Month: September 2014

Number One Reason to Upgrade to iOS 8

iOS 8 was released yesterday. I have it installed on my iPhone 5 and can say that it’s a decent upgrade (LastPass can now fill in my user names and passwords in Safari, which is the highlight of the upgrade for me). But the best feature of iOS 8 is one that doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of coverage:

On devices running iOS 8, your personal data such as photos, messages (including attachments), email, contacts, call history, iTunes content, notes, and reminders is placed under the protection of your passcode. Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data. So it’s not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8.

Security changes to iOS 8 seem to have made it technically impossible for Apple to fulfill warrants demanding it extract data from a customer device. I’m glad to see Apple taking security against government agents seriously. It also goes to show just how untrusting companies have become towards the government after Snowden released the National Security Agency’s (NSA) dirty laundry. Before then I doubt Apple would have invested resources to ensuring it couldn’t comply with government data requests and it almost certainly wouldn’t have advertised the fact so prominently.

However it is important to keep in mind that the scope of this protection is only on the device itself. If you upload data to iCloud Apple can still comply with any warrants demanding it turn over customer data. So if you value your privacy it’s a good idea to upgrade to iOS 8 and not upload your data to online storage services.

Posse Comitatus? Never Heard of Him.

Here’s an interesting scenario. Say for a moment you’re a judge. You have been given the job of ruling on whether a lower court’s ruling is valid. But this case isn’t any old case. This case involves a man who was convicted of possessing and distributing child pornography. Here’s the kicker, the evidence used to convict him was collected through a Navy program that scanned every computer in the state loaded with a specific file sharing program. In other words the evidence, which is damning, was only available because the military overstepped its boundaries and took it upon itself to enforce civilian law. Do you overturn the ruling and set a person possessing and distributing child pornography free or do you allow a precedence to be set that allows the military to enforce civilian law? That’s the position judges Judge Berzon, Andrew Kleinfeld, and Diarmud O’Scannlain found themselves in:

A federal appeals court said the US Navy’s scanning of the public’s computers for images of child pornography constituted “a profound lack of regard for the important limitations on the role of the military in our civilian society.”

The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) practice led the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to suppress evidence in the form of images of child pornography that an NCIS agent in Georgia found on a Washington state civilian’s computer. The agent was using a law-enforcement computer program called RoundUp to search for hashed images of child pornography on computers running the file-sharing network Gnutella.

“…RoundUp surveillance of all computers in Washington amounted to impermissible direct active involvement in civilian enforcement of the child pornography laws, not permissible indirect assistance,” Judge Marsha Berzon wrote for the San Francisco-based appeals court.

I wouldn’t have wanted to be those judges. Possessing, manufacturing, and/or distributing child pornography is one of those crimes where the mere accusation is usually enough to destroy one’s life. Being the judge who allowed an accused child pornographer to go would be a bad position to be in but overturning a conviction would far worse. A lot of judges would probably cave to the political pressure and allow the ruling to stay. In fact O’Scannlain felt that the ends justified the means. But judges Berzon and Kleinfeld decided to not be total shitbags and and stuck down the ruling as the evidence was collecting in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from involving itself in civilian law enforcement.

I’m sure there are people on O’Scannlain’s side. After all child pornographers may hold the rare status of being a group of people hated more than Hitler. But allowing the ruling to stand would have opened the door for a lot of law enforcement abuse. Effectively it would have set a precedent that allowed law enforcement to bypass a lot of paperwork and legal obstructions by having the military perform surveillance for it. While warrants aren’t much of a check against police abuse they are more of a check than the military has to submit to.

The ATF Doesn’t Acknowledge Meat Popsicle as a Race

Race is a hot issue as of late (truthfully race has been a hot issue throughout the history of the United States). Between the propensity of police officers in certain cities targeting people of certain races with much higher frequency and whether or not there’s enough diversity in the technology market everybody is talking about race. That’s probably why the Washington Times is finally asking why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is asking everybody purchasing a gun from a federally licensed dealer what their race is:

With little fanfare, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2012 amended its Form 4473 — the transactional record the government requires gun purchasers and sellers to fill out when buying a firearm — to identify buyers as either Hispanic, Latino or not. Then a buyer must check his or her race: Indian, Asian, black, Pacific Islander or white.

The amendment is causing a headache for gun retailers, as each box needs to be checked off or else it’s an ATF violation — severe enough for the government to shut a business down. Many times people skip over the Hispanic/Latino box and only check their race, or vice versa — both of which are federal errors that can be held against the dealer.

Requiring the race and ethnic information of gun buyers is not required by federal law and provides little law enforcement value, legal experts say. And gun industry officials worry about how the information is being used and whether it constitutes an unnecessary intrusion on privacy.

I have two theories regarding this. My first theory has to do with Operation Fast and Furious, the ATF operation to smuggle guns to Mexican drug cartels. Perhaps asking whether the gun purchaser is Hispanic is a way to speed up searches for Fast and Furious-related firearms. OK, I’m partially joking about that. My actual theory is that the ATF is demanding to know each buyer’s race for the same reason it asks each buyer if they’re prohibited form owning a firearm: the government likes to collect information redundantly. When you submit to a background check your personal information, including full legal name and current address, are submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). That information should be enough for the FBI to do a search for you in its database. If your name comes up all of your identifying information is already available to the agency since it was recorded during your arrest or involuntarily confinement to a mental health ward.

It’s the same stupidity that forces you to fill out paperwork when filing your taxes. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) already has all of the information it need to send you a bill since your employer is so helpful to withhold taxes from your paycheck. There’s no need for you to fill out any tax forms other than deductions. But the IRS isn’t efficient by anybody’s regard so it demands you provide it with the information it already has access to because that’s how government works.

For Being an Anit-Gun Paradise California Sure is a Militarized State

California is a hostile place to live if you’re a gun owner. The state is placed number one on the Brady Campaign’s State Score Card list [PDF], which is based on how many stupid gun control laws each state has on the books. You would think that a state so hostile to gun ownership would be a devoid of militarism. But that’s not the case. In fact California lays claim to the only be the only state that I’m aware of where school districts own armored personnel carriers:

News that San Diego Unified School District has acquired an MRAP, or mine-resistant ambush protected vehicle, is adding a new facet to discussions about the practice of giving surplus military equipment to civilian agencies.

The six-wheel Caiman MRAP has an official value of around $733,000. But the San Diego school district paid only about $5,000 to transport it, according to inewsource.org, a website that partners with NPR member station KPBS.

$5,000 could buy a lot of text books and that price doesn’t cover the yearly upkeep fees and cost to fuel the machine. Why did the district feel it was a good use of its money to buy an armored personnel carrier instead of equipment to better enable education? Probably because schools are more closely reflecting prisons every day and to complete the image districts need a way of rounding up truant students in the same way prisons round up escaped convicts. But San Diego doesn’t have the title of most militarized school district. That title belongs to the Los Angeles Unified School District:

os Angeles Unified school police officials said Tuesday that the department will relinquish some of the military weaponry it acquired through a federal program that furnishes local law enforcement with surplus equipment. The move comes as education and civil rights groups have called on the U.S. Department of Defense to halt the practice for schools.

The Los Angeles School Police Department, which serves the nation’s second-largest school system, will return three grenade launchers but intends to keep 61 rifles and a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected armored vehicle it received through the program.

An armored personnel carrier and surplus military rifles (later in the story it notes that the rifles were converted to semi-automatic)? Talk about rounding up students in style! But the district did return the grenade launchers, I guess it realized that most parties sent to round up convicts don’t usually bring heavy ordinance.

The San Diego district justified its purchase of the armored personnel carrier by saying it is for search and rescue and that the behemoth will be loaded with medical supplies. I guess the district has some policy against calling an ambulance, which is loaded with medical supplies and comes equipped with trained medical personnel. The Los Angeles district didn’t beat around the bush, it went straight for the school shooting scare excuse. Of course the Los Angeles Police Department was the first department in the country to have a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team and is well known for being extremely militarized already. Why the school district believes it needs its own team when it can call in the LAPD is beyond me, especially when you look at the statistics and see how rare school shootings actually are (which isn’t to say they don’t happen but the risk doesn’t warrant the establishment of a separate SWAT team for the district).

Truthfully these school districts are just following in the footsteps of police departments throughout the country. The federal government is giving away free or near free shit to local government agencies and those agencies are snapping it up like a shopper snapping up shit they weren’t going to buy until it they say that it was marked down for the store’s going out of business sale. In other words the government, by subsidizing the purchase of military equipment, has further distorted the market by making the military equipment look more appealing than shit local agencies could actually use (like, say, deescalation training for police officers).

Be Careful When Defending Your Home

I’m guessing, based on what I commonly write about, most of you reading this post have some kind of home defense plan. If you don’t waiting until somebody is kicking down your door at oh dark thirty probably isn’t the best time to develop one. But whether you already have a plan or are developing a plan make sure you keep one thing in mind: if the thugs kicking down your door at 05:30 unannounced are wearing a badge you may be killed even if you survive the initial ordeal:

Prosecutors will seek the death penalty against a man charged in the shooting death of a veteran Killeen police officer.

Marvin Louis Guy, 49, has been indicted for capital murder in the shooting death of police Detective Charles “Chuck” Dinwiddie, 47, and is named in indictments charging three counts of attempted capital murder, as well.

During a hearing Thursday, Bell County District Attorney Henry Garza said he’ll seek the death penalty.

The charges stem from a shooting, which occurred as officers served a so-called no-knock search warrant just after 5:30 a.m. May 9 at 1104 Circle M Dr. Apt. 3 in Killeen.

In other words you better have some good fucking night visions because you can’t safely assume that just because somebody is kicking down your door in the wee hours of the morning that you have a valid self-defense claim. If you fail to see those little badges and assume the invaders are non-state thugs and thus believe you can defend yourself you may very well end up facing the death penalty.

Oh, and if you’re wondering, after 12 rigorous hours of searching the home the police didn’t find any drugs.

The Extent of American Militarism

The United States has a wicked hammer called the military. And like most people who only have a hammer the United States sees every problem as a nail. This has been apparent in the country’s foreign relations, which more closely resemble an extremely abusive relationship than a healthy marriage (it only bombs you because it loves you). But this seeing everything as nails problem has gone to a level of absurdity. As the fear of Ebola virus causes people around the world to piss their pants the United States government has stepped forth to reassure the fearful that it has the answer. And that answer is a world renowned team of viral experts who are being given access to whatever resources they need to defeat this virus! Just kidding. The answer, as always, is the military:

President Barack Obama has called the West Africa Ebola outbreak “a threat to global security” as he announced a larger US role in fighting the virus.

“The world is looking to the United States,” Mr Obama said, but added the outbreak required a “global response”.

The measures announced included ordering 3,000 US troops to the region and building new healthcare facilities.

I guess the plan is to just shoot the virus. That should work. After all the United States is, like, totally not using this outbreak as an excuse to increase its military presence in Africa so it can get to the continent’s resources before China.

Shortsighted Firearm Access Control Technology

A lot of electrons have been annoyed by people such as myself writing about access control technologies for firearm (often erroneously referred to as smart gun technology). Advocates of gun control want to mandate access control technologies in firearms because it will increase the costs and make guns less accessible they claim it will decrease gun related deaths. Gun rights advocates are worried that other states will pass laws like New Jersey’s that mandate all firearms include access control technologies after the first such equipped firearm is released to market. I’m primarily interested in the technology itself (since I have no problem ignoring laws I disagree with the threat of mandating the technology doesn’t carry much weight with me).

Understanding that politics is an ineffective vehicle for creating change some people got together and founded the Smart Tech for Firearms Challenge, which awards grants to individuals who show promising developments in access control technologies for firearms. One of those prize winners is Kai Kloepfer, a 17 year-old who designed an access control system for firearms. First let me congratulate Mr. Kloepfer on designing such a system at a young age. He shows the potential to go far as an engineer. Now let me point out a major flaw in the system he designed:

The gun works by creating a user ID and locking in the fingerprint of each user allowed to use the gun. The gun will only unlock with the unique fingerprint of those who have already permission to access the gun.

Access control technology for firearms that rely on the user’s fingerprint aren’t viable. While people living in California, Arizona, Florida, or other southern states may be inclined to ask why I, as a Minnesotan, can point out the glaring error quite quickly: gloves. Those of us who live in northern states spend many months with our hands inside of gloves. When it’s 20 below zero outside you can’t have your hands exposed to the elements for very long and those finger saving gloves render fingerprint readers useless (as well as capacitive touchscreens). How am I supposed to unlock my firearm in the winter? Some will probably say “By taking off your gloves, dumbass.” Those people don’t live in Minnesota because taking off your gloves isn’t always an option, especially when you plan to grab onto a freezing cold piece of metal. Furthermore one is seldom afforded the time to remove their gloves in a defensive situation.

Finger and hand print readers are Hollywood’s go-to solution for firearm access control. In the latest James Bond movie, Skyfall, Bond is given a Walther PPK/S equipped with a hand print reader. If anybody other than James Bond is holding the pistol it won’t fire. Hollywood sure makes the technology look effective but Bond is also never wearing gloves. Still many people seem to get their inspiration from Hollywood movies and that must be the reason why manufacturers of firearm access control technology have such a hard-on for finger and hand print readers. Because it certainly isn’t for practical reasons.

Removing that God Awful U2 Album from iTunes and iOS

Last week Apple unveiled its new phone, payment service, and smartwatch. In addition to those three products Apple also did something despicable. When I opened the Music app on my iPhone to listen to songs from my carefully curated list of awesome fucking music I noticed something. That something stunk up my music list like a dead bloated corpse floating down an otherwise pristine river. That thing was U2’s Songs of Innocence album. Fortunately I disabled automatic downloads on my devices so what was stinking up my music list was just a link to download the album, not the actual songs themselves. But the damage was done. My phone was violated. Even though I attempted to console my phone with a continuous stream of Iron Maiden and Manowar I could tell that it wasn’t helping.

I knew that the only way to help my phone overcome this traumatic experience was to completely remove Songs of Innocence from it. As it turned out removing that piece of shit wasn’t doable. The best I could do was go into my Music app settings and turn off the Show All Songs option. But sweeping something under the rug isn’t the same as getting rid of it. The corpse may have been under the floorboards but the stench still crept into the room.

I wasn’t the only one made unhappy by Apple foisting shitty music from a shitty band onto my device (U2 is shitty, if you disagree then you’re wrong). A lot of people, many of my friends included, were upset to see that their devices had been violated. They too sought a way to purge the memory of U2 from their devices only to find out that no such way existed. Thankfully, not even a week after the announcement, Apple has finally created a way for its customers to completely purge Songs of Innocence from their iCloud account:

The US tech firm is now providing a one-click removal button.

“Some customers asked for the ability to delete ‘Songs of Innocence’ from their library, so we set up itunes.com/soi-remove to let them easily do so. Any customer that needs additional help should contact AppleCare,” spokesman Adam Howorth told the BBC.

Users who remove the album and do not download it again before 13 October will be charged for the 11 tracks if they subsequently try to add them again.

So if you have iTunes or an iOS device and hate shitty music feel free to click the link, log into your iTunes account, and have Songs of Innocence sent to the sewer where it belongs.

In the off chance that somebody from Apple is reading this I have a message for you: don’t ever let this happen again. If you want to give your customers’ something just give them credit to download whatever album they desire.

The True Beauty of Agorism

I’m an anarchist and I oppose initiating force. That closes to commonly use strategies for enacting political change to me: violent revolution and politics. In my quest to destroy the state I have opted instead to utilize counter-economics, which is a strategy that attempts to starve the state of resources and replace it by creating alternatives to the services is currently claims dominion over. But there is something I like about agorism even more than its rejection of initiating force. Agorism allows me to do what I want without having to give any fucks about what statists say.

This realization dawned on me during a discussion I had with a statist on Facebook. He, as is common amongst statists, was busy misrepresenting anarchy by claiming it is synonymous with chaos. During his continuous stream of ignorance he kept claiming that collective political action was the only way to achieve change (because it has worked so well over the last century) and that anarchists have undermined the liberty movement by stealing people from effective political activities and having them waste their time with strategies that will never work. It was then that I realized something: I don’t actually have to care what he says, thinks, or does.

Politics, which is a form of collective action, requires you to obtain the approval of your peers. If you are unable to gain favor with your peers your chances of achieving victory are nil. Imagine being a politician who wanted to really change things. Your strategy relies on taking away every ounce of power possible from the state and its cronies. You can’t promise anybody free shit because your strategy relies on taking away everybody’s free shit. What would you accomplish? The answer, as Ron Paul knows all too well, is nothing. Politics necessary requires you to give people free shit in exchange for their support. Therefore it requires you to use the power of the state to benefit your cronies in order to obtain the power necessary to accomplish your political goals. If you want to end the Federal Reserve, for example, you must promise to bomb a few foreign countries in return.

This is why politics is ineffective at creating real change. Politics has to be a circlejerk, which means you have to care what others think of you. Agorism, on the other hand, requires individual action but not permission. I don’t have to fill out permits, seek political favor, or compromise any of my principles. The only thing agorism requires me to do is provide a good or service outside of the state’s control and hope others find it appealing enough to pay me for it instead of relying on the “legitimate” market. If my product or service is desirable I will be able to deprive the state of some resources. If my product or service isn’t desirable then I return to the drawing board.

I’ve never been one to seek permission. When I want to do something I do it. If the violent gang we call the state provides an easy way to pay it off so I don’t have to spend time in a cage I will sometimes do it but not always (and I’m becoming less and less inclined to do so). Agorism appeals to independently minded people like me who aren’t fans of begging masters for privileges. More and more I notice that politics primarily caters to thee kinds of people: those interested in maintaining the status quo (perhaps with some minor changes), those with little or no creativity, and those whose political circle and social circle are one in the same. I’m much more apt to tell somebody to fuck off than I am to beg them for permission or do whatever I can to appease them in the hopes they will reward me with some scraps from the table of liberty. The fact that I’m usually sickened by extremely politically active individuals probably colors my point of view as well (seriously, if you try to get me to do call banking for a political cause or politicians you’re automatically on my shit list).