But What About The Borders

Nationalism seems to be running strong in the veins of many pretend libertarians. I keep seeing people who call themselves libertarians arguing for stronger borders. Their argument usually goes something like, “In order to create a libertarian society we need a strong federal government to keep out the antilibertarians!”

Not surprisingly this attitude is more prevalent amongst politically active libertarians. There must be some kind of connection between the delusion that one can vote their way to libertarianism and believing giving the government more power will better enable voting their way to libertarianism.

But how can one create a libertarian society, that is to say a stateless society, by expanding the State’s power? I guess one could hope to expand the State’s power until it reaches that inevitable point of becoming so massive it collapses in on itself but that’s a pretty bloody road, especially for political libertarians. As a general rule the more totalitarian a state becomes the less tolerant of dissidents it becomes. Political opponents are usually the first against the wall since they made themselves very obvious to the State.

A Smaller Taser

It’s hard to argue against handguns being the most effective self-defense tool for the average person but there are many people, either through personal conviction (which is perfectly acceptable) or legal restraints (which is entirely unacceptable), that cannot carry one. I appreciate the market providing in-between solutions that improve an individual’s ability to defend themselves but don’t go as far as a firearm. Taser, which primarily targets law enforcement agencies, has announced a new Taser that is aimed at the civilian market. Overall I think it’s a pretty decent idea:

Additionally, the Pulse comes with rechargeable batteries, two live Taser cartridges, laser-assisted targeting and a 15-foot range. Most importantly, Taser says that if you end up using it for self-defense and leave it at the scene, the device will be replaced for free.

While the $399.00 price tag seems a bit steep for me since it’s approaching real handgun territory the free replacement program makes it a bit more palatable. In fact the free replacement program may be the best feature of this weapon. It gives a person who was just subjected to a self-defense situation one less thing to worry about. As far as size goes it’s in the compact handgun territory, which I believe is an excellent size for something aimed at regular people.

I hope we begin seeing more in-between self-defense tools aimed at regular individuals. They gives people who cannot or will not carry a firearm an option other than dying. And that increases the overall cost of committing violence.

Symbolism

The believed birthplace of the Bill of Rights now more closely matches the actual Bill of Rights:

A Pennsylvania building believed to be the birthplace of the Bill of Rights was partially demolished earlier this month because developers didn’t know the origin of the site, The Sentinel reported.

The building, originally known as the James Bell Tavern, hosted a meeting in 1788 of anti-Federalists opposed to the ratification of the new nation’s Constitution. The group began calling for changes to the document, and their plea was eventually heard when the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791.

Overall the Constitution was, what I consider, a bad idea. It cemented the power of the federal government by giving it the power to issue and collect taxes and a monopoly on deciding whether any actions performed by the federal government were constitutional. Once the federal government of the United States had those two powers it effectively became unstoppable.

With that said, the Antifederalists made a valiant effort at damage control by getting the Bill of Rights included in the Constitution. Unfortunately the realities of statism became apparent very quickly as the federal government, almost immediately, began curtailing the supposed rights listed in the Constitution.

Federalists: 1, Antifederalists: 0.

AgoraFest 2016

I’m happy to announced that AgoraFest will be happening for the fourth straight year in a row. It’ll be at the same place, Villa Maria, during the same weekend, September 22nd through the 25th.

For those of you who haven’t heard of AgoraFest (which, realistically, is probably a majority of you) it’s a small yearly festival for celebrating, discussing, and participating in agorism. I’ll post more about it as we get everything solidified. Suffice to say, I will be giving a few presentations on technology as it pertains to agorism.

Amateur Results

Remember Schneier’s point about expecting amateur results when using amateurs for frontline security? This is the result:

The couple says within twenty minutes, the door to the cabin opened and three, armed Port Authority police officers started walking down the aisle.

They stopped at aisle 23, where Chan and Serrano were sitting. One of them looked at Kathleen Chan.

“And he turns to her and says, ‘Do you have ID?’” Serrano remembered.

Chan showed her New York State driver’s license, with its photo ID and proof that she lived at the same address in Astoria that Serrano did.

In fact, the couple was about to mark nine years together, which included buying their Queens home in 2011 and refurbishing it.

[…]

“I asked him, ‘Can you tell me what this is about?’” Chan recalled. “He told me the flight crew had alerted the police that it was a possible case of sex trafficking. They thought I had not spoken any English, and that I was taking directions from Jay during the flight.”

Somebody on the flight crew saw something and decided to say something. Unfortunately the member of the flight crew wasn’t trained in any meaningful way to identify potential sex trafficking. So their reported ended up being a costly waste of time for everybody involved and needlessly terrorized an innocent couple.

If you see something, and you have no idea what you’re doing, just shut your mouth.

Be Careful Posting About Bernie Sander’s Campaign

Although I suspect most of my readers aren’t feeling the Bern I could be wrong. Just in case some of you are Bernie supporters I’m going to do you a huge favor and warn you about posting material from his campaign online. It seems the campaign does not appreciate such things. Wikipedia received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice from the Bernie Sanders campaign because it displayed publicly available campaign material:

A lawyer representing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has demanded that several of the campaign’s logos be removed from Wikipedia, saying that reproducing the logos violate copyright law. The Wikimedia Foundation has complied with the DMCA takedown notice and removed the notices.

If you’ve been posting information from Sanders’ campaign you should consider removing it immediately less you receive your own DMCA takedown notices.

It is funny, from my vantage point of an anarchist, that a political campaign would decide to enforce its copyright like this. Most people are away that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. This is especially true for political campaigns. Even if people were using campaign material for mockery it will both amuse opponents and stir up supporters. There’s really no way a campaign can lose by letting people use its materials since such use is almost certainly not going to convince anybody to change their viewpoint.

Oh well, some people want a master. I guess it’s good for them to get a feel for the new yoke before they have to wear it.

News From The Crypto War Frontline In New York

I continue to be amused by politicians’ efforts to prohibit math. A bill has been introduce in New York that would require manufacturers to implement backdoors in their mobile devices or face… some kind of consequence, I guess:

A New York assemblyman has reintroduced a new bill that aims to essentially disable strong encryption on all smartphones sold in the Empire State.

Among other restrictions, the proposed law states that “any smartphone that is manufactured on or after January 1, 2016 and sold or least in New York, shall be capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider.”

If it passes both houses of the state legislature and is signed by the governor, the bill would likely be the first state law that would impose new restrictions on mobile-based cryptography. Undoubtedly, if it makes it that far, the law would likely face legal challenges from Apple and Google, among others.

One of the great things about democracy is if a vote doesn’t go the way you want you can reintroduce the vote and waste everybody’s time again.

One question you have to ask is how this bill could be enforced. As written, it would punish sellers who sold phones that couldn’t be decrypted by law enforcers. But New York isn’t that big of a landmass and Ars Technia points out the rather obvious flaw in Assemblyman Titone’s clever plan:

UPDATE 3:49pm ET: Also, it’s worth pointing out that even if this bill does pass, it wouldn’t be terribly difficult for New Yorkers to cross a state line to buy a smartphone.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientists to see what would happen if this bill was signed into law. Sellers in New York may go under but sellers in neighboring states would see a jump in sales. In addition to sellers in neighboring states, the sales of online stores would likely increase as well since, you know, you can just order a cell phone online and have it delivered to your home.

Part of me is amused by the idea of strong cryptography being outlawed. Imagine millions of Android users flashing customer firmware just so they could remove government mandated backdoors. Such a prohibition would almost certainly create a sizable black market for flashing customer firmware.

How To Spot A Sex Trafficker According To The DHS

How do you spot a sex trafficker? According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the signs of a sex trafficker in a hotel are almost exactly the same as the signs of anybody else in a hotel that’s ready for a good time:

  • garbage cans containing many used condoms
  • frequent use of “Do Not Disturb” sign on room door
  • excessive foot traffic in and out of a room
  • “excessive sex paraphernalia” in room
  • an “overly smelly room” that reeks of “cigarette, marijuana, sweat, bodily fluids, and musk”
  • a guest who “averts eyes or does not make eye contact”
  • individuals “dressed inappropriate for age” or with “lower quality clothing than companions”
  • guests with “suspicious tattoos”
  • the presence of multiple computers, cell phones, pagers, credit card swipes, or other technology
  • the presence of photography equipment
  • minibar in need of frequent restocking
  • guests with too many personal hygiene products, especially “lubrication, douches”
  • guests with too few personal possessions
  • rooms paid for with cash or a rechargeable credit card
  • “individuals loitering and soliciting male customers”
  • “claims of being an adult though appearance suggests adolescent features”
  • refusal of room cleaning services for multiple days

This list, with an except of a few token points thrown in to make it seem otherwise, appears to be aimed at prostitution instead of sex trafficking. Furthermore, it’s absurd to expect hotel staff to identify sex traffickers. To quote Bruce Schneier, “If you ask amateurs to act as front-line security personnel, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get amateur security.” There is no value in having hotel staff act as investigators. I would even say it has less than no value since the cost of chasing false positives, including money paid to investigators following up on leads and the complacency that comes from a continuous stream of false positives, will likely become detrimental to efforts of fighting sex trafficking.

Programs like this are exercises in security theater. By holding these training sessions the DHS can claim it is doing something to thwart sex trafficking without actually having to do anything.

When Your Return On Investment Doesn’t

As a resident of the Twin Cities I’ve recently suffered the bullshit spewed by stadium advocates. When the local handegg team started whining about wanting an even bigger stadium the smart people said it was a stupid idea and the stupid people said it was a smart idea. The stupid side claimed the stadium will bring a huge boost to the local economy. People from around the country will supposedly flock to the new stadium where they wouldn’t have come to the old stadium (apparently handegg fans travel to games for the buildings, not to watch the teams). This, in turn, will flood local eateries, convenience stores, hotels, and every other business with patrons. And that will lead to a flood of tax revenue (handegg fans also seem to think tax revenue is a meritorious thing). Since everybody will benefit, they claim in spite of facts, the stadium should be at least publicly funded.

One issue never touched by stadium advocates is what happens when the breadwinning team decides to leave? That’s the question denizens of St. Louis are probably wishing they had asked themselves before they built their shiny new stadium:

The St. Louis Rams’ decision to relocate to Los Angeles brought a double dose of bad news for the city’s residents on Tuesday: Not only are they losing the football team they’ve hosted for the last 21 years, they also still have to pay for the stadium they built to lure the Rams to their hometown in the first place.

At the beginning of 2015, city and state taxpayers still owed more than $100 million in debt on the bonds used to finance the Edward Jones Dome, the stadium St. Louis put $280 million in public funds behind in 1995.

It isn’t scheduled to pay off that debt until at least 2021, and that could be more difficult without the Rams and the $500,000 rent payment the team made each year. The city itself owes $5 million per year over that period, and the loss of the Rams could increase costs in the short-term.

Politicians, being incapable of admitting to fuck ups, are trying to spin this to their favor. But the bottom line is the city will have to pay off the stadium without a continuos source of rent. That will almost certainly lead to a rise in property taxes if not other taxes to make up the difference.

Publicly funded stadiums are nothing more than exercises in transferring wealth from the people to the politicians and their cronies. Even though the Rams are moving on the team gets to enjoy a great deal of wealth it otherwise wouldn’t have had because it was tight with the local politicians who were willing to put the tax victims on the line.