Two years ago, my undergraduate Anthropology advisor, Professor Valerie Wheeler,
died after a sudden and brief battle with leukemia. She played a vital role
in my academic and personal life, and her passing affected me deeply. Here’s
the note I left on her Legacy page.
I’m deeply saddened by Valerie’s passing. She was more than just my
undergraduate advisor in the late 80s and early 90s, but also “Mom” to me and
a slew of my fellow anthropology majors. Such a great, inspiring teacher, who
taught me to view the world through the lens of culture, so that I saw it in a
completely new way. It was eye-opening, and had such an impact that I could
never close them again. And for that, I wanted to do well, to make her proud.
She expected a lot, and I wanted to meet those expectations. It made me a
better person, a more thoughtful person. And I could not appreciate it more.
I’m sorry not to have kept in better touch, and so sad that the world has lost
such a compassionate, wonderful person. I will carry some of that with me for
the remainder of my life. Valerie’s impact was great, and I’m grateful to have
had her in my life. My condolences to her family.
A couple months back, I saw Antigone in Ferguson at St. Ann’s Church in
Brooklyn. The project pairs dramatic readings of Sophocles’ Antigone with a
moving choral arrangement performed by a diverse cast of activists, students,
police officers, and Ferguson & NYC community members. I don’t tend to go for
gospel, but these stunning voices shot through me like a revelation. The
powerful, vulnerable expression of the human voice — a profound manifestation
of the human capacity for creativity and beauty — broke my heart and raised my
optimism for humanity. I got a lot out of the discussion of racial injustice
following the performance, too. Don’t miss it if you get the chance.
The relationship between Antigone and King Creon struck me in a new way, no
doubt because recent encounters with autocratic and sexist behaviors have been
The play depicts Creon as the relatively thoughtful king of Thebes and doting
uncle to Antigone and her sister, Ismene. He forbade the burying of Polynices
while still in the heat of the just-ended civil war, and, despite his advisors’
best arguments, stubbornly rejects revoking the law. His inability to admit
mistake despite the clarity of its recklessness — even to his own mind —
exemplifies classic authoritarian behavior: never admit error. Naturally it
leads to his downfall.
While Creon’s advisors appeal for revocation of the law, his niece, Antigone,
refuses to submit to it, and declines to compromise her integrity or the tone of
her voice when speaking against it. She deliberately flaunts the law by burying
her brother, makes makes no attempt to deny it, and angrily excoriates Creon at
her very public trial. His intransigence will be his downfall, she proclaims.
The girl doesn’t sugar-coat it, and in her passion, her voice rings out loud and
true to all assembled.
But, to Creon’s ear, shrilly.
Stung by Antigone’s passionate defiance, Creon finds her tone reason enough to
ignore the substance of her argument, to dismiss the risks she highlights. The
entire community rallies to her cry, but Creon, blinded by his bruised ego,
commits to his folly and sentences Antigone to death. It is his undoing, and a
tragedy for Thebes.
One can learn a lot from Creon.
How often do we discount a woman’s message because of her tone? When passion
speaks truth to power, what reasons do we find to dismiss it? When someone
cares, but poor leadership prevents understanding and growth, does the anger,
the passion, the righteousness wound the ego or motivate action?
Passion is a virtue, and tone a reflection of commitment. People who care about
their world — their work, their environment, their society — will be angry
when it fails them. If it stings when they tell you that you’ve made mistakes,
that you’re failing them and other people, put ego aside, recognize that your
implicit biases might seek reason to dismiss them, and instead, simply listen.
My fellow white dudes, don’t be like Creon. Recognize your fallibility, head off
your urge to disregard feedback in the name of your discomfort, and beware the
ego reflexively assigning labels such as “whiner”, or “negative nelly”, or even
“not focused on problem-solving”. This, too, tells you something. Because the
people who don’t care say nothing. Those with the passion to speak and the
willingness to do so expect more of you. They may be disappointed in you or your
actions, but want you to take the opportunity to be better, to admit and rectify
your mistakes, and to set things on a better path.
So maybe let’s take a stab at meeting their expectations.
After seven years of development and hundreds of production database
deployments, I finally decide it was time to release Sqitch v1.0.0, and
today’s the day. I took the opportunity to resolve all known bugs in previous
releases, so there’s no new functionality since v0.9999. Still, given the
typical attention given to a significant milestone release like 1.0.0, my
employer published a blog post describing a bit of the history and philosophy
Third, an impeachment inquiry should be plotted out more like a TV show than
a trial. The star witnesses and high-profile hearings should be spaced out
and timed for maximum impact. They should tell a story about Trump’s misdeeds.
There should be no rush to get this over with quickly or to meet some
artificial timeline. The audience for this show is not the Senate. It’s not
Twitter and it’s not the panel on Morning Joe. The audience is the American
people — specifically the new and sporadic Democratic voters who came out in
2018, or the independents and Republicans who say they’re most concerned about
Trump’s conduct. Our job is to persuade them, not the DC pundit class.
Smart strategy to “prosecute a devastating case against Trump that increases the
likelihood that Democrats win the White House, expand our House Majority, and
take the Senate.” Each day brings us closer to impeachment proceedings,
regardless of what Democratic leadership might want. The over-the-top
malfeasance and criminality of this president and his White House leads
inexorably to impeachment proceedings. It’s past time for the Democrats to
accept that fact and make a plan to maximize its effectiveness.
Joseph Cox and Jason Koebler, in a Motherboard article provoked by a report
that a Twitter employee explained that an automated banning of white supremacy
would also ban Republican politicians:
Twitter has not publicly explained why it has been able to so successfully
eradicate ISIS while it continues to struggle with white nationalism. As a
company, Twitter won’t say that it can’t treat white supremacy in the same way
as it treated ISIS. But external experts Motherboard spoke to said that the
measures taken against ISIS were so extreme that, if applied to white
supremacy, there would certainly be backlash, because algorithms would
obviously flag content that has been tweeted by prominent Republicans—or, at
the very least, their supporters. So it’s no surprise, then, that employees at
the company have realized that as well.
Here’s an idea: ban white supremacists. Then when white supremacists complain,
no matter what their office or political affiliation, cite the tweets at issue
and explain how they violate the rules and qualify has hate speech. If they
scream “free speech!”, invite them to find another platform on which to express
In other words, do the right thing, and have a fucking backbone.
This video, Timelapse of the Future, has kept me thinking ever since Kottke
posted it a few weeks ago. Given current knowledge, the expectation is that the
universe will go on forever, but thanks to entropy and expansion, it will
eventually be full of, well, nothing at all. This rather limits the time
hospitable to life. This arresting quotation from Brian Cox starting at the
12:55 mark captures it:
As a fraction of the lifespan of the universe, as measured from its beginning
to the evaporation of the last black hole, life, as we know it, is only
possible for one thousandth of a billion billon billonth, billion billon
billonth, billion billon billonth of a percent.
Boy howdy our time is limited. We should make the best of it, to let our brief
time be as pleasant, happy, and fulfilling as possible. All of us. Be kind,
empathetic, compassionate, and generous with your fellow human beings. In the end,
only how well we treat each other matters.
This Jan Wischweh piece surveying the recent literature on the the so-called
“agile crisis” is a bit of a slog, but these bits caught my attention:
One striking symptom of the Agile Crisis is the impositions of Agile on
teams, which seems to be a common practice today. If Agile is so great and
really gives more power and autonomy to the developers, why is it commonly
imposed by upper management?
Trust is the basis for any good communication. But Trust cannot be demanded.
It needs to be earned. This Problem is highly related to Agile as trust is
essential for any Agile team. But it can never be imposed.
And the issue of trust cannot be addressed without looking at the problem of
power. Agile, especially Scrum, is more about efficiency than about
empowering developers and it is not a shift away from Taylorism. On closer
inspection, this will be visible in every single conflict within companies
trying to transform towards Agile. Quite the opposite is true: it makes
people more replaceable and controllable and is a modern and competitive form
Indeed, management’s focus on process and reproducibility (as in Taylorism)
often drives the adoption of agile development processes. But truly autonomous
agile teams must be empowered to make their own decisions. That means inviting
them to adopt agile practices, rather than imposing those practices on them, and
it means trusting teams to make decisions.
In other words, unilaterally determining team composition, deciding that they’ll
do “agile” or “scrum” or “kanban”, and reserving the power to override their
decisions perpetuates a traditional focus on repetitive tasks and control,
rather than autonomy and craft. It demonstrates a lack of trust in the team, and
without that trust, the team won’t trust management, either — an untenable,
potentially catastrophic situation. No wonder “Agile” fails so often that we now
have an “agile crisis”.
I keep coming back to the fundamental idea that teams are made out of people,
and management should always support, promote, and empower the people in the
company with the autonomy to excel and to do their best work. People over
#1 rule: No one should ever be surprised with a “you’re fired.” That’s how you
create disgruntled employees, embarrassing Glassdoor reviews, dip in team
morale, etc. An out-of-the-blue firing is a failing on the manager’s part,
not the employees.
So how do you do that? The most important bit:
Give them a fair shot to improve. As a leader, it’s your job to try
to make it work, each employee is owed that.
Practice listening skills. Demonstrate that you believe in them, and you
want to see them improve. Commit to giving a LOT more feedback (specific &
If you have little faith that the employee will be able to improve, taking these
and the other steps Jennifer recommends might feel like a waste of time. But
unless the employee’s actions involve violence, harassment, fraud, etc., you
need to give them every chance possible for not only their benefit, but the
benefit of their coworkers. Of course you don’t mention it to your other
employees, but people talk, they know what’s going on, and they all need to know
that if they step out of line, you’ll support them as much as you can.
In other words, a firing should never come as a surprise to either the employee
getting the sack nor their coworkers. Because worse than negative Glassdoor
reviews is the erosion of trust among the people you continue to work with after
Tone is set from the top, they say. I once started a company and ran it for
10 years, but I rarely thought about leadership, let alone setting the tone. It
mattered little, since I was the sole employee for most of that time. Now I
ponder these topics a lot, as I watch leaders fail to consciously create and
promulgate an ethical organizational culture. I don’t mean they’re unethical,
though some might be. I mean they, like me, never gave it much thought, or
recognized its importance.
This myopia degrades long-term prospects, leaving employees and partners to
invent and impose their own interpretations of the organization’s nature,
motives, and goals. Without a clearly-defined direction, people make their own
way, and despite the best intentions, those ideas surely don’t quite align with
the underpinning ideas and expectations of leadership.
Next time I find myself in the position to shape an organization — found a
company, create a new group, organize a team — I will give careful thought to
these issues, and formalize them in foundational documents that provide focus
and direction for the duration. A sort of Organizational Constitution. And
like any constitution, its articles will both set the tone and encode the
Culture establishes an environment in which members of the organization feel
cared about, respected, valued, and physically and psychologically safe; where
they understand what they’re a part of and fulfilled by their roles. Culture
recognizes what people can contribute, and finds ways to let them do so. It lets
them know there’s a place for them, and that they actively contribute to the
Culture cannot be legislated, of course, but a preamble announces intentions,
sets the tone, and establishes the foundation on which the rest follows.
Article 1. Values
A clear articulation of the organization’s Values — its principals and
beliefs. These comprise both internal-facing expectations for members as well as
global values and beliefs defining the organization’s place and role in the
world. Ideally, they’re the same. Such values inform expectations for partners,
investors, customers, and users. Leadership must demonstrate these values in
their everyday work, and always be mindful of them when making decisions.
Examples of values meaningful to me include:
Diversity & Inclusivity
Empowering the disempowered
Making the world a better place
Advancing social justice
Doing the right thing
Making people happy/productive/empowered/independent/delighted
Article 2. Vision
The Vision lays out how the organization wants to make its dent in the
universe. It focuses on the future, and what the organization ultimately seeks
to become. It should align closely with the Values, bringing them to bear to
define the organization’s purpose, and describe the long-term, measurable goal.
The Vision answers questions such as:
What are our hopes and dreams?
What problem are we solving for the greater good?
Who and what are we inspiring to change?
Article 3. Mission
The Mission focuses on the now, and defines how the organization goes about
achieving its Vision. It must never contradict the Vision or Values; indeed,
they shape the Mission. It’s the core of the business, and from the Mission
come Strategy and Execution. A mission statement embodies the Mission by
answering questions such as:
What do we do?
Whom do we serve?
How do we serve them?
Article 4. Brand
Closely aligned with Values, the Brand defines the organization. The brand
commits to the Values, Vision, and Mission, recognized both internally and
externally, so that anyone can say what the organization stands for and how it
goes about achieving its goals. Decisions that might erode the Brand or violate
its underpinning Values must be avoided.
Article 5. Strategy
The Mission is the “what”; the Strategy is the “how”. The Strategy describes
how the organization intends to execute on its Mission to achieve its Vision. It
should be high-level but practical, goal-focused but not methodologically
imperative. It defines objectives that clearly demonstrate value for existing
and prospective constituents (customers, users, etc.) while adhering to — and
never corroding — the organization’s Values and Vision.
Article 6. Execution
Everyone in the organization should be aware of what the Strategy is, what its
objectives are, and how it furthers the Mission while adhering to its Values.
Recognition of and continual reinforcement of the Strategy and objectives
creates focus, providing a guide for decision-making. Ultimately, Execution
means delivery. It requires meaningful goals to fulfill the Strategy and the
achievement of its objectives: shipping product, meeting deadlines, effectively
promoting products and solutions, and acquiring happy constituents who enjoy the
fruits of the organizations, who derive benefit and value from them.
Article 7. Structure
The organization Structure must enable it to effectively execute the Strategy.
That means cohesive teams with with clear mandates and the focus and autonomy to
effectively execute. Strong coupling of deliverables across teams ought to be
minimized, but expert consultation should be provided where needed. Everyone in
the organization should be aware of the Structure, and understand their roles
and the roles of other teams.
Article 8. Communication
Leadership must be aware of all of the above tenets and invoke them them
regularly. Speak every day about what the organization believes in (Values),
what it wants to see in the world (Vision, Mission), and how it contributes to
making that world (Strategy, Execution). Communicate consistently and constantly
within the context of the products made and services provided — toward the
output of the Strategy, the organization’s deliverables. Demonstration of the
alignment of the Strategy to the Values of the organization must be continuous,
and always consulted when making decisions.
This Communication must be verbal, but also written. Guiding documents must
outline all of these aspects, and tie all the pieces together. So in addition to
the constitutional articles that define the Values, Vision, Mission, there must
be living documents that articulate the Strategy for achieving the Vision and
Mission. These includes road maps, planning documents, specifications,
promotional plans and materials, organizational structure, team and role
Pursuit of Happiness
Inconsistency of these articles abounds in the business world, since companies
seldom convene a constitutional convention to create them — but sometimes
because internal- and external-facing messaging varies. It need not be the case.
Perhaps working through these topics with a team will help constitute the
grounds on which the organization functions and presents itself to its members
and the world. Even if some members disagree with or are indifferent to some of
its tenets, all will appreciate the clarity and focus they engender. And an
organization with purpose gives its members purpose, meaning to their work, and
satisfaction in the furthering of the mission.
In just about any discussion of GDPR compliance, two proposals always come up:
disk encryption and network perimeter protection. I recently criticized the
focus on disk encryption, particularly its inability to protect sensitive data
from live system exploits. Next I wanted to highlight the deficiencies of
perimeter protection, but in doing a little research, I found that Goran Begic
has already made the case:
Many organizations, especially older or legacy enterprises, are struggling to
adapt systems, behaviors, and security protocols to this new-ish and ever
evolving network model. Outdated beliefs about the true nature of the network
and the source of threats put many organizations, their information assets,
and their customers, partners, and stakeholders at risk.
What used to be carefully monitored, limited communication channels have
expanded into an ever changing system of devices and applications. These
assets are necessary for your organization to do business—they are what allow
you to communicate, exchange data, and make business decisions and are the
vehicle with which your organization runs the business and delivers value to
Cloud computing and storage, remote workers, and the emerging preference for
micro-services over monoliths1 vastly complicate network
designs and erode boundaries. Uber-services such as Kubernetes recover some
control by wrapping all those micro-services in the warm embrace of a monolithic
orchestration layer, but by no means restore the simplicity of earlier times.
Once the business requires the distribution of data and services to multiple
data centers or geographies, the complexity claws its way back. Host your data
and services in the cloud and you’ll find the boundary all but gone. Where’s the
data? It’s everywhere.
In such an environment, staying on top of all the vulnerabilities — all the
patches, all the services listening on this network or that, inside some
firewall or out, accessed by whom and via what means — becomes exponentially
more difficult. Even the most dedicated, careful, and meticulous of teams sooner
or later overlook something. An unpatched vulnerability. An authentication bug
in an internal service. A rogue cloud storage container to which an employee
uploads unencrypted data. Any and all could happen. They do
happen. Strive for the best; expect the worst.
Because it’s not a matter of whether or not your data will be breached. It’s
simply a matter of when.
Unfortunately, compliance discussions often end with these two mitigations, disk
encryption and network perimeter protection. You should absolutely adopt them,
and a discussion rightfully starts with them. But then it’s not over. No, these
two basics of data protection are but the first step to protect sensitive data
and to satisfy the responsibility for security of processing (GDPR Article
32). Because sooner or later, no matter how comprehensive the data
storage encryption and firewalling, eventually there will be a breach. And then
“What next” bears thinking about: How do you further reduce risk in the
inevitable event of a breach? I suggest taking the provisions of the GDPR at
face value, and consider three things:
We cringed at the characterization of the Russian online influence campaign as
“sophisticated” and “vast”: Russian reporting on the matter—the best available
— convincingly portrayed the troll operation as small-time and ridiculous.
It was, it seems, fraudulent in every way imaginable: it perpetrated fraud on
American social networks, creating fake accounts and events and spreading
falsehoods, but it was also fraudulent in its relationship to whoever was
funding it, because surely crudely designed pictures depicting Hillary
Clinton as Satan could not deliver anyone’s money’s worth.
I think this is exactly right. So much of the coverage depicts the Russian
hacking as “vast” and “sophisticated”. As a technologist working in information
security, I find this framing irresponsible and naïve at best — complicit at
worst. (Sadly, even the former director of the CIA uses this framing.) The
techniques are those used for fraud, extortion, blackmail, and the like. They
effectively advance a criminal conspiracy because they’re simple; they exploit
human vulnerabilities. A far cry from clandestine government surveillance or
espionage, the point is disinformation for the benefit of a very few. Painting
it as “massive” or “advanced” only increases its effectiveness.
That’s just one aspect of the problematic coverage. Gessen also brings a
sociological perspective to bear: The Russian government and its cohort more
closely approximates a “Mafia state” than a dictatorship. A press that
understands the difference will cover these people not as heads of state, but as
criminals who happen to control states. I hope some, at least, take it to heart.
I’ve been thinking a lot about what creative professionals want and expect out
of their jobs. We require certain base features of a job, the absolute minimum
for even considering employment:
Fair, livable compensation for the work
Comprehensive, low maintenance, effective benefits (especially health care)
Equitable work hours and conditions (vacation time, work/life balance)
Safe work environment
Employers attempting to skimp on any of these items devalue the people they
employ and the work they do. Don’t do that.
Assuming an organization meets these fundamentals, what else gets people
excited to go to work? What makes employees happy, committed, and productive
members of the team? Fortunately, I’m far from the first to explore this topic.
Paloma Medina reduces the literature to the muscular acronym BICEPS:
There are six core needs researchers find are most important for humans at
work. Not all are equally important to everyone. You might find that equity
and belonging are most important to you, but choice and status are most
important to your employee. Getting to know them and coaching to them is a
shortcut to making others feel understood and valued (aka inclusivity).
The BICEPS core needs:
Beyond the utility of having these needs enumerated to think about collectively
— with obvious implications — I find it useful to examine them from varying
frames of references. To that end, consider each from the perspective not of
rewards and perks, certificates and foosball tables. Ponder them with the goal
of creating a virtuous cycle, where the work improves the company, engendering
greater satisfaction in the work, and encouraging more of the same.
Organizations serious about encouraging friendships and closeness often
highlight social gatherings, team-building exercises, and outings. But don’t
underestimate the motivation of the work. Small teams given the space to
collaborate and accomplish their goals might be the best structure to create a
sense of belonging to a tight-knit group — and for employees to find joy in
Then reward those accomplishments. Not just with compensation or perks. No. Put
the full force of the business behind them. If a team finished work on a feature
or shipped a product, don’t limit recognition to a cocktail hour and a raised
toast. Promote the hell out of it through all available channels: marketing,
sales, blogging, support, community forums, whatever. The surest road to
satisfaction and a sense of belonging is to turn that work into a palpable
success for the organization.
Funds for conferences, training, and formal education clearly help employees
make progress in their careers, or to sipmly improve themselves. But people
also get satisfaction from work that helps the company to execute its
strategies and meet its goals. Assuming the vision aligns with an employee’s
values,1 contributing to the material achievement of
that vision becomes the employee’s achievement, too.
So be sure to create opportunities for all employees to grow, both in their
careers and contributions to the company mission. Avoid artificial divides
between those who make the execute and those who support them. Not everyone
will participate; still, encourage ideas and suggestions from all quarters and,
where possible, adopt them. Beyond the old canard to “act like an owner”,
clearly link organizational success to the ideas and work that created it, and
give everyone the chance to make a difference. They improve as the business
improves, and that’s progress.
Typically, “choice” means different healthcare plans, Mac or PC, sitting or
standing desk. Such perks are nice, but not materially meaningful.2
The choices that warm the creative worker’s heart have much more to do with
autonomy and decision-making than fringe benefits. Let teams choose their
projects, decide on technologies, self-organize, make the plans to execute.
People empowered to take initiative and make decisions without micromanagement
or post-hoc undermining find motivation and reward in the work itself. Let them
Yes, grant employees equal access to resources, to management, to the
decision-making process, and any other information necessary for their work,
benefits, etc. That only stands to reason. But give them equal access to
interesting work, too. Where possible, avoid unilaterally appointing people to
teams or projects: let them organically organize and pick their collaborators
and projects. Such decisions mustn’t be made in isolation; it wouldn’t be fair.
Rather, you’ll need to hold regular get-togethers of all relevant teams to make
such decisions collectively, PI Planning-style. Give everyone a voice, leave
no one out, and they will mostly work out the optimal distribution of tasks.
In addition to paying employees on time, every two weeks, make the work cycle
predictable, too. Everyone should have a good idea when things happen, what the
iteration cycle looks like, what the steps are and when they get slotted into
the schedule, when projects complete and products ship. Just as importantly,
make it clear what will they be working on next – or at least what’s in the
pipeline for the teams to choose and plan for in the next iteration of the
development process. A predictable cadence for the work lets people understand
where they are at any given time, what’s next, and what successful execution
Titles and industry recognition, obviously, but this item brings my commentary
full circle. Make sure that the work employees do gets seen not only by
immediate managers, not simply lauded at the weekly dessert social. Make it a
part of the success of the company. Promote the hell out of it, let customers
and users know that it exists and solves their problems — no, show them —
and shout it from the rooftops so the entire world know about all the stuff
made by your super valuable team of humans.
They’ll be happier, more satisfied, and ready to make the next success.
A very big assumption indeed. I expect to write a
bit about company strategies and alignment to employee values soon. ↩
Okay, sometimes a choice is no choice at all. Mac or nothing
for me! ↩
Full disk encryption provides incredible data protection for personal devices.
If you haven’t enabled FileVault on your Mac, Windows Device Encryption on
your PC, or Android Device Encryption on your phone, please go do it now (iOS
encrypts storage by default). It’s easy, efficient, and secure. You will likely
never notice the difference in usage or performance. Seriously. This is a
Once enabled, device encryption prevents just about anyone from accessing device
data. Unless a malefactor possesses both device and authentication credentials,
the data is secure.
Periodically, vulnerabilities arise that allow circumvention of device
encryption, usually by exploiting a bug in a background service. OS vendors tend
to fix such issues quickly, so keep your system up to date. And if you work in
IT, enable full disk encryption on all of your users’ devices and drives. Doing
so greatly reduces the risk of sensitive data exposure via lost or stolen
Servers, however, are another matter.
The point of disk encryption is to prevent data compromise by entities with
physical access to a device. If a governmental or criminal organization takes
possession encrypted storage devices, gaining access to an of the data presents
an immense challenge. Their best bet is to power up the devices and scan their
ports for potentially-vulnerable services to exploit. The OS allows such
services transparent access the file system via automatic decryption. Exploiting
such a service allows access to any data the service can access.
But, law enforcement investigations aside,1 who bothers
with physical possession? Organizations increasingly rely on cloud providers
with data distributed across multiple servers, perhaps hundreds or thousands,
rendering the idea of physical confiscation nearly meaningless. Besides, when
exfiltration typically relies on service vulnerabilities, why bother taking
possession hardware at all? Just exploit vulnerabilities remotely and leave the
Which brings me to the issue of compliance. I often hear IT professionals assert
that simply encrypting all data at rest2 satisfies the
responsibility to the security of processing (GDPR Article 32). This
interpretation may be legally correct3 and relatively
straight-forward to achieve: simply enable [disk encryption], protect the keys
via an appropriate and closely-monitored key management system, and migrate data
to the encrypted file systems.4
This level of protection against physical access is absolutely necessary for
protecting sensitive data.
Necessary, but not sufficient.
When was the last time a breach stemmed from physical access to a server? Sure,
some reports in the list of data breaches identify “lost/stolen media” as the
beach method. But we’re talking lost (and unencrypted) laptops and drives. Hacks
(service vulnerability exploits), accidental publishing,5
and “poor security” account for the vast majority of breaches. Encryption of
server data at rest addresses none of these issues.
By all means, encrypt data at rest, and for the love of Pete please keep your
systems and services up-to-date with the latest patches. Taking these steps,
along with full network encryption, is essential for protecting sensitive data.
But don’t assume that such steps adequately protect sensitive data, or that
doing so will achieve compliance with GDPR Article 32.
Don’t simply encrypt your disks or databases, declare victory, and go home.
Bear in mind that data protection comes in layers, and those layers correspond
to levels of exploitable vulnerability. Simply addressing the lowest-level
requirements at the data layer does nothing to prevent exposure at higher
levels. Start disk encryption, but then think through how best to protect data
at the application layer, the API layer, and, yes, the human layer, too.
Presumably, a legitimate law enforcement
investigation will compel a target to provide the necessary credentials to
allow access by legal means, such as a court order, without needing to
exploit the system. Such an investigation might confiscate systems to
prevent a suspect from deleting or modifying data until such access can be
compelled — or, if such access is impossible (e.g., the suspect is
unknown, deceased, or incapacitated) — until the data can be forensically
The result is the the sample project winperl-travis. It demonstrates three
.travis.yml configurations to test Perl projects on Windows:
Use Windows instead of Linux to test multiple versions of Perl. This is the
simplest configuration, but useful only for projects that never expect to
run on a Unix-style OS.
Add a Windows build stage that runs the tests against the latest version
of Strawberry Perl. This pattern is ideal for projects that already test
against multiple versions of Perl on Linux, and just want to make sure
things work on windows.
The files starts with the typical Travis Perl configuration: select the
language (Perl) and the versions to test. The before_install block installs a
couple of dependencies and executes the travis-perl helper for more flexible
Perl testing. This pattern practically serves as boilerplate for new Perl
The new bit is the jobs.include section, which declares a new build stage
named “Windows”. This stage runs independent of the default phase, which runs on
Linux, and declares os: windows to run on Windows.
The before_install step uses the pre-installed Chocolatey package manager to
install the latest version of Strawberry Perl and update the $PATH
environment variable to include the paths to Perl and build tools. Note that the
Travis CI Window environment runs inside the Git Bash shell environment; hence
the Unix-style path configuration.
The install phase installs all dependencies for the project via cpanminus, then
the script phase runs the tests, again using cpanminus.
And with the stage set, the text-markup build has a nice new stage that ensures
all tests pass on Windows.
The use of cpanminus, which ships with Strawberry Perl, keeps things simple,
and is essential for installing dependencies. But projects can also perform the
usual gmake test1 or perl Build.PL && ./Build test
dance. Install Dist::Zilla via cpanminus to manage dzil-based projects.
Sadly, prove currently does not work under Git Bash.2
Perhaps Travis will add full Perl support and things will become even easier.
In the meantime, I’m pleased that I no longer have to guess about Windows
compatibility. The new Travis Windows environment enables a welcome increase in
Although versions of Strawberry Perl prior to
5.26 have trouble installing Makefile.PL-based modules, including
dependencies. I spent a fair bit of time trying to work out how to make it
work, but ran out of steam. See issue #1 for details. ↩
Ahead of the release of Sqitch v1.0 sometime in 2019, I’d like to remove all the
deprecated features and code paths. Before I do, I want to get a sense of the
impact of such removals. So here’s a comprehensive list of the deprecations
currently in Sqitch, along with details on their replacements, warnings, and
updates. If the removal of any of these items would create challenges for your
use Sqitch, get in touch.
What would be removed:
The core configuration and directory-specification options and attributes:
The preferred solution is configuration values at the target, engine, or
core level (settable via the options on the target, engine, and init
commands, or via the config command).
But I admit that there are no overriding options for the directory
configurations in the deploy/revert/verify/rebase/checkout commands. And
I’ve used --top-dir quite a lot myself! Perhaps those should be added
first. If we were to add those, I think it’d be okay to remove the core
options — especially if I ever get around to merging options to allow both
core and command options to be specified before or after the command name.
The @FIRST and @LAST symbolic tags, which were long-ago supplanted by
the more Git-like @ROOT and @HEAD, and warnings have been emitted for at
least some of their uses for six years now.
Engine configuration under core.$engine. This configuration was supplanted
by engine$engine four years ago, and came with warnings, and a fix via the
sqitch engine update-config action. That action would also go away.
The core database connection options:
These options were supplanted by database URIs over four years ago. At that time, they were adapted to override parts of target URIs. For example, if you have a target URI of db:pg://db.example.com/flipr, you can specify that target, but then also pass --db-name to just change the database name part of the URI. I’ve found this occasionally useful, but I don’t think the complexity of the implementation is worth it.
The old target options, which were renamed “change” targets back when the
term “target” was adopted to refer to databases rather than changes. Sqitch
has emitted warnings for five years when the old names were used:
The --onto-target and --upto-target options on rebase were renamed
--onto-change and --upto-change.
The --to-target and --target options on deploy and revert were
The --from-target and --to-target options on verify were renamed
--from-change and --to-change.
The script-generation options on the add command were deprecated four
years ago in favor of --with and --without options, with warnings for
the old usages:
--deploy became --with deploy
--revert became --with revert
--verify became --with verify
--no-deploy became --without deploy
--no-revert became --without revert
--no-verify became --without verify
The same change replaced the template-specification options with a single
--deploy-template $path became --use deploy=$path
--revert-template $path became --use revert=$path
--verify-template $path became --use verify=$path
The corresponding config variables, add.deploy_template,
add.revert_template, and add.verify_template were replaced with a config
section, add.templates. No warnings were issued for the old names, though.
The set-* actions on the engine and target commands were replaced
three years ago (engine change, target change) with a single alter
action, with warnings, and able to be passed multiple times:
set-target became alter target
set-uri became alter uri
set-registry became alter registry
set-client became alter client
set-top-dir became alter top-dir
set-plan-file became alter plan-file
set-deploy-dir became alter deploy-dir
set-revert-dir became alter revert-dir
set-verify-dir became alter verify-dir
set-extension became alter extension
The data hashed to create change IDs was modified six years ago. At that
time, code was added to update old change IDs in Postgres databases; no
other engines were around at the time.
If removing any of these features would cause trouble for you or the organizations you know to be using Sqitch, please get in touch.
[Fascism’s] ideas are enacted first and foremost upon the bodies
and lives of the people whose presence within “our” national domain
is prohibitive. In Bannon/Trump’s case, that domain is nativist and
white. Presently, their ideas are inflicted upon people of color and
immigrants, who do not experience them as ideas but as violence. The
practice of fascism supersedes its ideas, which is why people affected
and diminished by it are not all that interested in a marketplace of
ideas in which fascists have prime purchasing power.
The error in Bannon’s headlining The New Yorker Festival would not
have been in giving him a platform to spew his hateful rhetoric, for
he was as likely to convert anyone as he himself was to be shown the
light in conversation with Remnick. The catastrophic error would’ve
been in allowing him to divorce his ideas from the fascist practices
in which they’re actualized with brutality.
The New Yorker Festival bills itself as “Conversations on culture and
politics,” but the important thing to understand about fascism — and its
cohorts nationalism and white supremacism — is that it’s not a conversation.
It’s not a set of ideas. No. Fascism is violence. One does not dialog with
fascism. Fascism is a violent terror to be stopped.