opinion | Security through obscurity: hiding the unpleasant through bad writing

Verbal camouflage.

In his aptly named seminal book, “On Writing Well,” William Zinsser extolls the virtues of simplified, well-crafted prose. He crusades against the cloudy and the obtuse, which is used to both hide inadequacies and inflate the importance of people in power. “Clutter,” he writes, “is the disease of American writing.”

The State of New York might want to see a doctor.

analysis | Why your hull insurance policy doesn’t actually cover main engine breakdown.

Here’s a quick way to tell if you’re part of the maritime industry. Read the below and ask yourself: Does any of it make sense to you?

If you have better luck reading Egyptian hieroglyphs, congratulations. Your sanity is intact, you lead a fulfilling life, and you probably have a full head of hair to boot. If it does make sense, you have my sympathy: you’re one of the poor guys dealing with the wonderful world of maritime claims.

Here’s an excerpt from the TAYLOR form, a standard hull insurance policy.

Try to stay awake.

“This insurance also covers loss of or damage to the vessel named herein directly caused by: Breakdown of motor generators or other electrical machinery and electrical connections thereto, bursting of boilers, breakage of shafts, or any latent defect in the machinery or hull, (excluding the cost and expense of replacing or repairing the defective part);”

Maritime claims handlers will recognize it as “the bit in the policy that provides coverage for breakdown of the main engine.”

But here’s the thing: it doesn’t actually provide coverage for main engine breakdown.

Companies that for years have incorporated the standard TAYLOR 1953 (Rev. 70) into their policies—the boilerplate used by insurance policies around the nation—have been writing policies of hull insurance that may not provide coverage for engine breakdown.

analysis | Stocks fall as oil prices slide amidst investor gloom on China and world economy. Here’s why.

Stock markets around the world have fallen sharply today, after nervous investors triggered a rout following a slide in oil prices and continued contractions in the Chinese economy. The panic was exacerbated by lingering market jitters over a weak start to the new year. The basic explanation is quite simple: oil, China, and fear.

analysis | The Korean Conundrum: why the peninsula remains intractable

It’s a routine that would verge on the comical if so many lives weren’t at stake. North Korea threatens nuclear destruction in the hopes of extracting concessions out of its neighbors, forcing them to ignore, react to, or placate the pariah state. Last Wednesday, North Korea announced it had detonated its first hydrogen bomb in its fourth nuclear test, and while this claim has been disputed by U.S. officials, the blast—whatever it used—was powerful enough to register as a magnitude 5.1 seismic event. But amidst the sorties, calls for sanctions, and saber speaker rattling, the world by and large shrugged its shoulders.

Kim Jong Un might be a lot of things, says the world. But he’s not crazy enough to provoke a war he knows he’ll lose. The theory of Mutually Assured Destruction proves it: two countries find themselves in an intractable situation. Each wants to achieve its desired outcome, but neither country wants to go to war because they have the power to utterly destroy each other. Any other action would leave the countries in a worse state than before. (This is called a Nash equilibrium.) The upshot of all this is that neither side would be incentivized to start a conflict as it would be irrational.

Thing is, MAD rests on a few assumptions: neither party wants to back down, both parties have things to lose, and both parties implicitly wish to survive.

analysis | It's all Greek to me. Capital controls explained

The government of Greece is considering drastic measures such as the use of capital controls to stabilize its economy should the country default on its debts and begin to leave the European Union. As bailout negotiations between Greece and Eurozone leaders continue to stall, financial analysts and experts are considering the once untenable idea of capital controls.

The term saw airplay in headlines as recently as December 2014, when Russia considered (but ultimately did not implement) capital controls after the Russian Rouble tumbled in value, sparking a crisis so large that multinationals like Apple temporarily ceased its sales in the country. Capital controls were used to great effect in Cyprus when it experienced a financial crisis in 2013. Now, capital controls have become a part of the Greek "doomsday" scenario if it were to leave the European Union and its common currency.

analysis | Fool's Gold: Apple Watch Edition is not for sale.

© Apple

Credit where it's due: Apple's announcement of the Watch Edition starting price of $10,000 has stunned the tech world in its sheer audacity. Why charge an obscenely high price when aside from the casing, it's identical to the basic $350 model? No convincing explanation has developed, but that's because people are viewing it wrong.

Watch Edition is not a product, it's a brilliant marketing strategy.

analysis | The brand of your glasses isn’t meant to influence others. It’s meant to influence you.

Try this the next time you’re on a subway, a bus, or any place filled with lots of people. See if you can determine the brand of glasses someone is wearing before they realize you’re staring and start calling for the police.

Notice the brand yet? It shouldn’t take any longer than a couple of seconds to determine: most frames have the brand plastered along the side.

If your face is considered the world’s window to your soul, then glasses are the window frame in this increasingly torturous analogy. Yet in spite of its visibility, most people don’t seem at all bothered about wearing a designer’s logo on the side of their face.

The truly observant (or perhaps the truly obsessive) will notice that while branding becomes very prominent for most midrange glasses, neither economical frames nor expensive frames carry branding along the sides.

In spite of outwards appearances, the purpose of the branding is not to advertise your affinity for the brand to others, but to advertise the glasses to you.

---


A brand at its most basic is a simple way of communicating a complex set of ideas already ingrained in the consumer through extensive marketing.

The brand is a trigger that helps recall the value-added benefits of the company’s marketing message in addition to the immediate utility of the product. Put simply, it reminds you that you’re not just buying a mere cup of coffee, dear consumer, you’re buying the trendy cosmopolitan lifestyle that only the best Arabica, picked by smiling, happy farmers and lovingly batch-roasted by a (possibly bearded) barista named Grant, can provide in a 10% post-consumer recycled cup…whatever that all means.

Conversely, brands help a consumer make a purchase with incomplete information. Rather than needing an intimate knowledge of operating systems, software packages, hardware configurations, and compatibility issues, people buy an Apple computer because the brand is famous for having simple, modern, sophisticated machines with end-to-end support. A brand helps distill what would otherwise be a complex decision into something very simple.

The glasses market is an excellent example of incomplete purchasing information: Even though a pair of glasses will be worn every day from morning to night, often for several years, most people don’t know—and oftentimes don’t need to know—the differences in materials, designs, durability, and workmanship.

---

People that buy glasses largely fall into three categories: utilitarian buyers prioritise cost before all other considerations, midrange buyers balance what they are willing to spend with what they want, and high-end specialty buyers make purchasing decisions on other, often aesthetic, factors.

Most buyers fall into the midrange category: A fresh prescription means new glasses as soon as possible, and the buyer must temper “what looks good” with “what can I afford.” Interestingly, the midrange market demonstrates inelastic demand relative to income, partially due to immediate utility. Translation: a richer customer may not take some time to shop around for the best set of eyeglasses because the customer kind of needs them to see. This presents a conundrum: He must make an immediate, informed decision on a product likely to be kept for several years, but has limited knowledge on what makes a “good” pair of glasses aside from how they look and feel.

The brands themselves, however, are a smokescreen: most glasses sold today are all made by the same gargantuan company. They’re not actually “Prada” glasses, they’re made by Luxottica but licensed to carry the name of Prada. It’s not just for show, though; if everything was sold as “Luxottica,” the differences might be difficult to note, but brands help emphasise these differences and draw subconscious associations with the consumer (remember, it’s not just the product, it’s the lifestyle).

All this changes when considering the utilitarian buyer and the high end buyer. Utilitarian buyers make a decision based purely on cost above all else, and won't respond to a brand. Beyond a consideration of what additional features are needed for purpose, the purchase decision is influenced solely by price. Fashion-centric buyers are likely to shop around before committing to a purchasing decision because their decision is made based on other attributes: the style and quality of the frame, the type and design, the workmanship, the materials, and the durability. Glasses marketed in both categories reflect this: they are not labeled with the brand because they are expected to sell based on other attributes other than the brand. With these consumers, the brand loses its relevance because the purchasing decision is made based on other factors. Both these consumers have the luxury of shopping around, whether the goal is to to save money or to find fashionable frames.

The brand is a particularly powerful form of marketing. It tells the consumer where the product sits in relation to its competitors. It serves as a trigger for the brand’s attributes. It is a way of communicating the added value to the consumer if only you bought this wonderful product. But it is in a relatively homogenized market where consumers have limited knowledge, like that of eyeglasses, where brands are at their most effective. You’re not just buying glasses. You’re buying a new lifestyle.

opinion | Sony cyberattacks unlikely to be work of single agent

A surprising number of people have raised the possibility that the Sony cyberattack is the result of an inside job, in particular that of a single rogue agent. The narrative is that the attack was the work of a disgruntled employee, one with access to critical computer infrastructure throughout Sony. After compromising the system and leaving behind enough red herrings to make North Korea seem culpable, the perpetrator triggered the attack right when North Korean anger against the film would be highest, manipulating all sides against each other.

Already we’re assuming the employee is (1) disgruntled enough to actually launch an attack and (2) has deep access to Sony’s computer infrastructure. Fair enough, but for the narrative to work, the perpetrator must also have (4) intimate knowledge of the studio’s film release plans, (5) keen awareness of the geopolitical tensions surrounding North Korea, and (6) be a smart enough hacker to execute an attack of this scale, cover his own tracks, and leave enough leads for investigators to suspect North Korea.

If the leaps in logic needed to follow this narrative haven’t already caused a minor aneurysm, we must now also assume the perpetrator has crazy good timing and is fearless enough to raise the ire of various government agencies. Throw in an underground lair and we’ve got a cross between a Bond villain and The Joker.

Is it possible that an inside man had a hand in instigating this attack? Absolutely. It seems close to impossible for the perpetrators to carry out such an attack without inside information about which databases to breach and how. But to suggest one man brought a behemoth studio to its knees seems unlikely at best, and to further say that somehow North Korea is entirely exculpated is naive.

Sony cyberattacks: Why Sony may not be able to distribute “The Interview”

Sony has recently been facing calls to release its controversial comedy “The Interview” following a massive cybersecurity breach of its computer systems. It seems that everyone, from technology journalists, business commentators, and even President Obama himself has tried to compel Sony to distribute the film. The clamor has intensified in the wake of Sony’s cancellation of the theatrical release, with some calling for its distribution through nontraditional means such as downloads and streaming services. Pundits argue that by releasing the film, Sony can even claim the moral high ground, defying the perpetrators and taking a clear stand for freedom of expression in film.

While the idea is not without merit, Sony may not even be able to legally release their own film. The hacking group perpetrating the attack, Guardians of Peace, have made it very clear that any distribution of the film would invite an attack. If Sony were to release or otherwise distribute the film, resulting in any kind of attack against viewers, Sony could be held legally liable for negligence in failing to take precautions against a foreseeable circumstance. Potentially, Sony’s insurers could discharge their obligation to defend against any resultant legal action, and Sony would be left dealing with any lawsuits on its own.

The legal concept can be distilled quite simply: When a bomb threat is made against a school, the credibility of the threat is irrelevant; the school is locked down and searched until it is deemed safe. If the school were crazy enough to carry on as usual and an attack were to occur, the school would be held responsible for not taking precautions.

The threats against Sony may not be empty, either. This is not some random 14-year-old girl making threats on Twitter. The perpetrators have already brought Sony’s computer infrastructure to its knees, and while the threat is decidedly outlandish, there is the slight chance that the hackers could follow through. All it takes is a single attack, however minor, for the perpetrators to fulfill their end of the threat.

Make no mistake, the film has instantly earned cult status for triggering a devastating cyberattack against a large multinational before it was even released. That makes it worth watching not necessarily because the film will be “The Great Dictator” of our generation, but because like many others, I am desperately curious to see if it really was worth the concerted effort needed to launch the cyberattack. (Whether the attack on Sony is merely a “test launch” of North Korea’s cyberwarfare capabilities is another issue altogether.)

I would love to be proven wrong and have the film see widespread release. But Sony is faced with an uncomfortable decision. They may not legally be able to distribute the film even if they wanted to. The leak of unvarnished, sometimes bitingly candid emails has robbed Sony of any pretense of privacy. But by being forthcoming with the circumstances, revealing why they chose not to release the film and how they are dealing with the crisis, Sony can counter any misinformation before it becomes gospel—for instance, allegations of being submissive to the attackers.

After all, with the amount of information already released, they have very little to lose.