Send Link mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Link digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: RFI: Opening an account with Google without a
phone-camera (David)
2. Is the share market headed toward a ?SaaS-pocalypse?
(Stephen Loosley)
3. Re: Laws of robotics (Tom Worthington)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2026 12:07:14 +1100
From: David <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: Craig Sanders <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [LINK] RFI: Opening an account with Google without a
phone-camera
Message-ID: <5682494.E0xQCEvomI@ulysses>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Friday, 20 February 2026 19:08:58 AEDT Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 01:37:36PM +1100, David wrote:
>> I'd intended to refer specifically to a physical OTP device. Any form of
>> software OTP which runs in the same desktop/laptop as the relevant
>> application is surely much less secure than an SMS-based OTP (?) because a
>> hacker who gains access to that system can then impersonate any valid user.
>> Worse still, it may generate a false sense of security.
> A mobile phone is far easier to hack than a desktop computer, and many phones
> are already running malware snooping on their SMS messages and browser
> sessions (and everything else on their phone) because most people have no
> knowledge of or interest in basic computer hygiene, and they'll just blithely
> install corporate spyware apps whenever asked.
I agree! My only excuse is that I'd been rewording that post to use fewer
words and it was emailed to Link at seven minutes past midnight... I'd
probably intended to write "Any form of software OTP which runs in the same
desktop/laptop as the relevant application is surely much less secure than a
PHYSICAL OTP because [...]".
My own mobile is rarely on the 'net as it's only used (1) to act as a voicemail
sink for incoming calls to it and other voice services even when it's switched
off or in flight-mode; (2) to make short outgoing calls when in the car, etc;
(3) for inconsequential SMS messaging; and (4) in emergencies. As mentioned,
my own policy for critical services is 'no POTP, then walk away'.
> (and this insecurity doesn't just affect the phone's owner. It affects the
> security and privacy of everyone in the phone's contact database...
Recently I was targeted by a spam email from a medical practitioner to whom I
have spoken regarding a family member which used the doctor's own, rather
elaborate, email template. From memory, the subject line said "I think this is
for you..." and invited me to click on an attachment. At first glance this was
highly plausible, but it's pretty clear someone had gained access to their
system and was spamming those on their address list.
> SMS is also completely insecure, long obsolete and weak encryption even by
> 1990s standards.
I understand SMS services were a revenue goldmine once but not now. However
they've become so commonly used we can't do without them either, which the
telcos see as a problem.
> The phone network isn't secure, either. There have been numerous accounts of
> people's identity being stolen, web accounts hijacked, bank accounts drained,
> etc due to cell-phone cloning by bribed or blackmailed telco employees.
I've always wondered whether voice profiling is as secure as is sometimes
claimed.
>> Put another way, the "something you know and something you have" principle
>> reduces to "something you know, full stop".
> Or, in my case, multiple things I know (site account name, site password, my
> local gpg passphrase) and something I have (my desktop computer with my
> gpg-encrypted TOTP setup).
I reckon the online tycoons will eventually bring about their own fall.
_DavidL_
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2026 13:58:20 +1030
From: Stephen Loosley <[email protected]>
To: "link" <[email protected]>
Subject: [LINK] Is the share market headed toward a ?SaaS-pocalypse?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Is the share market headed toward a ?SaaS-pocalypse? ? and what would that mean?
Software companies are facing major disruption from AI and investors are
pulling back, wiping off billions in value ? but does it spell the end for
software-as-a-service?
By Jonathan Barrett Guardian Business editor Sat 21 Feb 2026 01.00 AEDT
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/21/what-would-share-stock-market-saaspocalypse-mean-saas-apocalypse-meaning
After years of questioning whether artificial intelligence was creating a
speculative market bubble, investors are now grappling with a new question:
what if its hype is real?
The ?SaaS-pocalypse?, a trending term to describe the recent and dramatic
sell-off in global software-as-a-service (SaaS) shares, is based on the idea
that AI becomes so advanced that software becomes redundant.
Why would you pay for bespoke accounting, sales analytics, logistics or project
management software when you could just ask ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini to do it?
The wave of selling has firmly reached Australian shores, wiping billions of
dollars in value from former market darlings such as the accounting software
provider Xero and the global operating system company WiseTech.
In the US, shares in Atlassian Corp, known for its work collaboration tools,
are down 50% since the start of January. The wealth of the company?s Australian
founders, Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar, has collectively dropped
about $US8bn ($11.5bn) in a matter of weeks as the value of their large
shareholdings collapse.
What's behind the 'SaaS-pocalypse'?
Ever since AI entered the public consciousness through ChatGPT, investors have
piled into technology stocks, excited about its prospects as a genuine
life-changing innovation.
That euphoria was interrupted last year when traders started to consider how AI
may affect software companies, a core component of the tech sector.
Those fears were magnified at the start of 2026, when the US-based Anthropic
rolled out releases allowing users to communicate with their computers in
natural language to conduct complex tasks like data analysis and expense
tracking.
This is considered to be hugely disruptive to expensive SaaS applications that
require the user to learn the language of the software.
The potential for disruption is clear, with some software at risk of becoming
obsolete in a similar way to how digital photography destroyed Kodak and
touchscreens decimated Blackberry.
Investors have also raised concerns over the future of the ?per seat? charging
model, a common billing model in the SaaS industry whereby a software company
charges fees for every individual who has access to it.
As Morningstar points out, in an AI-enhanced future, ?if one person can now do
the work of two, seat counts fall?.
Australia?s technology index, which contains several big-name software
companies including Xero and WiseTech, is down about 17% since the start of the
year, and more than 25% over six months.
The unease has captured other sectors, with investors considering whether
portfolio construction, tax planning, insurance calculations and data analytics
could be AI automated, making specialist firms in those fields redundant.
Are the concerns overblown?
Luke McMillan, the head of research at Sydney-based Ophir Asset Management,
says investors have ?shot first and asked questions later? by selling off SaaS
businesses en masse.
?The next stage that we?re getting to is actually understanding which
businesses will be negatively impacted by this,? he says.
Investment firms talk about ?economic moats?, which refer to the structures a
company has in place to protect its profits against rivals and market
disruptions.
McMillan says one of those moats is when a software company uses proprietary
data that AI cannot access, as opposed to software that draws from public
sources that could be easily replicated.
?There?ll be some that actually have some moats that protect them from what
these AI tools can do, and in fact, they?ll integrate AI into their businesses
making them even better,? he says.
Lochlan Halloway, the equity market strategist at Morningstar, says while the
?rush for the exit? was a kneejerk response, there?s also a risk of investors
underplaying the AI threat.
?In this case, there will be winners and losers out of this,? he says.
Halloway says companies with unique data, complex systems that are hard to
replicate and software that connects multiple parties will be better protected
against disruption.
?We don?t want to dismiss the risks that AI poses to the software-as-a-service
business model, but those are the things we?re looking for in trying to help
identify which companies are more likely to stave off this threat,? he says.
What happens next?
The AI era and second term of Donald Trump have fostered a period of high
volatility in global markets, with traders swinging between bouts of optimism
and concerns over trade wars and a tech bubble.
The narrative-driven movements, where stories determine investment decisions,
differs from historical periods when stock movements are more closely aligned
with company earnings.
The ?SaaS-pocalypse?, AI boom, ?sell America? and ?Taco? trades ? the latter
referring to the idea that ?Trump Always Chickens Out? when facing a
tariff-induced market backlash ? are all examples of narratives.
Investment firms expect markets will eventually work out how to price companies
in an AI world, in the same way they did after the tech boom and bust of the
late 1990s and early 2000s.
Halloway points out the apparent contradiction between fears of a tech bubble
and collapsing share prices of some software companies, given the former is
based on the idea that AI?s promises will be unfulfilled, and the latter relies
on AI being a major disrupting force.
?It seems like markets found a reason to be worried about too little AI and too
much AI at the same time,? he says.
--
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2026 08:28:20 +1100
From: Tom Worthington <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [LINK] Laws of robotics
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
On 2/21/26 11:19, Antony Barry wrote:
> AI will take actions to protect its own existence, ...
In his short story "The Evitable Conflict", Isaac Asimov (1950) has the
robots invent a "Zeroth Law" of robotics. The robots decide that
humanity can't be left to look after themselves and secretly take control.
--
Tom Worthington, http://www.tomw.net.au
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<https://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/attachments/20260222/d59270e0/attachment.sig>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
------------------------------
End of Link Digest, Vol 399, Issue 22
*************************************
