You Can’t Cure Stupid – Page 52

Enough with the Political Grandstanding

I haven’t spent much time writing about the shooting in Colorado because, frankly, there isn’t much to say. The event is still too recent for any solid facts to be available. But there is something I do feel the need to bring up. Whenever a heinous act like a school shooting or a bombing occurs there seems to be a need for people to hit the Internet and write about the perpetrator’s political viewpoints as a criticism against everybody who shares them.

When a perpetrator holds “conservative” (quotes necessary because the term has been bastardized beyond recognition) beliefs the “liberals” (quotes used for the same reason) run to their keyboards and post about it. They treat it as an “Ah ha!” moment, a correlation that proves that “conservatives” are violent psychopaths. After the shooting in Colorado I saw many “conservatives” posting this story:

In one Facebook post, Pierson attacks the philosophies of economist Adam Smith, who through his invisible-hand theory pushed the notion that the free market was self-regulating. In another post, he describes himself as “Keynesian.”

“I was wondering to all the neoclassicals and neoliberals, why isn’t the market correcting itself?” he wrote. “If the invisible hand is so strong, shouldn’t it be able to overpower regulations?”

Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing “you republicans are so cute” and posting an image that reads: “The Republican Party: Health Care: Let ’em Die, Climate Change: Let ’em Die, Gun Violence: Let ’em Die, Women’s Rights: Let ’em Die, More War: Let ’em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?”

Apparently the Colorado shooter held “liberal” beliefs and that is proof that “liberals” are violent psychopaths.

Here’s the thing, nut jobs exist in all political philosophies. Just because a perpetrator of a heinous act held “conservative”, “liberal”, libertarian, communist, or anarchist beliefs doesn’t prove anything about anybody else who holds similar beliefs. Bringing up a perpetrator’s political beliefs as a serious criticism against everybody else who holds similar beliefs is fucking retarded.

With that said, this is aimed at the people who bring up a perpetrator’s political beliefs as a serious criticism. If you’re doing it for LULZ you get a pass.

Poll Reveals 60 Percent of Americans Want Unicorns

Reason did a poll asking Americans whether or not they should be allowed to manufacture firearms on 3D printers:

3D printers can create a variety of items from plastic, including working guns. However, the new Reason-Rupe poll finds six in 10 Americans say Americans should not be allowed to print 3D guns. Thirty percent of Americans believe people should be allowed to print 3D guns at home.

Majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree that printing 3D guns should be prohibited. However, Democrats are more unified in their opposition with 67 percent who favor prohibiting 3D printed guns compared to 52 percent of non-partisan independents and 55 percent of Republicans. Twenty-five percent of Democrats and a third of non-partisan independents and Republicans think people should be allowed to print their own functioning 3D guns.

One cannot stop the march of advancing technology, which renders the opinions of those 60 percent irrelevant. The beauty of 3D printers is that they are devices that can be kept entirely within a home. There is no need for a separate shop that could raise the suspicion of local law enforcement. That makes enforce any laws that prohibit manufacturing a good on a 3D printer impossible to enforce. By favoring laws against manufacturing firearms on 3D printers the respondents might as well have asked for unicorns.

I’m a strong advocate of 3D printers because they enable individuals to manufacture goods from easily copied rendering files. Just as the Internet rendered censorship irrelevant 3D printers will render regulations against physical objects irrelevant.

Jennifer Zilavy is an Asshole

I don’t know Jennifer Zilavy personally but I already know that she’s an asshole. Who is she? She’s the city attorney for Madison, Wisconsin. Why is she an asshole? Because of her attitude towards men:

“There’s no way that (sexual assault) will not happen,” assistant city attorney Jennifer Zilavy said. “No offense to men, but I don’t know any man who wants to just snuggle.”

The attitude that either gender is a slave to its emotions irritates me. Both men and women are capable of controlling their behavior. Men can choose not to commit sexual assault just as women can choose not to cower in fear when confronted with violence. I would go so far as to say controlling one’s behavior is a prerequisite for being considered and adult.

If people want to pay money for cuddling they should be allowed to. A vast majority of men aren’t prowling the streets in the hopes of finding a woman to rape. Any business that operates on the concept of selling a cuddling buddy for an hour isn’t going to standby if one of its employees starts getting out of hand. The fear mongering being drummed up by Zilavy is both sexist and fictitious.

Fabricating Controversy

I’m always amused when non-technology publications attempt to write about technology. They either get the details laughably wrong or they try to drum up controversy over nothing. The Washington Post decided to post an example of the latter:

BROOKLINE, Mass. — Researcher Garth Bruen long has investigated the seamier corners of the Internet, but even he was shocked to discover Rapetube.org, a site urging users to share what it called “fantasy” videos of sexual attacks.

[…]

Sickened, Bruen tried to determine who operated the sites, a first step toward possibly having them shut down. But he quickly hit a wall: The contact information listed for Web sites increasingly is fictitious or intentionally masked by “privacy protection services” that offer ways around the transparency requirements built into the Internet for decades.

Oh. My. God. These pornography sites are so seedy and evil that they’re concealing their WHOIS information! They’re up to no good and this proves it! Except it doesn’t prove anything. Many domain owners utilize privacy services to conceal their personal information from WHOIS look ups. In fact I use such a service. If you do a WHOIS look up for this domain you’ll receive the following response:

The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains and
Registrars.
Domain Name: CHRISTOPHERBURG.COM
Registry Domain ID:
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.tucows.com
Registrar URL: http://tucowsdomains.com
Updated Date: 2013-02-26 07:56:55
Creation Date: 2009-03-06 02:30:35
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2014-03-06 02:30:35
Registrar: TUCOWS, INC.
Registrar IANA ID: 69
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone:
Reseller: Hover
Reseller: help@hover.com
Reseller: 416.538.5498
Reseller: http://help.hover.com
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0130416343
Registrant Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0130416343
Registrant Street: 96 Mowat Ave
Registrant City: Toronto
Registrant State/Province: ON
Registrant Postal Code: M6K 3M1
Registrant Country: CA
Registrant Phone: +1.4165385457
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: christopherburg.com@contactprivacy.com
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0130416343
Admin Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0130416343
Admin Street: 96 Mowat Ave
Admin City: Toronto
Admin State/Province: ON
Admin Postal Code: M6K 3M1
Admin Country: CA
Admin Phone: +1.4165385457
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: christopherburg.com@contactprivacy.com
Registry Tech ID:
Tech Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0130416343
Tech Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0130416343
Tech Street: 96 Mowat Ave
Tech City: Toronto
Tech State/Province: ON
Tech Postal Code: M6K 3M1
Tech Country: CA
Tech Phone: +1.4165385457
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: christopherburg.com@contactprivacy.com
Name Server: NS1.HOVER.COM
Name Server: NS2.HOVER.COM
DNSSEC:

Am I doing something nefarious? No. I simply don’t want my personal address and phone number accessible to anybody with enough know how to type whois christopherburg.com into their command line. Pornographers most likely want the same protection because their business is seen by many in this country as dirty, immoral, and deserving of punishment. In fact this story affirms the value of a WHOIS privacy service. It’s talking about a man who is on a personal crusade against so-called violent pornography websites. While that’s not my particular kink I see no reason to harass pornographers creating fiction for those with more violent fantasies.

Media outlets always try to insinuate that those utilizing anonymity tools are up to no good. In reality most users of anonymity tools merely want to protect their privacy. Time and time again we see media outlets try to drum up controversy over onion routers, encrypted communications, and location hidden services. These attempts are desperate grasps for ratings by old media outlets that are incapable of changing with the times.

Ironic Gun Control Propaganda

The more irrelevant “major” gun control advocacy groups become the more apparent their desperation to be noticed becomes. Linoge retweeted the following propaganda piece put out by Moms Demand Action:

The irony is almost thick enough to drown in. Let’s consider what Moms Demand Action is, well, demanding. The organization has been pushing several gun control initiatives including a renewal of the “assault” weapon ban, a ban on standard capacity magazines, universal background checks, and a ban based on an arbitrarily selected bore diameter (one half of an inch). What do all of these things have in common? They requires the government to use its guns to enforce. In other words Moms Demand Action are trying to use the government’s guns to restrict the rights of Americans.

Advocates of Gun Control Create a Sandy Hook Shooting Simulator

I guess the imminent demise of gun control is starting to get to some of its advocates. They’ve apparently suffered a mental snap and have decides to create a game that allows players to reenact the Sandy Hook School shooting:

A new pro-gun-control game allows players to reenact last year’s Sandy Hook elementary school massacre.

The game, The Slaying of Sandy Hook, has players to carry out a bleak, stylized version of the shooting, which took the lives of 20 children and six adults. Players take on the role of Adam Lanza, the perpetrator, and text boxes prompt them to pick up a Glock pistol, move into the bedroom of Lanza’s mother, Nancy, and shoot her four times, just as Lanza did in real life. They are then directed to pick up an AR-15, ammunition, and Nancy Lanza’s car keys.

The game then moves to Sandy Hook Elementary where players have an 11 minute time-limit to kick in classroom and bathroom doors and slaughter students and teachers as they flee or cower on the ground. There are no voices or music; the only sound effects come from gunfire and bullets impacting bodies. When prompted, players may also end the game by committing suicide.

I’m not sure what the message this game is trying to send is. After first I assumed it was simply a cry for gun control. But the fact that the game has a “gun control mode” that allows you to slaughter students just as handily has the “uncontrolled gun mode” leads me to believe otherwise:

The game also has a “gun control mode,” which allows players to attempt to carry out the massacre using a katana—after sarcastically challenging the player to open a gun safe—and suggests that Lanza would have been able to break into the school anyway if a sledgehammer “happened to be . . . available.”

Maybe the message here is that gun free zones are ineffective. It makes sense. Without a means of responding to initiators of violence schools are at the mercy of anybody with violence in their heart. It doesn’t matter if an evil doer walks into a school with a gun or a katana, they effectively have free reign until police arrive. That message seems detrimental to the mission of advancing gun control so I can only assume the creators of this game suffered a lapse of judgement.

Lots of Money, Little Effect

The Government Accountability Office (there’s an oxymoron of a name if one ever existed) has finally announced what most of us have known since 2001. All of the money being spent to fund the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) program has been wasted:

The federal government may have wasted $1 billion on a TSA program called “SPOT” that profiles people who may be “bad guys” at airports by talking to them, the Government Accountability Office reported Wednesday. There is no evidence that it works, it said.

The Transportation Security Administration’s Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) program relies on training personnel to recognize indicators like fear, stress or deceptive behavior that can be used to identify persons who may pose a risk to aviation security. Those who exhibit those indicators are subjected to additional security screening.

Polygraphs, better known as lie detectors, are an instrument that fail to perform the act they claim to excel at. This is because there are no known human responses to lying. SPOT was doomed to fail for the same reason. There’s no consistent way to detect through observation, that science is currently aware of, a person who is either being dishonest or planning something violent.

Libertarians Don’t Cost Republicans Races

It’s time, once again, for an anarchist to explain politics. This time around I find myself having to explain the fact that the Republican Party is solely responsible for its own failures. For being a party that claims to advocate personal responsibility, the Republican Party and its supporters spend a lot of time blaming others for their failures. Articles like this have been circulating the web since last night. Through various methods of twisting logic the Republicans are trying to blame the libertarians for the Democrats’ victory in Virgina. The linked article points out that the Libertarian Political Action Committee admitted that it probably wouldn’t have gotten the Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot if it wasn’t for a donation from a large Democratic Party supporter. This excuse misses an important point: the Republican candidate failed to gain enough support from libertarians to convince them to vote for him.

Since the concept seems alien to some let me explain how ballots work. A ballot has a list of names. You make a mark next to the name of the candidate you want to win or the candidate who has the best chance against the one you want to lose. Pretty simple, isn’t it? This brings us to the next point. If you want to win an election you have to convince people to put a mark next to your name. There are many ways to do this. Most candidates promise voters free shit or promise to take previously given free shit away from people. Those aren’t the only methods though. People can be convinced to vote for a charismatic candidate or, in rare cases, a candidate who practices what he preaches.

The point is, Republicans have failed to provide a candidate that can successfully do any of these. It’s as simple as that. For some reason the Republican Party has decided to run candidates that say really stupid shit, attempt to appeal to the middle by holding no principled positions, and attempt to appeal to the religious zealots by beating the social issues drum. I think the continuous defeats of Republican Party candidates speaks for the stupidity of these tactics.

If the Republican Party wants to win elections is needs to do one thing: stop sucking. That’s it. If it fields candidates that people actually like then it won’t matter who the Libertarian Party puts forward. Most people who vote for Libertarian Party candidates know that that candidate isn’t going to win. But those voters hate both the Republican and Democratic candidate so much that they’re willing to cast a vote for a person who they know won’t win. And it’s not a case that a person who votes Libertarian would have otherwise voted Republican. Since the Libertarian Party is, effectively, a party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal it appeals to people on both sides of the aisle. That means many people who vote for the Libertarian candidate may have voted for the Democratic candidate if the Libertarian Party didn’t get on the ballot.

For those of you blaming the Libertarian Party for the failures of the Republican Party I have this to say: pull your heads out of your asses and stop trying to lay the blame on somebody else. If the Republican Party didn’t fuck up so much people may actually support it.

Compounding Mistakes

It’s no secret that healthcare.gov, the primary website for the Affordable Care Act, has been less than satisfactory. People are having a difficult time signing up for their mandatory insurance policies, which will eventually put them at risk of being fined. What is the planned remedy for this problem? Hiring Verizon to unfuck the website:

An informed source in the telecommunications industry said Verizon’s Enterprise Solutions division has been asked by the Department of Health and Human Services to improve the performance of the HealthCare.gov site, which is a key component of the Affordable Care Act. The source spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement had not been made official.

I’m sure this will go over swimmingly:

A rudimentary URL hack may have exposed texting data for tens of millions of Verizon customers, according to a new report from security researcher Prvsec. The vulnerability was reportedly fixed in September, a month after Prvsec privately disclosed it to the carrier, but before it was addressed it allowed attackers to see who Verizon users texted and when, provided they had a subscriber-level login to the carrier’s website.

Verizon is obviously the best choice to develop a secure website that people will be entering their personal information into.

Being Offline Won’t Stop the State from Tracking You

After Edward Snowden leaked the National Security Agency (NSA) documents that unveiled how vast its surveillance has become there were a lot of reactions. Some people decided they didn’t have anything to hide so the state’s spying wasn’t an issue, otherwise decided to pursue technologies that would allow them to keep private communications private, and others decided to go offline. Of the three reactions the last one was, by far, the most irrational. You don’t have to be online for the state to track you. As this article points out, there are other ways for the state to surveil you:

The people who have actually attempted to live without being tracked–most often due to a safety threat–will tell you that security cameras are just about everywhere, RFID tags seem to be in everything, and almost any movement results in becoming part of a database. “It’s basically impossible for you and I to decide, as of tomorrow, I’m going to remain off the radar and to survive for a month or 12 months,” says Gunter Ollmann, the CTO of security firm IOActive, who in his former work with law enforcement had several coworkers who dedicated themselves to remaining anonymous for the safety of their families. “The amount of prep work you have to do in order to stay off the radar involves years of investment leading up to that.”

People who believe themselves to be very clever will often brag about the fact that they use a burner phone (a pre-paid cellular phone you can buy in most convenience stores) that they bought with cash. In their mind this means that the phone isn’t tied to them in any way and that they are untrackable while using it. Most convenience stores have security cameras looking at every square inch of the store. Those cameras can have some fantastic optics that give crystal clear images (the days of grainy black and white video footage from security cameras is ending). Facial recognition software is frighteningly accurate (just post a picture of a friend’s face on Facebook sometime). The state can requisition surveillance video whenever it wants (assuming it doesn’t just collect all surveillance footage like it does with phone calls and e-mails). In addition to that, the NSA collects phone records. It doesn’t take much to look at the numbers you called and develop a social map that has a good chance of identifying you. Using a burner phone won’t keep you safe from Big Brother’s gaze.

Another major source of leaks when it comes to your personal information are your friends:

Friends can be an impediment to a life off the radar. For one, they probably think they’re doing you a favor when they invite you to a party using Evite, add you to LinkedIn or Facebook, or keep your information in a contact book that they sync with their computer.

But from your perspective, as someone trying to remain as untraceable as possible, they are selling you out. “Basically what they’ve done is uploaded all of my contact information and connected it to them,” Sell says.

This is the biggest one in my opinion. My family has given out my phone number and personal e-mail address to people even though I’ve told them numerous times that I didn’t want them to do that. Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean your friends and family are. Unless you’re willing to sever all ties with other people you’re trackable. You may not have a Facebook account but that won’t stop your friends from posting pictures of you and writing your name in the description.

Going offline won’t save you. It won’t even make tracking your more difficult. The only thing going offline does is prevent you from utilizing very powerful technology to your advantage.