What I read
In "Phone in the right hand? You're a hacker!" (2018), the BBC's Mark Ward writes that the old metaphor where cyber defence was a feudal castle looking only to repel outside invaders is being replaced by more sophisticated approaches using big data, for example, recording typing patterns, to turn all connected devices and the network itself into a constantly self-monitoring entity to more rapidly detect and respond to intrusions so that even if an attacker gets into a system, it is possible to "limit the blast radius." Known as "Beyond Corp," this more sophisticated cyber-defence system was initially created by Google in response to attacks on them and other major US corporations in 2009.
___________________________________
My response
The two metaphors made this article hard to resist blogging. Actually, although Ward describes it as a metaphor, which it can be, the way he presents the comparison of system security to a mediaeval castle protecting a dictatorial king or nobleman is as a simile. But it's still a great example of a metaphor used to describe something by comparing to something different. And the castle metaphor is extended throughout the article: it isn't just one sentence in one place. The second obvious metaphor is the bit I quoted from the source in my last sentence, which was also a quotation in my source: the blast radius describes the damage that hackers can do. This descriptive comparison to the area blasted by an explosion is presented as a metaphor in the article.
The other thing I thought of as I read was how cool these things are. I like to do online courses through Coursera, and for the past couple of years, they have authenticated me and some of my assignments by doing exactly what the article describes: their system monitors how I type on my keyboard to confirm that it's me doing the work, not someone I've paid to cheat for me. I don't know whether the TOEFL-iBT test does this or not, but it seems an obvious application, one which universities generally could start using to detect one form of cheating by students. And of course, universities have been using increasingly sophisticated programs to scan submitted work for plagiarism for many years now.
But the above got me thinking more generally about how rapidly the world is changing, and how things that were normal in my childhood are now seen as feudal hangovers from the bad old days, old customs and attitudes that should not exist in modern society. For example, sexism, racism and the like were common when I was in primary school. Australian society went through great upheavals as the blast radius from better ways of thinking spread from feminist groups to the rest of society, and continues to shake up the rotten prejudices of traditional ways of thinking that would have women submissively serving despotic husbands at home instead of getting out and running the world as full equals to men. And as Minnie's recent blog post reminds us, the world has been making great progress in recognizing and eradicating the poisonous prejudices against gay and lesbian people, although there still remain many old customs to be blasted away. (I couldn't resist extending the metaphor just a little.)
However, I don't agree with all responses to bad elements in our history. In the US a few months ago, there was a lot of controversy about the removal of statues honouring people who had been guilty of slave owning, and in a more internationally known case a couple of years ago, Oxford University was under great pressure to remove a statue that had been set up to honour Cecil Rhodes, who in addition to funding the famous Rhodes Scholarships program for foreign students to study at Oxford, made his fortune from diamonds through brutal imperialism in South Africa. I think Oxford's Oriel College made the right decision to keep the statue in place, but ensure that the historical record was updated to reflect the very real prejudices and other abuses that Rhodes and those like him committed, quite possibly by mistakenly believing themselves to be doing good deeds at the time.
But the above got me thinking more generally about how rapidly the world is changing, and how things that were normal in my childhood are now seen as feudal hangovers from the bad old days, old customs and attitudes that should not exist in modern society. For example, sexism, racism and the like were common when I was in primary school. Australian society went through great upheavals as the blast radius from better ways of thinking spread from feminist groups to the rest of society, and continues to shake up the rotten prejudices of traditional ways of thinking that would have women submissively serving despotic husbands at home instead of getting out and running the world as full equals to men. And as Minnie's recent blog post reminds us, the world has been making great progress in recognizing and eradicating the poisonous prejudices against gay and lesbian people, although there still remain many old customs to be blasted away. (I couldn't resist extending the metaphor just a little.)
___________________________________
My question
If the bad old ways of our ancestors are no longer fit for purpose in the modern world, what should we do with them? That is, what should our response to traditional social customs, attitudes and once-revered (respected) relics be when those things can no longer usefully serve us or our society? (This is one question. It's just written as two sentences for clarity.)
___________________________________
Reference
- Ward, M. (2018, July 13). Phone in the right hand? You're a hacker! Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44438808
China has a custom called the filial duty, The usual definition is when our parents older, we must look after our parents. But there has a wide range meaning is that we must obey our family’s suggestions, even the opinion which you can’t accept. If someone didn’t do something of their family thinking, they're not filial children and they will be censured in our society. This is the 5,000-year tradition and important Confucianism in China. But I don’t think this tradition is correct. I am not opposed to love our family, I just think the filial duty is unfounded. For example, if the son wants to live alone, but his parents disagreed, he insists, in some ways, he is not a dutiful son. Chinese usually control their children a lot, sometimes, their children don’t have their thought, even they are adult. This tradition is that obedience is good, disobedience is bad. Now some TV show and books begin to talk about filial duty, we have some different sounds in this question, I think this is a good thing, but for elder, maybe some people think how terrible these young people's thinking. For me, If I think something is wrong, I will insist my opinion until other people convince me using a strong argument.
ReplyDeleteI think social custom is very sensitive issue and when it comes to the controversial issue the important thing to do is to compromise and not argue in aggressive way because violent act would make the opposite side be more aggressive and will increasingly oppose the idea that they disagree. However, if you think that traditional custom is no longer suit the society now, it isn't wrong to uphold your idea, but don't force another one to think the same as you and just explain your reason why you believe the your idea is true. It would not change the traditional thought that many people are strictly uphold for a long time because you cannot change the others' minds, but I believe that this way will make the conservative be more open-minded.
ReplyDelete