Archive for the Technology Category

Hero or Traitor? (June 10, 2013)

Posted in Internet, Pogo Plight, Privacy, Technology, USA PATRIOT Act on June 10, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

X          “Julian Assange.  Hero.”

Y          “Traitor.”

X          “Hero.”

Y          “Traitor.”

X          “Hero.”

Y          “Traitor.”

X          “Hero.”

Y          “Traitor.”

X          “Hero.”

Y          “Traitor.”

. . .

Y          “Bradley Manning.  Traitor.”

X          “Hero.”

Y          “Traitor.”

X          “Hero.”

Y          “Traitor.”

X          “Hero.”

Y          “Traitor.”

X          “Hero.”

Y          “Traitor.”

X          “Hero.”

. . .

X          “Edward Snowden.  Hero.”

Y          “Traitor.”

X          “Hero.”

Y          “Traitor.”

X          “Hero.”

Y          “Traitor.”

X          “Hero.”

Y          “Traitor.”

X          “Hero.”

Y          “Traitor.”

. . .

[Reflect on the ideas and experience of Daniel Ellsberg in http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/edward-snowden-united-stasi-america.]

[See the “e-ssay” titled “Brave 1984 Farm: The Best Of All Possible Worlds (March 19, 2012).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

In a dozen plus years and without a debate or a vote, technology has deprived us of privacy.  With little debate and many hasty votes, Congress has deprived us of privacy at every opportunity.  We as a society should create a rebuttable presumption in favor of privacy even if it appears to sacrifice security.  Our personal insecurities are actually creating greater national insecurity.  

Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”  Benjamin Franklin

Did Bin Laden win?

Armstrong (August 27, 2012)

Posted in On [Traits/Characteristics], Pogo Plight, Sports, Supreme Court, Technology on August 27, 2012 by e-commentary.org

. . .

1          “Legstrong is not sexy.”

2          “Walk on moon, pedal a bike.  More leg than arm.”

1          “Some members of the public will opine that he did not receive a de novo trial before the United States Supreme Court, yet the court of public opinion may do a clearer job of determining truth.  Something did not seem right about him and so many of the other riders who were too superhuman.”

2          “Where is the line?  What is the rule?  Photos can be photo shopped.  Songs can be synthesized.  With the intervention of editors and the involvement of focus groups, a book is about as individual an accomplishment as winning the Tour de France is a singular achievement.  Athletes are as much a product of technology as of training.  Who is the real thing?  What is real?”

1          “Neil was real.  He did it with skill, sang-froid, integrity and humility.”

. . .

(Neil Armstrong – 1930 – 2012)

Bumper stickers of the week:

One small step . . .; one giant leap . . .

Girls like guys on bikes

Rational Fear: Still “Unusually Uncertain” (November 8, 2010)

Posted in "L" Shaped Economy, Bailout/Bribe, Banks and Banking System, Bernanke, Depression, Federal Reserve, Greenspan, Kleptocracy, Technology, Unemployment, Volker with tags on November 8, 2010 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K         “Think about it.  Some maintain the blind conviction that the business cycle is ordained by nature like the tides to rise after it falls.”

J          “Faith in nature.  This season is bad so that the next season will be good because that is the way it is.  Good luck.”

K         “Some desire to return to unrestrained personal consumption and unbridled economic growth.  Even if it is attainable at this time it is not sustainable over time.”

J          “Faith in unchecked consumption.  With oil peaking and a world population that has not peaked, the prospects are not promising.  America had its opportunity to consume.  Other countries, particularly China and India, now want and have earned their opportunity to consume.  If the oil holds out.  And if the coal does not kill us.”

K         “Some believe that new technology will be pulled out of the hat and pull us out of this mess.”

J          “Faith in technological salvation.  The technology sector likely will continue to grow but not enough to propel the entire economy.  The tech world is producing some sexy developments and neat gadgets.”

K         “I’ve always supported free trade when it is truly free.  Decades ago, I could see that globalization would shift massive numbers of American jobs overseas.  They said the solution is to train and retool the America workforce.  The workforce is not retrained and retooled and may not be retrainable and retoolable.  Not many commentators in academic economics or in the financial press have a clue.”

J          “It is one thing to listen to Greenspan and know that everything he says is wrong, yet who is getting it right.  Knowing which way not to go in a maze is not the same as knowing which way to go.  Volker has a clue, yet he is on the sidelines.”

K         “Bernanke* has a clue.  Now that monetary policy has effectively failed, he is enacting what is effectively fiscal policy.  Fiscal policy is the province of the legislature, the Congress.  But Congress is broken.  The Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act, an act of Congress, requires the Fed to promote full employment.  Perhaps he is actually trying to stimulate employment.”

J          “But there are no jobs, now or in the future.  Quantitative Easing II is nothing more and nothing less than TARP II implemented by the Fed rather than Congress.  The Fed’s purchase of bonds is nothing more and nothing less than a slick way to provide another bribe and bailout to Wall Street.”

K          “That is hard to dispute unless there are a few random hires here and there.  And he continues a tradition at the Fed of lying or at least deceiving the public.  He can do something.  He and the Fed regularly issue ‘Remarks’ and ‘Speeches’ on all manner of topics.  He should direct the Fed to issue a finding that a single bank with deposits and assets of more than 100 billion is a clear and present danger to the American economy and to the security and well-being of the Republic.  If a bank or other financial institution does not enter into an Enforcement Action with the Fed, close the resources of the Federal Reserve to the bank or financial institution.  In effect, require banks to downsize to manageable sizes.  They must be small enough to fail and to play well with others.”

J          “Won’t happen.  Our democracy is now a kleptocracy.”

K         “That won’t help employment, however.  But he could pull it off.  He can be bold.  He would have to play all his capital.  But for us citizens, however, the only things we have to fear are so many very real fears.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

The only things we have to fear are so many very real fears.

Don’t end the Fed, mend the Fed.

“And as things fell apart/Nobody paid much attention.”  “(Nothing But) Flowers” – Talking Heads

“This country’s hard on people, you can’t stop what’s coming.”  No Country for Old Men movie (2007)

Boycott Facebook? (August 2, 2010)

Posted in Boycott Series, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Facebook, Google, Internet, Privacy, Society, Technology on August 2, 2010 by e-commentary.org

. . .

X          “There is something troubling about all that information available to a small group without restraint or oversight.”

Y          “I want absolutely nothing to do with Facebook.  I concede that we really cannot elect not to use Google because it has a monopoly on a necessary and now fundamental service somewhat akin to a public utility.  However, Facebook is a luxury and participation should be voluntary.”

X          “Look at the growth.  Each year, Facebook captures another decade.  Three years ago, everyone under 30 was a Facebooker; two years ago, everyone under 40; a year ago, everyone under 50.  Now everyone under 60 is a Facebooker.”

Y          “I question whether some individuals participate voluntarily.  I received a request to be a friend on Facebook and, without opening it, was able to view it in a quarantined screen.  The e-mail from the Facebooker was able to access the names of individuals in my Contacts file that also are in the Facebooker’s Contacts file.  The offer to befriend him included a list of mutual e-mail contacts who are also on Facebook with an offer to befriend them.  Facebook is able to invade one’s computer without notice or permission or recourse.”

X          “A Republican Party official observed with an envious smirk that Facebook may have amassed more information on individuals than even the Republican Party.  He noted that the Republicans collect massive amounts of detailed information on individuals and households and target each person and household with a specific campaign message.  The Republicans may have more information than the NSA and the hundreds of public and private sector entities free to collect private information about us.”

Y          “A few days later, although I never activated a Facebook account, I received a message:  ‘You have deactivated your Facebook account.’  I did not activate an account and do not believe that it was ever deactivated.”

X          “Facebook is able to collect lots of partial information on many friends and then use the information to sketch a complete picture of a person.  Snippets provide a complete portrait.”

Y          “More and more organizations are using Facebook as the vehicle to connect with members.  That leaves me more disconnected from others.”

X          “And by next year, everyone under 70 will be a Facebooker.”

Y          “A class action lawsuit should only take a few weeks to resolve and could provide both injunctive relief and damages.  Developing the privacy protection implicit in the Third Amendment in the contemporary setting has potential, although the greatest threat to us may not be from agents of the state.  However, the legal game would permit the lawsuit to be delayed and drawn out for over a decade.”

X          “Face it, in the end, the lawyers would take everything.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

Facebook: Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide

Driver doesn’t have a tattoo, an i-phone or a Facebook page

Are Journalists Irrelevant or Making Themselves Irrelevant? (Dec. 28, 2009)*

Posted in Journalism, Newspapers, Press/Media, Society, Technology on December 28, 2009 by e-commentary.org

. . .

“Newspapers really are in a death spiral.  From my review of the editorial stances and endorsements of the newspapers across the country, however, half of them could fold and probably leave us better off.  The Great Divide between the two Americas rages in the country and in the editorial rooms.  The way the market is heading, half of the undesirable newspapers will fold, yet half of the ones contributing to the dialogue also will fold.  The great loss is the lost possibility that cannot be regained once a newspaper no longer folds paper and instead simply folds.”

“Look at the product.  Too many of the columns in newspapers seem to be hissy fits among a clique of columnists.  One columnist says one thing and then another columnist inserts ‘not’ at some points and elsewhere deletes the ‘nots.’  The length and style of the columns are formulaic and could be recycled and reprinted every few months.  The columnists could be laid off and computer generated columns substituted for their daily show.”

“And yet that is the best case scenario.  Other papers promise to deliver only one side of an issue and deliver on their promise.  We still return to the need in a Republic for a free and robust press.  The First Amendment removes most government impediments, yet the contemporary impediment is economic.  Why pay today when information is free or appears to be free?”

“The subscribers and advertisers each pitched in to pay and now both are abandoning ship because the ship is sinking.  My friends don’t read papers.  The advertisers don’t reach them.”

“There really were no free newspapers or sources of information, yet TV was free from a direct and immediate charge.  The advertisers, not the viewers, sponsored the show or paid the freight initially.  The auto, food, insurance and pharmaceutical companies paid for the ads up front.  Then HBO asked the public to pay to view; the public paid.  ABC provided sports for free and then ESPN asked the public to pay to view; the public paid.  Now the public willingly pays for some TV.  That is what newspapers must do.  The Internet is the hybrid ‘television newspaper.’  Induce the public to pay.”

“For what?  The major news networks transmit bogus fluff.”

“What about the MacNeil/Lehrer program?”

“PBS?  Only if I can record it or view it on line.  The news on public television is credible but kind of stodgy.  Those of us who will soon run what is left are getting our news and opinions from a former soccer player who realizes that a person must entertain to inform.  He both entertains and informs and appears to be speaking truth to an audience raised on lies.  That is a workable business model.  Provide a quality product and people might pay.  What could be more obvious.”

“HBO and ESPN provide divertissements not news.  Something unsexy like investigative journalism is expensive and does not pay.  The hard task is not merely reporting on findings but finding the findings.  That will be the big loss every time a paper folds.  We as a society are losing the slim possibility that someone in power will be held accountable for his or her actions and inactions.”

. . .

(* This title was changed in February, 2010 because the prior title was too understated.)

Bumper sticker of the week:

Starting with Monday’s edition, Section D on “Jobs” is now titled “Job”, Section F on “Classifieds” is now titled “Foreclosure Notices”, and the “Sports” are found in Section B and the new expanded section C.

Less Government Regulation Series: Google (Nov. 30, 2009)

Posted in Antitrust, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Google, Internet, Less Government Regulation Series, Privacy, Society, Technology on November 30, 2009 by e-commentary.org

“Nine years ago, you purchased the book ‘Privacy Issues Today.’  Another critically-acclaimed work purchased by others who purchased this book is available for only $29.95.  Just click below and we will bill the credit card on file.”

A courtesy or a curse?  This solicitation may not be from Google, yet the same problem with privacy is lurking.  You can drive to the store, purchase a pickle, pay with cash and leave only your image on the closed circuit cameras in the store and perhaps in the parking lot.  If you pay with a credit card and/or provide a customer identification number, there is an electronic fingerprint.  However, those records typically are static and rarely mined for information.

In response to a typical search request, you might be informed:

“Did you mean: (one of our advertisers)”  (Note:  Not all of the top responses are advertisers.)

A person today cannot not use Google.  Google cannot not make a record of the search history.  Google is collecting far more information than any public or private entity should be allowed to collect, retain, sell and inevitably manipulate.  The computer motherboard has become the new Big Brother.

Possible copyright violations by Google can be and are being challenged publicly.  By contrast, invasions of privacy are usually done privately and are far more elusive to detect and remedy.

In economics, a “natural monopoly” occurs when, because of the economies of scale of a particular industry, the maximum efficiency of production and distribution is realized through a single supplier.  In some cases inefficiency may occur.  The electric utility is a prototypical “natural monopoly.”  The usual market does not support two entities providing electricity in one market.  Thus one entity is allowed to operate a monopoly subject to government regulation.  Google has emerged as a natural monopoly.  Or perhaps a traditional monopoly.

Government regulation should be eschewed, they say.  They are correct.  Government regulation on a good day is often bad.  It is time for a serious debate on the need to regulate Google.

Before it is too late.  Although it may be too late.

Bumper sticker of the week:

In mathematical terms, a google is 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000;

In privacy terms, a Google is 1984.