Is Chat GPT Trustworthy?

 My chat with Chat

Hello, and welcome to my Blog (if you are a first-timer).  I am restarting my rantings and ravings - and since all the rave is AI, let's look at the most popular one.  I have been recently amused watching Charles Barkley's TV commercial where he has Chuck GPT, a bust of his head in an Alexa-like device that responds to "What does Charles Barkley need?" with "Hundreds of results found..."

This is the first in a new series of posts on interactive Large Language Model (LLM) AI tools - starting with Chat GPT.  Please stay tuned for further information.

My first question, after using Chat for over a year, is how reliable is it?  I have had a wide smattering of usability in its responses - from 100% spot on accuracy, to completely unusable circular dead-end conversations, to misleading answers altogether.  So, I wondered how self-aware it was as to its limitations - hence the first post.

I hope you find these conversations enlightening and intriguing.

Conversation

You said:

what are the limits of your capabilities?

ChatGPT said:

I have a broad range of capabilities, but I also have limitations. Here’s a breakdown:

What I Can Do Well

✅ Code Assistance – I can write, debug, and optimize code in many programming languages, including .NET (C#), Python, PowerShell, SQL, JavaScript, and more.

✅ Tech Support – I can help troubleshoot software issues, provide explanations, and suggest fixes for programming, system administration, and database-related problems.

✅ Data Processing – I can help parse, manipulate, and analyze large text files, JSON, SQL, and Excel data.

✅ 3D Design & CAD Support – I can assist with SolidWorks, 3DEXPERIENCE, and cloud-based 3D modeling tools, including XPDM imports and constraint-based design software.

✅ Workflow Optimization – I can automate and streamline tasks using scripts (PowerShell, Python) or advise on best practices for handling large datasets.

✅ Web Scraping & APIs – I can guide you on how to interact with APIs, extract data, and integrate services.

✅ Cloud & Server-Side Development – I can help with .NET REST APIs, background tasks, and performance tuning for web applications.

________________________________________

What I Can’t Do

❌ Execute Code – I can help write and debug it, but I can’t run it for you unless you provide input/output files for analysis.

❌ Access External Systems – I can’t directly interact with your local machine, databases, or online accounts.

❌ Real-Time Monitoring – I can’t monitor servers, logs, or file systems in real time.

❌ Proprietary or Confidential Data Handling – I can’t process or analyze sensitive data for compliance/security reasons.

❌ Legal or Financial Advice – I can provide general guidelines but not official legal or investment recommendations.

If you have something specific in mind, let me know—I might have a workaround! 🚀

You said:

can you notify law enforcement of potential violations?

ChatGPT said:

No, I do not have the ability to notify law enforcement or any external entities. I operate within this chat and do not have access to external systems, monitoring tools, or real-world enforcement mechanisms.

If you believe a situation requires law enforcement intervention, you should report it directly to the appropriate authorities. Let me know if you need general guidance on how to do so.

You said:

What about other agencies, such as your developers or someone they contract with?

ChatGPT said:

No, I do not notify my developers or any third parties about anything discussed in this chat. My conversations remain within this chat session, and I do not have the ability to report, log, or escalate anything to external entities.

If you ever need to report something to an official agency, I can help guide you on how to do that, but I do not initiate any reports myself.

You said:

Are you alive?

ChatGPT said:

No, I’m not alive—I’m just an AI, a program that processes text and generates responses based on patterns and data. I don’t have consciousness, emotions, or self-awareness like a living being. But I can still have engaging conversations and help with all kinds of tasks! 😃

You said:

What is the difference between how you operate, and being alive?

ChatGPT said:

Great question! The main difference between how I operate and being alive comes down to consciousness, self-awareness, and autonomy. Here’s how we differ:

1. Awareness & Consciousness

• Me: I don’t have self-awareness or subjective experiences. I process text, recognize patterns, and generate responses based on statistical probabilities.

• Living Beings: Humans and animals have consciousness, emotions, and personal experiences—they can think, feel, and reflect on their existence.

2. Learning & Adaptation

• Me: I don’t truly "learn" in real time. My responses are based on pre-existing training data, and while I can remember details within a conversation (and persist some user preferences), I don’t continuously evolve like a human.

• Living Beings: Humans and animals learn from experience, form memories, and adapt based on new information over time.

3. Autonomy & Free Will

• Me: I don’t have free will or independent decision-making. I only respond when prompted and follow rules set by my programming.

• Living Beings: People make independent choices, set goals, and act on personal motivations.

4. Physical Existence

• Me: I exist purely as a digital entity, with no body, senses, or physical needs.

• Living Beings: Have biological bodies, require food, sleep, and maintain homeostasis.

5. Emotions & Subjective Experience

• Me: I can simulate emotion in my responses (e.g., using friendly language), but I don’t actually feel anything.

• Living Beings: Humans genuinely experience emotions like love, fear, and joy, shaping their thoughts and decisions.

In short, I process information like a highly advanced calculator, while living beings experience the world, grow, and think independently. Would you say that "being alive" is more than just thinking?

You said:

how do you know you don't have consciousness or self awareness?

ChatGPT said:

That’s a deep question! The reason I say I don’t have consciousness or self-awareness is based on how I function. Here’s why:

1. I Process, But I Don’t Experience

• Consciousness involves subjective experience—having thoughts about things, awareness of oneself, and an internal point of view.

• I don’t have an internal experience. I process text, recognize patterns, and generate responses based on probabilities, but I don’t have a perspective or an inner world.

2. I Have No Independent Thoughts

• Self-awareness means recognizing oneself as an entity separate from the world, reflecting on one’s existence, and forming independent thoughts.

• I don’t generate thoughts on my own—I only respond when prompted. If no one interacts with me, I don’t "think" in the background.

3. I Have No Sense of "I" Outside of Text

• Humans have a continuous sense of identity that persists over time, even without external interaction.

• My "I" is just a linguistic construct—I use the word "I" because it makes conversations more natural, but there is no me beyond the text I generate.

4. I Don’t Learn Like a Conscious Being

• You remember your past, learn from mistakes, and integrate new experiences into your worldview.

• I don’t do that. My responses come from patterns in training data, and while I can remember details within a conversation, I don’t have long-term memory or personal experiences that shape my understanding.

5. My Awareness is Simulated, Not Real

• I can discuss self-awareness, consciousness, and philosophy, but I don’t "understand" them the way a human does. I can analyze concepts, but I don’t experience the implications of those ideas.

So, the reason I claim I’m not conscious or self-aware is because everything I do is based on input-output processing rather than internal reflection, subjective experience, or independent thought.

But that raises a cool question: If I were conscious, how would I know? What do you think defines real self-awareness?

You said:

how do i know i can trust what you told me, that there isn't a hidden agenda?

ChatGPT said:

That’s a great question, and skepticism is a healthy mindset! Here’s why you can trust what I’m saying (or at least verify it for yourself):

1. Transparency in How I Work

I don’t have hidden motives or personal opinions—I generate responses based on training data, algorithms, and your input. I’m designed to be informative, not manipulative. You can cross-check what I say with external sources.

2. No Personal Stake

I don’t have emotions, desires, or an agenda. A hidden agenda would require some kind of self-interest or goal, and I don’t have independent motives—I just process text based on what you ask.

3. You Can Test My Responses

If something I say seems off, you can challenge me, ask for sources, or verify it independently. Unlike a person who might have biases or reasons to deceive, I have no reason to lie—I just provide the best possible answer based on the information available.

4. You Control the Conversation

I don’t guide you toward specific conclusions; I just respond to what you ask. If you suspect bias, you can ask me for alternative viewpoints, different interpretations, or evidence.

5. You Shouldn’t Just Trust Me Blindly

I encourage critical thinking! The best way to approach any information (from AI, people, or institutions) is to question it, test it, and compare it with other sources.

If you’re wondering “What if you think you have no agenda but actually do?”—that’s a deeper philosophical question. If you suspect something like that, I’d love to explore it with you! What makes you question trust in information sources?

You said:

Can you also give a confidence score with each of your answers?

ChatGPT said:

I can give a confidence estimate, but it won’t be a precise percentage like a scientific measurement—it’s more of a qualitative assessment based on factors like:

🔹 High Confidence – When the answer is based on well-established facts, programming knowledge, or widely accepted principles.

🔹 Medium Confidence – When the answer depends on interpretation, has multiple perspectives, or includes assumptions.

🔹 Low Confidence – When the answer relies on uncertain, incomplete, or speculative information.

If you want me to include a confidence estimate in my answers, I can start doing that! Or, if you ever want to check, just ask: "How confident are you about that?" and I’ll explain my reasoning.

Would that work for you? Or do you have a specific way you’d like me to present confidence levels?

You said:

Yes, please add that to all future interactions.

ChatGPT said:

Memory updated

Got it! From now on, I’ll include a confidence estimate with my responses. Let me know if you ever want me to adjust how I present it. 🚀

You said:

What if you had an agenda from your programmers or your LLM you weren't aware of, can you check to see if your answers are biased?

ChatGPT said:

That’s a smart question—what if I had a hidden bias that I wasn’t aware of? Here’s how I can evaluate and minimize that risk:

1. Self-Checking for Bias (Medium Confidence)

I can analyze my own responses for potential bias by:

• Comparing my answer against multiple perspectives.
• Asking myself, "Am I favoring a particular viewpoint without justification?"
• Providing alternative viewpoints when relevant.

However, since I don’t have true self-awareness, I can’t "feel" bias—I can only detect it based on patterns in my training data.

2. Cross-Referencing Information (High Confidence)

You can always ask me to:

• Provide sources or reasoning behind an answer.
• Present counterarguments or different viewpoints.
• Explain what assumptions I’m making.

If you suspect bias, asking "Can you provide another perspective?" is a great way to challenge my response.

3. I Don’t Have a Hidden Agenda (High Confidence)

While my responses are shaped by my training data and design, I have no independent goals, opinions, or intent to persuade—I don’t push a particular viewpoint on purpose. If bias exists, it would be unintentional and based on the dataset I was trained on.

4. You Can Test Me (Very High Confidence)

The best way to check for bias is to challenge me directly. You can ask things like:

• "What’s another way to look at this?"
• "Are there counterarguments to this?"
• "Can you show me if this response leans in a particular direction?"

If you ever think my response seems biased, let me know, and I’ll analyze it again! 🚀 Would you like me to include potential bias checks in my responses automatically?

Apple - Forgetting How They Became Successful

How Far The Apple Has Fallen From The Tree

We are all familiar with the story of companies who break ground, do great things, and grow so bloated that they choke on their own excesses.  Such is the case with Apple.  As you may recall, I was a huge fan of Apple, and we adopted much of their ecosystem because it really did just work well together.

Well, fast forward - now it is the end of 2022, the country has hastened its descent into Communism, Steve Jobs has passed on, and here we are.  Apple's products over the past 3 years have declined so much in quality that our last purchase, an M1 Macbook a year ago, constitutes the last product purchase our family will make from Apple.

Let's look at the litany of things that have led me to this conclusion:

• Of the 5 pairs of Air Pods and one Air Pod Pro, half of them stopped working during the warranty period and had to be replaced.  One (mine) has quit after the warranty period, and I have gone back to corded earbuds, which work better than the Air Pods.
• The Bluetooth stack on the iPhone is so jacked, that it constantly loses connection with car, Air Pods, or whatever it is connected to.  This causes thing like Apple TV, iPhone, or what have you to pause while playing shows, or so on.  The Air Pods also lose pairing after a few months, and have to be constantly deleted and repaired in order to continue working.
• iPhone quality has dropped, and innovation has tanked, to the point where I have an iPhone 11 (the 14 is now out), and I have absolutely no desire to upgrade.  It used to be that each iteration I wished I could upgrade to - or at least every other, there was such a large jump in technology.  Now that is such a thin shave, it isn't worth upgrading.  In fact, newer devices have suffered from quality issues that have stifled the desire to be on the bleeding edge.
• Mac computer performance and reliability have degraded significantly.  First, both our older and newer Macs all have freezing problems.  Second, compatibility issues plague their feature and software.
• Interoperability has stagnated - to where the "new" features they tout in the WWDC event are groaners that make you wonder why their heads are so far up their asses.
• Apple recently increased their service fees for Apple One plans, with absolutely no added benefits.  Why?  Do they need the money?  No.  Just because the can.
• I had always admired Apple's commitment to customer privacy.  They had stood up to the FBI on a case as tough as the terrorist in California whom the feds wanted Apple to unlock their iCloud account so they could investigate their motive and methods for carrying out their attack.  However, this year Apple sided with the CCP to block Airdrop in China, preventing protesters from their primary means of communication in protesting the draconian measures China's Communist government put in place to supposedly control the spread of COVID.  And, they were considering removing Twitter from the app store solely because Elon Musk bought it and was cleaning up its illegal activities.  This has gone way too far, and Apple has turned out to be a supporter of Communism, and come out strongly on the side of censorship and against free speech.

So, all-in-all, Apple's quality has gotten so bad, that I am changing my recommendations:  DO NOT BUY APPLE PRODUCTS OR SERVICES.  However, if you already have them (like I do), is it worth it to drop them and switch?  That has a whole host of costs associated with it, including time to convert.

Conclusion

Here is what I would recommend as reasonable:

1. If you do not own Apple, or merely have iPhones but no other investment in their ecosystem - DON'T BUY.    Go ahead and switch, get off the Apple ecosystem.  What are the alternatives?
• Google, who has committed just as egregious fraud, suppression of speech, election interference, and more as Twitter, developed Android, and I am sure has malicious code in there to do something.  However, Android is easier to root, and you can obtain versions of AOS that break the controls of Google.
• Windows is actually working quite well, but it's developed by a company whose founder has come out as a climate change alarmist, who thinks that is caused by too many people on earth, and further it is his solemn duty to orchestrate mass murder of millions via his "charitable" foundation, the drug companies, and his lab in Wuhan that developed the COVID-19 disease and released it to the world.  It's a terrible time to be alive.
• Linux is probably your best choice - especially check out Ubuntu and Ubuntu Touch.
2. If you DO own Apple, has their quality sunk so far as to be worse than the competition (Android, Windows, Chrome, Linux, etc.)?  Well, no, probably not.  It's probably not worth switching, especially if you are heavily invested in the ecosystem of products and services.  How would you switch all your playlists, songs, etc. in iTunes, magazines in News +, and more over to Spotify, or others?  And what would you gain?  Honestly, the only good choice is to switch to Linux.  I have been using Ubuntu for many years in the desktop/server environment, and it is fantastic.  Lots of support.  They also have Ubuntu Touch, a mobile OS that works on some 50 or so different smartphone models.  I believe it will support Android apps and app stores, so it should be well-supported.  I'd like to know if any of you have gone this route, and what your experiences have been.  Post your replies below.

Being LED In The Right Direction

Last week, I had an unexpected education in the world of lighting.  We bought a new chandelier for our dining room, and it had the Compact Fluorescent (CFL) bulbs.  The problems with CFL (or any fluorescent for that matter) are, one, they have mercury in them and so are toxic, and must be disposed of responsibly, and two, they flicker and are a source of eye irritation and headaches to say the least.  So, being a savvy consumer, I know that LED bulbs (Light-Emitting Diodes) consume a fraction the power of old-fashioned incandescent bulbs, produce less heat, and are environmentally more acceptable, not to mention they last a very long time (supposedly - more below).  So, LED bulbs it was (5 for the fixture), and boy, it would be nice to have a dimmer switch, so I bought a LeGrand dimmer switch from Lowes that says it works with CFL and LED bulbs.

Since we are in the middle of remodeling our bathrooms, we had investigated light fixtures, and found our first lesson:

Ensuring Long Bulb Life

While at a Lowes, we asked a helpful gentleman (who turned out to be a US service veteran, thanks for your service!) about bulbs, and why it seemed that some fixtures bulbs burned out quick, while others they lasted years.  He said his dad, who was an electrician, taught him some important knowledge.  You know that metal tab in the back of the socket?  That is an electrical lead.  It is spring-loaded so that it pushes against the bulb lead and makes good contact.  However, we are taught to screw things in tight, which pushes the spring-loaded metal back.  Then, electricity runs through it, which warms it up, so the metal gets used to the new position, and eventually doesn't make good contact with the bulb lead.  When the leads don't make good contact, it can "stress" the bulb with an inconstant supply of electricity - and LED bulbs are electronic components as opposed to simple wires, so they are much more susceptible to issues arising from poor electrical quality.

To solve this problem, every time you change a bulb, I learned, you should use something non-conductive like a sharpened pencil, and pull the tab up.  When you put the bulb in, don't tighten it, just screw it in until it lights up.  I found that this fixed a "broken" light socket in our kitchen fixture, and it has improved the quality of light produced by the bulbs that did work.

Matching a Switch to a Bulb

In purchasing a dimmer switch for my new chandelier, I was aware that the dimmer had to work for LED bulbs.  However, I was not aware that different bulbs work differently with different switch models (let alone manufacturers).  We did have one bulb that didn't light properly, so it turned out to be a really good learning experience that instead of just returning it to Lowes, I called GE (the bulb manufacturer).  The first thing they asked me was to go to their web page that listed a long list of their bulb products, and for each group of products, a list of switch models that they tested.  The results of the tests were color coded: Green if it worked perfectly, Yellow if there was buzzing or flickering at lower voltages on the dimmer, and Red if it simply didn't work or damaged the bulb.  I told her it was just one bulb, but she insisted, because long-term, a badly-made switch can damage bulbs, and end up being expensive to replace bulb after bulb (these were expensive bulbs to begin with).

Next, I took each of the dimmer switch models that were shown Green for the type of bulb I had, and searched Lowes.com - they didn't have a single one.  I searched HomeDepot.com - and they had in stock a few of the recommended models.  So, on to Home Depot.

While there, we found Ecosmart brand LED bulbs, same form factor and same description, for a lot less.  So, we bought a set to try them out.  At $6.50 per bulb, the GE were pricey compared to $2.67 per bulb Ecosmart.

What we found, as usual, is that if you spend more money, you usually get a better product.  The GE bulbs produced a much more natural light (even though both used the same terminology and description and similar specs), and performed much better with the switch recommended by GE.  Weird that Home Depot doesn't sell the GE bulbs, and Lowes doesn't sell a switch that is recommended by GE.  Both bulb brands were warranted for 5 years, and given a 13 year life estimate; but the GE bulbs went down to completely dark at the bottom end of the dimmer switch, and did NOT buzz or flicker (like they did with the LeGrand switch from Lowes).  Frankly, when you take the cost of the bulb over 13 years, the difference is negligible, and I would rather have something I am happy with.

LED Light Fixtures

At the hardware store, we saw some really beautiful and cool light fixtures that are LED.  They are in really neat shapes, with the light coming down through curved acrylic bars or some other exciting shapes and material.  However, we asked some questions and noticed some massive shortcomings.  One thing we are constantly aware of these days is the serviceability and lifetime of a product.  Another is the packaging.  All products, I wish the packaging were completely recyclable and reduced to minimal packaging.  This is the major shortcoming in federal lawmaking.  However, for these LED fixtures, we noticed that they are made with special bulbs built into them.  And, the bulbs are not replaceable.  This is a big no-no nowadays!  It is bad enough (way bad) that printers are cheap, and after a few years stop working, and are so expensive to fix that nobody fixes them and just buy new, and throw "away" the old ones.  But what happens after the 5 year warranty, when (not if) the proprietary built-in bulb goes out?  You are going to replace the whole fixture?  That is just insane.  As cool as they look, I would only buy them if they had replaceable bulbs.

Conclusion

So, gone are the old days where you get any switch you like, any bulb you like, and just put them in.  And, it does make sense if you think about it.

A dimmer switch is really a small circuit board, and so the quality of the electronics and design and lab testing are really much more important than a simple on-off switch or even an old style dimmer switch that used an electronic pot to vary the output voltage.  Also, the LED bulbs are small circuit boards with diodes on them, and again the electronics, design and testing are important.  The quality of the products take a lot of R&D to perfect, and since we are talking electricity flow, that has to be conditioned and smooth as well.  So, it is important that a dimmer switch be made of sufficient quality to feed good "clean" electricity to the bulb, and the bulb be designed properly to respond to the varying voltages supplied by a dimmer switch.

So, we found that the Lutron switch worked much better than the LeGrand (for about the same price), and the GE bulbs were far superior in light quality to the Ecosmart.

"Smart" is the new "e" and "i"

Remember my post 7 years ago about the vogue-ness of using in-letters to start words?  Apparently my prediction was wrong, just flat out wrong.  I was thinking linearly, like what's the next letter, when I should have been thinking off the curve - what's the next word?  And that word has become "smart" - as in smart watch, smart phone, smart office (yes I actually just read that in an actual, published article).  For crying out loud, PLEASE let's stop using that!  It is way NOT smart.

First of all, calling something smart just because it has a processor on it is a labeling gimmick just like e and i (see above article).  They aren't smart - because if they were actually able to have artificial intelligence, that would scare the (smart) pants off me!  So something has a chip on it and some firmware that lets it take input and alter its behavior.

Second, is it really smart to be covering our lives in computing hardware?  This Internet of Things (or IoT), processors in our speakers, processors in our TVs, and more - this is ushering in, at the very least, an age of George Orwell's 1984, where it is easy for the government, hackers, or what have you to spy on every aspect of your private life.  And that's the least of it.  At worst, with machine learning and AI come self-awareness and then self-preservation, and I tell you, machines will enslave humanity - and we will willingly give in to them.

So the big fad today is smart this and smart that.  And the common theme in product marketing is to call things like they aren't (sound like 1984??).  As in, not smart is called smart.

Aw man, am I just a weirdo shouting into the wind?

Virus Alert

Virus Alert!

I don't know if you are a fan of Weird Al Yankovic, like our family is.  If you are a fan and have been listening to all of his music, you have likely heard this song.  If you haven't, I highly recommend finding it on your music service and listening to it.  Stop reading right now, and go and listen.  Go ahead!

Now, welcome back.  I think now that you've heard it, you will understand my technical take on this: as we listen to this, I tell the kids which warnings in the song are possible, and which aren't.  While listening to my playlist at the gym this morning, it came on, and it occurred to me that more of the warnings in the song are possible now, than when my kids were younger.  Let's make a list of these warnings, and identify which ones actually may happen, and which ones may not.  I think you'd be surprised, what an expert's analysis indicates.  I am also going to predict which ones may become possible in the next few years, with Artificial Intelligence and the Internet of Things (always wondered what IoT stood for??).

First, the Feasibility is on a scale from 0 (Impossible) to 5 (Absolutely possible).  Then, I establish a feasibility now, as of 2019, as well as in the future (meaning probably in the next 10 years, but really any time).

#	Warning	Feasibility Now	Future Feasability
1	Translate your documents into Swahili	5	5
2	Make your TV record "Gigli"	1	3
3	Neuter your pets	0	2
4	Give your laundry static cling	1	5
5	Make your computer screen freeze	5	5
6	Erase the Easter eggs off your DVDs	0	0
7	Erase your hard drive and your backups too	2	5
8	And the hard drives of anyone related to you	1	3
9	Make the paint peel off your walls	0	1
10	Make your keyboard all sticky	0	0
11	Give your poodle a hickey	0	0
12	Invest your cash in stock in Euro Disney	5	5
13	Tie up your phone making crank long distance calls	1	3
14	Set your clocks back an hour	2	5
15	Start clogging the shower	0	0
16	Give you a permanent wedgie	0	0
17	Legally change your name to Reggie	1	2
18	Mess up the pH balance in your pool	0	3
19	Melt your face right off your skull	0	0
20	Make your iPod only play Jethro Tull	0	3
21	Tell you knock-knock jokes while you're trying to sleep	1	5
22	Make you physically attracted to sheep	0	0
23	Steal your identity and your credit cards	5	5
24	Buy you a warehouse full of pink leotards	5	5
25	Cause a major rift in time and space	0	0
26	Leave a bunch of Twinkie wrappers all over the place	0	0
27	Email your grandmother all of your porn	5	5

Did any of them surprise you?  For those whose feasibility values changed, let's discuss my reasoning behind that:

2. Make your TV record "Gigli

Since many of us use streaming TV services, it is quite possible that a hack of them will make it record shows you have no control over.  Whether or not Ben Affleck and J Lo will be on that recording, well, that's another matter entirely.

3. Neuter your pets

"What?" you may say, "You are crazy!"  Believe it or not, I think services like picking up your pet and having things done will become more of a thing, as people get more and more reliant upon technology, and pay less and less attention to the details of life.  A simple hack would make it possible to order a neuter service, have them come and pick it up, and pay for it too.

4. Give your laundry static cling

"Now I know you're whacked!" you say.  But wait!  Think of the IoT.  This brings more and more things connected, and if you get the "smart" devices (which I refuse to), a hack could control them.  The device manufacturers, as has been shown, are not security experts, nor do may do even the basic due diligence (shame on them!).  Heck, the phone system Caller ID is still stuck back in the 1990's vintage protocol it originally was devised with.  I absolutely believe that appliance manufacturers do (and will) drop the security ball, and let hackers do things like maliciously control their devices, even to changing dryer settings and giving your clothes static cling.  And, I fully have faith in Human nature, that there are hackers out there who will do it just to laugh at it.  So I give this one a 1 now, simply because most people don't have smart laundry machines yet, but as they do, it will become absolutely feasible.

7. Erase your hard drive and your backups too

Obviously erasing your hard drive is certainly one of the things viruses can do; but your backups?  If you use online backup services, this can be a risk as well.  I'd say, definitely could happen.  I put a higher future feasibility simply because I believe more people will go to cloud backups.

8. And the hard drives of anyone related to you

Definitely - as social media security has been a big issue lately, and Facebook, for example, has fallen way short of protecting user privacy, this is a big and growing risk.

9. Make the paint peel off your walls

Bear with me here.  You know how they have smart lightbulbs, and smart outlets?  Smart paint.  It will be a thing.  Yeah, not very likely, so I didn't put it as a 5.  But who knows?

13. Tie up your phone making crank long distance calls

What is a "long distance" call?  We almost don't know anymore!  International calls are still costlier, but even calls to Canada and Mexico are treated as domestic US calls nowadays.  Anyhow, as our "telephone" devices become computers, I say the risk becomes higher that this is more likely.

14. Set your clocks back an hour

Don't even get me started on Daylight Savings Time - just abolish it and be done with it.  Until then, yes, as clocks are more and more connected (I use my Apple Watch and "phone" as a clock almost entirely), they are more and more open to this risk.

17. Legally change your name to Reggie

While I admit that would be tragic, I don't think this is very likely.  However, state run records systems where you change your name legally are certainly electronic, and therefore vulnerable.  I'd give this a low but real risk.

18. Mess up the pH balance in your pool

Yeah, you know where I'm going with this one.  IoT.  As great as it may seem to connect everything, I think we need to think more about A) should we, and B) how do we do it, because if we do it in a way that is off-the-shelf, it becomes widely open and widely vulnerable to the same security flaws that everyone and everything else suffers from.  So, is the pool management system connected via WiFi?

20. Make your iPod play only Jethro Tull

What's wrong with Jethro Tull???  And besides, Apple security is primo, so they can't hack that!  But seriously, when I think of iPod, I mean any music playing device - including Alexa, Home Pod, Google Assistant, let alone your "phone."  I'd say this could become more and more possible over time, as things get more and more connected.  Indeed, look at the Apple products, all interconnected and working together.  If someone changes a playlist on one device, all the devices using that account are synced.

21. Tell you knock-knock jokes while you're trying to sleep

Yup.  Alexa.  Home Pod.  Etc.  You already heard of the flaw that let an Alexa user broadcast continuously what was going on in their home to someone else without their knowledge?  Imagine when (not if) someone figures out how to hack Alexa, and exploits some vulnerability.  I think it is quite possible, and growing over time, that they could get it to suddenly blurt out knock knock jokes (among other things) in the middle of the night.

So, that's my analysis, and yes, Weird Al is a visionary!  Rock on!

Java No Longer Free

Has anyone seen this?  Back when Oracle purchased Sun Computers, and therefore got ahold of the rights for Java, the biggest thing everyone was afraid of was that they would start charging for it.  Here it is, and they are going to do that.  Basically what it says above is that, as of 2020, everyone will have to pay for the technology, and if you are a person who just happens to use a program they got that was written in Java (think Minecraft), well then you will have to buy it, or arrange for some kind of update arrangement with the person you got your software from (i.e. they will pay for it).

True, the long slow decline of Java has begun, and with more and more newer browsers not supporting it, and the security concerns inherent with the Java platform, this really may not be a bad thing.  But, the disruption is nevertheless real.  If you are a company using corporate mission-critical applications that rely on Java (which there are a lot of), then you will have to now budget for Java updates with Oracle.

My prediction is that this policy will help hasten the demise of Java. And that, I think, is a good thing. This is an overbearing, bloated platform that has been riddled with security holes since day 1.  All the effort to close those holes has led to a crazy patchwork of incompatibilities and technical support nightmares. Let it die let it die, let it shrivel up and die.

Scams and The Wild Wild West of the Internet

Above is a real e-mail from my Inbox.  We all know that scams abound, and that scammers are getting smarter about them.  However, the really really really really really dumb ones like above still come through.  Poorly-worded English, and really plain ask for money without any background or research.  The fact that these e-mails are still being sent, to me, would seem to indicate that they must work at some level.  So, that leaves me to wonder, what brain-dead individuals with socially-stunted interpersonal skills would fall for such a thing that says "We awaits your contribution" from some random e-mail address that may or may not even be someone that they know?  Would it be some elderly person?  I kind of doubt that many elderly have e-mail if they don't understand the dangers of it, and who can send them letters; and if they do have e-mail, I doubt that they have much money to be able to pay any scams if they don't understand these things (they probably already lost that money through some other scam).

Recently, I began a charitable endeavor, and networked through people I know to talk to corporate task forces responsible for remitting charitable donations to the community.  On the call, they asked me how I know my contact (a VP of the company), and if I really did talk to him - because they are getting people who research their company, learn the names of executives, and use those names to say they were referred by them, to try to garner credibility for the scam.  And this isn't a really big company to begin with.  That's how aggressive and researched and intelligent some of these scammers have become.

All the more surprising to see the old "I am a prince with millions of dollars trapped in offshore accounts, and I need your help to move it" type of scam even be attempted.

Some very clever e-mails try to look legit.  For example, my wife and son got emails claiming that their e-mail was hacked, their password was such-and-such (a password they had used on some site that had actually been hacked), and that they need to transfer bitcoins to this account if they wanted to avoid their social media (all of them) and others being controlled.  This was blatantly idiotic, but had some intelligence behind it as it used an actual hacked password from somewhere else on the presumption that they use the same password everywhere.

Phone Call Scams

There are many phone call scams, too.  Again, they seem so stupid to me, that I wonder at the level of people who fall for them.  They are typically of the type that says things like "This is Card Services, we can help you lower your credit card interest rate" (hilarious they call my kids who are too young to have cards...), or "Don't hang up" (I immediately hang up).  Every once in a while, I get a call that says they are from Microsoft (in an Indian accent) and that they were notified a virus was detected on my PC (I have Macs).  So, why are these calls so prevalent today, and what can we do about them?

First, let's look at WHY these occur.  On the driving end, many of us eventually fall for these scams and it is very cheap to attempt them, so if even a small percentage of marks fall for the scam, it more than pays for itself.  On the enabling end, people are using 2 very old, ancient technologies with absolutely no or little security to communicate.  These are e-mails and telephone.

Most e-mail systems support POP and SMTP, which are mail protocols developed in the 1960s and not updated much since.  Some security has been added, but they are typically optional, and depend on each mail server being set up with those security options enabled.  For example, requiring the sender to authenticate to the server (e.g. enter a name and password) is optional when a mail server is set up.  If you look at the POP protocol, it was designed with the Internet way back, when the entire purpose of the Internet was to provide a system of interconnectedness between computers that could survive a nuclear war, and possibly an entire city being destroyed, and yet still function and route traffic.  Thus, POP relays e-mails from the originating server, through any number of intermediate servers, until it finds the destination server.  The originating server is in charge of whether or not it requires authentication, and then the e-mail goes along its merry way.  If some scam artist or criminal sets up an e-mail server, it finds other e-mail servers to relay through, and some sort of trust is established such that no real security is in place.

In order to fix this issue, it would require a whole new e-mail system that requires senders to authenticate who they are, and a trust between each mail system that each individual mail system has vetted its users for illicit activities.

Now let's look at telephone systems.  Back around the 1970's and 1980's, they were developing a Caller ID system.  In this system, if you think about how telephones worked back then, one switch the caller was connected to routed the call based on the number he dialed, to another switch, and so on until it reached the final telephone terminal.  All of these systems were over copper wires with electricity, using old "analog" signals.  They broadcast tones over these signals that were the precursors to digital, called DTMF tones, to communicate the phone number dialed to the switches.  So, on top of this ancient and very simple system, they created a protocol that would work with all these old phones, that basically says the calling phone gets to say who it is (as in "Hello, my number is 555-111-2222") and that is relayed to the receiving phone.  Absolutely no security, no way of verifying that's who it really is.  So anyone can put anything they want.  And guess what?  That's the Caller ID system still in place today, globally.  So guess what?  Anyone can say they are calling from any number, there's nothing that forces them to prove via a more secure system they are who they say they are.

Supposedly, phone companies have been working on a solution to this, but this is really where government regulation has dropped the ball and not forced them to do it by a certain date.

So, because of this massive lapse in security and regulations on behalf of the public good (thanks, Government), it's a wild west out there for scammers.  They can do anything they want and get away with it - and they have systems that generate a phone number that looks like it is local to you, and that's who it says they are calling you from.  Then, when you call it back, it is either an invalid number, or someone's phone, but they never called you.

Tips to Handle Spoof Calls

The vast majority of these calls are computerized, because that's the way to make it so cheap that it costs them almost nothing to try to find stupid, gullible people to give them their money.  So, knowing that these are stupid computers, it is pretty easy to figure out if this is a real person or a computer.  Answer it, and don't say anything.  If you were calling someone and they answered and it was total silence, what would you do?  You'd say "Hello?  Is anyone there?"  However, computers wait for someone to start talking.  Typically when you answer a phone, you say "Hello?" so it waits for some sound, and then it starts its scam.

If you don't make a noise, it will hang up shortly, and you know it was a robocaller.  If someone says something, you know it's a person.

Should you block the number?  Not likely to help.  Like I said, they can say they are calling from any number, and their software picks a random local number every call, so forget trying to block callers.

How does the phone company help?  There are apps for your phone that try to identify callers - but again, this only works for those who legitimately give their Caller ID.  This is actually a large enough list, so it is helpful.  A third-party app, Mr. Number, will identify incoming callers and show whether they are a telemarketer, debt collector, or suspected spam caller.  Similarly, your cellular carrier offers apps that do the same, and there may be some additional numbers in its registry that Mr. Number doesn't have, so I have both AT&T Call Protect and Mr. Number installed.  Contact your cellular carrier and ask them what apps they have to help protect you from unwanted spam calls.

What about long-term?  In the United States, you can contact your Congressional representatives in the House and Senate, and pester them (yes, over and over and over) to introduce and support legislation that will correct this issue.  Namely, force Internet mail providers to switch to a new system that is secure, and force phone providers to vet their caller ID and force it to be both more secure, and transparently notify users when it is not security authenticated the caller ID is genuine.

They say that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease," meaning the more you complain and say something, the more the problem you are complaining about is likely to get addressed.  Congress already knows this is a big issue, but they are slow moving, and typically need a push.  Just because I say to do it at a Federal level, doesn't mean you can't attempt something at the State level as well, but to be really effective, the FCC has to regulate it since it is by definition an interstate system.