Newsflash: People surprised that EVERYTHING is monitored

So for the last couple of months the Edward Snowden drama has been like a bad soap opera. Sad, monotonous, and weirdly predictable. I suppose most people were surprised we actually live in a police state, search and seizure protections have been gutted, and forfeiture of "criminal" assets has turned many a police force, now bloated and cash-strapped as the "war" on drugs money and "homeland" security money dries up, into a profit-seeking entity.

What now?

Apparently the response from Lavabit and many others has been just to curl up and go away. The latest to do this is Groklaw - an informative site I have been a huge fan of. "We can't be private in our communications, so we give up." is the summary of most of these sites' goodbye letters. Unlike most sites though, Groklaw watched the watchers. Yes, there are risks involved in watching the surveillance state back. But like all resistance, lawful and otherwise, it's a necessary risk.

Even the Guardian is standing firm - a better summary as to what the combined security apparatchiks in the US and UK are doing: http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/19/british-snoops-to-the-guardian-nice-litt

I know, I know, it's a lot of links to Reason, but then, it's nice when they keep summarizing what it is that I care about.

On Mass Shootings...

In every instance, we failed the victims long before the madman touched a firearm. One cannot rationally argue that these people descended into madness in a vacuum. Someone, somewhere knew something. And did nothing. The "this is not my problem" attitude condemned the victims to their fate.

In short, we are ALL to blame. People here don't ask anyone else if they're okay (incidentally, a study of suicides makes reference to how many suicide notes stated that had just someone even pretended to care, the person would not have killed themselves). People here don't say something when they see something, especially in northern VA - see a toddler making a beeline for the sliding door to run onto a busy street? Not my problem. Someone's car broken down? Honk and swear - make sure to not offer any help. Guy shot and bleeding out next to your gas pump? Step on over, pay no mind.

At the same time the left has closed mental health institutions in the name of humanity, and the right cut access to mental healthcare because they see it as welfare. This abandons the caretakers as well as the mentally ill.

The social contract broke down into utter selfishness. That's what's killing people.

Of course, it's much easier to make the assault weapons ban and magazine size restrictions in effect in CT at the time of the last shooting national. American Exceptionalism: repeating the same thing the states tried on a national level and expecting different results.

Enterprise Time Tracking Software Idiocy

Going between client sites all the time I also get to touch a lot of "enterprise" time tracking software packages. Most of these must be the most retarded (apologies to those with mental disabilities, there is no way you could actually invent something that dumb).

Of course, companies need to know what their employees and consultants are spending their time on. This is not the problem. But ERP systems' (they want to be called this, but they aren't). The problem is, in a word, usability. And this leads back to the classic dichotomy between the two types of software in the world:

Elective Use Software

Compulsory Use Software

Elective Use Software:

By definition, it's what a user elects to use. In order to be elected, this software must provide some sort of value or reward to the user, usually revealed in a day-in-the-life product planning exercise. The test is simple: Does a user's day or particular activity get markedly better with the product vs. without? One can also use the term made famous (but not invented by) Steve Jobs: "suck less"

The hallmarks of software of this sort then, is that provides utility, and so is actually something you can use, and will use because it makes your day better. Not only that, but most software of this nature also has the job of convincing you of the utility it provides quickly, and intuitively.

Compulsory Use Software:

Classic IT software falls very much into this category, as does just about anything labeled "enterprise". Because the person purchasing the software is not the person using it, usability, and by extension, productivity takes a back seat. Really. Look at SAP, look at the time entry systems where you work, and stuff written by your internal IT departments for internal consumptions. Cumbersome user interfaces, unclear instructions, and overall very unintuitive.

The irony. The enterprise planning software and time trackers actually impede productivity as they are designed today. Bravo.

Holy Cloud Computing, Batman!

I have been spending the last couple of months working educating a client about cloud computing, building demos, and so on. If I hear another sales droid try to explain cloud computing in the terms of their products, I'll puke.

A couple of observations that most sales droids seem to not be aware of:

1. Having VMWare installed is not cloud computing
2. Oracle software (including WebLogic) is fundamentally incompatible with cloud computing

The above combination is a new term I'll post here: "Could Computing"

In other words, it's a waste of time and effort. Here I'll explain my assertions:

Cloud computing has nothing, in theory, to do with virtualization. It has to do with elastic, on-demand scaling for applications. Virtualization makes it easier. But even with virtualization any clouding effort will fail because of the achilles' heel of most organizations: configuration management.

Which leads me to explain my next assertion: Configuration management for Oracle products isn't just hard, it's damn hard. Look at the use cases at most of the Oracle shops: Servers are configured with IP addresses and not names, TNS Listeners are hard-coded with IP addresses and not names, and database configurations get incredibly complicated, very quickly. A lot of time (and money) is spent on "clustering" applications that should be running as independent parallel applications and load-balanced, but aren't because developers would rather code their customers or employers into a corner with massive, monolithic applications. This tends to derail the "clone and boot" methodology of elastic scaling (cloud computing) in most shops. Because of the effort involved in getting an Oracle database server up and running, and the effort to get something like WebLogic running, and have everything talking happily, the installations are static, rigid, and fragile.

Which explains why VMWare bought SpringSource: sell free stuff to companies who don't know any better. You're damn right I bought that stock.

How Long Must One Study to be This Idiotic?

In its infinite wisdom, VANOC included bits of Leni Riefenstahl (yes, that Leni Riefenstahl) in its promotional videos. Awesome - now all we need is bits of 1984 in there, and we'd have the perfect video track to what's turning out to be the largest military presence in western Canada since World War II. Fifteen minutes of hate, anyone?

In other news, almost 1000 new CCTV cameras now go live in the "Olympic Zone," and are supposedly to be turned off again after they're over. Mmmmkay. Can we at least rename call the Games the 2010 Oppression Games? 2010 Police and Military Games?

Another opinion, nicely summed up is on the Guardian.

At least we can look forward to "Olympic Oppression Done Right" in London in 2012 - they don't need to add any more cameras.

Yikes - more rumblings from the (gun) control crowd

From her AP soapbox, Deborah Hastings once again makes her point for gun control, stating that since the murderers responsible for the latest shootings had permits (to possess, not carry), we're all guilty by association.

She knows so little about the reality of firearms legislation that she confuses the license to possess (required in New York state, for instance) and a license to carry (called a CHP or CCW license). That right there says this is not her brain talking.

She acknowledges the other side of the argument with one sentence and one fragment:

Gun enthusiasts say there is no way to prevent human beings from committing insane acts. Whether they have a gun permit or not. (sic)

That's right. That is the main argument here. People are still getting shot in Britain, SE DC, Canada, Mexico, New York City, and Detroit, and in far greater numbers than anywhere you accuse of weak gun laws. Whether proof of "need" is necessary, as in Canada, or an outright ban like DC, Mexico and Britain, it does not work. Kids are still getting shot, and violent crime decreased at lower rates after the law changes than it did in the USA during the same period, in terms of number per 100,000 of population.

And don't give me that "90% of guns are traced to the USA from Mexico" line.

Since you don't want to read Fox news, I'll quote them too:

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

Do the math.

So what's the solution? Banning guns did not work. More guns do invite more accidents, just like more cars do. Maybe licensing people to exercise their first amendment would be a start.

Man with Gun spotted on Google Street View

Awesome. Gun, yep. Liquor, yep.

It's nice to live somewhere where you can do that, and not cause a panic in the sheeple.

November 4: We all lose.

Voter apathy abounds once more, as people get tired of the hyping for the big election. But no matter who wins, the real winner is big government. You have two candidates promising to expand government to do this and do that, and insisting the USA can support its debt load to pay for it. While that may be true, I remain unconvinced that more government is the cure to the ills that ail us.

Let's see:

The War:

It's a war on ideology, not a nation. Can't win a war against an idea. Big Brother rings with "War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength." You have one candidate stating that telling the enemy affected by the idea how long they have to lie low before they leave, and the other telling everyone that the mess made by the USA needs to be fixed as best as possible. I agree with the latter, because while the USA plays world policeman, other countries are tired of cleaning up afterward, especially when a lot of vitriol flowed their way too.

Trade:

One candidate blames all ills of the economy on globalization, and has made NAFTA his sworn enemy. This shows his absolute ignorance about how NAFTA actually works to the benefit of the USA. Let's see - the USA gets access to Canadian labor, and can send its professionals freely to Mexico and Canada to build their own businesses.

In return Mexico gets the "hope" of jobs by those businesses, and gets to sell its oil at cut rate prices. Canada gets to "hope" that US companies buy its products while having to compete for professionals with US companies able to pay more and benefitting from a much lower tax structure. Plus Canada is given the good grace to be able to sell its natural resources at 1980's prices.

The USA gets to ignore rulings from the WTO against duties in contravention of WTO rules. The USA also gets to ignore rulings by the NAFTA panel for duties that violate the trade agreement. And it clogs the same panels trying to eliminate the sanctioned counter-veiling duties.

So in short, the USA wins. It gets cheap Canadian electricity, saving California from Enron. It gets to tax the piss out of Canadian roofing products that should have no tax. It gets cheap Canadian oil, natural gas, and special treatment for environmental regulations in Canada.

So Obama thinks that Canada will decide to be nice, and negotiate an even better deal for the USA?

Try this:

• The USA gets to pay for natural resources at Canadian market prices, in Canadian Dollars.
• Making the NAFTA trade commission rulings binding.

What does this do for US "Joes"?

• Double the price of natural gas.
• 20% increase in the price of lubricants
• 50+% increase in water prices for the western USA (which will be reflected in vegetable prices!)
• Car prices in the USA would increase 10% or more - remember that Canada makes almost half of the parts for cars built in the USA.
  

Should the USA decide to "strong-arm" negotiations (like canceling TN visas):

• Every Canadian NAFTA professional enables the employment of 2 American workers, average.
• Departure of the estimated 20,000 NAFTA professionals would cost the USA another 40,000 jobs at the minimum.
  

A great start to "fixing the economy", Obama. What's next, "Arbeit macht Frei"?

Personal Responsibility:

The clamor for Obama also underlines the willingness of people, in times of uncertainty, to demand they "be taken care of" by government. This is not startling, but certainly eye opening to see how impoverished the "American Spirit of Independence" really is. Under Obama, especially under a Democratic super majority, expect your right to fail to be severely curtailed, and if you do succeed, to be penalized harshly to "spread the wealth around."

If my business makes more than 250,000 per year, it pays more corporate tax. Great - why should I grow beyond this and employ more Americans then? The average 7-11 makes more money than this. Proprietors get doubly screwed.

If I am "rich", and depending on which debate you listen to the Democrat's definition ranges from "over $40,000 per year" to "over 150,000 per year depending on their audience, you get to pay more tax too. In reality this amounts to little more than what the Bush tax cut took out, but you're approaching Canada's rate, and Canada gets cheap health care.

At least Obama can get away with mentioning that there is a problem in some minority communities of motherhood out of wedlock feeding the cycle of crime. I applaud at least that shred of remaining personal responsibility. It beats "lebensborn" camps any day.

Conclusion:

We're screwed on the NAFTA issue alone. And don't get me started on baseless measures like gun control - it's really helped keep the murder rate in Chicago, DC, LA, and Oakland down, hasn't it? "Common Sense" is about as malleable as the term "rich." If you know nothing but are asked to opine on something, what makes sense to you won't make much sense to someone who knows anything about the subject.

The return of the "fairness doctrine" translates to "we don't appreciate the fact that people enjoy listening to foaming-at-the-mouth neocons ranting on air" so we'll make stations carrying them put on stuff that advertisers won't pay for because nobody wants to hear it if they want to make money. Great. Real fair, that is.

McCain isn't much better, but at least electing him would keep the American tradition of a divided government keeping insanity and change in check.

News of the "Death of American Capitalism" grossly exaggerated

As there is further evidence of the bills on the unsustainable becoming due, let me remind you, humbly, of this:

Eight billion in farm subsidies. (Federal budget, 2006)
One trillion in oil company subsidies. (est.)
One trillion in nuclear energy subsidies. (est.)

Now, please explain to me where the capitalism part comes from.

For all of the blaming of the "free market's" role in the economic correction (say "meltdown" like you're out of breath or something), let me remind you that there isn't one, at least in America.

Much of the subsidies are returned to Washington in the form of fees paid to lobbying firms, probably a quarter in all.

Things to be said to consumers:

Nobody made you sign the leases, loans, and mortgages at variable interest rates.

Nobody told you that signing the leases, loans and mortgages absolved you of following a sound financial course.

So why did you?

Why make the rest of us pay?

Handout/bailout passes, markets plunge even more

Bound to happen. Why you ask?

Because the markets weren't afraid of the correction. They were afraid of government's reaction to a healthy correction.

It just goes to show you that Congress is really run by CNN hype-mongers.

Edit:

Washington Post's Howard Kurtz looks at this, and comments on how journalists are told that "well, you don't have an MBA. Trust us." Had I been there I would have shot back and stated "well, you people seem to think that leveraging synergies in the enterprise is always a good idea."

The point is, this crisis is MBA and press-made. While the mortgage and investment derivatives markets were deregulated during Clinton's first term, there is blame for both parties here, and just as much blame on consumers for signing mortgage contracts that they either didn't read, didn't understand, or being so desperate that they'd bet their dream on a bubble. But you can't blame the consumer. Unless you don't want to win the election.

Think of this way. 50 years ago, it took a working family (that would be one bread winner) about 10-20 years to pay off a single family home. Today, it takes two bread winners 40 to 60 years, and was rising ever faster. Measuring costs and prices in working family years or average income years does put the prices of things into a clearer perspective.

Alas, this does not fit the view of neo-classical economics, nor does it fit the hype-and-hype strategies of the press or the MBA corps.

Another Reason I left Canada: Bill C-61

Canada currently imposes a "fine" on all digital and analog media purchased, ostensibly to compensate artists for copyright infringement you'll do with that media. If you use your CDs for a more legitimate purpose than fair use, you paid the fine anyways.

Obviously, you're guilty, proof being irrelevant. This is akin to gasoline having a surcharge added for the speeding ticket you're expected to get.

This has backfired on the music industry. If you're on the side that states that the sales have fallen because the music industry hasn't made all much worth listening to in recent years, rather than piracy, you'll applaud this: Canada's RIAA arm got a serious smackdown about two years ago when the defendant successfully argued that no further damages were due because the fine for the crime had already been paid. That meant that because of the media reimbursement/fine/tax, copying music and video had basically been legalized.

Of course, copyright holders could not let this stand, and so had their henchmen in parliament propose a draconian addition, currently called bill C-61. Hon. Minister of Industry Bill Prentice deserves to lose his seat for this. Here is the summary - you'll note similarities with the US DMCA:

• Circumvention of encryption, no matter how trivial (like xor 81), is now a federal offence (called a felony in the US)
• $500 fine (not clear if it's a minimum or a maximum) for each copyright violation (so a Youtube posting will average $20,000)
• Unlocking of cellphones counts as circumvention of encryption (even if a provider locks your personal cell phone)

The issue, as always, is the fine print, usually skipped by the press. Critics who watch out for this sort of thing argue that the search and seizure rights granted by the bill and others on the books it refers to effectively make Canada a police state, like it isn't already (ask me about September 2003 at Vancouver International Airport one day).

Protests are cropping up all over the place, according to the CBC.

What's really missing from the debate are the following points:

• The new bill would empower distributors, who are the copyright owners (artists surrender this to get distributed), so it does not help artists, and thus does not help creativity.
• Security through Obscurity would also take over the Canadian technology market - it's okay for your bank to use XOR 81 encryption, since it's "illegal to circumvent." Tell that to your ID thief in Russia, and see if he cares. He's thankful his life was made easier.
• Security companies, those that nudge vendors to make their software more secure, now face legal penalties like they do in the United States. Point out another flaw in Internet Explorer, go to jail. There. Microsoft's happy.

Feel safer already?

The point is, the criminals on the networks don't care about this, and they are outside the reach of Canadian law. But the folks whom you trust to keep the people with your information honest will see jail if they tell the people with your information that they're not being responsible.

Good work, Canada!

The AG declares you guilty

It looks like another suspension of the 5th amendment is under way in congress. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced HR4279, "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008". Slashdot of course has the discussion of this.

What this bill purportedly does is create an office of intellectual property enforcement within the "Department of Justice", with powers to seize equipment that contains just one file of "dubious origin." Interestingly, seizure of items seems to be under the same rules as pioneered in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, and copyright and trademark infringements are now bona fide felonies. I recall the drug control programs working rather well in the USA, don't you?

So, basically, your computer now belongs to the government, since within your browser's cache there is a guaranteed image file covered in some sort of copyright dispute. I suggest they check Mr. Conyers' computers first.

The Saturday Funnies #1: noreply.com apparently gets your mail

Funny for a couple of reasons. Or sad.

So this guy registered donotreply.com (Washington Post, warning, reg req'd sometimes) as a joke in the 90's, and gets confidential emails from all sorts of places - Halliburton's now-famous KBR in Iraq, some banks, and with them all sorts of legal threats from technical luddites who seem to think he's wrong for opening or reviewing emails sent to his address. Sweet.

I guess the really cool thing is he keeps it all on a good natured blog, and if he's mailed a copy of a donation to an animal charity he'll take down the ostensibly offensive post.

It's not like he's posting SSNs, account numbers, or classified information here, although stuff does end up in his inbox, I am sure.

And, instead of hassling the guy, the DHS should give the guy a medal - otherwise their misconfigured emails would end up in the hands of the Russian mob.

Blogger questioned by the FBI for online comments

This blogger was invited down to the local FBI office for his trip through the wringer for posting criticisms of laws, the FBI, and homeland security. Oddly enough, he had the guts to post about that too.

Apparently they censored his blog first though.

Nice!

Say it's not so, Britain! CCTV is not a deterrent?

The Telegraph has an article where police admit openly that drunks are not deterred from attacking each other, or the occasional passersby, by the proliferation of CCTV cameras. This was admitted in front of the House of Lords, no less.

Just imagine - the drunken rabble does not care that it's being recorded while stomping the head of a hapless victim against a curb. And they'll get away with it - another study showed that 80% of images captured were of such poor quality that they neither helped get a conviction after the fact or even identify one of the perpetrators.

Great. At least the family gets to see their loved one's last moments alive, or more commonly, being able-bodied on grainy CCTV recordings.

Maybe it would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists. Wait! They were on CCTV too!

World AIDS Day

Well, I guess it's that day of the year again where we should all feel bad about not having done enough to ... well, have done something.

Everyone agrees that what's been done is not enough. The profit-oriented pharma industry has developed hideously expensive drugs of dubious value, and denied them to those unable to pay. Those with insurance have found their benefits limited, and bump into the "lifetime benefits limit" or "annual benefits limit" two thirds of the way through treatment for cancer, or something less serious.

So, all I ask, righteously cloaking myself in the names of the nameless victims in Africa: Billions of dollars were given. Where did they go?

Corrupt governments. UN palm-greasing, and hand-wringing trips for good PR. Funding conversion to Christianity (hey, look at what the evil Afghans did to our proselytizers ... err... missionaries - special at 11. Skipping the (no) good they did).

I'll make a bet that less than 10 cents of every dollar sent actually do "something" to help. Make that five cents of every dollar.

Oh, wait, that would appeal to reason, not emotion. Right on, CNN. Way to make me feel bad, but only about the three little children in that mud hut in Africa.

Supreme Court to hear on 2nd Amendment

Well, this ought to be interesting. We have DC on one side, saying the right to have a firearm is not being infringed if it's denied outright, and a security guard denied a permit to have a firearm in the district on the other side, all of this backed by the Cato institute.

The NRA-ILA was against this, since, well, their reason for existing was being threatened.

So what happens if firearms ownership is ruled a collective right?

Good question. At worst, the new democratic president would order all firearms in private hands taken away, and the USA would be just like the UK, with its skyrocketing violent crime rates. Sure, fewer people die there, but a lot more get curbstomped by drunk thugs.

What happens if this becomes a clear individual right?

Well, if the National Firearms Act gets thrown out entirely, then even convicted felons could legally purchase any firearm available, although many states have clear rules that prevent that, and those laws would not be invalidated.

Most likely there would be a backlash with the new presidency, and likely new, more restrictive laws would be enacted. Like California, where you pretty much have to be shot before you can shoot in self defense (without being charged with a felony), this would likely be the national case. The revenge of the liberals would be upon us, and self defense be made illegal.

I stuck my neck out and posted the following on the Washington Post article and editorial discussing this:

To the "government will help us" people: Specifically in the District, the right to police protection is a COLLECTIVE RIGHT. This means, according to case law, that you have to recourse if the cops don't show up when a robber wants your wallet, which you gave him, and now wants your daughter. Remember Warren vs. District of Columbia (1981).

"Children Die" because of guns. They sure do, but this is lack of parental guidance, and as much the fault of the parents. Teaching your children to not touch, and get an adult is simple, yet most people abrogate their responsibility to their children to the state.

"The streets will run with blood":
Well, Virginia's crime rate has dropped, as have those states with "shall issue" concealed carry laws. These laws state that you need not have a "valid reason" (like being a friend of the sherrif, as is the case in LA county, California) to apply for a permit. The only exception is Philadelphia, but this is clearly a case of illegal guns, and not legally purchased ones. VA Tech rampager Cho purchased his pistols legally because laws were not being followed. Note also, that you're statistically less likely to be shot by someone with a concealed pistol/weapon permit than you are by a cop - CHP holders have had more stringent background investigations done than most police, all the way to the FBI level. They are the least likely to commit a felony, ever, even lower than police.

"You're more likely to be shot with a gun in your home. This study proves it." You're right, but if you look into the statistics, they include guns brought into the home by the assailants, and also count criminal on criminal activity, like dope houses getting shot up. Statistics are meaningless unless one looks at the real numbers in question.

Now, I am all for gun control, but control the illegal stuff first before controlling what I have. I have not broken any laws, and restricting me as if I would, could, or will break the law breaks my ... what is it, 4th amendment right to due process?

Outlawing Discovery

I have had this in my bookmark list for a long time, and read it again today. Basically, it's the government crackdown at the behest of sheeple and the mollycoddling politicians of this country to stymie home science in the name of public safety.

Before you nod and say "rightfully so" note that most great discoverers, entrepreneurs, and thinkers all experimented to some extent while being children. Do we really want to strangle our innovative potential? Look at what that potential made a reality for you...

To quote the article:

“To criminalize the necessary materials of discovery is one of the worst things you can do in a free society,” says Shawn Carlson, a 1999 MacArthur fellow and founder of the Society for Amateur Scientists. “The Mr. Coffee machine that every Texas legislator has near his desk has three violations of the law built into it: a filter funnel, a Pyrex beaker, and a heating element. The laws against meth should be the deterrent to making it – not criminalizing activities that train young people to appreciate science.”


The Wired Article

Sciencemadness.org (very interesting reading!)

How 9/11 Changed Me

As I mull over the moments that I had at a backup site to the stock exchange, hastily evacuated out of fear that the attackers would also hit financial backup sites of the USA, coming home to see the smoke from the Pentagon from my balcony, and accommodating those were stuck in the district after a complete lock-down, I find it interesting on how the news networks harp on and on about patriotic this and patriotic that. NBC had a poll saying that over 60% of people responding felt that government was not doing enough to combat terror.

My point exactly. You may as well say that we haven't sacrificed enough of our freedoms for our security.

How stupid, ignorant, and dangerous. Turning this country into a police state is what the terrorists wanted, and they have succeeded. Ask some honest questions:

• How many terrorists were apprehended under the "Patriot" act? Convicted, even under "judge, this man is guilty for reasons we cannot tell you, so please issue the verdict" kangaroo courts?
  
  None.
  
  
• How many terrorists were stopped under laws that existed prior to 9/11, convicted in open courts, under the rule of law we so love to espouse?
  
  More than zero. Less than five.
  
  
• How many cameras did it take in the UK to stop determined terrorists? How many wiretap laws?
  
  Not enough.
  
  

We, the people, have handed victory to the terrorists and emboldened our enemies, because we will not stand for our rights.

Take our guns. Check, new assault weapons bans in progress will ensure terrorists and predators are better armed than we are (see the events in England as a reminder).

Take our right to self defense (c.f. California's escalation in equal measure statute vs. Castle statute of Virginia). In progress - California, Maryland, and the northeastern states leading the way. Therefore, we're absolved of personal responsibility, but so are the cops, as proven in court in DC that they have no responsibility to protect you.

Take our right to a fair trial. Check. Secret letters in secret courts are not enough here - clearly we need more national security letters.

Take our right to due process of any measure. Check. Like Australia, we gladly allow guilt by association on secret facts, as long as it isn't us.

Oh wait, I violated a presidential order, as open discourse can be construed as "undermining Iraq reconstruction efforts." F*** free speech.

My friend's bagpipe playing a sorrowful Piobaireachd in memoriam from noon until midnight, on the hour that day was for the people. And the loss of our freedom to come.

Yes, I feel safer already. Don't you?

Terror, Freedom, Sheeple, and the Will to Lose

Just when you thought it's not going to get any worse:

• Airline passenger data is being shared between the EU and the USA. Well, only one way - the USA gets the data.
  
• Any name can appear on a "terror watch list" with no due process, and no process to get that name off
• More and more cameras record crime and terrorism - have they ever stopped something?
• Renewal of the warrantless wire tap measures in the US Government, bypassing the secret FISA court system (which, by the way, has a 24 hour turnaround time and has never turned down a request)

All for your security?

Let me tell you, the terrorists are winning.

Why? Because they want to oppress us. They do no care who does - if we do it to ourselves, then fine.

It is the fear of the conservatives, and the liberal nanny-staters that is allowing western governments unprecedented powers with no checks or balances. The evolution of technology has made this even simpler for the governments to go on fishing expeditions.

And you thought it was all about shooting them in the "other front" in the War on Terror.

So in fear, we have thrown out the rule of law, and its basic tenet: You must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable does not mean some bureaucrat thinks you're guilty. I means that people must be convinced by being presented with facts that you are.

It won't happen to you? Think again.

Mohamed Haneef, the Indian doctor accused by Australia as a "collaborator" in the UK terror plots, had charges against him dropped by the police for lack of evidence. What happens? Work visa revoked, medical license revoked. No court hearing. Reason given: "character grounds" (link), because someone involved was his second cousin. No due process.

Don't have an islamic name? Think that will save you? Some poor 7-year old boy named Michael Martin is on the no-fly list, and can't get off. (Washington Post) Pronounced guilty by the state, again with no due process.

Who is the original Michael Martin the state thinks we need to be protected from? The atheist philosopher who debates the existence of God? Sounds good to me - off to Guantanamo with him. (Goooogle)

Ever seen a psychiatrist or psychologist? Ever had a prescription for anti-depressants? HR 2640 will make everyone who ever had any sort of treatment suspect. No, not deemed "mentally defective by a judge" per the BATF form (whatever that means), but simply flagged as a "May not own" in the NICS database. Depressed? You just gave up your right to an effective form of self defense, not to mention a great time sporting. Veteran? Immediately suspect, although veterans have a clause and a process to get removed from the list - go beg in front of a desk jockey, I wish you luck. No due process.

Why are we doing this? Is it really too much Bourne Supremacy or 24 where they always only get the call of the bad guy?

The sheer idiocy of it.

And in the meantime, the democrats in Congress do what they do best: have hearings. Clearly, the assault weapons ban needs to be re-instated too - look and how many AR-15's and AK-47's have been used in crimes in the recent years (within US borders! Not Sudan!)