Technology

Virgil Griffith has put together a fascinating data-mining tool that compares anonymous Wikipedia edits to WHOIS records for IP addresses, to allow users to examine edits made by people at particular organizations. The tool can be used to examine edits by people at the NSA (Ft. Meade), the CIA, the Church of Scientology, Bob Jones University, the Environmental Protection Agency, Diebold, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Wal-Mart, Pfizer, Raytheon, The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, the WorldNetDaily, Fox News, the Republican and Democratic Party, the Vatican, among many others. The organizations listed here are all listed on the side of the tool’s main search page, but there are many more in the drop-down list of user-submitted organizations, and you can specify organization names and locations. Wired magazine has assembled a list of some of the more interesting edits, such as someone at Diebold deleting references to security flaws in electronic voting machines and someone at the CIA editing song lyrics from an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Griffith, who built Wikiscanner while working at the Santa Fe Institute, begins graduate work in September at Caltech on theoretical neurobiology and artificial life under Christoph Koch and Chris Adami. It’s wonderful when data mining can be used for good purposes. (Hat tip to Scott Peterson on the SKEPTIC list.)

The July 21, 2007 issue of The Economist has an article about a Swiss company that has opened a market for software vulnerabilities: Since economics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, a small industry of “security companies” has emerged to exploit the hackers’ dilemma. These outfits buy bugs from hackers (euphemistically known as “security researchers”). They then either sell them to software companies affected by the flaws, sometimes with a corrective “patch” as a sweetener, or use them for further “research”, such as looking for more significant—and therefore more lucrative—bugs on their own account. Such firms seek to act as third parties that are trusted by hacker and target alike; the idea is that they know the market and thus know the price it will bear. Often, though, neither side trusts them. Hackers complain that, if they go to such companies to try to ascertain what represents a fair price, the value of their information plummets because too many people now know about it. Software companies, meanwhile, reckon such middlemen are offered only uninteresting information. They suspect, perhaps cynically, that the good stuff is going straight to the black market.Last week, therefore, saw the launch of a service intended to make the whole process of selling bugs more transparent while giving greater rewards to hackers who do the right thing. The company behind it, a Swiss firm called WabiSabiLabi, differs from traditional security companies in that it does not buy or sell information in its own right. Instead, it provides a marketplace for such transactions. A bug-hunter can use this marketplace in one of three ways. He can offer his discovery in a straightforward auction, with the highest bidder getting exclusive rights. He can sell the bug at a fixed price to as many buyers as want it. Or he can try to sell the bug at a fixed price exclusively to one company, without going through an auction. ...

The fact that color printers print a pattern of yellow dots on all pages that indicate which printer was used, for the purposes of being able to track the identity of who has printed any page, has been known since the EFF decrypted the codes and publicized the information in 2005. Now, however, the MIT Media Lab has started a project called “Seeing Yellow” to encourage printer owners to contact the manufacturers and complain, after it has been found that those who do so get reported to the U.S. Secret Service as subversives. (There is one known case, in which someone called to ask a printer manufacturer if there was a way to turn off the “feature.”) (Via Don Lloyd at Distributed Republic.)

While looking through multiple pages of results from a Google query that contained some operators like negations and “site:” specifications, Google was periodically failing to give results or displaying raw HTML in my browser, then ultimately came back with: Google Error We’re sorry… … but your query looks similar to automated requests from a computer virus or spyware application. To protect our users, we can’t process your request right now. ...

How long before Google adds output from an American Science & Engineering Z Backscatter Van to Google Maps? See the demonstration video here. (Hat tip to Dave Palmer on the SKEPTIC list.)

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on the FBI’s “Operation Bot Roast,” which busted several criminal users of botnets: _James C. Brewer, of Arlington, Texas. He was indicted Tuesday on charges of infecting more than 10,000 computers globally, including two Chicago-area hospitals operated by the Bureau of Health Services in Cook County, Ill. The computers at the two hospitals were linked to the health care bureau’s mainframe system. They repeatedly froze or rebooted from October to December last year, resulting in delayed medical services, according to the indictment. Brewer was released on a $4,500 bond, court records show. ...

Cog at The Abstract Factory has put together a proposal to replace software patents with a superior system. (Hat tip to Tim Lee at The Technology Liberation Front.)

Microsoft Research has partnered with Petfinder.com to come up with a new test for determining whether there’s a live human behind the keyboard or just a computer program. It’s called Asirra, Animal Species Image Recognition for Restricting Access. The method presents twelve photographs of dogs and cats from Petfinder.com (each of which has an “adopt me” link associated with it) and asks the viewer to select all of the cats. Historical Comments Einzige (2007-06-12): I definitely prefer looking at cute pictures to deciphering those frustrating CAPTCHA thingies! ...

Which Programming Language are You?

From jwz’s blog: The Art of Wikigroaning The premise is quite simple. First, find a useful Wikipedia article that normal people might read. For example, the article called “Knight." Then, find a somehow similar article that is longer, but at the same time, useless to a very large fraction of the population. In this case, we’ll go with “Jedi Knight." Open both of the links and compare the lengths of the two articles. Compare not only that, but how well concepts are explored, and the greater professionalism with which the longer article was likely created. Are you looking yet? Get a good, long look. Yeah. Yeeaaah, we know, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. (We’re calling it Wikigroaning for a reason.) The next step is to find your own article pair and share it with your friends, who will usually look for their own pairs and you end up spending a good hour or two in a groaning arms race. The game ends after that, usually without any clear winners… but hey, it beats doing work. ...