Tag: 1984 was a Warning not a Blueprint

Assumption Of Guilt

We truly live in wondrous times. At one time people held inconvenient beliefs about people being innocent until proven guilty by a jury of 12 impartial individuals. Today is a simpler time where most cases never go to trail. Instead the State merely coerces accused individuals into admitting guilt:

The presumption of innocence helps to combat prejudice and prejudging in the U.S. criminal justice system. But because plea bargains have supplanted trials in our criminal justice system, that presumption does not apply to most cases in the United States.

[…]

Unfortunately, the system that is described by our school teachers and that Americans see on television and in the movies is now defunct. Jury trials are now rare events in the United States. In fact, about 95 percent of the cases moving through the system will not go to trial. The overwhelming majority of cases will be resolved by plea bargains.

In a plea bargain, the prosecutor typically offers the defendant a reduced prison sentence if he agrees to waive his right to a jury trial and admit guilt in a brief hearing before a judge. Prosecutors use their power to pressure people who have been accused of a crime, and are presumed innocent, to waive their right to a trial and admit guilt.

We know this is true because prosecutors admit that this is what they are doing. The Supreme Court has approved these prosecutorial tactics in the landmark 1978 case, Bordenkircher v. Hayes. By a close 5-4 vote, the court said there was no constitutional problem with pressuring the accused to waive his trial and admit guilt. According to the court, there is no illegal coercion “so long as the accused is free to accept or reject the prosecution’s offer.”

The article touches on the folly of this system but I want to make another important point.

A person accused of a crime isn’t involved in a fair game. From the very beginning of a case, where the accused is arrested, the deck is stacked against them. Cops can lie to them but they can’t lie to the cops. So the accused is at an immediate information disadvantage because the cops and lie about evidence, witness testimony, and other things that can make a charge look hopeless to fight. Prosecutors have the right to threaten an accused with decades of prison time whereas the accused has no right to threaten the prosecutor with, say, a retaliatory lawsuit if it’s later found out that they’re innocent. In addition to that it’s also not uncommon for an accused party to front their legal defense fees even if they are found innocent.

The deal presented to the accused party isn’t fair by any sane definition. No matter what avenue they choose they’re at a major disadvantage. Admitting guilt and taking the lesser sentence seems like a good choice when the alternative is a longer sentence and tremendous legal defense fees. Especially when, as far as the accused knows, the evidence against them is thoroughly damning.

A legal system that favors one side over the other cannot be considered an engine for justice. It is merely a formality that allows the advantaged side to declare its actions just when it crushes the disadvantaged side.

Your Device Is A Snitch

In addition to pervasive government surveillance there is also pervasive corporate surveillance. Corporate surveillance isn’t as concerning since corporations rarely murder the people they’re surveilling but it’s also more sinister because most of the people being surveilled unwittingly agreed to be. Mobile phones are a great example of this. A lot of people, including myself, find mobile phones incredibly useful. They allow you to communicate with friends and family in almost any location, provide remote Internet connectivity, can navigate you to your destination, etc. But the side effect of the technology allows your cellular provider to know your location. In addition to that many apps use location services provide by your phone’s operating system and hardware to pinpoint your location and report it to the developers.

Another reason corporate surveillance is sinister is because the State usually has access to the collected data either through secret agreements or warrants. Your devices may report to the developer on what you’re doing and the State may then gain access to the data to prosecute you. An example of this is a recent story of a woman who filed a rape claim that was proven to be false by data collected from her Fitbit:

In March, a Florida woman traveled to Lancaster, Pennsylvania where she stayed at her boss’s home, reports ABC 27. On a Tuesday, police were called to the home where they found overturned furniture, a knife and a bottle of vodka, according to Lancaster Online. Jeannine Risley told police she’d been sleeping and that she was woken up around midnight and sexually assaulted by a “man in his 30s, wearing boots.” However, Risley was wearing her Fitbit band at the time. She initially said that the Fitbit had been lost in the struggle, but police found it in a hallway and when they downloaded its activity, the device became a witness against her.

According to ABC 27, Risley handed the username and password for her Fitbit account over to police. What they found contradicted her account of what happened that night. Via Lancaster Online:

[A] Fitbit device Risley was wearing told a different story, the affidavit shows.

The device, which monitors a person’s activity and sleep, showed Risley was awake and walking around at the time she claimed she was sleeping.

In this case one could argue that the surveillance lead to a good outcome since it busted the wearer for making a false rape accusation. But surveillance has no morality. This could very well be used to prosecute somebody who was arrested of a drug crime. For example, heart rate data from a Fitbit could be used as evidence that somebody had taken a particular drug at a certain time. It could also be used, as it was in this case, to prove the person wasn’t asleep at the time they were accused to taking drugs.

I’m not going to tell you not to use these devices. They do provide a lot of desirable functionality for many people. However, they also provide some potentially negative side effects that users should be aware of. If you use these devices just make sure you understand the ramifications.

The Inevitable Outcome

Here we are in election season. As with the last election and the election before that one this election is most notable for having the worst candidates imaginable. Cock us, err, caucus season is upon us. Right now the headliners of this political mascaraed are a fascist and a socialist:

Senator Bernie Sanders and Donald J. Trump have opened up solid leads in Iowa less than two weeks before the state’s caucuses kick off the 2016 presidential nominating contests, according to a poll released Thursday.

The survey from CNN/ORC shows Mr. Sanders, who was trailing Mrs. Clinton significantly in early December, erasing her lead and overtaking her. Likely Democratic caucusgoers now back the Vermont senator over Mrs. Clinton by eight percentage points, 51 percent to 43 percent. Last month she was ahead of him by 18 percentage points.

Because I know I have intelligent readers I’m sure many of you are wanting to point out that fascism is a form of socialism so the competition is really between two socialists and you would be right. And that brings us to the point of this post (yes, there is a point, I wasn’t going to waste your time with meaningless politicking): the United States has reached its inevitable outcome.

When the Revolutionary War was over and the colonists decided to replace one king with another they put the people of the United States on a collision course with collectivism. Statism in any form is collectivist in nature. It deemphasizes the individual in favor of an abstraction we often use for convenience: the people. The State, we’re told, reflects the will of the people. But the people don’t have a will, only individuals do, and each individual has a unique will. There is no way to reflect the will of the people by the simple fact that every individual living in a country doesn’t share a common will. To get around this inconvenience the very human desire to fit in is exploited by means of statistics.

Voting, like the people, is an abstraction. When you go to your polling place you’re not voicing your opinion, you’re participating in a statistical survey. One, I might add, that reinforces the State by providing you a curated list of candidates. In this statistical survey the decision is based on the majority. Whichever name on the curated list gets the most responses from the sample gets to be in office. Everybody who either wanted somebody else in the office, to abolish the office, or something else entirely different is ignored. Their wills are set aside.

The problem with collectivism is that it’s self-reinforcing. It tricks individuals into thinking about the good of the people (i.e. the State) through propaganda. We’re told to think of the greater good and that acting on our personal wants is selfish. Voting is used to reinforce the propaganda. The statistics show that the people wants X so anybody demanding Y is selfish. Since a great many humans desire to fit in they would rather be with the majority (a statistical majority in this case) than be selfish.

It’s no surprise that the greater good is whatever is best for the State. And nothing is better for the State than socialism. Under the ultimate ends of socialism everything is collectivized under the State. There is no need to steal through taxation, citations, civil forfeiture, etc. The State declares ownership over everything and doles out what rations is believes necessary to individuals.

So here we are. Through more than two centuries of collectivism reinforced by statistics individuals have played their part in their own executions. Individuals have been conned into considering the greater good, which is whatever is good for the State, over their own. In so doing they’ve handed the State increasingly more power. Now the United States is at a point where the State is so powerful the biggest election in the country is between two socialists. Even if one or both of the two candidates don’t receive their party’s nomination the other eligible nominees are all socialists as well. No matter who wins individualism loses and with it goes freedom.

Is Your Thermostat A Snitch

As a general rule I’m a huge fan of technology. But even I have major reservations with the so-called Internet of things (really just adding a chip to devices that were previously analog). It’s not that the ideas themselves are bad but there isn’t enough attention being paid to the implementations, especially from a security and privacy standpoint.

The Nest thermostat is one of the more popular regular household devices with a chip added to it. What’s not to like about a thermostat that automatically adjusts the temperature in your home based on when you are and aren’t there? Besides that software bug that drained the battery and caused people’s furnaces to shutdown. And the fact the bloody thing snitches on where your house is:

Researchers at Princeton University have found that, until recently, Alphabet’s popular Nest thermostat was leaking the zip code and location of its users over the internet. This data was transmitted unencrypted, or in the clear, meaning that anyone sniffing traffic could have intercepted it, according to the researchers.

The researchers also studied several other smart devices, including the Sharx security camera, a PixStar smart photoframe, and Samsung’s SmartThings Hub. The goal of their research wasn’t to find specific bugs in these devices, but to determine what information was being leaked when the devices communicated with their servers in the cloud.

I have no idea what a thermostat would need to even know where your house is. It needs to know the temperature inside and what you want the temperature to be at so it can order your climate control system to make the two numbers be the same. But it apparently does have access to that information and the developers cared so little about the privacy of their customers that they not only failed to keep the data private but didn’t even bother encrypting it when it was sent. And this isn’t an isolated incident. The complete disregard for these kind of details is plaguing the Internet of things market.

The Black Market Has You Covered

One of my favorite fairytales is the one about government regulations being able to restrict the proliferation of technology.

IMSI catchers are widely used by government law enforcers for surveillance. The devices, for those of you unfamiliar, act as cell towers and by so doing get local cell phones to connect to it instead of the legitimate cell towers. It’s a man in the middle attack that allows law enforcers to snoop any unencrypted data transmitted or received by a victim’s cell phone.

In the United States the use of such device by non-law enforcers is sternly frowned upon. With the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) restrictions on the civilian use of IMSI catchers you might be lead to think the devices are hard to acquire. Not so. There is one thing that always renders government restrictions on technology impotent: the black market:

Across a tinny Skype connection, a Hong Kong tech company is trying to sell us state surveillance equipment.

“I switched it on already,” says Edward Tian, holding up a backpack containing a box and wires. “This is the antenna. This is the battery […] Everything is this simple.”

It’s a $15,000 IMSI catcher operated via an Android app. Tian shows us the user interface in a grainy video. He hits a button on the app and information on a bunch of cellphones in the area trickles down the screen. He has their IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity, a unique identifier for their SIM card), IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity—the same for their device), and even full phone numbers.

Any perceived control over a technology is nothing more than an illusion.

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.

Is Your Device A Snitch

I’m convinced that one of the biggest threat to privacy is the reliance on advertisements many industries suffer from. This reliance has lead to a proliferation of surveillance technology. And now that the so-called Internet of Things (IoT) is the new hot commodity we’re seeing surveillance technology being embedded to more everyday things. With so many devices being capable of spying on you the next big thing in advertising has become cross-device surveillance. Bruce Schneier has an excellent article that shows just how far these advertisers are trying to go:

SilverPush is an Indian startup that’s trying to figure out all the different computing devices you own. It embeds inaudible sounds into the webpages you read and the television commercials you watch. Software secretly embedded in your computers, tablets, and smartphones pick up the signals, and then use cookies to transmit that information back to SilverPush. The result is that the company can track you across your different devices. It can correlate the television commercials you watch with the web searches you make. It can link the things you do on your tablet with the things you do on your work computer.

Your computerized things are talking about you behind your back, and for the most part you can’t stop them­ — or even learn what they’re saying.

Now white noise generators that broadcast on the frequencies used by this surveillance technology are suddenly good ideas for stocking stuffers. Without them your new smart fridge can display advertisements to you based on what your smart television told it you were watching.

Not only does this open the floodgates of privacy violations further but it also greatly increases the ability of malicious attackers. Ad networks have become major targets for malware distributors. This has created headaches for computer and smart phone users but now it could create headaches for your television, fridge, coffee maker, and even your damn doorbell. Making matters even worse is how unreliable IoT manufacturers are at both implementing and maintaining security. What happens when your smart fridge is considered out of date by the manufacturer and its software security problems are no longer fixed?

The reliance on advertising to fund so much technology is creating both a private and security nightmare. And it’s only getting worse.

The Never Ending Ended War

Remember the war in Iraq officially declared over? Remember how much he and his supporters bragged about him ending Bush’s war? Guess what? We’re sending more troops there yet again:

FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. – An elite U.S. Special Operations targeting force has arrived in Iraq and will carry out operations against the Islamic State, part of a broader effort in 2016 to strike at the militants and that also includes U.S. Special Operations troops in Syria, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said Wednesday.

The targeting force is now in place and is prepared to work with Iraqis to begin going after militant fighters and commanders, “killing or capturing them wherever we find them,” Carter said, speaking to about 200 soldiers at the home of the Army’s 101st Airborne Division, which is expected to deploy about 500 soldiers next month to Iraq and Kuwait as part of the campaign against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL.

If you’re psychopathic enough to want to build an empire there are two ways to go about it. You can do it the smart way, the way the Mongols did it, and leave a conquered area to run its own affairs as long as it pays your demanded tribute. Or you can do it the stupid way, the way the United States prefers, and try to micromanage a conquered area even if they do pay your demanded tribute.

The problem with the stupid way is that the people tend to resent you far more. Because of that they continue actively fighting you, which ensures you can never really lay longterm ownership over the region. Even though the war was declared over the United States will likely be fighting it until it finally decides to leave.

The Pervasiveness Of Government Databases

Let’s discuss government databases. The United States government maintains numerous databases on its citizens. Many of these databases are populated, if not entirely, in part by algorithms. And unlike Amazon’s recommendation algorithms or Google’s search algorithms, government algorithms have real world consequences. Because government databases have become so pervasive these consequences can range from being barred from flying on a plane to signing up for the latest video game:

Last weekend Muhammad Zakir Khan, an avid gamer and assistant professor at Broward College in Florida, booted up his PC and attempted to sign up for Epic Games’ MOBA-inspired Paragon beta. Unbeknownst to Khan, however, was that his name name—-along with many others-—is on the US government’s “Specially Designated Nationals list,” and as such was blocked from signing up.

“Your account creation has been blocked as a result of a match against the Specially Designated Nationals list maintained by the United States of America’s Office of Foreign Assets control,” read the form. “If you have questions, please contact customer service at accounts@epicgames.com.”

There’s an interesting series of connections here. The first connection is Mr. Khan’s name appearing in the Specially Designated Nationals list. The second connection is the database, which is used to enforce the United States government’s various sanctions, applying to the Unreal 4 engine. The third connection is the game utilizing the Unreal 4 engine. In all likelihood Mr. Khan’s name was added to the database by an algorithm that adds anybody who has an arbitrarily selected number of characteristics that include such things as last names and religions.

So, ultimately, Mr. Khan was being prevented from signing up for a game because the government believes if they prevent modern video game technology from entering Iran, North Korea, or other countries under sanctions that the citizenry will start a revolution. Being human (or at least somewhat close approximations thereof) the agents charged with enforcing these sanctions chose to automate the process as much as possible, which resulted in a database likely automatically populated algorithmically.