There is much reference to "due diligence" on TV as I write.
The joint is hopping, as the pursuit of truth is always a slippery activity. I actually feel sorry for anybody caught up in the current "Hacking Scandal" and although it might not quite be "the moment", it's worth mentioning that all journalists are not evil and unethical... just as all members of the nursing profession are not gin swilling modern updates of Sairey Gamp.
If it were not so utterly frightening, the ability of some to gain access to other peoples' telephones would have my undying admiration. I speak as one who, when left alone in any office I have ever entered, found it,usually, difficult to find the 'phone in the first place and then, once staring down the uninviting mouthpiece, in search of divine intervention perhaps, to actually get a line out.
This, among the many hundred excuses I found for abandoning the workforce over twenty years ago, is probably one of the most memorable. I am a confirmed technophobe and my currect state of relative functionality can only be attributed to the age old advice to "Know the Enemy". While I cannot yet think like a smart little spybot and have little inclination to try, there is a lot to be said for knowing enough about contemporary machines to make them less easy to trick and infiltrate.
The question I now ask myself, applying as much due diligence to the question as will match my total ignorance of the subject is:
Why do some get hacked and others do not?
As ever, this will probably take several years to answer with any satisfaction. Tin foil hats are out of fashion, but even they might have a function.
Tin foil hat wearers are probably boring people who are not worth hacking.
I think I'll get one...
Labels: due diligence, tin hat