months and closely monitor what I download and what's on it.
There are no key loggers on my PC, and I'm not saying this from a naive perspective.
Then there's the fact that these systems likely aren't 100% secure - the algorithms may work perfectly, but if the design of the system (which was created by one or more flawed humans) is faulty, then you have problems.
Huh? If the system is designed improperly and my money gets counted wrong I'll know, because I check my bank account regularly and compare it to what I've bought.
You shouldn't be so worried about your teller making a mistake counting out your money so much as you should be worried that the teller has just slipped out $150 when you asked for $100, and pocketed the $50.
Why should a teller giving me $100 dollars and stealing $50 from the bank concern me?
No current system is completely secure in a completely automated fashion LOL. Maybe someday it will be but not in the near future. Sure, there's a level of risk, but the current risk/reward factoring potential consequences is satisfactory to me. This article is also evidence of constant improvements and critique to the system, which seems healthy to me.
I have to agree, those both kind of jumped out at me, logging into a bank account at #1 a public workstation and #2 in Nigeria...
While I am sure there a lot of things that the bank can do to improve the system, I truly don't believe that they could have prevented the loss in her situation.
While I don't agree with tin-foil paranoia, a healthy fear and common sense are important to protect yourself, especially in unfamiliar environments.
I feel like I'm posting the obvious here but I'll post it anyways lol.
I'd rather have my money stolen by someone remotely and get my money recovered by the feds from the security of my own home in a few minutes than be held at gunpoint.
Also, maybe it's just because I rely on computers for my livelihood and have used them all my life, but I trust a program and algorithm to get it right quickly over a teller any day of the week. And even if it gets it wrong, it's traceable and fixable.
Gah, I'm just pretty far opposite to your viewpoint I guess. Might be a generation thing.
"The bystander effect (also known as bystander apathy, Genovese syndrome, diffused responsibility or bystander intervention) is a psychological phenomenon in which someone is less likely to intervene in an emergency situation when other people are present and able to help than when he or she is alone."
That's a great suggestion, but unfortunately, Diebold makes the ATM's for my bank. I don't particularly feel like trusting them either.
This statement doesn't really make sense or have any relevance... I'm sorry but it's not "Interesting" it's flamebait. I'll refrain from flaming though.
I just remembered.. they collect "clouds" of statistical information about baseball players so that they can create great "correlations" to post on the scoreboard..
When you just let the algorithms try to make meaningful conclusions you get such gems as..
"On every third Sunday in June in an election year, catchers have a 35% chance of hitting a 420 yard home run in the third inning."
I think the consensus is that the original article is a bit presumptuous and flawed. He says that science will be replaced, which implies that there is a hardened definition for how science is to be performed currently, which there isn't. There is no ONE definition of science or the scientific method.
From a junior high school site about the scientific method:
"Six steps of the S. M. State the problem: Why is that doing that? Or Why is this not working?
Gather information: Research problem and get background info
Form a hypothesis: a possible explanation for the problem using what you know and what you observe.
Test the hypothesis: Make observations, build a model and relate to real-life or experiment.
Experiment: testing the effects of one thing on another using controlled conditions.
Variable: a quantity that can have more than a single value. (Dependent vs independent)
Constant: a factor that does not change when other variables change.
Control: the standard by which the test results can be compared
Analyze data: recording data and organizing it into tables and graphs.
Draw conclusions: based on your analysis of your data, you decide whether or not your hypothesis is supported."
This "cloud" is just a buzz-word for massive amounts of data collected for no good reason other than to collect it, IE before you perform a hypothesis. Using this junior high model, a hypothesis is created from observation (seeing a correlation in the data), then you go back to the data or collect more data to prove or disprove that hypothesis.
Massive amounts of data and algorithms that sift through it are TOOLS in the box for performing the scientific method. They don't replace it.
I think his argument would be better if he stated that these tools, in certain cases, allow you to reasonably prove and create a hypothesis in a single step.
Slashdot Mirror
if someone has installed a keylogger on your computer and now has your username, password and whatever other stuff the bank requires you to have to log in?
Installing a key logger on my PC would be my responsibility to protect against. I would actually argue that it's easier for a teller to photo copy my information and mail it somewhere than it is for someone to install a key logger on my PC without knowledge.
I reformat my PC every 6 months and closely monitor what I download and what's on it.
There are no key loggers on my PC, and I'm not saying this from a naive perspective.
Then there's the fact that these systems likely aren't 100% secure - the algorithms may work perfectly, but if the design of the system (which was created by one or more flawed humans) is faulty, then you have problems.
Huh? If the system is designed improperly and my money gets counted wrong I'll know, because I check my bank account regularly and compare it to what I've bought.
You shouldn't be so worried about your teller making a mistake counting out your money so much as you should be worried that the teller has just slipped out $150 when you asked for $100, and pocketed the $50.
Why should a teller giving me $100 dollars and stealing $50 from the bank concern me?
No current system is completely secure in a completely automated fashion LOL. Maybe someday it will be but not in the near future. Sure, there's a level of risk, but the current risk/reward factoring potential consequences is satisfactory to me. This article is also evidence of constant improvements and critique to the system, which seems healthy to me.
I have to agree, those both kind of jumped out at me, logging into a bank account at #1 a public workstation and #2 in Nigeria...
While I am sure there a lot of things that the bank can do to improve the system, I truly don't believe that they could have prevented the loss in her situation.
While I don't agree with tin-foil paranoia, a healthy fear and common sense are important to protect yourself, especially in unfamiliar environments.
I feel like I'm posting the obvious here but I'll post it anyways lol.
I'd rather have my money stolen by someone remotely and get my money recovered by the feds from the security of my own home in a few minutes than be held at gunpoint.
Also, maybe it's just because I rely on computers for my livelihood and have used them all my life, but I trust a program and algorithm to get it right quickly over a teller any day of the week. And even if it gets it wrong, it's traceable and fixable.
Gah, I'm just pretty far opposite to your viewpoint I guess. Might be a generation thing.
Learned about this is Psych 101, it's terrifying and good to be aware of.
Bystander Effect (Genovese Effect)
"The bystander effect (also known as bystander apathy, Genovese syndrome, diffused responsibility or bystander intervention) is a psychological phenomenon in which someone is less likely to intervene in an emergency situation when other people are present and able to help than when he or she is alone."
That's a great suggestion, but unfortunately, Diebold makes the ATM's for my bank. I don't particularly feel like trusting them either.
This statement doesn't really make sense or have any relevance... I'm sorry but it's not "Interesting" it's flamebait. I'll refrain from flaming though.
I just remembered.. they collect "clouds" of statistical information about baseball players so that they can create great "correlations" to post on the scoreboard..
When you just let the algorithms try to make meaningful conclusions you get such gems as..
"On every third Sunday in June in an election year, catchers have a 35% chance of hitting a 420 yard home run in the third inning."
I think the consensus is that the original article is a bit presumptuous and flawed. He says that science will be replaced, which implies that there is a hardened definition for how science is to be performed currently, which there isn't. There is no ONE definition of science or the scientific method.
From a junior high school site about the scientific method:
"Six steps of the S. M.
State the problem: Why is that doing that? Or Why is this not working?
Gather information: Research problem and get background info
Form a hypothesis: a possible explanation for the problem using what you know and what you observe.
Test the hypothesis: Make observations, build a model and relate to real-life or experiment.
Experiment: testing the effects of one thing on another using controlled conditions.
Variable: a quantity that can have more than a single value. (Dependent vs independent)
Constant: a factor that does not change when other variables change.
Control: the standard by which the test results can be compared
Analyze data: recording data and organizing it into tables and graphs.
Draw conclusions: based on your analysis of your data, you decide whether or not your hypothesis is supported."
This "cloud" is just a buzz-word for massive amounts of data collected for no good reason other than to collect it, IE before you perform a hypothesis. Using this junior high model, a hypothesis is created from observation (seeing a correlation in the data), then you go back to the data or collect more data to prove or disprove that hypothesis.
Massive amounts of data and algorithms that sift through it are TOOLS in the box for performing the scientific method. They don't replace it.
I think his argument would be better if he stated that these tools, in certain cases, allow you to reasonably prove and create a hypothesis in a single step.