News You Need to Know – Page 78

The USDA Has To Stop Those Raw Milk Criminals

At least that’s what I’m assuming the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is planning on using .40 caliber submachineguns for.

It amazes me how every government agency has a armed teams. Hell, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has a webpage featuring their armed response team. At least NASA can claim to need such a team to fight aliens. I’m not sure what the USDA does with armed teams. Is the department now tasked with enforcing Monsanto’s patents? Do raw milk sellers really need to be raided by dudes in riot gear? Maybe farmer Smith is using fertilizer with too much potassium.

Well This Changes Everything

Remember the 7 year-old kid who was suspended from school because he ate his Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun? Well new information has come to light that changes everything:

Laurie Pritchard, Anne Arundel’s director of legal services, said that the object central to the case had been misportrayed, as well as the reason for the discipline.

“First of all, it wasn’t a Pop-Tart,” she said. “It was a breakfast pastry. And he was not suspended because he chewed his breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun.” He was suspended for “an ongoing classroom disruption,” she said.

Holy shit, why weren’t we informed of this right away? If we had known he had shaped a breakfast pastry into a gun instead of a Pop-Tart we could have demanded the kid’s head!

OK, the actual content of the story isn’t quite that simple. But that quote was gold. The school is now trying to claim that the child was suspended because of a history of behavioral problems:

School officials produced a lengthy log of various types of incidents. They argued that they had made many efforts to address the boy’s behavioral issues. The family said they had not seen the list before and had been unaware of a number of the incidents.

There’s a problem with this narrative though. If he was suspended for a history of behavioral issues why was he not suspended during one of those incidents? Why did they choose an incident where the kid ate a Pop-Tart, sorry, breakfast pastry into a firearm to suspend him? Is eating food into abstract shapes a behavioral issue?

I’m sure the school will go to great extent to justify the suspension. We’ll probably be told that the kid held a black mass in the school cafeteria or something along those lines. School administrators don’t like to admit wrongdoing and will go to absolutely absurd lengths to throw their petty authority around.

Some Basic Rules for Blogging

I’ve been at this blogging thing for a while now (year five, baby). In that time I have learned a thing or two about blogging. Part of what I’ve learned is from direct experience (in other words I screwed up) and other things I learned by experiencing other blogs. I would like to take a moment to discuss a couple of the things I’ve learned. Namely linking to sources.

A site that has become popular with my libertarian friends is The Free Thought Project. One of the topics commonly covered on that site is police brutality. Anybody who has read this blog even for a short while know that I’m not a police apologist and generally despise modern policing practices. Therefore a site discussing police brutality should be right up my ally. But time and again I’ve noticed two issues with The Free Through Project: claims are made without any citation and quoted articles aren’t linked to.

Case in point, this article discussing a woman who was blinded by a police officer who apparently used a JPX Pepper Gun under the minimum recommended range. The article makes the following claim:

The results from firing the gun at such a close proximity were catastrophic.

The blast of pepper gel sliced her right eye in half, fractured her right orbital bone and severed the optic nerve in her left eye.

But no source is given. In fact the only source provided is an article that was merely referred to by “According to the Press Enterprise,”. No link was given to the article. Thankfully Google makes it easy to search for an article with a few simple keywords. Two links come up on Google. The first simply delivers me to a 404 error while the second takes me to an article that covers the story but isn’t the article quoted (but I don’t know if the link that now leads to a 404 error was the originally quote article because no link was provided on The Free Through Project). It’s possible that the description of the woman’s injuries were in the first article as well but no mention of any source was given in regards to that claim.

The problem with failing to link to the originally quote article is that I can’t use The Free Through Project as a source. No claim made within it can be verified. I can’t even look up a cached version of the quoted article to see whether or not it originally stated what is claimed by The Free Thought Project article because I don’t have an actual link.

To put it bluntly, The Free Thought Project article is shit. For all I know the author found the original story and made up a bunch of crap to make it sound even worse in an effort to push an agenda. The headline screams sensationalism as does the graphic description of the damage done to the woman’s face. If the claims made in the headline and the description of the injuries could be verified then the apparent sensationalism would be fact. But they can’t be verified, which makes the entire article worthless for anybody seeking actual facts about the story.

If you’re a blogger, or writing any webpage really, you should link to any articles you reference. Failing to do so not only make you look unprofessional it also makes you look sleazy.

Why I’m Not a Collectivist Anarchist

In anarchist realms there are numerous subgroups. Two of the most well-known subgroups are collectivists and individualists. Although describing all of the nuances of the two groups would take ages their main divergence point is whether they focus on society or individuals. As societies are made up of individuals I tend to align with the individualist camp. But there is another reason I don’t align with the collectivist camp, the drama tends to run very high in their meetings. I believe drama is inherent in any collectivist movement because those movements rely on organization, collective action, solidarity, and other group strategies. These strategies require each person to be mostly committed to the group, which can cause major issues when the group decides to do something you don’t want to do.

I’ve been to a few collectivist anarchist meetings. Compared to the meetings I have with my individualist anarchist friends, which usually involved beers at a local watering hole, the collectivist meetings were pretty dramatic (also the meetings lacked booze as those meetings were declared “sober spaces”, which may have been 90 percent of the problem). A recent meeting of anarcho-syndicalists at Portland State University, although more severe than any of the collectivist meetings I’ve attended, does give a good idea of what tends to happen:

A meeting of Anarcho-Syndicalists devolved into chaos at Portland State University last week. The “Law & Disorder” conference presented by the Students of Unity was disrupted by protesters complaining about “survivor trauma” and the “patriarchal society” which is “prioritizing powerful white men.”

In my experience what usually happens at these meetings is a general assembly is arranged to make decisions related to the group. Everybody presents their pet issues and tries to convince the collective to agree on fighting for that issue. This usually devolves into a battle of wills as one or two members of the collective don’t want to fight for the issue. The winner is determined by the side that is most charismatic (which is a relative term when the meeting devolves into yelling and sometimes crying) because the group will eventually decided to vote for or against it simply to move on with things (this usually happens after an hour or more of debate). Oftentimes the following weeks will involve a great deal of animosity between those for and against the issue, which breeds more drama. And it’s not uncommon for that animosity to become an outright feud, which really cranks up the drama level.

Our individualist meetings tend to be much more laid back. Somebody presents an idea and those who want to join him do and those who don’t don’t. It’s a far more comfortable atmosphere for somebody like me who only enjoys watching drama, not participating in it.

In closing I do want to clarify that I’m not trying to insult my collectivist brethren with this post. Collectivism simply isn’t for me but if it’s your thing more power to you. And if you have a collectivist group that manages to get things done without a ton of drama that’s great. This post is based solely on my experience and a video of an experience that mirrors mine.

Slacktivism, The Inability to Get Things Done

Here in the United States our attention span is effectively zero. In general there is a new cause every week and sometimes that cause can last a whole two weeks. Last week’s cause, which is looking to span into this week, is bringing back girls who were kidnapped from Nigeria. This means that a bunch of people, in lieu of doing something, have develop a catchy new Twitter hashtag and are posting pictures of themselves holding up signs with that hashtag on it. Larry Correia concisely explains how effective this will be at solving the problem:

I did a lot of research on human trafficking and modern slavery before Mike Kupari and I wrote Swords of Exodus. It is a horrible, evil, and surprisingly gigantic thing. One thing I’m fairly sure of about the kind of people who do that sort of thing for a living, is that they really don’t give a shit about a bunch of American movie stars taking pouty selfies of themselves holding up signs with hash tag give our girls back. The disapproval of fat, soft, Americans on Facebook really doesn’t move them. They care about getting paid or getting killed, that’s about it. The self-righteous pouting is useless.

The reason slacktivism fails in situations like this is because the perpetrators are truly evil individuals who gives zero fucks about what other people think of them and their actions. Why would anybody think that an individual willing to kidnap and sell young girls would care about other peoples’ opinions?

Problems like this, hell most problems, cannot be solved by pictures of people holding up signs with flavor-of-the-week phrases written on them. The only way problems like this can be solved is through action. In the case of kidnapping the only real options are provide protection for would-be victims and dedicate resources to saving present victims. These are solutions that almost always require the use of force, which is something many slacktivists have a problem with.

Either way this cause, like every cause before it, will fade from the memories of Americans within another week or so. We don’t have the attention span required for prolonged caring. And that, in my opinion, is a true tragedy.

Technology Companies Defying the State By Reporting Law Enforcement Requests

Rebellion is a beautiful thing. Several major technology companies included Apple, Facebook, and Google have decided to notify their users when law enforcement agents request their data:

Major U.S. technology companies have largely ended the practice of quietly complying with investigators’ demands for e-mail records and other online data, saying that users have a right to know in advance when their information is targeted for government seizure.

This increasingly defiant industry stand is giving some of the tens of thousands of Americans whose Internet data gets swept into criminal investigations each year the opportunity to fight in court to prevent disclosures. Prosecutors, however, warn that tech companies may undermine cases by tipping off criminals, giving them time to destroy vital electronic evidence before it can be gathered.

Fueling the shift is the industry’s eagerness to distance itself from the government after last year’s disclosures about National Security Agency surveillance of online services. Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Google all are updating their policies to expand routine notification of users about government data seizures, unless specifically gagged by a judge or other legal authority, officials at all four companies said. Yahoo announced similar changes in July.

One thing I like about the technology field is that companies and individuals within it tend to have a greater problem with authority than most. Although I would have preferred to see this happen sooner I’m not going to gripe too much. Instead I want to congratulate these companies on doing the right thing.

It’s interesting to see the changes that have rippled through the technology market since Edward Snowden leaked those National Security Agency (NSA) documents. Security and transparency has traditionally been an afterthought for major technology companies but both have gained more prominence since we all learned that the NSA was unlawfully spying on each and every one of us. Google, for example, began encrypting data moving between its data centers. Experts in the security field boycotted the RSA conference because its namesake took $10 million from the NSA to use a knowingly weak random number generator in its BSAFE product. There has also been a race to develop more secure communication devices in an attempt to thwart the NSA surveillance apparatus. Basically the state royally pissed off the technology industry and it is now actively doing what it can to rebel.

I’m proud to work in a field that is actively giving the state a gigantic middle finger. Seeing companies like Apple, Facebook, and Google publicly change their policies to better inform their customers when the state is snooping makes me smile.

If You’re Doing Something Illegal Don’t Brag About It

I feel that this is something that shouldn’t need to be said but if you’re doing something illegal don’t go around bragging about it. Bragging is how people get caught:

YOKOHAMA – A 27-year-old man who allegedly made handguns with a 3-D printer was arrested Thursday on suspicion of illegal weapons possession, the first time Japan’s firearms control law has been applied to the possession of guns made by this method.

The suspect, Yoshitomo Imura, an employee of Shonan Institute of Technology in Fujisawa, Kanagawa Prefecture, had the plastic guns at his home in Kawasaki in mid-April, the police said. No bullets have been found.

The police launched an investigation earlier this year after Imura posted video footage online of the guns, which he claimed to have produced himself, along with blueprints for them, according to investigative sources.

Emphasis mine. I completely support what Imura did. He lives in a country with very strict gun control laws. By manufacturing firearms he was able to bypass those laws and demonstrate how ineffective gun control laws really are. But he also screwed up by posting video of is escapades in a manner that didn’t preserve his anonymity.

If you’re going to break the law, something that I believe is moral so long as you’re not hurting anybody, either keep your mouth shut or brag about your caper anonymously (the latter being more risky than the former mind you). The desire to received credit is the biggest downfall of law breakers. Breaking the law is an act that will enter you into a conflict with the state. When you’re involved in a conflict, whether it be physical or just verbal, the first thing you should do is put your ego aside.

Brass Balls

All I have to say about this is that there are men out there with brass balls:

On July 19, 1957, five Air Force officers and one photographer stood together on a patch of ground about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. They’d marked the spot “Ground Zero. Population 5” on a hand-lettered sign hammered into the soft ground right next to them.

As we watch, directly overhead, two F-89 jets roar into view, and one of them shoots off a nuclear missile carrying an atomic warhead.

They wait. There is a countdown; 18,500 feet above them, the missile is detonated and blows up. Which means, these men intentionally stood directly underneath an exploding 2-kiloton nuclear bomb. One of them, at the key moment (he’s wearing sunglasses), looks up. You have to see this to believe it.

Here’s the video footage of the event:

You couldn’t pay me enough to do that.

[Digital] Papers Please

As the popular phrase “On the Internet nobody know that you’re a dog.” tries to explain the Internet is a bastion of anonymity. You can be whoever you want to be when posting online and if you properly utilize effective anonymity tools there is no practical way for anybody to connect your online identity to your real identify. This shield of anonymity enables truly free speech, which means the government wants to stop it. Meet the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) initiative, an attempt by the executive branch to force people to obtain a license to use the Internet. This license isn’t merely are method for the state to identify you as being qualified to use the Internet, it’s an attempt to remove the shield of anonymity that protects free speech online:

The draft NSTIC says that, instead of a national ID card, it “seeks to establish an ecosystem of interoperable identity service providers and relying parties where individuals have the choice of different credentials or a single credential for different types of online transactions,” which can be obtained “from either public or private sector identity providers.” (p. 6) In other words, the governments want a lot of different companies or organizations to be able to do the task of confirming that a person on the Internet is who he or she claims to be.

Decentralized or federated ID management systems are possible, but like all ID systems, they definitely pose significant privacy issues. ¹ There’s little discussion of these issues, and in particular, there’s no attention to how multiple ID’s might be linked together under a single umbrella credential. A National Academies study, Who Goes There?: Authentication Through the Lens of Privacy, warned that multiple, separate, unlinkable credentials are better for both security and privacy (pp. 125-132). Yet the draft NSTIC doesn’t discuss in any depth how to prevent or minimize linkage of our online IDs, which would seem much easier online than offline, and fails to discuss or refer to academic work on unlinkable credentials (such as that of Stefan Brands, or Jan Camenisch and Anna Lysyanskaya).

Providing a uniform online ID system could pressure providers to require more ID than necessary. The video game company Blizzard, for example, recently indicated it would implement a verified ID requirement for its forums before walking back the proposal only after widespread, outspoken criticism from users.

Pervasive online ID could likewise encourage lawmakers to enact access restrictions for online services, from paying taxes to using libraries and beyond. Website operators have argued persuasively that they cannot be expected to tell exactly who is visiting their sites, but that could change with a new online ID mechanism. Massachusetts recently adopted an overly broad online obscenity law; it takes little imagination to believe states would require NSTIC implementation individuals to be able to access content somehow deemed to be “objectionable.”

I will go so far as to argue that truly free speech isn’t possible without the availability of anonymity. We see this whenever a company sues a customer who wrote a bad review, the state kidnaps a businessman, somebody is kidnapped for holding the wrong political belief. Imagine how much easier it would be for a business to sue anybody who left a negative review of their products if the NSTIC initiative was realized. Confirming the identify of the reviewer would be simple and that would put anybody leaving a negative review at risk of a lawsuit.

The only reason I can perceive for the executive branch’s push for its NSTIC initiative is for squashing political dissidence and suppressing critics of its corporate partners. Problems of authentication, authorization, and accounting have already been solved in numerous ways that allow an individual to keep their online identity separate from their real life identity. There are even methods that allow a user’s real life identify to be verified (which is what my certificate provider does). Nothing in the NSTIC initiative solves a problem that hasn’t been solved already. It merely introduces another way to solve these problems in a manner that centralized information for easy federal and corporate access.

Find My iPhone Vigilantism, a Demonstration of State Failure in Providing Security

The New York Times ran a story covering a recent phenomenon where victims of iPhone theft use the Find My iPhone feature to find the thief and reclaim their phone:

Using the Find My iPhone app on her computer, she found that someone had taken the phones to a home in this Los Angeles exurb, 30 miles east of her West Hollywood apartment.

So Ms. Maguire, a slight, 26-year-old yoga instructor, did what a growing number of phone theft victims have done: She went to confront the thieves — and, to her surprise, got the phones back.

Ah, the lovely Hollywood outcome where all is well at the end. But the news isn’t Hollywood so you know that a happy ending at the beginning of the story must be followed by a story of horror:

In San Diego, a construction worker who said his iPhone had been stolen at a reggae concert chased the pilferer and wound up in a fistfight on the beach that a police officer had to break up. A New Jersey man ended up in custody himself after he used GPS technology to track his lost iPhone and attacked the wrong man, mistaking him for the thief.

The rest of the article mostly consists of dire warning, primarily form police officers, against people seeking out thieves and attempting to recover their property. By the end of the story you’re supposed to see these so-called vigilantes as well-meaning albeit foolish people. What isn’t discussed are the motivations of these people willing to put themselves at risk to recover their stolen property.

I see this phenomenon (which likely consists of no more than ten or so people but the media needed a story so it inflated how common this practice is) as an example of the state’s failure to provide adequate security. As you likely know the state maintains a virtual monopoly on security services via its monopoly on law enforcement. While there are a few areas that the state allows private security providers to operate in (namely building security) the personal electronics recovery market isn’t one of them. If somebody steals your mobile phone you’re expected to rely on the police to recover it. This wouldn’t be an issue if the police would actually invest resources into recovering a stolen phone. But in most cases they will fill out a meaningless report and inform you that it’s almost impossible to recover a stolen personal electronic device. Even providing the police with access to your Find My iPhone service will seldom encourage them to get off of their asses and retrieve your phone. In fact you can get more done by contacting Apple and providing it with your stolen phone’s serial number. At least then the phone will be kept by Apple should it ever be brought in for repairs and the person who brought it in will be reported to the police. But that’s a pretty big if.

Since the solution provided by the state is unwilling to retrieve your phone and private solutions are verboten you’re left with only one option: if you want to retrieve your stolen phone you have to do it yourself. Don’t blame the vigilantes, blame the state that monopolized the security market and failed to provide an adequate service.