Comp427, Spring 2018, Homework 1

Rational Paranoia

The homework specifications, as well as the corresponding course slide decks, can be found on the Comp427 Piazza. This assignment is due Thursday, January 17 at 6 p.m.

You will do this homework by editing the README.md file. It's in MarkDown format and will be rendered to beautiful HTML when you visit your GitHub repo.

Student Information

Please also edit README.md and replace your instructor's name and NetID with your own:

Student name: Edward Butler

Student NetID: eob1

Problem 1

• Scenario: {Stadium}
• Assumptions:
  • I am assuming that the seated fans are positioned around the field, and that the security is incentivized to create a holistically great fan experience (not only a safe one). Also because the team is highly ranked, I am assuming that attendence is at its capacity.
  • Assets:
    • the comfort of the fans
    • the comfort of those on the field (i.e. the players, coaching staff, and special stadium workers)
    • the security of those in attendence
    • the security of those on the field
    • the integrity of the sport (unbiasedness - the fairness of the game's outcome)
    • fan entertainment
    • the long-term profitability of the stadium
    • the infrastructure of the stadium
• Threats:
  • People who enter the stadium with weapons or dangerous substances, potentially, although not necessarily, with the intent to harm others
  • Rowdy fans, who may engage in violent or dangerous behavior among each other or enter the field, putting those on the field at risk
  • Fire, gas leaks, or natural disaster, which all pose safety risk
  • Power outages, which will reduce fan entertainment
  • Poor attendence, which will hinder ticket sales
  • Fans sneaking in without tickets, which lowers profits and is unfair to paying fans
    • Also, fans who sneak in without tickets are likely more disposed to sneaking in past security, which poses obvious safety risks for all
• Countermeasures:
  • Require that everyone who enters the stadium go through a reasonable security protocol, which ensures (with high probability) that no weapons or dangerous substances are brought into the stadium
    • Because the attendence is high, in the interest of time, this system should be efficient, standardized, and automated as much as possible.
  • Have stringent checks for alcohol, ensuring that everyone who purchases it is identified
    • Also, maintain a database of users who have purchased alcohol so that security can confirm that no fan buys too much alcohol. This, of course, can be abused — fans can purchase for others, or create fake ID's. However, some compromise between cost/effort and security needs to be made. I think this protocol is an appropriate balance.
  • Position reasonable security alongside the stands to minimize the likelihood (and time) that errant passengers enter the field
  • Contract a EMS with an ambulance on-site who is capable of being utilized swiftly, in case of emergency (for fans and players)
  • Contract a set of police officers who stay on-site during the game, if legal action is needed
  • Install a back-up generator to ensure that power loss does not disrupt the flow of the game, which would disturb fan and player attendence, as well as hinder the long-term profitability of the stadium
  • Install smoke and gas detectors to insure against fires and gas leaks, which could harm those in attendence, as well as the stadium infrastructure
  • Set up turnstyle entrances that are difficult to jump over
  • Institute an evacuation protocol, in the event of natural disaster or accident

Problem 2

• Scenario: {Grading}
• Assumptions:
  • I am assuming that the class in question is a college class in which homework assignments are turned in physically (i.e. via a paper handout) to the professor's mailbox.
• Assets:
  • The character of the students
  • The reputation of the school
  • The integrity of the class and the grading system
  • The time of the professor and staff
• Threats:
  • Erratic grading, which will lead to more regrade requests — wasting the staff's time
  • Students asking for unreasonable regrades — wasting the staff's time
  • Students directly copying the work of other students
  • Students directly plagiarizing the work found online
  • Students failing to cite the work of others online
  • Students hiring someone to do the work for them
  • Potential grade deflation for the students who do honest work
  • Students turning in homework after the due date
  • Students making up a fake story to get out of doing the work
  • An attack on the professor's mailbox (e.g. theft of papers, vandalization, changing work after deadline)
  • Excessive paranoia — systematically making false accusations of cheating - which will instill unproductive fears into the students and waste the professor's time
• Countermeasures:
  • Institute and discuss a clear grading policy on the syllabus to insure against confusion
  • Dedicate significant time in the beginning of the term to teach students how to cite and which resources to use
  • Normalize scores per grader — so that students are not penalized by having a tough grader
  • Empty the mailbox soon after the deadline and store in secure, unknown location to insure against late submissions
  • Require that late submissions are confirmed by an authority figure, by signature
    • Granted, signatures can be forged. An alternative is to call the authority's number directly. This is less easily manipulated, yet the most secure way to confirm is to meet with the authority directly.
  • Develop a grading rubric for assignments to set a standard against which assignments are compared
  • Ensure that students are aware of how to cite documents found from a multitude of sources
  • Put a non-standard lock (i.e. what that is not easily duplicated) on the mailbox
  • The class should use sophisticated plagiarism software to efficiently and accurately predict plagiarism
  • Iterate continously on the security approach
    • If a lock on the mailbox fails, consider accepting homeworks in class or electronically
  • Insuring against a student outsourcing their work is tricky — perhaps the essay could be written in class, but even then another student could pretend to be him

Problem 3

• Scenario: {Imagine you are an employer interviewing applicants for a job}
• Assumptions:
  • The field is generally in the area of "knowledge work" (as opposed to mechanical, physical labor)
  • Resumes are submitted online
  • The cost of a bad hire is high
  • The company is more concerned about avoiding false positives (i.e. accepting 'bad' candidates) than it is about finding false negatives (i.e. rejected 'good' applicants)
• Assets:
  • Company culture
  • Company profits
  • Company impact
  • Time (of the interviewers), which translates to money
  • Applicant confidentiality
• Threats:
  • An applicant submitting a false resume, strongly overstating his credentials, or even lying
  • Hiring someone who "outperformed" his ability on the interview
  • Signing someone who doesn't fit into the company
  • An adversary reading or modifying the resumes of applicants, exposing potentially confidential data and creating an unfair advantage
  • An interviewer implicitly discriminating against an applicant
• Countermeasures:
  • In order to maximally protect against false applications, hire a background checker and conduct in-person interviews in which the interviewers can challenge different areas.
  • Create screening interviews, which can be conducted online inexpensively — this will "weed out" a large proportion of applicants, reducing the company's expenditures
  • Create rigorous questions that require a deep understanding of the field and leave little doubt of the candidate's limits (testing competency)
  • Figure out the company's values, and design informative questions to ensure that the applicant aligns with these (testing culture fit)
  • Store applicant resumes in an encrypted, reputable storage to minimize the likelihood of tampering
  • Have a set of interviewers interview each applicant, to minimize biases
    • This is a tradeoff — allocating more interviewers increases cost, so the right balance needs to be found