"security", "assurity" & "worst case scenario"

By my own admission, I am an "IT" guy.

Spam mails are nothing much more than annoyances. They have always existed - in hardcopy they were termed "junk" mail and no matter how valuable some of them become (e.g. PCH), they are still nuisances. A lot of the ISPs implement filters to sift the berage of these such electronic messages.

Another nuisance but a lot more malicious are the electronic viruses, trojans and spywares. How about the phishing quest and identity theft? I could understand someone trying to steal my information in order to assume my identity and mask theirs to pursue malice. It is very bad but I understand the bad intention. Why destroy my documents for fun just to satisfy some curiosity and/or for bragging rights? None of the end results is pretty or admired.

CCTV has its main stay in the United Kingdom but it is a "BAD" four letter word in the United States (not just an acronym). In other countries of the world, the government spying on citizens is no big deal and I love the protection that the legal system offers for both "evil doers" and relatively "good citizens" of the United States. Do I mind that the White House may have misinterpreted the rules in the name of "protection"? Do you?

How about corporate citizenship? How many incompetent corporate executives have to go to jail before the hiring practices are called up by US congress for legislation? Democrats - don't get excited; it is not going to happen anytime soon. Does Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX for short) work and how well? Does HIPPA really protect or does it stifle patient care? How much of all these could be managed within properly defined business ethics and without legislation? Should the punishment be corporal to deter bad business behavior? What should the price be and who should pay?

Talking about payment, what about insurance companies? NOLA is still reeling of the effects of Katrina, Rita, FEMA's Michael D Brown's over exaggerated qualifications, Mayor Ray Nagin's self proclaimed competence and the partisan corporation of the the Democratic governor of LA - Kathleen Blanco with the "White House" as it is called. As if the handicap is not enough, the city and other city's citizens affected by the recent devastations of the hurricanes are discovering how much insurance and assurance they had paid the insurance corporations for over several years. I bet it is very disheartening to discover that your hurricane insurance only covered the instance of another house colliding with yours but not the mere tree damages. Who writes these policies? Better yet why should someone need a lawyer to explain sentences in the same language that is supposed to cover understood circumstances? Unfortunately one does in order to protect oneself.

In the same spirit of explaining the fine prints - security, assurity, protection and deterence do not all mean the same thing.
[below are my examples]
1. CCTV provides assurity in the case where an action is already purported and expressed. The conspicuous placement of such equipment may deter some faint-hearted conspirators than the fain. CCTV is not primarily for protection; its security purpose is to record the action.
2. Long walls are for protection and deterence than for assurity. Not that it has worked too tremendously along the US-MEX border but it does provide some protection in the areas where the walls exist and are too high and too rigid to overcome.

No condition is permanent and not all conditions are available at all times to be planned for and for the security options to be worked out. That should not be a crutch to hold on to for not planning or for the limited vision within the plan. Having a plan is a good start but do not buy generic solutions because your security recipe is never generic.

There is no security; there is no assurance and life is always the worst case scenario. Therefore plan to live within your scenario!