No One Has Any Idea How Much Work Email Is Spam

Can we just say, for the record, that no one actually has a good handle on how much spam is out there? This is absolutely true when it comes to corporate email accounts.

In 2001, we had a report that said that only 21% of all emails were work related, with the rest being junk or personal emails… but a year later the story was that office employees don’t get much spam at work. Last year, a report came out saying that spam made up 33% of office email, which seems lower than the other studies (which also said another 25% of work emails were personal, and thus 42% — twice of that earlier study — were work related).

The latest such study claims a flip of that original stat: 21% of corporate emails are spam. So, basically, over the past few years, we’ve had reports of lots of spam and not very much spam at all when it comes to the office — suggesting that, frankly, no one really knows how much spam there is in the office. Also, to be honest, the aggregate number is pretty useless, as different companies (and different people within a company) probably face vastly different levels of “spam threat.”

So, rather than focusing on how much corporate email is spam, why not focus on how effective (or not) IT departments are at stopping the spam from those who are most targeted?

Hezbollah Hacked Israeli Military Radio

Newsday is reporting that Hezbollah was able to monitor secure Israeli military communications, perhaps using technology supplied by Iran, during the recent Lebanon war. A former Israeli general, speaking anonymously, called the results ‘disastrous’ for Israel. The story reports that an anonymous Lebanese source said that Hezbollah might have taken advantage of Israeli soldiers’ mistakes in following secure radio procedures. The radio gear uses frequency hopping and encryption.

Gonzales Wants ISP Data Retention To Curb Child Porn

The AP is reporting that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Banking Committee today and called for Congress to require ISPs to preserve customer records, asserting that prosecutors need them to fight child pornography.

‘This is a problem that requires federal legislation,’ Gonzales said. He called the government’s lack of access to customer data the biggest obstacle to deterring child porn. ‘We respect civil liberties but we have to harmonize this so we can get more information,’ he said.”

Gonzales added that he agrees with a letter sent to Congress in June by 49 state attorneys general, requesting federal legislation to require ISPs to hold onto customer data longer.

Biometrics Promising Says Report

A report issued by RNCOS has encouraging news about using biometrics in securing authenticated identities. Making transactions more secure, they state that such biometric technologies include iris scans,fingerprint scan, matching shape and size of palm, skin, voice and face patterns can be used successfully.

The recently published market research report by RNCOS namely “World Biometric Market Outlook (2005-2008)” after having conducted a thorough survey says that there is a growing worldwide interest in biometrics technology for access control or personal identification. As compared to 2003 the market is expected to bounce 6.5 times by 2008. The RNCOS Report further states “the market of biometrics the point-of-sale equipment and services are predicted to leap to $440 million or 85% by 2010,up from $31 million or 2% in 2005.”

How Retailers Watch You

“With $30 billion lost to shoplifting and employee theft last year, retailers are turning to increasingly sophisticated electronic surveillance systems to fight theft. Some systems, like RFID tags, have been well-publicized by privacy advocates. Others are less well known: video surveillance systems are being tied to software that can recognize specific types of activity and identify individuals; and data-mining software is being used to analyze everything from shoppers’ habits to irregular register activity.”

From the article: “Despite this revolution in retail tech, you won’t find many stores bragging about their new security tools. No one wants to tip off shoplifters or advertise that they suspect their customers. That’s why so much of the technology is hidden in the first place. But another reason stores don’t talk much about surveillance is that they know it sparks concerns about privacy. Consumer groups and legislators have opposed the spread of RFID and video surveillance for just that reason.”

Mandatory fingerprinting of European children

The European Union is working on a new rule that would require all children in the EU to be fingerprinted and entered into an international database. Currently, the proposed regulations would require all children age 12 and up to be fingerprinted, but some committee members are lobbying for an even younger age limit, possibly as young as six. The European Commission notes that “Scientific tests have confirmed that the paillary ridges on the fingers are not sufficiently developed to allow biometric capture and analysis until the age of six.”

Ben Hayes, spokesman for the civil liberties group Statewatch said “We are going from fingerprinting criminals to universal fingerprinting without any real debate. In the long term everyone’s fingerprints will be stored on a central database. You have to ask what will be the costs to a person’s privacy.” Statewatch also accused the EU Governments of making decisions based only on “technological possibilities – not on the moral and political questions of whether it is right or desirable.”

On the one hand, so long as you do nothing wrong, what difference does it make who has your information on file? On the other hand, however, the potential for misuse is huge. What do you think? Would you be concerned if your kids had to be fingerprinted and put into an international database? Or do you, like I do, see this as a positive move forwards in authentication?

Preemptively fingerprinting your kids

Parents in New Zealand have taken to having their children fingerprinted by police as a means of scaring their kids onto the straight and narrow. The fingerprints and palm prints added to a nationwide juvenile print database. According to Detective Inspector Malcolm Johnston, “We do take a lot of voluntary juvenile fingerprints. Feedback from parents is that it’s a wake-up call for the youths, and crime prevention.” Detective Johnston is in charge of the South Island’s crime prints and forensics team. He explained that a large number of burglaries and car thefts were committed by youths, so having this sort of forensic evidence on file is very important. Voluntary collection of fingerprints and palm prints is allowed by current law.

Apparently, earlier this year, there were an average of six cars stolen and seventeen cars broken into every day in the Canterbury district where Detective Johnston works. I suppose parents think a trip to the police station for fingerprinting on their terms is better than being called down to pick a kid after they’ve committed a crime. But would this really be a deterrent to teens who already think they know everything and think they can get away with anything? While I wouldn’t cover up for my kids if they broke the law, I’m not sure I would go out of my way to help the government track them either. Would you add your kids to such a government database? Do you think doing so would keep them out of trouble?

Technology: tracking or trusting?

Would you, if you could, track how fast and how far your kids go in the family car? I drove pretty fast when I was a teenager and, for the most part, my folks never knew; if they had, I might not be here today. What about their internet usage? Would you read their e-mail or listen in on their instant message conversations? Would you want to know what websites they visit?

If the answer is yes to any of these, then you’re in luck — you’re living in the right era. There is a lot of technology available today that will let you keep track of your kids like never before. SFGate has a nice write-up of some of your options, including devices for your car — including some that would have worked with my mother’s vintage Citroens — and your computer.

While the article cites some instances where this sort of technology has helped, such as the case of a 14-year-old who met a 24-year-old man online and was given a bus ticket to meet him out of state, it covers all sides of the issue. According to Jane Bluestein, parent educator and author, “To track kids for the sake of tracking kids — I know it gives parents a sense of control, but I think it points to bigger problems in the relationship: mistrust, a need to control, a need to think for your kids.” She also points out that it’s important “for parents to teach kids how to think and act when they’re not there.”

I’d like to think that I’ll be able to trust my kids and that, by the time they’re ready to go off on their own, I will have taught them to make good choices, but that could just be my arrogant innocence waiting to be smacked down by reality. What do you think? Do you or will you use technology to stay on top of what your kids are up to? Which is more important, trusting them or tracking them?

Schools, libraries must block MySpace, Facebook

The House of Representatives just passed resolution 5319, the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA), 410 to 15. If it becomes law (it has to make it through the senate and then the president), schools and libraries will be forced to block social networking sites like MySpace and chat rooms; if they don’t, they will lose their federal internet subsidies. Schools and libraries will be required “to protect minors from commercial social networking websites and chat rooms.”

Unfortunately, the reasoning behind this bill simply doesn’t make much sense — Texas Republican Ted Poe argued, “social networking sites such as MySpace and chat rooms have allowed sexual predators to sneak into homes and solicit kids.” Personally, I thought they came in the bedroom window, but what do I know. Sure, kids have run into sexual predators on the internet. Sure, parents need to talk to their kids and be aware of what they’re doing. This law, however, takes that control away from the parents and turns it into a badly thought out nanny-state policy.

Lots of teachers and libraries use such sites to help educate kids. Vicki A. Davis is one of them. She writes a journal about education and has written extensively about DOPA and its effects. As one of her students wrote, “These lawmakers need to ban ignorance not promote it.” The potential of the internet as an educational tool is enormous, and it’s only starting to be tapped into. This bill would kill a huge portion of that potential. Time to call your senators, kiddies!

Is your kid buying alcohol on the ‘net?

There’s a chance that one day, in the future, you’ll sit down with a kid and say, “In my day, you’d have to bribe a friend’s older brother to buy you alcohol down at the store.”

Your kid will look at you, scratch his head and say, “Someone else had to buy it? Why didn’t you just do it yourself on the Internet?”

Two percent of teens surveyed in 2006 have admitted to buying alcohol online while 12 percent say they have a friend who does. Even if your kid isn’t buying the alcohol, there’s a chance they’ll drink some bought by a friend.

Why? Well, with states expanding laws broadening online liquor sales and really no way to verify the age of someone buying said beverage, it is easy for a teen to purchase alcohol online.

Unfortunately, since not many are trying to address this problem, you can probably assume that more and more teens will buy their alcohol on the ‘net unless liquor companies are required to sell only to authenticated users.

Can this be a possibility? Sure. As more and more schools are discussing authenticating children when they enter school, by the time they turn to the internet to buy a bottle of Johnnie Walker Black, the liquor purveyor could easily have set up a way to authenticate purchasers to ensure that they are of age. One more way to keep those kids in line!