You’re Doing it Wrong – Page 22

They’re All In It Together

The primary duty of law enforcers is to expropriate wealth from the general populace. Few law enforcement agencies are as glib about this as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). From Medical records to identities the DEA has a long history of theft. But cash is king. The DEA was recently caught recruiting an agent of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to steal cash for them:

A Department of Justice watchdog officially condemned the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration this month, following a report that the agency had recruited a Transportation Security Administration security screener to search bags for cash that the DEA could confiscate.

[…]

In a summary of its investigation, the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General concluded that the agreement “violated DEA policy” on a number of levels. While the OIG determined that the TSA informant never provided any actionable information to the DEA, it concluded that the plans to pay the agent out of the cash he or she helped seize “could have violated individuals’ protection against unreasonable searches and seizures if it led to a subsequent DEA enforcement action.”

In effect, the OIG was questioning the propriety of an arrangement in which a TSA agent would use his or her power to tip off the DEA to the presence of cash in travelers’ luggage, and then receive compensation based on how profitable that information was to the agency.

Mind you, partnerships between the DEA and other government agencies isn’t unusual. However, such a blatant partnership aimed expressly at stealing cash from air travelers is pretty brazen even for the DEA.

The important question is what will happen now? If history is any indicator nothing will happen, which is why corrupt shit like this never ends. So long as nobody in the DEA is punished for trying to pull shit like this the agency is going to continue doing what is has been doing all along. And since the DEA is a money maker for the State it’s unlikely any other government agency is going to actually issue punishments where they are due.

But What About The Borders

Nationalism seems to be running strong in the veins of many pretend libertarians. I keep seeing people who call themselves libertarians arguing for stronger borders. Their argument usually goes something like, “In order to create a libertarian society we need a strong federal government to keep out the antilibertarians!”

Not surprisingly this attitude is more prevalent amongst politically active libertarians. There must be some kind of connection between the delusion that one can vote their way to libertarianism and believing giving the government more power will better enable voting their way to libertarianism.

But how can one create a libertarian society, that is to say a stateless society, by expanding the State’s power? I guess one could hope to expand the State’s power until it reaches that inevitable point of becoming so massive it collapses in on itself but that’s a pretty bloody road, especially for political libertarians. As a general rule the more totalitarian a state becomes the less tolerant of dissidents it becomes. Political opponents are usually the first against the wall since they made themselves very obvious to the State.

Symbolism

The believed birthplace of the Bill of Rights now more closely matches the actual Bill of Rights:

A Pennsylvania building believed to be the birthplace of the Bill of Rights was partially demolished earlier this month because developers didn’t know the origin of the site, The Sentinel reported.

The building, originally known as the James Bell Tavern, hosted a meeting in 1788 of anti-Federalists opposed to the ratification of the new nation’s Constitution. The group began calling for changes to the document, and their plea was eventually heard when the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791.

Overall the Constitution was, what I consider, a bad idea. It cemented the power of the federal government by giving it the power to issue and collect taxes and a monopoly on deciding whether any actions performed by the federal government were constitutional. Once the federal government of the United States had those two powers it effectively became unstoppable.

With that said, the Antifederalists made a valiant effort at damage control by getting the Bill of Rights included in the Constitution. Unfortunately the realities of statism became apparent very quickly as the federal government, almost immediately, began curtailing the supposed rights listed in the Constitution.

Federalists: 1, Antifederalists: 0.

Be Careful Posting About Bernie Sander’s Campaign

Although I suspect most of my readers aren’t feeling the Bern I could be wrong. Just in case some of you are Bernie supporters I’m going to do you a huge favor and warn you about posting material from his campaign online. It seems the campaign does not appreciate such things. Wikipedia received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice from the Bernie Sanders campaign because it displayed publicly available campaign material:

A lawyer representing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has demanded that several of the campaign’s logos be removed from Wikipedia, saying that reproducing the logos violate copyright law. The Wikimedia Foundation has complied with the DMCA takedown notice and removed the notices.

If you’ve been posting information from Sanders’ campaign you should consider removing it immediately less you receive your own DMCA takedown notices.

It is funny, from my vantage point of an anarchist, that a political campaign would decide to enforce its copyright like this. Most people are away that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. This is especially true for political campaigns. Even if people were using campaign material for mockery it will both amuse opponents and stir up supporters. There’s really no way a campaign can lose by letting people use its materials since such use is almost certainly not going to convince anybody to change their viewpoint.

Oh well, some people want a master. I guess it’s good for them to get a feel for the new yoke before they have to wear it.

How To Spot A Sex Trafficker According To The DHS

How do you spot a sex trafficker? According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the signs of a sex trafficker in a hotel are almost exactly the same as the signs of anybody else in a hotel that’s ready for a good time:

garbage cans containing many used condoms

frequent use of “Do Not Disturb” sign on room door

excessive foot traffic in and out of a room

“excessive sex paraphernalia” in room

an “overly smelly room” that reeks of “cigarette, marijuana, sweat, bodily fluids, and musk”

a guest who “averts eyes or does not make eye contact”

individuals “dressed inappropriate for age” or with “lower quality clothing than companions”

guests with “suspicious tattoos”

the presence of multiple computers, cell phones, pagers, credit card swipes, or other technology

the presence of photography equipment

minibar in need of frequent restocking

guests with too many personal hygiene products, especially “lubrication, douches”

guests with too few personal possessions

rooms paid for with cash or a rechargeable credit card

“individuals loitering and soliciting male customers”

“claims of being an adult though appearance suggests adolescent features”

refusal of room cleaning services for multiple days

This list, with an except of a few token points thrown in to make it seem otherwise, appears to be aimed at prostitution instead of sex trafficking. Furthermore, it’s absurd to expect hotel staff to identify sex traffickers. To quote Bruce Schneier, “If you ask amateurs to act as front-line security personnel, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get amateur security.” There is no value in having hotel staff act as investigators. I would even say it has less than no value since the cost of chasing false positives, including money paid to investigators following up on leads and the complacency that comes from a continuous stream of false positives, will likely become detrimental to efforts of fighting sex trafficking.

Programs like this are exercises in security theater. By holding these training sessions the DHS can claim it is doing something to thwart sex trafficking without actually having to do anything.

Is Your Device A Snitch

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pervasiveness Of Government Databases

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

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

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

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

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

When Idiots Write Stories

The Internet, although overall a glorious invention, is rife with bullshit. Unfortunately a lot of the bullshit seems to be widely circulated.

Several of my friends shared a story about all shipping traffic between Europe and the United States stopping:

This story was posted on such reputable sites as SupreStation95 and We Are Change (reputable, like a hipster’s stupid wardrobe, was ironic in this case). And who could argue with it? There’s a map right there clearly showing no ships between Europe and the United States, right? Wrong.

The map is taken from MarineTraffic, a website that gives a live view of ships throughout the world. It uses data collected from ships’ Automatic Identification System (AIS). But the idiot who wrote the story didn’t read MarineTraffic’s FAQ. If they had they would have realized that AIS utilizes ground stations to detect ships and has an approximate range of 15 to 20 nautical miles. Once a ship is outside of the range of any ground stations it is no longer trackable by MarineTraffic. Since there is a lack of landmasses in the Atlantic there are no ground stations to pick up ships’ AIS.

File this under “Life Lessons: Don’t Believe Everything You Read.” With that said, MarineTraffic is really cool and you should poke around on it. Seeing the sheer number of ships in the water at any time is pretty wild.

Centralized Failure

People have been using the attacks in Cologne to argue in favor of stronger border controls because, you know, the attacks must have been caused by immigrants and not the usual drunken debauchery that accompanies New Year’s Eve. Such arguments miss the point (well they miss several points but I’ll only address the biggest one here), which is the danger of centralization. It has been revealed that the police in Cologne were being overwhelmed with reports:

An internal police report reveals officers “could not cope” with the volume of attacks in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, German media say.

Women were “forced to run the gauntlet” through gangs of drunken and aggressive men outside the station, it said.

Police say the number of reported crimes from the incident has risen to 121, about three-quarters of which involve sexual assault.

[…]

“The task forces could not cope with all the events, assaults, and crimes – there were just too many happening at the same time,” the senior officer concluded.

Cologne police chief Wolfgang Albers has rejected claims teams were understaffed, insisting “we were well prepared”.

But he described what happened as “a completely new dimension of crime”.

I’ve discussed the weaknesses inherent in centralized security before. In this case it appears the central point of failure, relying on the police for security, was a major factor in these attacks getting as out of hand as they did. As the number of attacks increased the inability of the police to effectively respond became more obvious so the perceived risk of perpetuating additional attacks decreased. Since the average German citizen is unable to carry a firearm the risk of attacking them is already lower than it is in most states here. Couple that with the inability of the police to respond and you have a feedback loop of more attacks reducing the perceived risk of committing attacks, which in turn increases the likelihood of more attacks.

We’re All Libertarians Now

One of my friends came up with a phrase that has become quite popular amongst the circles I travel in: we’re all libertarians now. It brings to light the fact that many people call themselves libertarians without actually believing in the philosophy of libertarianism. Gary Johnson, who lost the last presidential election as the Libertarian Party candidate and announced his intentions to lose again this year, is an example. While many of his stated beliefs in the past have been fairly freedom oriented he is adopting a new strategy this year by going authoritarian:

Surprisingly for a libertarian, Johnson, who recently resigned as the CEO of Cannabis Sativa, a marijuana marketing form, said that he would sign a bill banning the wearing of burqas in America. Sharia, he insisted, was not an expression of religion but of “politics” and hence many of its practices could be banned or limited without running afoul of the Constitution.

“Under sharia law,” he argued, “women are not afforded the same rights as men.” Under a burqa, how do you know if a woman has been beaten?, he asked rhetorically. “Honor killings are allowed for under sharia law and so is deceiving non-Muslims.” Likening followers of sharia to members of the Ku Klux Klan, Johnson said that he wouldn’t censor the speech of people promoting sharia law but would mount a cultural campaign to counter its growth here. He said the Islamic terrorism proceeds directly from the same sources as the thinking behind sharia and that the United States government must make sure it is not inadvertently funding sharia overseas.

Libertarianism is a philosophy built around the non-aggression principle, which simply states that it’s wrong to initiate force. How can one claim they are opposed to the initiation of force when they’re openly supporting laws that threaten anybody wearing a burqa? They can’t. Two the are mutually exclusive.

I also find his opinions about sharia rather hypocritical since he’s running to become part of a government that operates under very similar principles.

While women are not afforded the same rights as men under sharia nobody is afforded any rights under United States law. Rights, by definition, cannot be taken away. But the United States government can legally take any so-called right away. When something can be taken away it’s called a privilege and to quote George Carlin, “That’s all we’ve ever had in this country; a bill of temporary privileges.” Because even the enumerated privileges in the Bill of Rights, which have all be violated by federal law, are a single constitutional convention away from being entirely removed.

Sharia allows honor killings? So does United States law. The terminology is different. Instead of honor killings United State law calls it war. But when somebody offends the honor of the United States they end up at the business end of the world’s largest military, which usually makes them very dead.

And United States law allows the government to deceive nongovernmental entities. Cops can lie to you (but you can’t lie to them because that’s a crime). Every politician can lie to you. Basically anybody employed by the government can lie to you. Hell, the government lies to its allies. In fact I’m not aware of a single entity the United States government doesn’t lie to.

By Gary Johnson’s own criticisms of sharia he should be working to abolish the State, not become part of it so he can do the very things he is criticizing Islam for doing.

This is a common problem amongst statist libertarians (a term I personally find oxymoronic). They aren’t interested in being a force of liberation for all and their acknowledgement of the non-aggression principle only extends as far as the people they like. I’m not sure why they desire to label themselves libertarians, it’s not like there are any cool points attached to the term, but they do and it has rendered the term nearly useless.