Tag: You’re Doing it Right

NYPD Experiences the Internet

The Internet, as we know it today, was created largely by people who weren’t fans of authority. This is rather evident when you look at the mostly decentralized nature of the system. In fact the very protocols that make the Internet work are proposed through Requests for Comment (RFC) and the only deciding factor for whether or not they achieve widespread adoption is peoples’ willingness to adopt them. So what happens when a very anti-authoritarian network meets a very authoritarian organization? Hilarity:

For another case study in the perils of using Twitter for branding, look no further than the #myNYPD hashtag that is now trending for all the wrong reasons in the New York City area.

What started out as an attempt to solicit pent-up good feelings among the New York Police Department’s constituents is turning out to be a troll-fest of epic proportions.

The New York Police Department (NYPD) wanted to use Twitter as its propaganda arm by having users post heartwarming pictures of its officers helping New Yorkers. What they got instead were pictures of brutality carried out by NYPD officers.

There is a lesson to be learned by the NYPD from this. The department’s image sucks and for good reason. Officers in the NYPD have a long history of committing acts of brutality and being generally corrupt. Thanks to readily available recording equipment, namely cell phones with cameras, the amount of evidence of the NYPD’s brutality is voluminous. What this means is that any attempt to solicit the help of the Internet, which is heavily composed of people who are not big fans of brutality, will end in disaster.

What the NYPD should do now is accept that its image sucks, understand why its image sucks, and work to improve its image but not doing horrible things. What will probably happen is the person who though up the #myNYPD idea will be fired and more traditional routes of distributing propaganda will be utilized.

Google May Be Looking at Prioritizing Encrypted Sites in Search Results

One of the things that I believe to be unnecessary this day and age are unencrypted sites. When certificate authorities offer free certificates for personal use there are no real barriers left preventing the adoption of HTTPS on every website. Google may agree as it appears that it is looking into prioritizing websites that use HTTPS in its search results:

In a move that experts say could make it harder to spy on Web users, Google is considering giving a boost in its search-engine results to websites that use encryption, the engineer in charge of fighting spam in search results hinted at a recent conference.

The executive, Matt Cutts, is well known in the search world as the liaison between Google’s search team and website designers who track every tweak to its search algorithms.

Cutts also has spoken in private conversations of Google’s interest in making the change, according to a person familiar with the matter. The person says Google’s internal discussions about encryption are still at an early stage and any change wouldn’t happen soon.

I hope that the person familiar with the matter is correct. The information leaked by Edward Snowden demonstrated to all of us that an insecure Internet is no longer a viable option. We need to move to an Internet where all information is encrypted. Doing so wouldn’t just make it harder for organizations like the NSA to spy on our communications but it would also make it more difficult for malicious hackers to intercept user authentication information. By prioritizing encrypted sites Google could help convince more site administrators to use HTTPS for their sites.

The NRA

During my textual monologue about the new generation of shooters I said some disparaging things about the National Rifle Association (NRA). This lead to an e-mail asking me why I dislike the NRA (it was actually a very polite e-mail, which I’m not used to receiving in response to criticisms I make). Assuming other people were wondering the same thing I felt that this would make a better blog post than an e-mail response. To save you a lot of reading I will just quote the relevant part of my post here:

I’ve had numerous heated discussions with fellows gun enthusiasts due to my political views (because the only thing more vile than a dirty liberal Democrat to some members of the shooting community is a downright dangerous anarchist). If you ever want to see a political discussion go from civil to yelling just bring up the fact that you think the Constitution is a flawed document that shouldn’t be cited as scripture. My viewpoints and the viewpoints of most of my anarchist friends do not align with the National Rifle Association (NRA). We don’t derive our ability to own and carry firearms from an amendment to some document written by power hunger individuals who were upset that the Articles of Confederation didn’t allow for monarchical control. Us metalheads aren’t interested in a country music concert and most anarchists and metalheads want to be as far away from a prayer breakfast as we can get.

It’s pretty obvious that I despise the NRA, right? Well my opinion regarding the NRA isn’t that cut and dry. The thing to remember is that the NRA is a large organization composed of approximately four million members. That being the case it’s difficult to make an overall judgement of the organization. I personally have a love-hate relationship with the NRA. While the organization does many things that I don’t like (with my range of dislike of individual things going from mild to borderline disgust) it also does many things that I do like.

Let’s start with the things I dislike about the NRA. The most obvious place to start is with the organization’s politics. In general the NRA uses its political clout to fight for gun rights and the organization has a good track record. However it also does incredibly boneheaded political maneuvers in my opinion. For example, during the last presidential election the NRA threw its political weight behind Mitt Romney. I’m not sure how endorsing a candidate who has a history of being, at best, wishy-washy on gun rights promotes gun rights but that’s what the NRA did. And the organization has endorsed other candidates who have been less than stellar in regards to gun rights.

Another thing I dislike about the NRA, and it is something that I dislike about most large and established organizations, is it’s apparent inability to adapt strategically. Political endorsements and campaign contributions are its hammer and it gets used whether the problem is a nail or a screw. There are many avenues of promote gun rights that the NRA has failed to utilize effective. Social media is probably ones of the biggest avenues that remains underutilized (although that seems to be slowly changing). Like them or not social media tools are probably the best way to reach the new generation. Much of what the NRA does with its barrage of physical mail could be better, and more cheaply, accomplished with Facebook, Twitter, etc. While the NRA does maintain Facebook and Twitter accounts it doesn’t use them much for engagement, which is the real power of social media. It would be nice to see the NRA engaging its online audience to both gather support for gun rights and to refute claims made by gun control supporters.

The third major problem I have with the NRA is it’s habit of taking credit for the accomplishments of others. This ties with the NRA’s inability to adapt. When organizations such as the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) make gains using a strategy left underutilized by the NRA it’s inevitable that the NRA will try to take credit for the success. Taking undue credit is sketchy at best and downright disgusting at worst. Instead of trying to make itself look like the only game in town the NRA should spend time reaching out to other gun rights organizations and try to build an alliance instead of a monopoly. Give credit where credit is due and make a point to work together with other gun rights organizations.

My last major gripe with the NRA is cultural. As was pointed out in Grant Cunningham’s excellent post on the new generation of shooters the NRA culturally appeals to political and social conservative Christians. While this group has traditionally been the biggest supporters of gun rights they are a dying breed (literally, they are getting older and the younger generation isn’t falling over itself to replace them). I don’t believe that the NRA should stop appealing to political and social conservatives but it should also invest time in appealing to other cultures. There’s nothing wrong with keeping the country music concerts and prayer breakfasts but it would go a long way to offer alternatives for those uninterested in such events. A death metal concert may be too niche but a concert by a group popular with the younger generation wouldn’t hurt. How about a workshop on using direct action to fight for gun rights? Some of us political radicals aren’t interested in working for political campaigns or marking boxes next to names of politicians but we love doing hands-on activities.

OK, that is a rather lengthy (although not all inclusive) summary of my criticisms of the NRA. Now let me bring up some things that I like about the organization.

One of the best things the NRA does in my opinion is promote firearm safety. While advocates of gun control spend time and money trying to scare children away from firearms the NRA invests time and money educating children on how to be safe with and around firearms. Children are naturally curious. Scaring them can often discourage them from exploring for a while it seldom works in the long run. Eventually their innate curiosity gets the best of them and they decided to face their fear. Education on the other hand tends to work well. If you want your child to be safe around firearms you need to destroy the mystery surrounding firearms. This is best done by educating children on firearms. Take away the mystery by showing them what a firearm is and how it works. Take your children to the range so they can experience what a firearm truly is in a supervised manner. This is something the NRA understands and directly works on.

The NRA also invests effort in firearm training. If you’ve never been around firearms the NRA has programs that introduce you to the shooting sports in a safe manner. Are you interested in learning how to instruct others on the use of firearms? There are numerous NRA programs for training trainers. I think it’s also beneficial to have a program geared towards teaching women how to shoot. My reason for thinking this is, unfortunately, related to the cultural problem surrounding the firearms community. Woman are sometimes treated as inferior by male shooters (especially traditional shooters). While those of us who aren’t sexist pigs are working to change this it’s taking time. Until things have been changed I appreciate having a mechanism for women to learn how to shoot without having to deal with the potential cultural neanderthal shitting all over their experience.

I also appreciate what the NRA does to promote the construction and improvement of firing ranges. Due to the legal landscape in this country it’s almost impossible to build anything without an army of lawyers to look over your plan. The NRA offers advice on how to build firing ranges in a manner that won’t upset the lawyers. It also offers grants for improving existing ranges. Without firing ranges the shooting sports become difficult to participate in. Any help that can be received for building new ranges or improving current ones is appreciated.

My overall opinion of the NRA changes depending on its current actions. When it does something like endorse a lackluster politician (but I repeat myself) I find myself wanting to burn my membership card. But then I hear about a firing range that was given a grant by the NRA for facility improvements and I’m happy to hold my membership card. As I said, it’s a love-hate relationship. Due to my range’s requirement of being an NRA member I will maintain my membership for the foreseeable future. But I not longer push people to sign up with the organization. If you want to sign up then do so but you shouldn’t feel like being an NRA member is mandatory to enjoy the shooting sports. Do what’s right for you.

Using the State’s Rulings Against It

Ross Ulbricht, the man accused of being the operator of the original Silk Road, just demonstrated how effective he is at trolling. Facing charges of money laundering Mr. Ulbricht is now using the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) ruling that Bitcoin is property and not currency against them:

The IRS recently ruled that Bitcoin is property, not a “monetary instrument.” And now the attorney for alleged Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht is arguing that his client must be innocent of money laundering because Bitcoin officially isn’t money, reports Wired.

I think that’s a very good defense. How can one launder money using Bitcoin, which has been ruled by the IRS as not being money? That question was hypothetical because we all know that the state doesn’t actually have to follow its own laws when prosecuting people. I’m sure the state will perform the mental gymnastics necessary to continue this case.

Prussian Efficiency

Germany is well known for being an efficient country populated by efficient people. This is evident in many things the country does including policing:

German police officers fired a total of 85 bullets in 2011, 49 of which were warning shots, the German publication Der Spiegel reported. Officers fired 36 times at people, killing six and injuring 15. This is a slight decline from 2010, when seven people were killed and 17 injured. Ninety-six shots were fired in 2010.

Meanwhile, in the United States, The Atlantic reported that in April, 84 shots were fired at one murder suspect in Harlem, and another 90 at an unarmed man in Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles police department alone requires as many rounds of ammunition to take down one suspect as the entire country of Germany requires for all of its police in an entire year. Talk about German efficiency (or American inefficiency).

But there’s more to this story than mere numbers. Those numbers indicate a potential cultural difference between German policing and American policing. German police appear to turn to the gun more as a last resort whereas American police turn to the gun whenever the magical phrase “officer safety” can be applied to a situation. One of my issues with modern policing in the United States is how quickly it usually turns to deadly force, armed no-knock raids, and general thuggery. The days when a couple of police officers would knock on your door, present a warrant, and arrest you are rapidly disappearing entirely. Instead those days are being replaced with an armed Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team kicking in your door at two in the morning, shooting whatever pets they see, and busting you up or shooting you before handcuffs are even brought out.

Other developed countries manage a less militant take on policing and haven’t fallen into chaos. Perhaps this is due to those countries still treating the police as a civilian peacekeeping force and not paramilitary forces. Either way our police could learn a thing or two from Germany’s police.

When Something Doesn’t Look Right There’s a Very Good Chance It Isn’t Right

I periodically discuss self-defense on this site but haven’t delved must into the topic of defending others whom you don’t know. The reason I haven’t delved into this topic is because, for the most part, defending somebody you don’t know is an extremely risky proposition. Without any knowledge of the situation a stranger may find themselves in you cannot make an educated decision on whether or not your intervention would cause further grief (for you or for the stranger). But there may be times when you stumble across a situation that doesn’t seem right to you. If your gut instinct is telling you that a situation isn’t right then there’s a very good chance that it isn’t and you may want to consider intervening.

This story is a good example:

Last night when I saw a tiny girl in a miniskirt and heels, slumped over in the arms of a guy, I had to stop and at least ask what was going on. At first, the guy had a startled look in his eyes, and was definitely sweating–maybe from the strain of carrying her, or because he was so damn suspicious. His first response to me was that her friends told him to take her home from an event, but I knoooow that gals travel in packs, especially when going o-u-t for real, and few friends would ditch their distressed miss into a strange man’s arms.

I wasn’t sure if this girl just drank too much, or was potentially drugged, so I treaded lightly at first.

[…]

My instinct was to ask this dude as much info about Jane as I could until he either cracked and gave up, or his story didn’t add up and I could straight up report him for being a creep. Key questions:

  • Where are you coming from?
  • What are you doing here tonight?
  • How much did she have to drink?
  • Where are you headed?
  • Where are her friends?
  • Why aren’t you bringing her back to her own place?
  • What is her name?
  • Where does she go to school?

Most importantly, I didn’t give him the option of being alone with her. Confronting a suspicious person can be dangerous, so always exercise caution if you choose to intervene in a suspicious situation. Approach carefully, pay attention to body language and don’t be alone with this person.

Since this is nominally a gun blog most of the time discussions of defense revolve around the use of a firearm. But many defensive situations can be resolved without having to use violence. Seeing a passed out person being carried off by another lone person should raise a few red flags. Those red flags don’t authorize the use of a firearm but they certainly authorize a cursory investigation. Our species has been developing instincts in our current form for a couple hundred thousand years. Those instincts have kept us alive all of this time, which means they’re probably worth listening to.

While I won’t go so far as to claim I know what the right response is in every situation I do believe it’s a worthwhile idea to do what you can to help keep your fellow human beings safe. That can often be accomplished as easily as being physically present. Predators tend to look for isolated prey and the presence of even one additional creature is often enough to persuade them to reconsider an attack.

Mother of the Year Award

I know a lot of older people who complain about today’s youth. But behind many problem children there are problem parents. Take this story for example. Roman Rodriguez left class to find eight teenagers beating up a smaller child. Rodriguez approached the group, determined who the ringleader was, and addressed him with a request to leave the child alone. His request was met with an attempted punch, which missed. Reacting to the initiated aggression Rodriguez, a teenager with martial arts experience, put the aggressor on the ground and held him. What happened after that makes one ask what the fuck is wrong with some parents:

Rodriguez’s strategy worked. The teen, who Rodriguez could only identify as “Angel” ran home, with his group of friends following. What he wasn’t prepared for was the threat he yelled.

“The kid threatened to stab or shoot Roman,” Colón said.

Rodriguez ran back inside the building to tell his father, who was still packing up after class, what happened.

“My son is a pretty mellow kid and I could tell something was wrong as he was pretty hyped up,” Ricardo said.

As they walked outside together, Ricardo said, the teen had returned brandishing a large kitchen knife with his mother by his side.

“I witnessed this kid’s mother encourage her son to stab mine. She was instigating a fight,” Ricardo said. “My first reaction was to protect my son, but also to avoid any kind of tragedy.”

Emphasis mine. The aggressor returning with a knife is bad in of itself but it’s pretty easy, based on this stroy, to figure out where he learned such behavior. What mother on Earth would give a knife to their child, accompany their child to the scene of a previous fight, and encourage him to stab the kid that had previously won the fight (that, I might add, was started by the kid who lost)? That has to be one messed up household.

Kudos to Roman Rodriguez for doing the right thing. I don’t think the situation could have been handled any better than it was. But the mother of the aggressor… holy shit. The fact that parents like that exist in this world saddens me greatly. Can a child with such a mother have any chance of a decent life?

Cryptocat for iOS

I’ve been experimenting with Cryptocat with a few friends for several months now. For those of you who haven’t heard of it, Cryptocat is an Off-the-Record (OTR) messaging client that runs as a browser plugin. I’m a fan. Cryptocat has undergone and passed at least one security audit, which makes the developers’ claims of security far greater than many other clients. More importantly, as somebody who is trying to convince people to use secure communication systems, Cryptocat is easy to use. After spending some time trying to convince people to use security methods of communication I’ve learned that the primary barrier is effort; the more effort a system requires the less apt people are to use it. Of course there are downsides to everything that the biggest downside to Cryptocat has been it’s lack of a mobile client.

Fortunately that issue has been partially resolved with the introduction of Cryptocat for iOS. I’ve been playing with it for roughly one week now and am impressed. The interface is straight forward, the client has no issue logging into Cryptocat conversations, and you receive iOS notifications when a new messages appears in a conversation. Unfortunately, due to Apple’s restrictions, Cryptocat is only able to run in the background for a few minutes before it’s unceremoniously killed. Since Cryptocat rooms don’t maintain a history of posted messages (by design) you can’t catch up on any message sent between the time your client is killed and you log back in. But when you’re working on Apple’s system you have to play by Apple’s rules.

I’m hoping an Android client will be released soon. Once that’s done a vast majority of smartphones will be able to access Cryptocat rooms, which will make the system more viable. Who knows, someday OTR may become commonly used for text communications.

Ukrainians Understanding the Arguments for an Armed Populace

Unless you’ve been living under a rock or only watching American news media you’re probably aware of the current crisis in Ukraine. While many media outlets have made it appear as though violent revolutionaries are fighting an otherwise peaceful government the truth is the Ukrainian police have been committing a lot of the violence. To this end the Ukrainian Gun Owners Association has put forth an argument favoring the unconditional right of Ukrainian citizens to bear arms:

Today every citizen of Ukraine understands why our country has hundreds of thousands of policemen. Last illusions were crushed when riot police used rubber batons and boots at the Independence Square on peaceful citizens.

After such actions we realize that it is not enough to only adopt the Gun Law.
As of today Ukrainian Gun Owners Association will start to work on the preparation of amendments to the Constitution, which will provide an unconditional right for Ukrainian citizens to bear arms.

People should have the right to bear arms, which will be put in written into the Constitution.

Authorities should not and will not be stronger than its people!

Armed people are treated with respect!

I have no idea of influential this organization is but it’s still interesting to see such an organization and that it is arguing in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. Ukraine is a prime example of what happens when the state is better armed than the people. While such disparity of force doesn’t mean the people cannot hold their own against the state it does mean that more people will die in order to beat back the state’s thuggery.

So Long Piers Morgan

If you’re a douche long enough people will tire of you, which is something Piers Morgan just learned:

CNN has given up on trying to make Piers Morgan the new Larry King after a three-year run and will pull the plug on the Briton’s 9 p.m. talk show, which has been finishing far behind rivals Meghan Kelly on Fox News Channel and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.

According to Nielsen ratings from last week, “Piers Morgan Live” was seen nightly by just 270,000 viewers nationwide and only 50,000 people in the key advertising demographic of Americans ages 25 to 54. Ms. Kelly and Ms. Maddow had, respectively, audiences of more than 2 million and 900,000 overall and more than 350,000 and 220,000 in that key 25 to 54 age group.

Not surprisingly one of the hypothesized reasons for Morgan’s low ratings is his constant banging on the gun control drum:

Conservatives especially took offense at his British-tabloid persona and his overt support for gun control, and they started a petition at the White House’s “We the People” site demanding that the administration “Deport British Citizen Piers Morgan for Attacking 2nd Amendment.”

Personally I just find Morgan to be a disagreeable person in general. He has always come off as a smug asshole to me and that alone was enough for me not to like the guy. I don’t watch CNN (or much television in general) so it doesn’t matter much to me that his show was cancelled but I certainly am not going to lose any sleep over it.