August 22, 2014 at 7:55 pm | Posted in Dysfunctional Politics, Fairness, Judicial Misjudgment | 2 Comments
Tags: Al Kamen, Android mobile devices, Apple mobile devices, BuyPartisan, Citizens United, Colby Itkowitz, corporate political contributions, Editors of the Washington Post, iPad, iPhone, iPod, partisan, partisanship, political contributions by businesses, political contributions by corporations, Spend Consciously Inc., Supreme Court
There is a new free app for mobile devices, BuyPartisan, developed by Spend Consciously, Inc. (Although the app is presently available only for Apple devices, Spend Consciously plans to release a version for Android devices in the very near future.)
The SpendConsciously.com web site suggests that you use your mobile device to scan the barcode of the product you are considering. The app will display the political donations of the CEO, Board of Directors and employees of the company that produced the product. On the basis of that information, you can decide whether or not to buy the product. You can also tell your friends what you have found out.
Two related articles (one by Colby Itkowitz, and one by Al Kamen and Colby Itkowitz) in the Washington Post describe what they discovered by using the app.
Subsequently the Editors of the Washington Post disparaged the new app, claiming that it would intensify political polarization.
But in coming to that conclusion, the Editors forgot an important new factor, namely, the Supreme Court’s misguided ruling on Citizens United.
The ruling on Citizens United magnifies the impact of an individual CEO + Board of Directors on an election far above above that of an ordinary citizen. A CEO and Board of Directors can favor their preferred candidate by using the vast financial resources of his corporation to the candidate or proposed law that they personally favor. You cannot.
In an election, a voter has two kinds of votes.
There is a direct vote, by making a choice on a ballot.
There is an indirect vote, by contributing or not contributing to a candidate or to a proposed law.
The CEO and Board of Directors’ huge contribution easily drowns out the much smaller contribution that is feasible for most ordinary citizens. The Supreme Court’s illogical decision dramatically undercuts your indirect vote. The Supreme Court’s ruling implicitly transforms the United States into an oligarchy.
The money that the CEO can appropriate in this manner is derived from the company’s sales to its customers.
Your only way of influencing the amount that the CEO and Board of Directors has available for this legal but unjust diversion of corporate funds? Either buy or do not buy from their company.
The Supreme Court’s politically partisan decision on Citizens United has thus linked buying decisions to political positions.
The linkage acts whether or not you – or the Editors of the Washington Post – recognize its presence.
That is why citizens now need to determine the political preferences of the CEO and Board of Directors of any company they might use.
Without apps like BuyPartisan, a great deal of time consuming detective work would be required for you to obtain that information. The app makes it easy.
Contrary to the position taken by the Editors of the Washington Post, using this app is now imperative for good citizenship.
If you wish to comment on this post but do not see a box where you can submit a comment, that is because the mechanism for commenting is not available on any page that contains more than one post. Comment boxes are available only on pages that contain only a single. So click here, scroll to the bottom of the resulting single-post page, and submit your comment.
August 19, 2014 at 12:22 pm | Posted in Privacy | 4 Comments
Tags: Andrea Peterson, Barton Gellman, hackers, information security, malware, Morgan Marquis-Boire, Munk School of Global Affairs, Privacy, The Citizen Lab, Trojan Horse, University of Toronto, Washington Post, webcam
You may have turned your webcam off. But malware may have subsequently turned it back on.
You may think that your face, voice, actions, and the appearance of your current location are private, when they are not.
This danger has been known for a while. The Wikipedia page on webcams says “… privacy is lost when Trojan horse programs allow malicious hackers to activate the webcam without the user’s knowledge, providing the hackers with a live video and audio feed. … Some webcams have built-in hardwired LED indicators that light up whenever the camera is active [, but] sometimes only in video mode. It is not clear whetherthese indicators can be circumvented when webcams are surreptitiously activated without the user’s knowledge or intent, via spyware.”
We have recently learned that the problem is far worse than that. We know that from a report by Morgan Marquis-Boire that was published by The Citizen Lab (University of Toronto, Munk School of Global Affairs), as summarized by two recent articles in the Washington Post: How your cat video addiction could be used to hack you, by Andrea Peterson and Barton Gellman, and U.S. firm helped the spyware industry build a potent digital weapon for sale overseas, by Barton Gellman. Both articles contain important revelations that are not discussed in this blog post, and are well worth reading. The second article even provides a link for downloading Marquis-Boire’s report.
The report and the articles describe how watching a YouTube video,or visiting just about any web site, or updating a Flash player or Java, can result in malware being surreptitiously installed on your computer, without the web site cooperating or even knowing that it was infectious.
This has become another route by which hackers can install in your computer malware for turning on your webcam, against your will and without your knowledge.
The present blog post will concentrate on ways to prevent being viewed when you think that your webcam is off, but has secretly been turned on. As discussed below, defences against being overheard are fewer than defenses against being seen.
The countermeasures described here are fairly obvious, and may be well known. But the obvious is often what most needs to be repeated. (That is why there are sermons and other pep talks.)
The history of breached defenses against hacking suggests that there is probably no way to ensure that any defense based on software or on electronics cannot be overcome. So the safest defenses are physical blocks that only you can control and inspect. These blocks are all free or inexpensive, and are very simple.
If your webcam can readily be disconnected, by far the best countermeasure would be leave the webcam physically disconnected from the computer except when you want the webcam to be activated. That would prevent capture of your audio as well as of your video, unless you are using a voice-operated computer or a headset with a microphone, which would provide alternate routes for audio signals to enter your computer.
If it is cumbersome to disconnect and reconnect your webcam, it may be possible to hang a piece of paper or cardboard or cloth over the webcam’s optical aperture. The webcams audio transmissions would continue, however.
If the placement of the webcam makes it difficult to loosely drape anything over its optical aperture, then it should still be possible to block the aperture with an opaque removable adhesive tape: transparent or semi-transparent tape that hosts a strategically-placed piece of paper, or a small adhesive bandage (either a strip or a disk), or a removable adhesive sticker such as those that children play with, or such as the stickers that are used to temporarily mark luggage or other items. Of course, you’d want to be sure that the adhesive never touches any optically coated lens or screen. Again, these methods would not block the audio.
It is a shame that to protect themselves against criminals and intrusive governments, everyone now has to take precautions that formerly were needed only by dissidents in countries run by repressive governments.
If you wish to comment on this post but do not see a box where you can submit a comment, that is because the mechanism for commenting is not available on any page that contains more than one post. Comment boxes are available only on pages that contain only a single. So click here, scroll to the bottom of the resulting single-post page, and submit your comment.
August 4, 2014 at 9:28 pm | Posted in Fairness | 4 Comments
Tags: air, contested territory, copyright, Crimea, ethnic conflict, gas, genetic engineering, genetically modified organisms, Henry George, intellectual property, land, metals, migration, minerals, national boundaries, Nazi, ocean, oil, ore, Owner, ownership, patents, property, Putin, religious conflict, Rohingya, Sudentenland, territorial dispute, Ukraine

“Clouds over the Atlantic Ocean” by Tiago Fioreze
Breathe in. Now breathe out.
That air you just breathed – you did not create it. You just found it where you needed it, and used it.

“Cuesta del Obispo en la Provincia de Salta – Argentina” by fede.cerutti
The land on which you stand is part of a land mass that you did not create. You just found it where you needed it, and are using it.
The same is true of the ocean which floats your boat, and of the atmosphere that waters your crops and provides the water you drink and wash with and cook with, and whose fluid supports your aircraft.

“West Texas Pumpjack” by Eric Kounce TexasRaiser – Located south of Midland, Texas.

Oil extraction in the ocean: “Devils tower 2004” by VaderSS .

“Coal mine Wyoming” by Unknown
The same is true of any oil or coal or gas or metal or metal ore from the ground or the ocean.
The same is true of the planet Earth, with its temperate temperature, and its protective atmosphere and magnetic field, and of the Moon, which tidally helps to stabilize the Earth’s spin axis, and the Sun, whose light illuminates and warms the Earth.

Glass beakers for chemistry.

Surface-mounted electronics: “Arduino ftdi chip-1” by DustyDingo.
The atoms and molecules in all those things, you did not create them. You found them, or at most you modified them from atoms and molecules that you found, using energy that you found, via physical processes that obey rules that were already there, and that you merely used.
The same is true of any life form that we catch or grow, to eat or to use in other ways. It is true even of life forms that we have varied by breeding, or that we have genetically modifed directly.
Who owns them? Whose property are they, and by what right?
They are not in any essential way the property of any individual, family, business, collective, class, nation, society, or species.
But it is sometimes convenient to treat them as if they were. Doing so reduces conflict, except when it instigates conflict.

Eastern Hemisphere, Lambert Azimuthal projection, by Sean Baker.

Western Hemisphere, Lambert Azimuthal projection, by Sean Baker.
Here are some examples:
– Repeatedly, groups of people from Africa migrated to Europe and Asia, settling those formerly unpeopled areas.
– Groups of people from Asia then migrated to the Western Hemisphere, Australia and New Zealand, settling those formerly unpeopled areas.
– Groups of people from Europe migrated to the western Hemisphere, settling in those already-peopled areas, and not gently.
– Due to the never-ending reverberation of past religious competition, large numbers of Jews in Europe (including Central and Eastern Europe) finally gave up on those areas, where their ancestors had dwelled for millenia, and migrated to the already-peopled Middle East. They were joined by co-religionists from elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa who had there been harassed by the persistent reverberations of past religious competition in those locales. The resulting turbulence has not yet dissipated.
– The Sunnis and the Shiites, the persecution of the Rohingya in Burma – the list goes on and on.
– Putin’s grabbing of Crimea, using arguments like those that the Nazi’s used to justify their seizure of Sudetenland, and its attempts to peel off Eastern Ukraine.

Caption in Wikipedia: “A Sudeten German Voluntary Force unit in 1938.”
Enough examples!
Now some background and some conclusions.

“Henry George” by Unknown.
Readers who are familiar with the work of Henry George (1839-1897) will recognize some of his ideas in the present blog posting. To quote Wikipedia, Henry George argued that “people should own what they create, but that everything found in nature, most importantly the value of land, belongs equally to all humanity.”
The views expressed in the present blog post are clearly a variant of those views. But there are at least three differences:
(1) The present blog post implies that for tangible objects, ‘creating’ is merely ‘clever re-arranging’. So only limited ownership should be conferred by the ‘creating’ of tangible objects. That is said with full respect for the ingenuity, resourcefulness, value-added, and the hard work required. In fact, those contributions are what justify the limited ownership. In the creation of intangible works – new concepts, new ways of working, new chains of reasoning, and art of all types – a larger part of the result is truly created, justifying a larger degree of ownership, but still a limited one.
(2) The present blog post implies that to ascribe ownership to all of humanity would appropriate to our species what intrinsically belongs equally to all species, both terrestrial and extraterrestrial. The same idea is often expressed by saying that we are just the stewards of spaceship Earth.
(3) Apart from the limited ownership that is justified by the ‘creation’ of tangible objects, and the greater degree of ownership that is justified by the creation of intangible works, the present blog argues that ownership is a legal fiction created for social convenience, rather than being intrinsic and fundamental. But once ownership has become established as a convenient fiction, morality and justice require that it thereafter be ascribed fairly.
If you wish to comment on this post but do not see a box where you can submit a comment, that is because WordPress does not include the mechanism for commenting on the page that shows all of the recent postings. Comment boxes are available only on the page for the individual blog post. So click here, scroll to the bottom of the post, and submit your comment.