Tag: Shut Up Slave

Threat Posed By Personally Owned Drones Overblown, Water Is Wet

Last year the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced it would be requiring all drone owners to register so their personal information, including home address, could be published for all to see. This requirement was justified under the claim that personally owned drones posed a major threat to other forms of aviation traffic. A lot of people, including myself, called bullshit on that and now research exists backing up our accusation:

That research, shown in a study just published by George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, was based on damage to aircraft from another sort of small, uncrewed aircraft—flying birds.

Much of the fear around drones hitting aircraft has been driven by FAA reports from pilots who have claimed near-misses with small drones. But an investigation last year by the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) found that of the 764 near-miss incidents with drones recorded by the FAA, only 27 of them—3.5 percent—actually were near misses. The rest were just sightings, and those were often sightings that took place when drone operators were following the rules. The FAA also overcounted, including reports where the pilot said explicitly that there was no near miss and some where the flying object wasn’t identified, leading the AMA to accuse the FAA of exaggerating the threat in order to get support for its anti-drone agenda.

So for starters all the “near misses” we’ve read about in the media weren’t near misses. A vast majority of them were mere sightings. But the FAA’s bullshit doesn’t stop there:

There hasn’t yet been an incident in which a drone has struck an aircraft. But bird strikes (and bat strikes) do happen, and there’s a rich data set to work from to understand how often they do. Researchers Eli Dourado and Samuel Hammond reasoned that the chances of a bird strike remain much higher than that of an aircraft hitting a drone because “contrary to sensational media headlines, the skies are crowded not by drones but by fowl.”

The researchers studied 25 years of FAA “wildlife strike” data, reports voluntarily filed by pilots after colliding with birds. The data included over 160,000 reported incidents of collisions with birds, of which only 14,314 caused damage—and 80 percent of that number came from collisions with large or medium-sized birds such as geese and ducks.

Emphasis mine. No drones have struck a plane yet, which means the threat of drones to already existing aviation traffic is still entirely unrealized. Hell, this combined with the fact most reported near misses weren’t near misses, we should actually take a moment to recognize how much of a nonissue personally owned drones have been so far. Drone operators by and large have been very well behaved.

The data on wildlife strikes is also valuable since it indicates that when a drone finally does strike a plane there probably won’t be much damage to the plane. Most personally owned drones are more fragile than the large or medium sized birds that managed to cause damage when colliding with a plane.

What we have here is another example of a government money grab disguised as a crisis. With the FAA’s new rules in place the agency can extract $5 from every registered drone operator and up to $250,000 from operating a drone without being registered. Furthermore, the FAA can up the fees and fines as it sees fit.

Obama To South By Southwest: Fuck Your Privacy

I normally don’t follow South by Southwest too much but when Obama takes the stage to talk about privacy I can’t help but take note. Unfortunately his speech wasn’t surprising. It could be summed up as fuck your privacy:

President Barack Obama called on the tech community to build a safe encryption key to assist in law enforcement investigations, saying that if it failed, it could one day face a more draconian solution passed by a Congress that is less sympathetic to its worldview. The president said he could not comment on the FBI’s current fight with Apple over its demand that the company build software to unlock data on an iPhone used by one of the alleged San Bernardino shooters. But he spoke broadly about the need to balance privacy and security, and warned that absolutist views on both sides are dangerous.

Balance, in the case of privacy and security, means people like you and me get shitty crypto that the government, and anybody else with the master key, can break while the government gets to enjoy crypto we can’t break.

Obama warned against an absolutist view but crypto belongs to one of those very few things in the universe that is either black or white. There is no gray. Crypto is either effective, that is to say it has no known methods of attack that are faster than brute force, or it is ineffective. I’ve written extensively on this blog as to why this is.

The biggest problem with a master key is that anybody who holds that key can decrypt any data encrypted with a scheme that key can work for. If every iPhone was setup to decrypt the data with the government’s master key it would only be a matter of time, probably an alarmingly short period of time, before the key was leaked to the Internet and everybody in the world had the ability to decrypt any iPhone at will.

So we need an absolutist view because it’s the only view that offers any amount of security. But Obama heads one of the largest surveillance states in the world so it’s no surprise that he holds a total disregard for the security of us little people.

The Most Transparent Government In History

Nearly a decade ago Obama was campaigning on a platform of, amongst other things, transparency. After 9/11 the Bush administration went full Orwell (you never go full Orwell) and people were demanding change. Obama promised to deliver that change. But history repeated itself as it so often does. Like every other politician before him, Obama failed to deliver on most of the promises he made. He not only failed to deliver on his promises but he actually expanding what Bush was doing.

Decades will likely pass before we learn the full extent of the current administration’s expansions to the surveillance state. However, bits and pieces are already leaking out. A recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request produced a wealth of information on how the current administration has been working to undermine FOIA requests:

The Obama administration has long called itself the most transparent administration in history. But newly released Department of Justice (DOJ) documents show that the White House has actually worked aggressively behind the scenes to scuttle congressional reforms designed to give the public better access to information possessed by the federal government.

The documents were obtained by the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a nonprofit organization that supports journalism in the public interest, which in turn shared them exclusively with VICE News. They were obtained using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) — the same law Congress was attempting to reform. The group sued the DOJ last December after its FOIA requests went unanswered for more than a year.

The documents confirm longstanding suspicions about the administration’s meddling, and lay bare for the first time how it worked to undermine FOIA reform bills that received overwhelming bipartisan support and were unanimously passed by both the House and Senate in 2014 — yet were never put up for a final vote.

It’s a lengthy article detailing several different ploys made by Obama’s administration in its quest to establish the most opaque government in history.

While the FOIA has revealed a great deal of the State’s dirty laundry it has always been a limited tool. When it was written a number of exemptions were included. Basically, at the judgement of the State, FOIA requests can be denied under several justifications. A FOIA request only reveals what the State is willing to reveal. However, the higher ups in the State have recognized that even with the number of exemptions put in place a lot of embarrassing information is still becoming public. That being the case, it’s not surprising to see the current administration working to add further restrictions on top of a bill that already includes numerous restrictions.

There is a lesson to be learned here. No matter what promises a politician makes up front they will almost invariably go unfulfilled if they win an election. Power seems terrible until you have it. Before becoming president I’m better Obama was being sincere in many of his promises. But when he gained the power he likely realized how good it felt. This is also why reforming the system through the voting process is doomed to fail. Even the most honest individuals can be corrupted with enough power.

Dianne Feinstein Planning To Propose Legislation To Enslave Tech Workers

Dianne Feinstein may be the Devil incarnate. Whenever there’s a glimmer of freedom slipping through the statists’ fingers she’s there to tighten the grip. Seeing Apple being allowed to fight the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) demand to write a compromised version of iOS, Feinstein is rushing in with legislation that will punish disobedient companies:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Technology companies could face civil penalties for refusing to comply with court orders to help investigators access encrypted data under draft legislation nearing completion in the U.S. Senate, sources familiar with continuing discussions told Reuters on Wednesday.

The long-awaited legislation from Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein, the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, may be introduced as soon as next week, one of the sources said.

Let’s call this proposal what it is: slavery. Under this legislation device manufacturers would be required to either perform labor when commanded or face severe punishment.

There should never be a circumstance under which you are forced to perform labor against your will. If law enforcers want to unlock a device and the manufacturer doesn’t want to help then they should be required to either do it themselves or hire somebody who wants to do it. But that’s a basic market principle and statism is the antithesis of the market.

Terrorist Plots Aren’t The Only Things The FBI Makes Up

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has a long history of creating terrorists. This practice is so prevalent that there’s a book about it. But terrorist plots aren’t the only thing the FBI makes up. The agency also likes to make up sex-trafficking rings:

In the press, it was a “wide-reaching sex-trafficking operation” run by Somali Muslim gangs who forced “girls as young as 12” to sell sex in Minnesota and Tennessee. In reality, the operation—which led to charges against 30 individuals, sex-trafficking convictions for three, and an eight year legal battle—was a fiction crafted by two troubled teenagers, a member of the FBI’s human-trafficking task force, and an array of overzealous officials. An opinion released this week by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals shows that federal prosecuters had no evidence whatsoever to support their “child sex trafficking conspiracy” case outside the seriously flawed testimony of two teenagers, one of whom had “been diagnosed as insane and was off her medication.”

“We conclude from our careful review of the trial transcript and record that, if the prosecution proved any sex trafficking at all (and we have serious doubts that it did), then at best it proved two separate, unrelated, and dissimilar sex-trafficking conspiracies, involving different defendants, albeit with the same alleged victim, namely Jane Doe 2,” states the 6th Circuit opinion, written by judges Alice M. Batchelder, Sean F. Cox, and Helene N. White.

At some point you would think the general public would begin asking why the FBI even exists. An agency has been caught time and again fabricating crimes. So one is forced to question whether any of the crimes it has solved were actually real.

We return again to the fact that the supposed system of checks and balances is more accurately described as a circlejerk. If the legislative and judicial branches were a check and balance against the executive branch there would have been investigations into the FBI itself by now. Judges would be throwing out cases on the grounds that the FBI isn’t a credible agency. Senators would be urging their fellows to vote to dissolve the agency. The heads of the FBI would be facing charges and begging oversight committees for mercy. But none of that is happening. Instead the FBI continues to operate as a law enforcement agency and its transgressions are continuously ignored.

Brining Fascism Back To Europe

You would think Europe would have learned its lesson about fascism during World War II. Of all the nations of Europe, you would expect France to have especially learned its lesson since it suffered under the boot of Nazi Germany for quite some time. Yet, in a rather ironic twist, France is leading the way to the fascism revival on that continent:

French parliamentary deputies, defying government wishes, have voted in favour of penalising smartphone makers which fail to cooperate in terrorism inquiries, entering a controversy that has pitted the FBI against Apple in the United States.

The move came in the form of an amendment to a penal reform bill that was receiving its first reading in parliament.

Part of me appreciates France’s honesty in its pursuit of absolute power over its people. While I completely disagree with such a philosophy I do prefer an opponent who is honest about their intentions. On the other hand, an honest government is often the most terrifying kind. When the State no longer sees a need to even pay lip service to the rights of individuals it quickly begins perpetrating heinous act after heinous act.

It’ll be interesting if this bill manages to pass into law. I’m sure the French government foresees it as an effective means of compelling smartphone manufacturers to kowtow to law enforcers. But it will likely convince smartphone manufacturers to take their business elsewhere. I can’t imagine many CEOs willing to risk being kidnapped because their company’s devices used effective cryptography. Especially when there are so many other countries around the world willing to take in money making companies.

With Special Badges Comes Special Privileges

Becoming a police officer is a pretty sweet gig. You don’t need to be intelligent. In fact, being intelligent can prohibit you from becoming a police officer. It’s not an especially dangerous. And you get to enjoy special privileges:

This week, a Tarrant County judge sentenced cop watcher Kenny Lovett to 90 days in jail after a jury determined he interfered with a high-risk traffic stop in Arlington in 2015.

“It’s a safety issue first and foremost,” said Melinda Westmoreland, the assistant district attorney who prosecuted Lovett’s case.

On that day, Lovett and several other cop watchers pulled over to film Arlington police making a traffic stop.
Not long after they began filming, two officers approached them, concerned about the holsters some the cop watchers were also carrying. The exchange was caught on video.

“I need you to go back [to your vehicle] and put your weapons up if you’re armed,” the officer says in the recording. “Feel free to record after that.”

Two of cop watchers did what the officers told them to do. Lovett, who was carrying a black powder pistol, refused. He was then led away in handcuffs and charged with interfering with public duties and disorderly conduct.

When you interact with a police officer it’s OK for them to demand you to disarm but it’s not OK for you to demand they disarm. Considering the number of officers being killed is going down while the number of people being killed by cops is going up I think it would be fair to demand officers disarm when interacting with members of the public.

Power is easily abused by those who have it. By operating on a higher level than the general public law enforcement officers are in a position to abuse power. If we want to reduce power abuse by law enforcers they need to operate on the same level as the rest of us. That means they should fall under the same scrutiny when using force, being surveilled, and interacting with other individuals as every other person in society. If an officer can be armed while interacting with the general public then people keeping officers accountable by filming police interactions should be allowed to be armed as well.

We Interrupt Your Daily Grind To Bring You The Bloody Obvious

Gun control advocates have a laser like focus on guns, which causes them to lose sight of the actual issue of violence. This is most obvious when they declare victory because another weapon has started to be used common:

NEW YORK (FOX5NY) – New York mayor Bill de Blasio is trying to put a positive spin on a recent rash of stabbings and slashings across the city. He credits the NYPD taking guns off of the street.

“I’m not a criminologist but I can safely say that guns are being taken off the street in an unprecedented way. Some people, unfortunately, are turning to a different weapon,” de Blasio says.

[…]

The mayor claims that since there are so many fewer guns on the street, officers can now focus on criminals using knives and razors.

To be entirely honest I would much rather be shot than attacked with a knife. Assuming you survive, being shot tends to be more easily remedied than being slashed and stabbed.

Several things are worth noting with this story though. First, there is no evidence that New York’s gun control laws are the cause for the uptick in stabbings. Bill de Blasio is just declaring it so but offers no evidence to support his claim. Second, he doesn’t mention if shootings have gone down in addition to stabbings increasing. This is important to determine because it could be that shootings have remained the same and stabbings have simply increased. Third, even if we assume shooting are down the actual problem of violent crime obviously remains. Whether people are shot or stabbed doesn’t make a difference. Either way people are still being injured or killed. Four, and this is one that is usually overlooked, are the efforts of law enforcers to stop out violent crime creating more violent crime? It’s pretty hard to claim violence crime is down in law enforcers are injuring and killing people are a higher rate to enforce weapon prohibitions.

Here is something we do know though. Acquiring a carry permit in New York City is very difficult, which means the people operating within the letter of the law are at a severe disadvantage. If somebody attacks them with either a gun or a knife they are handicapped as far as self-defense goes.

FBI Asks Apple, “What If We Do What We’re Planning To Do?”

On Tuesday there was a congressional hearing regarding encryption. I didn’t watch it because I had better shit to do. But I’ve been reading through some of the highlights and the hearing was like most hearings. A handful of competent individuals were brought in to testify in front of a group of clueless idiots who are somehow allowed to pass policies. What was especially funny to me was a comment made by the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), James Comey (which should really be spelled James Commie):

When Florida Congressman Ted Deutch asked Comey if the potential repercussions of such a back door falling into the wrongs hands were of valid concern, Comey responded by posing a hypothetical situation in which Apple’s own engineers were kidnapped.

“Slippery slope arguments are always attractive, but I suppose you could say, ‘Well, Apple’s engineers have this in their head, what if they’re kidnapped and forced to write software?'” Comey said before the committee. “That’s where the judge has to sort this out, between good lawyers on both sides making all reasonable arguments.”

Comey likely made the comment to highlight how Apple is capable of creating a back door to break the iPhone’s encryption, a fact the company has admitted.

Comey should have said, “Well, Apple’s engineers have this in their head, what will happen when my agency kidnaps them and forces them to write the backdoor?” Because that’s exactly what his agency is trying to accomplish in the San Bernardino case. The FBI wants the court to order Apple to write a custom version of iOS that would bypass several security features and brute force the encryption key. If the court does issue such an order and Apple doesn’t obey some federal goons will kidnap members of Apple (likely Tim Cook). Of course, the FBI couches its criminal activities in euphemisms such as “arrest” to make them appear legitimate.

But what would happen? As it turns out, not much. Kidnapping one of Apple’s engineers wouldn’t give access to the company’s software signing key. Without that key any software the engineer was forced to write wouldn’t load onto an iOS device.

The Busses Have Ears

Surveillance is pervasive in our society. You can hardly walk down a street without some nosey camera recording your movements or ride public transportation without some snoopy microphone recording your conversation:

MTA began using recording devices inside some of its buses in 2012, without seeking legislative approval. Nearly 500 of its fleet of 750 buses now have audio recording capabilities. Officials say the devices can capture important information in cases of driver error or an attack or altercation on a bus.

They can also record conversations so they can later be requested by law enforcers looking to nail somebody to a cross. The dangers of pervasive surveillance are almost always understated by statists. Surveillance fetishists always justify their spying by claiming it’ll protect the children, thwart terrorism, or otherwise help combat some overblown concern. What they leave out is that the data is also available to prosecute nonviolent individuals.

Imagine if two people were making a peaceful drug transaction on one of these surveillance buses. Without the microphones in place the transaction would probably go unnoticed. But because the data exists it would only take one law enforcer or concerned citizen to listen to it to turn that previously peaceful transaction into a violent home raid.

Surveillance is dangerous precisely because law enforcers are willing to use any collected data to ruthlessly enforce victimless crimes. That’s a reality that is never mentioned by the surveillance state’s proponents.