Shared posts

03 Jul 12:55

Quotation of the Day…

by Don Boudreaux
(Don Boudreaux)

… is from my colleague Walter Williams’s January 2000 essay “Capitalism and the Common Man“:

Henry Ford benefited immensely from mass-producing automobiles, but the benefit for the common man from being able to buy a car dwarfs anything Ford received.  Individuals and companies that produced penicillin and polio and typhoid vaccines may have become very wealthy, but again it was the common man who was the major beneficiary.  In more recent times, computers and software products have benefited our health, safety, and quality of life in ways that far outstrip whatever wealth was received by their creators.

02 Jul 22:08

The Real Money in the Climate Debate

by admin

I have yet to meet a skeptic who reports getting any money from mysterious climate skeptics.  A few years ago Greenpeace had a press release that was picked up everywhere about how Exxon was spending big money on climate denialism, with numbers that turned out to be in the tens of thousands of dollars a year.

The big money has always been in climate alarmism.  Climate skeptics are outspent a thousand to one.  Here is just one example

It sounds like the makings of a political-action thriller. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) has awarded Arizona State University a five-year, $20 million agreement to research the effects of climate change and its propensity to cause civil and political unrest.

The agreement is known as the Foresight Initiative. The goal is to understand how climate-caused disruptions and the depletion of natural resources including water, land and energy will impact political instability.

The plan is to create visually appealing computer models and simulations using large quantities of real-time data to guide policymakers in their decisions.

To understand the impacts of climate change, ASU is using the latest advances in cloud computing and storage technologies, natural user interfaces and machine learning to create real-time computer models and simulations, said Nadya Bliss, principal investigator for the Foresight Initiative and assistant vice president with ASU's Office of Knowledge and Development.

I can tell you the answer to this study already.  How do I know?  If they say the security risks are minimal, there will be zero follow-up funding.  If they say the security risks are huge, it will almost demand more and larger follow-up studies.  What is your guess of the results, especially since the results will all be based on opaque computer models whose results will be extremely sensitive to small changes in certain inputs?

Postscript:  I can just imagine a practical joke where the researchers give university officials a preview of results.  They say that the dangers are minimal.  It would be hilarious to see the disappointment in the eyes of all the University administrators.  Never in history would such a positive result be received with so much depression.  And then the researchers would say "Just kidding, of course it will be a catastrophe, it will be much worse than predicted, the badness will be accelerating, etc."

02 Jul 20:47

Alabama Crushes Sex Offender Reform Camp for No Good Reason

by Zenon Evans

In rural Clanton, Alabama, a pastor named Ricky Martin has operated a camp on his property to help convicted sex offenders reform themselves. Martin's program has since 2010 provided a refuge for over 50 men as they try to assimilate back into society. Not anymore, though. C.J. Robinson, the chief deputy district attorney of Chilton County, thought the group was icky or dangerous or something, so he went out of his way to put an end it.

The Associated Press reports on this incident:

Martin ... said he met men with no place to go while serving as a volunteer chaplain in a state prison. He came up with the idea of a sex offender refuge in rural Chilton County, far away from any schools or day care centers, and began screening potential prisoners to live there. …

"We try to live Christian," said Kenny Dark, who served time for rape and has lived in one of the campers. "We go to the church Wednesday and two times on Sunday. We help each other."

Robinson … said Monday he doesn't doubt the sincerity of Martin's religious beliefs. He said no one living at the camp has been arrested for additional sex-related crimes. And, he said, sex offenders do need a place to live.

If not behind a tiny church in an agricultural county with about five dozen people per square mile, then where?

Robinson said he doesn't know. But having so many ex-convicts with similar criminal records in one place is a public safety threat, he said, and Martin doesn't have the specialized training and credentials to deal with them. …

So [Robinson] wrote a bill to shut down the camp by prohibiting two convicted sex offenders from living within 300 feet of each other on the same property unless they are married.

The bill passed in March without any dissent and took effect July 1. Property owners can face up to a $5,000 fine if they violate the law. Great! Let's just recap: Martin had a private system that kept sex offenders away from potential victims while also giving them a community and sense of moral purpose, and Robinson crushed it without any idea of what to do next.

No matter the fact that many communities throughout the U.S. implement similar restrictions, which tend to force sex offenders to either become homeless or move into high density enclaves in cities, where locals then get spooked, and the convicts, despite having done their time, are treated as though they're still dangerous and face severe restrictions on basic things like their ability to walk to a park.

"This might be the only chance I ever have as a prosecutor to try to take steps on the front end," insisted Robinson, and by golly, he just had to take that chance. 

02 Jul 20:35

Save the Lion-Hunting Cheerleader, Save the Lions!

by Brittany Ann Morrisey

ROARKendall Jones is a young, blond Texas cheerleader and—if you listen to the Internet outrage machine—a cold-blooded killer.

The 19-year-old Texas Tech University student has been attacked on her Facebook page for posting photos of herself posing with dead exotic animals she killed on African hunting trips. Currently, there are two petitions calling for her hide: the first one asks Facebook to take down the photos and the second asks for her to be barred from Africa

Jones has defended her big game hunting saying that her kills are not only legal but they promote conservation efforts.

And you know what? She's right.

It seems counterintuitive: How can killing animals actually save endangered wildlife?

According to Reason Science Coorespondent Ronald Bailey we should look to the chickens:

"The world is in no danger of running out of chickens. Yet the world has fewer and fewer elephants. lions, tigers, giraffes and so forth. Why? In part it is because no one owns wild animals and consequently they are nuisances rather than resources."

A 2005 paper in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy provides evidence for this phenomenon:

"The legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies."

A study done by Peter Lindsey, a conservation biologist with the Univeristy of Zimbabwe in Harare, came to the same conclusion:

"Trophy hunting is of key importance to conservation in Africa by creating [financial] incentives to promote and retain wildlife as a land use over vast areas." 

Because contrary to what animal rights activists are posting on Jones' Facebook page, the primary threat to endangered animals is not trophy hunting. It's the destruction of the animals' natural habitats and poaching. And as conservationist Mike Norton-Griffiths points out, private ownership curbs both of these issues:

"The economic driving force behind both these is the fact that for most landowners the returns available from agriculture greatly exceed those from livestock, so it pays them to plough up the rangelands. Everything is loaded against landowners making money from wildlife..."

If Kenya wishes to maintain significant wildlife populations outside its protected areas, then it has to ensure that landowners can gain an income from wildlife that is competitive with what they can earn from agriculture and livestock."

Let the cheerleader hunt. She's saving our wildlife, after all.

02 Jul 19:02

Emails Show Cozy Relationship Between Comcast Execs And DOJ Antitrust Folks; Party Invitation Blocked By 'Rules Folks'

by Mike Masnick
A new FOIA discovery via Todd Feathers at MuckRock has turned up some emails showing a rather cozy relationship between top Comcast execs and Justice Department antitrust officials. In fact, just days before Comcast announced its intent to acquire Time Warner Cable, Comcast Senior VP of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs, Kathryn Zachem, had invited Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Renata Hesse, to "attend a celebration of the opening ceremony" of the Sochi Olympics, care of Comcast NBC Universal. Hesse sent an email saying that she really wanted to attend but "the rules folks over here tell me I can't do this." Though, she still says that they need to get dinner sometime soon. When Zachem responds that she had hoped it would still be okay because "we have nothing formally before you all," Hesse notes "our ethics rules are very restrictive." Two weeks later, Zachem was again emailing Hesse to give her "a heads up on an announcement we are making in the early AM." It was, of course, the proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable. A couple days later, there's another email exchange between Zachem and Hesse, in which Hesse introduces Zachem to David Gelfand at the Justice Department who "will be working on this for the front office with me." She notes "If you don't know him, you will and I know you will like him. He's just terrific." Zachem replies: "Hello David - if Renata says I will like you then I already do!" Gelfand jokingly replies:
In the interest of full disclosure, Renata sent her nice email while still under the influence of my having just bought her a cup of coffee. But hopefully I can live up to the advance billing!
Just the kind of chummy, friendly relationship you want to see from the people tasked with determining whether or not your multi-billion merger should be allowed to go through. And, yes, I recognize that regulators and top execs in charge of regulatory affairs are going to have personal connections and relationships with each other. That happens. But given the situation and the timing, this certainly raises the usual questions of just how objective the DOJ's review of the merger will be.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story







01 Jul 20:22

Снайперская работа

01 Jul 18:06

Quotation of the day on the greatest system to promote sustainability ever devised – free market capitalism…

by Mark J. Perry

…. is from Warren Meyer (Coyote Blog):

Environmentalists seem to all feel that capitalism is the enemy of sustainability, but in fact capitalism is the greatest system to promote sustainability that has ever been devised.  Every single resource has a price that reflects its relative scarcity as compared to demand.  Scarcer resources have higher prices that automatically promote conservation and seeking of substitutes.  So an analysis of an investment’s ability to return its cost is in effect a sustainability analysis.  What environmentalists don’t like is that wind does not cover the cost of its resources, in other words it does not produce enough power to justify the scarce resources it uses.  Screwing around with that to only look at some of the resources is just dishonest.

HT: Warren Smith

01 Jul 13:07

Dog coughs up missing wedding ring -- five years after it disappears...


Dog coughs up missing wedding ring -- five years after it disappears...


(First column, 15th story, link)

01 Jul 04:30

Quotation of the Day…

by Don Boudreaux
(Don Boudreaux)

… is from page 259 of the 1992 collection of some of William Graham Sumner’s best essays, On Liberty, Society, and Politics (Roger C. Bannister, ed.); specifically, this quotation is from Sumner’s insightful 1894 essay “The Absurd Effort to Make the World Over”:

Can anyone imagine that the masterfulness, the overbearing disposition, the greed of gain, and the ruthlessness in methods, which are the faults of the master of industry at his worst, would cease when he was a functionary of the State, which had relieved him of risk and endowed him with authority?  Can anyone imagine that politicians would no longer be corruptly fond of money, intriguing, and crafty when they were charged, not only with patronage and government contracts, but also with factories, stores, ships, and railroads?  Could we expect anything except that, when the politician and the master of industry were joined in one, we should have the vices of both unchecked by the restraints of either?

Sumner theorized about policy realistically: unlike the typical advocate of more government intervention, he understood that it’s illegitimate to assume that miracles occur.

30 Jun 20:35

U.S. Relies On Law from Governments Which Don’t Even HAVE a Constitution to Justify Assassination of U.S. Citizens By Drone

by George Washington

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:

No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ….

So how did the legal memorandum “justifying” assassination of U.S. citizens by drone try to sidestep the Fifth Amendment?

It relied on reasoning from two countries that don’t have any constitution.

The New York Times reports:

One might have expected a thoughtful memo that carefully weighed the pros and cons and discussed how such a strike accords with international and Constitutional law.

 

Instead, the memo turns out to be a slapdash pastiche of legal theories — some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law — that was clearly tailored to the desired result. Perhaps the administration held out so long to avoid exposing the thin foundation on which it based such a momentous decision.

Neither England nor Israel have a constitution.

Indeed, as the BBC notes, they are in a very small group of three:

In all but a handful of democracies in the world, the nation’s constitution can be found in a single document. The exceptions are Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

Nothing in the memo says that it only applies to U.S. citizens living abroad. Indeed, the government has claimed the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain any American citizen on U.S. citizen without any due process. And see this.

And – contrary to misleading statements to the contrary – the U.S. has never said that it won’t assassinate Americans living on U.S. soil.

Sadly, even though Americans have a constitution, we have lost virtually all of the rights contained in that document.

Postscript: While this article focuses on U.S. citizens,  assassinating non-citizens by drone has problems as well:

30 Jun 20:00

NOAA Quietly Reinstates July 1936 -- Not July 2012 -- As Hottest Month On Record...


NOAA Quietly Reinstates July 1936 -- Not July 2012 -- As Hottest Month On Record...


(Third column, 17th story, link)

30 Jun 18:42

Quotation of the day on ‘global warming’ ….

by Mark J. Perry

…. is from Matt Ridley’s June 19 Financial Post article “IPCC commissioned models to see if global warming would reach dangerous levels this century. Consensus is ‘no’“:

The answer to climate change is, and always has been, innovation. To worry now in 2014 about a very small, highly implausible set of circumstances in 2100 that just might, if climate sensitivity is much higher than the evidence suggests, produce a marginal damage to the world economy, makes no sense. Think of all the innovation that happened between 1914 and 2000. Do we really think there will be less in this century?

As for how to deal with that small risk, well there are several possible options. You could encourage innovation and trade. You could put a modest but growing tax on carbon to nudge innovators in the right direction. You could offer prizes for low-carbon technologies. All of these might make a little sense. But the one thing you should not do is pour public subsidy into supporting old-fashioned existing technologies that produce more carbon dioxide per unit of energy even than coal (bio-energy), or into ones that produce expensive energy (existing solar), or that have very low energy density and so require huge areas of land (wind).

The IPCC produced two reports last year. One said that the cost of climate change is likely to be less than 2% of GDP by the end of this century. The other said that the cost of decarbonizing the world economy with renewable energy is likely to be 4% of GDP. [See for example, this summary.] Why do something that you know will do more harm than good?

30 Jun 18:21

TOP DEM: President will 'borrow the power'...

Jts5665

Another word for this is "usurp"...

30 Jun 14:08

On the imaginary hobgoblin of ‘income inequality’ and the 80% reduction in world poverty, thanks to freedom, markets

by Mark J. Perry

worldpovertyFrom James Harrigan and Anthony Davies, writing in their article “Pope Francis, Bad Economist“:

It is worth noting that, while it may fuel resentment and envy, especially after politicians have made their demagogic hay, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with inequality. Equality of opportunity will always result in inequality of outcome. Some people work harder than others. Some people are smarter than others. And yes, some people are simply luckier than others.

Poverty, on the other hand, is a real and pernicious evil. In the entire history of the human race, no one has ever died of inequality. But far too many have died of poverty. It would do us well not to lose sight of the real evil in our midst, even as the political elite, Pope Francis included, rail against an imagined one.

Over the past two generations, while the number of people on Earth doubled, the number percentage of people living in extreme poverty declined by 80 percent (see chart above, the number of people living in poverty has fallen by 62.3%), largely as a result of increased economic freedom globally. Today, almost all people in economically free countries can afford cures for diseases that killed the richest people only a century ago. The average person with a cell phone today has better and quicker access to more complete information than the President of the United States enjoyed just a generation ago. A plot of land that a century ago could feed one family today can feed hundreds of families.

These advances came not because of governments but in spite of them. They are the fruits of economic freedom. It would seem that the head of the Catholic Church, an organization that appreciates that free will is a necessary precondition for charity, would be the first to champion free markets. Francis instead sidesteps them completely, preferring instead to view the world’s relatively well-off merely as caretakers for wealth their governments have yet to reappropriate.

Pope Francis recently tweeted that, “Inequality is the root of social evil.” He is wrong. Coercion is the root of social evil. And government is the most effective tool for coercion humans have devised.

It is high time to acknowledge that free markets are the only mechanism at our disposal that will lift the world’s poor out of poverty. Real concern with the plight of the poor requires a sober examination of the data at hand. Until Pope Francis does this, his good intentions will pave the road to continued poverty, poverty that could have been wiped away by the gentle hand of free markets.

27 Jun 22:45

Google to Block Firearm, Ammunition, Gun Accessory Ads

Jts5665

No more car ads either, I guess, if dangerous things must be avoided...

Beginning in September, Google plans to block firearm, ammunition, and gun accessory ads.

According to Google Support's "Dangerous Products or Services" page, the company "[wants] to keep people safe both online and offline, so [they] won't allow the promotion of some products or services that cause damage, harm, or injury."

Included in the dangerous products for which ads will be blocked are "Guns & Parts." This covers "functional devices that appear to discharge a projectile at high velocity, whether for sport, self-defense, or combat."

Also included is a ban on ads for "any part or component that's necessary to the function of a gun or intended for attachment to a gun." This covers "gun scopes, ammunition, ammunition clips or belts."

The ban will also halt ads for "dangerous knives... throwing stars, brass knuckles, [and] crossbows," among other things.

Google Support says the ads that will be banned "are subject to change." 

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.  








27 Jun 21:19

Today's WTF Moment Of The Day At 1550ET

by Tyler Durden

We noted previously the comedic melt-up in stocks in the last few minutes of the day but away from the simple-to-see shenanigans in VIX and the major equity indices, Nanex shows a massive number of stocks experienced a stunning coordinated WTF moment at 1550ET... unrigged?

Not enough riggedness in the major indices...?

 

Take a look under the covers... (via Nanex)

On Friday, June 27, 2014 at 15:50:00 - 143 stocks suddenly moved at least 2% (with some exceeding 10%) in just a few seconds. There were 678 stocks that moved 1/2 of a percent or more.  This explosion of trading activity dwarfed even the closing seconds of the day, when the annual Russell Reconstitution process occurred (changing of symbols in the Russell Indexes). In the one second at 15:50:00, approximately 400 stocks had NBBOs (National Best Bid/Offer) that were crossed (best bid price greater than best ask price) and more than 1000 stocks had NBBOs that were locked (best bid price equals best ask price).

1. Each line represents one of 678 stocks that moved 0.5% or more.

The noticeable green line is the price track of  the stock of MannKind Corp (symbol MNKD) which had a significant (unrelated) news event.



2. Same chart as above, but color coded by reporting exchange.
Note the many green lines after 16:00 when the market closes. These are dark pool trades which were reported late.



3. Each line represents one of the 143 Stocks that moved 2% or more in a few seconds at 15:50:00. Value scale shows percent change from 15:50:00.



4. Zooming in closer (27 seconds) we can see there were several waves of explosive activity.



5. Chart shows about 5 seconds of time.


 

*  *  *

Did someone make a dark pool angry?

27 Jun 13:29

The Future Is Now: Cheating In Online Games Leads To Arrests In Japan

by Timothy Geigner
Jts5665

yeesh

Any video game producer who produces a product for which online play is a large component also has to fight an ongoing arms-race against cheaters and hackers who gain an unfair advantage in the game and threaten the gamer ecosystem. It's annoying, it sucks, and the fight is unending. For online games, that's just kind of the deal. Most companies work with programmers and 3rd party service providers, like Steam, to try to ban players who cheat. Other companies, such as Blizzard, choose to try to twist copyright law into some kind of anti-cheater pretzel. Japan, on the other hand, appears to be done screwing around.

Newspapers in the land of the rising sun are reporting that three teenagers have been arrested for cheating in the online first-person shooter Sudden Attack. Yes, arrested.

Yomiuri Online, one of Japan's largest newspapers, reports that this is the first time gamers have had criminal liability charged against them in Japan for allegedly using cheat programs. One of the gamers is a university freshman, another is a 17 year-old vocational school student, and the last of the trio is a 17-year-old high school student. In Nexon's statement about the legal charges, the company explains that these three players allegedly used the cheat tools repeatedly in the game. IT Media reports that distribution of cheats was also allegedly involved.
Yup, things just got a little more real in the realm of pretending to shoot everyone you see. Yes, cheating is annoying. But criminal? That seems like a massive overreaction and tremendously dangerous. Cheating in online games goes back all the way to the dial-up days and companies have always taken it upon themselves to keep cheaters out of their games. They may not like the arms race, but that hardly means it should reach the level of criminal liability -- especially when the line between cheating and just gaining some kind of advantage may get blurry pretty fast. It's reasonable to argue that if the game maker allows something to happen in the game, then it's on that game maker to set things up to block actions it doesn't like. Opening it up to the criminal justice system seems like a recipe for disaster.
Cheating is wrong, but couldn't Nexon simply ban these players? Maybe the company tried, but was unsuccessful. Or maybe Nexon should've tried harder to combat the cheats. But making them a crime?
It's easy to point at cheaters and say they aren't worth defending, but nobody really wants to open up this can of worms where we can all be charged with crimes for messing around in a game.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story







27 Jun 13:14

Quotation of the day on the two enemies of the people….

by Mark J. Perry

… is from Thomas Jefferson:

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

Update: Sorry, the quotation above has been attributed to Thomas Jefferson (including by Lou Dobbs on his FOX Business show last night), but it cannot be found in any of his writings, according to the Jefferson Monticello Center at the University of Virginia. However, they point out that Jefferson did use the phrase “chains of the Constitution”:

…in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.

The quote attributed to Jefferson is apparently a variation of what Ayn Rand wrote in 1963 (“Man’s Rights“):

To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two — by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.

It cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals — that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government — that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.

26 Jun 20:09

Obama seeks $500 million to arm Syrian rebels...

Jts5665

I thought they were already arming themselves with US equipment in Iraq...


Obama seeks $500 million to arm Syrian rebels...


(Second column, 9th story, link)

26 Jun 18:05

CIA Hit With Two New Lawsuits Over Its Hostile Response To Basic FOIA Requests

by Mike Masnick
I guess it's no surprise that the CIA would be institutionally against things like transparency and freedom of information. However, in the last couple weeks there have been two separate lawsuits filed by well known Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) activists over the CIA's general bad behavior in response to FOIA requests. First up is Michael Morisy and Muckrock, who have sued over a variety of failures by the CIA to adequately respond to a long list of FOIA requests that really should not be problematic at all.
...the Central Intelligence Agency has a track record of holding itself apart from, and largely above, the Freedom of Information Act, consistently ignoring deadlines, refusing to work with requesters, and capriciously rejecting even routine requests for what should be clearly public information.
After listing out all of the FOIA requests that the CIA failed on that Muckrock is suing over, Morisy notes:
Additionally, we are suing against the CIA's general practice of rejecting requests for email records which do not include the time frame, subject, and to and from fields, regardless of what other information is including to help narrow the request. This practice replaces the required functional test for whether or not a request reasonably describes the records sought with a per se test that automatically rejects any request for email records based on whether or not it includes all four pieces of information, virtually ensuring that vast amounts of CIA email records go unprocessed and unreleased.
Separately, two FOIA ninjas, Ryan Shapiro and Jason Leopold (both of whom have written about before, including the FBI declaring Shapiro a systematic problem for filing too many FOIA requests) have sued the CIA as well for its failure to respond to their FOIA requests concerning the CIA's spying on the Senate Intelligence staffers investigating the CIA's torture program.
"It's time for the CIA and the rest of the US intelligence community to recognize transparency not as a threat, but rather as an essential component of viable democracy," Shapiro said.
The FOIA request specifically was about communications between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA which set up the terms under which the Senate investigators would have access to CIA documents, among other related documents. As with Muckrock, it appears that the CIA basically has just decided to ignore the request entirely.

Yes, the CIA lives in a world of secrecy, but it's supposed to follow the law, and that includes living under FOIA transparency rules. It seems to be ignoring those at every turn, so hopefully these two lawsuits will begin to force the CIA to actually obey the law.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story







26 Jun 17:58

'Complete Control': Notorious Surveillance Contractor Tech Uncovered

by Zenon Evans

Hacking Team, a company which has been described as an "enemy of the Internet," provides law enforcement and intelligence agencies with legal "offensive technology" to infiltrate and remotely control people's phones and other digital devices. The extent of this company's capabilities remain murky, but two groups of Internet security experts say they have just exposed some of their surveillance firepower and the fact that Hacking Team has more servers spitting out malware based in the U.S. than any other country.  

"Our latest research has identified mobile modules that work on all well-known mobile platforms, including as Android and iOS" as well as Windows Mobile and BlackBerry, announced the Russian-based Kaspersky Lab on Tuesday. "These modules … translate into complete control over the environment in and near a victim's computer." Indeed, the governments who use Hacking Team technology can turn on a cellphone's microphone, camera, and GPS unnoticed. They can also access people's email, call history, chats, browsing history, among many other potentially incriminating data. 

"It's long been known that law enforcement and intelligence agencies worldwide use Hacking Team's tools to spy on computer and mobile phone users—including, in some countries, to spy on political dissidents, journalists and human rights advocates," explains Wired. "This is the first time, however, that the modules used to spy on mobile phone users have been uncovered in the wild and reverse-engineered."

One of the biggest doozies of the Kaspersky Lab report is that the U.S., by far, houses the most Hacking Team servers, which are part of a "huge infrastructure that is used to control the [remote control system] malware implants." There are 64 known servers here, compared to 49 in Kazakhstan, 35 in Ecuador, 32 in the United Kingdom. Most of the other 40 countries that the lab traced Hacking Team malware back to have only one or two servers.

The lab cautions, "we can't be sure that the servers in a certain country are used by that specific country's LEAs [law enforcement agencies]; however, it would make sense for LEAs to put their [command and control servers] in their own countries in order to avoid cross-border legal problems and the seizure of servers." Likewise, it's no secret that the company has aggressively marketed itself to American government officials.

Hacking Team spokesman Eric Rabe quick to downplay the findings as "old news," according to the Associated Press. "We believe the software we provide is essential for law enforcement and for the safety of all in an age when terrorists, drug dealers and sex traffickers and other criminals routinely use the Internet and mobile communications to carry out their crimes," he assured.

However, Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto, which produced a report alongside Kaspersky Lab's and has long kept an eye on Hacking Team, reitereates that the company's products have a history of being used to target journalists and activists around the world.

"This in many ways is the police surveillance of the now and the future," cautions Morgan Marquis-Boire, a lead author on the report and a security researcher with Citizen Lab. "What we need to actually decide how we're comfortable with it being used and under what circumstances."

26 Jun 15:54

Big Business Clashes with Libertarians and Tea Party over Ex-Im Bank

by David Boaz

David Boaz

Two weeks ago I wrote about the efforts of big business to defeat libertarian-leaning legislators in states across the country. To confirm my point, on the same day the article appeared the Michigan Chamber of Commerce endorsed the opponent of Rep. Justin Amash, the one of whom I had written, “Most members of Congress vote for unconstitutional bills. Few of them make it an explicit campaign promise.”

Now a battle is brewing in Congress that pits libertarians and Tea Party supporters against the country’s biggest businesses. The Wall Street Journal headlines, “GOP’s Attack on Export-Import Bank Alarms Business Allies.” The “rise of tea-party-aligned lawmakers” is threatening this most visible example of corporate welfare, and David Brat’s attacks on “crony capitalism” in his surprise defeat of Eric Cantor have made some Republicans nervous. Amash told the Journal, “There are some large corporations that would like corporate welfare to continue.”

The biggest beneficiaries of Ex-Im’s billions are companies such as Boeing, General Electric and Caterpillar,  according to Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center. Cato scholars have made the same point, including Aaron Lukas and Ian Vasquez in 2002 and Sallie James in 2011.

Matthew Yglesias of Vox notes, “The Export-Import Bank is a great example of the kind of thing a libertarian populist might oppose. That’s because the bank is a pretty textbook example of the government stepping in to arbitrarily help certain business owners.” And he points out that supporters of the Bank include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-CIO, Haley Barbour, and Dick Gephardt. He could have added Tom Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) said he worried about “a libertarian theology that’s really starting to creep in.” I hope he’s right.

25 Jun 22:05

UPDATE: Dozens Of DC Cabbies Choke Streets To Protest Rideshare Companies...

Jts5665

I hope this drives more of their customers to Uber like it did for their European comrades.


UPDATE: Dozens Of DC Cabbies Choke Streets To Protest Rideshare Companies...


(Second column, 15th story, link)

25 Jun 15:28

A mother’s tragic story: ‘A drug SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son’s chest with a flashbang grenade’

by Mark J. Perry

Writing in Salon (“A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son“), Alecia Phonesavanh, the mother of Bounkham “Bou Bou” Phonesavanh, describes in her own words the horrific events her family experienced on May 29. Just before dawn, a paramilitary SWAT team armed with M16 rifles staged an unsuccessful, no-knock raid looking for drugs (none were found). Upon entering a home near Atlanta the heavily-armed SWAT team exploded a flashbang grenade in 19-month Bou Bou’s crib and blew a hole in his chest. He was recently taken out of a medically induced coma, but the hole in his chest hasn’t healed, and doctors are assessing whether there will be any lasting brain damage. Here’s Alecia’s story Drug War nightmare:

After our house burned down in Wisconsin a few months ago, my husband and I packed our four young kids and all our belongings into a gold minivan and drove to my sister-in-law’s place, just outside of Atlanta. On the back windshield, we pasted six stick figures: a dad, a mom, three young girls, and one baby boy.

That minivan was sitting in the front driveway of my sister-in-law’s place the night a SWAT team broke in, looking for a small amount of drugs they thought my husband’s nephew had. Some of my kids’ toys were in the front yard, but the officers claimed they had no way of knowing children might be present. Our whole family was sleeping in the same room, one bed for us, one for the girls, and a crib. After the SWAT team broke down the door, they threw a flashbang grenade inside. It landed in my son’s crib.

Flashbang grenades were created for soldiers to use during battle. When they explode, the noise is so loud and the flash is so bright that anyone close by is temporarily blinded and deafened. It’s been three weeks since the flashbang exploded next to my sleeping baby, and he’s still covered in burns. There’s still a hole in his chest that exposes his ribs. At least that’s what I’ve been told; I’m afraid to look.

My husband’s nephew, the one they were looking for, wasn’t there. He doesn’t even live in that house. After breaking down the door, throwing my husband to the ground, and screaming at my children, the officers – armed with M16s – filed through the house like they were playing war. They searched for drugs and never found any.

I heard my baby wailing and asked one of the officers to let me hold him. He screamed at me to sit down and shut up and blocked my view, so I couldn’t see my son. I could see a singed crib. And I could see a pool of blood. The officers yelled at me to calm down and told me my son was fine, that he’d just lost a tooth. It was only hours later when they finally let us drive to the hospital that we found out Bou Bou was in the intensive burn unit and that he’d been placed into a medically induced coma.

For the last three weeks, my husband and I have been sleeping at the hospital. We tell our son that we love him and we’ll never leave him behind. His car seat is still in the minivan, right where it’s always been, and we whisper to him that soon we’ll be taking him home with us.

Every morning, I have to face the reality that my son is fighting for his life. It’s not clear whether he’ll live or die. All of this to find a small amount of drugs?

The only silver lining I can possibly see is that my baby Bou Bou’s story might make us angry enough that we stop accepting brutal SWAT raids as a normal way to fight the “war on drugs.” I know that this has happened to other families, here in Georgia and across the country. I know that SWAT teams are breaking into homes in the middle of the night, more often than not just to serve search warrants in drug cases. I know that too many local cops have stockpiled weapons that were made for soldiers to take to war. And as is usually the case with aggressive policing, I know that people of color and poor people are more likely to be targeted. I know these things because of the American Civil Liberties Union’s new report, and because I’m working with them to push for restraints on the use of SWAT.

A few nights ago, my 8-year-old woke up in the middle of the night screaming, “No, don’t kill him! You’re hurting my brother! Don’t kill him.” How can I ever make that go away? I used to tell my kids that if they were ever in trouble, they should go to the police for help. Now my kids don’t want to go to sleep at night because they’re afraid the cops will kill them or their family. It’s time to remind the cops that they should be serving and protecting our neighborhoods, not waging war on the people in them.

I pray every minute that I’ll get to hear my son’s laugh again, that I’ll get to watch him eat French fries or hear him sing his favorite song from “Frozen.” I’d give anything to watch him chase after his sisters again. I want justice for my baby, and that means making sure no other family ever has to feel this horrible pain.

For more information about Bou Bou, go to www.justiceforbabyboubou.com.

MP: The nephew who the police were looking for didn’t even live in the house that was raided, and his alleged victimless crime that motivated the paramilitary SWAT raid? A single $50 meth sale. I’m confident that in a future, more enlightened, advanced, open-minded and tolerant America, we’ll look back on America’s Drug War — and the paramilitary SWAT raids like the one that blew a hole in Bou Bou’s chest — with shame, contempt and embarrassment for such cruel, intolerant and inhumane treatment of our fellow man (children).

25 Jun 13:45

FAA Says Drones May Be Used For Fun... But Not For Profit

by Mike Masnick
Earlier this year, we wrote about a court saying that the FAA's rules that banned the use of drones for anything commercial were overstepping the FAA's mandate, and making it clear that such drones should be considered legal. The FAA has appealed, and in an attempt to drive home its point that not a single potential commercial use of a drone is legal, the FAA has doubled down by clearly laying out what's not allowed. Lots of people are pointing out that the FAA's claims are likely to ground the high profile plans by Amazon to deliver packages by drone, but it's some of the other things that are on the prohibited list that strike me as even more ridiculous: I can almost, kinda, barely, sorta see the rationale for saying that package delivery is not allowed, since you could see how that might interfere with other things or cause problems. And, in case you're wondering, the footnoted "6" after that "delivering packages to people for a fee" clarifies that "free shipping" on a purchased product doesn't count.

But... the rest of the items in the list all seem very troubling to me. None of those seem like cases where there's likely to be any interference with aircraft or any other kind of problem. Drone use for real estate videos is increasingly common and something that actually seems like a very good idea. Here's an example of one such video: Can anyone explain any reason why this should be illegal? Same with the use of drones to determine if commercial crops should be watered. That sounds like a really good idea. But it's not allowed. Because the FAA appears to basically want to control absolutely everything. This seems like a massive overreach in so many ways.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story







24 Jun 20:51

Federal judge rules no-fly list violates Constitution...


Federal judge rules no-fly list violates Constitution...


(First column, 4th story, link)

23 Jun 20:08

On the Death Penalty and Ideological Turing Tests

by admin
Jts5665

I came to this realization a few years ago. While murderers probably deserve a death penalty, those administering the death penalty are either corrupt or inept or both.

Actually trying to understand how those you disagree with think, rather than just accepting some straw man version, can make one a much better debater.  Bryan Caplan's ideological Turing test is not just about empathy and being open to opposing arguments, but it also pays dividends in making better arguments for one's own positions.  I love how Jesse Walker begins his pitch to Conservatives against the death penalty:

The typical conservative is well informed about the careless errors routinely made by the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Postal Service, and city hall. If he's a policy wonk, he may have bookmarked the Office of Management and Budget's online list of federal programs that manage to issue more than $750 million in mistaken payments each year. He understands the incentives that can make an entrenched bureaucracy unwilling to acknowledge, let alone correct, its mistakes. He doesn't trust the government to manage anything properly, even the things he thinks it should be managing.

Except, apparently, the minor matter of who gets to live or die. Bring up the death penalty, and many conservatives will suddenly exhibit enough faith in government competence to keep the Center for American Progress afloat for a year. Yet the system that kills convicts is riddled with errors.

22 Jun 17:14

A defense of dictatorship

by noreply@blogger.com (Vox)
A former gatekeeper laments the publishing revolution:
The idea of writers being able to bring their creations directly to readers is widely touted as a radical advance in authorial control and a revolution in the creative process. Its popularity has soared and its champions, such as the writer and founder of the Alliance of Independent Authors, Orna Ross, proclaim it as something "radical, really revolutionary within my world".. Self-publishing is the revolution du jour, the change that will liberate writers and democratise publishing.

Unfortunately, self-publishing is neither radical nor liberating. And, as revolutions go, it is rather short on revolutionaries. It is actually reactionary, a contracted version of the traditional publishing model in which companies, who produce for a wide range of tastes and preferences, are replaced by individual producers each catering to very narrow range.

Self-publishing is supposed to democratise publishing. For Nicholas Lovell, writing in the Bookseller, "publishers no longer have an ability to determine which books get published and which books don't." In other words, democratisation is nothing more than the expansion of the publishing process from the few to the many. But this both overestimates the barriers to traditional publication – the vetting and selection process may be deeply flawed, but every writer can submit a manuscript – and underestimates the constraints of the marketplace. It also fails to consider whether the democratisation of publishing produces a similar democratisation for the reader by making literary culture more open.

By definition, self-publishing is an individualistic pursuit in which each writer is both publisher and market adventurer, with every other writer a potential competitor and the reader reduced to the status of consumer. Publishing then becomes timid, fearing to be adventurous and revolutionary lest it betray the expectations of its market. This is a natural tendency in traditional publishing but it is one restrained by the voices of its authors who are free to put their work first and entrepreneurship a distant second. With authorship and entrepreneurship now equal partners, the new authorpreneurs have thrown off the dictatorship of the editor to replace it with the tyranny of the market.
Gatekeepers are liberators! The freedom of the market is tyranny! War is peace! Black is white! Evil is good!

These people lie as automatically as they breathe. How absurd is it to say that traditional publishing is not as restricted as it appears because "every writer can submit a manuscript"? This article didn't convince me that self-publishing is a bad thing, it convinced me that in addition to being outdated, the traditional publishers are outright evil.

The ironic icing on the cake is the fact that the author, a former publisher, "has self-published his last three novels". His best-selling book ranks #700,264 on Amazon. Little wonder he despises "the tyranny of the market".

Posted by Vox Day.
21 Jun 03:32

Couple rows 6,500 miles from Morocco to NYC...


Couple rows 6,500 miles from Morocco to NYC...


(Third column, 21st story, link)

20 Jun 15:45

Kim Strassel and the WSJ on the Lost IRS Emails

by Walter Olson

Walter Olson

Earlier this week Wall Street Journal columnist Kim Strassel won a much deserved Bradley Award for her work in investigative journalism. It’s at times like this, in which revelations about evidence destruction at the Internal Revenue Service almost defy belief, that everyone interested in American governance should follow her column and the Journal editorial page.

Some highlights since the email story broke last Friday: 

* According to Strassel’s column today, the contents of Lois Lerner’s hard drive were wiped out by forces unknown “about 10 days after the Camp letter arrived,” that is to say, a letter from House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp inquiring into targeting of conservative groups. (Lerner then replied to Camp denying targeting and subsequently pleaded the Fifth before Congress.) 

* A WSJ editorial this morning points out the remarkable timing of the IRS’s begrudging disclosure last Friday that evidence central to the case has been destroyed: more than a year after the investigation began and only when a deadline was impending in which the IRS commissioner would have to certify personally that the agency had produced to Congress all relevant communications. Were responsible agency officials determined to treat this as a high-priority investigation, to be carried on in good faith and with all deliberate speed? (There was no doubt about the seriousness of the scandal, as President Obama himself admitted—or seemed to be admitting—at the time.) Or did they instead stall and deflect until the very last moment? So un-forthcoming was the agency that, according to today’s Journal editorial, IRS staffers met with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) Monday and did not tell him that the external emails of six other IRS employees had gone missing too—he found that out only later in the week when he read a press release from the House side.  

* While some IRS critics focus almost to the exclusion of all else on the possible role of the Obama White House in directing the IRS, Strassel and the WSJ correctly will not let us forget that much of the pressure on the agency was coming from Congress itself. In particular, Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), along with Reps. Chris Van Hollen and Elijah Cummings (both D-Md.), were among many Democrats seeking to enlist the IRS in a crackdown on politically antagonistic nonprofits.

Thank heavens for Kim Strassel and her colleagues at the WSJ, because otherwise it would seem as if few in the press were willing to focus serious investigative attention on this extraordinary scandal. (Many other press outlets have treated it as a dull page-A-18 story, run wire service coverage only, or–as with the New York Times–waited three days even to notice it.) 

People used to ask how Watergate might have turned out if the press had sided with Nixon instead of against him. Thanks to the work of Strassel and her WSJ colleagues, let’s hope we never find out.