Say "no" to eBay's Global Shipping Program

As some of you may know, I play Magic: The Gathering (MTG), and as someone who plays the games and collects the cards, a more cost effective way of gathering the cards is via eBay. I am not new when it comes to on-line shopping. I doubt many other people out there who are connected to the internet are also unaware of eBay. They connect sellers with buyers on a global scale.

Recently, eBay introduced a new feature for sellers in the USA - the Global Shipping Program (GSP). The GSP sounds like a great service - on the surface. Sellers in the USA package their goods, and send it to the GSP hub, in Kentucky, where Pitney Bowes takes over and ships it to international customers. As long as the seller gets it to the GSP hub, the service takes care of the rest. It will also calculate the international shipping costs, and any additional customs costs, and that will be all billed to the buyer.

But in reality, there are many problems associated with the GSP. The cost to cover such a service is very expensive. As I mentioned, I play and collect MTG cards. The cost of shipping 4 pieces of thin cardboard to me is around $US30. Who thinks that is reasonable? Even with padding / protection, expedited shipping, and tracking - it would be around the $US12 mark. My usual expectations for 4 pieces of thin cardboard safely shipping to me is around $US3 to $US4 per item. This will get cheaper (per unit) if the seller allows for combined shipping. Obviously, there is some additional mark-ups inserted into the GSP fee - which as I mentioned gets passed onto the buyer. While this make make it easier for the seller, it does not make it easier or cheaper for the buyer.

This video has someone discussing some of the other problems:

The video gets interesting around the 10m22s when the person in the video reads out a response sent to him from eBay around a dispute he has with damage to a product.

So, summing things up:

• Greater costs get passed to the buyer
• GSP opens up packages sent to them, and repackages them
• Any disputes over damage are ignored by eBay
• GSP has a "hands-off" approach to resolving disputes
• No value declaration
• It means less money in the hands of seller, as more goes to eBay - which in turn, means international buyers will not tend to spend as much for products US sellers may be offering
• GSP also has a tendency for under-calculating the shipping costs of items seen on the search page when compared to the single item listing pages

What can you do as a buyer? Inform the sellers about the reality of GSP. Do some of your own research, weigh up comments from people who have bought products via the GSP. Most people use eBay to find bargains. Inform the users using GSP that you prefer sellers that "manually" ship items. If the fact that eBay fees are now making internet goods more expensive, support your local stores - buy from them.

What can you do as a seller? Deactivate GSP by doing the opposite of what is listed in this link, or via the steps listed in this eBay forum thread. Listen to your buyers. Without them, all you have is your product, and less potential customers.

Lastly, both groups can keep complaining to eBay. I am sure GSP has some benefits in some situations, but I am yet to see what those situations are, and am yet to read a glowing review of GSP, but I have read that eBay Global Shipping Program Exposes Sellers to Bad Feedback.

Australian government backs down from internet filter

I have not written in this blog for a long time, as I have been busy recently, but something in the news has broken my "silence".

The good senator Conroy is now also the level-headed senator Conroy. In a win for anti-censorship, the Australian Government has backed down from implementing a nationwide internet filter. Instead they have asked for individual internet companies to block the most degenerate of all child pornography websites.

While this is a better idea than a nationwide filter, I do not know what it will target. I do not know of any public websites that deal with child pornography. It is not like you can search for the topic on the internet and find websites, where you can then purchase images or movies. Still, I welcome this move.

I have been following, and writing, about this topic for a long time. As a parent, I welcome that fact that the government is allowing me to take responsibility of raising my child in a way where he will have limitless access to knowledge, and with my assistance, also know what is right and wrong.

Websites on strike

As mentioned in a previous post I made on this blog, SOPA is being considered by the US government. Apparently it is being "shelved" for the moment. This has not stopped websites like Wired.com or Wikipedia (English version) from depicting a SOPA'ed web site:



While both "strikes" from web sites can be bypassed with browser settings, they do show what the websites could look like if SOPA was enacted.

SOPA is censorship. It will allow companies that feel threatened from loss of profits to accuse international web sites of piracy, and be able to block them. Seeing how the government of the USA has in the past had a mentality of "shoot first, questions later" (eg. weapons of mass destruction in Iraq never eventuating), it would be feasible to consider that web sites and businesses will be shut down pending further investigations.

For more information, have a look at the latimes article for a more comprehensive list of sites that are trying to fight this new form of censorship. If you are in the USA, do something about it - sign up on the petition with Google.

And for Australia - openinternet.com.au.

Everyone - do something (useful (now))!

The USA believes in Internet Censorship

Apparently Australia's good Senator Conroy has some support in his belief that the internet should be censored - at least in Australia. And this time it comes in the form of a covert operation from the entertainment corporations in the USA to regulate what appears on the Internet.

Known as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a law is attempting to be passed allowing censorship of the internet to be made in the USA. Time for you to stand up America - go to americancensorship.org - and find out what you can do.

I wonder what Mrs Clinton's opinion is on this. Any form of censorship is unacceptable.

And for Australia - openinternet.com.au. Do something (useful (now))!

Piracy, copyright, patents, and other corporate tactics

In an interesting recent article, there seems to be a reason (for at least the author) of advocating the use of piracy. I am not going to advocate breaking the law, but in this article, I am hoping to get people to think about the law - and is it just?

Being just and being lawful, while being intertwined - are not always the same. For example, if you look at the slavery code in the USA, they may have been the law of the day, but they are far from being right or just. No man should own another man (or woman). Following a civil war, an amendment to the law was made, prohibiting slavery (unless used as punishment for crime).

Hopefully by now, you may be questioning what the purpose of these laws are. So, is patenting and copyright just? Or does it stifle innovation, and only serve to create more money for the corporations and individuals that hold the patents and copyrights? A Google lawyer may have a vested interest in questioning the laws, as they are currently being held ransom by patents and copyrights from Microsoft over their Android operating system for phones. Even an Australian has registered the patent for the wheel.

Is patents and copyrights fair or just? Or is it a way for the 1% to get richer while the 99% are kept below them. I am happy to hear comments from all sides in this issue.

Occupy Wall Street in Melbourne

It disappointed and upset me that Victorian Police forces moved in today on protestors who were occupying the middle of Melbourne. Based on a decision by Premier of Victoria Ted Baillieu and Lord Mayor of Melbourne Robert Doyle, the police were told to physically move protestors, who were occupying Melbourne's City Square, out of the area and to "give the square back to the citizens of Melbourne".

As a citizen of Melbourne, I had no problem with these protestors occupying the space. I do not think Mr Baillieu or Mr Doyle agree with me, especially with the upcoming visit of Queen Elizabeth II of England. How embarrassing would it look for Melbourne for the Queen of another country to visit, and find these "awful" protesters (and I say "awful" with a sarcastic tone) in the middle of the city? After all, they are protesting about the huge gap that exists between the haves and the have-nots (the 99%). Mr Baillieu and Mr Doyle are associated with the Liberal Party of Australia - a political movement that is interested in protecting the wealth of the wealthy. The visitor they are attempting to prepare the city for (ie. the Queen of England) is one of the richest persons in the world.

In what is looking like a media nightmare, it really is the 1% dictating the terms to the 99%. The politicians involved have also put the spin on, saying that professional protestors had joined the ranks of the peaceful protestors. How does a person become a professional protestor? Why did the Victorian Police just start physically battering protestors? Why did they not target the professional protestors? What is the criteria that makes someone a professional protestor?

Does anyone else wonder what is truly going on here?

KittyKat asked me, "What can we do?" That is when I told her that if the people in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya did nothing, then they would not have changed in their country (commonly termed as Arab Spring). I do not want to live in a country where politicians give lip service by saying "OK all you protestors, we get the message - move on now!" Mr Baillieu and Mr Doyle were just patronizing in their actions. Do we really want those types of people in charge?

I do not want to live in a country or a state where after I voice my opinion that I am told I am powerless and I have to move on. I would like to engage in a form of communication at a minimum, and invoke change as my eventual goal. The way Mr Baillieu and Mr Doyle managed the situation with the protestors was appalling. The world is watching!

Hopefully this post (or rant) has started you thinking. What can you do? If you are in Melbourne on Saturday 22.10.2011 see the reconvening of the protest for yourself. Bring your video cameras / cameras / mobile phones. Capture and document what you see. You may be witnessing the first steps of something much larger...

Microsoft is stifling your freedoms (again!)

This article was originally sent out on the Linux Users of Victoria (LUV) mailing list by Luke. After emailing Luke, he has release the below (with some of my alterations) as public domain:

It as part of the Windows 8 OEM scheme Microsoft requires the OEM's to lock down the computer to only run Windows 8 or other "authorized" OS'es via a signature system for "security" reasons.

Put simply, Microsoft as part of their OEM system require all new computers shipping with Windows 8 to use secure signing keys to prevent "unauthorized software" from running on the computer. This will prevent all free software operating systems from running on the computers that come with OEM by default.

So, we need YOU to stand up for Linux in Australia (and other countries)!

Simply follow these easy steps:

1. Click this link: here
2. Fill out your concerns (find a reference letter below that you are free to copy / use).
3. Submit with Personal Information (this is a real complaint, and the ACCC requires this information to possibly verify it is legitimate).
4. Tell your friends to do the same.
5. (optional) Forward this to your favorite Linux Mailing List.
6. (optional) Phone the ACCC on 1300 302 502.

Here is the reference letter:

To ACCC,

I have recently learned that any new computer or laptop that ships with the upcoming Windows 8 Operating System will not be able to run any other Operating System. Microsoft's new UEFI Secure Boot system prevents 'unauthorized software' from running on any new computer sold with Windows 8. Making a system that ships with only Microsoft Windows not being able to boot a copy of Linux or any other operating system. I wish to use Linux on future computers, and this will not allow me to use Linux at all. Microsoft is engaging in seriously anti-competitive behavior by forcing the lockout of all competitors - see: http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/49889-will-windows-8-succeed-in-locking-out-gnulinux

Not only will Microsoft kick out Linux off the computers, they will prevent 'upgrading' of windows versions: creating forced obsolescence. I am disgusted, is Microsoft legally allowed to do this? Microsoft has been slowly becoming more anti-competitive: computing used to be about choice, having the ability to choose the Operating System. Now Microsoft want to have complete control.

Regards,

[insert your name here]

Do something (now) about protecting your freedoms! And if you want to read more, try the originating opinion in itwire.

IE users not that smart

In an interesting article on mashable.com - it appears that users of Microsoft's Internet Explorer have a lower IQ than users of other browsers.

Who would have thought this?

I do not know of how reputable the survey was, but I offer some insight to the article's findings. If you make something for the masses, by the law of averages, you are going to have a mix of smart people, average people, and not so smart people use it. This will "even" out any sample and mean that what you have is a typical indication of IQ in this case. Make something more obscure, and not readily available, and only people that read and are willing to learn will try things.

Therefore, it may make some sense that Microsoft's IE average users are lower in IQ (over a large survey spread), than people that use Firefox, Chrome, or even Opera, and Camino.

The best thing this survey does show is that we are not forced to use only one browser, but everyone has a choice.

Apparently, the survey has been labelled as a hoax, but it still has me appreciating browser choice!

Carbon Tax - is it worth it?

I recently received this in an email from ninja (someone I used to go to University with):

Carbon Tax explanation. EVERYONE can understand when it’s put like this...

ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) tax for dummies - regardless of your political persuasion. Let's put this into a bit of perspective for laymen!

ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which would be unacceptable and produce an outcry.

Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller.

Pass on to all in your address book including politicians and may be they will listen to their constituents, rather than vested interests which stand to gain by the ETS.

Here's a practical way to understand Julia Gillard’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Imagine 1 kilometer of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.

• The first 770 meters are Nitrogen.
• The next 210 meters are Oxygen.
• That's 980 meters of the 1 kilometer.
• 20 meters to go.
• The next 10 meters are water vapor.
• 10 meters left.
• 9 meters are argon.
• Just 1 more meter.
• A few gases make up the first bit of that last meter.
• The last 38 centimeters of the kilometer - that's carbon dioxide.
• A bit over one foot.
• 97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.
• Out of our journey of one kilometer, there are just 12 millimeters left.
• Just over a centimeter - about half an inch.
• That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
• And of those 12 millimeters Australia puts in 0.18 of a millimeter.
• Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometer!

As a hair is to a kilometer - so is Australia 's contribution to what Julia Gillard calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Julia Gillard. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometer length is surgically clean. Except that Julia Gillard says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.

It's hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Pass this on quickly while the ETS is being debated in Federal Parliament.

I do not know about the validity or the truth behind the analogy, but it made me think.

I don't oppose a carbon tax. Not at all. I believe something which is implemented to take care of the environment is a good idea. Something which stops people from just wasting resources on this finite planet is a good idea.

What I oppose is what will happen to the revenue of the carbon tax once it is collected. Will the funds be allocated correctly? Take for instance the tax on cigarettes. Around 2005, it raised over $6 billion in revenue for the Australian government. I would say it would exceed that amount today. My query is where does that $6 billion in revenue go? I doubt it would all go back to the health systems. Ministers need to pay for their superannuation funds, their air flights, and their spending budgets. The same can be said about the vehicle fuel excise, which should be used to upgrade the infrastructure / roads of Australia, but rarely is.

With the current "sales campaign" of the government, they have allocated $25 million to spend in "educating" the Australian public on carbon tax. Where did that money come from?

While I do not have a problem with the principle of the carbon tax, I do have a huge concern over the accountability of the funds raised in this manner. I seriously doubt it will be used to make the environment of this planet any better.

I welcome anyone's comments on anything I have written in this article, as well as anyone who can sustain or refute ninja's email. Is it misinformation, or is the government trying to increase taxes by pulling to wool over the eyes of the Australian tax payer? Will it mean an increase of conscious companies trying to clean up their businesses, or will it just mean an increase in the cost of living for all Australians? I hope this tax does not get implemented, and then Australians just get used to living in a more expensive society with less money...

Australian Internet filter is easily bypassed

The good Senator Conroy is in the belief that he is still doing the correct thing - trying to save Australian net users from the dangers and disgust of an unregulated Internet. Even though he looks like he may be blocked in the Australian Senate, I believe he is still trying to advance his agenda for an internet filter for Australia - and still going ahead with rollout.

The rollout on Optus has an interesting twist in this story. The filter can be defeated by changing the DNS server in the operating system.

The news of bypassing the filter irritates me. A lot! The reason being is that I would have thought that to bypass the internet filter would require some fancy manipulation and installation of some interesting proxying software - not something a child or teenager can do in under 30 seconds. This is a multi-million dollar system, that can be bypassed with the simplest of ease. And this multi-million dollar filter is going to slow the internet down for all other users. The filter is useless and a huge waste of money, and just like the carbon tax, it will be paid for by Australian taxpayers.

If this article has inspired anything within you, please click on the link below and try to do something about it.

Do something (useful) now!

Feds bust child "paedo" ring

According to the news, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) have infiltrated and broken up a child pornography / pedophile group. Well done to the AFP!! I'm being serious here. Well done to the AFP!!

These criminals are actually exploiting people, ruining families, and causing physical and mental damage to future. I know of people that have been on the receiving end of being abused as a child, and while the physical damage did not last long, the mental damage was still there - even 20+ years on.

So, once again, well done to the AFP!!

The reason I bring this up, is that it was done without the cleanfeed internet filter. I hope the good Senator Conroy is paying attention to this. Apparently, twitter users have - "Didn't need a filter for the AFP to do all this work, did they Mr Conroy? http://bit.ly/hbDbpJ #openinternet #nocleanfeed".

Something does not make sense with Wikileaks

It appears there are some hidden agendas with what is happening with Julian Assange, and his imprisonment at the moment. If you have not been following the news recently, Julian founded the website Wikileaks (the link to that page is for wikipedia - as the website is in constant states of change as the US Government start to flex their muscle). The idea behind Julian's website is to expose information, whether it be from government or from corporation to inform people everywhere about topics, as well as to promote transparency of information.

To be brutally obvious, some of those documents are embarrassing to certain governments or companies. Hence why there is not an attack on Julian himself. I believe the strategy is to stop him, and his website will go away. The internet being the internet, that will not happen. The US Government designed the internet so that in case of a hostile act (like war), the information would now be decentralized, therefore, if you take down one site, it does not mean that all the information is lost. Now that idea is being used against the US Government who are trying to stop Wikileaks.

Julian has been accused of rape in Sweden. The Swedish government is trying to extradite him from England (where he is currently arrested) to Sweden to stand trial for his accused actions. I am opposed against rape, so if he is truly guilty of this crime, then he must be brought to the correct authorities, and once sufficient process has been followed, and concrete evidence has been shown, he must be punished appropriately and fairly fitting the crime.

Why then has he been attacked by the US Government, as well as some other governments from other countries around the world? This has nothing to do with his allegations mentioned in my previous paragraph. Why is the US Government trying to charge him for treason? Are they trying to capitalize on the fact he is in custody, and attempting to persecute (and prosecute) him indefinitely? Is he not entitled to free speech like everyone else in their country? Is he not protected by the fact that he is apart of the media, and what he has shown is not lies made up to attack someone's character? If all journalists were "gagged" from presenting information, the majority of the news media system would cease to exist.

I ask everyone to read the reports of what is going on with Julian, and investigate how you yourself can support freedom of speech. You may not have to send any money, but it may require you do put in some of your time and effort.

Consider the alternative:

Why would people knowingly give up their freedoms, and hand power over to governments?

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." - V (from V for Vendetta - 2006); and "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." - John Basil Barnhill (1914).

Conroy considers filter for 12 months

In somewhat of a surprise to some people, but a prediction by most people that know Information Technology (IT) issues, the good Senator Conroy has decided to hold off from implementing the firewall around Australia's Internet - instead hoping to research the technical aspects of the concept. The newly elected Prime Minister Gillard has already said she is supporting the idea behind the firewall. This has been interpreted as an appeasing of Christians and obtaining their votes. I would have thought that in this day and age, in the country of Australia, the fundamentals of a logical government would be to segregate religion from state. Do not make decisions based on religion.

I am a realist. I know that with election being a "popular vote", that this will never be the case. If I was a politician, I would promise anything I could to as large a demographic I could to ensure my job is safe for another 3 to 4 years.

This being the case, I hope that Australians let logic prevail. A closed system of censorship is not the answer to keeping the "nasties" out of Australia. I want the system to be transparent if it is implemented. I do not want a politician censoring a portion of the Internet that they do not want me to read - just because it criticizes what they do. I would not be happy if my blog got censored, just because I made a comment about the current PM and the IT minister. Publish the list of "nasties", as if the filter truly works, what will there be to fear.

More importantly, promote education and family. Get parents to help children understand the Internet, what they should be looking at, and what they should not be looking at. Unfortunately, the Internet "nasties" exist due to a need. Is some of it inappropriate, disgusting, degrading, or immoral? Yes - but I will make a choice what I will see, and what I will not see. I do not trust that a politician is the best judge for me, as they all have their own personal agenda and motives they want to coerce onto the citizens.

Do something against censorship! Australia - vote wisely!

Nokia N900 PR1.2 Multi-tasking

Just a quick update today!

I am very impressed with the Nokia N900's latest update PR1.2. It makes switching between tasks very quick. Here is a screen with 16 different applications open:


I am writing this based on the fact that a few people at work have obtained the new Apple iPad. While it does look very well well polished, the fact that it does not multi-task is concerning, especially since the base system it originated from is built from the ground up to multi-task very well. Therefore, Apple must have removed the feature on purpose.

Other people have documented other reasons why the Apple iPad is not really that great. Even then, I'm sure the iPad will sell well, as the general population will always purchase form over function.

Kitty Kat has used her N900 for the past month, and is more impressed by it every day she uses it. And she did express that she originally did want an iPhone. Even the Apple iPhone is not really that great.

Full steam ahead for Conroy

The good Senator Conroy is still in the belief that he is doing the correct thing - trying to save Australian net users from the dangers and disgust of an unregulated Internet. He does not appear to be backing down from his stand. According to an article on theage.com.au - Conroy has attacked Google, and ignored pleas from government of the USA to stop his plan of putting an Internet filter around Australia. If you do decide to click on the link, you'll notice that this article has gathered 800+ comments in around 24 hours. I do not know of any other topic that would gather this much attention.

There are even comments from concerned parents asking for Conroy to leave their lives alone. This sole person, who was put in charge of making the Internet better for Australia has been slowly eroding it.

Now the bill goes to government in the next month. If the opposition support it, it will become law. I hope none of the politicians forget they are there for the majority of the people, not just the wowser minority. There's an election coming later in 2010. I've got a suggestion for every Victorian - to make a change that will benefit Australia, and free speech for this world - VOTE CONROY OUT OF OFFICE!

South Australia internet laws - now with backflip and damage control

A prior blog post of mine pointed towards an article stating that the South Australian government wanted to know who was commenting on them during election periods. They are passing or have passed a law about it.

Now, based on a public outcry, it appears they are reconsidering.

Power to the people! Don't let it go!

South Australia starts with internet laws

It appears that the South Australian government would like people commenting on their up and coming election to provide their name and details. Why?

If you are such a government office or official, and you would like my full name and details, please leave your contact details in the comments section, and I will contact you with mine. Anonymous postings will be ignored!

Mrs Clinton is against internet censorship

I recently read an article where Hillary Clinton (wife of former president of the USA, Bill Clinton) denounces internet censorship and cyber attacks. She has called for the USA to stop doing business with countries that allow for internet censorship, and those that have lenient laws on cyber criminals. This is an interesting stance. China makes the majority of goods in today's society and this statement could affect them. China is a country know to have internet censorship and cyber attackers in their fold. Apparently, Google is considering pulling their offices out of China due to recent attacks on their services from within China. Can the USA afford to stop doing business with China?

The stance from the good Senator Conroy is still to implement a content filter for the internet (as of December 2009). I wonder if the US will stop dealing with Australia now...?

Recent announcement on censorship of the Australian internet

The good Senator Conroy has made a recent press announcement on his continued effort to protect the families in Australia that use the internet from the nasties that are "lurking out there". It really appeared like he was trying to "slip" this announcement in, during the start of the holiday period - hopefully so that the majority of Australians would not notice, or would be so busy with their own daily lives, that they would not care.

He plans to introduce forced monitoring and cleansing of the internet, which was something that is against the initial policies mentioned during the 2007 election campaign. Why the good Senator still persists to attempt this form of censorship - I do not understand. The technology will only slow down the access of Australians to the internet, especially on heavy traffic websites.

On a positive note, he has mentioned that he will make the process more transparent. I am interested in this new tactic. Will they only reveal what they do if they are caught doing something that they are not supposed to be doing. With much of modern democracy based on freedom of information, and freedom of thought, I do not understand why there has not been a big international backlash on these plans.

I wonder what this will do in the long term to Australians, and their understanding of the world. Or does he just plan on making Australians a captive audience - only allowing them to see information that the good Senator and his department allows. As a future parent (one day), I do not want the internet touched!

Do something (useful) now!

Open Source saves power grid

I was reading in the news recently that a power grid in Australia was infected by a Windows virus. The quick thinking technical specialists there quickly swapped over to Linux machines that they were using for another use, and thus no major outage occurred.

This is a great example of how Open Source is not cheaper, but better than the proprietary offerings from major companies that are only in it to make profit. It came down to "security through transparency" over "security through obscurity". I have no real problem with people making money from their work, but when it comes to systems that are mission and life critical, I do not think they have their customer interests in their agendas. It may sound like a conspiracy against the major organisations, but how far fetched is it, really? Short term plans may be to enable their customers to do what they need to do, but long term strategies would be to ensure that customers do not leave to utilise the services and products of another competitor.

"Security through transparency" is not new - although it may have only been termed recently. The person who came up with the concept, Auguste Kerckhoffs, did it over 100 years ago. "Security through obscurity" is marketed by proprietary companies that are hoping that no one will be able to figure out their secrets, and thus keeping their systems safe and working as expected. The problem is that over time, someone seems to always figure this stuff out, and then figure out how to exploit it. It tends to give individuals and companies that rely on these systems a "false sense of security".