Happy New Year

To all,

Wishing you a happy healthy new year, and all the best in 2006

The Herz's
Jeff, Nancy, Jacob and Mollie

Reaction to the Eavesdropping

Two interesting editorials were placed side by side in today's Stamford Advocate. The first one is from Newsday by James Pinkerton who worked in the White House under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and also in the 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 Republican presidential campaigns. The second one is from the Washington Post by Suzanne Spaulding, who was was general counsel for the Senate and House Intelligence committees, assistant general counsel at the CIA and executive director of the National Terrorism Commission (1999-2000).

Pinkerton says essentially that the American public is okay with the government spying on them, if they believe that this activity will make them safer:

Based on what we've seen so far, Bush is in no danger of losing his job. In fact, if this controversy continues, W. Will likely go up in the polls. Why? Because the American people want to be safe. And they will surrender some of their rights to be safer. That political reality may infuriate hard-core civil libertarians, but it's true during all periods of wartime.

He then goes on to cite numerous examples of how the government have been circumventing the spirit of the law for years:

All through the Cold War, for example, the American and British governments got around the rules against spying on their own people through a simple stratagem: Each government spied on the people of the other country, and then the two governments exchanged the resulting intelligence. This was "the Mid-Atlantic Swap," in which the U.K. Government Communications Headquarters spied on Americans, while the U.S. National Security Agency spied on Britons. It was cynical but legal.

The imperative of intelligence-gathering is bipartisan, at least at the presidential level. That's why Democrat Bill Clinton was willing to assert the same "inherent authority" of the presidency to bypass procedures on national security. And that's why surveillance programs with such delightful-sounding names as "Carnivore" emerged during the '90s.

Finally, Pinkerton goes for the kill asking what the intent of the Bush administration was:

There will be hearings and lawsuits galore over the new surveillance revelations, but the key question, in the minds of most folks, is motive. Did the Bush administration seek out information for political or personal gain, a la Richard Nixon? That would be an impeachable offense. Or, were the Bush folks so worried about threats to America that they bent the law - like in every episode of the counterterror TV show "24"? That's a winning hand for Bush.

What is the difference between perceived political or personal threats (ala Nixon) versus perceived security threats (ala Bush) from the constitution's perspective. I doubt there is very much difference. In both cases, the president is attempting to over-extend his executive power at the cost of the two other branches, which is very specifically spelled out in the constitution.

Spaulding takes a different approach to this issue:

Based on the facts as reported so far, none (Congress, the courts and, ultimately, the American people) of these appear to have operated as an effective check on this extraordinary exercise of presidential power.

The problem was that a few (8) elected representatives who were briefed by Bush, were unable to share this information with their party leaders, their staff or their constituents:

They are provided only to the leadership of the House and Senate and of the intelligence committees, with no staff present. The eight are prohibited from saying anything about the briefing to anyone, including other intelligence panel members. The leaders for whom I worked never discussed the content of these briefings with me.

It is virtually impossible for individual members of Congress, particularly members of the minority party, to take any effective action if they have concerns about what they have heard in one of these briefings. It is not realistic to expect them, working alone, to sort through complex legal issues, conduct the kind of factual investigation required for true oversight and develop an appropriate legislative response....

The objectives of the surveillance program, as described in news reports, seem laudable. The government should be running to ground the contacts listed in a suspected terrorist's cell phone, for example. What is troubling is that this domestic spying is being done in apparent contravention of FISA, for reasons that still
are not clear.

FISA anticipates situations in which speed is essential. It allows the government to start eavesdropping without a court order and to keep it going for a maximum of three days. And while the FISA application process is often burdensome in routine cases, it can also move with remarkable speed when necessary, with applications written and approved in just a few hours.

Perhaps the administration did not believe that these wiretaps would meet the FISA standard, which requires the government to have probable cause to believe that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power, which includes terrorists and spies. Yet, since 2001, FISA judges have reportedly reviewed more than 5,645 applications and rejected only four. The current judges were all hand-picked by the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who presumably felt that they had the right temperament and expertise to understand the national security imperatives as well as the need to protect civil liberties.

So the fundamental differences between these two commentaries are conservatives are alright with allowing their president to usurp civil liberties if they make them safer, would they feel the same way if it was President Hilary Clinton, or some other Democrat? I find this a bit amusing since most red states (who seem to receive the most homeland security funding) are probably not real terrorist targets anyway, but at least they feel safer. The other response says that it would have been relatively easy for the president to have complied with the law and averted this controversy, since the overwhelming majority of requests for FISA requests were approved.

As new information is released and various opinions are stated the same basic question remains and should be asked over again until we have a sufficient answer:

Why couldn't the president just get legal approval and follow the law?

FISA allows itself to be by-passed for up to 3 days in order to move on something timely and hot. There does not appear to have any reason, other than bad advice from his attorney general's and white counsel's for not following the procedures. Or is FISA really is insufficient, the work with congress to amend, change or create new legislation that allows for the new threats that exist now that did not in 1978. Personally, I think this the "new" threat is just an excuse and a lot of hooey.

I am still disturbedby the arrogance of the admission that he did it, and he is going to keep on doing it. (He sounds like Mel Brooks as Louis XVI in History of the Part 1.) He shows no remorse, he just keeps pushing this republic towards a dictatorship and an imperialistic empire. I am all for protecting the US from further attacks, but I a more for the protection of the civil rights of its citizens, which is what the founding fathers fought so hard for so many years ago.

More from Ellen Goodman and Clarence Page

The role of the NYTimes

A friend of mine wote:

I'm really disturbed to hear that Bill Kellor and Arthur Sulzberger sat on the story for a year, and then he met with them a few days before publication, begging him not to publish it. Don't you think that the Times should have reported that? Again, how the Times handles themselves when THEY ARE PART OF THE STORY, has been appalling

My response went like this:

I am saddened that the NYTimes sat on this story for a year, and only went public before the reporting journalists book came out in a seperate side deal. It just begs the question(s) of;

If no book deal, when would they have reported this story?
If not now, then when and under what circumstances would they have published?
And finally, what responsibility does the press have to report this information after sufficient fact checking?

I understand that this is sensitive and classified information involved that "might" protect us against some future attack, but doesn't the press have the responsibility to report violations and keep the government honest. I am all for fact checking and making sure that information is complete and certain, but assuming that is done, what is the purpose of sitting on the story? Too often now the NYTimes has been part of the story and that reduces credibility, and fans the flames of its political opponents.

One thing I always respected about the big 3 TV reporters was they viewed there roles as reporting the news, not making the news. They very rarely (Rather) or never (Browak, Jennings) gave their opinions on the news or the makers of the news and that was a very important to me. Even Brian Williams NBC new anchor failed to give an editorials when reporting from New Orleans during the Katrina disaster. He said my job is to report as I see it, not tell people what to think about this or put his personal slant on the news. I think too often newspapers and the reporters cross that line in order to gain more press (and more dollars), and the line between news and opinion becomes finer until you can no longer tell the difference. This is certainly true on TV, where it is nothing but screaming heads, and very little straight forward reporting anymore.

Dr. Justin Frank asks a very important question on this topic in his blog at the Huffington Post:

In today’s (12/26) Washington Post, Howard Kurtz reports that the White House actively pressures the editors of major newspapers to withhold stories that could damage the Bush administration’s image and reputation with American citizens.

The important question this revelation raises is, “What else don’t we know?” What other information, gathered by professional reporters and editors, has been kept from the American public.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

My friend also recommended reading "Tragedy & Farce", by John Nichols on Media Reform.

Constitutional grounds for Impeachment

According to the US Constitution Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The definition of "high" crimes according to the National Center for Constitutional Studies is:

Acts of serious misconduct in public office (such as violating the Constitution or abusing one's political power to harm citizens or get personal gain).

In my humble opinion, President Clinton never was convicted of treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors and therefore should never had been impeached. It seemed to be a political witch hunt, because the Republicans in Congress simply did not agree with the presidents life style and actions. So receiving a blow-job in the oval office, and then lying about it, does not in my mind constitute a "high" crime. The only citizens harmed in that fiasco was Hillary, Monica and the intelligence of the American public

However, the allegations and open admissions by the Bush team regarding domestic eavesdropping and spying, could conceivably open up his presidency for these very same proceedings soon. Katrina Vanden Heuvel in this weeks The Nation "The I-Word is Gaining Ground" says constitutional scholars and politicians from both sides of the aisle are beginning to discuss this possibility of impeachment. This is not something that the country should take lightly, which is what seemed to happen 10 years ago with Clinton. This situation is much more serious and has more constitutional ramifications than Whitewater or even Watergate.

This involves the president attempting to over-ride the other two branches of government in order to set up the executive branch to be the all knowing and all powerful wing of the government, and that begins to smell like a dictatorship. It is time that both parties in Congress step forward and curtail the ability of the executive branch to usurp unconstituational powers from the other two branches, and bring balance back to our government.

In a seperate article in this weeks The Nation titled Bush's High Crimes Jonathan Schell says:

For the generations who came of age after the mid-1970s, it is worth recalling why warrantless domestic surveillance so shocks the political system. It needs to be repeated that the same arguments cited by Bush--inherent presidential power and national security--sustained the wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr., unleashed illegal CIA domestic spying and generated FBI files on thousands of American dissidents. It needs to be repeated that in 1974, the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon included abuse of presidential power based on warrantless wiretaps and illegal surveillance. It needs to be repeated that a few months later, presidential aides named Cheney and Rumsfeld labored mightily to secure President Ford's veto of the Freedom of Information Act, in an unsuccessful attempt to turn back post-Watergate restrictions on homegrown spying and government secrecy.

Most of all it needs to be repeated that no constitutional clause gives the President "because I said so" authority. The fact that former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo tried to concoct a laughable fig leaf out of Congress's 9/11 use-of-force resolution in no way diminishes the President's culpability. Nor does the evident collusion of a handful of Senate leaders, including minority leader Harry Reid, who was evidently informed at least partly about the spying program.

Amazing coincidence that Cheney and Rumsfeld are again at the center of another domestic spying controversy. I guess it is true, old dogs never learn.

Dictatorship in the Making?

Here is a blog by Bruce Scneier, that does a much better job explaining the threat of unchecked presidential power. It is interesting because he expands on the point that this is not a partisan issue, since all you need to do is picture the worse politician in your mind, having unlimited powers, that are not regulated by Congress or the Supreme Court.

This is indefinite dictatorial power. And I don't use that term lightly; the very definition of a dictatorship is a system that puts a ruler above the law. In the weeks after 9/11, while America and the world were grieving, Bush built a legal rationale for a dictatorship. Then he immediately started using it to avoid the law.

This is not a partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans; it's a president unilaterally overriding the Fourth Amendment, Congress and the Supreme Court. Unchecked presidential power has nothing to do with how much you either love or hate George W. Bush. You have to imagine this power in the hands of the person you most don't want to see as president, whether it be Dick Cheney or Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter.

Smarter Password Creation

For those of you concerned about home or work passwords, here is a quick read from cso online about how to easily create hard to crack passwords.

A good password isn't a password at all. Instead, it's a system for creating codes that are easy to remember but hard to crack. And by codes we do mean codes, plural, so that someone who finds out one of your passwords won't know them all. Here's one methodology to help you generate unguessable—but memorable—gibberish.

Some Privacy Issues

Here are some privacy issues, which have been in the news:

From Agape Press, (I am not sure what "reliable news from a christian source" means, but the article is pretty interesting.)

A school district in Sutter, California, briefly implemented a program that had students carry tags containing what is known as "radio frequency identification" technology, or RFID, in order to help monitor student attendance. The program was a pilot project for a small start-up company called InCom, which had developed its "InClass" system to help elementary and secondary schools automate attendance-taking.

In theory, I have no problem with this. Schools should be able to monitor their students, and if the teachers can spend more time instructing and less time on administration then we are all better off in the long run. It seems the counter arguement is pretty silly.

But Beth Givens with the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse feels school officials should not be too hasty in latching onto InClass, as administrators at Brittan perhaps were. She says instead of fully exploring the ramifications of such a program, the elementary school may have looked to the new technology as a "magic bullet" for an administrative problem without stopping to consider its potential impact on the school and the students themselves.

Givens warns that if systems like InClass are implemented in a school, the social environment there and the way students act within it may change profoundly. "Young people are going to get used to the idea or comfortable with the idea that they are always being watched," she says. "So what kind of adults will they grow up to be? Will they not be as risk-taking as perhaps entrepreneurs of earlier decades have been?"

How, the PRC spokeswoman wonders, would introducing an RFID system affect the communication and self expression of school children? "Will they be cautious about what they say? Will they not speak out? Will they not have a passionate interest in certain things?" she asks.

I have no idea how monitoring minors in school will prevent them from becoming independent thinkers. This seems like a huge logical jump, without much justification. Show me in the future that these kids are not able to think for themselves, and I will believe that this monitoring had a partial effect. As far as being watched all the time, isn't that what is supposed to happen in school now? Since when and where is a child independent in school? When I was in public school, the teachers and administrators told us they were responsible for our actions and us while we were on school property, and also the attendance log was could be admissable in a court of law as for proof of a childs where-abouts.

IBM's Anonymous Moves into Privacy Software

Imagine being able to exchange and store data while encrypting personal information from prying eyes.

Jeff Jonas loved this privacy concept so much, he decided to build anonymity software that safeguards people's identities during information exchanges.

IBM loved this technology so much, that it acquired Jonas' company SRD Software and its staff, a little known Las Vegas provider of software that "anonymizes" data so that it can be compared and analyzed without revealing private information.

I can't wait to see how IBM screws this up.

Targeting, Search & Privacy Concerns by Alan Chapell

I saw Alan Chapell speak at the InfoSecurity New York in a privacy seminar a few weeks back. His primary focus seems to be walking the fine line between consumer privacy and the information that is gathered by marketing organizations. It is good to know that there are people out there working to make sure our information does not become public and exploited, worth a read for those interested.

Admitting Mistakes and Eavesdropping Concerns

To begin with, President Bush deserves some credit for doing something he has never done publicly in 5 years in office; admitting he made a mistake. He has owned up to the fact that the intelligence used by the government to justify the Iraqi invasion was faulty and he is taking full responsibility for this failure. I applaud this action and commend him for finally standing up and doing the right thing. The President's steadfast stubbornness was always a concern, because no one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes and situations evolve over time. It is acknowledging these mistakes and taking responsibility that allows leaders to make changes. These changes could be a slight course correction, or could be a major tack or jibe as the wind shifts.

The leaders of the Democratic Party (Dean, Reid, Pelosi) are calling for a more radical tack, a major course correction that may achieve the short term goal of bringing the soldiers home and saving American lives, but won't do much for bringing stability to the Middle East. It is still undetermined if the current course will achieve the latter goal, but at this point in time, I am not sure we have much choice but to stick to the new current goal. The events of the past 4 years, have blown the US past its original mark, and to beat back downwind to achieve these past goals, may no longer be realistic. As an unfortunate as this might seem we must do everything to be sure that our withdrawal does not lead to full-scale Iraqi civil war or allow another Middle East dictatorship to gain a foothold in Iraq.

So, that leads into the main point from today's news. The President has admitted that he authorized various government agencies to perform domestic surveillance on American citizens and bypassed standard legal procedures in the process.

The President says: "Eavesdropping Has Disrupted the Enemy"

(He) said he has the constitutional authority to Approve eavesdropping on American citizens and foreign nationals in the U.S. to protect Americans from the threat of terrorism.

``To save American lives we must be able to act fast,'' the president said in a news conference at the White House. The surveillance ``has been effective in disrupting the enemy.''

His attorney general has also said nothing was done wrong: Gonzales defends eavesdropping program:

It derived its legality from the congressional resolution permitting the use of force to fight terrorism in the wake of September 11, 2001 as well as from the "inherent powers" of the president as commander in chief.

He acknowledged that such eavesdropping would be illegal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). But that act, he said, makes an exception for eavesdropping when "otherwise authorized" by statute. That authorizing statute, he argued, was the 2001 resolution, known as the "Authorization to use Military Force."

That resolution makes no reference to eavesdropping or detention policies. The administration has cited it in justification of both, however.

Finally Bush in his invite wisdom believes he has done nothing wrong and would do it all again: Bush vows more eavesdropping

Bush vowed on Monday to authorize more eavesdropping on Americans suspected of ties to terrorists and said he believed a probe was underway into who committed "the shameful act" of revealing the covert program.

This whole situation is appalling. As I was discussing this today with a southern (red state) friend, she was saying that it is ok to give up some personal freedoms in order to protect the country and help prevent another terrorist attack here in the United States. I fundamentally disagree with this attitude, and this concept has far reaching ramifications. The reports say that at any time 500 hundred US citizens may have been watched by the government, and some people have come and gone off the list. The speculation is that up to 1000 persons have been monitored under this presidential edict in some capacity over the past 4 years. Now lets assume that they have been constantly monitoring 400 people and the another 600 have passed through the system and have been spit out for unknown reasons. That means that potentially only 40% of those US citizens being wiretapped illegally might actually be really bad guys, doing bad stuff. What is happening with the information that was gathered on the other people? Is this the 1950's red-baiting and black listing all over again? It certainly seems like it is a possibility.

The largest concern is why they cannot simply comply with the law in order to perform these activities. We have essentially overlooked the whole prisoner of war issue at Guantanamo, and given the government free reign on these non-citizens, but what happens when the surveillance extends beyond terrorist activites, and other information, illegal or other, is uncovered from this eavesdropping? Will wives be able to subpeona the government records to determine if their husbands are cheating on them? What else? Who knows? This is exactly why this type of action needs to be closely monitored and curtailed with strict time limits and scope of what the government may look for, and what they do with peripheral data captured on citizens not associated with those under surveillance?

Laws are created to help prevent this country from becoming a dictatorship, a police state or anything other than an evolving representational republic, which it has been for the past 230 years or so. If we allow individual rights to be curtailed for the greater good then it is only a matter of time until the entire muslim community comes under attack, then the Jews, then the gays, then the Catholics, before we know this country has become another Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. This might seem like a farfetched scenario, but all it takes is public apathy and acceptance of this behavior by our elected leaders and it becomes a downward spiral from there.

In times of war, the public needs to sacrifice some liberties, but only for a limited time, it is unfortunate but often necessary for the common good. None other than Abraham Lincoln chose to suspend some civil rights and suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War, but the difference is they were intended to be short term, not permanent. These cavalier statements from the commander in chief, are concerning because he and his cronies see no reason to put time limits on these and also no reason to stop this illegal activity.

For instance the NYPD began publicly searching bag before you get on the train this past summer. This is not a problem in my libertarian world, because they are protecting a public interest (transportation) and this gives me the option to either 1) not take the subway or 2) take the subway and take the chance that you will be searched. This seems like more of a show, then actually detering terrorists, but hey it looks good and makes for a good example. However, the NYPD is not monitoring my email, my snail mail or my phone, and if they have reasonable cause to believe that I am doing something "Bad" they need to go to a judge and justify their proof to obtain a warrant to monitor my behavior and actions. The President and the federal government should have to also, no exceptions!!

It is almost scary how closely this administration is beginning to mirror the second term of the Nixon administration. Even the supporters of this policy say that this is not like the 1970's since these are truly enemies of the state and not simply enemies of the president. However, what is preventing the government from extending the "executive priveledge" to other law abiding US citizens? The supporters of these actions claim that this behavior will help capture the next Osama Bin Laden or Mohammad Atta before they strike against the homeland again. Unfortunately the only US born domestic terrorist I am aware of is Timothy McVeigh, and it just begs the question of what if anything is President Bush doing to protect us from this a real internal terrorist?

More political silliness

Here is a direct quote from a friend regarding this CNN article: Bush eased domestic spy rules after 9/11

"Clinton gets impeached for "not having sexual relations."

"Yet, someone who dupes the country by going to war based on false "intelligence" reports and who violates the civil rights of the entire American populace seems to have every right to serve in office.

"Makes sense. "

Same Microsoft Story, Different Day

On December 14, it was reported in Top Tech News, that Microsoft would partner up with MTV to distribute music online and compete against iTunes.

In another story from the London Financial Times is reporting that Microsoft is getting into the VOIP market and essentially get into the telecommunications market.

Dreaming of a 2006 Yankee Lineup...

That looks like this:

cf - Johnny Damon
ss - Derek Jeter
3b - Alex Rodriguez
rf - Gary Sheffield
lf - Hideki Matsu
1b/dh - Jason Giambi
dh/1b - Nomar Garciaparra
c - Jorge Posada
2b - Robinson Cano

And Nomar will be able to move around the field, spelling all everyday players becoming the ultimate utility player. Sweet Dreams

Both parties disingeneous about Privacy Rights

Interesting commentary by Tibor Machon in the Desert Dispatch discussing what the constitution says about privacy and how each party interprets those areas.

But perhaps the most controversial matter that will again surface during the hearings is whether the Constitution contains the right to privacy, a right supposedly implicit in it, as modern liberals and some others read that document -- for example, via the Ninth Amendment (which refers to unenumerated rights, thus intimating quite unambiguously that besides rights listed explicitly in the Bill of Rights, human beings have others, as well). It was on the basis of finding such a right that the famous decision was made that struck down the law banning the sale of contraceptives in Connecticut back in 1965.

What is interesting about the concern with this right to privacy is how it has become the mantra of the American left. And it is the American right, led on the court by Justice Antonin Scalia, that has strong objections to it. Does this not strike anyone as paradoxical?

American conservatives have been identified as individualists, especially when it comes to their economic views. They used to champion capitalism and the right to private property. This right they identified in the Constitution, especially the Fifth Amendment. When recently the court ran roughshod over this right in its New London (Conn.) v. Kelo ruling, the American right still voiced some protest. Indeed, its greatest hero on the court, Justice Clarence Thomas, was in the outspoken minority wishing to uphold that right.

Happy Holidays, defeating Merry XMAS

It was a slow news day, nothing inspiring anywhere on the net. On the train ride home, I read an Op-Ed by Joel Stein, from the LA Times. Apparently, the media has become fixated with this concept that we as a culture and country we are losing Christmas. Fox News is going on the attack about how retail stores are losing the Merry Christmas greeting and moving to a more generic Happy Holidays.

THERE IS A grave concern, on news shows and Op-Ed pages, that we are about to lose Christmas. Though no one outside the media is at all interested, I figure jumping in will make my editors think I'm smart.

As a Jew, I don't care that much about Christmas. It's hard to celebrate someone's birth when you supposedly killed the guy. It would be like Arnold Schwarzenegger giving gifts for Tookie Day.

We Jews find it a little embarrassing that adults can still make such a big fuss over Christmas. To us, Jesus was just a cool guy everyone liked because he died young. And even 16-year-old girls eventually take down their James Dean posters.

Now as another Jewish person, how other people greet each other does not matter to me, but in business I request that the companies that I work for, refer to it as a holiday party, rather than a Christmas party. Simply because I don't celebrate Christmas, but I do wish to get into the holiday spirit of love they neighbor and all that crap. I also believe businesses should be open to various disparate beliefs of their customers, and present an open ideal of shopping mania so everyone can go equally crazy spending their hard earned cash.

As an aside, I find Joel Stein one of the funniest men around, falling just short of Dave Barry.

And the Onion joins this ridiculous fracas with Acitivist Judge cancels Christmas. Absolutely hysterical stuff

Torture - Never or Almost Never?

Would we feel different about how the government and military had handled the recent torture issue if we were actually getting valuable information from the detainees that could save US Military lives or the lives of innocent civilians in the continental United States? What if the government put out this message: “We do not condone the procedure of torture, but we will, when the situation requires, use inhumane measures to extract information from people that have timely intelligence that will help keep our soldiers safe and the homeland more secure.” I think this would have a much more positive impact, than the message currently delivered “We support and encourage torture of all suspected terrorist and insurgents captured in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

At dinner last night, we were discussing an op-ed in the NY Times yesterday, which originally ran in the LA Times on November 11, 2005 and written by David Gelerntern. He describes how Senator John McCain is taking the easy way out with the torture issue. Obviously, in large sweeping generalizations, torture is bad, and no right-minded person is going to disagree with that statement. Here is Gelerntern explaining why the Senate got it wrong:

Those who oppose the amendment don't think the CIA should be permitted to use torture or other rough interrogation techniques. What they think is that sometimes the CIA should be required to squeeze the truth out of prisoners. Not because the CIA wants to torture people, but because it may be the only option we've got.

Gelerntern also presents what I am going to call the “24” scenario based on the Keifer Sutherland television show of the same name. The issue revolves around the concept of using inhumane methods on the prisoner to extract time sensitive information to save one or many lives:

In 1982, the philosopher Michael Levin published an article challenging the popular view that the U.S. must never engage in torture. "Someday soon," he concluded, "a terrorist will threaten tens of thousands of ives, and torture will be the only way to save them."

Suppose a nuclear bomb is primed to detonate somewhere in Manhattan, Levin wrote, and we've captured a terrorist who knows where the bomb is. But he won't talk. By forbidding torture, you inflict death on many thousands of innocents and endless suffering on the families of those who died at a terrorist's whim — and who might have lived had government done its ugly duty.

The other question going around the table was another no brainer; if a family member is suffocating and someone possess the knowledge or information to save them, would you do everything in your power to extract the information necessary to save the family member? Anyone who is married or a parent would obviously answer in the affirmative. Therefore, the question is not that we will not ever torture, but when would be permissible and under what conditions?

These various scenarios leave many questions unanswered. How much time between a known upcoming event will justify this type of response against another human. How much information is extracted and is there actual value associated with the information gathered. How many detainees, as a percentage, are actually being put through this type of regiment and why the need for cloak and dagger to move them to another country? In addition, what is the political fallout for knowingly admitting to using these methods, when the United States is trying to win the hearts and minds of the Arab community?

Even as a staunch libertarian, it is understood that the government, the military and even business needs to keep secrets for the overall good. The bottom line is the government seemed to try outsmarting the public, without providing the justification or reasoning on why they want the CIA to utilize torture. What is most disturbing about this situation is how different this could have been with a little better spin. Instead, they tried to pull a fast one and pull the wool over the public’s eyes hoping no one would ever find out their dirty little secret. Then when the alleged truth is uncovered, they seem to want to justify torture rather than say it we want to use inhumane treatment of prisoner in limited select cases to gather time sensitive intelligence matter. This gives the media much less rope to hang the actions of the government, and would rather allow an intelligent debate of the above questions, rather than just taking the easy way out.

We do not torture such terrorists to punish them. God forbid we should do as they do. But if torture (used with repugnance) can stop even one such atrocity, our duty is hideously plain.

I suspect that in 20 years, all the truth will finally come out so we can truly figure out if the actions taken were justified. Did they prevent loss of life? Was this information relevant and accurate? How has the political situation in the Middle East evolved in that time, and what effect did our presence have? There are many questions and no good answers.

Microsoft continues to want to rule the world

In business school, we were told to focus on the good or service you and your company were providing. If possible improve it when and where it was feasible to better meet your consumers or customer needs. Also, it was always a good idea to think strategically by looking at brand extension or business partners that would help complement your offering, and allow you to reach a larger base, and improve your bottom line.

On the other hand, Microsoft seems to be just greedy and forever extending their line of business into anything technical, seemingly without any regards as to how a solution fits into its portfolio. In eWeek, it is being reported that Microsoft is:

...readying an online marketplace, code-named Fremont, which is apparently in response to a similar feature that rival Google Inc. Introduced a few weeks ago.

Fremont is a free service in which people contribute listings, whether it's about a couch for sale or someone looking for a commuting partner.

The point here is that they are getting into this market, simply because Google is doing something similar. The philosophy out of Redmond is if another major technology company is doing something that could potentially bring a windfall of positive revenues for us, we need to get into the area as well.

It would seem to make good business sense for them to work on improving their existing solutions, justifying their 80%+ market share and give consumers a better product, rather than using their power to force their way into additional markets and solutions (and presumably more profit, which is not a bad thing). Everyone knows that the Microsoft solutions are sketchy at best, when first released and never really produce confidence. They don't take the necessary time developing and testing, and figure they will fix things in production. Not a solid business model for anyone else, but good enough for them.

Bottom line, if you are a giant you can do whatever you want even if it goes against common business practice. The major concern is how business schools will reflect this in their curriculum. Will they look at this model and exemplify it as the standard, or rather than the exception based upon the scale of the organization which can force itself into many disparite areas and continue to teach good practices about building brand and loyalty? Time will tell.

On December 14, it was reported in Top Tech News, that Microsoft would partner up with MTV to distribute music online and compete against iTunes. In another story from the London Financial Times, Microsoft is getting into the VOIP market.

Same story, different day.

VOIP (Voice Over IP) not providing 911 service

Some VOIP Providers miss the FCC '911' Deadline

Despite a Nov. 28 deadline, more than 30 VOIP (voice over Internet Protocol) providers have not met U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements to offer an emergency dialing service called enhanced 911.

An estimated 750,000 U.S. VOIP customers did not have enhanced 911, or E911, service as of Nov. 28, according to the VON Coalition, a VOIP trade group.

I hope these users are not planning on an emergency anytime soon!!!

(Note: there is no blame put on President George W. Bush for this event.)

Remembering John Lennon

It is with profound sadness that I remember John Lennon, since today marks the 25th anniversary of his tragic and sudden death, shot down in cold blood outside his NYC apartment by a crazed asailant. I know I was only 11 years young when Lennon was shot, but there is something about that event that stays with me now and I am not sure why. I was familiar with the Beatles early pop songs as a kid, and listened to the hippy and drug induced stuff later when I was in high school and college.

For most of my youth, I prefered Brian Wilson's beach sounds over the Beatles. But when John Lennon was shot something deeper occurred to me that I still cannot put my finger on to this day. Maybe it is the same feeling's that Don McLean captured in American Pie, talking about the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and the Big Bopper, the music died that day and how things were never the same afterwards.

I have often thought about how the world would be different now, if certain people were not assisniated before their time. Generally, these thoughts revolve around politicians like Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, but even to other strong courageous leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. Would he be remembered so fondly today if he was not viciously gunned down in Memphis April 4, 1968? Would he have spent the next 20-30 years fighting for civil rights and a leader of the African-American community or would he become what Jesse Jackson or Rev. Al Sharpton are today, leaders of small factions of that community that do not provide a single voice for the whole?

What would John have done with 25 more years? Probably laughed and critized at the state of the music industry today, (see the Grammy nominations for a perfect example). He would have supported peer to peer file sharing, because he believed that the art was important, not the money. He would have written a book or two about how to change the world, and further refining the idea of all we need is love, something that seems missing in todays world. He probably would not have sold out, like his old writing partner Sir Paul McCartney and for that matter, he would probaly not have accepted British Knighthood. He would probably still be on the far left advocating for peace, saying the US and UK have no business in Iraq.

I don't think he would have joined the mainstream, but obviously this is all speculation. I doubt in the bigger picture he would have had a greater influence on society than JFK or MLK could have, but it is still a sad day because the world is poorer in many ways because he was taken away from the world too soon.

State of Education Today

It must be my day for highlighting other peoples blogs, but my friend Dora's writes in her Confessions of a Soccer Mom how she is concerned about the amount of homework her 6 year old son gets in his 1st grade class. She is also concerned that teachers are strictly teaching to standardized tests, and not allowing their students a chance to learn to love to learn. This I agree, is a function of the nightmare that is "No Child Left Behind" another disaster sprung on us by President George W. Bush, which by the way CT State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has already challenged in court, since it is costs CT tax payers additional money, but that is a totally different story.

It struck a cord with me, that has left multiple lingering thoughts for the past few days. Nancy and I are now investigating if we want to send our son to a magnet school next year or should he go to his neighborhood school. A magnet school is either a school that focuses on a specific area (arts, social studies, international or technical) then focuses the students studies on that theme throughout their classes OR it is a place to achieve diversity set up by the school charter, that no school can have more or less than 10% of the city racial balance; so no school can have more than 45-65% white students. I have not yet figured out which it actually is, it depends on who you ask. It could all be a moot point if we don't get a good lottery number to determine who goes to the magnet schools, but I digress.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with his neighborhood school, but since the city of Stamford offers a magnet option for elementary and middle school, we want to see if there is a better option to meet his educational needs, whatever they might be at age 4.

What is wrong with today's education system and how can we change it for the better? I asked Nancy, a certified licensed teacher, to read Dora's blog and she said that is typical for the schools she has been to so far, and not unreasonable in today's age. In order to receive state and federal funding, schools needs to achieve certain levels on this standardized testing. In order to increase their averages, the schools push the kids who excel at test taking harder to achieve greater scores so they can push the schools overall average up beyond the required threshold.

So in the long run, this seems like a big game of how can we show progress without really helping the low achievers, and pushing the upper end of the testing spectrum until they broke, so all they know how to do is take and pass tests. The other point Nancy made is just because some student is or is not a good test taker is not reflection of intelligence or nor their ability to succeed in school or in life. Finally she said this is difficult if not impossible to change, since schools and administrators are stuck on this gravy train with no easy way to get off. I have two thoughts on how we can begin change, grassroots teachers/educators movement and asking those in powers superintendents, State and Federal Secretary of Educations that we demand a change.

First, I would ask teachers and education professionals to forget about funding and tell me how to solve this problem. Essentially, they would need to define the problem. If we can remove the walls and barriers and limitations of the current system and just talk about how to get kids interested in learning would be a start. Once you have the problem defined and some potential solutions, you can begin to factor in the existing limitations and find a way to work around them.

Second, we would need to contact all our local school administers, principals, superintendent, board of educations, secretary's of education, and everyone having anything to do with the education process and let them know there is a problem and we as tax payers and parents are unhappy with the current system. Bill Gates through his philanthropic foundation has made education one of his issues. He gave a speech in February 2005 to the National Education Summit on High Schools and he said:

America's high schools are obsolete.

By obsolete, I don't just mean that our high schools are broken, flawed, and under-funded Although a case could be made for every one of those points.

By obsolete, I mean that our high schools - even when they're working exactly as designed - cannot teach our kids what they need to know today.

Training the workforce of tomorrow with the high schools of today is like trying to teach kids about today's computers on a 50-year-old mainframe. It's the wrong tool for the times.

Our high schools were designed fifty years ago to meet the needs of another age. Until we design them to meet the needs of the 21st century, we will keep limiting - even ruining - the lives of millions of Americans every year.

I think this applies to the entire American school system, not just high school. More parents are going to need to stand up and make our the schools more accountable. I believe we are already living in the waning days of the American empire as the Indian and Chinese century is just beginning. We are going to need to do everything possible to improve our education system or else we will find ourselves in the position the French, a second rate power clinging to the ways of the past, attempting to stay relevant in a new changing world. The only way we will be able to compete in the future is to make sure are schools are doing more than teaching our kids how to take standardized tests.

McAfee uses adware to defeat adware?

Here is a great example of a corporation's left hand having no idea what it's right hand is doing. It is a simple problem that could easily have been resolved before it ever went to production by someone in the marketing/advertising chain (marketing department, advertising agency or online agency) to simply think about what they were doing and say "Hmm, maybe this is not such a great idea" Just goes to show that when advertising dollars are involved, the folks involved in this process are just like lemmings blindly following and not raising objections that will save their clients potential embarrasment to the brand.

Fighting Adware with....adware

Picture this: A drug company hits you over the head and then offers to sell you a bandage. Some say that's what Santa Clara, Calif.-based McAfee Inc., maker of popular antispyware software, has done – albeit unwittingly, the company asserts.

"We had no idea that commercials were appearing as adware," said Joe Telafichi, director of operations for McAfee AVERT Labs. "The difficulty is that one contracts with an advertising agency, who then subcontracts with online agency and so on."

I can't think of any situation where a user wants to see a pop-up window," says Amrit Williams, director of the Gartner Inc.'s information security practice. "They break the contract between the advertiser and user because they don't let you choose whether you wish to view the ad, so in many cases they make users angry."

I just wonder if this might have some backlash effect on McAfee, similar to how the rootkit effected SONY. Time will tell

1935 or 2005? You decide!!

I ran into E-Luv, a friend from college on the NYC subway today, and rode from Grand Central to Times Square on the Shuttle. We talked about blogging, and I told him I would check out his stuff. Here is a link to a piece he wrote comparing the early days of Nazi Germany to present day America. In my opinioin it is a piece worth checking out.

I find this piece highly ironic, since it was written on Dec 7. Today happens to be the 64th anniversary of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, a day that was supposed to live in infamy according to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, yet today most people of my generation don't seem to care. I just wonder how my kids and future grand-kids will react to September 11 in 60 more years from now. Many oldtimers of the "Greatest Generation" wonder the same thing.

Reinventing 911 (Emergency Response)

Gary Wolf, in this week's Wired shows how we can significantly improve emergency reopens, and it factors in traits associated with human nature. It is a good read and fascinating to think about how good a system like this could be.

Letter from Rep. Shays on zabasearch.com legality

I wrote a letter to Congressman Chris Shays in June asking for his postion regarding zabasearch.com, a website that lists all public records for anyone to find easily. This type of information makes it easier for a willing person to commit identity fraud. I understand that these are just public records that can be found at the town clerk's office, but it is necessary to keep information such as this off the public website's since it is just asking to be misused.

Dear Jeffrey:

Thank you for your email way back in June expressing concern that a website, www.zabasearch.com, provides extensive personal information. In your comments, you stated, "This seems like a massive invasion of privacy making this information so freely and easily available." I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me, as well as your patience awaiting my reply.

I share your concern about zabasearch.com and other sites that make personal information so readily available. The Internet puts an incredible amount of information at our fingertips and powerful search engines, such as ZabaSearch, allow this information to be sorted quickly and easily. While the power of the Internet is one of the greatest advances in human history, I am also sensitive to concerns about privacy.

Though the 1974 Privacy Act prohibits the government from collecting and aggregating information about individual citizens, it doesn't prevent private information sellers from collecting and selling this information back to the government, to other companies and individuals, or hoarding it for themselves. In this respect, ZabaSearch is no different from established information brokers like credit reporting agencies. In addition, the information gathered by ZabaSearch is all otherwise in the public domain, such as court records, property records, and change-of-address forms.

I have enclosed an article regarding the legality of ZabaSearch and other similar websites that I hope you find informative. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20050512.html

In the past, I have supported creating a bipartisan commission in Congress that will study privacy protection. While this has not yet happened, I am hopeful a commission will eventually be established so we can move towards a consensus that allows us to protect individual privacy with minimum government interference. It also seems to me, federal and state governments will eventually need to enact stricter regulations on information trading, and impose stronger penalties on data resellers if the inadequate security systems allows information to be stolen by identity thieves.

I would also like to suggest a few steps you can take to better protect yourself. First, use caution before submitting any personal data to websites. Most websites now publish a privacy disclaimer detailing how they use personal information and if they sell personal data to third parties. Second, verify the level of encryption utilized on websites to protect your data from third party sources. Most sites also provide that information in their privacy disclaimer information. Taking these precautions can enhance your online security.

I am very concerned about identity theft and believe Congress needs to seriously address this problem. According to the Federal Trade Commission, identity theft is the most common complaint from consumers in all 50 states, and complaints regarding such theft have grown for four consecutive years.

While there are important steps Congress can take, there are also several simple steps consumers can take to protect themselves from identity theft including securing personal information such as Social Security cards, personal passwords and PIN numbers, and properly disposing of waste materials that contain printed personal information. Individuals should also watch closely for incorrect information on financial statements and periodically check their credit reports. Connecticut residents will have access to an annual free report beginning September 1, 2005, and may visit www.annualcreditreport.com for more information.

To address the growing scourge of identity theft, I have asked to be added as a cosponsor of H.R. 3375, the Financial Data Security Act. This legislation creates uniform national security standards for sensitive data and provides for consumer notification and mitigation procedures in instances in which a breach occurs.

Specifically, this legislation amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act and requires database security safeguards to protect consumers regardless of the sector handling the sensitive information. Although financial institutions are already required to secure their sensitive data, we must ensure this standard is effective and being enforced.

If a database has lost valuable information, investigations are required and notice to law enforcement and government regulators is mandatory. If, following an investigation, it is found that the breach could reasonably lead to identity theft or fraud, consumers must receive notice. Finally, a company that has had an information breach, is required to provide consumers free of charge, a service that monitors consumer credit files so they will be informed if attempts are made to open a new line of credit in their name.

On June 23, 2004, I supported H.R. 858, the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, which passed the House by voice vote and was signed into law by the President on July 15, 2004. This legislation defines and establishes penalties for aggravated identity theft and makes changes to existing identity theft laws. The penalty for aggravated identity theft is a term of imprisonment of two years in addition to the punishment provided for the original felony committed. In addition to increasing penalties for identity theft, H.R. 858, authorizes $2 million per year through fiscal year 2009 (FY 09) for the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute identity theft and related credit card and other felony fraud cases.

Several existing federal laws protect consumers from fraud, require fair credit reporting, and provide mechanisms for victims of identity theft to seek recourse.

On November 21, 2003, I voted for H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which passed the House by a vote of 379 to 49. The President signed this legislation into law on December 4, 2003. H.R. 2622 contains several provisions aimed at preventing identity theft and assisting victims of identity theft.

H.R. 2622 makes changes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act to protect against identity theft including:
* Requiring credit card companies to investigate change of address requests if the company receives a request for an additional card within 30 days of receiving a notification of a change of address.
* Requiring consumer reporting agencies to include fraud alerts in a consumer's file upon the request of the consumer.
* Requiring reporting agencies to develop procedures for providing consumers who believe they've been a victim of identity theft with a summary of their rights.
* Requiring reporting agencies to block any information identified by a consumer in their credit file as fraudulent, as having resulted from an alleged identity theft.

While much remains to be done to protect consumers from identity theft, H.R. 2622 makes significant improvements to America's credit system. As a member of the Financial Services Committee, I will continue to monitor legislation that addresses these crimes.

Please do not hesitate to contact my office again. Because mail is delayed by Anthrax screening, e-mails, phone calls, faxes, and in-person visits are the most effective ways to communicate with my office. I also have recently begun a periodic e-newsletter and would be happy to send it to you. To request this e-newsletter, and for other information, please visit my website at www.house.gov/shays.

Sincerely,
Christopher Shays Member of Congress

RIAA Bans Telling Friends About Songs

Brilliance from the Onion:

LOS ANGELES—The Recording Industry Association of America announced Tuesday that it will be taking legal action against anyone discovered telling friends, acquaintances, or associates about new songs, artists, or albums. "We are merely exercising our right to defend our intellectual properties from unauthorized peer-to-peer notification of the existence of copyrighted material," a press release signed by RIAA anti-piracy director Brad Buckles read. "We will aggressively prosecute those individuals who attempt to pirate our property by generating 'buzz' about any proprietary music, movies, or software, or enjoy same in the company of anyone other than themselves." RIAA attorneys said they were also looking into the legality of word-of-mouth "favorites-sharing" sites, such as coffee shops, universities, and living rooms.

US losing the fight against Terrorism

In spite of all President Bush's empty rhetoric about the war on terrorism, a bi-partison group, the very extension of the original 9/11 commission says we are not only losing, but failing the war on terrorism.

More than four years after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration and Congress have failed to take the urgent steps needed to protect the country, the former September 11 Commission said in a scathing final report on Monday.

"We are safer, but we are not yet safe. Four years after 9/11, we are not as safe as we could be. And that is unacceptable," said Kean, a Republican former (New Jersey) governor. "While the terrorists are learning and adapting, our government is still moving at a crawl."

To sum it up the report card: 5 F's (including for failing to provide emergency communications and appropriate security funding), 12 D's, 9 C's and 1 (one) A- in counter-terrorism funding. We also have 2 incompletes. I am not sure which is worse, failing or incomplete. Very Scary. So essentially we attempting to fund a war on terror, by seemingly throw money at a problem, we have not fully defined, nor one that we probably completely understand.

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York called the report a "top-to-bottom indictment" of the government's approach to fighting terrorism.

"The report shows that while the administration and Congress are focused on fighting an offensive war in Iraq, they are dangerously neglecting the defensive war on terror we should be fighting here at home," he said in a statement.

It is time we write to our representatives and demand accountability and understand why our government is failing us, the people, in this war!!!

The role of the FCC

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is obviously too busy determining what I can watch on pay cable and satellite TV , and more specifically what my children can watch:

If (cable and satellite) providers don't find a way to police smut on television, (Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin) Martin said, federal decency standards should be considered.

Rather then making sure all VOIP telephony solutions have 911 access.

Another deadline has come and gone with the FCC taking no action against VOIP service providers that fail to provide 911 emergency calling to their customers.

Monday was the deadline for service providers to file letters that explain what 911 systems they are using, how many of their customers can actually get 911 service, to what areas they provide 911 service and how they plan to extend the service to all their coverage area.

Here is another doozy from the FCC via Bruce Schneier's blog, FBI to get veto power over PC software, which is even scarier than the 911 access:

The Federal Communications Commission thinks you have the right to use software on your computer only if the FBI approves.

No, really. In an obscure "policy" document released around 9 p.m. ET last Friday, the FCC announced this remarkable decision.

According to the three-page document, to preserve the openness that characterizes today's Internet, "consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement." Read the last seven words again.

Quite frankly, the FCC should be focused on forcing VOIP provider to ensure that their consumers have access to 911. This service is a basic right, which all people should have accessed to in an emergency, and new technology should not be excluded. This is where the FCC should be levying fines and focusing their efforts but there is not much press here, until there is an emergency in Washington DC and the person gets routed to 911 in Cedar Rapids, then it will become an issue. They should not be passing legislation in the dark of the night, about verifying that software is approved by the FBI.

The TV decency rant below seems mild compared to the other two, but here it is:

Why does it seem to make sense to allow a parent's to determine what their children watch on TV? Why does the government feel the need to take this right away from me? The government can provide guidelines, and recommend parental controls, a children friendly or family friendly content and even force cable and satellite to provide these tiers, but don't take away and/or regulate the quality programming with content not appropriate for children. Let me decide what my children will or will not watch, not the feds.

If I am paying for television, which any satellite or cable subscriber currently does, then the consumer can determine what they want to watch, not the FCC. If they want to further "purify" the broadcasts networks then so be it, all they are doing is driving another nail into their coffin, since they are already losing audience and advertisers to other networks.

Where is your personal data???

From Search Security December 5, 2005

Data breaches seem to be getting more common, and soon they could get more costly. At least one security analyst predicts that a breach will bankrupt a high-profile company.

Bank of America Corp., CardSystems Inc., ChoicePoint Inc., LexisNexis Group and TransUnion LLC represent just a handful of the most recent victims bitten by the breach bug. But the lessons these high-profile companies are learning about customer data security may not be motivating other firms to secure their systems.

Many companies have not spent enough money on protection, according to Jon Oltsik, senior analyst with Enterprise Strategy Group in Milford, Mass. "They're playing catch-up now, but some say they will just live with the risk," he said. "Some old-school types can't justify the return on their investment."

And when this time comes, they will throw this cost back onto the consumer.

White House concerned about Iraqi "Free" Press

The Washington Post is reporting:

President Bush's spokesman said Thursday "we're very concerned" about reports that the U.S. military is paying Iraqi newspapers and journalists to plant favorable stories about the war and the rebuilding effort...

The spokesman said that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was "aware of the issue," but he would not say whether Rumsfeld had expressed concern about it or whether the secretary had asked for additional information about it.

Yet another example of an incompetent administration and a military that is either not aware of what is going on within its ranks, or is willing to deceive the public into thinking it does not know what is going on within it ranks.

Last night on the Daily Show, Nancy Pelosi the House Minority Leader could not praise Rep. Frank Murtha enough, and it a light went on over my head. While the reasons we went to Iraq are now quite clearly based upon faulty intelligence, that no longer matters. What matters is our ability to make a clean quick exact from Iraq, so they can fall into Civil War on their own with no assistance from the US propping up a quasi-government stitched together to keep Iraq supplying our oil needs. Self governance means allowing citizens to decide for themselves what form of government and what ideology is right for them and that is now what we must allow Iraq to do.

Google Privacy problem

From the NY Times Op Ed on Monday, you should be aware that whatever you type into a Google search is being tracked on an individual level, and apparently they are planning on you keeping it on your handy dandy PC or Mac until 2038 with a cookie, though I am not sure I am planning on still using this computer in 32 years from now.

At a North Carolina strangulation-murder trial this month, prosecutors announced an unusual piece of evidence: Google searches allegedly done by the defendant that included the words "neck" and "snap." The data were taken from the defendant's computer, prosecutors say. But it might have come directly from Google, which - unbeknownst to many users - keeps records of every search on its site, in ways that can be traced back to individuals....

The biggest area where Google's principles are likely to conflict is privacy. Google has been aggressive about collecting information about its users' activities online. It stores their search data, possibly forever, and puts "cookies" on their computers that make it possible to track those searches in a personally identifiable way - cookies that do not expire until 2038. Its e-mail system, Gmail, scans the content of e-mail messages so relevant ads can be posted. Google's written privacy policy reserves the right to pool what it learns about users from their searches with what it learns from their e-mail messages, though Google says it won't do so. It also warns that users' personal information may be processed on computers located in other countries.

Daniel Solove writes in his blog

I agree with the op-ed, but I also think that businesses should use their power to push for greater legislative protections of personal information from government access. It is here were Google's interests and the privacy interests of its users coincide. Right now, the government is inadequately regulated when it comes to accessing personal data maintained by third parties. If the businesses maintaining the data lobbied Congress for greater protections, this would help to address one of the major privacy threats that their maintaining the information poses. It wouldn't solve all of the problems, but it would address a big one.

The real question is how many people besides lawyers actually read the privacy policies from their doctors, banks and other places that is keeping information on us. Probably the same amount of people who read the license agreement that we agree to when we download software from the web. Someone should come up with a synopsis of these agreements, so we can easily understand what we are agreeing to, rather than rotely agreeing to whatever is put in front of us in order to use a product. We might have a better understanding of what is happening to our personal information then.

New York Sports Break

Kudos to the New York Mets. So far this off-season, they have made a major splash in the hot stove. They have traded Mike Cameron for Xavier Nady, a trade that seemed ill advised at the time but seemed to free up some money for other moves. They then turn around and trade with the Florida Marlins, their division rival, to get Carlos DelGado. He says he will comply with the team rules, and be a good team player, either way his bat and glove is a much welcome addition to 1b. Then they sign closer Billy Wagner away from the Phillies, in the process weakening another division rival. I have to wonder if Manny Ramirez will be patrolling right field in Shea next year as well.

Now as a side bar, the Florida Marlins and its owner Jeffrey Loria is a disgrace to all of baseball. I understand they need a new stadium, but you are not going to gain support of the fans and the community by having another fire sale and fielding a team next year of Dontrelle Willis, Miguel Cabrera and 23 stooges. I feel bad for Joe Girardi, who could not have possibly imagined that this is what was going to happen when he took this managerial role.

The Yankees are talking (or not talking) about putting Derek Jeter or Alex Rodriguez in Centerfield next season. This does not seem a bad idea. Like any business, you use the assets you have in a way that will maximize your returns. Eric Duncan may or may not be ready for the show, but with 3b potentially open it could give him a shot and if not him, then how about Troy Glaus?

It is 11 games into the season and I have no idea what to make of the Giants. They beat the 49ers on the road, and then lost to the Vikings at home. Then they beat an exhausted, TO-less and Donanvan McNabb-less Philadelphia Eagles, then flew cross-country and played relatively well against the NFC leading Seattle Seahawks. Now they face the Cowboys at home for sole possession of the NFC East, where the winner should win the division and the loser will face a large uphill battle to make the playoffs. The Giants are known for late season collapses and this year may still be no exception regardless of this weekend’s outcome. They have road games against the well coached Eagles and then home again for the Chiefs. They go on the road to finish the season in Washington to play the Redskins who would like nothing better than to keep big blue out of the playoffs. Then they end the season in Oakland and Kerry Collins I am sure would love to put the final nail in the Giants coffin.

The Jets have apparently hit rock bottom by losing out the Saints this past weekend to fall to 2-9. This puts them in a tie with the Packers for the second or third draft pick next year, which is about all Gang Green has going for them. With their recent luck, they will wind up winning a few games and miss out of the top 5. I would not suggest tanking, but it is time that they start looking to 2006. Herman Edwards was giving the kiss of death by Jets ownership this week saying he would be back, and putting rumors to bed that he would coach the Chiefs next year. If Dick Vermeil retires, I bet Herm goes to KC.

The Rangers continue to shock and amaze in their winning ways. Everybody has been talking about the shoot-out goal scored on Saturday night by Marek Malik, a Czech defensemen not known for his offensive prowess. However, after 15 rounds of shoot out, he broke the tie and won the game with a behind the back goal, that is simply impossible to describe, you just had to see it to believe it. It shows that the shoot-out is bringing excitement back to the game. When the NHL last played in 2003-2004, that game would have ended in a sister-kissing tie, and no buzz would have been generated. Now, everyone is talking about this game, and it even made the first 10 minutes of 30-minute Sports Center on Sunday morning.

Freedom of the Press in Iraq? Not really

US Military plants stories in Iraqi media

The U.S. military has secretly paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of pro-American articles written by a special military unit, The Los Angeles Times reported on Wednesday.

The newspaper also reported that the "Information Operations Task Force" in Baghdad has bought an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to disseminate pro-American views as well.

So much for winning their hearts and minds. Apparently, the ideas of a free unbiased press is not something we are fighting for in Iraq. This should not be surprising, but it is.

Are they watching us?

Eweek today has an editorial about the use of GPS enabled cell phones that will enable 911 calls to located you when you are having an emergency. This is very similar to the concerns with OnStar the service provide with most General Motors vehicles.

You're out on the road. Suddenly you get a sharp chest pain, radiating to your arm. You can fight the pain just enough to dial 911 on your cell phone, but that's all you can do, and you sure as hell can't speak.

If you were on a land line phone (other than maybe a VoIP line; that complicates things), they would know exactly where you are, because the phone number you called from is associated with a specific address. But the 911 dispatcher doesn't know where you and your cell phone are, and in fact it's not obvious to which 911
dispatcher your call should be routed.

But already you can see privacy issues, even if you want to track your kids. If the network providers (Verizon Wireless, Cingular, etc.) are logging that data then it could fall into the wrong hands. Or perhaps it could fall into the right hands, but in an unpleasant way, such as into your spouse's attorney's hands during divorce
proceedings.

Much as network vendors look on this sort of potential to pay for the upgrades they have made to comply with the E-911 requirements I'm sure they are anxious not to get into the middle of such matters and would probably be happy to require user consent before recording and using any location data. The marketing opportunities bring their own potential for privacy lawsuits and other legal problems, especially the first time someone claims a cell phone ad distracted them into a car accident. It's a tricky dance of convenience vs. trouble, typical of modern technology.

The problem is some future individual or organization is going to take this tracking too far, and crossing line to begin associating specific user information in their marketing and demographic analysis. Then it becomes easier to begin to track individuals on a very large scale. The problem is, the future is probably not far off.

Government Agencies not working together?

Here is another example from the NY TIMES of government agencies not getting their act together, and playing on the same page. For a president who claims he is fighting a war against terrorism, it would seem we are losing the internal battle, which is probably more important in the bigger picture than the land wars/police actions currently happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is an interesting contrast from the previous post regarding bringing business principles to government and vice versa.

The government's efforts to help foreign nations cut off the supply of money to terrorists, a critical goal for the Bush administration, have been stymied by infighting among American agencies, leadership problems and insufficient financing, a new Congressional report says.

More than four years after the Sept. 11 attacks, "the U.S. government lacks an integrated strategy" to train foreign countries and provide them with technical assistance to shore up their financial and law enforcement systems against terrorist financing, according to the report prepared by the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress.

It is amazing to me that various governmental agencies are more concerned about their own feifdoms, and not about the American public's general welfare and our ability to defend ourselves against future terrorist attacks.

The problem today with Management Analysis

July 10, 1776
Mr. Thomas Jefferson c/o The Continental Congress Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Dear Mr. Jefferson:

We have read your "Declaration of Independence" with great interest. Certainly, it represents a considerable undertaking, and many of your Statements do merit serious consideration. Unfortunately, the Declaration as a whole fails to meet recently adopted specifications for proposals to the Crown, so we must return the document to you for further refinement. The questions, which follow, might assist you in your process of revision:

1. In your opening paragraph you use the phrase "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. "What are these laws? In what way are they the criterion which you base your central arguments? Please document with citations from the recent literature.

2. In the same paragraph you refer to the "opinions of mankind." Whose polling data are you using? Without specific evidence, it seems to us the "opinions of mankind" are a matter of opinion.

3. You hold certain truths to be "self-evident. "Could you please elaborate? If they are as evident as you claim then it should not be difficult for you to locate the appropriate supporting statistics.

4. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" seem to be the goals of your proposal. These are not measurable goals. If you were to say that "among these is the ability to sustain an average life expectancy in six of the 13 colonies of at last 55 years, and to enable newspapers in the colonies to print news without outside interference, and to raise the average income of the colonists by 10 percent in the next 10 years," these could be measurable goals. Please clarify.

5. You state, "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government...." Have you weighed this assertion against all the alternatives? What are the trade-off considerations?

6. Your description of the existing situation is quite extensive. Such a long list of grievances should precede the statement of goals, not follow it. Your problem statement needs improvement.

7. Your strategy for achieving your goal is not developed at all. You state that the colonies "ought to be Free and Independent States," and that they are "Absolved from All Allegiance to the British Crown. "Who or what must change to achieve this objective? In what way must they change? What specific steps will you take to overcome the resistance? How long will it take? We have found that a little foresight in these areas helps to prevent careless errors later on. How cost-effective are your strategies?

8. Who among the list of signatories will be responsible for implementing your strategy? Who conceived it? Who provided the theoretical research? Who will constitute the advisory committee? Please submit an organization chart and vitas of the principal investigators.

9. You must include an evaluation design. We have been requiring this since Queen Anne's War.

10. What impact will your problem have? Your failure to include any assessment of this inspires little confidence in the long-range prospects of your undertaking.

11. Please submit a PERT diagram, an activity chart, itemized budget, and manpower utilization matrix.

We hope that these comments prove useful in revising your "Declaration of Independence." We welcome the submission of your revised proposal. Our due date for unsolicited proposals is July 31, 1776. Ten copies with original signatures will be required.

Sincerely,
Management Analyst to the British Crown
The Court of King George III London, England

This is outrageous

Thanks Jim for sending this my way from papers please and verified in the Denver Post

One morning in late September 2005, Deb was riding the public bus to work. She was minding her own business, reading a book and planning for work, when a security guard got on this public bus and demanded that every passenger show their ID. Deb, having done nothing wrong, declined. The guard called in federal cops, and she was arrested and charged with federal criminal misdemeanors after refusing to show ID on demand.

On the 9th of December 2005, Deborah Davis will be arraigned in U.S. District Court in a case that will determine whether Deb and the rest of us live in a free society, or in a country where we must show "papers" whenever a cop demands them.

This just goes to show how misdirected our law enforcement professionals have become in their efforts to defeat terrorism and make the homeland more secure based upon the direction they are receiving from the highest reachest of the executive branch of the federal government.

Seems like a good start...

But probably not enough, from eWeek:

Before leaving for the Thanksgiving holiday, Senate panels approved bills on two data privacy issues that were debated all year—data breach notification and anti-spyware regulation—teeing them up for action next year.

I appreciate the government trying and it is a step in the right direction, but this will not solve or even reduce the identity theft problem and the sometimes careless security that company's sometimes (not purposely) deploy to protect personal information in their data stores.

Scary but possibly true

Just think: In 2008, another Clinton will have to bail us out of another Bush mess.

Wouldn't it be odd if President Bush returned from China with the avian flu?

Bush is 35 years late in going to Vietnam!!

In other news:

Foxtrot summed up my feelings both for Sony and Celine Dion perfectly on Monday. Check it out, it is pretty funny. This continues to be one of the few comics I go out of my way to read everday, the others being Doonesbury and For Better or Worse.

The Erosion of Freedom

As a libertarian, I am appalled by this type of behaviour from our government and law enforcement agency's. It is as if 9/11 and the ensuing Patriot Act has given them carte blanche to do whatever they want when it comes to violating citizens civil liberties.

As Bruce Scheiner writes in the Minneapolis Star Tribune

A typical American citizen spending the holidays in Vegas might be surprised to learn that the FBI collected his personal data, but this kind of thing is increasingly common. Since 9/11, the FBI has been collecting all sorts of personal information on ordinary Americans, and it shows no signs of letting up.

Generally, I believe the government should be allowed some lattitude in times of war (or terror) to limit the freedom's of the citizens. This is exactly what President Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War to prevent local unrest and keep northern sessionists in line. However, when these efforts go to extreme levels and allow the government to begin to track and aggregate information pertaining to individuals and not provide any statutes of limitations then it has gone too far and the people need to respond telling their leaders this is unacceptable.

It is as if the Nixonian era has returned with one major difference. This time it is legal. Not surprising since Karl Rove came to age during the Nixon era of dirty politicing. Coincidence, I don't think so. One can only hope that Mr. Fitzgerald finds enough cause to indict this political worm sooner rather than later.

Arrested Development Cancelled???

I am devastated!!!

Fox in all its brilliance has taken the best comedy program on televsion and put it on the shelf until at least December. It is a travesty that an Emmy award wining show is cancelled in spite of being well written, and the absolutely funniest thing around. Arrested Development has been moved around this year, making it difficult to find (thankfully I have a DVR) and then was interrupted for a month while Fox broadcast the World Series. It is the type of show that builds momentum as the season progresses; they plant innuendo and bury plot hints in the early episodes, then reference them later on in the series making all of the dialogue relevant. Too many shows on TV use simple formulistic situation’s that are tired and old, but the networks keep renewing them year after year. Whenever a show is truly revolutionary it is often easily discarded rather than given the opportunity to grow an audience.

I was watching the double episode a few weeks ago and it was brilliant. How many shows have the premise of a real estate company building properties for Saddam Hussein in Iraq and mock Japanese Godzilla type movies? The Bluth family is about as dysfunctional as any ever portrayed on TV. In these two episodes, they carry on with at least three seemingly unrelated stories, when all of sudden they come crashing together in the end in a perfect way, that I never saw coming. It was so funny, I actually found myself laughing out loud. It will be truly missed once it is officially cancelled. Please take the time to watch it when it returns on December 5. Maybe some Nielson families will catch it and it will get its death sentence pardoned, but I am not holding my breath.

Does anyone actually know anyone who is a Nielson family? I have not ever known anyone that has admitted to being one, and it just begs the question if this archaic rating system is still valid. I suspect in a few years, TiVo or some other DVR type solution will replace the Nielson as the official arbiter of television ratings. If you think about, they are already collecting aggregated data on what individuals are really watching. It will only be a matter of time until the cable companies or the phone company or the satellite providers or someone else actually reports this information on an individual level and is able to serve up 100% personalized content, which is kind of cool and kind of scary. I am sure it is already being tracked individually, they are just figuring how to sell it appropriately without everyone claiming invasion of privacy. Time will tell.

Is anyone surprised that these kids from Pennsylvania who killed the girls parents and drove to Indiana, are home schooled?