Total Information Awareness...Take 2

Oy...

Check out this Wall Street Journal (of all sources!) article on how Total Information Awareness is being resuscitated:

The rules now allow the little-known National Counterterrorism Center to examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them.

And

The agency's best-known product is a database called TIDE, which stands for the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment. TIDE contains more than 500,000 identities suspected of terror links. Some names are known or suspected terrorists; others are terrorists' friends and families; still more are people with some loose affiliation to a terrorist.  

Yeah, that means you, you threat to national security peace activists. 

Facebook and Pinterest posts not included.  

Yet.

Contraception Costs

Rush's obscene comments are based either on a profound ignorance of how most woman-based contraception works, or on a profound cynicism about the American public's ignorance of how it works. Or (since we're talking about Rush, here) both.

I'm a computer scientist, so let me put it in computer science terms.

Cost of the most popular male-based contraceptives (i.e. condoms): O(n), where n is the number of sexual encounters. (Withdrawal not included.)

Cost of most female-based contraceptives (e.g. pill, IUD): O(1), with a large constant.

For non-computer scientists: to oversimplify somewhat, a function f(n) is O(n) if it is roughly proportional to n. In other words, as you increase n, you also increase f(n). A function f(n) is O(1) if it really doesn't matter how big n gets, it's always the same value. A good example of an O(n) function might be cost-of-gas-per-week as a function of number of miles driven. As the number of miles goes up, so does the amount I'm paying for gas (assuming prices don't drop). An example of an O(1) function: price-per-gallon as a function of the number of miles driven. It really doesn't matter how many miles I'm driving -- the cost per gallon remains the same.

Which brings me back to Rush. He thought he was being so clever with accusing Ms. Fluke of having so much sex that she couldn't afford to pay for it. Whereas for most forms of birth control that are fully in a woman's control (and I think that last bit is significant), it really doesn't matter whether you're getting it once an hour or (as primly as Rush or Rick could desire) conceding it once a year...the cost is the same. And it's jolly expensive, even for once a year.

Which is in stark contrast to the most popular male method: pay per use, and a fraction of the cost of the dinner/movie that precedes its use.

Why is that?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that we're having this national conversation about who pays for birth control. Who wants to pay more to let women have control?

Convention on the Rights of the Child - Too hot to handle

Incredible:

The United States and Somalia are the only two countries that haven't ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, an international treaty that recognizes the human rights of people younger than 18.

I'd never heard of it, before, but apparently it was signed in 1989 and took effect 1990. We've had 22 years to get with the program, but still can't bring ourselves to do it. Never mind how well some of the signatories are implementing it, but really...we can't bring ourselves to even make the token gesture of ratifying it???

The Convention on the Rights of the Child includes such controversial provisions as

Guiding principles (pdf): The guiding principles of the Convention include non-discrimination; adherence to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and the right to participate. They represent the underlying requirements for any and all rights to be realized.

Survival and development rights (pdf): These are rights to the resources, skills and contributions necessary for the survival and full development of the child. They include rights to adequate food, shelter, clean water, formal education, primary health care, leisure and recreation, cultural activities and information about their rights. These rights require not only the existence of the means to fulfil the rights but also access to them. Specific articles address the needs of child refugees, children with disabilities and children of minority or indigenous groups.

Protection rights (pdf): These rights include protection from all forms of child abuse, neglect, exploitation and cruelty, including the right to special protection in times of war and protection from abuse in the criminal justice system.

Participation rights (pdf): Children are entitled to the freedom to express opinions and to have a say in matters affecting their social, economic, religious, cultural and political life. Participation rights include the right to express opinions and be heard, the right to information and freedom of association. Engaging these rights as they mature helps children bring about the realization of all their rights and prepares them for an active role in society.

But what was I thinking? Best interests of the child. Protection from all forms of child abuse. Preparing them for an active role in society. Silly me.

Special police? Really?

Am I the only one who thinks this is a terrible idea? First heard about it on WBGO, in a segment on Newark Journal, called Life After the Newark PD.

Apparently there is an organization, known as the Newark Special Police Association, "whose members are trained at the Newark Police Academy and certified by the state training commission. The group has traditionally arranged work for officers with the city’s housing authority, schools and hospitals." However, through this organization, unemployed cops are now getting hired by PSE&G, to essentially do security guard duty. I'm ok with that. What alarms me is that these guys have "full police powers to make arrests on the job."

Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of giving unemployed folks gainful employment, especially in their areas of expertise. And it's kind of PSE&G to pick up the tab. But really? Giving police powers to what is essentially a security guard or mercenary? Even assuming that PSE&G does its job and never abuses its authority, aren't we going down an incredibly steep and slippery slope? Full police powers are generally reserved for the government, where, in a democracy, the government can be held accountable. If one of these guys goes bad, who's accountable?

Name of Blackwater ring a bell?

Banning Social Media?

It's kind of hard to believe that anyone in the "free world" is seriously entertaining the concept of setting limits on FaceBook and Twitter.

"Free speech is central to our democracy, but so is public safety and security," said Ivan Lewis, the shadow secretary of culture in the House of Commons, according to London's Guardian newspaper. "We support the government's decision to undertake a review of whether measures are necessary to prevent the abuse of social media by those who organize and participate in criminal activities."

Well...let's not even talk about the much touted role of social media during the Arab Spring. Brits are, of course, expected to behave better than those rowdy Arabs, and besides they have no good reason to question their government. But I digress.

I can't begin to imagine how they'd implement measures "to prevent the abuse of social media" that would be effective against "those who organize and participate in criminal activities" like those we've been witnessing in London over the last week or so, but measures that would not also cripple those who want to get the hell out of the way of those activities, or who want to engage in legitimate activities. There are three possible approaches they could be meditating: (1) shut down the entire social media infrastructure (e.g. shut down access to FaceBook altogether) or (2) maintain a targeted list of those known to "organize and participate in criminal activities", and just shut down their access or (3) identify criminal activities in progress and shut them down. None of these are very good.

Option 1 shuts down access for the good guys (which is most people), too. And in the middle of a crisis that includes people trying to find out about and avoid the riot (I mean criminal activity) hot-spots. Option 2 involves (a) a massive game of Whack-a-Mole, (b) massive surveillance generally considered incompatible with a free society and (c) stifling free expression for a lot of people accidentally swept up. Option 3 suffers from the same weaknesses as Option 2, with slightly better aim at the mole, but would need to be done real-time. And FaceBook says it does Option 3, anyway.

I can't see Option 1 being put into practice. Social media information is simply too useful, including to governments. However, I am sorry to say I can easily imagine governments, (including those in the "free world") attempting some variation of Option 2 and Option 3, where "criminal activities" are more and more loosely defined over time. FaceBook will become incredibly convenient for facilitating McCarthy-like witch hunts, and in fact, rather than shutting down sites associated with undesired activities, I see them governments monitoring them as honeypots. Especially when armed with subpoenas for FaceBook logs of users' friending histories.

None of this is to say that I think we should do nothing, and sit back and allow riots to take place freely. I just don't think limits on social media are a useful response. Would we shut down email, too? How about cell phone service?

Technology is always a double-edged sword.

Just saying.

Edited to add (8/14): Rebecca MacKinnon has a much more articulate analysis of how bad an idea this is.

Suffocating women

Picture worth 1000 words.

Shame on the SCOTUS.

Checks (and balances) or checks (and bargains)?

Apparently, there are plans afoot to sell off Federal government real estate assets that are not in use.

Sure thing...no problem...we're in the red...raise some cash. Couple of national forests -- who needs them? We can always grow more trees.

However, I was struck by one item in the article:

"This approach will enable us to cut through the red tape and overcome the special interests and parochial politics that have traditionally slowed or halted progress when efforts have been made to reduce government's real estate footprint one asset at a time," the official said.

(emphasis mine).

Now I've seen my share of bad processes, but in my experience, a lot of what is considered "red tape" (i.e. administrative cost and process) is there precisely to put a check on special interests and other bad behavior. Probably the best way to cut red tape, the place you'll really get the biggest bang for your buck in efficiency, is to remove all the scrutiny on the real estate transactions. That's almost certainly where the big administrative costs are. But without the oversight, special interests may have free rein to bully petty government bureaucrats into selling the real estate at just about any price they choose.

In other words, you can cut through red tape OR you can overcome special interests. I question whether you can do both. Well...OK...you probably could do both (given that the oversight processes are sub-optimal). But if I were a betting woman, I'd put money on the cut-red-tape-only solution being implemented. In today's climate.

So no one can say if the internet good or bad, on the whole?

This is a very good interview for people to read and think about.

We hear a lot about how great the internet is for freedom. Evgeny Morozov takes a very balanced view. Namely that the internet is a double-edged sword. Yes, it is used by activists to communicate the abuses and oppressions they are suffering to the world, as well as to coordinate organizing strategies. But it is also used by oppressors to monitor activists and spread disinformation about them and to disseminate propaganda.

Once again we find that computers are fabulous tools to increase productivity. For our side and theirs.

I HIGHLY recommend you read the article.

Another conspiracy theory? Or more proof we're too stupid for democracy?

I find it a bit disturbing that the Department of Justice appears to be investigating Rop Gongrijp, among others, on the Wikileaks thing. Specifically, we know that it has subpoenaed Twitter for records about Gonggrijp, as well as Assange, Manning, and Birgitta Jonsdottir (an Icelandic MP), in connection with creation of the video "Collateral Murder".

What disturbs me more about this than I am already disturbed by the whole approach to addressing Wikileaks is that Gongrijp is also one of the main investigators involved in a study that exposed weaknesses in the electronic voting system used in India.

So far, no one has been talking much about the connection, but call me a conspiracy theorist...I have to wonder how much they'll "accidentally" uncover while poking around his stuff. One of the big bones of contention in the India study was that the investigators refused to reveal who was the source of the machine they used in order to test for weaknesses. One very brave scientist, Hari Prasad, was in jail for nearly a week over this issue last August. If the DOJ has subpoenaed email accounts, as well as Twitter access, with as broad wording as the Twitter subpoena, there could be a lot of information in there relevant to the voting machine study, and it could be child's play to accidentally run across the identity of the voting machine source while examining Gongrijp's emails. Once this identity is found it would be simple to (perhaps illegally, but nevertheless surreptitiously) pass the information along to the Indian government.

As of this posting, the only thing we know the DOJ has subpoenaed was Gongrijp's Twitter posts (which seems rather silly, since they're public). We know this because Twitter actually informed him that the request had been made. We don't know what else they may have subpoenaed. And though IANAL, the Twitter subpoena looks rather broad to me...it does not restrict information requested to that relevant to the Wikileaks investigation (which surprises me a bit). It does cover a restricted time period (Nov. 1, 2009 to the date of the subpoena), but this time period also covers the time in which the Indian voting machine study was going on.

If I were the source of the test voting machine, I'd be a little extra nervous, just now. And having him/her punished as a by-product of the Wikileaks investigation would be unfortunate collateral damage, in my opinion.

Too stupid for democracy?

I was driving home from dropping my mother off at the train station on Jan. 2, and turned on WPRB, to hear this operatic voice singing something about "every four or five years they play a little game, saying 'You can pick your leader, take your choice". You know I was going to tune in, then! Turns out the piece was "Too Stupid for Democracy" by Eileen McGann. It's quite amusing...take a listen, if you haven't, already.

I only recently discovered WPRB, while station surfing in my car...they have some good stuff. As does WKCR (to which I have a sentimental attachment).

Great way to start off the new year!

Citizens united (against Citizens United)

Larry Lessig has an interesting posting on the awful Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

He calls for two main actions:

1. In the short term: passage of the Fair Elections Now Act. See http://www.publicampaign.org/node/38166 for a description of this law that basically calls for citizen-funded elections (donations $100 or less)
2. In the longer term: a constitutional convention to pass an amendment to the constitution to protect the independence of congress from funders (see http://www.callaconvention.org/pages/call-for-a-convention/ for his reasoning and proposed amendment)

Lessig is a very interesting guy. Years ago I followed a great online class he and a couple of other lawyers ran on Cyberspace Law. I am not a lawyer (mandatory IANAL here :-), but the class was fascinating and accessible...check it out. It is a little old, but he covers the underlying principles, which I imagine can't have changed all that much. Many of the topics covered (copyright law, privacy law, free speech, etc. as they relate to cyberspace are still very hot topics.)