Politics, Economics, and the Law
I don’t care for drones on the battlefield. While it is quite possible they cut down on the number of our own military personnel getting killed and/or maimed (you will hear this referred to as “saving lives,” though the drones certainly don’t appear to be saving the lives of anyone else), I believe they create an insurmountable moral hazard.
I am no happier to have them flying around in U.S. airspace. Wired reports that there are, at present, 64 known drone bases on U.S. soil. The number of drones and bases is likely to increase, and drones are likely to proliferate widely. That there would be drones, and drone bases on American soil is interesting, but hardly shocking. The military also has a great many other vehicles, weapons, explosives, etc. on American soil. After all, where else are they supposed to put these things when they’re not being used for the intended purposes? But what uses will these drones be put to, while they’re here? Well, surveying military bases, government property, the occasional disaster zone, and maybe the odd bit of completely-totally-accidental surveillance.
“Oops, it seems we’ve inadvertently spied on you. Don’t worry, we’ll be sure to get rid of that information. Hand to God. Right after hanging onto it for 90 days to see whether we can make a legal case for keeping it, and passing it on to other government agencies if we can.”
Call me cynical, but in the present political and legal climate, I see little reason to suspect the information won’t be retained, given even the flimsiest pretense of a reason. Especially when you’ve got people such as Virginia’s Governor Bob McDonnell saying that police drones would just fantastic.
Increased safety and reduced manpower are among the reasons the U.S. military and intelligence community use drones on the battlefield, which is why it should be considered in Virginia, he says.
Indeed. It’s vital that our gendarmerie be able to enforce order with minimum of cost and inconvenience. And while police drones, at present, are extremely unlikely to act in any capacity other than tracking and surveillance, is it completely out of reason to expect them to evolve into an armed form? Not a week goes by where you don’t read about a questionable police shooting, or wrong-address SWAT raid, or somesuch event. Are police drones something we actually want?
Not that what we want matters very much. The State will exert its will when and where it cares to, so long as we react with our characteristic passivity.
Lawfare reports that Senator Rand Paul (R. KY) has introduced legislation intended to prohibit (for the most part) the use of drones for surveillance by the U.S. government. I wouldn’t bet the farm on the bill passing, but it is nice that someone in Washington is attempting to nip this in the bud.
It appears that I may soon have to start adding “Yes, that Kansas” when I tell people where I’m from.
My fine(ish) state has managed to avoid embarrassing spotlighting for a while (well, sort of, anyway…), but it seems this situation may soon change, as the state science standards are coming up for review. You may recall how this went last time, and it’s likely as not that we’ll have a similar kerfuffle this time ’round.
Ken Willard, who would like to assure you that he’s definitely not a “crackpot,” views the standards currently being proposed as flawed, because they “ignore evidence against evolution, don’t respect religious diversity and promote secular humanism, which precludes God or another supreme being in considering how the universe works,” which seems like a roundabout way of saying the standards don’t give the desired prominance to his views that “a wizard did it.”
Sadly, I’ve yet to track down the full text of Mr. Willard’s letter. I’d very much like to read it, though in all likelihood it will just make me mumble to myself in frustration, as I really don’t see the alleged impasse between evolutionary theory and faith. Probably because I’m not a Biblical literalist.
Anyway, I’ll be keeping an eye on this and commenting further. With any luck at all, the Great State of Kansas will come off looking just as silly as we did five years ago.
Information concerning Kansas’ science standards can be found here: http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4972
It wasn’t “news” the last time I wrote about social media and the degredation of privacy, and it isn’t this time either. It wouldn’t have even been “news” if I’d written on this a couple of weeks ago, when I meant to.
Paul Venezia wrote a good article comparing what is being done in digital space to analogous situations in physical space. The thrust seems to be that these sort of snooping activities, all too common now, are widespread mainly because they’re very easy to do, and there aren’t as many laws concerning them. Reading your email is somehow different from reading your physical mail beacuse, well… it just is. Internet snooping, while it would certainly seem to violate the legal protections of privacy, doesn’t violate the letter. And that makes it A-okay.
A Texas researcher added an app to Facebook, allowing you to name enemies. I haven’t kept up with the story, if there’s indeed a story to keep up with, but by now the app could well have been axed. It’s well known that Facebook has consistently told users to get bent regarding a ‘dislike’ feature. The advertisers-first angle is, of course, spot-on. Facebook is an artificially friendly(ish) place, and that’s good for Facebook’s customers. If the only available options are to either like something, or ignore it, that suits companies just fine. No one can ever hate them, and they’re all seperated only by the degree to which people love them. It’s hard to fault Facebook, really. Most of us would probably do something quite similar, if hawking users’ information would net us $4.27 billion dollars during the year.
On the topic of Facebook, the House shot down a bill that would have outlawed the practice of employers requesting Facebook login information. Also fun, they’re claiming rights to the word ‘book.’ And here’s a look at what Facebook sends police if they subpeona your account.
More in privacy and security news:
Found on Popehat, the Ninth Circuit rejects the government’s attempts to base criminal prosecution on violations of usage agreements. The majority opinion is a pretty entertaining read, too.
The NSA, fattened on post-9/11 dollars, is building a gigantic data center in Utah. I’ll have more to say on this in the future, because it’s a Really Big Deal, but for now I’m just somewhat alarmed. I’d encourage you to be alarmed as well. I’d also encourage you to download a copy of TrueCrypt, and encrypt all your data. Maybe your email too, just for giggles. If my tax dollars are in some small way paying for this, I want to make sure they’ve got plenty to keep them entertained. AES encryption with a suitably strong password should keep even the government busy for a while.
Get out your chemicals and rubber hose, the FBI wants to “advance the science of interrogation.”
The Independent reports that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will be requiring airlines to submit passenger details, even though they’re flying into Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean, and not crossing over American airspace. DHS will “make boarding pass determinations up until the time a flight leaves the gate … If a passenger successfully obtains a boarding pass, his/her name is not on the No Fly list.”
Delightful. I’m always impressed when my country enacts policy that sounds somewhat similar to what the Belarussian’s are doing.
The justification for this is, I’m quite sure, that a terrorist might fly into any one of those places, and then simply wander into the U.S. by land or sea. And if you stop thinking about it right about there, it sounds almost reasonable (ignoring things like privacy, jurisdiction, and sovereignty). But why wouldn’t these
bogeymen terrorists simply go to Guatemala, Belize, or Greenland? From there they can pass through Mexico or Canada, and into the United States. It’s a little (or, depending, a lot) further, but what’s a little driving when you’ve got something to blow up?
Naturally then, DHS should be collecting information on travellers headed to those locations. But what if they simply land in a country adjacent? You can see where I’m going with this. A security policy such as this, taken to its logical conclusion, leaves you monitoring everyone, everywhere. And if you commit to monitoring every possible external threat, it seems very silly not to keep an eye out for the internal ones too, which would make some sort of internal passport system suddenly appear “reasonable.” As ever, the bigger devils are in the implications.
As for the rest of the countries involved, they all need to go to their rooms and think about what they’ve done.
Austin Carroll, a (former) student at Garrett High School in Indiana, was expelled for a post he made on his personal Twitter account. There seems to be some lack of clarity of whether or not he accessed Twitter from his home computer or a school computer. In either case, it appears that the school’s computer system is able to (and apparently does) track posting’s from students’ accounts.
Where to even begin? Stories such as this angry up my blood before I’ve even begun to unpack and examine the implications.
Naturally, if the student is using a school computer, the school is within their rights to regulate the manner in which their computers are used. Yet even if we accept the school’s position that Carroll accessed Twitter from one of their machines, that still leaves several issues. Firstly, isn’t expulsion for a bit of relatively harmless profanity rather harsh? It seems like the sort of transgression which could be addressed with lesser punishments. And if expulsion is on the table for an offense such as this, one would hope that this is clearly spelled out in the usage policy. I’m sure there are provisions for punishments “up to and including expulsion,” but I somehow doubt that any of the students would have seriously expected expulsion to be leveled for cursing. It seems more like a thing you bring to bear if a student has made threats of violence.
Now let’s consider what it means for us if the school is mistaken (or, to be somewhat cynical, misrepresenting the facts). If the school is allowed to regulate speech in cases where a student is neither using school property, nor engaging in threatening speech or speech related to illegal acts, then the school is asserting total control over students’ speech, and the students effectively have “privileges” to speak, and not “rights.” Privileges which can be revoked at the school’s pleasure, if a student expresses themselves in a manner which offends the empowered school officials. The rights of minors are of course already curtailed, but given Carroll is a senior in high school, and it is nearly April, it is reasonable to assume he could easily have already turned eighteen, and therefore is legally an adult. To condense and make explicit, if Carroll is eighteen, and had posted his tweet from home, the school district is asserting the right to punish adults for (and thus control) their private speech, based not upon public-safety necessity, but simply upon what they feel to be appropriate.
Numerous locales have various “anti-bullying” legislation either enacted or in the works, which would regulate both what occurs at the school, and what occurs outside of school. Most of these seem to be overly-broad, to the point of chilling what is, or should be, protected free speech. The Carroll expulsion appears to lack even the flimsy “public safety” framing of these statutes, resting wholly on the school administrators’ sense of propriety. Happily the student body of Garrett High School appears to have reacted to the expulsion quite poorly. But if we as a society roll over on issues such as this, we set rather unnerving precedents, confirming to those in these positions of power that control of our private speech is a thing they can do. It invites authoritarianism. Those who would act as our censors should be called out, shunned, and their power delegitimized.
(I considered posting a link to Garrett High School’s website, but as I cannot be certain of directing you to the correct place, I shall refrain.)