$1 Billion kick-starts Facial Recognition of Everyone

For access to a home or automobile, most people use a key. Access to accounts or transactions on the Internet usually requires a password. In the language of security specialists, these authentication schemes are referred to as using something that you have (a key) or something that you know (a password).

In some industries, a third method of identification is becoming more common: Using something that you are. This area of security and access is called ‘biometrics’. The word is derived from bio = body or biology and metrics = measurement.

The data center that houses computer servers for AWildDuck also houses valuable equipment and data for other organizations. When I visit to install a new router or tinker with my servers, I must first pass through a door that unlocks in the presence of my fob (a small radio-frequency ID tag on my key chain). But before I can get to the equipment cage that houses my servers, I must also identify myself by placing the palm of my hand on a scanner and speaking a code word into a microphone. I don’t know if my voice is identified as a biometric, but the use of a fob, a code word and a hand-scan demonstrates that the facility uses all three methods of identify me: Something that I have, something that I know and something that I am.

If you work with technology that is dangerous, secret, or that has investor involvement, then biometric identification or access seems reasonable. After all, something-that-you-are is harder to forge than something that you have. Because this technique is tied to part of your body, it also discourages the loaning of credentials to a spouse, friend, or blackmailer.

But up until now, biometric identification required the advance consent of the individuals identified. After all, before you can be admitted to a secure facility based on your hand print, you had to allow your hand to be scanned at some time in the past. This also suggests that you understood the legitimate goals of those needing your identification in the future.

Few Americans have been compelled to surrender their biometrics without advance consent. There are exceptions, of course. Rapists and individuals applying to live in the United States are routinely fingerprinted. Two very different demographics, and yet both are compelled to surrender a direct link to their genetic makeup. But until now, we have never seen a non-consenting and unsuspecting population subjected to wholesale cataloging of personal biometrics. Who wants all of this data? What could they do with it?

Here at AWildDuck, we have written about the dogged persistence of conservatives in the American government to seek a state of Total Information Awareness. But now, Uncle Sam is raising the stakes to a new low: The Dick Cheneys and Karl Roves aren't satisfied with compiling and mining data from that which is online, such as phone books, Facebook data, company web sites, etc. They want access to as much personal and corporate data as they can get their hands on: Bank records, credit card receipts, tax returns, library borrowing records, personal email, entire phone conversations & fax images, and the GPS history logged by your mobile phone.

Perhaps even more creepy, is the recent authorization for the use of high altitude drones for domestic law enforcement. But wait! That development pales in comparison with a minor news bulletin today. The FBI has just funded a program of facial recognition. We’re not talking about identifying a repeat bank robber, a missing felon or an unauthorized entry across our borders. We are talking about scanning and parsing the entire population into a biometric fingerprint database. The project aims to cull and track facial images – and identify each one – from every Flickr account, every ATM machine, every 7-11...in fact, every single camera everywhere.

If you have a driver’s license, a Facebook account, or if you ever appeared in a college yearbook, it’s a certainty that you will soon surrender identifiable biometrics, just like a rapist or a registered alien. By 2014, we may arrive at 1984.

The one billion dollars set aside by the FBI for the facial recognition component of Project Über Awareness belies the truly invasive scope of body-cavity probing that the Yanks want to administer. The massively funded effort includes a data archival project buried within a Utah hill that is brain-seizing in size and scope. Forget about Tera, Peta and Exabytes. Think instead of Yotta, Zeta and Haliburtabytes.

Engadget is a popular web site that reviews and discusses high tech markets, media & gadgets. Below, they discuss the facial recognition component and its privacy implications. Just as with our past articles on this topic, Engadget begins with a still image from the ABC television series Person of Interest. The show depicts the same technology and it’s all encompassing power. Whomever controls it has the power to manipulate life. But unlike Mr. Finch, a fictional champion of stalked heroines, the Big Brother version is not compelled by a concern for individual safety and security. Instead, the US government is using the specter of terrorism and public safety to bring the entire world one giant leap closer to a police state.

Do we really want our government – any government – to know every detail about our daily lives? Does the goal of securing public safety mean that we must surrender our individual freedoms and privacy completely? Are individuals who don’t care about privacy absolutely certain that they will trust their governments for all time and under all circumstances? Do they expect that the data will never be breached or used for purposes that were not originally sanctioned or intended? Is anyone that naïve?

________________________________________________________________________

FBI rolls out $1 billion public face recognition system in 2014.
Big Brother will be on to your evildoing everywhere
Reprint: Engadget.com — By Jason Hidalgo, posted Sep 9th 2012

Hertz acquires Dollar: What about the liability?

I avoid using this soap box for personal vendettas. A Wild Duck has a broad venue but spats over shady business practices aren’t covered. Tonight, I am outvoted. My co-editor wants me to run this story. Hey, this wound is fresh! Who am I to disagree?

Every once in a while, one encounters a vendor with business practices so out-of-whack, that it just begs to be exposed. Here’s one that hasn’t fully played out. If it is resolved before next week, I will update this Op Ed. But after experiencing this scam, I have doubts that a culture of deception can be corrected by a Blog posting...

[caption id="attachment_1697" align="alignleft" width="300"] Does Hertz care what lies under the covers?         Does Dollar know about ‘Rent a Terstappen’?[/caption]

Let’s start with statements of fact: I travel. And I hate renting cars.

Until recently, the cost of renting a car was rarely what was agreed in advance. Online reservations are especially problematic, because franchisees fail to report local fees or policies to the franchiser, agency or internet marketing affiliates.

But years ago, I developed a method to overcome the problem, and it has worked splendidly. I first applied ‘Ellery’s Rule’ planning a trip to Florida. I called the rental agency directly and presented my discount codes. I was quoted an excellent weekly rate. (I think that it was Avis, but I am not certain).

Just in case, a desk clerk were to add up the numbers differently than the friendly telephone agent, I asked the agent to add a statement to the Memo section of the contract. She added these words:

The customer has been promised the rate as calculated in this estimate. He is not to be charged a different amount if the car is returned in good condition and with a full tank of gas.

To ensure that the statement exuded authority, I asked her to cite the name of a regional or department manager.

When I got to Florida, the reservation contract was already printed and waiting at the airline terminal rental desk. I pointed out the statement in the Memo section and the local clerk brushed it off with a chuckle. “Don’t you worry”, he said. “The rate is correct. You won’t be cheated.”

But when I returned the car, there was an extra $11 tacked onto the contract. “What’s this?!” I asked to a new face at the desk. “Oh, that’s the Florida drug tax” a friendly woman exclaimed, as if reading from a script. “Every customer must pay it. It’s the law. We have no control over state taxes.”

“Guess what?” I snapped back. “I don’t want any drugs.” I don’t think that she got the wit or charm of my dry sarcasm, but after a few phone calls, I certainly didn’t pay the Florida drug tax. Of course, she was right. It is a state law and payment is ascribed to the renter. But Avis paid it from the proceeds that I had agreed to pay. That’s because I had a written contract that specified the cost after all taxes, fees and even drugs. It is inclusive, en toto, complete! You get the picture.

For years, my little system worked like a charm. If at first, a rental agent refuses to add the memo (effectively stating that their estimate is truthful), I threaten to cancel the reservation. They always get authority to add the Memo. It never fails. And so for these past years, I have been quietly smug when overhearing another traveler talk about unexpected fees added at the car rental desk.

I was smug, that is, until this past week. With Rent a Terstappen, I got hoodwinked!

[caption id="attachment_1685" align="aligncenter" width="384"] Tactics of deception: Germany's Dollar car rental franchise[/caption]

I traveled to Frankfurt Germany last week and rented a car from the local Dollar franchise. I got a good rate from HotWire.com, a popular web travel site. For a simple booking, it’s difficult to get a live agent on the phone, and so I booked my rental online, realizing that I might get stuck with a Frankfurt “drug tax”–or perhaps in this case, a wiener-schnitzel tax. But I was woefully unprepared for what happened. I was socked with an enormous fee and an even more absurd justification. It doubled the amount quoted in Hotwire’s  good faith disclosure!

Dollar franchisee       Rent a Terstappen
Desk clerk                 Beatrice Lindholm-Dagci
HotWire itinerary       4523744713
Contract offer            $151.87 *
Customer charge      $315.38 (?!)

* Revised from original offer of $182.24 for 6 days

Dear readers: You won’t believe the pretense on which Rent a Terstappen doubled my rental contract cost. Even with the separation of 6,000 kilometers and 6 days since my return, I still can’t believe the loony reason that Ms. Lnidholm-Dagci told me (at first, with a straight face). More shocking, I sensed that she didn’t believe it either. She whispered for me to visit Dollar competitors at nearby rental counters. Clearly, she gets push-back from more than a few outraged customers.

Well, this customer won’t stand for it. I landed during the busiest travel week in Germany. Even with staggered school vacations, everyone is on holiday during the 3rd week of August. Five other rental companies offered to match the rate that I was promised (without a farcical add-on), but none had vehicles anywhere near the airport. They were fully booked no matter what I paid. The folks at Hertz and Sixt (a European car rental outfit) sympathized with my plight. One even offered me a personal ride into the city. She has dealt with other disgruntled Dollar-booked clients.

• Does Dollar Rental know of the massive deception foisted on their clients by Rent a Terstappen? (the local Dollar franchisee at the Frankfurt airport).


• Does Rent a Terstappen force desk agents to pretend they don’t see what agents at every other rental counter already see? Beatrice Lindholm-Dagci recognizes the deception she is forced to perpetrate. She must hoodwink customers and then blame the fiasco on HotWire or other referring agents.


• Does Hertz know that the reporting chain at Dollar is either deceptive or egregiously deficient? (My travel department will talk with Hertz if this is not settled by the end of this week.)

Oh yes! I forgot to tell you the reason for the doubling of my rental charge: Ms. Linholm-Dagci explained to me that I must use a Gold branded MasterCard to complete the transaction, because she had no way of verifying insurance coverage for any other form of payment. I had with me a Platinum American Express, a Platinum Visa Card and a Business Premium MasterCard. All of them carried rental insurance. I offered her a $1500 deposit, which she processed! I also offered proof of my insurance coverage through Liberty Mutual with a very clear stipulation of full vehicle replacement value, even when driving in a foreign country.

She didn’t care. It had to be a Gold MasterCard. Not Premium, Not American Express Platinum, Not Chrome, Not Visa, Not the 7 other cards whose logos that they display at the counter. Only a Gold MasterCard.

Next week, I will add Hubert Terstappen’s phone numbers to this story. Perhaps Wild Ducks can persuade him to rethink his business model.

Late Thursday Update:

A representative at HotMail has seen my rant and has launched an investigation. I understand that HotWire may compensate me for the difference between what I was promised and what was stated in their good faith estimate.

HotWire is a good company. They want to do the right thing. But I don’t really consider their payoff to be a proper solution. What about future visitors to Frankfurt who don't know about the policy/scam? (Take your pick. It’s a toss up!) I have asked HotWire to reassess Dollar representation or at least get the corporate franchiser involved. Craft an ethical solution to the Rent a Terstappen practices. I am fortunate to be working with individuals at HotWire and Dollar who are both understanding and empowered.

A backward glance at Ron Paul

Here at A Wild Duck, politics is one of our Raison d'être. It appears on every page in the masthead, above the menu bar.

But regular ducks know that we never push a candidate. They also know that our social opinions lean sufficiently to the left (privacy, personal freedom, pro-choice) such that we would probably have little to say about the Republican Party presidential nominee in the US race for president.

But Ron Paul is no regular Republican. In fact, it’s not clear that he is a Republican at all. Other than a penchant for fiscal restraint, he doesn’t talk-the-talk or walk-the-walk.

My father died late last year. He was in his mid 90s. In his last months, we talked about the coming 2012 US presidential election. As it became gradually more difficulty to get out of bed, we watched a lot of political interviews and wonks.

Dad voted for Obama in 2008, but more recently, he was a Ron Paul supporter. He didn’t feel that Paul had a chance, and so he was also very interested in the Republican debates. Could one of the other Republican candidates counter his concern that Obama, an articulate man of integrity and principles, was leaning too much toward a socialist view of economics?

Dad felt strongly that despite Ron Paul’s appearance at the debates, the networks were shutting him out of the spotlight: Less discussion of his ideas and fewer interviews & features than warranted for a US Representative serving on and off for 35 years.*

Ron Paul was offered a speaking slot at the RNC, but he refused the two conditions of his invitation: That he give Mitt Romney his full-fledged (unqualified) endorsement and that his script be vetted by the Romney campaign. He refused, of course. Ron Paul can't be bought, bribed, cajoled, or won over. What he stands for is clear, unwavering and is stated with surprising simplicity.

What does Ron Paul stand for?  Check out this RNC tribute video.

[caption id="attachment_1673" align="alignleft" width="283"] Ron Paul: Consistent on the deficit and a need for limited government[/caption]

Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. He has always stood for smaller government, lower taxes, less redistribution of wealth, dismantling the Federal Reserve Bank and respect for individual privacy. He believes that the US is too quick to borrow, tax, spend and raise the debt ceiling.

He doesn’t associate with the “conservative-right” blending of religion and intolerance that is baked into the RNC platform, but there is controversy about his failure to denounce support from white supremacists, xenophobes and other racists groups. (Links omitted intentionally–Readers can Google these issues). This is apparent in a Newsletter that he published early in his political career, but that he now claims was written without his supervision.

Then, there is Israel...Paul wants to cut off aid to the American ally completely. But then, he is an isolationist in general. He doesn’t want US taxpayers to support any extra-territorial missions. Finally, his staff members state that he is very uncomfortable in the presence of homosexuals, but feels strongly that they should be able to live with the same privileges and freedoms that all Americans take for granted.

If Ron Paul were still in the running for a party nomination, the possibility of latent racism or anti-Semitism would merit serious digging. On his economic positions, he shines. He embodies the Holy Grail that–for me–has always been so elusive: Paul is an economic conservative and a social liberal.

The video tribute includes one of my favorite Ron Paul quotes: “Living beyond our means forces us to live beneath our means.” It also includes a statement by his son, US Senator Rand Paul. He explains that Washington lobbyists don’t stop by Ron Paul’s House office, because they know that he can’t be bought. If true, it makes a powerful point about lobbyists. I would hope that at least a few of them believe in the legitimacy of their arguments and the nobility of purpose. Why don’t they visit their own representative simply to present a persuasive argument based on its merits and their own sense of duty, logic or emotions?

I don’t know if Ron Paul could ever be US president. Even if his message resonates 4 years from now, his age would certainly be a negative factor in the 2016 election. But I wish that he were the current Republican candidate running against Obama. Paul -vs- Obama. Both candidates are articulate, with clear principles, and yet a profound difference in beliefs. That would be a very interesting contest!

Here at A Wild Duck, we still don’t endorse candidates. That’s why we held back this OpEd until the Republican National Convention. But we certainly like Ron Paul. Here is a man who stands for something on which most Americans agree, and yet few of their representatives have the backbone to explain with its full ramifications. At a time when China and Arab countries are owed so much from future generations, isn’t it time to sound the alarm bell? Isn’t it time to suck in the gut, hunker down and take personal responsibility for our debts and productivity?

* Ron Paul has been a member of the US House of Representatives during 4 decades: 1976-77, 1979-85, 1997-present.

Ellery Davies is chief editor of A Wild Duck. He hasn’t discussed a Republican candidate or politician since the Reagan era—perhaps to avoid personal attacks on character or platform.      -g.a.

Can USA Assert Jurisdiction Over Assange?

Most Wild Ducks are aware that WikiLeaks is a rogue distributor of classified and secret documents from anonymous news sources, news leaks and whistle blowers. At the helm is the very charming self-promoter, Julian Assange. This man attracts controversy like honey attracts flies. Dozens of governments, banks and NGOs would gladly substitute honey with “horse manure” in that simile.

In the past 2 years, WikiLeaks has threatened—and then followed through—on the release of information troves containing copious numbers of memos, orders, private communications, and tactical analyses by governments, banks, charities, NGOs, and what-have-you. To generate buzz and prevent sabotage while they vet and compile controversial disclosures, WikiLeaks occasionally pre-releases an encrypted stash of secret documents that they call an “insurance file” or, more accurately, an information bomb. Once out there, it can never be defused—The contents can be remotely detonated by anyone with an encryption key. (This can be a short phrase that is easy to remember).

During the past 2 years, WikiLeaks has been doing exactly what it has threatened (or promised, depending upon your perspective). They have disseminated enormous troves of sensitive and sometimes embarrassing documents, phone calls, faxes, emails, and other private communications without permission from those who were party to the data. Among the infringed parties (think of this as the data ‘owner’ or originator) are the US Government, Bank of America and just about anyone else that claims domain over sensitive material. WikiLeaks justifies its acts as a 21st century watchdog agency with a calling higher than any government. Their PR spin conveys an ethical rudder that pushes for transparency in all affairs. The United States points out that outted documents sometimes reveal the name of spies, and that release endangers their lives of government agents and their families. Other documents reveal the number and location of weapon systems. And still others, reveal what one country believes to be the capacity and range of another country's weapons. But that’s not all...

For WikiLeaks, it doesn’t matter that a telephone transcript reveals personal information unrelated to the government or business affairs targeted for disclosure. For example, parties arranging a phone call reveal that a premier is delayed because he is with a young mistress or a Deputy of State can’t take a call, because she is in the midst of a fierce hangover. In effect, WikiLeaks says “Hey! These are public officials supported by their subjects or constituents. Transparency is always better than secrecy, no matter what’s in the pudding. Just throw it all out there and let the chips fall as they may.”

Of course, the US Government, it’s allies, and many public and private organizations don’t see it that way! Just because a disgruntled employee or consultant has access to sensitive documents shouldn’t mean that a 3rd party organization can air on the bathroom wall. And so, Julian Assange is a wanted man.

For the past two month, Assange has been holed up at the Ecuadorian embassy in Great Britain. I mention “Great Britain” as a geographic footnote and not to imply ownership or jurisdiction. An embassy of Ecuador is sovereign Ecuadorian territory no matter whose land surrounds it. Right?

...Well, not according to the British.

Today, Ecuador’s foreign minister announced that the country is granting asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Of course, Assange is wanted  defying threats by the British government to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy and extradite Assange to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning in cases of alleged rape and sexual molestation.

The US government seeks Julian Assange for trial in a US court on charges related to his role in the massive WikiLeaks disclosure of confidential documents and communications. Of course, the US considers these documents to be sensitive and they are each labeled at various levels of “Secret”. The US has laws that govern access, copying and disclosure. It’s safe to assume that the charge would be treason, conspiracy, theft, aiding the enemy, or something related to willful interference with process.

US Jurisdiction: How Can it be Asserted?

I understand all of that. But I have never seen an explanation as to how the US could assert jurisdiction or request extradition. Assange is a foreigner and his acts related to WikiLeaks took place in foreign countries. Does the US assert that anything labeled as “secret” by its military is automatically secret everywhere on Earth? That would be a tough argument, because it would require a bilateral reciprocation agreement. Assange has lived in Nairobi since 2007. Does the US protect documents and extradite individuals over everything that the Nairobi government considers to be a secret?

Of course, the United States is pursuing enablers within or serving in uniform, but Assange is not among them. His actions may have harmed US interests (this is certainly debatable)—but how can the US claim that it has domain over the legality of his acts or his capture and punishment? Having an extradition agreement doesn't mean that you can demand any individual that you seek. There has got to be a reasonable basis for the extradition. Doesn’t a bench warrant need a viable basis in law?



Swedes:
We Just Want to Try Him for Rape

The Swedes interest in Assange is ostensibly to charge him with a sex crime. That certainly sounds like a legitimate interest that is unrelated to the beef with Uncle Sam. But the Swedish government refuses to guaranty safe passage to a region that is not party to a US extradition treaty. They claim that they are bound by law to turn Assange over to the US. The solution to this quagmire is not simple, but it is achievable. Assange claims that he is willing to face that charge. Why not try him in Ecuador (or the country that becomes his safe harbor from American extradition). If he refuses, he could be tried in abstention by a Swedish court and the court sentence could be negotiated with authorities in the safe harbor country.

WikiLeaks: Is the Wholesale Release of
                   Secret Communiques Ethical?

What about the 900 pound elephant in the room? Can WikiLeaks claim that its mission is moral or ethical (carried out in the current fashion) morality of what Assange has done vis-à-vis WikiLeaks. My own readers at awildduck.com have pressed for an editorial opinion on the whole affair. Has Assange harmed US interests? Does it matter outside of the US? Did he break an “international” law? Should he be held accountable?  Should he be turned over to American authorities to stand trial?

I won’t weigh in on these issues here. The purpose of this posting is to question US jurisdiction and earnestly seek information & opinions on the basis for extradition. If you have knowledge of the law, the basis or the justification for that request, I invite your analysis and comment.

Could the Brits Really “Storm an Embassy”?

I certainly can’t imagine that the Brits would “storm the Ecuadorian embassy”. Good God, man! Regardless of treaties and acts, it is a sovereign country. In fact, I would think that the Ecuadorian could, at their discretion, grant Assange citizenship and then confer diplomatic status. This would compel a host country to guaranty safe passage to the Airport. Isn’t that the whole idea of ambassadors and the exchange of territory? Storming an embassy would place the UK in the unenviable and undistinguished company of Egypt (2011) and Iran (1979~1981). Who can forget the hostage taking? That event spawned a nightly TV show in the US and the career of Ted Koppel.

         Ellery Davies clarifies the intersection of Technology, Law and Public
         Policy. He is a contributor to Yahoo, CNet, ABC News, PCWorld and
         The Wall Street Journal. He is also Chief Editor of A Wild Duck.

Photo Mural—Sam Spratt, Gizmodo

Australia finds an effective smoking deterrent

Legislation against activities of compulsion are rarely successful. Even if a population is predisposed to abide by the law, they may be physiologically wired to follow the compulsion. Addiction and desires are driven by powerful evolutionary forces. People tend to find a way around statutory and cultural restrictions.

Consider the governments, churches, civic groups, schools and parents that have sought to restrict sex throughout human history—for example, among individuals who are unmarried, gay, underage, dissimilar heritage, or simply in a school, church or prison. Do laws and even physical barriers stop people from having sex?

Swollen bellies amongst high school students suggests that rules can be broken. And pregnancy represents the tip of an iceberg. It results from a fraction of sexual encounters and many are terminated before they are evident, because of the law, the parents, or the shame of discovery.

It’s easier to prevent cats from reproducing. Simply neuter them if you can catch them before they produce litters. But governments generally don’t sterilize their population. That makes it difficult to get reelected, at least in a democracy.

Smoking may not be as universally enjoyable as sex, but for smokers, it is also a powerful compulsion. How can a society ban a desirable activity that the majority agrees is harmful to health and to the welfare of the society at large? Here, then, is a Wild Duck guide to curtailing the use of cigarettes...

1.  Ban It
If a government bans a vice (like smoking), it simply drives it underground. Just ask any American who was alive during Prohibition. Alcohol was everywhere, but profits accrued to the Mob instead of to the producers and government.

2.  Tax It
Does a selective tax discourage consumption or a particular activity? It certainly seems like it should work. These are called vice taxes.

But what seems valid often fails supply-and-demand realities. If a government taxes something that is cheap to produce, people will find a way to evade the tax. Either the consumer will buy it out of the jurisdiction, import it, or the manufacturer will produce unreported products. The vast and free-flowing nature of the Internet makes all of these things difficult to police and even more likely than they were before.

3.  Scare the Hell Out of Consumers
The Australian courts have just approved of a measure against which tobacco companies fought with all the gusto they could muster. Beginning late this year, cigarette packages will be completely covered by a horrid photo that graphically depicts the consequences of smoking. It’s not just a written warning. It gets you right into a rotting jaw, cancer of the eye ball, or a suffocating child. The photo and a dire warning will cover the front and display edge of the package. The rest of the box will be drab olive green regardless of the brand. Other illustrations, cartoons or images are prohibited...not even a brand logo!

Will people find a way around it? With bans and taxes, there is a strong incentive to circumvent rules. But I don’t think that consumers will go out of their way to purchase cigarettes from unknown sources to avoid a disturbing package. People still want their smokes. With the Australian scheme, people can still smoke–the brand they crave, from a trusted source, and without onerous taxation.

But the Australian parliament realizes that smokers cannot circumvent death and disease. That burden is not foisted upon you by government. It’s a just a fact, plain and simple. Their new rules help ensure that the smokers aren’t fooling themselves. Cancer and death will no longer be out-of-site, out-of-mind.

If the goal is to reduce smoking, this last idea is likely to achieve the goal. Most of us want to live. In the United States and Europe, warnings are a bit abstract and hypothetical. Australia’s packaging rules take the danger of smoking and shift them from a theory to stark, in-your-face reality.

Australian legislators are clearly Wild Ducks at heart. They understand compulsion. For some smokers, the desire to avoid a graphically depicted, painful experience may exceed the desire to get a quick nicotine high.

Ineffective JFK airport anti-terrorism security

Check out this video, courtesy of Yahoo! and ABC News:

• A man horsing around on a Jet Ski in Jamaica Bay has a technical problem.
  It may be related to his drinking a few too many beers...


• He ditches his water craft. Friends aren’t responding to his calls. It’s night
  and the sky is dark.


• He swims toward the only thing he sees: runway lights at JFK airport.


• He climbs out of water, over a fence, walks across 2 runways, past
  motion detectors, cameras and security guards. Still dripping wet and
  wearing a bright yellow life vest, he wanders into a back maintenance
  door of the Delta terminal—all without being detected.

I don’t find it hard to believe that a $100 million security system is flawed. But I would have thought that the weakness would be “social engineering”. That’s where an operative probes for individuals who can be fooled into weakening the perimeter, revealing passwords or even deactivating security systems.

During the past year, we have endured a lot of boasting about protective measures built into the travel process by Homeland Security, TSA, NYPD and the New York Port Authority. These organizations want us to believe that our money is well spent. And yet, without even trying, a 31 year old, tipsy water sport enthusiast waltzes past counterterrorism barriers of a brand new $100 million Airport security system.

If JFK truly has the latest technology, wouldn’t there be some kind of RFID/NFC badge on every authorized individual? I would think that each individual moving on the tarmac would be tracked and identified on an alarm console  just like planes in the sky.

I suppose that we can’t expect the latest, high-tech measures at every airport, but considering the boast of a 0.1 billion dollar, state-of-the-art security system, it seems reasonable that a slightly inebriated swimmer shouldn’t be able to get this far!

Incidentally,  Daniel Casillo, 31, was arrested for trespassing into a ‘secure area’. Obviously, he did no such thing! Wild Duck’s say: Give this guy a gold medal and pray that we learn from his swim lesson. Let’s also pray that Jihadists don’t use Jet Skis in Jamaica Bay.

Is Fox News Fooling Anyone?

After years of rumors, high-profile CNN anchor, Anderson Cooper, acknowledged his sexual orientation last month in an editorial at The Daily Beast. A most eloquent analysis was offered by Huffington Post contributor, Chuck Gomez.

Today’s point of view has nothing to do with Mr. Cooper or sexual orientation. But it has a lot to do with network news and—like the Anderson Cooper revelation—it deals with the inflection point between an unacknowledged fact and one that is acknowledged by the subject, or at least, universally recognized.

Today, the inflection point involves Fox News. Once and for all, this Blog uncovers what so many readers already know. Let’s please not make this political! This posting has no conservative or liberal agenda. It doesn’t question the quality or value of Fox News (Well, at least not as a biased, editorial Blog with celebrity entertainers). It’s not meant to be inflammatory. It just shines a bright light onto an unspoken truth. A truth that many Fox insiders, friends, foes and viewers already know.

[caption id="attachment_1605" align="alignright" width="140"] Bloviation? The Spin stops here? Do you take us for idiots, O’Reilly?![/caption]

Does Fox News strive to be neutral, balanced, fair and unbiased? (O.K. These are synonyms. But it is the key question). Is Fox News a mouthpiece of the Republican Party? Does Bill O'Reilly really believe that his popular editorial show is a “no spin zone”?

To better understand how a special interest operates, it helps to understand a little bit about media, entertainment, News, and the Fairness Doctrine. AWildDuck is not an expert on all of these things, but we allude to each and you can take it from there...

Consider the World Wrestling Federation. They refer to their stage craft as “professional wrestling”. Yet, in a dispute with the World Wildlife Foundation, they changed their name and website to ‘World Wrestling Entertainment’ (WWE). This pleases linguists and anyone who cares about truth-in-advertising. After all, they are hardly professional and the entertainment nomenclature fits...

To be fair, the definition of a ‘profession’ is that participants get paid. For this reason, most Olympic athletes – no matter how good – are not ‘professionals’. That term applies only to the ones that compete for money apart from the Oympics. But by any common definition, there is nothing ‘professional’ about television wrestling (aka: WWE or “rubber wrestling”), because it is not a sport. It provides choreographed media entertainment with slapstick antics. Wrestlers bounce off ropes, flip opponents into the air, whip them into body slams and then jump on faces. Performers are rarely hurt, but actors with names like Hulk Hogan and Mad Dog yell into the camera about crushing skulls and rupturing internal organs.

At first, organizers denied that these fights were choreographed for entertainment value. It took Geraldo Rivera to push the group into more truthful packaging. Of course it is rehearsed and structured. It’s all play acting in the guise of a professional sport. But hey! Entertainment can have just as much value as a professional sporting event. Fox News is no different...

Fox may have evolved from a pure journalistic credo in its early days. But anyone who watches Bill O’Reilly’s “No Spin Zone” understands that it’s all about spin...and a pervasive religious undertone. Even journalists and editors within Fox news have gradually begun to acknowledge that the broadcaster has taken on a role of unofficial spin doctor for conservatives.

Off camera, they no longer deny the far right perspective of their ‘news’. They represent family values (at least for white, Christian families), a Republican/Tea Party perspective, and an agenda that is slightly pro-military, anti-pluralism, and somewhat redneck.

When they were disguising the agenda in a cloak of balanced journalism and the Fairness Doctrine, they thought it might win the hearts and minds of viewers—or at least undecided voters. Now that the horse is out of the barn (and the Fairness Doctrine is no longer the Law of the Land), they still serve a useful purpose. Their talking heads help to explain and interpret the Republican platform and contrast candidates from one corner of the ring. But they certainly aren’t a balanced news organization. They are a reasonably good editorial platform and a spokes piece.

For the past 6 or 7 years, the winks and nods were all too evident. They are one sided and there’s nothing wrong with that. If you don’t agree with them or simply want to learn another perspective, tune into Bill Maher or read The Huffington Post. We live in a world of balance through choice. Fox news is an extreme proponent of the far right. My only beef with the organization is that they masquerade as a legitimate news organization.

I was once a Republican. I respect Fox News. But Republican or Democrat, Black or White, Jew or Gentile, Resident or Immigrant, let’s just call a spade a spade. Anderson Cooper finally came out of the closet because rumors were beginning to interfere with his job. It’s time for Fox News to come clean, so that legions of viewers can move them back from the Entertainment column to the News & Commentary column. Face it, Bill: Fox News is biased as all get out! No disrespect intended. We’re just nudging the organization toward truth in packaging.

» Ellery Davies is a frequent contributor to Yahoo, CNet, ABCNews
» and The Wall Street Journal. He is also editor of AWildDuck.com.

stopradicalislam.org: Tactics Undermine Noble Purpose

Check out the video clip below. It’s also in Meira Svirsky’s inflammatory piece at Stop Radical Islam (www.stopradicalislam.org). US Assistant Attorney General, Tom Perez, is apparently unwilling to respond to what Rep Trent Frank of Arizona claims is a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question: Will he categorically rule out entertaining legislation that erodes free speech, even if it is against a religion (read: against Islam). Representative Frank repeatedly demands a simple Yes/No answer, even though “the defendant” attempts to explain that the answer is not quite as simple as demanded.

[caption id="attachment_1571" align="aligncenter" width="506"] Just answer the question: “Yes” or “No”. Is this a hearing or a witch-trial inquisition?[/caption]

The question and Mr. Frank’s demand for a 1-word answer–without any clarification–degrades the US House of Representatives by turning the Grand Jury session into a inquisition reminiscent of 17th Salem witchcraft trials. Unfortunately, a lot of congressional hearings slip into this mode, because US Senators and members of Congress can confer upon themselves Grand Jury status at will. It’s a slick, legal construct that means the visitor/guest is compelled to appear, has no right to an attorney, no right to cross examine, no right to abstain, and cannot even invoke the 5th amendment to the US constitution—the right to refrain from self incrimination. This wholesale withdrawal of constitutional protection is justified by the fact that the proceeding is part of evidence gathering and that no formal charges, court session or legal action has commenced. Life and liberty are not at stake and so protections be damned.

We’ll save a discussion of Grand Jury ethics for another day.^[1] What disappoints me about this particular hearing is that it was posted to stopradicalislam.org as an example of a government official who is soft on the erosion of constitutional freedoms and either soft or blind to the gradual Islamification of western democracies.

The attack by Representative Trent Frank on Assistant AG, Tom Perez, and the implication of reporting it in this way is unwarranted and misleading. It undermines the important mission of radicalislam.org.

First about street cred: I am not in favor of abridging free speech, especially against a growing threat to western democracies, even if disguised as a religion or a different cultural perspective.

I strongly support stopradicalislam.org. The public service watchdog sounds alarms and shines a bright light on a bona fide threat to western civilization. Although the scope of the threat is debated,^[2] significant numbers of individuals and a growing body of Islamic organizations are proactively and purposely undermining basic freedoms, including freedom of speech.

I once thought that Islamification was the inflammatory fantasy-fear of rednecks and others who don’t–themselves–embrace a tolerant, inclusive society. But I have grown to understand that these Islamic groups are antithetical to inclusion. They seek to bend every society that offers them sanctuary to their ridged, intolerant views.

Now, about Tom Perez and his refusal to simply say “Yes”: Give the guy a break! The Yes/No demand posed by Trent Frank in the video clip above was not only belligerent; it is intentionally presented in a way that could not be answered with “Yes”. Four times, Assistant AG Perez attempted to explain that the very act of opening a communication and presenting it to his committee could be construed as “entertaining a legislative proposal”. Therefore, he could not rule out “entertaining a bill that would restrict free speech against a religion”. (The question was inflammatory and insincere! It certainly doesn’t mean that the Assistant DA is Communist or that he seeks to overturn the cornerstone of constitutional freedom). Had he been allowed to answer the question without constant bullying, it seems likely that he would have reaffirmed his mandate to uphold the US constitution, including—especially—our right to free speech.

I still identify with the laudable objectives of stopradicalislam.org, and even the alarmist tone to most of their bulletins. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to identify with any organization that buttresses its argument with bullying and misdirection. C’mon guys...Your battle is too important to water down with unethical or intentionally misleading citations.

————————————

^[1] Pssst! Express Yourself: Are the unchecked discretionary powers of a Grand Jury a reasonable tool in a democracy? Ellery has not arrived at an informed opinion. We invite a guest OpEd from an attorney with courtroom experience, clear writing style, and an opinion that can be supported with eloquence.

^[2] For many westerners, the mention of Arabic Islam brings to mind images of terrorists, the suppression of basic freedoms, burqas, honor killings, clitoridectomies, the exclusion of girls from schools & driving, and hacking off fingers for minor infractions against narrow and extreme religious ideology (so called, Sharia Law).

What fraction of those identifying with Arabic Islam match this western impression?

Wild Ducks might debate the fraction of Islamists that exhibit religious zealotry, cultural intolerance and a penchant for violence & martyrdom (suicide during cowardly acts of terrorism). But few dispute the growing threat of a significant fraction and their front facing proxies. The institutions are just as extreme as the most radical individuals: anti-women, anti-western, anti-pluralism, and culturally intolerant. Propaganda and subterfuge is disseminated by feel-good shills, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other innocent sounding NGOs. For most westerners, the message is falling on deaf ears, because actions and television pictures speak louder than words. Acts like 911, Bangalore, Madrid, and London followed by jubilant dancing in the streets and a silence by Islamic spokespeople suggest that extremism and intolerance are either in the majority–or at least a very significant minority.

» Ellery Davies is a frequent contributor to Yahoo, CNet, ABCNews
» and The Wall Street Journal. He is also editor of AWildDuck.com.

Naming Names: Savannah’s molesters

Today’s point of view is about rapists, molesters, teenage monsters and a Kentucky judge who facilitates their ilk. She is an inadvertent enabler—Not guilty of intent, but incapable of understanding the duty of a court: justice, punishment and deterrence. (Take note: This judge is female. Is she truly incapable of imagining herself or a daughter in this victims shoes?)

The names Will Frey III and Austin Zehnder will probably not garnish the widespread notoriety of other recent predators, such as Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky or Colorado cinema shooter James Holmes. But what differentiates Frey and Zehnder from evil peers is the protection bestowed on them by a heartless judge and her retrograde court in Louisville Kentucky.

When 17 year old Savannah Dietrich engaged in underage drinking at a party last year, she became the target of two pimply faced teens. Like drooling wolves picking up the scent of injured prey, they undressed her, sexually assaulted her and posted close up photos of their joy ride on the internet. Cute–or so they thought. Harmless? Apparently it was harmless for these boys. How so?...

[caption id="attachment_1540" align="alignright" width="310"] Savannah Dietrich[/caption]

You see, these boys not only got away with assault–the victim was prohibited from talking about her ordeal! In Jefferson County, if you pass out and get sexed up by creeps, you also get slapped upside the head by a judge that can’t distinguish between felon and victim.

Of course, these kids were horsing around and they are just minors. Right? That’s how the great state of Kentucky sees it. Unable to evade capture, the sadistic youths pleaded guilty, and the judge accepted (or perhaps offered-?) a plea bargain. Was Savannah or her attorney party to this wrist slap? Of course not. Rape victims can’t bring criminal charges—they are only ‘witnesses’. Perhaps the court ’s most outrageous act was to seal the record and order the victim to remain silent about the crime, the punishment, and even the identities of her assailants (Whazzat?!?).

I, for one, respectfully disagree with the court. Wait a minute...That’s not truthful. I have NO respect for this court! Like, Savannah, I cannot accept that a just and democratic government gags the result of a guilty plea in a criminal case. This is my response to the state: Show us that you have more backbone than Kentucky blue grass, a bucket of fried chicken, and thoroughbred horses. Don’t mock justice in Jefferson. Instead of relying on web vigilantes like me, post the photos below on your public crime log.

The perpetrators are shown here.* Dear readers: Copy these photos. Blog about these boys. Make back ups to your cloud storage and tag them. Let them be searched from across the world. Show the state of Kentucky that the truth knows no bounds.

[caption id="attachment_1526" align="aligncenter" width="391"] Youthful indiscretion?  Austin Zehnder, Will Frey III[/caption]

*Note that I did not say alleged perpetrators. These boys pleaded guilty. They were convicted. But their punishment will probably be overturned and purged from the record when they turn 18.

[caption id="attachment_1541" align="alignleft" width="247"] First hunted and then gagged[/caption]

But what of Savannah. She has recurring nightmares. She has been dragged through hell. And what did the court offer her? A gag order! Fortunately, she is a brave girl. She understands that freedom and justice come at a price. Sometimes it requires personal risk. Dietrich published a tweet and named her attackers. She openly defied the court and taunted them to “Come get me”. Well, that's exactly what they did. At the end of this month, Savannah Dietrich faces a contempt hearing. What’s at stake? How about her freedom? $500 and up to six months in prison.

Can you believe it Wild Ducks?! This is America: Land of Liberty, Home of the Free, democratic, capitalist, and just a little bit half-assed. What a country!

Resources:

• Original report in Dietrich’s local Courier-Journal


• Tumbler feedback (really goes at it):


• Facebook support page for Savannah Dietrich


• Change.org petition to drop charges against Savannah Dietrich

US soldier to be jailed for self defense

Washington Times columnist, Diana West, is a credible, conservative journalist and columnist. I don’t always agree with her perspective, but I have grown to respect her professional ethics, discipline and rigorous fact checking. Unlike Bill O’Reilly, she strives for a more intellectual discussion, rather than the entertainment value of chest-thumping, party line bloviation.

The watchdog organization, radicalislam.org has reprinted West’s Blog post in which she passionately defends a US soldier, who shot and killed an Al-Qaeda detainee in Iraq as he lunged for the soldier’s sidearm. She argues that Army Ranger 1st Lt Michael Behenna was wrongly convicted for exercising his right to self-defense in a hostile combat zone.

[caption id="attachment_1477" align="alignleft" width="199"] Michael Behenna during happier times[/caption]

The fact that the detainee was an enemy combatant and that he lunged for the soldier‘s pistol is not in question. And so it’s easy for any patriot to identify with Ms. West’s outrage. Right? Not so quick...Something about this piece irks me. It took a few reads to sink in, but soon, I found myself backsliding. Why would a credible journalist make a sweeping conclusion on what appears to be a glaring omission of facts?

Kevin Gould, a reader commenting at radicalislam.org, says “There’s much more going on in this situation than this brief article presents. It’s selective and inflammatory.” Kevin’s observation is an understatement!

This report focuses on facts of convenience without investigating the backside. It uses a paucity of facts to push readers toward a “We can all agree” conclusion. But the facts are too slim to make that leap. The conclusion is not necessarily wrong, but when encountering this type of reporting, it should certainly raise our collective ‘be wary’ antennae.

She observes that Lieutenant Behenna was convicted by a military court for the unpremeditated murder of Ali Mansur, a detainee and al-Qaeda-operative in Iraq. For reasons not explained, the detainee and acknowledged enemy combatant was in the process of being released after an unsuccessful interrogation. Behenna’s superiors are convinced that he has valuable intelligence that they could not ascertain with available methods. And so—get this—someone asks this random lieutenant to escort and release the enemy, forthwith. (WildDucks know that it is very hard for me to contain a tiny bit of Blogger sarcasm).

Also unexplained is why he was being driven to his home town by Lt. Behenna, an apparent aberration to standard procedure–or why the lieutenant felt that he had the authority or moral imperative to begin a final interrogation during the drive. Even more puzzling is the fact that the former detainee, Mr. Ali, was naked at the time of his release and that he apparently lunged at his lone escort at a moment when clemency and release were imminent(?!)

Whoah! There’s a gaggle of unexplained circumstances and activities in this report!

O.K. That’s cool! Get the story out early and put a few facts on the table. Readers recognize that an elaborate, public explanation of military decisions might be unwise during the ongoing campaign to squash Al Qaeda. But with such little data on what really happened and why, it is certainly unfair to rally in defense of anything. This is not an issue of patriotism. It is simply about fair and balanced reporting. Cite the facts as you know them and–sure–toss in an opinion as columnist & armchair pundit. But a credible cannot arrive at a sweeping conclusion based on such scant data.

Yet, despite the many odd and improbable facts (or, more likely, the unexplained truths), Ms. West issues a patriotic rallying cry in defense of our brave soldier and against the court.

Brave? Quite probably. Innocent of wrongdoing? Perhaps. I can’t imagine the dangers and stress that challenge Lt. Behenna in each day that of his tour amongst throngs of enemies who are indistinguishable from friends and other innocent individuals.

Unlike two of the readers leaving feedback, Kevin Gould and Michael Sanders, I have not served with the Ranger Regiment, nor am I an Iraqi war vet. Like Diana West, I sip afternoon coffee in non-combat luxury at a distance of 6,000 miles. But even a lay person can sense that this brief article omits critical facts—Facts that were in evidence at military court. C’mon Diana! This unconventional ‘drive home’ was clearly not SOP. And the lieutenant’s decision to engage in a little Mano-a-mano interrogation is more than a little bit suspicious—Wouldn’t you say?

I feel for Lt Behenna’s family. I hope that he receives clemency if he had reasonable fear of losing control of a hostile detainee and his pistol. Yet, I wonder if he had been given a mission with a specific and undisclosed motive. In our zeal to be patriotic and supportive of coalition troops, we must recognize that Ms. West is writing an emotionally driven piece without all the facts. That much is crystal clear.

I am not demanding that facts be made public. The timing might not be in our America’s best interest. But I am wary of Ms. West’s conclusion based on what is obviously a very guarded release of ‘convenient’ facts. There is more to this one than meets the eye.

So sayeth Ellery, as it is said. What’s your take on this story?

P.S.
The IDF dilemma described in another feedback (search for Ira Curtis), presents a serious Catch-22. I would not want to be a juror on the court deciding the Israeli soldier's culpability. The decision to engage in preemptive killing because you legitimately fear giving away your position to the enemy is the stuff of nightmares. I wonder why the IDF couldn't hold the child of an enemy as a temporary POW–or perhaps deceive him as to his whereabouts?

Texas students hijack drone aircraft

Credit: Post based on Ryan Whitwam writing for Geek.com

[caption id="attachment_1457" align="alignleft" width="300"] Missile launch is triggered from Sam’s iPhone[/caption]

Look! Up in the sky…Is it a bird? a plane? No! It’s an unmanned Predator drone, hijacked by students! That’s right. Whiz kids from University of Texas at Austin took control of an aerial drone by altering its course.

The task was shockingly simple. Instead of hacking the primary control firmware, they fed its GPS mechanism a false signal, tricking the flying Al Qaeda hunter into heading wherever they wished, perhaps into the 3rd floor showers of the sorority. This was no fly-by-night operation (pardon the pun). The Department of Homeland asked students to try hacking the drone and gaining control. Was it expensive? It required only $1000 worth of equipment to seize control of a multi-million dollar piece of technology used by the US military and CIA.

The government became concerned about the vulnerability of drone aircraft after it became apparent that Iran had most likely taken control of a US drone and crashed it in Iranian territory several months ago. The Austin students, led by professor Todd Humphreys, used the GPS equipment to spoof the GPS signal being sent to the drone. Spoofing the signal means the students were able to trick the drone into mistaking their signal for the real one, allowing them to lead the drone astray. The aircraft being used employs the same unencrypted GPS signals used by government vehicles.

This hack presents a serious problem for proponents of using domestic drones. If any kid with $1000 and a little know-how can crash a drone into things or perhaps drop a payload!), well–that’s just not cricket. It is currently illegal to use drone aircraft in US airspace without special clearance from the FAA, and now it might take a little longer than expected for that to change.

RT via Popular Science

ICANN gTLD Plan Begins to Unravel

Oh ICANN, Dear ICANN. Please say it ain’t so!

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the bureaucracy that oversees the Internet. This committee of intellectuals coordinates IP address space, assigns address blocks, governs standards, administers root DNS architecture, develops internationalization, arbitrates disputes, and perhaps – most ignobly – it sets policy over Top Level Domains.

They do this all under a US government contract which evolved as the Internet grew from academic and military roots to become an all-encompassing network of global public highways. But over the years and throughout the shifting winds of politics and technology, one thing has remained constant: ICANN’s fundamental Raison d'être is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet. Obviously, they cannot ensure the stability and ready access of every web server. The operation, maintenance and connection of equipment is the responsibility of the millions of server owners across the globe. Each GoDaddy, each Google, and each individual user is a node in a vast network that gradually creeps—some pundits suspect—toward consciousness.

Since ICANN manages a public resource, there will always be political components to the organization structure and funding. After all, it is difficult to imagine their responsibilities fulfilled by an entity subject to pure, free market mechanisms. But because they are international in scope, setting standards & policy that affect billions of people in every nook and cranny of our world, they should be depoliticized to the extent possible. Every opportunity should be exploited to move each department and each function toward free market mechanisms.

Unfortunately, in the post-Esther Dyson era, ICANN has turned into a money grubbing hodgepodge of special interests. It certainly appears that they are extorting wads of cash from the public by raising fears of trademark infringement. It’s the only reasonable explanation for their insane and malfeasant decision to create unlimited global Top Level Domains (gTLDs).

If you already operate as Coca-Cola.com, why on earth should you be pushed into buying .Coca-Cola? Simple. Because ICANN will sell it to someone else if you don’t.

In the middle of 2011, ICANN cooked up a cockamamie idea to unleash an infinite number of random top level domains on the world. I tried hard to dissuade ICANN from proliferating gTLDs when it was proposed in June 2011. (I wrote about it here at AWildDuck, when the Blog was created in August). I have a few friends at ICANN, though I suspect I am losing them fast. And so, here is my mea culpa: I told you so...

No—The plan has not yet been fully implemented. It’s slated to go online in 2013. But it’s already beginning to unravel. Today, ICANN announced that due to public dissent and gross technical problems (they called it “unexpected results”), they are scrapping a new system designed to prioritize TLD applications. This is big news to the few thousand applicants who hope to own custom top level domains such as .google, .dance-with-the-stars, or .i_are_an_idiot! After all, they put up US $185,000 each to corner the market for snake oil. They see it as a potentially valuable piece of web real estate.

Dear applicants: It is not. It is smoke up your derriere—an illusion.

Listen up, ICANN: Stop duping the public. Stop profiteering. It’s not in your charter. Go back to square one. In fact, Go a few steps behind square one. you are solving a problem that does not exist. There are already too many gTLDs (.com and .gov and perhaps .org are the only ones that are useful). Everything else clouds the water and invites squatters and profiteers. They only serve to fatten your wallets or stir up trade name disputes.

A better idea: Get rid of all TLDs. Every one of them! Let current .com users own the ‘naked term’ and stop forcing little guys to repurchase their names. Please ICANN. The current debacle is just the first embarrassment. Run back. Admit the error. Give it up!

Apple’s Trade Embargo. Is it “racial” discrimination?

I generally shy away from trendy stories of the day. They are covered elsewhere and the wonks are predictable. Columnists and bloggers add spin of their own camp, either liberal or conservative. My take on these stories would be similarly predictable. That’s why I hold out for something with meat on the bone—something to which I can lend a Wild Duck insight. After all, I want the ‘wild’ part to mean something.

But today, a story making news misses a very critical fact. One that changes the conclusion. Let me explain...

Sahar Sabet is a typical America teen. Although she comes from Iran, she is a US citizen. She looks, speaks, dresses and grooms like a typical, white, suburban girl. Of course, even if she looked, dressed or behaved as a foreigner or an immigrant (an absurd determination for a country filled with immigrants), you would expect that in a shopping mall, she would be treated like any other shopper.

This weekend, Sahar and her uncle browsed an Apple store at North Pointe Mall in Alpharetta Georgia. Choosing an iPad, the salesman overheard the couple speaking in Farsi. When Sahar explained that it is the language of Iran–also known as Persia–the salesman prohibited the sale, explaining “Our countries do not have good relations”. He stated that Apple enforces a trade embargo against Iran and several other countries and showed the would be customers a written Apple policy which, itself, cites US trade restrictions.

For consumers of mainstream media, the Apple salesman seemed racist or, at the very least, ignorant. What do trade relations have to do with a retail sale? And how could he miss the fact that Sahar is a citizen of the same county as himself and the late Steve Jobs?

Sitting outside her home and talking to a television reporter, Sahar explains that she left the store in tears. Zack Jafarzadeh had the same experience at the nearby Perimeter Mall. Perhaps more bizarre, he is born in Virginia of Iranian ancestry. In the video clip below, he states that the policy smacks of ethnic profiling. Of course, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) protested the incident immediately.*

You will find a great many news stories about Sahar’s trip to the mall this week. But a few stories, like this firsthand account from an Atlanta television station include a fact that is critical and yet overlooked in the commentary. It makes all the difference in the world:

“The iPad was to be a gift for her cousin who lives in Iran.”

Wohah!...That changes everything! The US trade embargo law specifically mandates that the store shall not sell embargoed technology if they know that the product will be exported, transferred or re-exported to Iran. It’s not clear if the salesman was made aware of the intention to export the iPad, or if he was a closet racist, or perhaps he was expressing his own post-911 anxiety. But either way, this is valid trade law, and Apple would get into a lot of trouble if they violate this law.

Zack was born in Virginia. Both he and Sahar are as American as apple pie. So naturally, news reports slam the Apple salesman for profiling immigrants. They also question the role of a private company in enforcing a federal trade embargo at the point of sale. But again, they miss the point. To illustrate, consider this bump in the success story of Digital Equipment Corporation, the Massachusetts minicomputer manufacturer that rivaled IBM in the 1970s and 80s...

In the early 1980s, Digital’s flagship minicomputer, the VAX 780, had the distinction of being on the original list of embargo technology. Naturally, during the Cold War, sales of fast computers to the Soviet Union were restricted.

[caption id="attachment_1432" align="alignright" width="281"] During the Cold War, selling fast computers to Soviets was illegal, even if transferred through an intermediary or neutral country.[/caption]

Sellers of large, expensive computers generally know their buyers. Even if a deal is not initiated by the sales team, sellers defend price and competitive position. Engineers at buyer and builder talk nuts & bolts. This was no exception. But because Digital could not openly sell to Russians, they transferred the machine to an American shill organization, because an intermediary is more likely to fly under the radar while transferring the computer to the Soviets.

Bad move, Digital! The deal was discovered and the company faced an inquiry and stiff penalties. Most importantly, they were disgraced in the press.

Regarding the Apple iPad, one could question the law as it applies to a popular consumer item, one that is available in many other countries. But the law and its clear focus on export awareness by sellers restricted lends a different spin to the Apple salesman’s actions.

Just as with Miss Sabet, Mr. Jafarzadeh was purchasing the iPad for an Iranian friend who accompanied him to the store. He was in the United States on a student visa. If this fact were apparent to the salesman, then he would be compelled to deny the sale.

Incidentally, Sabet’s mother was able to purchase the iPad on a subsequent visit and an Apple spokesperson told reporters that it could also be purchased online to circumvent the policy (or at least the enforcement of the policy). While this may be the case, it might still violate US trade law. The law is clear. Certain products, services, technology and components are prohibited from being sold, directly or indirectly, if they are slated to be exported, transferred or re-exported to countries on a technology embargo list that includes Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Syria.

_____________
* Despite the warm-fuzzy title, CAIR is a widely acknowledged front for terrorists, still operating, openly, within the United States. The group’s actions speak volumes about their agenda, posing as an NGO of tolerance and cultural bridges while seeking to use our western tradition of inclusion, tolerance and accommodation to make Islamic Sharia Law palatable in America. But I digress. We can cover that story in another post.

Kids and Facebook (revisited)

My friend, Damon, wrote an insanely popular post to his own blog. Shortly after viewing a suggestive Facebook photo by his daughter’s online acquaintance (another 12 year old girl), he solicited readers to opine about preteens who post swimsuit “fashion” photos, pose suggestively, and then comment on each other’s “hotness”. He worries that it may invite unwarranted or even dangerous attention.

Of course, in no time at all, Moms & Dads were falling all over each other in their response. The feedback generally fell into these categories:

• “My little Alice would never do anything like that!”


• “I don’t allow Betty to use Facebook”


• “Why doesn’t someone demand that Facebook police the age of users?”

Related: Filter a child from online porn? Stop worrying!

[caption id="attachment_1350" align="alignright" width="109"] Damon[/caption]

A feature in today’s Wall Street Journal discusses Facebook policy towards children. Depending upon on the news source, they are either thinking of granting access to kids under 13 – or not. Forbes says that access for preteens might make them safer. Of course, the truth is that Facebook has no way to tell the age of its users—nor should they care, except for purposes of marketing demographics. Policing an online audience achieves nothing and opens up the gatekeepers to all sorts of liability.

This might be a good time to review the stats: Nearly 40% of kids between 9 and 12 already have their own Facebook accounts. In fact, more than 5 million of these kids are under 10. The numbers will grow regardless of the ‘rules’, but the good news: This is a good thing. Kids and Facebook aren’t the problem. But parents are often a problem.

Ellery’s thoughts can be summarized in a pithy string of words: Parenting, closed circles, and reading the unredacted news together. And, oh yes...Did I mention, ‘parenting’?

[caption id="attachment_1361" align="alignleft" width="188"] Avoiding online predators[/caption]

It’s easy to jump on the bandwagons of filters, censorship and parental controls. But restricting kids to online kiddie activities is rarely in order. Prohibitions rarely have the intended effect. Kids get what they want while parents encourage deceit and risk. Web savvy kids don’t need a Facebook account to post raunchy photos. Any eight year old with internet access can do it with ease.

A more practical solution begins like this: Keep PCs in an open and busy area of your living room or kitchen. Spend time with your kids. Talk about these things. Get them to close their circles (friends only). Know their friends and (depending upon age and responsibility) Friend them yourself (the one rule that I accept). But ultimately, trust them to do the right thing. If you lead by example—giving children a chance to be safe & responsible—you will be amazed at how responsible they can be.

Damon wondered Why Facebook doesn’t do a better job policing the age of its users.

Editor’s Note: Damon polled readers about a photo and comments posted
to Facebook by an early teen. Damon and some of his readers feel that
the posting is risky or inappropriate. But he did not advocate that it
is incumbent upon Facebook to police the age of its users. (I jumped
to that conclusion about his position). His poll was intended to spark
discussion. In fact, he agrees with my perspective below.

While it is tempting to blame web services for lax oversight, I really don’t think that it is realistic to expect them to police electronic traffic. It smacks of a Nanny state and it opens up every Blogger and hosting service to unwarranted liability. Facebook can no more be responsible for activity on your child’s page than the phone company can be responsible for foul language or bullying.

Imagine the maker of steak knives enforcing an “age policy”. With a sense of purpose and a massive effort, they have almost no influence over the individual family members that grab their utensil from kitchen drawers across the world. It is ludicrous to assume that Facebook could, would or even should police the age of users. That’s a job for parents! My pre-teen daughter has had a Facebook account since she could type. I accept it. It is a tool of the times. (Actually, it is an insanely useless and ill-crafted tool, but that’s beside the point). We talk frequently about appropriate use. I am included in her circles (and therefore, invited to monitor), and I continuously re-evaluate activities & venues as she matures. Facebook is many things: a Blog, a social gathering spot, a gaming site, an academic tool, and much more. Although I feel that the service has little benefit and lax standards, it is easy to monitor and it supports closed communities.

[caption id="attachment_1355" align="alignleft" width="174"] Facebook is popular with kids & soccer moms, but a lousy social network[/caption]

But let’s face it, Bucko! It’s a social network and not a baby sitter. Gossip and even occasional raunch among close friends is to be expected. It’s much more important to talk with your kids, test your trust, and constantly reassess if your progeny is living up to your expectations.

You know the drill, ducks. So Sayeth Ellery. Tell me what you think.

Green Lantern comes out of the closet

I am in favor of gay rights. Yet, today’s news is, well, a bit goofy. Is it possible that Ellery is not the progressive, tolerant Dude that I have cultivated? First some background...

20 years ago, my business partner, Gerry, and I walked across Central Park. We were wearing blue jeans—and for some reason that I don’t recall, we were horsing around and slapping each other on the back. Suddenly, a news photographer popped in front of us and took our photo. He wasn’t carrying a snapshot camera, but a big, professional photo-journalist camera. He may have asked permission to publish the photo—I don’t recall. We certainly would have given consent. Our company was undergoing venture financing. I figured the investors would get a lift by seeing their new partners in a story about the first day of summer, park beautification, or whatever.

[caption id="attachment_1325" align="alignleft" width="153"] In brightest day, in darkest night—No evil shall escape my sight[/caption]

But later, as we strolled toward a crowd on the far side of the park, we learned that this was Gay Pride Day. Overhead banners urged supporters to show their pride by wearing jeans (Don’t we all wear jeans?!). TV & news photographers zoomed in on men holding hands, butts or cuddling amongst the crowd. The next morning, Gerry and I were splashed across the front page of our nation’s newspapers. We were mortified! The caption didn’t identify us, but to our friends, colleagues and communities, we were presented as gay lovers. Outed...And we weren’t even members of the club!

I’m not gay and I doubt that Gerry is, either. At the time, I was beginning to turn away from five years of intolerance at college. As I matured, I not only mellowed, I came to abhor anti-gay activism. I became an advocate for ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, especially when it rears its head in law and public policy. Homophobia is not only callous and unfair, it arises from religious doctrine, a narrow minded perspective—or it indicates repressed homosexuality; that’s my favorite explanation.

Today, I am tolerant and progressive. I favor ratification of gay marriage (not just a “civil union”. That’s a whitewash). The time has come to recognize that this issue is more about personal freedom, expression and privacy—than about any legitimate right for a government to discriminate.

[caption id="attachment_1323" align="alignright" width="156"] Is this necessary? Is Ellery a hypocrite?[/caption]

But now, DC comics has revealed that Green Lantern likes to French kiss his mate and cuddle with him as they walk down a street in Hong Kong(?!) Is it necessary for the stewards of our super heroes to turn the comics into a political statement? I realize that Superman has Lois Lane and Batman flirts with Bat Girl (N.B. Even she has been recast as a lesbian!). I am 100% comfortable about gays in every walk of life. Not just tolerating their presence, mind you. I honestly think that they add a rich cultural dimension to the fabric of society. But I am just a bit troubled that DC is using the issue to push back into everyone’s face and begin the desensitizing process within the pages of a super hero comic.

Look at the collage of cartoon frames released today by DC Comics (from the upcoming June 2012 issue, Green Lantern, Earth 2).  Is this a distraction—or legitimate and non-political character development? Is it a reasonable part of the story line? To me, it seems like a subplot with an agenda. Even though the agenda is not offensive, I can’t quite justify it in this venue. I would be much more comfortable encountering it on the editorial pages, among my friends, and in books & films. Just, not within a DC comic. Does that make me a hypocrite? Honestly, I’m not sure. Tell me what you think?

Editor’s Note:
The title suggests that Green Lantern has “come out of the closet”. Actually, the new issue shows him to have been openly gay all along. Additionally, the character is not Hal Jordan from 60s and 70s, a member of the Justice League. He is Alan Scott, a retro character from the early comics of the 1940s.

New York & Hawaii: Frightening bedfellows lacking perspective

New York and Hawaii are bookends to 50 American states. Although separated by 8,000 km, each is rich in heritage, and with a very different political and cultural perspective. Yet, despite the distance and political differences, they are embarking on an identical and ruinous path. Bills introduced in both states suggest that legislators lack fundamental knowledge of history, democracy, economics and, especially, the nature of the Internet. More importantly, they care not a whit of personal freedoms, privacy and individual rights.

[caption id="attachment_1314" align="alignleft" width="147"] NY & HI senate: Lacking historical perspective[/caption]

I should end here with my favorite tag line, “So Sayeth Ellery”, but that would deny readers chilling facts. Facts that ought to shock the senses of every New Yorker and Hawaiian, and humiliate by association. Let’s cut to the chase: Lawmakers in the Aloha state want to criminalize anonymous internet posting while senators in the Empire State plan to create a database of every web site visited by each resident. Yes! They plan to track & archive your internet surfing history. I am not making this up!

[caption id="attachment_1262" align="alignright" width="200"] A government dB of everyone’s web surfing... Now, Isn’t that just special?![/caption]

With regrets to Dana Carvey, Isn’t that just special? After all, an individual concerned about being carded at the door is an individual with something to hide—most likely, guilty of a crime. Who else would object to registering a DNA sample before speaking on topics of the day? A law-abiding citizen doesn’t fear a government that tracks thought, medical history, private communication, bedroom fantasy, or corporate negotiation. Just what are those people afraid of?

Dear Wild Ducks: We are all those people. I am too blinded by disappointment and pity to name names or plow through the facts. (N.B. Names of the proponents are in the tags below this article). So, I offer links to well written summaries. Read along with me and weep. The US is already constructing the world’s biggest database of everything that you say, do and think. Perhaps New York and Hawaii feel left out. Or perhaps legislators in those states skipped out on high school history. More likely, they are decent individuals with good intentions, but simply poor stewards of liberty in an era of ecommerce, the Drudge Report, AWildDuck.

• New York Senate bill seeks to end anonymous internet posting
  “If the bill passes, get ready to hand over your full name and home address”


• Creepy new anti-privacy bill being considered by Hawaii legislature
  Bill would create a database detailing who visits what websites

Does anyone not find this frightening? Forget about “confidential sources”. Want to comment on a breastfeeding blog? Sure. But first, register your fingerprints with an ISP and web host! I can think of three reasons that this won’t fly. More importantly, I am concerned that our legislators don’t see this:

Reasons to avoid suppressing a privacy technology

• If a government bans free expression, the business of internet hosting & access simply migrates to jurisdictions that understand democracy. It’s the nature of any fungible medium.


• Political restrictions on existing technologies or platforms create incentives for the rapid deployment of methods that circumvent or thwart the restrictions. This has the unintended effect of causing even more interference with legitimate investigations and forensic tools.


• History demonstrates the dangers of surrendering free, anonymous speech to a government, no matter how ethical the current leaders. Governments are transient, though they try hard to be self-preserving. They do their best work when prodded by free and democratic constituents.

So sayeth Ellery.

Ellery Davies is not generally known as a liberal commentator.
But he is a political wonk, privacy advocate and editor of AWildDuck.