What's 2fa and Why Should I Care?

There's been lots of recent publicity dealing with personal online security, and with good reason: if a multi-million dollar organization in 49 states can get hacked by a relatively minor breach involving an HVAC contractor, you can get hacked too. We hear stuff every week about people whose identity has been stolen, and how "you should change your password!" 

Problem is, passwords can be guessed (the two most common passwords are "123456" and the word "password"). Even if you have a complex password, determined hackers can break into your accounts if they have enough time and energy to do it, and especially will if they believe it will be profitable for them.

The key for hackers is to use a repeatable task to break in: if the system they use on one victim succeeds, they'll try using that same system on other victims. They'll keep doing that till they get blocked -- and then they'll try something else and if it's successful, they're back in business.

So what can we do to make sure we're secure? How can we prevent hackers from breaching our security? What stumbling blocks can we put in their way? How can we make our access credentials less predictable?

I suggest we inject something that isn't predictable, and can't be duplicated: two-factor authentication (or 2fa). If you work for or with a large or even mid-size corporation, chances are you have been given a remote access privilege to permit logging on when you're away from the office, and you may have a small keyfob that generates a random, six-digit number that you have to enter following a PIN or password. 

This level of sophistication isn't limited to high-buck companies; you can personally use this relatively simple method of making sure people can't use your logon IDs and passwords to get into your personal accounts. 

The "two factors" used are most commonly something you know (information - in this case, your logon ID and password) and something you have (some sort of technology that permits a specialized key to be used to validate your identity). In my case, I use my iPhone (most smart phones, and even some not-so-smart phones, will permit this) to provide info I can use to log into Google, the bank, brokerages, social sites (LinkedIn, Twitter), Evernote, Apple, etc. 

For example, here's how it works with Google: On the login screen, I enter my logon ID (paul.higby) and my password (JiminyCricketTh!sIsALongPa$$word!), and click "Sign in." Google then flashes a screen asking for the verification code generated by my mobile app. So on my iPhone, I open the Google Authenticator app and enter the 6-digit code I see on the screen. The code changes every 30 seconds, so if I wait too long to enter the number, Google won't let me login. I enter the number and click "Verify," and I'm in.

Much the same for my Outlook-dot-com account, except I use a different app (SM Accounts) to generate the password. For E*Trade, I use the Symantec VIP Access app. There are other apps; and in some cases, instead of relying on a mobile app, the website will send an SMS text with a 4- or 6-digit code (Apple, my bank, and LinkedIn, among others, do this).

Two-factor authentication is quite probably the simplest and most effective method for preventing unauthorized access to your accounts, and likely is one of the easiest method for preventing identity theft. Head over to twofactorauth.org to see if your accounts support this, and participate in their campaign to persuade every company that's online to make it available.

MSM and Conservatism

Totally amazing to me the stuff that I see coming in newspapers, magazines, and other media about how evil Republicans are. To hear them talk (or to read what they write), Republicans (or more accurately, conservatives) are a bunch of cold, heartless, scheming bastards, intent on making people suffer, and doing just about any evil thing they can think of to accomplish that goal -- throwing Granny off a cliff, advocating for dirty air and water, withholding treatment from autistic kids (personal note: my son has been diagnosed with autism), even preventing stem cell research.

I guess I could – by a stretch of my imagination – see how it might appear that conservatives are just that heartless, if I were to think in a vacuum and not take cause-and-effect into consideration.

Unfortunately, liberals seem to think this way – they don’t look at cause and effect, unless by “cause” they mean “what the Republicans are doing wrong” and by “effect” they mean “how we’re going to fix all the problems, right all the wrongs wreaked upon helpless society by those bastard Republicans.” They appear (at least to me) to think more in terms or "right and wrong," and do all they can to legislate the final result, the outcome, forcing benevolence. By contrast, conservatives (who want the same result) believe individuals are capable of entering into agreements to achieve the same result, rather than be subject to a forced result. I've wondered for decades why liberals don't simply impose a maximum price on something, regardless of supply-and-demand. (Oh, wait - they've done that, with disastrous results.)

Just for the record, I don't want to prevent stem cell research; I want to stop or at least severely curtail government funding of stem cell research. I don't want to throw Granny off a cliff; I want Granny's family to take care of her. I don't even know Granny! I don't think dirty air and water is preferable to clean; I simply believe that the impact mankind has on the earth is much less than do those who believe in mankind-caused "global climate change." (Can anyone describe to me how the Medieval Warming Period was caused? Sure couldn't have been due to "gas-guzzling SUVs" belching smoke and fire. Dragons, maybe?) And I believe the earth is much more capable of protecting and cleansing itself than do those who believe we're to blame. Especially in light of clear evidence showing that climate change study results were at least embellished if not downright and blatantly fraudulent, and of clear evidence that temperatures have remained relatively stationery for over a decade.

Look: I’m as concerned as the next guy about society’s problems, but I’m more concerned about individual liberty. I want to be free to contribute to whomever I wish, whenever I wish, however I wish. Unfortunately, I am unable to do that because after taxes are withheld, I don't have enough money left over to contribute to all the worthy causes I follow. It is pure, unadulterated thuggery for government to take money I’ve earned and give it to someone who hasn’t earned it. And let’s not mince words: any system that redistributes wealth is guilty of theft, pure and simple. Fairness is absent, unless you think it's fair to take what someone has earned and give it to someone who hasn't earned it, for no other reason than to equalize the result. If that were morally desirable, then no thief on Earth would ever be convicted ever again. If it were ethically acceptable, then it would be equally acceptable for me to reach into your thousand-dollar bank account and take $250 out to supplement my $500 bank account. Equal outcome justifies the means, right?

I would love to donate money, time, and goods & services to charities worthy to extend a helping hand to those in need; however, that does not mean I’m willing to support those who simply languish in a lifestyle of their own choosing. But the government does that routinely. For the government to take money I’ve earned, call it a tax, pay for their overhead and give what’s left to someone who has made a conscious decision to live off the government’s teat is criminal.  The fact that there's so much blatant, unpunished fraud within this system is reprehensible. And contrary to popular opinion, those who are taxed highest in this scenario are the victims. The recipients, by virtue of the fact that they're asking for the government's help in perpetrating this theft, are the greedy ones. This is exactly opposite of how the MSM portrays it.

As compassionate as liberals want to appear, it comes down to a quest for power. If they allow conservative talking points to break through the wall of silence they’ve constructed, all their hope for society will be lost and liberals in turn will lose power they’ve struggled to gain. (Society will gain, but liberal politicians would lose, so by their definition, it's bad.) For example:

• when Republican Congress (during the budget negotiations) wants and offers to fund all parts of the government except the very part that is inherently unconstitutional (the “Affordable” [sic] Care Act), liberals claim we "want old people to die" and we "want to deny people their right [sic] to health care."

• When we say it’s unconstitutional to require that someone engage in commerce, they say it’s no different than requiring someone to buy insurance on their car. (The problem with their argument that it's no different is that it is different. We private drivers are not required to buy insurance on our private vehicle unless we use public roads and interact with other private drivers. If we're driving solely on private property, no insurance, or even license plates, are required.)

It's amazingly easy to toss out accusations and leave it for the accused to refute the liberal claim. And the media goes along with the liberal storyline: Stories are written describing the impasse is due to a "Republican shutdown." In reality, Republicans sent a dozen or more bills to fund the government to the Senate and the Senate replied with, "No, not if we don't get Obamacare." If the bill did not include funding for Obamacare, the Senate rejected it. Ironically, the Senate then accused Republicans of wanting it their way or no way, after we made it clear we were willing to fund nearly anything except Obamacare.

What liberals seek, then, is to remain in power. If they have to lie to do it, they will. If they have to engage in ad hominem attacks to do it, they will. (This unfortunately is the nature of politics. By that statement I'm acknowledging that Republicans lie, too. I don't like it, I don't condone it, and I think it should stop. But there it is.) They hurl senseless accusations out left and right, hoping someone will take up the torch and run in whatever media is available. (Listen to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada claim that all he and the American People want is for "Congress to do its job." Then stop to think: why, in fact they are doing their job by debating and voting and funding.) Further, President Obama threatens to default on national debt payments if Congress doesn’t re-open the government. Remember that in fact, 83% of the government remained open, and we collect ten times more in revenue than is required to pay the debt. And in fact, it’s Government's obligation to service the debt before new spending is undertaken. So if Mr. Obama has the means to comply and he’s threatening to default, he’s threatening to break the law. My God: The President of the United States is having a temper tantrum! It's the presidential equivalent of holding his breath till he turns blue.

The media runs with the story of what Obama says; they systematically (in fact, almost appear to deliberately) fail to report on what is required and how his comments are diametrically opposed to the requirement of law.

Liberals are intent on forcing their morality onto the backs of those who have money, for no other purpose than to buy votes. They tax you and me to the brink of poverty to pay for their programs, which are for the sole purpose of making sure the voters who receive government services are beholden to them at election time. "If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul."

It's almost a foregone conclusion that any liberal who reads this will come rushing to the defense of liberal policies, asking how anyone can be so unconscionable as to suggest that we don't have an obligation to help those in need. Unfortunately for them, I'm suggesting no such thing. I am suggesting instead that the obligation is personal, not collective, and certainly should not be legislated! I'm suggesting instead that the government has no right to tell me that I have an obligation to another person.  I have no claim on anyone else's time, energy or money (as a "right" would confer). The only One who can tell me I have an obligation to another is my God -- and government ain't my god. Government is the antithesis of God. I don't serve the government -- the government is assigned the job of protecting me against the tyranny of those who would do evil to me, and instead they've become the chief proponent of the inherent evil of theft. If I have a "right" to health care (or to any other government program), that means I have the right to obligate another person to provide for my welfare. That is involuntary servitude.

Historically, that's the definition of slavery.

The mainstream media has systematically and intentionally failed in their "free press" obligation to act as the auditor, and they've hidden their failure behind the guise of reporting.

And that, dear reader, is "evil."

Terrorism vs Citizenship

Seems tragic, doesn't it, that citizens are treated like potential terrorists (been flying lately?), and terrorists are treated the way citizens should be treated (the FBI knew that Nidal Hasan [the Fort Hood murderer] was a danger, but they wouldn't take any action, because they didn't want to offend Muslims).

You may already have heard or read this, but it certainly deserves repeating since the FBI announced their prior knowledge just today.

Urgency, Resolution, and Government Money

When I was a kid, there was a cement business just across the bridge from my home town. The business's slogan was, "Find a need and fill it."

Here's what I think (not that you really care, but this is cathartic): there are those who have taken that slogan and perverted it into, "Create a need and fill it."

Today I read in James Taranto's Wall St Journal column, that "James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his 'Gaia' theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being 'alarmist' about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too." Apparently Mr. Lovelock is writing a book in which he says climate change is still happening, but more slowly than he previously believed.

"Climate change" (which used to be called "global cooling" before the temperatures began rising, and used to be called "global warming" before the temperatures stagnated and then going back down) is a myth. "Cyclical climate variations" is real.

I think Al Gore and his cronies peers have "created a need" by going on the alarmist warpath, shouting to everyone near and far that the sky is falling  the earth is warming we've de-stabilized the Earth's climate. And now here's someone who is saying that the climate variations have slowed.

What do you want to bet that the next thing we hear is, "We have no idea how high the temperature would have risen if we hadn't begun our work when we did", or "What if we hadn't started work when we did", or "See? We told you it was rising and now that it's beginning to stabilize it's proof our efforts are paying off. The Money We've Spent was WELL WORTH IT!"

"Oh By The Way: We need more Federal funding to continue our obviously-valuable and life-saving work!"

If it weren't such a predictably pathetic pattern, it would be almost laughable.

Global Climate Change is today's application of the pattern. General Motors is one from the recent past: "What if we hadn't intervened? GM would be out of business. We saved hundreds of thousands of jobs." (Well, no; GM would have been permitted to fail, employees would have found jobs at their competitors to support the increased demand from consumers who still wanted vehicles but could no longer get them at GM dealerships, and we'd have had a wake-up call, jolting us from our slumber about the free market. And quite possibly, we'd have seen other auto manufacturers rise, like Kia, Yugo, Hyundai, and Daewoo. And we wouldn't have experimented with billions of taxpayer dollars invested in a failed electric car.)

Or Health Care: "Millions of people don't get the care they need. We have to do something." (Well, no: anyone, at any time, was entitled to health care even if they didn't have insurance, by simply going into any public -- and sometimes private -- hospital's E.R.)

Okay; what's the point? The point is, life goes on, the free market works, and -- predictably -- people will try to scam us for our money. Everyone's gotta make a living, right?

Interviews

When you are looking for work, the interview is the place many people start - if they can just get their foot in the door, it should be a piece of cake, right?

I submit to you that preparation for the interview is the first step. What questions will you be asked? And perhaps more importantly, what questions should you ask? Here's a good place to start: Begin by asking the hiring manager with whom you're discussing the position this question: "What are you looking for in a new hire that will make him or her successful at this role?" This is the first and foremost question anyone should ask his or her customer: "What are your goals? What do you hope to accomplish? How will you be using my services? What is the best way I can help you in this role?"

Check this Lifehacker.com link for more info about this:
http://lifehacker.com/5897390/ask-these-questions-at-your-next-job-interview-to-leave-a-lasting-impression

Remember: the job is not yours, it belongs to your customer / client / employer. They're simply hiring you to do it for them. What do you bring to the table? Can you improve on their idea of how the job should be done? Do you see glaring inefficiencies in the process you are expected to follow?

You are, in effect, a consultant who is bringing your expertise, experience and training to bear on a problem your employer or client has discovered or identified. How will you solve it?

Onward.

Voter ID: What am I missing?

What's the big problem with requiring an ID when voting? If you don't want to prove you have a right to vote, why not? Are you hiding something? Do you think that anyone should be able to walk in to any polling place, any time, and pull the lever, without demonstrating a "right" to do so? If you do, does that mean that I am allowed to do that? Do you trust me to vote (repeatedly) the way you want me to?

(By the way: you do know, don't you, that you don't have a Constitutional "right to vote" for the president?)

If you're against requiring that prospective voters identify themselves by using a government-issued photo ID to prove they have a right to vote when and where they're standing, I'm guessing you don't trust me to vote the way you want me to. People have to show their government ID when they write a check, when they use their credit or debit cards, when they register for a class, when they open a bank account... If I'm required to show my ID to vote, and it's a legitimate ID, I will get only one vote. Isn't that what you want? Don't you want to limit my voice to only a single expression? I won't be able to stuff the ballot box quite so easily if I have to show my ID before I'm allowed to vote.

For those who are against a voter ID requirement, I'd have guessed you'd want a way to limit my freedom of expression. Voter ID seems like a legitimate way to achieve that goal.

The Short-Sightedness of the American Left

The American Left appears to have no concept in their pore ole collective head of cause-and-effect. They don't even pretend to understand economics (or if that is a pretense of understanding, it's piss-poor!).

A while back, I read the following over on cluelesshick.com:

Somebody hands you a pay check of some kind, i bet. & if free markets were allowed in the USA, they could hand you any old amount they want...or not...& tell you that if you don't like go someplace else. they dont care, Joe. They don't have to care. There are NO RULES for them. NO REGULATIONS! NO LAWS! NONE OF THAT NASTY 'OVERSITE'!

Now, come on here. Do you mean to tell me that the writer of this comment does not understand that:

• Employers don't determine your pay (YOU do, based on what you know, how skilled you are, how talented you are, how well you've developed your knowledge, skills and talent, and, how well you market yourself)
• You have the ability to price yourself out of the market
• If you were truly worth what you think you're worth, employers would be contacting you to offer you roles at your price, not offering what you think is a pittance
• It ISN'T YOUR JOB - It belongs to the employer, who hires someone to do it for them. If it costs the employer more than the return, the job is ELIMINATED; and conversely, if the job costs the employer less than the return, it's retained
• You don't have a right to a job

??

Honestly! Wake up, will ya? Go take a course in economics 101. Learn what happens when taxes are raised on those who create jobs. Look at what happens when the minimum wage is increased by mandate rather than by the market.

I mean if you're going to pretend to know something about economics, at least pretend to do some research. I didn't do extremely well at economics when in college, but I can at least think about it and reach common-sense (read "logical") conclusions.

But here's another take on this: maybe the libs know that they're not including all the info. Maybe they're banking on the probability that many don't know or care that not all the info is being presented.

My God. I just re-read that last paragraph. What if it’s true?