Month: July 2011

You’re Not Defending Your Stuff

Oftentimes conversations about defending your stuff crop up when talking about self-defense. Some advocate the use of lethal force to defend their property while others are completely against it. I think Weerd did a good jobs of puttings the concept of defending your stuff into perspective:

Thug Presents a weapon or implied weapon and in-so-many-words presents this offering point: “Give me your wallet or I will kill you.”

Now lets assume he’s not bluffing. There’s no way to tell, and the antis LOVE to give violent and dangerous people the benefit of the doubt. I think any rational person should see the error in that. I don’t associate with anybody who rob somebody or so much as THREATEN violence to get something they wish to take. The people willing to do something so dastardly are not the best and brightest of the world. They are not the people you should EVER trust, or give the benefit of the doubt.

As a general rule unless its some snot-nosed Ritalin-kid mouthing off, I’m going to assume they do indeed mean to kill me over something as trivial as my wallet.

It’s not about the stuff, it’s about the fact that somebody has a weapon pointed at you and is claiming a willingness to kill you if you don’t surrender whatever they’re after. In this case you’re not shooting the thug over your wallet, you’re shooting him over your life which is the whole point of self-defense. I’ve said this time and time again but it bears repeating, you can’t trust a person’s word when that person has made a threat against your life.

Maybe they will simply run away when you hand over your wallet or maybe they’ll decide to kill you and rid themselves of the only witness to their robbery. Perhaps your assailant is isn’t mentally stable (likely as they’re willing to kill for money) and thus logic can’t be applied. Your attacker may simply not believe you when you toss over you wallet and they want more. The point is you can’t give an assailant the benefit of the doubt because doing so may end up with your face down in a gutter hoping the paramedics arrive before your blood pressure drops to zero.

Another Person Advocating We Punish the Successful

There are always people out there who demand that we steal money from “the rich” and redistribute it to “the poor.” To many of these people “rich” simply means anybody making more than themselves and “poor” means themselves. What these people generally are is angry and jealous that somebody has been more successful in life than themselves. Don’t get me wrong, I recognize the difference between legitimate wealth and illegitimate wealth. If you’ve obtained your wealth through coercion or using the government’s monopoly on initiating force either rub out any competition or force people to buy your product then you should be forced to refund every dollar and face civil suits for their use of violence to rob innocent people.

Alas, most people don’t stop to make that distinction which leads to be read letters like this and shake my head:

At a time when the middle and working classes find it harder and harder to even tread water, while their bosses are becoming wealthier and wealthier by comparison, I found the July 8 article “Top earners cool to paying more” deeply depressing.

When through the benefits of their wealth those who hold the power and make the rules become more and more divorced from the struggles of those who depend on them, that’s a dangerous road for our country.

From both pragmatic and moral standpoints, the wealth needs to be shared. If businesses won’t do that through truly livable wages, then it should at least happen through taxing supersized salaries.

Greed has always been around, but it’s taken awhile for it to be cultivated into the open as a positive value. So now you have people who won’t be content with a half-million-dollar job at home when they can move elsewhere to take the same job but pay lower taxes.

Ouch! Part of political and business leadership is to continually cultivate a vision for community, shared responsibility and the sort of compassionate society in which we all thrive best.

JOEL WARNE, PLYMOUTH

Notice how this guy brings up “truly livable wage” without defining it? What exactly is a “truly livable wage?” The government already mandates that employers must pay employees a “living wage” (what we usually call minimum wage). Is that not enough? Why not? What is enough? People who throw around these terms without realizing how meaningless they are truly annoy me. What do I mean by truly annoy? Well when I read or talk to these people it increases my rage levels and decreases my intelligence.

Here’s the other thing I don’t get, the author is claiming that taxation should be used if employers aren’t willing to pay a “truly livable wage.” Increasing the amount of money the government forcefully steals from an arbitrary number of people (depending on who is defined as rich) doesn’t help those working for a living, it harms them.

Most people that are defined as “rich” by those advocating higher taxes on said “rich” are employers. By definition an employer is somebody who exchanges their money for the labor of others. When you take more money from employers it gives them less to pay to current employees and hire new employees. Not only that but it also increases the chances that these employers will simply throw up their hands in frustration and move to a friendlier state.

Punishing those who have been successful in life also sets a poor precedence. What motivation is there to succeed if that success will only be met by the government stealing more and more of your money?

Finally tax dollars have no guarantee that they’ll reach “the poor.” Government is great at mindlessly tossing money at stupid things. Look at the state budget and then look at the percentage of money that goes to “help the poor.” Hell 7% of Minnesota’s expenditures go to paying former state employees pensions. Then there is that nice 20% chunk that simply goes to a category labeled “remainder.” Increasing the amount of money the state confiscates from an arbitrary number of people isn’t guaranteed to reach people advocates intent it to reach.

If you want to help the working class then demand that government remove itself from economic issues entirely. Let’s rid ourselves of government regulations that exist to push competitors to their favored companies (those who can make the most campaign contributions) out of the market. We should strive to make every industry like the personal electronics industry which is free of many government regulations, producing products people want, and most of all successful. Allow people to be successful and stop punishing them for it.

Data Encryption and The Fifth Amendment

Yesterday I mentioned that I keep all of my personal data encrypted meaning outside of being compelled to reveal my keys nobody would be able to obtain that data. Then I mentioned in the case of government entities stealing my equipment I would avoid revealing my encryption keys by simply stating my fifth amendment right, well apparently the Department of Justice (DoJ) believes that right is null and void (like all of our other so-called rights):

The Colorado prosecution of a woman accused of a mortgage scam will test whether the government can punish you for refusing to disclose your encryption passphrase.

The Obama administration has asked a federal judge to order the defendant, Ramona Fricosu, to decrypt an encrypted laptop that police found in her bedroom during a raid of her home.

Because Fricosu has opposed the proposal, this could turn into a precedent-setting case. No U.S. appeals court appears to have ruled on whether such an order would be legal or not under the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which broadly protects Americans’ right to remain silent.

Although this turn of events isn’t at all surprising it is depressing. The justification being used by the DoJ is completely idiotic as well:

Prosecutors stressed that they don’t actually require the passphrase itself, meaning Fricosu would be permitted to type it in and unlock the files without anyone looking over her shoulder. They say they want only the decrypted data and are not demanding “the password to the drive, either orally or in written form.”

Let’s stop and take a look at what the fifth amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I’ve emphasized the important part for this post. Our supposed fifth amendment right is against being forced to bear witness against yourself. Note how the amendment doesn’t state in what way you’re protected from being a witness against yourself. What the DoJ is arguing is the fifth amendment states you can’t be compelled to speak against yourself or write information that could be used against you. What the fifth amendment actually says is that you can’t be compelled to be a witness against yourself, period. By having to enter encryption keys you would in fact be a witness against yourself as it would reveal potentially self-incriminating information.

Obviously the actors of the state are going to go with an analogy that best benefits them in incriminating anybody they wish so they are going to claim that encryption keys are the same as safe combinations which you can be forced to provide. Here’s the thing, as written the fifth amendment would protect you against even providing a safe combination because that would make you a witness against yourself.

Thankfully the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed an amicus brief arguing that being forced to provide encryption keys is a direct violation of fifth amendment protections. Their argument is sound albeit against the desires of the state so will likely be ignored:

Decrypting data on a computer is a testimonial act that receives the full protection of the Fifth Amendment. This act would incriminate Fricosu because it might reveal she had control over the laptop and the data there. The government has failed to show that the existence and location of the information it seeks is a foregone conclusion. Furthermore, the limited immunity offered by the government is not coextensive with the scope of Fricosu’s privilege. The Court should therefore find that the government has failed to take the steps necessary to secure Fricosu’s Fifth Amendment rights and deny the application.

You should read the entire amicus brief as it makes for interesting reading and presents several previous court cases that favor the EFF’s argument.

Following the wording of the fifth amendment and the spirit in which it was written logical conclusion would be that you are not required to do anything for the state that would allow it to prosecute you. Of course being the government gets to rule on the scope of protections against the government the amendments in the Bill of Rights has little meaning. This is why jury nullification is such an important right, even if the government rules that the fifth amendment doesn’t apply a jury could rule in favor of the defendant on grounds that being forced to reveal encrypted information is a violation of fifth amendment protections.

The PATRIOT Act and Cloud Services

I’ve briefly described my attempt to get all of my “cloud” data moved to personal servers that I directly control. Part of my reasoning for doing this is the simple fact that I like having complete control over my property (and I consider my data personal property). The other reason is I don’t like the idea of federal agents being able to obtain my personal information without my knowledge. At the very least if the feds want to take my personal data now they will have to alert me when they come to take my server out of my dwelling (and since the data is all encrypted they’ll need my key to access anything… which will really frustrate them when I claim my fifth amendment right instead of giving over my encryption keys).

Some people have claimed another solution for this is to put your data in a foreign country. I never found that solution viable because the government of the country where your data is stored likely has access to it and will hand it over if the United States government puts in a request. Well Microsoft has confirmed that your data isn’t safe anywhere:

Organisations should be wary when entrusting their data to Cloud providers based in the U.S.

Microsoft, one of the first Cloud providers to come clean, have revealed that the U.S. authorities have the right to access any data stored by them, even if that data resides within the EU.

[…]

In addition, Gordon Frazer CEO of Microsoft admitted that customers would only be informed “whenever possible” with respect to authorities extracting data.

Such an example is where the FBI has the ability to issue a ‘National Security Letter’ demanding a company’s data. Frazer stated that in this case he wouldn’t even be able to admit he had received such an order.

Many people forget that those subject to “National Security Letters” are legally prohibited from even saying they received such a letter (note to the feds: if you hand me one of those letters I’m telling everybody, fuck you and your attempt to shit on the first amendment). This means if the feds to take your data you’ll never be notified because the company hosting said data will be legally muzzled.

I feel the best option in regards to your data is to maintain it all on systems that you have direct control over. Unless you have that direct control you can never be sure who is rummaging through your data (I’m not just talking about government agents at this point) or for what purposes. If you control the systems then you control who does and doesn’t have access to anything on that system.

Federal Government Rules Marijuana Has No Medicinal Purposes

Just in case all that research demonstrating the contrary confuses you into thinking that marijuana has medical purposes the federal government has made their ruling on the subject:

Marijuana has been approved by California, many other states and the nation’s capital to treat a range of illnesses, but in a decision announced Friday the federal government ruled that it has no accepted medical use and should remain classified as a highly dangerous drug like heroin.

The decision comes almost nine years after medical marijuana supporters asked the government to reclassify cannabis to take into account a growing body of worldwide research that shows its effectiveness in treating certain diseases, such as glaucoma and multiple sclerosis.

I wish I could just take a pen and make something so regardless of scientific evidence. In case you believe the government’s rule is based off of any scientific research I turn you eyes towards the following:

In a June 21 letter to the organizations that filed the petition, DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart said she rejected the request because marijuana “has a high potential for abuse,” “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” and “lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision.” The letter and 37 pages of supporting documents were published Friday in the Federal Register.

I find that last item truly ironic. The government claims that marijuana lacks safety under medical supervision but that’s because it’s been ruled an illegal substance. You can’t put it under medical supervision if mere possession will land your ass in prison for many years.

The thing I never understood was the simple fact that most research indicates that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. To me it would only be logical if a substance less dangerous than another currently legal substance were also legal. Of course I realize I’m talking about the government so logic can just take a flying fuck and a rolling doughnut.

Fixing the American Economy by Firing the MBAs

I ran across an interesting article that talked about the fact that America no longer produces innovative products because everything is run by MBAs:

Bob Lutz, the former Vice Chairman of General Motors, is the most famous also-ran in the auto business. In the course of his 47-year rampage through the industry, he’s been within swiping range of the brass ring at Ford, BMW, Chrysler and, most recently, GM, but he’s never landed the top gig. It’s because he “made the cars too well,” he says. It might also have something to do with the fact that Maximum Bob, who could double as a character on Mad Men, is less an éminence grise than a pithy self-promoter who has a tendency to go off corporate message. That said, his new book, Car Guys vs. Bean Counters: The Battle for the Soul of American Business, has a message worth hearing. To get the U.S. economy growing again, Lutz says, we need to fire the M.B.A.s and let engineers run the show.

Although this solution won’t fix all of the problems facing American’s economy I believe it would do a great deal to fix our lack of quality American products. Let’s face it, America doesn’t actually create many innovative products anymore. One of the few exceptions to this rule is in the personal electronics and software industries where things are almost always run by engineers. While our phones become more powerful with each passing month our vehicles remain almost the same as they were in the 60’s with only a few refinements to the technologies.

Research and development is a joke because it’s usually seen as too expensive by the bean counters. Why should a company produce an innovative product when such things costs money, it’s far easier to just create a rehash of last year’s model with a new model number slapped on the package and tout the relatively few improvements as major innovations? I think the article has a point, this attitude has lead to a stagnant market where MBAs are now in charge and engineers are relegated to the back rooms (if they’re allowed to continue working at all).

The article also states a side-effect of this system of production, good people are fired so that companies can make the short-term numbers each quarter:

In the U.S., the growth of the financial industry has only exacerbated the trend toward balance-sheet-driven management. Companies everywhere, but particularly in the U.S., where the banking sector wields the most power, are under tremendous short-term pressure to make their quarterly numbers. This often leads to planning that’s reactive rather than smart: force the highest-paid engineers to retire, even if they are the best, and reduce payroll costs across all divisions rather than invest in the ones that are pushing the New New Thing through the pipeline.

Engineers who are good at their jobs want to get paid according to their skills. This does become a problem for the bean counters because they believe it’s far more productive to hire two cheaper engineers than a single expensive one. It never crosses their mind that the one expensive engineer can produce far better products than the two cheap ones though.

Again, I realize that the problems with the United States economy run deeper than a bunch of MBAs. But I also believe America could start churning out innovative products again if the MBAs were tossed out on their asses and quality engineers were allowed to do their thing.

Alas, MBAs are too deeply rooted in the corporate culture and I fear we’ll never rid ourselves of this yoke made by bean counters.

The State’s Definition of Critical Services

We’re in day eight of Minnesota’s government “shutdown” but really the word shutdown is a misnomer. I think it would be more appropriate to call this a reduce government operating capacity. Services that have been deemed critical by the state are still running. So what’s critical? Well the collection of taxes for instance:

The Minnesota Department of Revenue said Friday it will continue to process tax payments during the shutdown. All tax laws and deadlines are still in effect.

But with no authorized funding in place, agency functions not deemed critical by the courts are suspended. That means no tax refunds will be processed or issued at this time. And the Revenue Department will have no one to help taxpayers by phone or email until normal operations resume.

According to the state, who get to make the rules, processing the payment of taxes is critical but returning excess money is not. Although people are required to pay their taxes on the appropriate deadlines the state sees no need to ensure help is available to those not sure if they’re filling out the right forms correctly (after all if people don’t know if they’re doing something correctly they’ll likely screw up and the state can fine them for more revenue).

This further demonstrates that this entire “shutdown” is nothing more than a political game. Only services that will noticeably impact the lives of Minnesotans negatively have been shutdown. The parks were shutdown which was noticed on Independence Day, tax refunds aren’t being sent out which will noticeably impact the finances of many Minnesotans, etc. This “shutdown” is simply an attempt to gain political influence next election cycle. The Republican are blaming the Democrats and the Democrats are blaming the Republicans. Both parties are pointing to the other and saying, “Look! The other party make sure you wouldn’t get your tax refunds on time!”

Personally I hope the “shutdown” continues indefinitely. People who are dependent on the state need to rid themselves of that yoke and those not dependent on the state need to realize it. We don’t need the state to run our lives, we’re more than capable of doing that ourselves.