Cybersecurity every day | Jaya Baloo | TEDxRotterdam

[@CybercrimeMagazine]

LOVE seeing more Women in Cyber!

[@YourTubeVideoss]

Me Too

[@haha-cm6pg]

It is crazy how few views on this awesome video. This should be for everyone.

[@YourTubeVideoss]

Needs To Be Shared On Social Medias To Get The Word / Video Out

[@alessandra6739]

@@YourTubeVideoss po

[@CybercrimeMagazine]

Very true about smart devices. Jaya - come meet us in NY for our Women in Cyber series!

[@leonjones7120]

I get it how important personal security is for our data protection. I have been hacked in 2021. Its a lesson to make my devices as secure as possible.

[@bertmeza8673]

Awesome presentation…no fear mongering but real life explanations and encouragement of what we will do in the future! I’m excited to be entering the cyber field! The new (been) battlefield for a while now needs young minds to ready for combat!

[@hugocruz5451]

Me: I want to study cybersecurity! 'watches this video and has no idea what she is talking about' Me: Never mind.

[@yourfellowhumanbeing2323]

noice

[@CyberBoo]

Si excited to start my journey once I graduate in the spring ✨

[@cmacmenow]

Excellent talk. For All!

[@oo-dd3lk]

Looks like no one is very interested in cyber security, judging by responses to these Ted x cyber security speakers...

[@shabbir901]

By the way, that was not F-16

[@stephanieford8035]

I'm sorry to make this correction this talk was excellent , however, the airplane showed was an F35 Not an F16 :)

[@rajp521]

Great content, thank you.

[@ShatabdaRoy115]

Come here fellow cyber students :)

[@Ivy64_]

Damn it Ricardo

[@YourTubeVideoss]

She Is a Good Speaker ! Sad Security , But Enjoyable To Listen To Her

[@9391862]

Funny, when I was working as an IT engineer, we did big updates a week after the new update went live, why, well, because if that update was fuked up as they sometimes do, we did not fuked up our systems. Was it safe, yes, but was it safe from a security perspective, I guess not. But then again, what are routers are for? :)

[@kthreddy]

@8:38 It's an F-35, not F-16!!!

[@Crifstar]

I hate when they are rolling along seemingly providing a great argument and then something like that

[@saelfaer]

@@Crifstar the point still stands. it could have been a flying vacuum cleaner... the point is, that it can be hacked, controlled, and turned into a deadly weapon which it already was but then in the wrong hands.

[@Dong_Harvey]

@@saelfaer F-35's kinda are just flying vacuum cleaners

[@hul8376]

indeed its a JSF f-35

[@uzumakiberg2334]

We now know what "fun stuff" Ricardo does during his free time.

[@mayzengeni4724]

Awesome 👌

[@Maxiifoojar]

Super cyber security like for me

[@nldc.5464]

8:34 that's most definitely an F-35 and not an F-16

[@IdowuAkinde]

💡

[@salehalsaeedi721]

😍😍😍😍

[@choleedw7469]

We present an Utopia ecosystem that will change the way the World communicates and handles financial transactions.

[@SpotlightNewMedia]

The more security, the less protection, the less freedoms, the more control.

[@saelfaer]

can you elaborate how more security means less protection? how more secure you are, the more you are protected no? I do agree about the decline in freedom and the fact that you lose control but are controlled by other instances due to the security though. Yet i don't get the less protection part

[@arizvisa]

There's another side to this that's worth considering. Security is a good thing, but it's pretty much impossible to measure and impossible to really define...especially from the perspective of a non-resourced individual and especially because it involves the entire software stack..from the bits in an electrical signal, through a browser, up to the user's actual interface and the building they're in. Lots of software gets created/developed due to users needing to automate their jobs and provide a number of other capabilities that may benefit them.. Anyways, it's been debated before that the most effective way to secure something is by reducing its complexity (and more specifically its attack surface) as generally you have to balance the trade-off of "risk" vs "reward" which is easier to benchmark when something has less complexity. This is fine for most software, but if software is opaque there's a huge cost that is incurred in order to verify that something is secure. The skills to do this against opaque software are multi-disciplinary and hence super expensive as it requires people to become hyper-specialized in many aspects/layers of hardware/software. Thus this became a major need in the field and a very separate but desired discipline. Because of the costs of these skillsets, though, we really have no viable way of measuring the security of said software and so we're stuck having to make the assumption that vendors are in actuality "securing things". We "sometimes" get confirmations of these fixes via updates, advisories, press releases, etc... But being notified of updates and such doesn't imply that something is more secure or less secure, but rather it was just what was discovered by someone at that given point in time. Vendors of opaque software have to be continuously vigilant while trying to meet the needs of their customers, and we have to trust them to be so. It the end it becomes really difficult to "secure" things without constraining our software into what we consider trusted or untrusted, and without being verifying these things...in the end it's just really all just an educated guess.

[@suvjeet2614]

Love from india

[@CharlesHWroth]

That was not an F16

[@melvinbartlett6894]

Dont buy iot devices. Do you really need appliances that are Smart?

[@TheRealKilgoreIsHere]

11 October is my birthday

[@s.laurinramli8739]

Free People DEgoogle their phone and use CalyxOS/GrapheneOS instead...

[@Drum8888]

Good info but delivery was a bit patronizing

[@LARKXHIN]

Would you say that about a man's talk? Don't answer that, you'd just say "Yes" to not look sexist.

[@Drum8888]

@@LARKXHIN Oh so the speaker is immune to criticism because she's a woman? Who's the one being sexist?

[@cmacmenow]

I got passion and positivity from the speaker, not patronising. I guess it’s how you frame it.

[@aspirallingmess8319]

I agree.

[@felixjohns4544]

Freedom people use Utopia.

[@InvalidPersistentName]

Scary

[@worldcitizen9518]

I'm more curious about the other earrings..

[@danielsheehy3510]

That's and F-22, not an F-16.

[@kthreddy]

That's an F-35, not an F-22.

[@saelfaer]

@@kthreddy that's a F-actual minor detail which doesn't take away the point that it can be hacked and turned into a deadly weapon-in-wrong-hands