Bulk wireless searches of American private communications questioned by EFF

Today, I received the following communication from Electronic Frontier Foundation:

More than five years ago, EFF filed the first lawsuit aimed at stopping the government's illegal mass surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans' private communications. Whistleblower evidence combined with news reports and Congressional admissions revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) was tapped into AT&T’s domestic network and databases, sweeping up Americans’ emails, phone calls and communications records in bulk and without court approval. On August 31, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear a warrantless wiretapping double-feature to decide whether EFF's two cases can proceed. At stake will be whether the courts can consider the legality and constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s mass interception of Americans’ Internet traffic, phone calls, and communications records.
Here's the full report, and it is stunning.  Consider even the following paragraph, and remember that this supposed to be your country, a country supposedly run by the People:
Hepting v. AT&T, our case challenging the telecom giant’s illegal collaboration with the NSA, faced a barrage of attacks from the government -- including outrageous claims that national security prevented the courts from considering whether AT&T and the government were breaking the law and violating the Constitution. When that gambit seemed to be failing, the White House and the telecoms led a lobbying campaign to convince Congress to pass a law threatening to terminate our suit. When that law passed we filed a follow-up suit directly against the government, Jewel v. NSA, to open a second front in our fight to stop the spying.
For another easily accessible description of these problems, visit EFF's FAQ.

Continue ReadingBulk wireless searches of American private communications questioned by EFF

Symbols, Fair Use, and Sensitivities

When you have a dream about an argument, maybe it has some weight and should be written about. Recently, I posted a photograph on my Google + page. This one, in fact (click on the photo for high-res version): My caption for it was “What more is there to say?” Partly this was just to have a caption, but also to prompt potential discussion. As symbol, the photograph serves a number of functions, from melancholy to condemnation. It did prompt a discussion, between two friends of mine who do not know each other, the core of which centers on the divergent meanings of such symbols for them and a question of sensitivity. I won’t reproduce the exchange here, because as far as I’m concerned the question that it prompted for me was one of the idea of “sacredness” and the appropriate use of symbols. Which immediately sent me down a rabbit hole about the private versus public use of symbols. Essentially, we all have proprietary relationships with certain symbols. Since I already posted the image, the sign of the cross is one, and not just for Christians. As a symbol it has achieved that universality advertisers dream of. It is instantly recognizable as the sign for a faith movement just about everywhere. It’s possible some aboriginal tribes in the beclouded valleys of New Zealand don’t know what it is, but on the level of international discourse it carries across all lines. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingSymbols, Fair Use, and Sensitivities

Internal conflict of interest, illustrated

It often occurs to me that each of us has intense conflicts of interest between our present self and our future selves. My present self wants to over-eat, fail to exercise, ignore needed house repairs, and I would generally prefer to prepare less rather than more for anything I do. None of these things would be good for my future self.  My present urges seem much more important than my future concerns, so it takes focused effort to keep my priorities straight.  Today I found a cute cartoon to illustrate this recurring internal conflict that we all experience. On a large scale, of course, society tends to live in the present, exhausting the earth's resources, rather than living sustainably, which can would usually require extra effort and planning. Thus, as a country we are collectively engaged in a massive conflict of interest pitting our present selves against our future selves. 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded, much of the damage done by human activities. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingInternal conflict of interest, illustrated

Dick Cheney’s failure to serve in Vietnam

At The Nation, John Nichols reviews each of warmonger Dick Cheney's four 2-S draft deferments that allowed him to not serve in Vietnam in the 1960's. He explained himself decades later, but doesn't even mention this aspect of his life in his new book, In My Times. Here is an excerpt from Nichol's article:

Twenty-three years later, when Cheney appeared before the Senate to plead the case for his confirmation as George Herbert Walker Bush’s defense secretary, he was questioned about his failure to serve. Cheney responded that he “would have obviously been happy to serve had I been called.” In a more truthful moment that same year, Cheney admitted to a reporter, “I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service.” Cheney’s lie to the Senate has never caused much concern, but that “other priorities” line has dogged him. After he selected himself to serve on the 2000 Republican ticket, former Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown, a Vietnam veteran disabled by a gunshot wound to his right arm, said, “As a former Marine who was wounded and nearly lost his life, I personally resent that comment. I resent that he had ‘other priorities,’ when 58,000 people died and over 300,000 returned wounded and disabled. In my mind there is no doubt that because he had ‘other priorities’ someone died or was injured in his place.”

Continue ReadingDick Cheney’s failure to serve in Vietnam

Why is writing so difficult

Why is writing so difficult, and why is it that I write so slowly? These are two questions addressed by a well-written and presumably slowly-written article by Michael Aggar at Slate.

Kellogg is always careful to emphasize the extreme cognitive demands of writing, which is very flattering. "Serious writing is at once a thinking task, a language task, and a memory task," he declares. It requires the same kind of mental effort as a high-level chess match or an expert musical performance. We are all aspiring Mozarts indeed. So what's holding us back? How does one write faster? Kellogg terms the highest level of writing as "knowledge-crafting." In that state, the writer's brain is juggling three things: the actual text, what you plan to say next, and—most crucially—theories of how your imagined readership will interpret what's being written. A highly skilled writer can simultaneously be a writer, editor, and audience.

Continue ReadingWhy is writing so difficult