icelandic lake

As the jokes about global warming go, since humans like warm weather, what’s so bad about a little melting permafrost and new beachfront properties after the seas rise? Well, aside from the aftermath of ocean acidification and its impact on marine life we eat, as well as the rising costs of adapting to the swelling tides, and replacing the infrastructure that will be damaged by thaws in the previously solid permafrost layers, there’s also the threat of disease. And not just any old chest cold or flu we’re used to, but viruses tens of thousands of years old which were menacing our cave-dwelling ancestors before ending up in suspended animation. While so far only mild or benign viruses have been found in permafrost samples, the researchers are worried that there are good reasons to suspect various strains of plague or even smallpox are hiding under snow and ice, and will thaw back to life to infect a population which considers them long gone, with a bare minimum of natural immunity to their full ravages, and plenty of perfectly viable hosts.

Now, I know, this sounds like the opening act of a low budget sci-fi movie where some terrifying ancient virus shown in the prologue as annihilating an entire civilization, Atlantis perhaps, thaws as permafrost since the last Ice Age is disturbed by a construction crew with dire consequences and it’s up to an aspiring underwear model of a scientist called by a chiseled president who may be the scientist’s old friend to hunt down the anti-body producing McGuffin in some exotic parts of the world which fails to work, and then improvise a cure at the last possible minute as his kid or love interest is about to die of the disease. If you’re reading this post from a Hollywood studio office, drop me a line, let’s do lunch. But I digress. As unlikely as this scenario is, the odds of an old human-infecting bugaboo for which we may not have effective medication on hand stirred to life as the world warms is not zero, and we may want to start looking back into the viruses’ past to identify and design possible treatments ahead of time. If we don’t, millions might suffer.

Just consider what would happen should an ancient strain of smallpox return. Before worldwide vaccination campaigns, it was the greatest killer of our humble little species for 10,000 years, a culprit behind a third of all blindness, the main contributor to child mortality, and while we fought it off over the last century, it still managed to kill as many as 300 million of us. Before vaccines, the virus traveled across the Atlantic with Europeans, wiping out 90% of Native Americans while the first New World colonies were being established. Today we do have antiviral treatments we think should be able to subdue advanced cases, and post-infection vaccinations would help the patients recover, but this assumes that we’d be fighting the product of trillions of generations of coexistence with humans. A thawed strain could be so radically different by comparison, it may as well be from another planet, which could make it benign to us, or even deadlier. And as we’ll continue warming the planet with wild abandon, we might live to experience this in real life…

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on StumbleUpon

running from monster

Much like the dudebro after getting turned down by a woman at a party immediately strides to a new target until he finally finds someone willing to entertain him, and should he strike out every time, he’ll start blaming women’s studies classes for his failures, the online ad industry has tried railing against ad blockers which have taken click-through rates to abysmal new lows. But there is a good reason why they’ve become so popular. For one, much like a prototypical ladies’ man playing the numbers game, online advertisers have over-saturated sites so much so, that many web surfers find sites loading much slower and harder to navigate. Stuffing ads into every pixel, modal, and lined up for accidental clicks have made the web a worse place and actually trained web surfers to immediately avoid them. But online ads have become an annoying waste of not just time and bandwidth, they’ve mutated into a way for hackers to infest your computers.

An in-depth story from the UK tech tabloid explains something that security experts have seen a lot in recent years, using interactive ads to load malware onto computers. The idea is usually to load an object that can run a program into your browser’s sandbox, then use an exploit to break out into the system itself, establish a connection to a command and control server, and load the malicious files. And because so many interactive ads are so poorly programmed and bloated in the first place, and the industry is desperate for volume to make up for the microscopic margins, there are no security or quality audits of what gets displayed to you when you visit a page. With no such audit system in sight, your best bet to avoid being infected is to download and enable a decent ad blocker. Which just goes to show that online advertising has taken abject failures to a whole new level when its services aren’t simply ignored, but have to be actively avoided…

[ illustration by Vitaly Alexius ]

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on StumbleUpon

broken causality

Countless poems, essays, and novels have ruminated on the inexorable forward march of time, how it slowly but surely grinds even the mightiest empires to dust and has an equal fate in store for the wealthiest of the wealthy and the poorest of the poor. But that only seems to apply if you are larger than a subatomic particle. If you’re an electron or a photon, time seems to be a very fungible thing that doesn’t always flow as one would expect and regularly ignores a pillar of the fabric of space and time: the fundamental limits imposed on the exchange of information by the speed of light. But some scientists were hoping they could bring the quantum world to heel with better designed experiments, arguing that because we have not observed single photons in an entangled system changing state faster than the speed of light would allow, calculating a cloud of them with advanced statistical methods, perhaps the noise drowned out the signals.

Well, Dutch scientists with the help of several colleagues in France decided to try test quantum entanglement using stable, heavy electrons entangled with photons so they could observe how the systems changed on stable particles, without worrying about decoherence. After managing to successfully entangle the system 245 times they collected enough data to plug into a formula known as Bell’s inequality, designed to determine if there are hidden variables in an experiment involving quantum systems. The result? No hidden variables could have been present while the spooky action of instantly changing quantum systems was reliably observed every time. It’s one of the most thorough and complete tests of quantum causality ever undertaken, and there have been a few murmurings of a potential Nobel Prize for the work. However, the paper is still under peer review and with the widespread attention to it, is bound to be scrutinized for flaws.

What does this mean for us? Well, it shows that we’re right about weird physics on a subatomic level happening exactly as counter-intuitively and inexplicably as we thought. But it also tells us that we can’t narrow down a simple conclusion and hints that some of the laws of physics might be scale variant, i.e. different depending on the size and scope of the objects they affect, and a scale-variant universe is going to make coming up with a unified theory of everything way more difficult than it already is because we now need to understand why it works that way. But again, this is science at its finest. We’re not trying to come up with one definitive answer to everything just by running enough experiments or watching the world around us for a long time, we’re just trying to expand how much we know to expand out horizons, finding answers and raising new questions which may be answered centuries down the road. Sometimes just knowing what you don’t know can be a big step forward because you now at least know where to start looking for an answer to a particularly nagging or difficult problem and where you will hit a dead end.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on StumbleUpon


Imagine a problem with seemingly countless solutions, a paradox that’s paradoxically solved by completely unrelated mechanisms some of which violate the rules of physics as we know them, while others raise more questions than they provide answers. That paradox is what happens to an object unfortunate enough to fall into a black hole. Last time we talked about this puzzle, we reviewed why the very concept of something falling into a black hole is an insanely complicated problem which plays havoc with what we think we know about quantum mechanics. Currently, a leading theory posits that tiny wormholes allow for the scrambled particles of the doomed object to maintain some sort of presence in this universe without violating the laws of physics. But not content with someone else theories, and knowing full well that his last finding about black holes made them necessary in the first place, as explained by the linked post, Stephen Hawking now claims to have found a new solution to the paradox and will be publishing a paper shortly.

While we don’t know the exact wording of the paper, we know enough about his solution to say that he has not really found a satisfactory answer to the paradox. Why? His answer rests on an extremely hard to test notion that objects falling to a black hole are smeared across the edge of the event horizon and emit just enough photons for us to reconstruct holographic projections of what it once was. Unfortunately, it would be more scrambled than the Playboy channel on really old TVs, so anyone trying to figure out what the object was probably won’t be able to do it. But it will be something as least, which is all that thermodynamics needs to balance out the equations and make it seem that the paradox has been solved. Except it really hasn’t because we haven’t the slightest idea of how to test this hypothesis. It still violates monogamous entanglement, and because the photons we’re supposed to see are meant to be scrambled into unidentifiable flash of high speed, high energy particles, good luck proving the original source of the information.

Unless we physically travel to a black hole and dropping a powerful probe into it, we would only have guesses and complex equations we couldn’t rule out with practical observations. Sadly, a probe launched today would take 55.3 million years to get to the nearest one, which means any practical experiments are absolutely out of the question. Creating micro black holes as both an experiment for laboratory study and a potential relativistic power source, would take energy we can’t really generate right now, rendering experiments in controlled conditions impossible for a long time. And that means we’re very unlikely to be closer to solving the black hole information paradox for the foreseeable future unless by some lucky coincidence we’ll see something out in deep space able to shed light on the fate of whatever falls into a black hole’s physics-shattering maw, regardless of what the papers tell you or the stature of the scientist making the claim…

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on StumbleUpon


Just like the most common advice to men and women is not to sleep with crazy, when Chipotle decided to pander to the anti-GMO crowd, the left’s version of ardent climate change denialists who don’t even want to let scientists conduct safety studies on modified crops, much less admit that they’re safe, someone should’ve told the company not to pander to anti-GMO hysterics. It was clearly a move to keep cash flowing from a younger, lefty demographic, and while the junk science in press releases and store signs proclaimed the chain GMO-free, the reality was that much of the feed used to raise the animals which would be used to make supposedly pure and natural tacos and burritos, was actually heavily genetically modified. Thanks to that technicality, there is now a high profile lawsuit accusing Chipotle of false advertising. While their food is not genetically modified, just as claimed, the ingredients that once used to move and make noises ate feed that was, therefore, the chain is still tainted and consumers who were told otherwise in the chains G-M-Over It ads were misled and falsely trusted the company with their health.

Much in the same way devout kosher Jews wouldn’t want to use a dairy spoon to eat beef stew, the people slavishly devoted to track all the world’s ills to GMOs and Monsanto, are not going to be happy that something modified in a lab may have come in contact with what’s on their plates and the chain is going to have to double down on its claims to keep their new customers. But to fight off the suit, they’re actually using real science, stating that eating something modified does not mean your genes will be modified in turn, and any claim otherwise is nonsense. And that’s a true statement. But then why exactly should GMOs be off the menu? What exact danger does a meal genetically modified pose to diners who won’t be absorbing its DNA, and which had to run through a gamut of tests to rule out any of the several million proteins identified as allergens or possible toxins? Oh, right, the danger of the scientifically ignorant told by businesses hawking a lot of overpriced “natural” and “organic” stuff running out the door in fear of GMO cooties.

Don’t feel bad for Chipotle because it’s getting its proper comeuppance for marketing to a vocal and dogmatic ideology after smelling easy money. Nothing a national chain that’s trying to feed millions of people a day does will ever be pure enough for paranoid zealots and to keep up this facade will only lose them time and money over the long term. They can expect more nuisance suits like this, high profile coverage of these suits, and many more laughing pundits like me who won’t hesitate to point out that they brought it on themselves. Gordon Gecko was right to a very certain extent when he proclaimed that greed is good in the world of business. But there’s a big and important corollary to that. Clever, calculated greed which seeks out new markets where to sell needed, wanted, and useful products is terrific. Knee-jerk, follow-the-crowd money grabs in a demographic better known for histrionics, hyperbole, and over-sized wallets is usually bond to backfire the second you fail to be as fanatical and dogmatic as them, which is not a matter of if, but when. You’ll get boycotted, and your greedy ways will yield the media a lot of mileage…

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on StumbleUpon

human heart

When it comes to preserving donated organs for transplantation, the last several decades gave doctors only one choice to keep them alive long enough to be useful. Chilled and transported to the recipients as quickly as possible to avoid spoilage. But a new generation of technology built with a much better understanding of organ structure and function is giving us a new option. Say goodbye to coolers and hello to sterile biospheres where organs are kept warm, fed, and with a private circulatory system until they’re ready to be transplanted. All of the surgeries done using warm, functioning organs have been a successes thus far, and the companies who make these organ-preserving devices are already eyeing improvements in sustaining organs using nutrient and temperature settings the donor organs need for their unique conditions, sizes, and shapes, instead of a general treatment for their organ type. Think of it as the donated organ getting first class transportation to its new home. But that’s making some people feel a bit uneasy…

According to reactions covered by MIT’s Technology Review, and repeated elsewhere, organs being restored to full function may be blurring the line between life and death, and not waiting a proper period of time means that instead of donating organs of a deceased patient, doctors are actually killing someone by harvesting his or her organs so others can live. In some respect, we do expect that sort of triage in hospital settings because after all, there’s only so much even the best medical techniques and devices can do to help patients and if doctors know that all efforts will be in vain, it only makes sense to save time, money, and resources, and give others a shot with the organs they need, something always in short supply. Wait too long to harvest the heart, liver, and kidneys, and they’ll start to die putting the would-be recipient at risk of life-threatening complications or outright transplant failure. However, if you don’t wait long enough, are you just helping death do its job and killing a doomed patient while her family watches? The fuzzier and fuzzier lines between life and death make this a very complicated legal and ethical matter.

But even considering this complex matter, the objections against refined organ harvesting miss something very important. Doctors are not taking patients who can make a full recovery into the operating room, extracting vital organs, putting them in these bio-domes, and sending them out to people in need of a transplant. These organs come from those who are dead or would die as soon as the life support systems are shut off with no possibility of recovery. Revive hearts which stopped after a patient died of circulatory disease and the patient will die again. Support organs inside the body of someone who is brain dead, or so severely brain damaged that recovery just can’t happen, and all you’re doing is extending the inevitable. It takes a lot more than a beating heart or working liver to actually live and these new preservation devices are not giving doctors an incentive to let someone die, much less speed up a patient’s death. They’re giving us a very necessary bridge towards the artificial or stem-cell grown organs we are still trying to create as thousands die of organ failure we can fix if only we could get them the organs they need…

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on StumbleUpon

death with rose

Starting a skeptical blog is exactly like starting any other blog. No committee requests to review your posts and approve the skeptical label, no regular audits of your content are held by JREF, or any other skeptical group, and the only third party classification of skepticism you’ll get would come from DMOZ, which would select a category to post a link to your blog so web crawlers for major search engines can quickly and easily index it. But at the same time, when you find blogs that use the s-word in their titles and tags, there’s a certain kind of content you expect from the posts and podcasts. You’ll be looking for references to scientific works, critical take on personal testimony and anecdotal evidence, and a distinct lack of conspiracy theories. Just imagine your surprise when a blog called Skeptico rushes to defend a doctor who claimed to have proof of a picturesque afterlife after a bout with meningitus from the “liberal atheist media” following a less than flattering expose of him and his troubled background in Esquire. Seems odd, right?

Yes, to be fair, the article seemed very clear about where it was going even before it started to officially challenge Dr. Eben Alexander’s story, which while very typical among those who went through near death experiences, was very much the kind of agenda-first journalism I decried a few weeks ago. But that said, while the Tinder story blatantly ignored science that sabotaged a point it wanted to make and its writer employed all manner of semantic games to wave it away, the tale about Alexander is unflattering, but factual. He had the training and skills to be a really great surgeon, but he made mistakes and tried to cover his tracks when caught by patients who were harmed by his inattention to detail. It’s very unlikely, at least to me, that he spun his tale of seeing the afterlife out of whole cloth, but it does seem likely he fine-tuned it to make sure it will fly off the shelves and get him maximum exposure. These are not tricks unknown to the market for books and public appearances by those claiming firsthand accounts of the afterlife.

And if we turn to Skeptico for a look under the name, we’ll find not so much a skeptical blog that looks into near death experiences as much as we will ardent supporters of these stories whose goal isn’t so much to find a scientific explanation for visions during NDEs, but to come up with a scientific word salad to support the idea of the afterlife. They are not skeptics but believers with an axe to grind against atheists and skeptical scientists and their entire proof of malfeasance in the story ran by Esquire is a conspiracy theory that the writer is carrying out orders from a dark cabal of atheists, liberals, and doctors threatened by Alexander’s story and desperate to take an accomplished neurosurgeon down a few notches. Throughout the transcript we never do learn exactly what was being lied about or evidence that quotes were being misappropriated, we are simply assured that it happened because, well, Mrs. Alexander says so. And if you keep looking around the site, you’ll find a dozen more hypercritical posts about Dr. Alexander’s skeptics.

Look, I get it. Airtight evidence of an afterlife, even a religiously ambiguous one, would make all the injustices, problems, and suffering of our existence much easier to bear. Knowing that your death would reunite you with lost loved ones and favorite pets would make a terminal diagnosis feel like a bit less of a burden. Humans, understanding their own mortality, have been picturing some sort of life after death since the first shamans and cave paintings, desperately hoping that this is not all there is to existence. But the fact of the matter is that we don’t have NDEs that are so thoroughly researched and inexplicable that we can cite them in peer reviewed literature and replicate them. If we did, religious snake oil salesmen wouldn’t be chasing people who suffered one to write stories about visiting the other side and speaking authoritatively about what we will encounter once we shed our mortal coil to an audience desperately eager for reassurance. The people who run and frequent Skeptico are part experiencers, part anxious believers, and in part victims of a lucrative market for the ultimate reassuring story. But they’re not skeptics.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on StumbleUpon

relativity formulas

In a quote often credited to Albert Einstein, the famous scientist quips that if you can’t explain a concept to a six year old, you clearly don’t understand it yourself. Now, it may take a very bright six year old to truly comprehend certain concepts, but the larger point is perfectly valid and can be easily proven by analyzing the tactics of many snake oil salespeople hiding behind buzzword salads to obscure the fact that they’re just making things up on the spot. If you truly understand something, you should be able to come up with a very straightforward way to summarize it, as it was done here in a brilliant display of exactly this kind of concept. But sadly, scientists are really bad at straightforward titles for their most important units or work, their papers. Countless math, physics, computer science, and biology papers have paragraph-length titles so thick with jargon that they look as if they were written in another language entirely. And that carries a steep price, as a recent study analyzing citations of 140,000 scientific papers over six years shows.

You see, publishing a paper is important but it’s just half the work. The second crucial part of a scientist’s work is to get that paper cited by others in the field. The more prominent the journal, the more chances for citations, and the more citations, the more important the research is seen which means speaking gigs and potential applications for fame and profit. But as it turns out, it’s not just the journal and the work itself that matters. Shorter titles are objectively better and yield more citations because scientists looking at long, complicated titles get confused and won’t cite the research, unsure if anything in it actually applies to them. Quality of the work aside, the very fact that other experts can’t tell what you’re going on and on about is bad for science, leading to even more people doing the same work from scratch. To truly advance, science needs to build on previous work and if the existing work seems to be an odd fragment of alien gibberish at first glance, no one will review it further. So next time you write a scientific paper, keep its title short, sweet, and to the point. Or no one will read it, much less cite it as important to the field.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on StumbleUpon

astronaut on mars

Astrobiologist Jacob Haqq-Misra likes to ask questions about our future in space. If you’ve been following this blog for a long time and the name seems familiar, it’s because you’ve read a take on a paper regarding the Fermi Paradox he co-authored. But this time, instead of looking at the dynamics of an alien civilization in the near future, he turned his eye towards ours by asking if it would be beneficial for astronauts we will one day send to Mars to create their own government and legally become extraterrestrial citizens from the start. At its heart, it’s not a really outlandish notion at all, and in fact, I’ve previously argued that it’s inevitable that deep space exploration is going to splinter humanity into independent, autonomous territories. Even further, unless we’ve been able to build warp drives to travel faster than light and abuse some quantum shenanigans to break the laws of physics and communicate instantaneously, colonists on far off worlds would eventually become not just different cultures and nations, but different species altogether.

However, the time scales for that are thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, while plans for an independent Mars advanced by Haqq-Misra are on the order of decades. And that’s very problematic because the first Martian colonies are not going to be self-sustaining. While they’re claiming their independence, they’re being bankrolled and logistically supported by Earth until a time when they can become fully self-sufficient. Obviously that’s the goal, to travel light and live off the land once you get there, but laying the basic infrastructure for making that happen in an alien wilderness where no terrestrial life can exist on its own requires a lot of initial buildup. And under three out of the five main provisions of what I’m calling the Haqq-Misra Mars Charter, the relationship between the colonists and Earth will be parasitic at best, violating international laws on similar matters, and ultimately restricting the colony’s growth and future prospects.

For example, under the charter, every piece of technology sent to Mars is now Martian property in perpetuity and cannot be taken back. What if this technology is software updated by a steady internet connection used for communication between the two worlds as NASA is planning? Will some Martian patent trolls start suing Earthly companies for not handing over the rights to their digital assets? Not only that, but if a Martian pays for this software, he or she is in violation of a trade prohibition between the planets. That’s right, no commerce would be allowed, and neither would input on scientific research that the Martians feel infringes on their right to run their world as they see fit. In other words, Earth is expected to shell out cash, send free technology, write a lot of free software stuck in legal limbo, and keep its opinions to itself. This does not sound like setting up a new civilization as much as it sounds like enabling a freeloader. Any even remotely plausible Martian colony will have to pay its own way in technology and research that should be traded with Earth on an open market. That’s the only way they’ll be independent quickly.

And of course there’s the provision that no human may lay claim on Martian territory. However, should the colonies lack a sufficiently strong armed forces, their ability to enforce this provision would be pretty much nonexistent. Sovereign territory takes force projection to stay that way so what this provision would be doing is creating an incentive for military buildup in space as soon as we set foot on Mars. Considering that the top three space powers which will be capable of a human landing on another world in the foreseeable future currently have strained relations, it is not something to take lightly. Runaway military buildup gave us space travel in the first place. It can change the world again just as quickly. And I can assure you that no nation in the world will be just fine with heavily armed extraterrestrial freeloaders with whom they can’t engage using a lot of resources these countries have to provide on a regular basis to keep them going. There’s not going to be a war for Martian independence that Haqq-Misra wants to avoid, but there may be one of Martian annexation. And probably a fairly short war at that when the troops land.

Now, all that said, after a century of colonies, terraforming attempts, and several generations of colonists who know Mars as their home, I can definitely see the planet turning independent. It’s going to have the self-sufficiency, economy, and culture to do so, and that culture isn’t going to be created ex nihlo, as Haqq-Misra is hoping to force by declaring astronauts Martians with the first step on alien soil. They will be speaking with Earth daily, many will identify with their nations of origin and their cultures, and it’s all going to take a long time to gel together into something a future researcher can call uniquely Martian. And what it will ultimately mean to be a Martian will be shaped by two-way interactions with those on Earth, not by forced isolation which could give megalomaniacs a chance to create a nation they could subjugate, or utopians a chance to build an alien commune with the consequences that would entail, while people who could help give a group of critics a means to be heard, are legally required to stay out of the way. But the bottom line is that we need to learn to thrive on Mars and spend a great deal of time there before even thinking of making it its own autonomous territory. It will happen, just not anytime soon.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on StumbleUpon

cleaning the sea

Unless you live under a rock on an alien planet, you probably know all about the massive hacks which successfully revealed every digital asset used to run Ashley Madison, the much maligned, famous dating site for cheating spouses. And you probably also know of several very vocal and visible morality crusaders in the U.S. and Europe, who have been outed as long term members paying hundreds of dollars to guarantee having affairs. A top notch cybersecurity reporter with trusted sources in the web’s seedy underbelly, Brian Krebs, has already found evidence that an enterprising group of extortionists used the leaked data to blackmail some of the users in spear phishing campaigns, demanding bitcoins to keep their affairs quiet. Although one does wonder how effective this scam would be if the data is already easy to access and a concerned spouse could just do a search for familiar e-mail and physical addresses to find a match. Seems like an attempt to scare someone to reflexively hand over some hush money. But I digress a bit…

While it’s pretty hard to gather too much sympathy for people who cheated on their spouses or advocate for their privacy, even if every users’ situation may be different, and many more than likely did not actually meet anyone, whatever we may feel towards them shouldn’t obscure the very real problem with so much of our lives playing out on the web. We need to work past all of the moral outrage and schadenfreude and come to grips with the realization that we’re using a number of sites to do things with which we can be blackmailed. Sure, those who wanted to get laid behind their spouses’ backs have something to be ashamed of and issues to work though, but consider the previous big adult site hack, that of casual sex site Adult FriendFinder. Sure, a few users were definitely cheating on their spouses, most of the users were swingers, or simply looking for a hookup on a site that seemed large and recognizable enough to work for them to get some of their basic urges met, well outside the prying eyes of today’s societal moralists.

It’s one thing when you’re busted for trying to cheat or cheating, but when you’re either in open marriage arrangements, or are single and just want casual sex and get the same vultures with blackmail threats in your inbox for being an adult with a sex drive, shouldn’t that be different? If you use the web for anything less tame than reading the news and surfing social media sites, a dark cloud should not hang over your head with every hack. And sadly, there’s not much that’s possible to do to prevent large hacks like this. From sloppy coding, to outdated certificates, to a server that hasn’t been updated in months, there are simply too many vectors for an attack, so when you’re a large target, the surface area you have to keep secure forever is immense, while hackers need only one point of entry, once to do a lot of damage. Your best hope is just to not be interesting enough to warrant anyone’s attention to avoid being blackmailed, but given how many cybercriminals are out there, if your email is on a list, you’re a viable target anyway.

That leaves us with the question of what to do when the next embarrassing, adult-oriented hack comes. Note the “when,” not an if because there will be another one. The simple, but very likely unsatisfactory answer is to just own up to whatever may be found about your sex life and figure out how to deal with it if it’s something you’ve tried to keep under wraps but can’t. We can’t hide our preferences in the closet anymore because social media is everywhere and everybody has been using dating sites, mainstream or adult, leaving a lot of digital fingerprints. Maybe the new trend of opening up about sex in casual conversation is actually a good thing here. I’m certainly not talking about adding a favorite sexual position to your Facebook profile’s likes section, or an album of you with your favorite sex toys to Instagram, but more about not shying from any adult topics of interest to you. Because after all, why should you? You’re an adult, adults have needs, and they more often than not have the money, mobility, and chances to get them fulfilled.

In short, you are likeliest to have a leak blow over when people who know you see the hackers as leering perverts and bullies, not you as a hypocrite on a crusade against the immorality of a crumbling society, which is actually tamer than it’s been in over a century. If we learn anything from the shameful outings of pious moralists and user profile leaks from hookup sites, it should be that not being able to talk about your sex life like an adult or have a clear and constant lines of communication with your partners is what creates truly awful problems, and if you don’t own up to your wants and needs, and use the web, a hacker will do it for you at some point. And it may sound paradoxical, but it seems that instead of helping anonymity and leading double lives as some really hoped, the web, thanks to the rise of social media, is actually forcing our public personalities to match our private ones. It’s going to be a long transition, but one that seems to be pretty much inevitable because its driver is unprecedented and isn’t going to go away…

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on StumbleUpon