Win11 Experiences... and Possibilities

I bought a refurbished 3-year-old game computer with an option to upgrade its Win10 to Win11 Pro, so as to be able to claim familiarity with this latest release for professional reasons. Now running 11 Pro, I'm releived to have experienced little trouble in the way of being forced to establish a Microsoft account before OS activation could occur. I got to the point of being asked "Don't have a Microsoft account? Create one!". Making that choice experimentally, what happened when clicking "create one" was not the state of being dropped into an account establishment form, but an end of the current procedure. It sent me out of the installer completely and allowed normal activity. I then set up a local user with no problem, got updates, etc. Surprise.

I'm annoyed that the apparently arbitrary requirement of Win11 to run on processors only 3 or 4 years old or less requires many to buy new (or new-to-me refurb in my case) computers. There, however, is an opportunity here. With so many boxes abandoned by 11 that may have 2 or 3 Ghz processors and 8, 16 or 32 gigs of RAM expansion capability, what to do with them? This is the time for Linux-on-the-desktop advocates to get to work. Linux is free and the boxes will just be sitting around. Time to get creative, America - or World.

The kinks have been worked out of the Ubuntu's, mostly. There's MX Linux if you have the need for speed. And many gaming situations have embraced Linux for years.

The shortsightedness of the Win11 situation is the best case for DT Linux I've ever seen, and I remember UUCP over 300 baud modems. Which is still possible to do, I'll have you know, you young whippersnappers.

Why haven't we seen...

In my last post I speculated about a theoretical conflict between two countries and some computer security aspects of such a conflict, at least regarding the public web. Let's now look at an actual conflict and some unanswered questions I have about that situation.

The Russian invasion of the former Ukranian Soviet Socialist Republic (now simply Ukraine) has been in progress for some time now. Russia is known to be at least historically quite capable in the areas of military intelligence, network infiltration and practically every other technical aspect of warfare. If I were some GRU (or whatever they call Russian military intel now) person in charge of an offensive operations group, I'd have a checklist that went something like...

A. Compile account records of all cellular telephones in current operation in target country
B. Compile records of all citizens of target country where local phone providers are concerned (addresses, bank accounts...)
C. Compile network maps of target country telephony (central offices, cell towers, microwave locations, exchanges, line types...)
D. Compile network maps of target country public internet, military net, government net and so on
E. Compile network maps of target country IOT situation
F. Map all current visible WLANs and active phones for immediate action
G. Map water, electrical and sewage systems, automated rail and road traffic control and communications methods for such
H. Compile data from compromised and/or captured cell tower equipment shacks

And so on. I'd think with even a small amount of some of the above information that the Russians would, from a Moscow suburb, be able to target everything from a railroad roundhouse to an individual cell phone user with 155mm artillery, if in range. I'd think that they could mess with control capability for everything from a military targeting computer to a garage door opener. And with the right tools, all from a coffee shop laptop over a VPN.

I haven't seen any reports of this nature.

Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places. Perhaps media workers don't understand heavily technical issues and therefore can't effectively write stories regarding such (I've seen that on the job in my distant past). Perhaps the current Russian military technical capabilities aren't what they used to be. Yes, I've heard of a few ddos attacks and some city services disruptions, but nothing of the widespread nature that I'm assuming is possible. In addition to the above, perhaps total cyber-warfare isn't applicable to a society that's not so fully "wired" that people place their lives onto their phones, communicating with the outside world via free (poorly coded) applications. Excuse me, 'apps'.

I don't know. I'll report back on this as soon as I know more about any of it.

A Kind Of Hacktivism

Here’s a way to suppress dissent: bait commentary from people who can’t conceal their identities. Then attack those people when identified.

Suppose there’s a debate raging on some chat post at the BBC website. The peaceful country of Smedleyville is being invaded by the belligerent country of Hornswaggle. Hornswaggle operatives are commenting on the post in favor of invasion. Then, a defender of Smedleyville comments with competing facts or analysis.

Now, suppose – just suppose – that Hornswaggle operatives have prepared the way by infiltrating the BBC chat page system. When a Smedleyville supporter sees the chat and establishes an account in order to comment (and then does so), the Hornswaggle operative fishes out the real name, email address, secondary email address and whatever other info is associated with the user name (displayed name) the page comment shows. Then Hornswaggle’s attack team uses various free tools to search for general information to show more about the Smedleyville defender available from the general web, database leaks, whatever.

When the Smedleyville defender is identified as to actual name, other legit email addresses, physical address, etc. then offensive operations can begin. This can be anything from real-world thug attacks to just providing the defender’s real information to junk mail lists and African prince scammers. The Hornswaggle forces have all the options at this point.

--------------

The moral of the story is that anything one does online leaves tracks. If the Smedleyville defender wishes to operate on the chat board, I’d recommend using a paid email service (no free webmail or disposable addresses) with an address specifically created for use on the chat board in question. This email address must have a password not used on any other account. The defender must use no slang or regional references that would suggest location. The defender must use no professional jargon that would aid in identification of the person commenting. The defender must not attempt insult, since that’s often cultural in nature, thus aiding in identification.

And the defender may choose not to comment. No doubt there would be many ways to help Smedleyvillle other than arguing with someone on a chat board possibly read by very few. These boards are useful to see how the other side argues, but not necessarily useful to use as venues for advancing one’s cause.

A theory about Twitter

Or a hypothesis...

In all the talk about opinion moderation, it looks like folks are missing a big technical point: If you were Elon Musk and walking into the ownership of Twitter for the first three minutes, you might wonder to yourself...

"Why do you need 16,000 employees to run a website?" (or whatever the staffing number is or was)

Evidently the previous administration DID need them for something. Ordinarily you'd think that a programming and development department plus some sales and back office would be all you'd need to run a big conversational text board. I'd peg that at around 400 people. But the others I suspect were at least a vast division of cat herders, breaking up the worst arguments among a mass of humanity with too much time on its hands, getting onto the site basically to argue with each other.

If there ACTUALLY IS an effective way to do that, you have two choices: either use computers to automate the process (which automation would be the main justification of the computer in the first place) or do it with manual, analog people. Fine - but what happened? It seems both choices were made. They have both automation AND a few aircraft carrier loads of people. What the hell??

It might be that in pursuing machine learning, artificial intelligence and algorithm creation goals, they didn't make as much progress as their social media competition (which also may not be making much progress either). If their AI is failing, that's why they need the other X thousand people - to amend the decisions the AI misinterpreted, failed to identify or got wrong some other way. If you can't just script this stuff with a keywords list then you have to automate - but if that's inefficient, you have to have an army of moderators TOO.

This would explain Twitter having to find a buyer. Ad revenue isn't enough to support a contingent of AI developers that make six-figure incomes plus an army of moderation people at the same time.

A Nonpolitical Solution To A Political Problem

I'm reminded that political polling station systems are kinda like telephone systems. They didn't involve computing solutions at one time... and now they do. And when more complexity is introduced into an activity, more possibility for everything bad is also introduced.

I have a preliminary suggestion here for smoothing some of the issues being brought up by all sides regarding the recent US elections. EVEN ASSUMING NO IMPROPRIETY with any participating individual or group, the following problems have arisen or have threatened to arise with current electronic election systems:

server capacity and load issues
web incompatibilty issues like untested applets
web exposure issues like DOS or the opportunity for such
location staffing problems (some admins not allowed to fix problems)
wireless issues
supply problems
access code failures
weather issues

... and the hits keep right on coming. I contend that many of these problems could be minimized by imposing a CLOSED SYSTEM REQUIREMENT at the state level. No public internet or wireless. Modem communication over data phone lines. Not necessarily going back to 100 percent paper ballots but using current equipment in a less complex manner. I think this option would address many items both of outside interference and internal architectural problems. It would use older, more reliable and less overburdened routes of transmission and offer a smaller attack surface to miscreants.

Sure, this suggestion isn't extensively researched by me yet. Sure, it doesn't address the issue of the behavior of some county official somewhere. Sure, it isn't something that some state has 100% already done, such that I can point to it as an example. But this should get the party started among readers of this blog as to a discussion of where to go next.

Assuming the powers that be ask the IT people what to do. I offer the suggestion due to its simplicity: it involves not hiring a bunch of new people or buying a lot of new equipment. It would retrench by reverting to earlier solutions and curtailing the use of failed ones. It would possibly move us forward not so much due to what would be done, but what would NOT be done.

Windows 11 Account Requirement

This post may require constant updating as we approach certain deadlines. But if you're getting those warnings that Windows 8 won't get security updates soon, you may be thinking about a new PC, or updating a current (recent) one to 11. But Microsoft would really like you to establish an account with them in doing this. You might not want to do that, or might not have that option for lots of reasons.

Here's one of the many articles covering ways to mitigate that.

I'll add or delete links as various new articles come out, or as older ones become outdated.

Another issue to watch for with Win11 is that it requires (apparently arbitrarily) one of a fairly small selection of processors, all of which are only a few years old or less. This means a probable need for a new computer as well as a new OS.

Yes, you might need a new computer anyway. But if you don't, run the free tool from Microsoft to check your hardware as to eligibility for Windows 11.

An Uncertainty about ESG

No, not that one.

The Environmental, Social and corporate Governance initiative is a trend or collection of trends that has been building in Western economies for around two decades. There are several questions about it. The obvious one is whether or not it would be divisive in workplaces due to political disagreement over the choice to follow government or local activity policies or not. I'm not interested in that one.

I'm interested in the sources of ESG's specific recommendations.

There are several points at which the movement appears to have begun. First, Wikipedia mentions a UN advocacy report of 2004. Second, a tendency of mutual funds and banks to group "responsible investments" together started at about the same time. Third, legal actions as to the composition of corporate boards have been filed at various times for around twenty years in some of the developed nations. And fourth, there have been measurement projects regarding contributions to greenhouse gases. And so on. My question regards the DIY (do it yourself) appearance of the combination of all these sources.

Those responsible for corporate identity are naturally attracted to the opportunity to become associated with popular trends. I simply wonder how controllable such associations in fact are. How could the sources of ESG initiative change? How would one even list these new stakeholders? Could they even BE known in the short run? Are the initiatives even now something that is media-driven? And how is the company exposed to not only new problems, but new uncertainties?

I predict the rise of two possible developments... OK, three:

1. Some companies will retreat from the uncertainty of ESG by adopting the strategy of "We don't get into politics".
2. Some companies will adopt only ESG initiatives that directly address their corporate identity and product/services rationale, shrinking from involvement in more general concerns (and possibly reducing the income of charities and other nonprofits that rely on donations).
3. Companies will consider the above alternatives not only due to verification questions as to the nature of popular ESG trends, but due to the tendency of advocacy groups to change over time, and in directions very hard to predict. There's also the nature of the next advocacy issue - and the next. There's no way to tell what the next popular bandwagon will be.
4. Surprise! Unknowns abound. Apparently non-controversial causes can become controversial later. Should the company contribute to the American Red Cross? Or overseas sister organizations? There was a moderate outcry several years ago about how much the head of the ARC got paid relative to other charity groups. That complicated the positions of those companies that contributed for motives as simple as tornado or hurricane relief.

I don't know how all this will wash out - but that's my point. I don't know how one COULD know. It could be that involvement in some specific ESG concern would be completely necessary to corporate identity. But I think many ESG concerns are not relevant to corporate identity and are optional. This option may be destabilizing to productivity and competitiveness. Then again, involvement in some trend could CONTRIBUTE to productivity and competitiveness, depending upon the product, the industry, the organization. Also, there's the further complication that an ESG concern could be raised tactically against a company by one of its competitors, openly or through surrogates.

What's certain is that business now has a new ongoing debate with which to deal. There existed quite a few already; now here's one more.

EDIT: To approach the issue from a positive direction, though, it would seem possible to do popular cause support at minimal risk to an organization by sticking close to one or more of the following conditions:

1) Is the issue something that much of the group can get behind, from board room to mail room, rather than just a few interested parties?
2) Is the issue something that has a crucial connection with the company's core activity?
3) Is the issue a matter geographically or personally connected with the immediate community in which the company is located? After all, support could have "political" benefits and all politics is local.