Schneier on Security

>>Telltale Signs,<<

Gee I'll bet everyone probably (and often quite innocently) must display some of those signs. Lots of false positives.

Seriously, nothing will destroy a relationship as thoroughly as excess suspicion, this kind of obsession only fuels that.

> I hope I don't need to remind you
> that cheaters should also be
> reading that book, familiarizing
> themselves with the 829 telltale
> signs they should avoid making.

Interesting. This actually makes buying the book in the first place a telltale sign.

So, is everyone "attending the RSA conference" this year?

Surely this is a double bluff!?

I like the book cover. The only thing less obvious might be a series of embedded flashing LEDs. Leave that out on the coffee table... And I heard it was going to be "830 things" but the NSA forced her to redact the last thing.

Here are some examples I found:

"A hidden gift discovered before Valentine’s Day that has disappeared but wasn’t given to you."

and

"Restaurant receipts or charge slips dated February 13,14,15 for meals that didn’t include you."

Bills, gifts, receipts, etc. Nothing surprising there. I was looking for something more sophisticated like "fails lie-detector test".

Come to think of it, where does someone find the companion guide "Is she trying to catch you cheating on her? 829 ways to hide the telltale signs"

I wonder if 'Rock Star' status puts one under extra suspicion.

Bruce?

> So now I'm wondering why the RSA Conference is being held over Valentine's Day.

That's easy to answer. Are you bringing your wife or your girlfriend?

I don't remember who supposedly said this (Feynman?): You need to have a wife and a mistress, so that your wife will think you're off with your mistress, the mistress will assume you're home with your wife, and you can go to the lab and finally get some work done.

Also, here's an article from today's Washington Post (free reg. req.) that's similar to the WSJ article:
http://tinyurl.com/bkerf

As humans we struggle in life between trust and fear. Survelliance technology would not buy us trust because technology is neutral in this balance, it could make things worst (trace your unfaithful) or better (send a love SMS message). Leaning toward fear makes life more difficult to control and technology also struggles in the balance. There is probably a reason why white list (positive assertion) is easier to implement than black list (negative assertion). The question probably is: are we more secure if we become more paranoic? Do we just increase the number of false positives? Probably the lesson that technology can learn from human is to use some heuristics to look for root vulnerabilities that break the "basic circles of trust".

How dare these guys grab two women when I can't even find one? Oops. Too much information.
It seems funny to me that the cheaters are caught on Valentines day. On the surface it seems like a plausibility, but if I were a cheater I would use credit card/checks for my wife as a paper trail, and cash for my homewrecker. Split things up so it can't be traced to you. As an example, we had a robbery in our store a few years ago. Someone smashed the front window. The cops asked me if I had the keys and knew the alarm code. I had both key and code and they dismissed me as a suspect. Go figure.

The full article is available at least temporarily on AOL.
http://money.aol.com/wsj/investing/3canvas?id=20060210093809990001

Home Evidence Collection Kit - Man that's just nasty. I'd almost rather deal with the infidelity that have to collect the "evidence." YUCK!!

Home Evidence Collection Kit - Man that's just nasty.

I find particularly offensive the fact that it's marketed to parents. That kind of surveillance of adults (and by definition, any child old enough to be voluntarily engaging in sex is an adult) ought to be illegal.

I'm a bit suprised that you encouraged "cheaters" to read that book Bruce.

>> I'd almost rather deal with the infidelity that have to collect the "evidence." YUCK!!<<

If the behavior wer so completely discreet so that nothing is visible in behavior toward the partner or general life, it becomes questionable as to what is gained by ripping everything open.

Heh, anyone who's considering surveillance tools in their house to track their spouse has some serious issues. That'd probably be the time to break up.

Hmm. Putting the first two comments together gives an interesting result. I'd expect most people to score some false positives on the 829 signs. So someone who shows *none* of the signs has probably read the book and is avoiding them deliberately -- a telltale sign!

i buy expensive chocolates for myself. anybody got a problem with that?

Am I the only person who noticed that the private detective interviewed by the WSJ admitted to theft? (Stealing a card addressed to someone else from the addressee's car windshield--probably only a misdemeanor, since it wasn't in the US mail, but it is theft.)

For the record, I buy expensive chocolates for myself, my spouse, and my other sweeties (and my other sweetie's spouse). If anyone has a problem with that, they don't have to eat the chocolate.

I would have to be buying the expensive chocolates for myself... my wife doesn't eat chocolates.

@ marco
As humans we struggle in life between trust and fear. Survelliance technology would not buy us trust because technology is neutral in this balance

The big problem with surveilance technology is that most of it is being deployed by government and big business. Anyone who trusts either one of these very far has got bigger problems than "trust issues".

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.
Thomas Paine, Common-Sense

"I'm a bit suprised that you encouraged 'cheaters' to read that book Bruce."

As if they would need any encouragement...they actually might be the primary buyers.

"I hope I don't need to remind you that cheaters should also be reading that book, familiarizing themselves with the 829 telltale signs they should avoid making."

#830 = Man buys copy of book about how to tell if a man is cheating.

I agree that any relationship that requires this technology is probably doomed (and may indicate personal issues); but don't forget that proof of infidelity can be very profitable in divorce court in some places.

Why pay for a private detective when you can call Joey Greco from "Cheaters" TV show and they'll do it for free?

Of course, there are downsides to this method...

Why are we all assuming that the only cheaters are men? Or are we actually assuming either that only women would resort to these stealth tactics, or only men are dumb enough to leave a trail?!

I think the original is what gives it away Karen...

"author of a book called Is He Cheating on You?"

Not She, but He...

Everything before that in the blurb was gender neutral.

Z.