Not so long ago, I moved to a new flat. Since I still needed to receive postal mail sent to my old address, I chose to use the mail forwarding service of the German post company.
Requesting your mail to be forwarded can be done easily via the homepage of the German post company: You need to give your old address, the address that the mail should be forwarded to, as well as your bank account number from which the service fee will be withdrawn automatically.
Simple enough. Even for someone who isn't you.
There have been quite a few cases of fraudulent use of this service in the past, most often committed by angry ex-partners or particularly creepy stalkers. But there have also been a few cases already where a fraudster had someone's mail rerouted just in time to receive new debit cards, credit cards, the corresponding PINs, and all kinds of other stuff to cause major financial damage with.
Having realized that this forwarding service might therefore constitute a minor security issue, the German post company decided to prevent this kind of fraud by sending an information letter to the original address whenever a mail forwarding request is received, saying something along the lines: "In order to prevent fraud, we are hereby informing you that a mail forwarding service has been requested for your address, and that from now on all your postal mail will be forwarded to the new address given below. If you did not initiate this yourself, please contact us immediately." This ensures that in case of an illegitimate request, the victim is at least aware of the situation and can take steps to cancel the forwarding service and possibly prosecute the offender.
Guess what?
That information letter was forwarded to my new address.
-- Birgit
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Half security is no security
Let's start with an example:
For various goods there are those special anti-theft-tags used in shops to prevent people from shoplifting. Most frequently they are used for CDs and clothing.
Now, often these tags themselves cost quite a bit of money. After all, they usually contain some kind of sender as well as an intricate system that allows easy removal with the correct tools, but at the same time has to make removal without those tools as hard as possible.
Not to mention that they frequently get lost, damaged, or [ironically] stolen.
In short, anti-theft-tags are an important cost factor in any anti-theft system.
A fact to which some managers have rather peculiar solutions. I wish I could explain their reasoning, but I'm at a loss for even remotely comprehensible explanations. I'll therefore stick with the observable facts: Once in a while, I walk into a shop and notice that roughly every second or every third item in a shelf is tagged with an anti-theft-tag, while the rest is not. And I don't mean that pricey items are tagged and cheap ones aren't -- no, of exactly identical items, only every second is tagged.
What are they thinking?
That they could at least get half the possible security out of it?
That there would be a 50% chance that a thief would pick one of the tagged items?
That this [alleged] risk would prevent thieves from even trying?
Dear shop managers, I shall enlighten you, free of charge, with one of the most basic principles of ... well, common sense: If there are two identical items, and one has a huge anti-theft-tag on it and the other hasn't -- guess which one a thief will take? (Take three guesses if you have to.)
The moral of the story: There is no such thing as half security. It's like locking the left car door and leaving the right one wide open. Or hiding top secret documents in a safe and leaving a copy on the copy machine. Or using half a condom. Or guarding a prison exit door only in the afternoon. Or ... Well, you get the idea.
If there are two ways, there's simply no point in securing only one of them.
-- Birgit
P.S.: More examples of this are sure to follow. I wasn't surprised that it happens at all, but I'm surprised time and again about how frequently it happens.
For various goods there are those special anti-theft-tags used in shops to prevent people from shoplifting. Most frequently they are used for CDs and clothing.
Now, often these tags themselves cost quite a bit of money. After all, they usually contain some kind of sender as well as an intricate system that allows easy removal with the correct tools, but at the same time has to make removal without those tools as hard as possible.
Not to mention that they frequently get lost, damaged, or [ironically] stolen.
In short, anti-theft-tags are an important cost factor in any anti-theft system.
A fact to which some managers have rather peculiar solutions. I wish I could explain their reasoning, but I'm at a loss for even remotely comprehensible explanations. I'll therefore stick with the observable facts: Once in a while, I walk into a shop and notice that roughly every second or every third item in a shelf is tagged with an anti-theft-tag, while the rest is not. And I don't mean that pricey items are tagged and cheap ones aren't -- no, of exactly identical items, only every second is tagged.
What are they thinking?
That they could at least get half the possible security out of it?
That there would be a 50% chance that a thief would pick one of the tagged items?
That this [alleged] risk would prevent thieves from even trying?
Dear shop managers, I shall enlighten you, free of charge, with one of the most basic principles of ... well, common sense: If there are two identical items, and one has a huge anti-theft-tag on it and the other hasn't -- guess which one a thief will take? (Take three guesses if you have to.)
The moral of the story: There is no such thing as half security. It's like locking the left car door and leaving the right one wide open. Or hiding top secret documents in a safe and leaving a copy on the copy machine. Or using half a condom. Or guarding a prison exit door only in the afternoon. Or ... Well, you get the idea.
If there are two ways, there's simply no point in securing only one of them.
-- Birgit
P.S.: More examples of this are sure to follow. I wasn't surprised that it happens at all, but I'm surprised time and again about how frequently it happens.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Terrorists, this way please!
Somewhere on the Zürich Airport...
... in the baggage claim area ...
... you will find the following sign on one baggage conveyor belt:
Roughly translated:
"To all employees in the customs hall / local unloading point:
Crossing from the customs hall to the local unloading point via this conveyor belt for bulky baggage is strictly prohibited for all persons!!!
A violation of this regulation is considered a circumvention of the security check and will be punished with 8 points and a 14 days revocation of your employee ID!!!"
Well, why not directly put up a sign saying:
On the upside, at least they don't seem to indulge in security by obscurity.
-- Birgit
(First picture courtesy of the Wikimedia Foundation: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LSZH_UniqueAirportCity_001.png)
... you will find the following sign on one baggage conveyor belt:
Roughly translated:
"To all employees in the customs hall / local unloading point:
Crossing from the customs hall to the local unloading point via this conveyor belt for bulky baggage is strictly prohibited for all persons!!!
A violation of this regulation is considered a circumvention of the security check and will be punished with 8 points and a 14 days revocation of your employee ID!!!"
Well, why not directly put up a sign saying:
| Dear Terrorists! If you wish to secretly gain access to the most security critical parts of this airport, please feel free to use this huge gaping hole in our security concept to circumvent security checks." Best regards, Airport Security |
On the upside, at least they don't seem to indulge in security by obscurity.
-- Birgit
(First picture courtesy of the Wikimedia Foundation: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LSZH_UniqueAirportCity_001.png)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)