Your Government Doesn’t Love You – Page 105

Get Your TSA Approved Lock Keys Here

Air travelers who don’t have firearms in their checked luggage probably use a special Transportation Security Administration (TSA) approved lock. What is a TSA approved lock? I’ll let the TSA’s very own Blogger Bob explain:

TSA has worked with several companies to develop locks that can be opened by security officers using universal “master” keys so that the locks may not have to be cut. These locks are available at most airports and many travel stores nationwide. The packaging on the locks indicates whether they can be opened by TSA.

In other words TSA approved locks are locks with an included backdoor that can be used by TSA officers to access your luggage. I will take a moment to note that the use of TSA approved locks is not lawful when firearms are in your checked luggage so those of us who do fly with them do not, and legally can not, use TSA approved locks.

Now that I’m done with that aside, let’s discuss the major flaw inherent in backdoors. Backdoors necessarily break security systems, whether they’re physical locks of cryptographic algorithms, because anybody in possession of a master key can gain access. I hear some of you saying, “But, Chris, only authorized TSA agents have access to those master keys!” If only that were the case. Unfortunately some bozo went and accidentally released a picture of the TSA’s master keys.

Now you’re probably thinking, “Yeah, but pictures of keys can’t unlock locks!” While that’s true pictures of keys can be modeled and things that can be modeled can 3D printed. Behold! 3D printer models for TSA master keys! Now anybody with a 3D printer can create keys that can utilize the backdoor on TSA approved locks.

Herein lies the problem with backdoors, it only takes one person to accidentally reveal the master key to render anything secured with the backdoored system insecure. In this case a single careless TSA agent allowed a ring of TSA master keys to be photographed and therefore reproduced by anybody. The same threat would apply to any government mandated backdoors in encryption systems. It would only take one careless person with access to the government master key to have it showing on their screen when a reported took photographed to render all data secured with that system insecure.

The moral of the story is say no to backdoors.

The Imaginary War On Cops

An ongoing war on cops continues to be waged. The situation has become so dire that Obama himself has signed a law to established a special warning system for threats against cops, which will allow cops to drop everything and give themselves the utmost priority. There’s just one problem: the war on cops isn’t real.

With all of the media, blog, and social media coverage of the supposed war on cops you might not realize that this year is looking to be one of the safest years to be a law enforcer:

Despite urgent warnings from police and others about a “war on cops” allegedly linked to the Black Lives Matter protest movement, statistics show 2015 is in fact shaping up to be one of the safest years for law enforcement in a generation.

According to the Officer Down Memorial Page (ODMP), which keeps data on officer deaths going back over 100 years, 24 officers have been shot and killed by suspects this year. This puts the US on pace for 36 non-accidental, firearm-related police fatalities in 2015. Each one of such deaths is a tragedy for the officers killed, their families and the communities they serve, but this would be the lowest total in 25 years, aside from 2013 which saw 31 such deaths.

Considering all of the terrible deeds cops have been caught doing this year this statistic may seem surprising. But it just goes to show that most people prefer nonviolent solutions to societal problems. Instead of forming lynch mobs and hanging random police officers the vast majority of people have been demanding law enforcers be made to wear body cameras when on duty, face consequences when they perform a misdeed, and be subjected to jury trails when there’s any question about their actions. The public wants accountability, not blood.

Why is there all this hubbub about a war on cops then? Because the State relies on having a powerful, unaccountable police force to maintain its power. Law enforcers today are primarily revenue generators. The more power they wield the more revenue they can generate.

Civil forfeiture is a classic example of this. Under civil forfeiture laws an officer can confiscate property by just saying they believe it’s related to a drug crime and the burden of proving its not falls onto the rightful owners. Since the expense of proving property stolen under civil forfeiture isn’t related to a drug crime is commonly higher than the value of the property the rightful owners seldom goes through the process. Such a scheme only works if officers remain unaccountable because the moment they are accountable they will refuse to confiscate property unless very real evidence exists implying it is tied to a drug crime.

And civil forfeiture laws aren’t the only example of this. Consider the lowly speeding ticket. If you send the municipality that issued it a check the matter goes away. Fighting it, on the other hand, is usually an expensive process because it requires a hearing and those can only be obtained during normal working hours, which means taking time off of work. In addition to that the process is generally one sided because it’s your word against the officer’s and the average judge is apt to side with his fellow over you.

With more people demanding police officers be held accountable the State is in a tough spot. Failing to act on the people’s demands will further raise questions about its legitimacy amongst the people. Expanding law enforcers power to make them even better revenue generators will raise such questions even faster. Therefore it must make it appear as though police officers are targets and need more power to protect themselves against those evil criminals that want them and everybody else dead.

Don’t fall for it. Look at the data and realize that law enforcers today are much safer than law enforcers were in the past.

Minneapolis’ Finest

A lot of people, but neocons especially, have a hard time understanding why the public’s view of police officers has been degrading rapidly. They often try to blame the media for focusing too much on the bad things cops do and not enough time on the good things they do. Truth be told the biggest threat to the public’s view of police is police. If there weren’t so many bad cops doing bad things for the media to cover its influence would be minimal. But there seemingly isn’t a day that goes by where something like this hasn’t happened:

The handgun found near a teenager shot and killed by a Minneapolis police officer in 2006 could not have been carried by the teen, new court documents allege: It had last been in possession of police before it was found next to the body of Fong Lee.

Admittedly the Minneapolis Police Department is fairly well known for its corruption. That’s something it shares with the police departments of most sizable metropolitan areas. And therein lies the problem. Police departments in large cities seem to have a high rate of corruption, which means their corruption impacts a lot of people. It’s not that the media is necessarily covering the bad things police officers do; it’s that police departments continue to give the media bad things to cover.

Law Enforcers Have It Too Easy

Law enforcement agents are being more heavily scrutinized now than they have been in the past. This is a much needed trend since law enforcers have been acting (and still continue to act) with very little accountability. In addition to raising awareness of the dangers created by allowing law enforcers to act without accountability this trend has also given rise to two extremes. One extreme wants to see every law enforcer gunned down in the streets. The other extreme wants everybody to get down on their hands and knees to lick the boots of every law enforcer. While most people are asking what can be done to hold law enforcers accountable for their actions the two extremes are embroiled in a battle of rhetoric.

Neocons tend to lean towards the boot licker extreme. Scott Walker is a classic example of this. To prove his piety he typed an article claiming that law enforcers today are being targeted far more than law enforcers were when he was growing up. Because he’s running for president (at least I think he is, I can’t be bothered to remember all of the completely irrelevant Republican candidates) he had to blame Obama but even setting that point aside his claims are bullshit:

Walker was born in 1967. In a blog post a few months ago, my former intern Dan Wang looked at the fatality and homicide figures for police going back to the 1960s. Here are a few notable numbers he found:

“More officers were feloniously killed in the 11 years between 1970 and 1980 (1228 deaths) than in the 21 years between 1993 and 2013 (1182 deaths).” Walker would have been 3 in 1970 and 13 in 1980.

Between 1971 and 1975, when Walker would have been between age 4 and 8, an average of 125 police officers were feloniously killed per year. Between 2006 and 2010, the average was 50. In 2013, just 27 officers were feloniously killed. In 2014, it was 51. So far this year, the number of cops killed with firearms is down 16 percent from last year. Two of those officers were killed by other cops.

If you look at the rate at which cops are killed, the numbers are even more dramatic. There are quite a bit more police officers today than there were in the 1970s. So in 1975, for example, when Walker was 8, there were about 411,000 cops on the street, and 129 police officers were feloniously killed. That’s a rate of 31.38 murders per 100,000 officers. In 2013, the rate was about 5. Last year it was higher at 9.4, but that still means the rate was about 3.5 times higher than when Walker was growing up.*

To put those rates into perspective, consider the death rate for fishermen, the most dangerous job in America: 131 deaths per 100,000. Even if you factor in traffic fatalities and other accidents, policing isn’t among the 10 most dangerous jobs in America. Another way to look at these figures: The murder rate for police officers is about the same of the overall murder rate in cities such as Bakersfield, Calif.; Louisville; and Omaha.

The rate of assaults on police officers has been falling, too. So you can’t argue that cops are safer solely because they’re killing more criminals, or because they have better equipment (though there’s evidence that the latter has helped). People are just less likely to attack police today than they’ve been in the past. And that’s despite the increased public scrutiny.

Even with the much deserved increase in scrutiny being a police officer today isn’t nearly as dangerous as it was in decades past. In fact law enforcement isn’t even in the top 10 list of deadliest jobs. You’re more at risk being being an aircraft pilot than you are being a cop.

As an anarchist I don’t believe the State is a legitimate entity. Because of that I don’t believe the State has any business involving itself in law enforcement. I believe government law enforcement agencies; be they federal, state, or local; should be disbanded and replaced with market solutions. With that said, I don’t agree that police officers should be gunned down in cold blood. Many law enforcers should be charged with the crimes they’ve committed and forced to pay restitution. Some officers are almost certainly deserving of being declared outlaws. In other words justice, real justice, should be served. Murdering officers ensures justice won’t be served.

Licking their boots also ensures justice won’t be served. So long as a handful of people are given authority over everybody else, a concept I hope to see abolished someday, that handful should be scrutinized with extreme prejudice. Every action they take should be analyzed under a public microscope. Nothing they do in their official capacity should be private. Boot lickers whine that such transparency makes law enforcers’ jobs harder. Good! Their job should be hard. The second wielding authority becomes easy it gets abused. Justice can only be served if those tasked with providing it are subject to oversight.

Law enforcers have it too easy today. That needs to change. But gunning them down in cold blood isn’t the answer.

If You’re Going To Spy On Us At Least Use The Data

Police have been in overdrive expanding their pervasive surveillance apparatus. They want camera, cell phone interceptor, and license plate scanner coverage throughout the country. Just to enjoy the privilege of driving we’re required to submit our personal information, including home address, to the Department of Motor Vehicles so it can print it on a piece of plastic that we have to hand a police when they pull us over so they can check if there are any outstanding warrants. I don’t approve of this widespread surveillance but I do ask that they at least use the data they collect to ensure they storm the correct house when they’re on one of their domestic dog hunting excursions:

Returning home from her Monday evening walk, Tama Colson rounded the corner into her subdivision and saw DeKalb County police cars.

Then she heard the gunshots — and her neighbors’ anguish.

“I hear Leah screaming, I see Chris walking out, ‘They just shot me, they just shot me, and they killed my dog’,” Colson said Tuesday. “So I got him to lay down, took my shirt off and rendered first aid. And Chris just kept saying, ‘Why did they shoot me? Why did they shoot my dog?’”

Those are the key questions in the fourth controversial police shooting in DeKalb County in less than two years — an incident in which, according to authorities, officers responding to a burglary call went to the wrong home, shot the unarmed homeowner, killed his dog and wounded one of their own.

Admittedly shooting two innocents and one violent criminal is a better ratio that the police usually walk away with in these situations. But shooting the homeowner and the dog was criminal and charges should be filed. I would say shooting the cop was, if nothing else, bad form but the police are supposed to help homeowners defend against invaders so the shooting officer was technically doing his job.

More importantly this entire mess shouldn’t have happened. There is no excuse for having both a pervasive surveillance apparatus and raiding the wrong address. When officers are sent on a domestic dog hunting excursion the address should be displayed on a very obvious map (one using small words and basic colors so the city’s finest can understand it). Upon arriving at the address a picture of the home should be sent back to headquarters and checked against photographs already in the database. Then the officers should check their cell phone interceptor to ensure the phone they have associated with the target is at the address.

Obviously I say this halfheartedly. I don’t believe the police should be spying on us. I’m merely illustrating just of how incompetent wrong address raids are when considering all of the data law enforcement agents have available to double check they have the right place.

Apologies

Last weekend Black Lives Matter marched on the Minnesota State Fair and held a protest. A lot of people are very worked up about this but I wasn’t there so the event didn’t impact me in the slightest. In addition to the protest itself some people are upset that some of the protesters were chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon.” Was that phrase a call to kill cops or a clever play on words in context of an event well known for having every food you could imagine in fried form? I don’t know and I don’t care. But representative Tony Cornish cares very much:

Representative Tony Cornish is calling for an apology from the protest group Black Lives Matter for a chant made at the State Fair.

Well since we’re on the topic of apologies, I want an apology from Tony Cornish for his active support in expanding the already pervasive police surveillance apparatus. I’m guessing we’re both going to end up disappointed.

I haven’t written much about the activities of Black Lives Matter. From my point of view the organization is an inevitable reaction to decades of abuse perpetuated by those in authority. If you keep punching somebody you can’t cry foul when they finally retaliate. Since at least (but likely well before) the war on drugs law enforcement agents have been focusing more on generating revenue than protecting and serving the people. Revenue generation, in this case, means stealing wealth in the form of both assets (fines and civil forfeiture) and labor (prison labor). Black people have been far more frequent targets of this quest for revenue. This backlash shouldn’t surprise anybody. The only thing that should surprise anybody is that it has taken so long.

If anybody is owed an apology it’s the people who have been aggressed against by the police. Every nonviolent person who has been confined, extorted, beaten, or killed by agents of the State are the real victims. They’re the ones who have been wronged by the State and left without recourse because of the State’s monopolization of justice. Cornish is a retired police officer. He was one of those responsible for victimizing nonviolent individuals. Instead of demanding an apology he should be the one apologizing.

You Keep Using That Word: Monopoly Edition

Monopoly is one of those words that gets thrown around too loosely. The word monopoly means, “exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.” So monopoly actually defines a condition that only exists under government interventionism. But the word, like so many other words, has been twisted by the State. Today monopoly implies any company that has become extremely large. Case in point, Google:

BRUSSELS — European Union lawmakers have overwhelmingly backed a motion urging antitrust regulators to break up Google. The non-binding resolution approved Thursday by the European Parliament is the strongest public signal yet of Europe’s concern with the growing power of U.S. tech giants. The resolution is a largely symbolic protest vote without immediate impact. But it was approved with a large majority — 384 votes to 174, with 56 abstentions — showing widespread political backing. Andreas Schwab, German conservative lawmaker and co-sponsor of the bill, said it was a political signal to the European Commission, which is tasked with ensuring a level playing field for business across the 28-country bloc. “Monopolies in whatever market have never been useful, neither for consumers nor for the companies,” he said. Google declined to comment.

Google isn’t a monopoly. In fact it’s not even close to being one. Every single product and service it provides is also provided by others. I’m proof of this since I use very few Google products or services. Most of my searching is done using DuckDuckGo. My e-mail is handled by my server sitting in my dwelling. My phone is manufactured by Apple and runs iOS. None of my laptops are Chromebooks.

The only Google services I really utilize are Google Maps and YouTube. I use Google Maps because I find the alternatives provided by Microsoft and Apple lackluster and choose YouTube because it has more content I’m looking for than Vimeo. But in both cases you’ll notice I mentioned competitors that exist.

If you want an actual example of a monopoly look up Ma Systems. Ma Bell was a company that enjoyed a government granted monopoly over telecommunications. But outside of government intervention in the marketplace you’re going to be hard pressed to find an actual monopoly so you may want to stop throwing that word around so willy nilly.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong

In addition to war being immoral I also disagree with the United States’ involvement in the Middle East on practical grounds. The biggest one being the fact that nobody in the United States government seems to have a goddamn clue of what they’re doing. I get the feeling that the top brass and other people “in the know” are throwing darts at a dartboard of ideas and going with whatever one they hit. That can be the only explanation for suggesting something like this:

The former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has been quietly urging U.S. officials to consider using so-called moderate members of al Qaeda’s Nusra Front to fight ISIS in Syria, four sources familiar with the conversations, including one person who spoke to Petraeus directly, told The Daily Beast.

The circle of unintended consequences continues! Back in the day the United States government funded and armed al Qaeda because it was fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. After the Soviet Union ceased being a thing al Qaeda eventually turned its sights on the United States and flew a few planes into a few buildings. This resulted in the United States basically bombing everybody in the Middle East as it pursued its revenge. Now things are looping back to the beginning where people “in the know” are seriously arguing that the United States needs to fund and arm al Qaeda.

I like to say the government is incompetent at everything it does except wield violence but this kind of shit makes me think it’s event incompetent at that.

The State Has Redundancies To Protect Itself

There’s a sentiment that the proper place to fight the State’s illegal activities is in the courtroom. Sometimes this strategy seems to play out but more often than not if one court rules against the State’s power another court will reverse the decision. In this way the court system acts as a redundancy for the State to preserve its power while maintaining the illusion the people hold the power. Take the National Security Agency’s (NSA) illegal domestic spying operating as an example. In 2013 its actions were ruled illegal by a court but after a lengthy appeal process a higher court has overruled that decision:

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has overturned an injunction against the US government’s phone surveillance program. Today, the court handed down a decision in Klayman v. Obama, a lawsuit arguing that the NSA’s mass collection of phone records is unconstitutional. It found that there was not enough evidence that the lawsuit’s subjects were actually under surveillance, reversing a decision made in late 2013.

The court didn’t address whether the surveillance program was legal or constitutional. Instead, it concluded that the case’s subjects lacked standing to bring a complaint at all, because they were unable to demonstrate that they’d suffered harm. The secrecy of US surveillance programs has made it almost impossible to prove that a specific person or organization was subject to them, so Klayman and other recent cases have relied on leaked documents from Edward Snowden, particularly a court order requiring Verizon Business Services to hand over metadata on all its customers’ calls.

Isn’t it interesting how this court ruled that the plaintiff didn’t have a case because there wasn’t enough evidence to show they weren’t be spied on by a nationwide domestic surveillance apparatus? That’s a twist of logic if ever one existed. Let this be another lesson though. The state protects itself even against itself.

The Best Argument For Encryption Yet

I’ve made a lot of good arguments favoring effective encryption. Effective encryption protects at risk people from oppressors by concealing their identities and communications, ensures data integrity by preventing third parties from altering data unknowingly, provides a way to verify authenticity and the identity of content creators, etc. Ironically though Jeb Bush made have inadvertently made the best argument for effective encryption:

“If you create encryption, it makes it harder for the American government to do its job—while protecting civil liberties—to make sure that evildoers aren’t in our midst,” Bush said in South Carolina at an event sponsored by Americans for Peace, Prosperity, and Security, according to The Intercept.

Effective encryption makes the American government’s job harder?

Assault, murder, theft, extortion, and kidnapping should be hard and anything that makes those criminal activities harder is a good thing.