Eskom-rantsoenering beloon hoë kragverbruik

Eskom het aangekondig dat kwotas ingestel sal word vanaf 1 Julie 2008 vir huishoudelike en industriële gebruik van elektrisiteit. Dít sal behels dat straftariewe betaal moet word vir verbruik wat hoër is as 90% van die gemiddelde verbruik oor 'n tydperk in die verlede, aangekondig as Oktober 2006 tot September 2007. Dit klink pragtig en deugdelik, amper soos 'n oefen- of verslankingsprogram. Maar, sê maar, jy en jou familie was van Oktober 2006 tot September 2007 in Doebai en die bure het na julle huis gekyk. Intussen het julle teruggekeer en die werklose neef en familie van Randfontein (die myn het gesluit weens die kragtekort) het in Januarie by julle ingetrek. Daar woon dus nou 9 mense in die huis, in vergelyking met geen in die verwysingstydperk. Julle moet egter 10% minder krag gebruik, in dié geval 10% minder as omtrent niks. Daar is nie 'n prosedure vir die Randfonteiners om hulle kwota (in dié huis woon nou plakkers) oor te dra na jou paleis in Swartkops nie.

Dié voorbeeld wys uit wat die probleem is met die kwota-stelsel: mense wat in die verwysingstydperk baie elektrisiteit gebruik het word beloon deurdat die vorige hoë gebruik as gebruiksreg aan hulle toegestaan word onderwyl mense wat min gebruik het belas word met 'n verdere besparing. Dié wat voorheen die verwarmer die hele winter aan gelos het, sal dit baie maklik vind om aan die kwotas te voldoen. Wat staan die verstandige gebruiker nou te doen? Moet net nie meer as die verpligte hoeveelheid elektrisiteit spaar nie, want anders gaan jy met die instel van die volgende - nog strenger - kwotas regtig bars.

Die instel van 'n kwota kom neer op die skep van 'n bate. Dit gee jou die reg tot gebruik van 'n hulpbron, teen 'n vasgestelde tarief. Jy "besit" dus nou iets wat jy voorheen nie gehad het nie. In die geval van die Eskom-kwota kom dít neer op 'n massiewe oordrag van hulpbronne na die "bevoorregtes" (teen wie ek, anders as Alec Erwin, niks het nie), of 'n ondergroep van "bevoorregtes". Ek wonder, terloops, wat Eskom gaan maak met nuwe huise en besighede?

Opsomming: Die kwota-stelsel vir elektrisiteit "straf" wel die sameleweing vir hoë kragverbruik, maar dit beloon hoë gebruik (in die verlede) deur die individu. 'n Redelik persoon sal uit dié ervaring die verwagting ontwikkel dat verder kwotas toegepas gaan word en dat hoë verbruik vandag (môre se verlede) weer beloon sal word.

Lees- en kykstof:

1. SA enters power rationing phase : http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page62093?oid=199024&sn=Detail
   
2. Eskom insists on 10% cut for homes, offices : http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A727143
3. Kragrantsoenering 'n resep vir chaos (brief van ene Gerhard op LitNet) : http://tinyurl.com/27eo6q
4. Carte Blanche oor die Eskom-krisis (met klem op die steenkoolreserwes) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWCFExYQ2NA
5. Skielik is die liggies af (deur Leon Schuster - nog iets waarvoor ons Eskom kan blameer) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tejC5jd244

Verkeersfoto's in Duitsland - stoor van nommerplaatinligting verbode

Die Duitse grondwethof in Karlsruhe het beslis dat die polisie in twee Duitse deelstate nie verder sondermeer die nommerplate van verbygaand motors mag afneem en stoor nie. Die uitspraak is ook van toepassing op ander Duitse deelstate waar dié tipe bewaking toegepas word. Dit is vanselfsprekend kommerwekkend indien die owerhede basies 'n rekord opbou van mense, of hulle motors, se bewegings.


In watter mate het 'n mens die reg om anoniem op die pad te wees? Die kamera hier bo wys 'n kruising in die Amerikaanse stad Seattle en word elke minuut of so opdateer. Hoewel die resolusie nie heeltemal goed genoeg is om nommerplate af te lees nie, hoe lank voor sulke verkeersfoto's deur nie-regeringsgroepe verwerk word om 'n databasis op te bou van mense se bewegings?

Hier onder is Johannesburg se spaghetti-wisselaar vir die N1/N3/M1.



Verwysings:
http://www.nrc.nl/buitenland/article971088.ece/Duits_Hof_legt_scan_kenteken_aan_banden
http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/videoueberwachung_aid_264787.html

Hijacking a Big U network account

I could not really imagine that there is too much worth reading in the average Big U e-mail account but here is how you can easily hijack one, as well as the user account for the same person - letting you, potentially cavort around the Big U intranet as that user. All you need to know is the person's username, say ALBERTE - which Big U, contrary to all the usual advice, also uses as the e-mail prefix, e.g. ALBERTE@bigu.ac.zw.

1. Send an e-mail to the ICT helpdesk, asking for the password for ALBERTE to be reset. Use any e-mail account whatsoever to send this message! The reason that ICT-help will not find this unusual at all is that they only except password reset requests by e-mail. Since the lame network of Big U requires passwords to be changed on a monthly basis, they get a lot of requests for resets and ALL of these requests originate from some e-mail address different from that which they have to reset, of course. They apparently cannot require that these requests originate from the user's own e-mail address because either (i) they haven't thought of it; or (ii) most users don't have a separate e-mail password or have never used a computer other than their own.
2. Wait a few minutes for the reset password - often "password" - to arrive.
3. Log in the victim's user account. If they have no separate e-mail password, this will probably give you access to their e-mail as well.
   
4. Don't worry. The victim does not receive a copy of the password reset request or of the reset password. They will log on the next time and probably assume that they have forgotten their brand new password from last week and request a new one. This behaviour will confirm ICT-help's conviction that the user ALBERTE is an idiot and that they should keep on doling out reset passwords.
   

Needless to say, criminal minds will probably want to do this after having verified that the target has gone home for the weekend, so as to have a day or two to play around. I have never done this for any other than my own account, but for that it has worked very well. Big U, by the way, has disabled IMAP accounts on the advice of their (Microsoft) consultants who believe IMAP to be an unacceptable security risk. Huh?

[Apologies to Neil Stephenson for hijacking the title of his first published novel, The Big U.]

Useful links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28security%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_U

1000 weekend minutes on Vodafone Hungary

I am in Budapest at the moment, using a 3G card from Vodafone Hungary, provided with the apartment which I am renting. It occurred to me to check out the call rates and South Africans will be chagrined to find that Vodafone Hungary offers 1000 (sic) free weekend/evening minutes on a package costing R138,40 per month (at today' s exchange rate). On this package, calls to other Vodafone subscribers are about R0,70 per minute and calls to other networks just over R1,00 per minute, at any time of the day. South African subscribers getting 1/10 the number of minutes for the same price are... words escape me... sucked dry. Did I mention just R200,00 per month for an "unlimited" HDSPA service?

Sources: http://www.vodafone.hu/egyeni/tarifak/tarifa_valaszto/vodafone_tripla_en.html http://www.vodafone.hu/microsite/mobilinternet/szolg_hsdpa.html

ICASA's award of pay-TV licences to be challenged

ITweb reports today that Black Earth Communications (BEC) will be challenging the ICASA decision not to grant it a licence for pay-TV services in SA. Apparently represented by Cape Town ICT attorneys Michalsons, BEC was one of ten applicants not to receive a licence. Since the technology for pay-TV does not require the use of any scarce resource, one can presume that the decision to deny licences is based on non-compliance with one of the raft of mom-and-apple-pie (or should that be, umama-and-melktert?) provisions of the relevant legislation, or on ICASA engaging in an anti-competitive carve-up of the market. Which legal grounds it would have for the latter is unclear to me but why should an organ of state be picking winners in the marketplace, especially for a totally non-essential service?

One of the firms awarded a licence, e-Sat, has already announced that it no longer intends to run a pay-TV service but has got into bed with the incumbent monopoly provider, Multichoice. That leaves four firms with licences, one of which is Multichoice (and another... Telkom). In economics, the four-firm concentration ratio is often used to gauge how competitive a market is. In this case, the concentration ratio will be 100% - a situation that many people will regard as a full oligopoly. Furthermore, the barrier to entry is very high and I would not be surprised if the situation turns into a Multichoice/Telkom duopoly rather quickly, with very little benefit for the consumer.