I came across this article of how Apple is selectively implementing HTML5 and putting out a lot of disinformation about following standards.

Apple is hyping HMTL5 again, this time with a new website purporting to show open web development in action. But the company’s standards-following rivals have pointed out the Jobsian site is peddling nonsense.

Apple’s HTML5 ’standards’ hype debunked • The Register

Their ship is already sinking. Mobile is the next thing, and they need to wake up and smell the coffee, they represent a minor percentage of the market. The rest are all jumping in on open standards. Even Nokia has now made the Symbian OS open source. Other large players are beginning to realise it is in their benefit to follow open standards, because no one company is ever going to corner the market on technology. There will be always a new player out of no where. And the best way to control the competition is to ensure that the market follows the agreed open standards. Those who don’t live up to the standard, will whither and die, because the end user will have a substandard experience. Because what are the content developers going to develop for? Why the largest market / platform there is of course! Why else did Microsoft’s vision of things hold dominance for so long? Because they had the largest platform / market share. But that is no longer the case. The platforms that people access their information is rapidly diversifying, and so Microsoft have been caught napping. They thought there was no end in sight for the dominance of the desktop platform. Then along comes mobile. Bam! Now its a desperate catch up, which they will never do. Their worst nightmare is being realised. Linux is becoming dominant on mobile, largely thanks to Android. How can a commercial OS developer like Microsoft compete against a free OS like Linux? Answer, they can’t! So we come to Apple’s tactics. Build a jailed platform and broadcast propaganda. Hey fine for the fanatic converts, but they are fools to think they will ever win any sort of platform or market dominance like Microsoft ever did. So their pick and choose implementation on HMTL5 will ultimately backfire on them as it did with Microsoft and earlier web standards. Developers will curse their name, and develop for them second, if at all. They will ultimately be force to also play catch up.

I read just read this article Best Western and the worst kind of security mix-up. Over the past couple of days it has emerged that customer details, including name, address, phone and credit card numbers were stolen when Best Western were hacked by an Indian hacker with ties to the Russian Mafia.

What needs to be further highlighted is that as we commit more information to electronic storage and retrieval, it is more vulnerable. As we have see in the past year of data loses, vast amounts of information can be lost or exposed through very simple human error or negligence.

Tougher encryption and security is also a joke. In the programming world it is well know that if you can code it, you can hack it. Examples of so called unbreakable security are the DVD format and the security researchers cloning the new passport chips.

We are truly heading towards an information age where there are no secrets, regardless of the noise government makes. Big Brother is its own worst enemy. The traditional idea of security has to be radically rethought.

We are seeing this theme being played out currently in the world of software development, especially with web browsers and Operating Systems. We see the realm of Open Source where vulnerabilities are publicly acknowledged and addressed verses proprietary commercial software where the mantra is security through obscurity (Apple) and denial (Macintosh).

Last year on Google Maps you could go and look at satellite images of a top secret US Navy submarine in dry dock. The US military screamed to take down the images. D'uh hello? If a commercial satellite snapped pictures of this submarine with out looking for it, what about all of the spy satellites that are?

It all goes to show that our concept of security is no more than just that, a concept, or at worse a dangerous expensive joke.