Virtual Illusions

I keep hearing how we can’t negotiate with Hamas until they accept Israel’s right to exist, but my reading of recent history suggests that Gaza has been under existential threat due to siege.  So how come no commentator says Hamas shouldn’t negotiate with Israel until they accept Gaza has a reasonable expectation not to be choked out of existence by Israel.

The cease fire that people keep telling me that Hamas violated seems to have based upon Israel opening up the border crossings.  When Israel failed to keep up to thier end of the agreement, they violated the cease fire by continuing the aggression in the form of a siege.

I keep hearing something to the effect of what country wouldn’t respond to rocket fire.  I ask what country wouldn’t respond to the existential threat of a choking siege.

Both sides have failed to pursue peace in a useful way.  We need to stop pretending there isn’t 50 years of bad blood to work through.

Justice, News, Politics

The Montgomery County (Maryland) Police believe the law doesn’t apply to them.

The police of Montgomery County believe that speed limits are for little people, not big important people like them. Or to put it another way, they are above the rule of law at the very least with regards to speed limits, who knows about other crimes.

I think most rational people understand that when a police officer is responding to a call or if they somehow made the mistake of getting into a pursuit situation they are authorized to travel as quickly as they safely can to respond to that call. This is not in dispute or even a consideration. The question is why does the police officers believe the speed limit doesn’t apply to them when they aren’t on a call?

I’m generally in favor of unions and against speed cameras, but in this case I seem to be against the police union and siding with the speed cameras. The union has claimed that the county should be responsible for tickets issued by police officers ignoring the speed limits. Police sergeants have gone so far as refusing to check if an officer was responding to a call when the camera issued the ticket.

The chief directed lieutenants, not covered by the union, to investigate the matter and in the last 8 months 76 of the 224 tickets issued have been dismissed because the officer was responding to a call. Two thirds of the remaining 148 tickets have not been paid. The union advises its member that speed cameras issue citations to the owner of the vehicle not the driver, so they should not pay the tickets or set court dates.

The Fire Department has had no issue holding its firefighters responsible and making them pay their fines. It is the police who believe they should not be held to the same rules as the rest of us. That is a serious problem.

Sadly it is not limited to Montgomery County, there is an entire web site dedicated to police officers grousing about the injustice because they were issued tickets for traffic violations while they were off duty. This belief that they are above the law is dangerous in police officers, it represents a belief that they are an over-class with some right to oppress an under-class, rather than citizens like any other, attempting to keep order. It isn’t clear that these people should be police officers.

It seem more likely that they are nothing but bullies who wanted to continue the feeling of power as they became adults, rather than individuals with a desire to server their community and make it safer. I’m not so naive as to think all of our police are there or should be there because they have a desire to serve. We need to pay them and give them sufficient benefits so it is an attractive option to enough people. The union should be on the forefront of negotiating those things.

However, we can not negotiate about the rule of law.

Justice, News, Politics

It’s been a few days since the questionably named Protect America Act expired and we haven’t been killed yet. No reason we should be the same wire tapping continues unabated, but now they have to go to the FISA court which never learned the word no. But it is at least has the appearance of oversight. The court could, it if felt the need, actually require some indication of wrong doing. It probably already requires something other than a fishing expedition, thus it’s too much of a hardship to the current administration.

One of the reasons the Protect America Act expired was because congress couldn’t decide whether to give phone companies blanket immunity for its past misdeeds in giving slews of data to the government, which the government was not authorized to ask for. It’s unclear whether they broke any laws but it seem clear they had a huge failure of moral judgment. I would argue that phone companies have at least a moral if not legal obligation to act as my agents to protect my data. I suspect in a few years most people will believe this but at present it’s just wacko techies who think about the implications of other entities holding your data.

Running it through from a very basic level if an entity (used here mostly as company and/or organization) asks for and you give them your information or even if they collect this data in their normal role as service provider, it seems rational that they have incurred a basic obligation to take reasonable precautions to protect that data. At the very least you expect them to secure their systems such that the Russian mob isn’t simply using their servers as data feeds.

Most people have the expectations that an entity that they have given data will attempt to protect it. In a sense they have become our agents. In accepting our information part of the expectation is the idea that they will act on our behalf to protect it. It’s a subtle point that I don’t pretend exists in law yet, but it is how the relationship is viewed by most people if they thing about it. Part of the unspoken contract between your favorite online vendor and yourself is this idea that your data won’t escape into the wild.

I’m not so naive as to think that vendor isn’t selling my data to various third parties in one form or another. As much as I wish it weren’t true, I understand that the use of my data in the entities interests is part of the deal. For that matter I encourage the use of my data in aggregate. But we have certain expectation of who the vendor is selling our data to and for what purposes.

For example I had a retailer (rpgnow.com) sell my email address to a spammer, this violates the understanding I had with them about the acceptable use of my data. As a result I no longer do business with them.

We have already begun to see along the fringes, retailers who are competing on issues of privacy. I suspect this will become more central as the years move on. We will have companies competing on their skill at being good agents for protecting our data.

Which leads us back to the Protect America Act. These companies who collect our data for the purpose of saving money, anticipating demand, allocating capital resources and other competitive advantages, have also incurred the responsibility of acting as our agents. The government isn’t coming to me with a warrant, National Security Letter or other ‘instrument’ so I can’t verify that the ‘I’s are dotted and the ‘T’s are crossed. That falls to my agents.

Those companies now want to given immunity for falling to be good agents. The government wants to send the message that companies should ignore the law and just do whatever the people from Washington in suits tell them to. Don’t worry Washington will take care of any fallout. They want these companies to act as agents of Washington rather than agents of their customers.

We can not let this happen, we need these people to have in interest in making sure they give Washington all the data required by law, but not a bit more. They must remain motivated to make sure that everyone is operating within the constraints of the law and with proper oversight. They are acting as my agents in this regard and they have a moral obligation to protect my rights in this regard.

One day the law will reflect that.

Justice, News, Politics, Tech

About time! Okay, I’m getting ahead of myself but long ago when the idea of civil unions, domestic partnership and/or gay marriage was new I thought the state should get out of the business of deciding who’s morality should trump in deciding who can get married. I figured the state should get out of the marriage business and provide nice equal civil unions for any couple capable of giving informed consent free from duress (just like any other contract).

According to the Washington Post (Bill Would End Civil Marriage, Create Domestic Partnerships), a Maryland lawmaker has put forth a bill that would do exactly that. No one believes the bill will pass and it is just a stalking horse for a more “reasonable” civil union bill, but I’m fairly certain the state getting out of the marriage business will be the eventual end state.

If your church doesn’t choose to honor marriage between homosexuals than the church doesn’t have to perform such marriages and your priest can go around saying so and so isn’t married to so and so in the eyes of god. Then all the humane people can leave that church and join one that doesn’t get all misty eyed over the fourteenth century.

The state in the meantime can get on with what it cares about the orderly distribution of property after someone dies, appropriate defaults on who gets to make medical decisions in absence of a medical power of attorney, etc, etc.

The true art of this bill is it lays bare the lie that separate but equal, which worked so well in the civil rights era, is equally faulty in the realm of homosexual rights. It shines a light on the lie told by those desparate to have their relationship deemed special by the state. They claim that there’s no reason for homosexuals to be able to marry civil unions are just as good. If they speak the truth they will have no complaint in the state recognizing their relationship as a civil union and allowing a church to make it a marriage if they (and the church) so desire.

On the other hand if they had “misspoken” and a civil union as defined isn’t as good as a marriage under law. Than it will be only a short time before everyone’s interest is in that problem being corrected. If this law doesn’t pass, the only gain is the lie being laid bare.

In any case I’m glad a lawmaker has the guts to put forth this bill. In all likelihood it will be rejected but it needs to be part of the conversation on this issue and I’m proud my state could contribute.

News, Politics

A man, Dempster, was acquitted of manslaughter charges yesterday. The death that the prosecutor believed Dempster should have been accountable for is described as such:

In the early hours of April 25, Dempster fled on foot in a wooded area after an officer who suspected that he was driving while intoxicated attempted to pull him over. Hoffman, one of the officers searching for Dempster on foot, was struck by a police cruiser as he stood on the side of a narrow, poorly lighted road.

At trial last month, prosecutors argued that Dempster, 20, ought to be held accountable for Hoffman’s death. “Because of the defendant’s selfishness and concern for only himself, Montgomery County police officer Luke Hoffman lost his life,” Deputy State’s Attorney John Maloney said during opening statements.
– http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121801853.html

Justice, News

A few weeks ago I came across an article that was all shocked and excited that actual real life families separated by hundreds or thousands of miles might regularly reunite on MMORPGs and do virtual things together. Meanwhile sharing gossip and new about real life. I can’t figure out why this is either news or shocking.

Whenever you are separated from someone you care about by disatance or something similiar the main barrier to forming strong relationships is a lack of shared experience. MMORPGs (or online games in general) provide a place where shared experience can be built without distance being a factor. Its not the same shared experience one my garner by sharing meals, but it is a way to maintain a real relationship with someone who is not near you.

As gamers age and move around this will not be considered odd. I have a group of friends who’s main shared experience is through the medium of computer games and twice annual computer game gatherings. It is the only group of friends I know that has stayed together even though they are spread from Texas to upstate New York.

Gaming, Media, News

So on the way home from work today I caught an NPR bit on fact that some latino musicians have translated the national anthem into Spanish. The general subtext of the piece which we are supposed to assume without question is that this is somehow disrespectful. I have never understood that way of thinking. The anthem, like the flag, is nothing but a symbol and the only power or place it has is its ability to convey an idea.

Incorporating the symbol into a new version assists it having meaning for more people, it isn’t disrespectful, quite the opposite, it gives it new life and power. Jimi Hendrix gave it new power when he remade it in the image of his generation. It is an honorific to use the symbol in a new way.

I just don’t understand the people who believe symbols shouldn’t be used. Up on a shelf they have no power and serve no function it is only with their use and periodic re-invention that they continue to have meaning to actual people rather than staid institutions.

News, Politics

So bush has claimed by virtue of Congress authorizing him to take military action in Afghanistan, he as commander and chief has the authority to violate explicit laws and and constitutional prohibitions against search without so much as informing anyone, much less any oversight. As patently ridiculous as that claim is the more frightening one is that the claim taken to its conclusion grants the commander and chief the right seize anyone off the street and perform a summary execution.

Maybe it’ll be with a bit of cover: I believe someone in this mosque is affiliated with terrorism, I’ll send in my special operations team (i.e. death squad) and kill them all. Don’t forget to dig the mass grave.

Or perhaps as political intimidation: Mr. Senator you voted incorrectly in that last vote, I think you are giving aid to terrorists by not giving me unfettered power. Sgt. kill this traitor. “bang.” Good now do the rest of you want to check to make sure you voted th right way?

There is nothing more sacred about the laws covering murder than the laws covering surveillance, his belief that one sort of laws don’t apply to him if he doesn’t want them to suggests he will equally throw aside other laws when they are inconvenient.

Bush’s interpretation of law have consistently been incompatible with 200+ years of freedom. He isn’t satisfied being a president he want full military dictatorship powers. Unfortunately since the senate is control by his party and since party loyalty seems to trump actual law and what is good for this country, impeachment proceeding are not underway.

I wonder how senators who impeached for lying about an affair justify not impeaching a president advocating and secretly carrying out both torture and domestic spying without judicial oversight.

When Bush first starting making his powergrab, I had discussions with people who were of the opinion that it only affected the “bad” people and non-citizens so how was I affected and shouldn’t I shut up now. Now we see where it leads and how we all are affected, the question is whether anything legal can be done to stop it?

Justice, News, Politics

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17262660%255E1702,00.html

The summary:
Some Australian bloke decides he needs to castrate himself with a dull pair of wire cutters after his rugby team wins. Then he wanders over to his social club and passes them around before passing out due to loss of blood.

It seems he didn’t think he’d win and expressed by saying: “I said I’d cut my balls off if we won.” Turns out they won and while relieving himself in the bathroom noticed the wire cutters and thought his friend had helpfully provided them for his castration. Actually they were there to fix the toilet chain. It’s unclear from the story how drunk he was.

More Quotes:

“The cutters were blunt so I had to keep snipping.”
After picking his testicles from the toilet bowl, he went to the social club.
“I went in and shouted out ‘I’ve done it!’,” Mr Huish said.
“I took my balls out and passed them in the bag to a friend.

I’m not sure I can add anything other than a shake of the head.

News

Upon my perusal of the virtual paper this morning I noticed that Bill Frist is all up in arms and upset. He wants to form some sort of blue ribbon inter body investigative committee. What could be so terrible as to waren’t this you ask? He needs to investigate the leak of the existence of the CIA torture sites (aka Black Sites). Let me clarify he has no desire to investigate their existence, merely the leak.

Setting up facilities for the purpose of covert torture is fine, leveling with the American people what is being done in their name goes beyond the pale apparently.

News, Politics