Homeland Security Supporting Book Industry By Banning Electronic Devices On Planes

The title, of course, is the glass half full interpretation.

Al Jazeera, among others, reports:

"The United States is barring passengers on flights originating in eight Muslim-majority countries from carrying any electronic device bigger than a mobile phone, the Department of Homeland Security said.  . .
Laptops, e-readers, cameras, tablets, printers, electronic games and portable DVD players are affected by the ban - which applies to direct flights to the US - but they may still be stowed in the hold in checked baggage."

But I'd also expect luggage is going to take much longer to be ready to be picked up on arrival in the US as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can now look at people's computers without having to take them directly from the owners.  I'm sure Homeland Security has ways to open and copy the contents of people's devices without knowing the passwords.

So people will need to find ways to detect if their computers have been played with while they are separated from them, just to know whether their data has been diddled while their devices were out of their grasp. Here's a four year old post talking about how 'pros' protect their laptops. (Not very well it seems.)

Will this spawn a new industry that provided secure lockboxes to put computers in that would make it a little harder for agents to open them?

This Guardian article questions the logic of the rules.  If they can be used as explosive devices, then they would still be dangerous in cargo areas.  If it's about hacking, well, the article points out that cell phones are computers.  It offers another possibility

"US airlines have been lobbying the Trump administration to intervene in the Persian Gulf, where they have contended for years that the investments in three rapidly expanding airlines in the area – Etihad Airways, Qatar, and Emirates – constitute unfair government subsidies with which Delta, American and United cannot compete. All three Middle Eastern airlines are among the carriers affected by the electronics ban."

I guess when you are as unpredictable as our president, people will believe he would meddle with anything in any way he pleases.

I'm sticking with the idea that DHS (or some other security agency) wants access to what's on people's computers.   Is anyone going to keep track of how long it takes for luggage to get through before and after this policy goes into effect?

Will the cloud enable people to take essentially empty computers through customs and other governmental checkpoints?  But then who's protecting the cloud?

When do we declare privacy officially extinct?

And here's a Washington Post article asking similar questions.

Reader Visits Using IPvanish

A bunch of visits from Costa Mesa, CA with using IPvanish  as the IP address.  They were searching different labels, but Clinton was one that came up repeatedly.  I had similar repeated label searches from Bochum, Germany and fewer from Hong Kong.  The latter two had more normal IP addresses.  Here's what it looks like on Statcounter.  And yes, that's some of the data captured when you go to a website and that Statcounter displays  on each visitor to the site.  

Click  image to focus better

IPvanish is a site where you can get more anonymous surfing - your IP address vanishes, according to their site.

PC Magazine has a long review on IPvanish

What's a VPN?

"When you connect to the Internet via a VPN, the service creates a secure, encrypted connection with one of the company's servers. Your Web traffic is routed through this secure tunnel before exiting through the server and into the Web. This means that someone spying on connections on the public Wi-Fi network at the local coffee shop won't be able to spy on your activities. Furthermore, government snoops and advertisers won't be to see your true IP address while you browse the Web.
VPNs are used every day by people concerned about security or trying to circumvent restrictions to Internet access. Journalists and activists in countries with restrictive Internet policies have used VPNs to keep in contact with the rest of the world and access content that would be otherwise forbidden.
While most of us won't have to worry about oppressive regimes, the average person can rest assured that their Web traffic won't be intercepted with a VPN. You can also use a VPN service's international servers to spoof your location and watch region-locked streaming content. But be advised: some media companies are getting wise. In fact, viewing Netflix with a VPN—including IPVanish—is all but impossible these days."

The discussion is much longer.  The downsides to IPvanish, according to the review, are price and aesthetics, though it says it's good value if this is what you need.

So, if you don't want your IP address captured by every website you visit, something like IPvanish would help with that.  I'm guessing the Bochum and Hong Kong addresses are part of IPvanish's collection of servers that hide one's actual IP address.

For those of you wondering, "what's an IP address" you can find out here - and also find out what your own IP address is.  At the bottom of the page it takes you into much more detail about what an IP address is on a page called "IP-101."  This is written for people who know nothing about their computers.  It's like a short lesson about what's under the hood.  And in these days where internet security and spying by companies and government may be increasing, you ought to know about this.

Titillation Or Legitimate Journalistic Endeavor?

The University of Alaska Anchorage faculty and staff got an email from the director of human resources Friday warning them that basic information - including salaries - would be released  shortly because of a Public Records Act request. You can see the memo below.

 This would seem a good time to direct folks to a 2014 post - Is Publishing Public Employee Salaries The Financial Equivalent of Showing Bare Breasts? - that looks more closely at the logic of publishing the salaries of public employees in such detail, and generally addresses the title question.

Here's the heart of the memo people got:

"I'm writing today to advise you that UAA, within the next week, will release employee information in response to a request for information under the Alaska Public Records Act (AS 40.25.110-.220), the State Personnel Act (AS 39.25.080(b)) and Regents' Policy (P04.01.062; P06.02.010-.100). Certain employee information is designated as public information by the references cited and must be released if requested. This information release will include the following for Faculty (but not adjunct faculty) and Administrators employed at the UAA MAU as of August 12, 2016: 

-- Employee name 

-- Employment Type (Executive Officer, Faculty, or Senior Administrator) 

-- Date of Employment (Original hire date) 

-- Job Title 

-- Annual Salary 

-- Campus (UAA, KPC, Kodiak, Mat-Su, PWSC) 

Ron Kamahele, Director UAA Human Resource Services"

Again, my discussion of the issues surrounding such releases is here.

Say What? When The Outrageous Becomes Normal [Updated]

Sometimes I can't quite believe what I'm reading in the newspapers.  The ideas are so wrong, I wonder how reporters can just drop them into an article as though the thoughts were normal.  If they are the new normal, it is even more disturbing.  I'd like to think the writers are ironically dropping these little bombs intentionally, hoping the readers will react as I'm reacting.

Here are some examples from Tuesday's Alaska Dispatch News.

Example 1:  Sources on the story about Trump's orthodox Jewish son-in-law.  (Yes, that thought is itself pretty bizarre) (originally from the NY Times, which has more than the ADN reprint.)

"Mr. Kushner’s role was described in more than two dozen interviews with friends, colleagues and campaign staff members, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity so they could disclose interactions that were supposed to remain private. Mr. Kushner declined to be interviewed." [emphasis added] 

I can't help but translate the bolded part in my head into:  "I'm not supposed to tell you this, but I have no integrity and I just can't keep a secret."

I don't blame the media.  This is how the rest of us get glimpses behind the scenes.  From people telling secrets.  But which secrets should the media pass on and which keep to themselves?

There are also some serious journalistic problems here.

• How do you know it isn't made up?  Maybe the sources are just playing with the journalist.  
• How does one confirm something like this?  From other anonymous sources?   There are ways, but how many journalists take the time and trouble?
• How do you know this isn't planted information.  What the source is really saying in that case is, "Hey, stupid journalist, I'm going to tell you I have to be anonymous,  and you're going to be excited because you're getting juicy gossip, but really my boss wants this information to get out and I'm using you to do it."

On the other hand, legitimate whistleblowers who reach out to the media as a last resort when there are illegal, dangerous, or otherwise important information the public needs to know, are playing important public service roles.  If they are right. 
And  whistleblowers often legitimately fear serious financial and physical harm, even death if their identity is found out.

[UPDATE July 6, 2016 3:30pm:  Here's a more legitimate situation of an anonymous source in an LA Times story today about misrepresentation of the success of missile tests in January:

"The closest the interceptor came to the target was a distance 20 times greater than what was expected, said the Pentagon scientists, who spoke on condition they not be identified."

Why is this different? The person is revealing that the government agencies and private businesses have been lying about the performance of potentially life saving equipment the government's already spent $40 billion in since 2004 (over $3 billion per year.) The story quotes a second scientist and the first acknowledgement from the agency that there were actually problems.]

In the Kushner case, these are folks who are supposed to be loyal to Kushner, yet, if these weren't intentional plants, they disclosed information that was supposed to remain private.  What kind of person does that to their friends or to their boss?  This sort of thing poisons a group as people try to figure out who leaked what, and innocent people are suspected along with the guilty.  

Example 2:  Tim Kaine's 'one job only' (from the original LA Times piece)  The article is about how Tim Kaine is now ('a' or 'the'?) shortlist favorite to be Clinton's VP candidate.

"On NBC’s “Meet The Press” last week, an appearance facilitated by the Clinton campaign, Kaine offered a quick summary of his experience: mayor of Virginia’s capital of Richmond, its lieutenant governor, governor, Democratic Party chairman and now U.S. senator. 

But, he added, 'I have got one job and one job only right now, and that is to work hard for Hillary Clinton.'”

If I were a Virginia resident, I'd be wondering when I lost half my Senatorial representation.  As a US citizen, I'm wondering why we're paying this US Senator who seems to have abandoned his Senate job to campaign for Clinton.  OK, I realize this might be taken out of context, but dammit, he's being paid to be a US Senator and he should be careful about what he says.


Example 3:  In an article about Amazon dropping 'list prices' (Again, originally a NY Times article)

"Amazon wants to be so deeply embedded in a customer’s life that buying happens as naturally as breathing, and nearly as often."

Do I really have to say anything about that truly appalling thought?  We've gone from 'the customer is always right' to 'the customer is totally brainwashed.'


Of course, these are just little symptoms of this trend of the outrageous becoming normal.  The biggest offense is Donald Trump's long stream of racist, sexist, and other forms of nasty istics.  That his bombast is cheered by some as refreshingly honest might be a topic for another post.

Why Is John Doe Being Treated So Differently From Snowden, Manning, And Assange?

The Wiki-Leaks source Bradley Manning was condemned as a traitor and convicted to 35 years in prison.

Edward Snowden is stuck in Moscow facing espionage charges if he gets anywhere he could be extradited to the US.

Julian Assange, the head of Wiki-Leaks is still in the Bolivian embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden, and, he fears, from there to the US.

But when the Panama Papers came out, the media and politicians focused on the contents, not the leaker.  I don't hear cries for him to be in prison.

There are differences, to be sure.  Manning and Snowden exposed US secrets.  Manning as an employee of the US and Snowden working for a US contractor.  Yet Snowden's leaks have led to worldwide outrage about US data collection and changes in the law to provide more protections.  The Wiki-Leaks have proven embarrassing, but despite early claims about risking the lives of US military, I have been unable to find evidence this has happened.


And now we have the Panama Papers.  Leaked by someone who has recently identified himself as John Doe.  Instead of calling for John Doe to be punished, we see headlines like this:

"Obama: Panama Papers leak shines light on 'big global problem'"

and

Panama Papers: US launches crackdown on international tax evasion

OK, I get it that these papers weren't leaked from secret government files, but rather from a private law firm practicing out of Panama.

But economic espionage is a big deal.  From the New York Times:

"The private sector spent $665 million on data loss prevention last year, according to the technology research firm Gartner, with a 15 percent increase expected this year. On the legislative front, Congress strengthened penalties for those convicted under the Economic Espionage Act, raising the maximum fine for individuals convicted to $5 million from $500,000. And in terms of law enforcement, the F.B.I. lists digital crime, including intrusions that result in trade secret theft, as its third priority, just behind terrorism and counterintelligence. The agency reported a 60 percent increase in trade secret investigations from 2009 through 2013."  [emphasis added]

Is Obama ignoring the cyber theft of data from a private company because the information that was stolen was important for the public good?  After all, that's the argument that Wiki-Leaks and Edward Snowden make.  They didn't do to help a foreign country.  They didn't do it for money.  They did it because they thought something terribly wrong was going on.

Just like John Doe did with the Panama Papers.

Or is it because the Wiki-Leaks and Snowden leak were embarrassing to the President - both because security was so bad and because the information leaked was embarrassing and revealed that the American public was being lied to as well as being spied on massively?

But the Panama Papers are different because they help to support a point that Obama has been making about American companies avoiding taxes through off shore tax havens?

I keep mentioning John Doe.  I was looking at Panama Papers yesterday and discovered that the person who leaked them has posted very recently his reasons for doing that and for taking the name John Doe.  Here are some excerpts from "John Doe's Manifesto."

He begins by identifying his critical issue:  world wide income inequality.  And even though people are talking about it, it hasn't really been adequately dealt with and there are many questions.

"The Panama Papers provide a compelling answer to these questions: massive, pervasive corruption. And it’s not a coincidence that the answer comes from a law firm. More than just a cog in the machine of “wealth management,” Mossack Fonseca used its influence to write and bend laws worldwide to favour the interests of criminals over a period of decades. . . 

Shell companies are often associated with the crime of tax evasion, but the Panama Papers show beyond a shadow of a doubt that although shell companies are not illegal by definition, they are used to carry out a wide array of serious crimes that go beyond evading taxes. I decided to expose Mossack Fonseca because I thought its founders, employees and clients should have to answer for their roles in these crimes, only some of which have come to light thus far. It will take years, possibly decades, for the full extent of the firm’s sordid acts to become known."

He's pleased that the Panama Papers seem to have now started a serious debate on the topic.

He introduces himself.

"For the record, I do not work for any government or intelligence agency, directly or as a contractor, and I never have. 

Now, some have claimed the CIA is behind this leak.  If true that would help explain why this was so handy for Obama to use in his speech on off-shore tax havens.   Is John Doe's manifesto released now intended by the real leaker to counter those rumors?  Or is it the CIA's way of denying the rumors?  There's nothing in the manifesto that suggests how John Doe knew about all this and had access to it all.  He does point out, by way of justifying this fuzziness about his identity,  that there are a lot of people who would like to see the leaker dead and I don't doubt that.

My viewpoint is entirely my own, as was my decision to share the documents with Süddeutsche Zeitung and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), not for any specific political purpose, but simply because I understood enough about their contents to realize the scale of the injustices they described. 

[For those who do not speak German - most people, I'd guess -  Süddeutsche Zeitung means, literally, South German Newspaper.]

He goes on to say that he's hoping that a lot of prosecutions will result from these revelations.  (There were some resignations by people like the Prime Minister of Iceland and the head of a Chilean anti-corruption agency when the leak was first made public.)

The prevailing media narrative thus far has focused on the scandal of what is legal and allowed in this system. What is allowed is indeed scandalous and must be changed. But we must not lose sight of another important fact: the law firm, its founders, and employees actually did knowingly violate myriad laws worldwide, repeatedly. Publicly they plead ignorance, but the documents show detailed knowledge and deliberate wrongdoing. At the very least we already know that Mossack personally perjured himself before a federal court in Nevada, and we also know that his information technology staff attempted to cover up the underlying lies. They should all be prosecuted accordingly with no special treatment. 

In the end, thousands of prosecutions could stem from the Panama Papers, if only law enforcement could access and evaluate the actual documents. ICIJ and its partner publications have rightly stated that they will not provide them to law enforcement agencies. I, however, would be willing to cooperate with law enforcement to the extent that I am able. "

Besides prosecution of wrongdoers, he wants immunity for whistleblowers.

"Legitimate whistleblowers who expose unquestionable wrongdoing, whether insiders or outsiders, deserve immunity from government retribution, full stop. Until governments codify legal protections for whistleblowers into law, enforcement agencies will simply have to depend on their own resources or on-going global media coverage for documents. 

In the meantime, I call on the European Commission, the British Parliament, the United States Congress, and all nations to take swift action not only to protect whistleblowers, but to put an end to the global abuse of corporate registers."

He wants campaign reform in the US. 

"It is an open secret that in the United States, elected representatives spend the majority of their time fundraising. Tax evasion cannot possibly be fixed while elected officials are pleading for money from the very elites who have the strongest incentives to avoid taxes relative to any other segment of the population. These unsavoury political practices have come full circle and they are irreconcilable. Reform of America’s broken campaign finance system cannot wait."

Then he lists all the players he think have failed.

Governments have failed (and he cites a number of examples including:

"Jennifer Shasky Calvery, the director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the United States Treasury, just announced her resignation to work instead for HSBC, one of the most notorious banks on the planet (not coincidentally headquartered in London). And so the familiar swish of America’s revolving door echoes amidst deafening global silence from thousands of yet-to-be-discovered ultimate beneficial owners who are likely praying that her replacement is equally spineless.

Banks, financial regulators and tax authorities have failed. . .

Hopelessly backward and inefficient courts have failed. . ."

The media have failed.

"The sad truth is that among the most prominent and capable media organizations in the world there was not a single one interested in reporting on the story [Panama Papers.] Even Wikileaks didn’t answer its tip line repeatedly. 

But most of all, the legal profession has failed. . ."

We live in interesting times.   There's a lot of interesting stuff on the Panama Papers website and the graphics are outstanding too.   The size of this leak dwarfs previous leaks.  The website has graphics comparing it to Snowden's and Wiki-Leaks. [UPDATE May 8, 2016: I wish though, that they'd put publication dates on their stories.]

I'd just note that the move to computers and then to the internet has made private conversations and messages that the socially, politically, and economically prominent have used to hide their shady dealings available in a way they could never have imagined.  And hackers are following Eastern martial arts philosophies that teach how to use one's opponent's strength against him.

A. Fog Of Politics B. Privacy And Security

A.  Fog of Politics

As I get ready to head out to the Democratic caucus in Anchorage this morning, the world outside is shrouded in fog.

OK, I apologize, Part B will live up to its name much better than Part A.








B.  Privacy and Security

Image from The Intercept

There was a live panel discussion on Privacy and Security last night in Arizona that was also online.  It's definitely worth watching.  Noam Chomsky, Edward Snowden, and Glen Greenwald.  If you know who those people are, you know this is worth watching.  If you don't know who they are, you should at least look them up.   Nuala O’Connor, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, was the moderator.

Here's the link:  https://theintercept.com/a-conversation-about-privacy/

The discussion ranged from definitions of privacy and security to the tension between them.  They talked about the top secret and other designations and how no one has identified anyone who has been killed because of Snowden's leaks, or even the Wikileaks.  How most of the things labeled top secret are for the security of the government officials, not for the security of the public.  It's a very thoughtful and rational discussion.  Everyone should watch this, and contrast it to some of the shrill and thoughtless rhetoric of the political debates.

It's long.  You can watch it in two sittings or just listen to it while you're doing mindless household tasks.

One topic that came up was how individuals can secure their own lives and this morning on Twitter,  Martin Shelton has linked to his own guide on how to do this - Securing Your Digital Life Like a Normal Person

More on the caucus when I get back tonight.

Eight Memorable Passages From Apple’s Fiery Response to the FBI

The Apple v. FBI debate seems to be one of the most important, long-lasting, and potentially game-changing threats to the liberty of US citizens, and people around the world.

The US has always struggled with how to balance government power and personal liberty.  Past breaches of human rights were to justified because of perceived risks to national physical or economic security.   The US constitution embraced slavery.  And in 1798, soon after it was ratified, the US passed the Alien and Sedition Act, because

"[a]s one Federalist in Congress declared, there was no need to 'invite hordes of Wild Irishmen, nor the turbulent and disorderly of all the world, to come here with a basic view to distract our tranquillity.'"

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

In the Dred Scott decision

"the [Supreme] Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States."

There's a long history of abuses against Native Americans.

The Roosevelt Administration interned US citizens of Japanese descent during WW II.

There's Guantanamo and torture following the 9/11 attacks.

There are the thousands of civilian deaths and injuries due to our current drone attacks.

So I tend to be skeptical of the FBI's claims of national security when they pressure Apple to create a way to hack their own encryption.  I'm not all that trusting of Apple either in the long run, but in this case I'm more likely to support Apple's stand than, say, I would Goldman-Sachs and other financial institutions stands against government regulation.

But like probably most Americans, I don't really understand the details of this.  It's not as obvious as waterboarding.

So I offer this link to The Intercepts' post Eight Memorable Passages From Apple’s Fiery Response to the FBI.

Revenge Porn, Equal Benefits for Transgender Employees, Vaccinations, Sexual Violence Ed, State Lichen, And Other New California Laws

The LA Times listed a slew of new laws that came into effect today.  Sounds like something like something all major newspapers ought to do.  ADN, you working on the Alaska new laws story?  I can't find a list of new Alaska laws, though there is plenty online about the Alaska's new marijuana law.

Here are some of the new California laws from the LA Times article.  You can see the whole list here.

Here's one that has the potential to impact Alaska, especially if other states copy it:

• The state’s two major public employee pension funds must sell holdings in companies that derive at least half of their revenue from mining coal used to generate electricity by July 1, 2017.

Here's something I talked about in a two posts in November -  So, How About Wrongful Treatment Insurance? and "Fair and Moral Compensation" - A Followup Post.  It's really a token, but at least it's acknowledgement of a moral duty.

• The state will increase compensation for innocent people who are wrongly convicted from $100 for each day behind bars to $140, to reflect inflation.

Here are the others

• Prosecutors are allowed to seek forfeiture of the images and storage devices used in “revenge porn” cases, in which an estranged romantic partner posts nude or sexual pictures of the other person online
• Law enforcement agencies must obtain a search warrant before looking at private emails, text messages and GPS data stored in smartphones, laptops and the cloud
• Requires short-term rental platforms such as Airbnb to alert users that if they are renters, listing their home on the site could violate their lease agreements.
• Companies with state contracts worth at least $100,000 must provide equal benefits to transgender employees.
• Bans concealed weapons on college campuses.
• Crisis pregnancy clinics certified by the state must post notices that California has public programs providing affordable contraception and abortions.
• The word “alien” will be removed from California's labor code to describe those not born in the United States.
• The vaccination law eliminates the ability of parents to waive immunization rules for their children based on personal beliefs. Though the law takes effect on Jan. 1, it allows parents to delay the vaccinations until July 1 if they filled out a request before New Year’s Day. But almost all students will have to show proof of immunization shots for the start of the new school year this fall
• High schools that mandate health courses must provide lessons aimed at preventing sexual violence and the concept that both parties must consent to sexual relations.
• Students are required to take sexual health classes unless their parents object — the classes are now voluntary — and the lessons must include the teaching to be inclusive of different sexual orientations.
• Cheerleaders for professional sports teams are considered employees, not independent contractors, and therefore are eligible to receive a minimum wage, workers' compensation and other benefits.
• Designates lace lichen, commonly known as Spanish moss, as California's official lichen.

One imagines that Texas and California are polar opposites.  JRLawFirm let's us compare a bit.  In some ways it's true.  While California banned concealed weapons on campus, Texas did the opposite.

• Senate Bill No. 11, which will take effect on August 1, amends the Texas Government and Penal Codes to allow handgun license holders, in some circumstances, to carry a concealed handgun on public and private colleges and universities in Texas, as well as other independent institutions of higher learning (does not apply to public junior or community colleges until August 1, 2017).

But in other cases they are moving in the same direction.  Texas also took action against 'revenge porn' and they're requiring a search warrant for cell phone and wireless devices.

• It is now illegal to broadcast or disclose private, intimate, visual material if that material was disclosed without the person’s consent, the material was not expected to be disclosed, the disclosure of the material caused harm, and the disclosure revealed the identity of the person in any matter. This is now actionable in criminal as well as civil court, per State Bill 1135, effective September 1st, 2015.
• Police must now obtain a search warrant in order to search a persons’s cell phone or wireless communication device, per House Bill 1396, which will take effect on September 1st, 2015.

And while California now has an official lichen, Texas now has an official hashtag  - #Texas.  I'm sure there will be a lot more activity involving the hashtag than the lichen.

Information and Power - A Few Examples

My dissertation was on privacy and I concluded that the consequences of exposure is the critical issue and thus the privacy debates are basically about power.  It's about the power to keep others out of your physical space and the ability to prevent access to information about yourself.  My conclusion was that given changing technology, if someone really wants to know about you badly enough, they will be able to do.  There is no way to protect yourself from someone determined to get into your life.  The only protection, and it's certainly limited, is to have everyone equally vulnerable so that people don't invade others' info because they could have the same thing happen to them.  We are protected thus only by enlightened cooperation or observation of the Golden Rule.

Time has confirmed my predictions made back in the 1970s.

This all is a preface to some articles in the LA Times today that illustrate different aspects of this power to hold one's info and the power to get into someone's info.

• Malik’s Facebook clues Shooter sent two private notes sharing jihadist longings to Pakistani friends online, officials say.

Let's start with US security officials failing to find private Facebook messages written in 2012 and 2014 in Urdu by Malik.  It's a little scary to think that anyone thinks the FBI should have been able to find those messages.  It's just mind-boggling to think of the level of intrusion into private communications that security agencies would have to do to detect such messages.  

• Plumber sues over ‘jihad’ truck Texan is tormented after his business vehicle shows up in an image posted by rebels — in Syria.

This guy traded in his truck for a new one.  The dealer stopped him from scraping off the lettering with his company's name and phone number.  The dealer didn't want him to scratch the paint and assured him they'd do it.  But then his truck shows up as an ISIS vehicle on ISIS websites with weaponry in the back.  The picture quickly went viral resulting in hateful calls and emails.

• Mystery owner buys Las Vegas paper  Speculation on the sale is that a wealthy individual is looking for political influence.

Las Vegas' newspaper has been secretly bought.  The owner isn't being disclosed.  What does that mean for readers?  The article says this is unprecedented.   Unfortunately, most people aren't willing to cancel their subscriptions until the owner's identity is revealed.

• Trial of key rights lawyer in China prompts scuffle: Police violently shove away journalists and diplomats seeking to observe proceedings.

The Chinese government is trying a key human rights attorney.  He's blogged openly, but his trial is secret.  How many Chinese officials get away with corrupt behavior because criticism of the government is so strictly limited?

• A BROKEN PLEDGE Officials let China Shipping ignore emissions-cutting requirements

Here, LA Port officials, in response to protests of pollution, promised to require ships reduce emissions while in port, to turn off their engines and to plug in for power,   But the LA Times, through a public records act request, found out the port authorities gave the Chinese shippers permission to ignore the regulations.

• L.A. schools to reopen Wednesday; threat against schools was 'not credible,' officials say

Anonymous emails threaten terror at LA schools and the district decides to shut them all down.  Who sent the emails?  How can the officials know if they are real or not?  And how many school districts are going to get similar threats just to shut them down?  And how many times will it take for the districts to ignore the threat?  Think of the sense of power this gives a disgruntled school kid.


The movie Stink! which I saw at the Anchorage International Film Festival chronicled how corporations hide toxic chemicals in products by preventing the FDA and other agencies from even knowing what's in their products, let alone disclosing them to consumers.

Just keep your eyes open for examples of the power to hide or expose information and who wins and who loses.

My Voting Report Card - And Other Political Fliers

We were only gone from Sunday to Friday, but here's what was in our mail when it was delivered Saturday.   Up til now Alaska's never been a critical state.  Our outcomes were generally not close, nor would they impact the balance of the Senate.  It's not that much mail, about two pieces per day. 

Then there was this one.  My voting report card.

What?  Someone's grading my voting?  Well, someone was checking how often I vote.  I knew that campaigns do that, because they particularly target the people who vote all the time.  Do I didn't think too much about it until I saw this post at Immoral Minority that was citing a report at KTUU about letters to people telling them how often their neighbors vote - by name!   That's takes this a step further.  This one comes from America Votes, what appears to be a liberal PAC.   The letter with the neighbors' names and voting records apparently comes from The Opportunity Alliance PAC, conservative group.  At their website - Alaska Votes - you can plug in your address and see how often your neighbors vote.  KTUU cites the letter:

“This year, we’re taking a new approach,” ASVP members wrote. “We’re sending this mailing to you, your friends, your neighbors, your colleagues at work, and your community members to publicize who does and does not vote.”

It's not clear to me how long the organization has existed and thus whether the 'this year' is misleading or not.

The KTUU piece talks about people's outrage over their voting record being circulated like this.  This is public information, though it's tricky for members of the public to get it.  I know parties and candidates pay for lists of people's voting records.  I'm trying to think about reasons why people's voting record (whether they voted, not how they voted) should be kept secret or made public like this.  Would more people vote if this information was readily available?  I'm guessing they would.

But then this led to the backers of Opportunity Alliance PAC - mainly Paul Singer.  Now, he's an interesting person and I'll focus on that in another post soon. 

Do You Put Your Kids' Pictures Up On Facebook? Should You?

Meeting My Granddaughter

On this blog, my policy is to not post pictures of family without permission or if I do, I try to alter the image.



Partly because I'm naturally an introvert.

Partly because my son, at a certain age, began objecting to having his picture taken, let alone shared.  It was a matter of respecting his wishes, even when I thought he was being a bit extreme.  But he did allow his grandmothers to take pictures, so I could see that he did recognize other people's needs.

Partly because my dissertation was on the concept of privacy.  My findings were that privacy was not so much a psychological need as it was an issue of power.  The power to a) prevent intrusions into your space and
b) control access to and distribution of your personal information.
Given that I saw a world where technology was making it more and more difficult, even impossible, to have control of your personal information, the next best option was that everyone's power to access information be equal throughout society so that everyone, being equally vulnerable, would have the same incentive to respect others' privacy.

That world is becoming more and more real.  No one is immune from cell phone video cameras - including people in positions of authority such as police, politicians, celebrities, teachers, CEO's.   Romney's 47% speech helped change the election when it showed up online.  Annonymous and Edward Snowden have put some of the most powerful and privileged figures of the world on notice that their information is also accessible.

So, with all this background, I've refrained from putting up pictures of family members without permission unless they are adequately altered so they are pretty much unidentifiable.

Part of me says that the new world we're in is making this sort of caution obsolete.  By exposing themselves - like women who began publicly saying they didn't want to live under the tyranny of being judged by how well they cleaned toilet bowls and coiffed their hair, or gays who came out of the closet - they removed the threat of someone else exposing them and gained a level of freedom to be themselves they hadn't had.

But part of me knows that if this exposure is uneven and unequal, these things can come back to haunt you.  But when it comes to my family members, I can't make that decision for them.

Your Kid On Youtube?

And one of my family members sent me a thank you for that yesterday along with this NYTimes article about a woman who put her son's picture on her Facebook page against his wishes - and her followup research and decision on that.

It was a great picture and one I wanted to share with my friends online.

My son, however, was opposed to the idea. “You’re not going to put that on Facebook, are you?” he demanded, flashing me the look my husband and I had long ago named his “dark and stormy.”

Yes, I told him: “You are my child, and I’m proud of you.”

“But it’s my picture,” he said. “And I don’t want it on your Facebook page.”

Read the rest of the article to hear what various so called experts had to say about it.