THE PM CHRONICLE: December 2013

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

How The NSA Hacks Your iPhone (Presenting DROPOUT JEEP)

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/30/2013 12:22 -0500

Following up on the latest stunning revelations released yesterday by German Spiegel which exposed the spy agency's 50 page catalog of "backdoor penetration techniques", today during a speech given by Jacob Applebaum (@ioerror) at the 30th Chaos Communication Congress, a new bombshell emerged: specifically the complete and detailed description of how the NSA bugs,remotely, your iPhone. The way the NSA accomplishes this is using software known as Dropout Jeep, which it describes as follows: "DROPOUT JEEP is a software implant for the Apple iPhone that utilizes modular mission applications to provide specific SIGINT functionality. This functionality includes the ability to remotely push/pull files from the device. SMS retrieval, contact list retrieval, voicemail, geolocation, hot mic, camera capture, cell tower location, etc. Command, control and data exfiltration can occur over SMS messaging or a GPRS data connection. All communications with the implant will be covert and encrypted."

The flowchart of how the NSA makes your iPhone its iPhone is presented below:
NSA ROC operator
Load specified module
Send data request
iPhone accepts request
Retrieves required SIGINT data
Encrypt and send exfil data
Rinse repeat

And visually:

What is perhaps just as disturbing is the following rhetorical sequence from Applebaum:

"Do you think Apple helped them build that? I don't know. I hope Apple will clarify that. Here's the problem: I don't really believe that Apple didn't help them, I can't really prove it but [the NSA] literally claim that anytime they target an iOS device that it will succeed for implantation. Either they have a huge collection of exploits that work against Apple products, meaning that they are hoarding information about critical systems that American companies produce and sabotaging them, or Apple sabotaged it themselves. Not sure which one it is. I'd like to believe that since Apple didn't join the PRISM program until after Steve Jobs died, that maybe it's just that they write shitty software. We knowthat's true."

Or, Apple's software is hardly "shitty" even if it seems like that to the vast majority of experts (kinda like the Fed's various programs), and in fact it achieves precisely what it is meant to achieve.

Either way, now everyone knows that their iPhone is nothing but a gateway for the NSA to peruse everyone's "private" data at will. Which, incidentally, is not news, and was revealed when we showed how the "NSA Mocks Apple's "Zombie" Customers; Asks "Your Target Is Using A BlackBerry? Now What?"

How ironic would it be if Blackberry, left for dead by virtually everyone, began marketing its products as the only smartphone that does not allow the NSA access to one's data (and did so accordingly). Since pretty much everything else it has tried has failed, we don't see the downside to this hail mary attempt to strike back at Big Brother and maybe make some money, by doing the right thing for once.

We urge readers to watch the full one hour speech by Jacob Applebaum to realize just how massive Big Brother truly is, but those who want to just listen to the section on Apple can do so beginning 44 minutes 30 seconds in the presentation below.

Jacob Appelbaum's Speech:

http://boingboing.net/2013/12/31/jacob-appelbaums-must-watch.html

Copyright ©2009-2013 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD; All Rights Reserved.

Can Robots Better Spot Terrorists at Airports?

WSJ
The Wall Street Journal

TECHNOLOGY
Can Robots Better Spot Terrorists at Airports?
Some Countries Test Fingerprint Readers and Eye Scanners for Aviation Security

27 Comments

By
JACK NICAS CONNECT
Dec. 30, 2013 7:37 p.m. ET

The U.S. uses biometrics for airport border patrol but other countries are using it for aviation security. Rob Hart for The Wall Street Journal

Next to have their jobs automated: airport-security screeners?

Aviation and government authorities are starting to use machines in lieu of people to verify the identities of fliers by scanning their faces, irises or fingerprints. Dozens of airports in Europe, Australia and the U.S. already employ such technology so passengers can pass immigration checks without showing identification to, or talking with, a person. Now, several major airports in Europe have started using these automated ID checks at security checkpoints and boarding gates.

More
Q&A: What Robots Mean for Airport Security

The use of biometrics—computers verifying identities through physical characteristics—and other automated techniques in airport security is raising questions about the strengths of man versus machine in detecting potential terrorists. Industry officials argue the advantages outweigh the risks, and are promoting automation to help make air travel more efficient and less frustrating—and to save money.

Ultimately, the technology could "get rid of the boarding pass completely," with fliers' faces serving as their tickets, said Michael Ibbitson, chief information officer of London Gatwick Airport. Gatwick performed a trial this year in which it processed 3,000 British Airways IAG.MC -0.95% fliers without boarding passes. The fliers scanned their irises when checking in, enabling cameras at security checkpoints and boarding gates to automatically recognize them. "We're only just starting to see what biometrics can do," he said.

Proponents, including government and industry officials, say that automation of airport security holds the promise to free human screeners so they can focus on detecting suspicious behavior or monitoring flagged travelers. And for some aspects of security, they say, computers can be more thorough and less error-prone than humans.

Critics, however, worry that relying too much on automation will dull the senses of human screeners and remove the human intuition that can detect when something just doesn't seem right.
Enlarge Image

A Global Entry automated-scanning kiosk at O'Hare Airport in Chicago. Rob Hart for The Wall Street Journal

"If you're sweating profusely, for example, the person checking your ID would notice. But that computer taking an iris scan wouldn't," said aviation-security expert Arnold Barnett, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A key part of airport security is "looking at all kinds of things that can't be captured by an algorithm," he said.

About 28% of the world's airports now use biometric technology, up from 18% in 2008, according to a survey by SITA, an airline IT provider.

The International Air Transport Association and Airports Council International, two of the industry's largest global trade groups, advocate automation as part of their initiative to streamline airport security. The groups say the lengthy and cumbersome security process is deterring some travelers from flying, and note that the average checkpoint now processes about 150 passengers an hour, half the rate before the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Their "Smart Security" program will use new checkpoints at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol and London Heathrow Airport next year to test key proposals, likely including new baggage-screening software that automatically clears some simple objects like clothing without running X-ray images past human screeners.

Guido Peetermans, the program's manager, said explosives are typically very dense, but low-density items like jackets can be automatically cleared. "The reliability of the algorithm is very high," he said. "Technically, what it means is there are a certain number of images that no human operator will see."

Mr. Barnett, the aviation-security expert, said it's dangerous to let a computer categorically rule some objects as safe in baggage screening. "Maybe in the past we've never had explosives that were as low density as a sports jacket," he said. "But now [terrorists] can target sports jackets as their goal."

Airlines, airports and authorities all say that aviation security will remain a layered process that always includes some human interaction, intelligence and randomization. Major security changes, particularly at checkpoints overseen by government agencies, will take years to come to fruition.

The Transportation Security Administration currently uses biometrics to control employees' access to secure areas and verify the identities of passengers who enroll in its known-traveler program, PreCheck. But the agency said it doesn't have any current plans to use the technology to process fliers at the airport.

The U.S. does use biometrics for airport border control. Nearly 2 million frequent fliers are enrolled in trusted-traveler programs under the U.S. Customs and Border Protection that let them scan their fingerprints instead of talking to an immigration officer when re-entering the country. These biometric kiosks were used 820,000 times this summer, up 75% from the summer of 2012.

The U.S. also collects photographs and fingerprints from every foreign national entering the country.

Vahid Motevalli, an aviation-security expert and professor at Tennessee Tech University, said biometric systems protect against the liabilities of a human screener. "People get tired, bored and more prone to making errors," he said. "You hope machines don't have that problem."

From fiscal year 2010 through 2012, TSA employees were caught violating screening and security procedures nearly 2,000 times, including allowing fliers or baggage to bypass screening, according to the Government Accountability Office. The TSA said that it has "zero tolerance for misconduct in the workplace" and that it's implementing all of the GAO's recommendations to better monitor employee misconduct.

In a test of facial-recognition scanners at Amsterdam Schiphol in 2010, Dutch university and government researchers found that the machines could correctly approve almost 98% of travelers, while allowing one of every 1,000 impostors to pass, on average. The study didn't give comparable numbers for humans.

Still, in 2011, Gatwick's automated immigration kiosks twice approved travelers who were using the wrong passport, and the kiosks at the Manchester, England, airport were temporarily closed because of a similar incident, according to the U.K.'s chief immigration inspector.

Richard Bloom, director of terrorism, intelligence and security studies at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Ariz., said computers may be more reliable than humans, but they are also more predictable—making them vulnerable to sophisticated terrorists. "As long as you can find out how a machine works," he said, "people with resources can figure out how to beat it."

Mr. Motevalli counters that manual ID checks are also vulnerable. Identification documents can be counterfeit, he said, "but biometrics is much harder to defeat."

Airports and government agencies are also using automation in some less obvious areas. For years, scans of checked baggage have been largely automated to simply detect explosives. Airports in Las Vegas, Syracuse, N.Y., and Atlantic City, N.J., recently invested in unmanned, automated exit gates that bar re-entry to secure areas, replacing human guards.

Gatwick is also using facial-recognition software to calculate queues in real time at security and immigration checkpoints. The airport captures images of almost all travelers' faces as they approach the checkpoints and then uses those images to note when each traveler departs the checkpoints. The aggregate data provide an estimated wait-time.

Mr. Ibbitson, the Gatwick CIO, said the posted wait-times keep passengers flowing efficiently to the shortest security lanes and help security staff decide when to open extra lanes. The program has helped keep security wait-times almost always below five minutes, he said.

And earlier this year, the first fully automated bag-screening machine hit the market. The machine from Qylur Security Systems Inc. will automatically screen bags for any prohibited items, including weapons, liquids and explosives—without any human assistance.

It was recently tested at the Statue of Liberty, a Rio de Janeiro airport and MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, which will host the Super Bowl in February. Qylur founder Lisa Dolev, said the company has discussed the machine with government security officials in Brazil, Europe and the U.S.

Write to Jack Nicas at jack.nicas@wsj.com

Copyright ©2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Monday, December 30, 2013

A Bunch Of Young Geniuses Just Made A Corrupt Corporation Freak Out Big Time. Time For Round Two.

Adam Mordecai

When you've got giant energy companies this scared, you must be doing something right. At 3:38, I snorted. Just sayin'. And at 4:43, he explains brilliantly what's in it for you.
Share On Facebook Twitter

For more information on how you can help this amazing nonprofit win, you could go here. And you might want to Like New Era Colorado on Facebook if you want to see their ongoing progress.

UPDATE (9/3/2013, 12 p.m. ET): New Era Colorado Executive Director Stephen Fenberg just emailed me to say: "The response from everyone across the country has been mind-blowing! We're getting a donation EVERY MINUTE. The momentum we're getting from you guys is AMAZING. Please keep sharing this, it's going to make such a huge difference. THANK YOU A MILLION TIMES OVER."

UPDATE (9/3/2013, 9 p.m. ET): You guys more than doubled their original fundraising goal. Now they want to take it to the next level. Think you could help them break $100,000?

UPDATE (9/17/2013, 10 p.m. ET): You guys are INCREDIBLE. With a little more than 24 hours left in their campaign, you have managed to raise almost $175,000, and now there's a big donor willing to match dollar for dollar on any donations over the next dayto help them reach $200,000. I am kind of freaking out.

Apparently you guys are helping. You complete me. One last favor. Mind sharing and tweeting this? Pretty please?
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterCredits:

ORIGINAL: By New Era Colorado and Speak Thunder Films, which you shouldLike on Facebook. To learn more about what you can do in your community, go here.Tags:
Economy
Environment

Best Of Upworthy

This Kid Was Bullied A LOT. He Could Have Told His Teacher Or His Principal. He Had Bigger Plans.

A Boy Makes Anti-Muslim Comments In Front Of An American Soldier. The Soldier's Reply: Priceless.

Something Every Teacher Should Watch. And Student. And Person.

CLOSEOPT OUT: I already Like Upworthy!

'There's no room for anything manly now'

'There's no room for anything manly now': Feminist writer Camille Paglia speaks out AGAINST the loss of masculine virtues and its negative impact on society
The self-described 'dissident feminist' believes society is neutering boys of their maleness at a young age
She also believes the lack of people with military experience in important positions is a recipe for disaster
An avid listener of sports radio, she believes these 'are the men that would save the nation'
'Our culture doesn't allow women to know how to be womanly,' she said
Paglia also recently spoke out in favor of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson and defended his right to free speech

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

PUBLISHED: 12:19 EST, 29 December 2013 | UPDATED: 03:13 EST, 30 December 2013

Self-described 'dissident feminist' Paglia, 66, believes that attempts to deny the biological distinctions between men and women is to blame for the much that is wrong with modern society

Our society is neutering boys of their maleness at a young age, while the lack of people with military experience in important positions is a recipe for disaster, claims Camille Paglia, the controversial lesbian author and social critic.

Self-described ‘dissident feminist’ Paglia, 66, believes that attempts to deny the biological distinctions between men and women is to blame for the much that is wrong with modern society.

'What you're seeing is how a civilization commits suicide’ she told the Wall Street Journal.

Paglia, a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, is well known for her critical views on many aspects of modern culture, including feminism and liberalism.

She recently spoke out in support of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson, supporting his right to express homophobic views.

‘In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as well as they have the right to support homosexuality – as I one hundred percent do.

'If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again, they have a right of religious freedom there.' she told Laura Ingraham’s radio show last week.

Paglia, who is promoting her latest book, Glittering Images: A Journey Through Art From Egypt To Star Wars, told the WSJ that the diminished status of military service in people in important positions is a big mistake.

Our society is neutering boys of their maleness at a young age, right, while the lack of people with military experience in important positions is a recipe for disaster, left, claims Paglia

‘The entire elite class now, in finance, in politics and so on, none of them have military service - hardly anyone, there are a few. But there is no prestige attached to it anymore. That is a recipe for disaster,’ she said.

‘These people don't think in military ways, so there's this illusion out there that people are basically nice, people are basically kind, if we're just nice and benevolent to everyone they'll be nice too. They literally don't have any sense of evil or criminality.’

According to Paglia the results are there for all to see in the on-going dysfunction in Washington, where politicians ‘lack practical skills of analysis and construction’.

The emancipation of masculine virtues is something that is beginning as early as kindergarten in the U.S., argues Paglia.

The decline of America's industrial base is another factor that the author believes is leaving many men with 'no models of manhood'

‘Primary-school education is a crock, basically. It's oppressive to anyone with physical energy, especially guys,’ she said.

The author, who along with her ex-partner Alison Maddex, is raising an 11-year-old son Lucian, believes that the way many schools have cut recess is ‘making a toxic environment for boys.’

‘Primary education does everything in its power to turn boys into neuters,’ she said.

The decline of America's industrial base is another factor that the author believes is leaving many men with ‘no models of manhood.'

‘Masculinity is just becoming something that is imitated from the movies. There's nothing left. There's no room for anything manly right now.’

Elite upper-middle-class women have become 'clones' condemned to 'Pilates for the next 30 years', muses Paglia

Bizarrely Paglia claims that the only place that you can hear what men really feel these days is on sports radio.

The professor claims to be an avid listener and that the energy and enthusiasm 'inspires me as a writer.'

'If we had to go to war,' the callers 'are the men that would save the nation.'

Paglia didn't spare the role of women in her musings and said that elite upper-middle-class women have become 'clones' condemned to 'Pilates for the next 30 years.'

'Our culture doesn't allow women to know how to be womanly,' she said.

THE OUTSPOKEN CAMILLE PAGLIA - SELF STYLED 'DISSIDENT FEMINIST'

Camille Paglia, is a self styled 'dissident feminist', outspoken on pop culture, and who has been described as a feminist bete noire.

The 66-year-old has been a professor at The University of the Arts in Philadelphia, PA since 1984, but came to attention with the publication of her first book, 'Sexual Personae', in 1990, when she also began writing about popular culture and feminism in mainstream newspapers and magazines.

It is these articles which have propelled Paglia to the controversial figure she is today.

One scathing attack saw her conclude that Katy Perry and Taylor Swift, have 'insipid, bleached-out personas' that hark back to the man-pleasing, pre-feminist era.

In an article for The Hollywood Reporter, she wrote that as a result, many of today's young women fail to realize the role their sexuality plays in society and 'partying till you drop has gotten as harmless as a Rotary Club meeting'.

She said: 'Swift’s meandering, snippy songs make 16-year-old Lesley Gore’s 1963 hit It’s My Party (And I’ll Cry if I Want to) seem like a towering masterpiece of social commentary, psychological drama and shapely concision.

'Indeed, without her mannequin posturing at industry events, it’s doubtful that Swift could have attained her high profile.'

She cuttingly described Perry as a 'manic cyborg cheerleader'.

Paglia previously slammed Lady Gaga, insisting her over-the-top sexuality is actually 'stripped of genuine eroticism'.

She said the star's willingness to dress in crazy outfits as an example of 'every public appearance... has been lavishly scripted in advance'.

Read more:
Camille Paglia: A Feminist Defense of Masculine Virtues

Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530741/Theres-no-room-MANLY-Controversial-feminist-writer-Camille-Paglia-speaks-against-loss-masculine-virtues-negative-impact-society.html#ixzz2oy05A6c1
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Closest exoplanets ever discovered

Science Channel
This is WISE J104915.57-531906 -- and it may hold one of the closest exoplanets ever discovered.

At *only* 6.6 light-years away, it would be the third-closest system. It's so close that television transmissions from 2006 have reached it.

Using cutting edge technology, scientists have been able to measure the positions of these two objects down to a few milli-arcseconds. Read more >> http://bit.ly/KdJoSc

An Open Letter to the Makers of The Wolf of Wall Street, and the Wolf Himself

An Open Letter to the Makers of The Wolf of Wall Street, and the Wolf Himself

By LA Weekly Thu., Dec. 26 2013 at 5:00 AM
580 Comments

Courtesy of Christina McDowell
Christina McDowell (then Prousalis) with her father and his private plane during headier times.
BY CHRISTINA MCDOWELL

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, dear Kings of Hollywood, but you have been conned.

Let me introduce myself. My name is Christina McDowell, formerly Christina Prousalis. I am the daughter of Tom Prousalis, a man the Washington Post described as "just some guy on trial for penny-stock fraud." (I had to change my name after my father stole my identity and then threatened to steal it again, but I'll get to that part later.) I was eighteen and a freshman in college when my father and his attorneys forced me to attend his trial at New York City's federal courthouse so that he "looked good" for the jury -- the consummate family man.

And you, Jordan Belfort, Wall Street's self-described Wolf: You remember my father, right? You were chosen to be the government's star witness in testifying against him. You had pleaded guilty to money laundering and securities fraud (it was the least you could do) and become a government witness in two dozen cases involving your former business associate, but my father's attorneys blocked your testimony because had you testified it would have revealed more than a half-dozen other corrupt stock offerings too. And, well, that would have been a disaster. It would have just been too many liars, and too many schemes for the jurors, attorneys or the judge to follow.

But the records shows you and my father were in cahoots together with MVSI Inc. of Vienna, e-Net Inc. of Germantown, Md., Octagon Corp. of Arlington, Va., and Czech Industries Inc. of Washington, D.C., and so on -- a list of seemingly innocuous, legitimate companies that stretches on. I'll spare you. Nobody cares. None of these companies actually existed, yet all of them were taken public by the one and only Wolf of Wall Street and his firm Stratton Oakmont Inc in order to defraud unwitting investors and enrich yourselves.

See also: 10 Reasons the Real-Life Wolf of Street Is a Schmuck Who Shouldn't Be Trusted

As an eighteen-year-old, I had no idea what was going on. But then again, did anyone? Certainly your investors didn't -- and they were left holding the bag when you cashed out your holdings and got rich off their money.

So Marty and Leo, while you glide through press junkets and look forward to awards season, let me tell you the truth -- what happened to my mother, my two sisters, and me.

1 | 2 | Next Page >>

©2013 LA Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.

LA WeeklyVoice PlacesMore From Voice NationJoinSign In

Friday, December 27, 2013

Yes, there are other ways

By DAN CALABRESE - Yes, there are other ways.

I've been saying this for some years now, and it usually earns me shocked reactions from people who can't believe I would actually question the value of that sheepskin. Why, all the studies show that college graduates earn $1 million more on average over the course of their lives! How can you question that?

Well, I question it for a lot of reasons, not least of which is the $1 trillion student loan debt bomb we're now facing in this country. But simply on an individual level, it's a question that you have to ask if you're intellectually honest: College now routinely costs $100,000 or more over the course of four years, and that's four years by which you've delayed the start of your earning in order to get your degree. If you figure you could probably earn at least $15,000 a year just doing some sort of work and living at home, then you've spent $100,000 as opposed to earning $60,000 during that time. You're $160,000 in the hole by the time you're 22.

Is it worth it?

Well, I suppose you have no choice if college is the only way you can set yourself up for a successful career. But as a lot of industrious young people are discovering these days, it isn't. USA Today reports:

Alternatives to college:

• Learn from the pros. Instead of teachers and classes, The Mycelium School, founded by Matthew Abrams and launching its first class of 12-14 in September, brings in more than 150 visiting instructors, from designers at Google's Innovation Labs to best-selling authors to serial entrepreneurs, who impart real-world knowledge to participants. Participants get a collective $45,000 to build a business based around social change, a great way to learn both business savvy and the way communities work, Abrams says. Participants leave with entrepreneurial experience and a supportive network of more than 150 gurus in just about ever,y field from modern dance to venture capital.

• Work for free. Enstitute will set you up with a two-year mentorship with an entrepreneur in a tech start-up, a digital advertising firm or a non-profit. In addition to the 40-hour-a-week mentorships, program participants get weekly meet-and-greet sessions with business hotshots such as clothing designer Marc Ecko or Bitly chief scientist Hilary Mason. The hope is that after a two-year mentorship, participants will have all the skills, experience and connections they need to make it in the real world. "A lot of academia deals with the abstract and intellectual pontification," says co-founder Kane Sarhan. "My biggest problem with academia is there's no practicality to it whatsoever."

• Get connected. Blake Boles started the Zero Tuition College social network because he saw kids who weren't in college struggling to find a community in like-minded people. Members interact based on skills they want to learn and are able to teach. "The clear fact of the matter is that colleges have the monopoly on young adult social life," Boles says.

• Teach yourself. UnCollege, lead by Thiel Fellowship recipient Dale Stephens, 21, leads conferences rallying together kids who want to find success without having to go to college. UnCollege's first Gap Year program begins this September and covers everything from sending participants abroad for three months to helping them build their own companies. All the learning though, you've got to do yourself. Stephens says not going to college actually makes you a better learner, more mature, self-reliant, and motivated. Why's that? "This is because in college these things are taken care of and you're simply told what to do," says Stephens, who has never been to college.

These are all interesting initiatives, but the truth is you don't even need to get involved with stuff like this. An industrious young people who works hard enough at it can find a company that will agree to unpaid internship, which you can do maybe half a day before you go and work an eight-hour shift at Taco Bell or the car wash. This is real work you can put on a resume and use to learn the ropes of a profression. You can start your own business. You can enroll in a class that teaches you a particular skill without having to go through (and pay for) a four year program to earn a degree.

I'm 46 years old, and yes, I have a college degree. But no one has asked me for years if they could see it, or if I even had one. I get opportunities today based on the experience I have. The higher education industry wants you to believe there is no way to get that experience without first coming to them, and they want you to pay pretty handsomely for the privilege so they can fund their faculty salaries, administrative expenses and operational overhead.

How is that working out for college graduates? Not well, as a disproportionately high unemployment/underemployment rate and mountains of student loan debt illustrate. When a proposition can no longer justify itself on the basis of value delivered vs. the required investment, people start finding other ways to skin the cat, no matter how loudly the established player tries to insist it is the only way.

The smartest young people are starting to figure it out. There must be some other way.

Follow all of Dan's work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.

© 2013 Best of Cain. All Rights Reserved.
About Best of Cain

SCSU prof explains how college has become a very expensive, complete joke

Best of Cain

Education: SCSU prof explains how college has become a very expensive, complete joke

The five-year party.

If you're a high school junior or senior thinking about options for college - or the parent of such a budding adult - I hope you've recognized by now that the time and money invested in a college degree is not necessarily the value society is always trying to convince you it is. But just in case you're still wallowing in that delusion, you might want to listen to Geoffrey L. Collier. He is in the trenches, a professor of psychology at South Carolina State University, and yesterday he published a devastating piece in the Wall Street Journal that lays bare what a joke higher education has really become.

If you've already committed a lot of money to higher education, you might want to be sitting down while you read this. If you haven't but you're thinking about it, well . . .

Education thus has degenerated into a game of "trap the rat," whereby the student and instructor view each other as adversaries. Winning or losing is determined by how much the students can be forced to study. This will never be a formula for excellence, which requires intense focus, discipline and diligence that are utterly lacking among our distracted, indifferent students. Such diligence requires emotional engagement. Engagement could be with the material, the professors, or even a competitive goal, but the idea that students can obtain a serious education even with their disengaged, credentialist attitudes is a delusion.

The professoriate plays along because teachers know they have a good racket going. They would rather be refining their research or their backhand than attending to tedious undergraduates. The result is an implicit mutually assured nondestruction pact in which the students and faculty ignore each other to the best of their abilities. This disengagement guarantees poor outcomes, as well as the eventual replacement of the professoriate by technology. When professors don't even know your name, they become remote figures of ridicule and tedium and are viewed as part of a system to be played rather than a useful resource.

To be fair, cadres of indefatigable souls labor tirelessly in thankless ignominy in the bowels of sundry ivory dungeons. Jokers in a deck stacked against them, they are ensnared in a classic reward system from hell.

All parties are strongly incentivized to maintain low standards. It is well known that friendly, entertaining professors make for a pleasant classroom, good reviews and minimal complaints. Contrarily, faculty have no incentives to punish plagiarism and cheating, to flunk students or to write negative letters of reference, to assiduously mark up illiterate prose in lieu of merely adding a grade and a few comments, or to enforce standards generally. Indeed, these acts are rarely rewarded but frequently punished, even litigated. Mass failure, always a temptation, is not an option. Under this regimen, it is a testament to the faculty that any standards remain at all.

It really should come as no surprise that higher education has devolved into such a racket. Professors are protected by tenure rules, and respond to incentives to graduate students in high numbers. Students learn the game and play along, being more motivated at their age to party and pursue their social lives than to pursue academic excellence. Administrators' primary concern is to keep everything looking good, keep alumni happily writing checks and keep legislators approving generous state allocations. (Oh, and fund that football program!)

And as for parents, what method is available for them to really check into the claims they hear that this or that institution is a "first-rate school" or has a "top engineering program"? You hear this stuff. How would you really know if it's true? With all the pressure on students to go to college, along with the dire warnings that their earning potential will be diminished if they don't - and with student loans so easily accessible - who can resist the proposition of getting the kid in school and worrying about the debt later?

It's sort of like the way the federal government works, and in more ways than one. A major state university is a huge employment generator, for professors, administrators, staff, lawyers, custodians, football coaches . . . an awful lot of people need these institutions to survive and thrive so they can keep their jobs, and it's in everyone's best interests to keep graduation rates high and not to say a word about some of what really goes on. So if people have to go into debt in order to keep the enterprise running, what do they care?

Yeah. See? They learn this thinking while they're young.

This is pretty much what you get when government creates institutions that cater to wide sectors of the population. The perpetuation of the institution becomes the most important thing. Private alternatives are often better, but remember many of them largely follow the same model.

To be sure, some students show up well prepared and take their education seriously, doing their best in spite of the perverse incentives because this is who they are. But an awful lot more enroll because they have no other plans, they qualified for financial aid, college was a family expectation (or goal) . . . and dude, parties!

For those who flame out after a year or two, or those who graduate poorly prepared for the career that was supposed to be waiting for them on the other end, but facing years of payments on their student loan debt . . . you can't help but wonder if they would have been better off skipping all this and pursuing alternate career paths. As we discussed back in April, [such alternatives are plentiful], and for smart kids they can lead to a much quicker start on a good career without the massive investment or the debt.

You do what you want, but don't let society tell you that your only choices are between college and destitution. That is simply not true, and if they want you to go to college that badly, you should demand that they make it a better value.

[Companion article here]

© 2013 Best of Cain. All Rights Reserved.
About Best of Cain

Monday, December 23, 2013

Why Should We Hire You?

Liz Ryan
CEO and Founder, Human Workplace

Answering the Question "Why Should We Hire You?"
June 17, 2013

There are job interview questions that strike terror into the hearts of job-seekers, and then there are interview questions that are merely depressing.

Certain interview questions are depressing because they cause a job-seeker to ask himself "The person could have constructed any number of thoughtful and provocative questions, and all s/he could come up with was this lame-ass leftover from 1963?"

There are interview questions that convey so loudly "The person who is interviewing you today has neither intellectual curiosity nor spark" that a switched-on job seeker, having heard the question, may not even want the job anymore.

One of those done-to-death and pointless interview questions is the one that goes "With all the talented candidates around, why should we hire you?" It's a horrible question, because well-brought-up people don't praise themselves, and well-brought-up people don't ask or expect other people to praise themselves, either.

Now, we're not castigating everybody who still asks this question, because some companies require it. That's not anything they should be proud of, but old traditions die hard. For some reason, the business world, which should be all about innovation and speed and experimentation, tends to develop a protocol once (a set of interview questions, for instance) and stick with it way past the point of usefulness.

We can do so much better, so easily! Why not ask an interview question like "From what you've learned about our business so far, what do you think we should be focusing our energy on, more than we are?" That question requires a job-seeker to rise up and see the business from altitude, and to show his or her brain working. We need to ask more eyes-open questions like this, and fewer boilerplate questions borrowed from the Mad Men era.

If we can step out of the frame that has deluded us for years into thinking "The employer is mighty, and I, a poor ordinary job-seeker, am an ant" then we can answer the interview question "Why should we hire you?" as a human being rather than as a servile drone.

Here's how.

MANAGER: So, that's interesting, you went directly from the Navy Seals into the Rockettes chorus line. Good, good. Apart from your Grammy and the climbing Mount Everest thing, is there anything else you want to tell me about your background?

JOB-SEEKER: Not really - I'm interested in what you guys are doing, here at Acme Explosvies. I have a lot of questions to ask you at the proper time about the business, and about your marketing plans specifically.

MANAGER: Sure, we'll get to that. But let me ask you - with so many talented people on the job market, why should we hire you?

JOB-SEEKER: (Oh God, no - really? Oh well.) That's a great question. I'm glad you brought it up. That is a big decision that you are going to make, and my take is that I don't envy you that decision process, and I'm not sure you should hire me.

MANAGER: Why not?

JOB-SEEKER: You know the company, and you know the role. You know yourself and your management style. I know me, but you know almost everything about what's needed here given what you're facing in the marketplace. And most importantly, you've met all the candidates for the job. I've only met me. So I don't know that you should hire me, but I know one thing.

MANAGER: What's that?

JOB-SEEKER: I know that when I find the job that is right for me and vice versa, I'll know it, and my hiring manager will know it, and everything will work out just the way it should. That could be this job, or it could be a different one. I have total confidence in me, you and the universe to get the right answer.

You don't have to grovel on a job interview, ever. You don't have to be evasive. You can say flat out, "I don't know that you should hire me - there may be someone in your interview roster who's a better fit for the job."

You can tell the truth, politely and forthrightly, on a job interview, and I hope that you will start to do that. Using our alternative answer to a job interview question that should have been retired long ago is one way to start reclaiming your power.

The more your mojo grows on your job search, the more appealing you will be to employers -- the ones who get you and therefore deserve you, which is to say the only employers we care about -- and the more you'll appreciate what you bring to the conversation. If you're going to get all dressed up, go on a job interview and spend time with people you don't know who also aren't paying you, don't you at least deserve to show up at the interview as yourself?

(Photo credit: StockLite / Shutterstock.com)

Want to see this interview answer demonstrated? Watch Liz Ryan on Fox Business answering this interview question. Connect to Liz (liz@humanworkplace.com) on LinkedIn and if you do, send her a joke in the invitation! Join Human Workplace here. Join our LinkedIn Group, too! Twitter: @humanworkplace

COMMENTS:

Like

+ 1,112
Newest
Oldest
Popular
Add a comment437 comments

Lowell Nerenberg
Executive leadership coach, mentor and speaker. Former Inc. 500 company founder, CEO & entrepreneurWhile I didn’t read more than a few of the332 comments posted to date, I must risk being impolite and disagree with all the positive comments I read. I do not see any value in this blog post. Judging that the company and the job will probably be terrible because in your opinion the interviewer was a bad hire and asked a tired, outdated question is not wise and not relevant. Even if you get hired, it may be the last time you will ever see this interviewer anyway, and the advice here is to judge the company and the job based on the interviewer falling short of an expert’s expectations? Really? Grow up, job-seeker, and play the hand you are dealt. When you do get a job, you will find out you do not always work with good hires. Now for the “horrible” question: “…why should we hire you?” I may be rather simple, but I would love to hear every candidate’s response to that question. Stated another way the question essentially asks, “Based on what you understand this job requires, what is it about you that qualifies you for this job?” Do you also expect the interviewer to help with such clarifying hints as, “what is it about your personality, experience, skills, talents, history, intentions, habits, behavior, attitude, connections, and aspirations?” Not challenging a job-seeker to explain why they believe they are a good match for the job they are seeking? C’mon. One more not-nice comment and then I must leave you. “…well-brought-up people don’t praise themselves, and well-brought-up people don't ask or expect other people to praise themselves, either.” Who said that, Emily Post? If asked the question, “What are you good at?” a candidate who followed that advice might respond, “Aw, shucks, I don’t like to brag.”

Like(30)
Reply(1)6 months ago
Stephanie Jou, Ali Monge, Linda Horney, +27
1 Reply

Marianna Zelichenko
Connecting people and creating solutions.While I partially agree with what you say, I do feel you're putting companies in a way too powerful position. If - as job seeker - you can afford it, sure - answer the question if you must. But don't forget to ask some in return. You're not pleading for them to hire you, you're - hopefully - a great candidate and they should be happy as well that the company and you are a good fit.So sure, tell them why you think you are a good fit with what they want, but don't forget to ask them why they are a good fit with what yóú want. And don't settle for general stuff like "competitive sallary" and "growth opportunities". Be specific and expect the same in return. I do disagree completely that judging a company by the interviewer is wrong. It is the one business card they show. If they choose a bad one, that says a lot about the company.

Like(2)6 hours ago
Zirthang Lian Bawm and Alexandra Fedorova

Olivier Salmon
Technical Account Manager at Lithium TechnologiesI suppose you should say "Because I'm worth it" if it's a L'Oreal interview !!!

Like(23)
Reply6 months ago
Nick Antonopoulos, Stephanie Jou, Iftekhar Akoob, +20

John Koudela III
Offering research services for electronic design, compliance, patent decisions and breachesOh so diplomatic. I'll make this simple....'hire me because of the mix of talent I have that will blossom as I adapt it to your needs as they come up. I've looked at your products and services, studied your management and investor boards, read through your press releases....However, might we talk about a specific need you have in sight right now....I can focus best on specifics rather than such a broad and general reasoning that you might find of value. At least this way you might get the answers you need and can apply right away rather than waiting to see what can happen later.' - and then leave it at that. The employer has run through your app materials, resume, done their online checks. They already are partially convinced to bring you on board. The interview is the time to focus on specific needs of the company with a perspective of day to day work rather than what you'll turn into over the course of your first year.

Like(19)
Reply6 months ago
Angela Cucuietu, Angeline Hopkins, Leo Duren, +16

Lewis Lin ✈
Product management leader with 13+ years in tech industry | Google, Microsoft | MBA, Kellogg | BS Comp Sci, StanfordI like what Liz Ryan is saying about not groveling at the interview. It's a conversation. You need to be YOU, not a reactive question answerer on the other side of the table. However, I don't think interview candidates are well-served to give evasive answers to an interviewer's questions. Sometimes the interviewer is really wondering, "Why should I hire you?" And the reason they ask is because the job candidate has done a poor job articulating what they can bring to the table and how they're different from other candidates. It's very possible that the interviewer at that point could have written you off, but decided to give the job seeker one more chance to save him or herself. What Liz suggests is a high risk manuever. By not answering the question directly, it could take the candidate's job prospects from slim to none.

Like(10)
Reply5 months ago
Tracye Dee, Linda Horney, Nancy P. Suárez, PHR, +7

Michael Valentino
Recruiter at People ScienceI think people read too much into "Why should I hire you?" It doesn't necessarily mean, "can you do the job for me?' The question asks the candidate, have you done your homework on the position and company? are you prepared? do you know the key elements/skills that are necessary to perform the responsibilities? Are you giving me rehearsed answers or genuine ones? Its a loaded question. It allows the interviewer to determine all of these, while allowing the candidate to self reflect. I don't see it as a bad question at all.

Like(15)
Reply6 months ago
Zirthang Lian Bawm, Avinash Kumar, Nancy R., +12

Michael Rana II
A/V Technician I at Quinsigamond Community CollegeHere's an interesting answer to "why should we hire you"? (It's probably not PC) "Allow me to answer that by asking a question: Out of your potential candidate pool, why did you choose to interview me?"

Like(26)
Reply6 months ago
Nick Antonopoulos, Robert J Sanders, Zirthang Lian Bawm, +23

Dennis Collins
Sales Health, Life, LTC, Medicare, Retirement at Insphere Insurance SolutionsLiz, no offense...this was not one of your best articles or responses. The whole process is designed to determine if two people (or more) who probably have never met before, determine if the "chemistry" between them is going to work. "Why should I hire you?" generally is a question asked after conversation regarding the job interview starts to wind down, approaching that make it or break it point of the interview. The question is designed not so much for a "bragging session", but rather an opportunity to elicit a spontaneous response from the applicant to determine their thoughts about what they have to offer. The applicant should take a moment to think clearly and summarize his/her ability to satisfy the requirements pertaining to the job. The whole process is to determine a good fit for both sides, neither party wants someone who is not going to fit in with company or department's "chemistry". Before any interview, do your research. Try to understand what the interviewer is looking for in you as a candidate: be honest, thoughtful, think before you speak, leave your "attitude" outside and concentrate on responding on how you can help the company succeed. After all, remember it is not about you! It is about "them" and what you can do to help "them" achieve what "they" are looking for to fill the "position" you are there for!

Like(21)
Reply(1)6 months ago
Susan Sierra, PHR, Kimberley Salter, Trea Pepmiller, +18
1 Reply

Angeline Hopkins
Labor Relations & Human Resources Graduate Student at Cleveland State University; IT Business Solutions at Tri-CI agree with the majority of your comment, but I believe an interview is not about "me" or "them", it is about "us". Do my skills and experience mesh well with the needs of the employer? Is the employer offering me an environment that is positive and challenging? In order to ensure that an organization receives maximum productivity and engagement from employees it has to have something to offer as well. A working relationship is exactly that - a relationship - where both sides bring something to the table and work together to create something larger (and hopefully greater) than themselves.

Like(1)25 days ago
Desi Cholakova

Pablo Yoachin
Director│Apparel Manufacturing Operations│Global Production Sourcing│Product Development│Garment Costing│Compliance│QA/QThis has been the most misleading Q&A article I have ever read. Follow it and you will unemployed for quite long.

Like(7)
Reply4 months ago
Desi Cholakova, Kimberley Salter, Hanna DeBruhl, +4

Anna Bobrovskaya
Specialist in HR International dept at IBM SpainAn interesting article with a fresh approach... but I think this honest and direct approach will work only in specific situations, when the interviewer has originality or honesty as their personal, not business priorities. This is good to be humble and well-educated, but we are living in the era of high competition where you should be able to promote and sell yourself. So the answer like "I know myself so you have to decide yourself" will not work in many circumstances, when you have a crowd of candidates willing to show their merits and rewards. Unless we are not speaking about some executive, exclusive positions.

Like(10)
Reply6 months ago
Ruchika Ruchika19840, Samuel Mburu, Kimberley Salter, +7

Syed Ali Mehdi
TeachingAnswer should be like that cause I do have experience ,education and cause I am quick learner to understand any problem and always tries to get the solution for it and I always tries to be creative where I am working and handle your company's problems from your & your customers prospective that's why should hire me.

Like(5)
Reply6 months ago
Tracy Mosher, Ramin Azizi, Joana-Jouri Al-Adhami, +2

Rami Rustom
Consultant • WriterHere's what I'd say. MANAGER: "Sure, we'll get to that. But let me ask you - with so many talented people on the job market, why should we hire you?" ME: "lol, you think there are a lot of talented people on the job market, or are you just testing me? In any case, I disagree. Most people on the job market are not thinkers. They are order-takers. They are 'yes men'."

Like(13)
Reply6 months ago
Rami Rustom, Karen M. Johannessen, Sandya Venugopal, MD, +10

Darlene Dunbar
Student at Kaplan University-AAS Health Information TechnologyI see the question "why should we hire you" more as a way to measure one's self esteem. Wouldn't it be better to answer more along this line,"I could answer that with the same cookie cutter answer that I presume most other candidates will use. But may I ask you a question first? Why would you hire anyone who answers that question with the same, "thinking within the box" kind of answer? As for me I should think you would hire me not only because I am a good fit for this position but because I will bring a different way of thinking to the table. I have the qualifications, education and skill of everyone else but more than that I am not afraid to be known as one who sees things from a slightly different perspective. I can bring fresh new ways of approaching old ideas setting myself and my employer ahead of the competition."

Like(17)
Reply6 months ago
Priya Nair, Karen M. Johannessen, Victoria A Lamb, MSHA, +14

Soemaya Worsdorfer
Catering/Gourmet /SpicesI absolutely loved this post, thank you for posting it Liz. This is the most dreaded question and a few others similiar to the famous 'Why should we hire you' Your honest replies reminded me of a job interview after being unemplyed for nearly two years. She asked me where I saw myself in the next five years within the organisation. I froze , I knew I had to give an intellegent answer, I wanted to burst into tears, beg her to refrain the question and just allow me to walk out with a touch of dignity. She waited, this was my answer. I have absolutely no idea.I cannot even think five years from now, Ive been unemployed for over a year which felt like 10 years. SO! what I see and wish for is a job NOW! I dont know the company, I DONT KNOW HOW GOOD I WILL BE in this position and if i would be here long enough to make it five years. Five years seems as long as the past year unemplyed, broke, scared, feeling worthless. and a reject in society. I can tell you what I see happening at the end of THIS MONTH. I could get THIS job not because im the best or even experienced, but im hard working, honest and a fast learner. I will then hold a pay slip at the end of this month and stock up my kitchen with food, take my kids to the movies and even throw in a pizza. I know im not giving you what you want right now. But I honestly cannot otherwise answer your question. Hire me and ask me that question in six months.But I can say this I know you will not regret it because right now i have nothing more to loose. I started the very next day. I stayed with the company 6 1/2 years. The Lady that interviewed me was my boss and we had a wonderful work and personal relationship. Today 4 years later she is my close and dear friend.

Like(28)
Reply6 months ago
Priya Nair, Mary Jane Lanning, Victoria A Lamb, MSHA, +25

Tracy Harris, SPHR, MA
Human Resources Generalist at Genesis Healthcare PartnersThank you, I love this article. In a previous interview, I said as much but not as eloquently. My response was more brash, so I can benefit from your suggestions. In this interview they knew my skill set and experience but they continued to point out how important having experience in their particular field was. I finally said, well if that is the most important thing to you, than you should probably hire another applicant with that experience. He laughed and then looked at me incredulously. I just got fed up with them spending the interview telling me over and over why they didn't think I could do the job. I have never been so relieved after 4 interviews with this company, that they did not select me. Your advice will help me in recruiting as well.

Like(3)
Reply4 months ago
Victoria A Lamb, MSHA, Nyota Vargas, and Abigail Ulery

Merja H Lehtinen
Editor/writer, EducatorAny person who is asked that question --lame as it is -- should answer as briefly and honestly as possible: "because one can do the advertised job effectively, meet goals, and bring a positive force to your team" -- or any variation of this in your own words. But more telling is WHO in the 21st Century would ask such a question? It is a thinly-veiled negative and passive-aggressive question bound to engender answers that would turn off the interviewer. In my observations over three decades of hiring people, including irascible reporters who are great writers and researchers, and after being recruited for most if not all my posts, I would say that question is a dead give away for an insular team. Beware a company not focused on external goals but protecting their own paradigm within a "family." If you want that, you better marry the CEO. Smile, shake hands politely, and RUN to apply elsewhere! The power of companies in the 21st Century is in each of its employees who bring imagination, daring, and commitment to achieving goals while they get along with all who they meet on a professional level -- which means fairly superficial. It is the power of "one." And employers/ interviewers should be seeking what makes you special to them by reviewing your track record and asking pertinent questions to their challenges not silly ones.

Like(4)
Reply6 months ago
Vittorio Velasquez, Karen M. Johannessen, Victoria A Lamb, MSHA, +1

Sandeep Kumar Raju
Hardware & Networking Engineer at Yonearth Interactive Communications Technology (I) Pvt. LtdMy answer would be : I should be hired by the company because I will bring my experience and knowledge which will prove beneficial for the company.My presence will guarantee fresh ideas to the company which is positive in the long run.

Like(9)
Reply6 months ago
Avinash Kumar, Joana-Jouri Al-Adhami, P Asmita, +6

Deepak Bhootra (Dr) 2nd
LinkedIn one click connect [http://bit.ly/invitedeepakbhootra] Blog [http://deepakbhootra.blogspot.com]Excellent article...I like the sript and flow shown here. I had written about a different question that I saw interviewees struggling with --> "How would you describe yourself". http://deepakbhootra.blogspot.in/2013/02/how-would-you-describe-yourself.html

Like(2)
Reply6 months ago
Joana-Jouri Al-Adhami and P Asmita

Amit Dasgupta, PMP, ITIL
GIS Project Manager at EGIS-GEOPLAN PVT LTDIn one of the job interviews that we took to fill up the position of a senior manager the response to this question is as follows: "With my years of experience in the geospatial and IT industry, I have a distinct advantage over others in terms of adding value to the company. With my work experience background in Technical Marketing, I have the necessary experience in not only responding to RFP/RFQs, but I have been successful in winning high value bids. While Service Delivery experience is mainly in the domestic market, I will be able to bring best practices and lessons learned and implement them in the international scenario, where giving value to the customer determines customer satisfaction and more business. Similarly, there are other aspects of my work experience that I bring to the table that will not only help me discharge my job responsibilities optimally, but is also the reason that I should be the best candidate to be hired by your company." Suffice to say, we did hire him. Our take on this was, he answered honestly a very difficult question. Glad we did.

Like(4)
Reply6 months ago
Yolanda De Santiago, Catherine Malli-Dawson, Tiffany Whitelow, +1

Rajeev Rawat
Consultant, SpeakerOne right answer: I have acquired skills, knowledge, credentials, and experience to solve the typical challenges for this position. Respected professionals, who are my mentors, can attest to my passion for this work and my willingness to learn. I would like to explore how to participate and contribute. {Above all, be confident. If you are the right guy/gal (can be trusted to deliver results), the employer needs you more. If this is not a good fit, you don't want to invest your time, devalue your work, or restrain passion}

Like(12)
Reply6 months ago
Joana-Jouri Al-Adhami, P Asmita, Vinay Acharya, +9

Om Zho
Executive Creative Director - Greater China at BBDO Proximity ChinaI respectfully disagree with wishy-washing your way out of this question. Typically under any type of a question in an interview, one should feel confident and is sure that they are applying for the right job thus yielding an insightful view into that persons character. If a simple question such as "Why Should We Hire You?" can offend and knock you off your feet, I wonder how many other question this person has bombed before it? I understand this article may have the intentions to be "power-shifting, confidence building" for job-seekers but sees no gain as it will come off as offensive and people will lose opportunities for themselves. Trying to defend when there is no reason to defend serves no one good especially the jobseekers.

Like(5)
Reply6 months ago
Susan McTaggart, P Asmita, Melissa Trujillo, +2

Show More

Liz's Recent Posts