The Corruption of Civil Rights

Civil Rights as a concept has been corrupted. Originally Civil Rights was about achieving "equality". Martin Luther King, in his "I Have a Dream Speech" proclaimed: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." (emphasis added).  Today, "equality" is not the objective anymore for achieving Civil Rights. Instead, the objective is now to use race (the color of their skin) under the concept of "equity". King would be very disappointed.

Biden through his inaugural address and his recent Executive Orders has essentially legitimized this race based "equity" approach and made it official government policy.

Video:  Gutfeld on President Biden pushing racial equity over equality

Since originally posting, Bob Woodson published this opinion article:  The Civil Rights Movement I was a part of has been betrayed by a twisted progressive ideology

The Fallacy and Idiocy of the so-called "Golden Key" to Break Encryption

The recent terrorist attacks in Paris (France) and San Bernardino (California) have invigorated the demands of clueless politicians for the creation of a so-called "Golden Key" that would allow law enforcement to decrypt encrypted communications.  In a recent Washington Post Article: After terrorist attacks, the debate over encryption gets new life; the Post notes that: "On Wednesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) became the latest senior lawmaker to call for such legislation. “If there is a conspiracy going on” among terrorist suspects using encrypted devices, “that encryption ought to be able to be pierced,” said Feinstein, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee."  In regards to another clueless politician, the Post wrote: Kasich doesn’t understand how the tech that keeps you safe online works.

The problem is that should a "Golden Key" actually be developed and implemented as demanded by the clueless politicians, the "bad" guys, such as the terrorists, will also be able to use the "Golden Key" to break the encryption of the "good" guys, thus making the communications of the "good" guys insecure. Fortunately, the Washington Post also ran the article: A key under the doormat isn’t safe. Neither is an encryption backdoor, which counters the assertion by Sen. Feinstein that "piercing" encryption would be helpful.

The mere existence of a "Golden Key" means that it can somehow be stolen or otherwise acquired by anyone. An unwritten law is that secrets leak. Once acquired by the "bad" guys, they will be able to break the encryption of the "good" guys. That means the "good" guys such as the banks may find themselves susceptible to hacking. Furthermore, as for the "bad" guys, why they will simply go to their Plan "B", the development of their own proprietary encryption. Thus the development and imposition of a "Golden Key" is a fools errand. To protect the "good" guys, unbreakable encryption is required.

The necessity for unbreakable encryption, even if it unfortunately means that the terrorists benefit, is a complex topic. For more details and greater insight, I will refer you to the TechDirt theme concerning encryption. Please read the posts of the people commenting on the various articles.  They will provide much more insight than I have provided.

A link to a variety of articles published in the Washington Post on the topic of encryption. As with the TechDirt article, it is also important to read the comments provided.

A link to an old, but still relevant, 1997 article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation: Decoding the Encryption Debate.

A post by Troy Hunt:  Security Sense: Encryption is a necessity that cannot feasibly be compromised.

Phil Muncaster writes: IT Body: 'Let’s Not Weaken Encryption in Wake of Terror Attacks'.  Mr. Muncaster quotes ITIC president and CEO Dean Garfield as saying: “Weakening security with the aim of advancing security simply does not make sense.”

Who's Best to Anticipate Future Problems and Solutions?

According to Mr. Andrews it is a gaggle of science fiction writers meeting as a group called SIGMA.  This theme appears in an article titled: "Sigma: Summing Up Speculation".  This article appeared in the September 2012 issue of Analog.  While I would agree with that premise, Mr. Andrews’ article is ultimately flawed. How so?

Technological progress is multidimensional. Mr. Andrews has only focused on the narrow application concerning the technology itself, not on how it would profoundly affect society. One disturbing example, the Patriot Act.  In that example, the focus is on pre-guessing a "technological" response to prevent/recover from a future terrorist act. What is missing, despite gratuitous references to Libertarians, the Arab Spring, and even the Gestapo, is that the Patriot Act (plus other legislation) is moving the US towards a police state. Out smarting the terrorists is vitally important, but a free thinking group, such as SIGMA should also be contemplating the effect of fighting terrorism or other "wars" on society itself.

Not only that, but Mr. Andrews, according to his article has consulted extensively with the Department of Homeland Security.  As such, I would have expected him to be very aware and sensitive to how security agencies need to operate in a free-society.  TechDirt writes; "We're still completely perplexed at how anyone in Congress could recognize that the NSA has refused to tell Congress how often it's violated the privacy of Americans without a warrant under the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) -- and then still vote to renew it."  Mr. Andrews appears oblivious to this issue.  Do we really need a police state?

I would have thought that a gaggle of free-thinking Science Fiction authors (some of whom are Libertarians) would have been adverse to the application of technology to deprive citizens of their civil liberties in the name of "security". Below are some topical bullet points, that I would have expected SGMA to consider and make recommendations on.

1. The concept of "sale" is being eliminated. Many manufactures of electronics claim that they retain ownership of the devices that you "buy".
2. Manufactures are taking "control" of your electronic equipment. They can brick it at any time they wish. They also “sell” devices that must be in contact with “home” in order to work.
3. Manufacturers are now abusing so-called "intellectual property" by using legal sledge hammers to stifle competition and innovation.
4. The ability to reverse engineer stuff is being eliminated
5. The Government is forcing some third parties, such as ISPs, to spy on their users (warrantless wiretapping).
6. Due process is being eliminated. Through the DMCA and the delayed SOPA/PIPA, take-down notices can be issued without proof. We are moving from the concept of innocent until proven guilty, to where innocence has to be proved even if the accusations are false.
7. Formerly legal activities are now being made illegal.

I would hope that the next time SIGMA meets that it will take a more holistic and Libertarian view. Outguessing the terrorists is a laudable goal, but it must NOT come at the expense of civil liberties or the freedom to pursue advances in the arts and sciences.

PS: Another version of this post appears on the Fantasy and Science Fiction forum website.

SOPA/PIPA Follow-Up

Mike Masnick and Steve Forbes had interesting follow-up posts.  Mike Masnick posted a cartoon by Ruben Bolling which once again demonstrates how graphics can be much more descriptive than written narrative. Mr. Bolling even observes an interpretative twist that I have overlooked. That is how can the content industry claim "theft" if the content was created knowing that it would have fallen into the public domain had the law not changed???!!!

Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling

Mr. Forbes in "Don't Soft-Soap SOPA" makes certain critical observations. One, that the current public outrage has only "temporarily derailed" the continued the growing trend in eliminating civil liberties in the quest to protect a special interest group. Mr. Bolling, in the cartoon above, illustrates this in the background. Mr. Forbes goes on to say:"SOPA's and PIPA's unwritten agenda seemed to be to throttle the Web for its drastic - and very unwelcome - upending of the traditional way business is done in the entertainment world.  Hollywood has fought every technological advance tooth and nail since the early days of television."

Mr. Forbes goes on to suggest some compromises and alternative approaches using private market solutions rather than government regulation. My quibble with Mr. Forbes' conclusions is that he does not mention rolling back copyright to a more reasonable time duration, to protect the private property rights of the content buyers, or to expand the concept of "fair-use".

Fox News Wants Examples of Media Bias

Well, I had a good example concerning SOPA/PIPA so I emailed them. Seems that Fox News turned off their email, so my email was kicked-back as undeliverable.  So I am posting a modified version below in the hope that a bored Fox News analyst may actually stumble across this post while surfing the net.

TO Fox News:  Concerning your 4:45 PM Segment on 1/22/2012. Could you please get someone on who actually knows something about copyright, property rights, and the constitution to appear on Fox News.

Recently, on Fox News, a three person panel of clueless so-called pundits had a superficial. discussion concerning why the politicians did not understand the implications or SOPA/PIPA.  The panel itself, however, did not evoke any comprehension concerning the nature of copyright.  The only redeeming comment, they at least did comprehend that these proposed laws went to far.

During that discussion the panel tossed out the obligatory, but incredibly dumb, question "How can we bring the two sides together". The content industry has progressively moved the fulcrum point to the "right" by lobbying Congress to pass laws that give the content industry special privileges and depriving the public of their civil liberties. I have yet to hear the content industry, in the spirit of compromise, to give-up some of their special privileges or to return copyright to its original duration and scope.

You can NOT negotiate with someone who consistently demands give me more, give me more, give me more. The FOX News panel seemingly failed to comprehend this oppressive trend and blindly swallowed the content industry propaganda.

The Fox News panel also made the gratuitous and obligatory statement  concerning "stealing". Once again the esteemed panel neglected to think this through. The activity of piracy is actually "infringement" it is NOT "stealing" .  When you commit theft, you are depriving the owner of their property.  Simplistically, piracy is the use of content in an unauthorized fashion. It is not theft.

U-tube animation illustrating the distinction.  Copying Is Not Theft

The content industry has been pushing the "theft" angle because it makes for good sound bytes, is simple, and evokes sympathetic emotions.  But there is an obvious counter-intuitive argument; it is the content industry that has actually been doing the "stealing" by changing the law.  By changing the law, the content industry is making formerly legal activities criminal. By changing the law, the content industry is eliminating the public domain.  By changing the law, the content industry is abolishing fair use.  The so-called pundits at Fox News are seemingly oblivious to this repugnant "land-grab" by the content industry. Time for Fox News to stop mindlessly regurgitating content industry propaganda and get a person who has real knowledge on their news panels to add some real fair and balanced analysis.

There is a simple solution to the piracy issue. Restore copyright to its original intent, piracy will be reduced. Formerly legal activities will once again become legal. Legality is what both sides seek. Now will the content industry agree to this compromise?

What do the Republicans Mean by Small Government?

The Republicans claim to want small limited government, but do they mean it?  As usual  the devil is in the details. As a quick Casual Observation; the Republican loudly proclaim with much fanfare to be unfailing advocates of the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution. The Tenth Amendment holds that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In casually observing the various Republican debates, it seems that downsizing government under the Tenth Amendment only applies to eliminating social service programs, environmental protection, and entitlement programs.

However, when it comes to so-called "security" and fighting the various so-called "wars", it seems that the Republicans foam-at-the-mouth to toss aside the Tenth Amendment along with the First and Fourth Amendments. If this trend continues, we will soon have a police state.  (Obama has already taken the initiative to diminish the First, Fourth, and Tenth Amendments).  Of the Republican candidates, only Ron Paul seem to clearly recognize that the Tenth Amendment really means downsizing the Federal government in ALL areas and that we should not trade "liberty" for "security".



As an editorial aside, I tend towards a Federal government that will be involved in issues that are nationally significant, such as environmental protection. Regulations that establish a level playing field for business is a valid government action.  Republican claims to eliminate these types of regulations are equivalent to granting a license to private enterprise to "steal".  I will also concede that some Federal government programs such as Education and all loan subsidy programs should be eliminated.

Speed Cameras and So-Called "Intellectual Property"

One may not think that concerns over speed cameras can be associated with the inappropriate protection of so-called "intellectual property", but they can. The association is the implementation of "automated" justice.

A Washington Times editorial on speed cameras writes: "The editorial writes: "Traditional law-enforcement duties are best performed by men, not machines. This is the case in Maryland, where speed cameras continue to pronounce the innocent guilty, regardless of mounting evidence that the measuring devices are faulty.  ... In a May 24 letter, Mr. Warrington explained his interest in addressing reliability problems was not ensuring justice but “how we can optimize the productivity of our camera.”" (emphasis added)

Concerning the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA) Larry Downes wrote in CNET that: "It creates vague, sweeping new standards for secondary liability, drafted to ensure maximum litigation. It treats all U.S. consumers as guilty until proven innocent. If passed, the bill would give media companies unprecedented new powers to shape the structure and content of the Internet.... He argues that SOPA effectively introduces new monitoring requirements for all websites that allow user content, even comments posted to blogs. Rightsholders, Sohn wrote, need only "a good faith belief that a Web site is 'avoiding confirming' infringement, and they can demand that payment systems and advertising networks cease doing business with the Web site.""

Like the speed camera silently monitoring traffic, the ISPs are under ever increasing pressure to monitor (spy on) user traffic for the sole purpose of maximizing some entity's assertion for profit, not for ensuring justice. Furthermore, the concept of "due process" is being diminished through the imposition of "automated" justice.

Are Cameras the New Guns?

A growing concern has been the increased assertion by law enforcement that they have the ability to arrest people who are filming them, even in public places. This flies in the face all logic. Why should the police be able to film and tract someone for the purpose of collecting evidence to prosecute that individual, yet individuals are not allowed to similarly collect evidence that my exonerate them and/or demonstrate the use of abusive police tactics. This would seem to violate the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution.

We supposedly live in a free society that is based on the rule of law where government is supposed to be transparent. The police should not have the ability to arbitrarily arrest members of the public for recording  police under the guise of "obstructing law enforcement". If police can arbitrarily arrest people for vague assertions of  "obstructing law enforcement" we now become a police state.

The title for this post "Are Cameras the New Guns?" came from Gizmodo.  I ran across this article in following links at the POI Factory which had several articles concerning increased tracking of people through GPS devices. My recent post OnStar and the Outer Limit reviews this concern. Below are (revised) excerpts of my comments at the POI factory.

In the article "Are Cameras the New Guns?" Gizmodo writes:  "In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer. .... The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. ..."

To me, it is unfortunate that Gizmodo uses the word "illegal" as if the action of recording is actually illegal and second that Gizmodo has not challenged the supposed legality.  Furthermore, the issue before the public media seems to "privacy",  As I have previously expressed; privacy is "dead" and the arguments opposing the supposed "illegality" should be based on the First and Fourth Amendments.

Particularly egregious is the phrase "obstructing law enforcement". So it is legal for law enforcement to obtain evidence documenting your actions by recording you, but it is illegal for you to have evidence obtained by recording the police that might document your innocence and/or illegal police behavior?!?!?!

Below are some recent headlines highlighting the trend towards the US becoming a police state.

CA Governor Lets Police Search Your Smartphones At Traffic Stops

Guy Arrested, Threatened With 15 Years For Recording Traffic Stop In Illinois

Does The NYPD Really Think That Shooting Photos/Videos Of Protests Is 'Disorderly Conduct?'

Special Segment: Felony Eavesdropping

9th court of appeals rules it's okay for government to implant GPS on your car to track you without court order

Since posting I remembered this one.
Police Say They Can Detain Photographers If Their Photographs Have 'No Apparent Esthetic Value'

Law enforcement is necessary to protect society from those committing crimes. The police do not have a right, especially in public places, to criminalize people so that the police can "hide" their actions from the "sunshine" of transparent government. When the police can arrest you for filming their actions to "hide" the truth, then we have descended into a police state. In the movie "V" there is a very prophetic quote: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

OnStar and the Outer Limits

Every once in a while you run across a story that stimulates a reaction. In this case it was recently reported that OnStar would be selling customer data, nothing unusual about that. What became apparent as I read on here and here was that this data collection would be occurring even if you were not subscribing to the service. In other words, the OnStar unit is always on and always in contact with home.

Again data collection today is pretty much endemic. Everything you do is recorded.  Every time you use your credit you are disclosing where you are and at what time you made the transaction.  But the issue that I intend to review has nothing to do with tracking or privacy but the potential that the companies that you bought the product from can continue to CONTROL that product.

We have already witnessed some occurrence of post-sale control. Witness the Amazon Kindle boondoggle where Amazon, post-sale, ironically removed some Orwell books. Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle.  Then there is the Sony PlayStation, where Sony, post-sale, removed some features. Sony Sued Again For Removing PS3 Linux Feature. Whether these instances are isolated or an indicator of a coming future tidal way of similar actions is currently un-discernible.  But what is clear is that the potential is there.

Headlines from Utopia noted that the US is moving towards "Get ready for pay-as-you-go driving." Where GPS devices and associated black boxes will record your driving. While the article raises the typical privacy concerns, the real concern from the article is that “The device the government wants to install on vehicles does more than record miles,” said Cliff Young of the Privacy Awareness Institute.  “It can also override on-board GPS systems, block cell phone signals, and tap into national databases containing information on individual drivers.  It’s an electronic Trojan horse.” Feds to require black box event recorders in all new cars.

As a quick wrap, the TV Show "Outer Limits" had this tag line: "There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We can reduce the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Outer Limits." Quote from IMDB

Welcome to Orwell's "1984" where Big Brother will be able to control your electronic devices without your knowledge and/or consent even to the point of "bricking" it. So if your OnStar equipped vehicle comes to a slow stop in the desert at the dead of night you might want to reflect on why.  Be nice Big Brother is listening.

Oppresive Evil Government Regulations

One of the outfalls of the populist Tea Party movement is the demand for smaller government, less taxes, the elimination of regulations, and that government stay out of our personal lives.  I'm not going to go into too much detail at this point, but the devastating earthquake in Japan points out one of the benefits of strong government regulations. Japan’s Strict Building Codes Saved Lives.

After  reviewing the New York Times article, I did some internet slumming to find out how Christchurch's  saved lives and I ran across this article: "Proper Building Codes Save Lives" that referred to an earlier (September 2010) earthquake in Christchurch. The article notes that: "The quake was about the same magnitude as the one in Haiti, yet they had a vastly different outcome – due to proper building codes."  Another article: "Building codes saves lives – main message on anniversary of Chile earthquake and lesson learned from NZ"

Compare that to China's 2008 Sichuan earthquake where (according to Wikipedia) 69,197 were confirmed dead, including 68,636 in Sichuan province, and 374,176 injured, with 18,222 listed as missing. Of particular concern was the substandard construction of schoolhouses that collapsed. The earthquake left about 4.8 million people homeless.  Of course the full extent of the devastation in Japan is unknown, so it is too early for a valid comparison with the current Japanese earthquake.

So before demanding the wholesale abolition of government in the name of promoting "liberty" and eliminating "oppression", be careful of what you ask for in terms of a small castrated government.

Lieberman Resurrects McCarthyism???

WikiLeaks and Assange are currently the news of the day.  In fact the news today was overwhelming to digest. Especially in regards to freedom of speech, due process, and what actually would constitute a criminal offense.  TechDirt sample. And "Does Wikileaks Have a First Amendment Case Against Joe Lieberman?" by Ryan Radia and "Some thoughts on Cablegate" by Jerry Brito from the Technology Liberation Front.

What caught my attention today was a New York Times article where "In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Sen. Joe Lieberman suggested that the U.S. Department of Justice should charge Julian Assange with espionage and said that federal prosecutors should conduct a "very intensive inquiry" into the question of whether or not news organizations had committed a crime by publishing leaked documents obtained and distributed by WikiLeaks. ... According to a transcript of the interview, Mr. Lieberman, the chairman of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee, was asked by the Fox anchor Jenna Lee, "are other media outlets that have posted what WikiLeaks has put out there also culpable in this, and could be charged with something?"" (emphasis added).  Besides the strong suggestion for a criminal investigation, several companies such as Amazon.com and PayPal (a despicable company) have been strong armed into shunning WikiLeaks. Ryan Radia wrote: "Amazon’s decision to terminate Wikileaks came less than 24 hours after Amazon received a phone call from Senate Homeland Security Committee staff (at the behest of Sen. Joe Lieberman) inquiring about the firm’s relationship with Wikileaks." The Times even reports that "Columbia University warned students who hope to one day work as American diplomats to avoid posting any public comments about the recently leaked cables on the Web."

Like soap hurtful opera gossip, carefully constructed language is being created to intimidate the American people and to manipulate the truth.  Furthermore trumped up sex charges against on Assange are being manufactured.  Seems that Lieberman may be fanning the flames of false outrage to define Assange as an "enemy of the state" and  as a means of resurrecting McCarthyism. Wikipedia writes "McCarthyism is a term used to describe the making of accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.  ... During the post–World War II era of McCarthyism, many thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies." If this crescendo continues we may soon see the reconstitution of the House Un-American Activities Committee as the Senate Un-American Activities Committee.

As an interesting aside, Glenn Beck in his show today expressed his belief that Assange is the victim of trumped-up charges.  Of course from Glenn Beck's perspective, Assange is actually a victim of some progressive left wing plot! Well at least Beck still has the capacity to understand a set-up.  A much better, no holds, case was made by Judge Napolitano who expressly stated that the Government is after Assange and that the US government, like the old USSR, is looking for evidence to persecute prosecute Assange. Judge Napolitano's presentation, I assume, will soon appear as a podcast.

To conclude, Ron Paul recently stated 'When Truth Becomes Treason We're In Big Trouble'.

Verbal Hypocrisy

The recent firing of Juan Williams by NPR once again illustrates an astonishing dichotomy between what people say and what they actually do. The liberal left advocates free speech, yet they seem to be fall all over themselves in shouting down (censoring) anyone they deem to be expressing "right-wing" sentiments.  Olbermann Slams O'Reilly For 'View' Comments: 'Bigot And Islamophobe'. Court throws out Streisand's invasion of privacy lawsuit.  So much for freedom of speech.

So that I am "fair and balanced", the "right-wing" claims to be the champion of the free market and to insist that the free market will blossom if the government will only get out of the way and stop all that onerous regulation.  Seems that the "right-wing" unabashedly views freedom as a license to steal.  Witness the rise of the ponzi like Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO) and the subsequent foreclosure crises. Not to mention disingenuously embracing regulations such as Copyright Term Extension Act and the Bayh–Dole Act.  I guess actually making money through real entrepreneurial work is to old-fashioned.

No Pay, No Spray? - Nanny State Limits

Today Fox news carried an interesting segment No Pay, No Spray? (link to video works, but no video), concerning the case where fighter fighters let a house burn because a $75 fee was not paid.  Now Fox News is not "Fair and Balanced" as they claim.  In fact their tease to the upcoming video segment  alluded to the typical rant of the evil government bureaucracy running amok because a trivial $75.00 was not paid.  I was quite pleasantly surprised when the segment got underway that it turned out not be an anti-government rant.

The panelists quickly dismissed  this as case of supposed government irresponsibility and placed the responsibility on the homeowner for failing to pay.  In fact the panelists even went further equating this with the breaking news that banks can't even prove that the mortgagees in foreclosure owe them money.  So what was the connection of the foreclosure crises to the burning house? Why should anyone act responsibly by paying their bills/taxes when society bails them out for being irresponsible. Congratulations to Fox News for getting the implications of this story correct.

The cartoon below came from Against Monopoly, and seems quite appropriate. If you don't want to pay your obligations for services provided by the government.  Be prepared to do it yourself. (Click on the image to see it better.)

The Continued Quest by Corporations to Criminalize Behavior They Do not Like II

The New York Times through Computerworld reports: Apple Loses Bid to Criminalize iPhone Jailbreaking. Yet another example of how corporations are attempting to continue to criminalize behavior that they deem reduces their profit margins.  I guess competition will no longer be based on making the best product for the consumer.  Use the product in the "wrong" manner, do not pass go - go directly to jail.  So much for the free-market.  Furthermore, how is it that corporations have been able to "buy" this type of legislation.  Also when you buy a product you acquire a property right to use that product as you see fit (within certain reasonable limitations of course).  So if you want to monkey around with it, why should that be considered a criminal activity?

Gregg Keizer of Computerworld wrote: "Apple lost its bid today to criminalize "jailbreaking," the practice of hacking an iPhone to install unauthorized apps on the smartphone, according to a decision by the U.S. Copyright Office and the Library of Congress."

In related news, TechDirt reported: Motorola Does Openness Wrong; Bricks Your Droid X If You Tamper Mike Masnick wrote: "Part of the key selling point of the whole concept of Android-based smartphones was that they were open to tinkering. Apparently, Motorola thinks somewhat differently about that. paperbag was the first of a whole bunch of you to point to variations on the story that Motorola has put a thing called "eFuse" on the Droid X which will effectively brick your phone if you try to mess with the software."

The Continued Quest by Corporations to Criminalize Behavior They Do not Like

Soon after posting "Federal Rules on Campus File Sharing Kick in Today" I ran across the posting on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's "Ticketmaster's Terms of Service Cannot Make You a Criminal". The link between the two posts is the continued erosion of personal liberties through the criminalization of activities deemed inappropriate by various corporate interests. In theory we are a free market economy, I guess not. It's unfortunate that the government seems to acquiesce to the corporate demands for ever greater criminalization.

In its posting on Ticketmaster the EFF writes: "The four defendants in this case are the operators of Wiseguys Tickets, Inc., a ticket-reselling service. In its indictment, the government claims the four purchased tickets from Ticketmaster by automated means, violating Ticketmaster's terms of service and therefore the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)." (emphasis added). "... under the government's theory, websites could put the power of criminal law behind their own terms of service to create severe obstacles for their competitors," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann.

Besides the obvious injustice of corporations attempting criminalize unappreciated behavior there is the little fact that virtually every terms-of-service "contract" on the internet is subject to change without notice. A partial quote of Ticketmaster terms-of-service from the EFF Amicus Brief, "By accessing, browsing, or using this website, you acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agree to be bound by these Terms. We may update these Terms at any time, without notice to you. Each time you access this website, you agree to be bound by the Terms then in effect." Great loophole for retroactively deciding to define something criminal after-the-fact.

Federal Rules on Campus File Sharing Kick in Today

CNET today reported that "Federal rules on campus file sharing kick in today". The quick take, this is simply another law that incrementally assaults our civil liberties in the name of fighting a "war", in this case the war against piracy. This law would seem to violate at least three fundamental principles.

One is due process, if the finger of blame is pointed at you, you are guilty by default and can be immediately disciplined. Think your innocent, well you will have to prove it.

Second, "wiretapping". People seem to get all vocal and hysterical about wiretapping and the need for little bureaucratic details such as a search warrant. However, when it comes to an overt invasion of privacy for the purposes of fighting piracy there is a sudden attack of laryngitis not to mention the apparent use of Valium. Search warrant, none needed.

Third, this law essentially forces universities to act as a private police force for the sole benefit of the content industry. Technically, infringement is supposed to be a civil matter, but it has been turned into a criminal matter that includes forcing universities to protect the revenue stream of the content industry. This is perfectly illustrated by: "The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments laboring to protect by force what can no longer be protected by practical efficiency or general social consent." Thanks to Thanks to William Stepp at Against Monopoly for finding the quote below from John Perry Barlow.

Imagine this onerous hypothetical example. An RIAA executive taps you on the shoulder and demands that you break into the house that he is pointing to, that you search the house for unauthorized content, if you find it that you bring it to him. Search warrant? None needed. So how can he force you to break and enter someone else's house to "protect" his property that you have no interest in? If you refuse, you go to jail. Doesn't sound legal, but given today's trends it seems we are headed that way.

You may also be interest in:
"New rules bring online piracy fight to US campuses"
"Universities Struggling To Deal With Law Requiring Them To Fight File Sharing"
"The Next Generation Of Anti-Piracy Legislation Goes To School"

Change We Can Believe In

Ron Paul appeared on CNBC: "Ron Paul on CPAC Straw Poll Win" Very good interview. I hope that you will watch it.

Posting this in light of some of my prior posts concerning Libertarians, why a positive reference to Ron Paul? He seems to be broadcasting an honest and consistent policy. Which is something I can respect. Of course, I will not agree with many of his positions concerning government regulation, the environment, and foreign policy. (On foreign policy I agree with him that we cannot be the World's Policeman, but I also think that if Iran proves to be a threat that it is OK to take military action.) Nevertheless, he really seems to want to restore this country to a small government with a real free-market economy. Ron Paul represents a change we can believe in.

The Eloquent Peasant

Like the Libertarians I have a malaise, an irrational belief that rationality will prevail. Libertarians hold that people interacting in a rationale manner will lead to a utopian society. Recognizing that people don't act rationale, I envision a benign government that will at least provide a level playing field. Obviously, governments act irrationally too, hence my post "Deficit Spending - Fiscal Insanity".

What prompted this post, is the posting of "A look at the legal system" on the Analog webpage. In that series of posts, Pawyilee brought up the story of "The Eloquent Peasant" (Wikipedia Entry). The story concerns an Egyptian peasant named Khunanup who is wronged by Nemtinakht circa 2040 – 1674 B.C. The story is essentially an appeal by Khunanup to the Egyptian government of that time for justice, which he eventually gets.

My first big take away of this story is that society 4,000 years ago was a lot more sophisticated than one thinks. So, not only can we be provisional in terms of space; but we can be provincial in time too. A good lesson in humility.

But I started out discussing Libertarians and rationality? Well Libertarian thought is based on the concept that rationale people can work out solutions using rationality with minimal government intervention. Khunanu, in his appeal to the Egyptian government for justice, raises many of the same issues that I have concerning the Libertarian position. He rationally demonstrated to Nemtinakht that an injustice was done to him. However, Nemtinakht because he had "power" refused negotiate. Not very Libertarian of Nemtinakht. It would be gratifying to credit Khunanu with the recognition that certain aspects of Libertarian ideology are irrational, but (as far as I know) there weren't any Libertarian's back then.

Since Khunanu was unable to achieve a resolution with Nemtinakht he appealed to the Egyptian government for justice. I am not going to go through all nine appeal themes. I will highlight the four that seem most relevant to my hopped for utopian government as a means of addressing my perception of Libertarian "shortcomings".

• Justice is Essential for an Orderly State.
• The Judge Has a Great Charge
• An Unjust Judge Participates in the Wrongdoer’s Acts
• The Judge Must Protect the Weak

I will endeavor to summarize the four points above. Please take a look at "Nanny State Hypocrisy?" In that post, I discussed that certain Libertarians advocate that government must stay out of interfering with business, yet in the very same breath they claim that government must take an active role in protecting business. This implies a tiered legal system where some would have the privilege of legal protection while others would not. Such a system would be inherently unjust. If the system is unjust, why should anyone respect the law? The translator writes:"The poor, the one who suffers injustice, is left with little recourse if the judge does not mete out justice with straight measure. That destroys the foundations of justice. Foundations once destroyed, what can the just man do?" With little recourse, one could assume anarchy as a logical outcome.

In order to maintain an orderly state, the judge must act in a fair manner. The translator writes: "A judge who judges unjustly not only commits an infraction against the virtue of justice, but he becomes a participant, a co-conspirator in the crime of the wrongdoer."

Like Nemtinakht some Libertarians seem to believe they can put a "blanket" in the road with impunity and expect the State to protect them. Passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act is an example of a law specifically implemented to protect a business thereby figuratively "stealing" from public domain which would make the government a criminal co-conspirator. The fallacy of this perceived corporate right to place a "blanket" is nicely summarized by the translator: "This is a symbol of how injustice—which is a private appropriation of another’s right—blocks the public right-of-way, justice, which is the “good way” of the simple as Khunanup calls it. Like a public thoroughfare, justice is a res publica, and its self-appropriation by the selfish and overreaching is a barricade to its proper function." I hope that those Libertarians who seem to believe that economic power somehow entitles them to State protection will appreciate the thoughts of Khunanu, "The Eloquent Peasant".

Speaking of the Consumer

The Technology Liberation Front posted an article: "heading to FTC’s next “Exploring Privacy” workshop at Berkeley Law School". According the the FTC, "The Federal Trade Commission will host a series of day-long public roundtable discussions to explore the privacy challenges posed by the vast array of 21st century technology and business practices that collect and use consumer data." What is interesting are the background posts of Berin Szoka and Adam Thierer. Both profess that: "consumers are empowered with real privacy controls so they can make the privacy choices that are right for them, rather than a one-size-fits-all choice imposed by someone else." Therefore, regulation is unnecessary.

What's wrong with this? Despite the boisterous public claim that the consumer is somehow "empowered" there is virtually no mention of the consumer as having any rights whatsoever. Essentially, their thesis boils down to companies have a right to violate your privacy anyway manner that they wish. If you have an issue with that it is your responsibility to protect yourself. I would hardly call that empowerment.

I previously discussed this issue in Misplaced Regulatory Blame II. In that post, I wrote: "Similar to Mr. Gomes article both these articles fail to acknowledge that the right of privacy belongs to the "recipient" not the instigator. Since the free-market (especially Forbes) promotes the concept of self-responsibility; these articles - instead of lambasting regulation - should have demanded that companies act responsibility to protect privacy. ... What is ludicrous is that instead of demanding responsible corporate behavior, Mr. Baldwin advocates that people buy products to defend their privacy!!!! The obvious between the lines interpretation is that corporations have an unrighteous entitlement to invade your privacy. If you want to protect it, you need to pay-up or suffer the consequences. Sounds a bit like extortion."

It's unfortunate that both Berin and Adam, despite their rose colored assertions that the consumer is living in a technological utopia of unlimited choice and empowerment, seem to imply (through their silence) that the consumer has no rights. The consumer has rights, David Boaz on Libertarian concepts wrote "Individual Rights. Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property. These rights are not granted by government or by society; they are inherent in the nature of human beings. It is intuitively right that individuals enjoy the security of such rights; the burden of explanation should lie with those who would take rights away."

The obvious fact that this issue is surfacing as a regulatory concern with the FTC is anecdotal proof that the consumer feels that they are being unreasonably abused and are now pleading for regulatory intervention. Instead of protesting possible regulatory intervention, Berin and Adam, assuming that they actually believe in consumer rights, should be calling for the private sector to clean-up their act. After all, if you don't want regulation, a bit of self-control and responsible action helps.

Net Neutrality and the First Amendment

This is going to be a short casual Casual Observation concerning the amorphous "them" who believe that net neutrality will violate the First Amendment. See the post Net Neutrality Regulation & the First Amendment by Adam Thierer. The claim is that the "evil" regulators are out to squelch freedom of speech. This whole analysis by Thierer is astonishingly simplistic and biased.

It is simplistic and biased since it seems to purposely overlook the attempts of the private sector to employ the power of the State to squelch freedom of speech. For example, TechDirt reports that: "Tiger Woods Gags UK Media; Alerts World To Nude Photos". Now, if that example seems a bit off topic, this article is a bit closer: "Anti-Piracy Group Says That Just Talking About File Sharing Should Be Illegal". Even closer to the point: "AT&T Whines To FCC That Google Voice Violates Net Neutrality".

Now if the ani-net neutrality folks are so adamant about protecting freedom of speech, why do they not expose the efforts of the private sector to use the power of the State to deny freedom of speech?

Of course there is a companion question (that I will not be delving into at the moment) concerning the efforts of the private sector to lobby the "evil" regulators to pass laws favorable to their self interests. So when this type of lobbying occurs, why doesn't the anti-net neutrality crowd whine about this form of abomination?

My take, the anti-net neutrality crowd, despite their supposed defense of free speech, are surreptitiously promoting corporatism.

As an aside, Julian Sanchez has an excellent article: "The Virtual Fourth Amendment". Concerning the complexities related to the collection of private information. I had hoped to integrate this into today's post, but it will have to wait for a later day.