Securiosity

Veterans have been notified that their free 1 year of credit monitoring
from the government has been revoked. After a laptop containing
information on 26.5 million veterans was stolen, the Bush
Administration granted veterans 1 free year of credit monitoring to
help them watch out while the data was missing. However, since the
laptop hap has been found and supposedly the data wasn't accessed, the
Bush Administration decided that $160 million was too much to spend on
a project that probably isn't necessary anymore.

This is
definitely the economical way to go; however, is this the best way to
protect our veterans in any situation? According to MSNBC,
"FBI had determined with a 'high degree of confidence' that information
stored on the stolen laptop and external drive were not accessed or
compromised." A high degree of confidence is much different than being
100% positive, so until they are 100% sure that the data wasn't
accessed the vets should receive the credit monitoring. In this
instance, it appears like the government is caring more about their
budget than making sure that their own veterans get out of this
unscathed. Instead of caring about costs, the government should take
the high road and take every precaution to protect their vets.

In
addition, is this the government's way of punishing the VA for their
lax security measures? Supposedly the government has reprimanded the VA
office for years about their poor security measures and this could be
their chance to give them the "I told you so" act. The biggest problem
is that the vets themselves are the ones most affected by this
decision, even though a majority of them have no part in the VA office
and their security practices. So in the grand scheme of things, the
government is punishing veterans, their former employees, for something
that was completely out of their control.

So much for protection.

Tully's Coffee, a Seattle founded, west coast coffee shop has decided to one up its competitor Starbucks by offering free Wi-Fi to its customers
starting on August 7th. Previously, Tully's offered its customers Wi-Fi
for $3.95 per day and $19.95 per month, cheaper than Starbucks, which
still offers $9.99 per day and $29.99 per month. Tully's has chosen to
team up with the ISP NetNearU for an unspecified amount while Starbucks
has been teamed up with T-Mobile for the past few years.

This
decision was made final by President John Dresel who feels that "This
is about our customers. The more we give them, the better and solid the
relationship is between our company and our customers." It is hard to
say whether or not this change will have an impact on their overall
share of the market which is dominated by Starbucks. Right now
Starbucks has over 6000 stores worldwide while Tully's has only 79
stores along the Western United States.

With the price of
technology equipment so low these days, this is an absolutely fantastic
idea for the company. Generally, in most downtown areas on the West
Coast, many Starbucks and Tully's shops are within a block of each
other, so this offering could make a substantial difference. Not only
does Tully's have the benefit of charging less for Wi-Fi, but they also
give their customers the benefit of going online without dealing with
signing up and putting their credit card online. If someone simply
needs to check his/her email while drinking a morning latt?, would they
pay $10 to go to Starbucks or walk half a block and pay nothing at
Tully's?

The only issue with free and open wireless connections
is that security could become a problem. Now that it costs nothing to
connect, people will be more inclined to join these networks and
potentially watch what other people are doing on their computers. If
Tully's wants this idea to be successful they must invest in strong
security systems for these connections or else it will be trouble all
through the digital Tully's world.

According to CNET,
two 19 year old Maryland teens were arrested and convicted of stealing
the VA laptop on May 3rd. Jesus Alex Pineda and Christian Brian Montano
were arrested and convicted of first-degree burglary, however it was
reported that neither knew that the computer contained such sensitive
data until the news went public. The question I now ask is: Are these
boys being scapegoated by the government to deflect who's really at
fault?

Since the announcement of the theft, the government has
been under a lot of heat regarding their lax laptop security practices
and skeptical decisions when dealing with the theft. It took the VA
office over three weeks to report the theft because of their fear of
public humiliation. If they would have reported the theft right as it
happened it would not have taken so long to find the laptop and it was
less likely the computer would have been infiltrated.

Their
second poor decision was how they dealt with the public after finding
the laptop. Upon discovering the computer, it took them nearly two
weeks to publicly announce how they had done so. Those shady,
inconclusive two weeks almost sound like a ploy to get everyone off
their backs for the time being while they really wait to locate the
computer.

Could it be that the VA is so embarrassed that the
government needs any kind of credit they can get on this issue?
Throughout this entire scenario it seems like the government has done a
great job of blaming others while taking any sort of credit they can.

The
most recent example is when they turned these two teens into scapegoats
to cover their own troubles. It still seems like the government is
putting all the publicity and blame on these teens to take as much
attention as possible away from them. Here's a concept, take the blame,
fix your problems so they don't happen again in the future, and move on
so we don't have to hear about this issue anymore.