I just heard about a story that should be filed in the “too strange to be fiction” category of security:

Mr Lyalin, an electrician, had spent the evening drinking with a watchman at his workplace when they got into an argument, Interfax news agency reports.

The morning found him waking up in the watchman’s office but instead of going back to work, he decided to take the bus home.

At home, Mr Lyalin had some sausage from the fridge and lay down to sleep, the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper says.

After a couple of hours, his wife noticed the handle sticking out of his back and called an ambulance.

Viktor Belov, a surgeon who treated him, found a kitchen knife in Mr Lyalin’s back but “by good fortune, it had gone through soft tissue without touching vital organs”.

I don’t know why they have to report on the sausage. Pork or beef? Anyway, here’s the real punchline:

His alleged attacker reported the crime to the police himself, Interfax adds. Mr Lyalin apparently feels fine and bears no ill-will.

“We were drinking and what doesn’t happen when you’re drunk?” he was quoted by Komsomolskaya Pravda as saying.

Just the sort of logic you might want in your watchman and their friends, no? I suppose he’s right; if you are drinking often then everything does in fact happen when you are drunk. At least they both were honest about it. Wonder if the watchman’s log reads something like: “Started drinking heavily in the office, argued with visiting friend, stabbed friend in the back, reported incident to police, went home.”

Several sources are reporting massive issues from the recent email scam. US-CERT even has a warning called “spear phishing attack“. My favorite write up so far has been in The Register. They used the phrase “whaling expedition” to describe events:

About 2,000 executives took the bait on Monday, and an additional 70 have fallen for the latest scam, Richard said. Operating under the assumption that as many as 10 percent of recipients fell for the ruse, he estimated that 21,000 executives may have received the email. Only eight of the top 35 anti-virus products detected the malware on Monday, and on Wednesday, only 11 programs were flagging the new payload, which has been modified to further evade being caught.

Those are staggeringly poor numbers that nicely illustrate the problem with malware detection strategies. User education is the bedrock of security, while technology is usually just a tool. Like using a hammer, if someone suddenly puts screws in front of you and you do not know what defines a nail, and/or you rely on the vendor to figure it out for you…oops, I guess I need a fishing analogy.

The BBC notes that rules of engagement for digital photography still are being ironed out in the UK:

Guidelines agreed between senior police and the media were adopted by all forces in England and Wales last year. They state that police have no power to prevent the media taking photos.

They state that “once images are recorded, [the police] have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if [the police] think they contain damaging or useful evidence.”

And in the case of Phil Smith, an official complaint about the Christmas lights incident helped sort matters out. Not only did he receive a written apology from Suffolk Police, but also a visit from an inspector, who explained that the officer, a special constable, had acted wrongly.

I myself have been stopped and threatened by law enforcement officers (LEO) after taking scenery photos. Most interesting to me in the story above is the revelation that a court order is required to destroy the photos and also that follow-up action was taken by the local police. Did Phil file a formal complaint or are the Suffolk officers working to win public confidence?

Autoweek has reported on a hilarious piece of legislation in the US. Remember defensive driving? No need with this kind of thinking. Turn up the sound and those pesky bipeds had better move it or else…fair warning, right?

Legislation setting a minimum sound level for vehicles sold in the United States by as early as 2010 is expected to be introduced on Wednesday in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill would require the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to lead a study to determine if a minimum sound level is needed to protect pedestrians, specifically the blind. And if such a level is necessary, the bill would set it.

U.S. Reps. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., and Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., are sponsors of the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2008. The proposed legislation stemmed from concern that blind pedestrians may be put in danger because of quiet-running hybrid and electric vehicles.

Every day I wonder to myself who could have let noise pollution get so far out of control. Then I read a story like this and realize that pollution is a problem with more support than opposition in current economic models. No wonder that Beijing is having a hard time reaching promised compliance goals for the Olympics. Just think, cyclists and runners required to emit noises for the safety of the other competitors.

Seriously, though, the government should be working to reduce pollution, not reward it or create some kind of wacky “security” model that makes it seem beneficial. Imagine a street so quiet that you could actually hear the tires quietly rolling…with maximums enforced the minimums become a non-issue.