I recently listen to some experts talk about job creation. I have thought for some time that most of what is offered about job creation is naive nonsense. Here's why.
First a bit of history. Consider farm jobs. Today there are less than half as many farm jobs as there were in 1900. That's fact. Why? It turns out that two factors drove that change. Better farming practices, better seeds, better fertilizer, a better understanding of how to farm had a major impact. The other and more significant driver was automation, better farm machinery. This is an example of jobs where there is no realistic possibility of bringing these jobs back. Farmers are simply not going to abandon the machines that make modern farming work. Those jobs are gone and are not coming back.
The impact of automation can be seen elsewhere in the economy. Consider that over the last 25 years US manufactured goods exports have more quadrupled! Meanwhile the portion manufacturing jobs to all jobs in the US has dropped by more than 50%. Simply put, automation has meant that fewer people produce much more product. Manufacturers are simply not going to abandoned efficient competitive practices to create new jobs. The manufacturing jobs replaced by automation are simply gone and are not coming back. That said it should be noted that manufacturing jobs are in fact growing particularly among small manufacturers as manufactured goods exports continue to grow particularly among free trade partners.
To date, automation has substituted machinery for human labor as in farming or sell structured activity as in assembly lines. We are now starting to see automation impact less well structured jobs. Machine shops are a good example. There are several machine shops near my home that now employ less than half as many machinist as they once did since adopting CNC machine tools that allow a single person to do the work of many even when that work is both highly skilled and less well structured. Those jobs are gone. Work in that segment will require new skills in CNC tool use and growth in the demand for low volume CNC manufacturing.
There is a new and dramatically more disruptive automation on the horizon. Several firms are testing self driving cars. The impact of this technology goes well beyond professional drivers in two ways. First it promises to be disruptive of the transportation infrastructure generally. Why should I take a train when I can use a self driving car to go directly from where I am to where I want to go? For that matter why should I even own a car when one will come for me when I need it?
Second, and more importantly, it is an example of automation of a highly unstructured activity! If you can make a self driving car operating in a mixed ill structured world what then can not be automated?
All of this raises the issue of what happens when there are simply not enough jobs for those that want or need to work? Society has been organized around work for almost all of human history. What happens when work as an organizing principle is no longer essential?
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Monday, December 5, 2016
How Pizzagate went from fake news to a real problem for a D.C. business
Came across this today.
How Pizzagate went from fake news to a real problem for a D.C. business
It got to thinking about the internet, reality, and Trump voters. I posted this comment.
How Pizzagate went from fake news to a real problem for a D.C. business
It got to thinking about the internet, reality, and Trump voters. I posted this comment.
Trumplandia internet users ... Several things about the internet that you need to know. First, most of what you learn from the internet is simply untrue. Second, most of what is left is biased, self serving, and devoid of context to the point of being intentional distortion. Finally, there is much of value. But here's the thing, you have to take the trouble to actually check facts and think critically. Other than that you are at best engaging in self delusion. Just saying.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Blowing smoke is not a substitute for reason or rationality.
CNN Panel: Jeffrey Lord Tries to MINIMIZE Trump's China Blunder, "SO WHAT?"
During this video Mr Lord made several arguments.
First, he argued that others presidents made changes and then proceeded to offer a series of false equivalencies trying to justify Mr Trump's most recent blunder in foreign relations. It's important to note that such equivalencies are intended to distract from the actions of someone who is clearly unqualified.
Second, he argued that America voted 'to do things differently' and that America wanted this sort of 'differently'. There are a number of problems with this entirely specious argument. To begin with several million more America voters actually voted for Ms Clinton than voted for Mr Trump. Trump doesn't have a 'mandate' that can justify any and all acts.
Beyond that is the issue of 'what change'. Mr Lord would have you accept the proposition that the desired change includes these sort of actions. But is that true or is it more likely true that voters wanted a government that worked for the good of all not just big money and big business.
Third, later Lord offered the observation that 'we tried it your way and government is a mess'. While it is certainly true that most Americans think government is a mess based on numerous opinion polls is it true that 'we tried it your way'? In fact it is not. For much of the last several presidencies we have government by obstruction where a small group of politicians, more often than not radical right Republicans, have adopted a 'my way or the highway' style of politics including actually shutting down the Federal government. In that environment the country has become essentially ungovernable and no President got their 'way'.
Specious unthinking and uncritical arguments such as Mr Lord makes are part of the problem. They are not about reality or policy. They simply promote the dysfunctional view that this is about two teams driven by emotion. America deserves better.
Just saying.
Friday, December 2, 2016
Why I am concerned for America's future
I have voted in 14 presidential elections. I have voted for Republicans. I have voted for Democrats. I have voted for Independents. I have written in a candidate. On two occasions I voted for a major party nominee that I thought was actually a good choice for President. More often than not I have held my nose and voted for the less bad of two candidates. More often than not I voted for the loosing candidate. On two occasions I watched the voters elect a seriously bad President and watched as the most severe economic recession occurred.
For all of this I have not feared for the future of America. Our society is generally educated. Our principles are extremely progressive and inclusive. Most Americans at least say they support those principles. Our economy is large and strong enough to survive even extreme mismanagement and disruption.
But in this election something fundamental has changed. We have elected someone who clearly does not believe in American principles. A man who is unable to govern his own emotions. Someone who is not just racist (we've had racist presidents before) in private but racist in public. Someone who can not distinguish between his own delusional wishful thinking and reality. We have elected a pathological liar unable to be truthful when the truth would serve as well as a lie. Someone completely enamored of his own importance. Someone who is not just unfit or unqualified but someone who is actually dangerous.
Like many Americans I hoped, notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary, that in the process of forming a government Trump would choose people that while holding different views than I do at least held arguably rational reasonable views. That he might actually be an agent of change and appoint people committed to what is good for the American public. Enough appointments have now been announced that it is now entirely clear that this is not so. Rather it is clear that the same policies and people that created the problems America faces remain in positions of power.
I have watched as over the last 30 years we have abandoned the politics of policy and turned to the politics of party. As we have abandoned the notion that government should act to the benefit of the governed and bought into the absurd obscene notion that government's principle function is to support big business. As we have bought in yet again to the notion that somehow trickle down economics works to benefit the average person; never mind that we have tried it several times and it just doesn't work. I have watched as we changed American tax policy to favor big business and the wealthy arguing that that's good for the rest of us; never mind that we keep doing it and the result is wealth inequality that historically leads to societal collapse.
That's why I am concerned. That's why you should have a good think and decide if you are also concerned.
Just saying.
For all of this I have not feared for the future of America. Our society is generally educated. Our principles are extremely progressive and inclusive. Most Americans at least say they support those principles. Our economy is large and strong enough to survive even extreme mismanagement and disruption.
But in this election something fundamental has changed. We have elected someone who clearly does not believe in American principles. A man who is unable to govern his own emotions. Someone who is not just racist (we've had racist presidents before) in private but racist in public. Someone who can not distinguish between his own delusional wishful thinking and reality. We have elected a pathological liar unable to be truthful when the truth would serve as well as a lie. Someone completely enamored of his own importance. Someone who is not just unfit or unqualified but someone who is actually dangerous.
Like many Americans I hoped, notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary, that in the process of forming a government Trump would choose people that while holding different views than I do at least held arguably rational reasonable views. That he might actually be an agent of change and appoint people committed to what is good for the American public. Enough appointments have now been announced that it is now entirely clear that this is not so. Rather it is clear that the same policies and people that created the problems America faces remain in positions of power.
I have watched as over the last 30 years we have abandoned the politics of policy and turned to the politics of party. As we have abandoned the notion that government should act to the benefit of the governed and bought into the absurd obscene notion that government's principle function is to support big business. As we have bought in yet again to the notion that somehow trickle down economics works to benefit the average person; never mind that we have tried it several times and it just doesn't work. I have watched as we changed American tax policy to favor big business and the wealthy arguing that that's good for the rest of us; never mind that we keep doing it and the result is wealth inequality that historically leads to societal collapse.
That's why I am concerned. That's why you should have a good think and decide if you are also concerned.
Just saying.
Monday, November 14, 2016
Are we witnessing freedom?
A friend recently posted:
What we are witnessing is OLIGARCHY. What we are witnessing is 46% of the electorate so disengaged or fed up that they do not vote. What we are witnessing is governance by the unelected where for the second time in recent years a majority favored the candidate that was NOT elected and we get government by the unelected because of an arcane set of laws that have no place in today's world. What we are witnessing is a political elite that claims a mandate to continue policies that brought us the second greatest economic collapse in American history even though they received support from less than 25% of the governed. What we are witnessing is what happens when the country's Congress has an 11% approval rating. What we are witnessing is what happens when government at the federal and in many cases the state level has failed the governed. What we are witnessing is what happens when people are so fed up, so disillusioned with their government that they resort to protest.
Rioting is not OK. But here's the thine, if you want a free government that works for you and me and the rest of us, you not only have a right to protest; you have an obligation to do so. You have an obligation to involve yourself to oppose the oligarchy that proposes to continue policies that have not worked. You have an obligation to support efforts and candidates that will address the very real problems America faces.
What we are witnessing in the USA is called freedom. Embrace it. Love/Hate. For/Against. Liberal/Conservative. Right/Left.But is this freedom? For my part I do not think so. What we are witnessing is NOT freedom. NOT even close.
What we are witnessing is OLIGARCHY. What we are witnessing is 46% of the electorate so disengaged or fed up that they do not vote. What we are witnessing is governance by the unelected where for the second time in recent years a majority favored the candidate that was NOT elected and we get government by the unelected because of an arcane set of laws that have no place in today's world. What we are witnessing is a political elite that claims a mandate to continue policies that brought us the second greatest economic collapse in American history even though they received support from less than 25% of the governed. What we are witnessing is what happens when the country's Congress has an 11% approval rating. What we are witnessing is what happens when government at the federal and in many cases the state level has failed the governed. What we are witnessing is what happens when people are so fed up, so disillusioned with their government that they resort to protest.
Rioting is not OK. But here's the thine, if you want a free government that works for you and me and the rest of us, you not only have a right to protest; you have an obligation to do so. You have an obligation to involve yourself to oppose the oligarchy that proposes to continue policies that have not worked. You have an obligation to support efforts and candidates that will address the very real problems America faces.
If you and I fail to do so, if we continue to believe that voting once every two years is enough, then you can be sure that nothing will change.
Saturday, November 12, 2016
A few thoughts from a veteran
I am a veteran. You do not owe me anything special for I have enjoyed the many many many benefits of living in America.
I am a veteran. There is sadly nothing special about that for I am one of many many many who are.
It saddens me that this is so.
I am a veteran. If you want to respect our service actually work to build a just and fair America that works for everyone not just the wealthy and powerful for that is why I and many many many like me served.
I am a veteran. I am not a pacifist. Even so I dream of a time when there are no more of us for there are no more wars.
If you wish to honor our service, make such service unnecessary.
A rant worth reading
From time to time Facebook rants are actually worth the time to read. Herewith an offering.
------------------------
Kent Hartland
------------------------
Kent Hartland
o buckle up...I'm about to be politically incorrect.
We don't need to take America back. No one stole it. It's right here...you're sitting in it. Chillax.
Mexico isn't going to pay for the wall and we're not going to deport millions of people and break up families. If you think either one is a good idea, you're not smart and probably not a person I want to hang out with.
We don't live in a democracy. Technically we are a Federal Republic. But in reality we are ruled by an oligarchy. If you don't know what that is, look it up. Reading will do you good. You probably need to do more of it.
FoxNews, CNN, and MSNBC have an agenda and are not "fair and balanced" or in any way unbiased. I'll reiterate...read more. Read newspapers (even online ones). Read lots of opinions and sources and then (stay with me here), THINK! Form your own opinion based on as many facts as your can brain can tolerate.
Speaking of facts...there actually is a difference between facts, opinions, and propaganda. You should learn the difference. (Another opportunity to show off your mad reading skills.)
Science is real. We know things because of science. Don't be afraid of it. You have an iPhone and Facebook because of science. It's your friend.
Global warming or "climate change" as the cool kids call it IS REAL. Anyone who tells you it's not real is not a smart person and probably should not be dressing themselves or caring for children.
Racism exists. And you are probably a little racist and should work on that. Seriously.
American Christians are not under attack. We are not being persecuted. We wield so much power in this country that politicians pretend to be Christian just so we will vote for them. No one is trying to take your bible away from you. The gay people are not destroying our families—we don't need any help from them, thank you. We do a fine job of that by ourselves. So stop saying we are persecuted. You sound stupid.
Poor people need help. If you're not helping them but complaining about how the government helps them with your money you are not a nice person.
Be nice to the people who teach your children. Don't send them nasty emails or yell at them. Their job is 10,000 times harder than your stupid job. You are not a professional educator so just shut your mouth and be thankful someone is willing to teach your offspring.
You don't know what Common Core is. You think you do, but you don't unless you're a teacher. So stop complaining about math problem memes on Facebook. You can't do the math anyway.
ISIS is not an existential threat to the United States. We do not need to rebuild our military. Our military is the strongest, scariest, most badass killing machine the world has ever seen. So stop being afraid and stop letting politicians and pundits scare you.
Guns do in fact kill people. That's what they are designed to do. If you feel you need a gun to protect yourself in America, you are probably living in the wrong neighborhood and should move before you go out and buy a gun. There are like a billion places to live where you won't need a gun, or even need to lock your front door.
If you do own a gun, then make sure you know how to use it really, really, really well. Seriously...get some training because you still don't know how to record stuff with your DVR. Go to the gun range and shoot the thing a lot. Learn how to clean it properly and be able to disassemble it and reassemble it with your eyes closed. It's a freaking gun and it deserves that level of care, proficiency and respect. And for God's sake, keep it locked up and away from your kids.
If you are even a little bit crazy, sad, or pissed off...you shouldn't have a gun. And the Founding Fathers would totally agree with me.
Stop being suspicious of American Muslims. I guarantee the guy sitting next to you in the cubicle at work is probably more of a threat to you than any Muslim. He has to listen to your uninformed ranting day after day and has probably already imagined very colorful and creative ways to end you.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and all the rest are ENTERTAINERS! Stop getting your opinions from them. (Here's where that reading thing can really be an advantage.)
Stop sharing Facebook memes that tell me to share or else Jesus won't bless me with a laundry basket full of cash. That's not how prayer works. And I don't want money delivered (even from God) in a laundry basket. Nobody ever washes those things out and they just keep putting nasty dirty clothes in them. Yuck!
We are the United States of America and we can afford to house every homeless veteran, feed every child, and take in every refugee and still have money left over for Starbucks and a bucket of KFC.
Unless you can trace your family line back to someone who made deerskin pants look stylish and could field dress a buffalo, you are a descendent of an immigrant. Please stop saying that immigrants are ruining our country. Such comments are like a giant verbal burrito stuffed with historical ignorance, latent racism, and xenophobia all wrapped in a fascist tortilla.
That's all for now. I feel better.
LaMonte M. Fowler
We don't need to take America back. No one stole it. It's right here...you're sitting in it. Chillax.
Mexico isn't going to pay for the wall and we're not going to deport millions of people and break up families. If you think either one is a good idea, you're not smart and probably not a person I want to hang out with.
We don't live in a democracy. Technically we are a Federal Republic. But in reality we are ruled by an oligarchy. If you don't know what that is, look it up. Reading will do you good. You probably need to do more of it.
FoxNews, CNN, and MSNBC have an agenda and are not "fair and balanced" or in any way unbiased. I'll reiterate...read more. Read newspapers (even online ones). Read lots of opinions and sources and then (stay with me here), THINK! Form your own opinion based on as many facts as your can brain can tolerate.
Speaking of facts...there actually is a difference between facts, opinions, and propaganda. You should learn the difference. (Another opportunity to show off your mad reading skills.)
Science is real. We know things because of science. Don't be afraid of it. You have an iPhone and Facebook because of science. It's your friend.
Global warming or "climate change" as the cool kids call it IS REAL. Anyone who tells you it's not real is not a smart person and probably should not be dressing themselves or caring for children.
Racism exists. And you are probably a little racist and should work on that. Seriously.
American Christians are not under attack. We are not being persecuted. We wield so much power in this country that politicians pretend to be Christian just so we will vote for them. No one is trying to take your bible away from you. The gay people are not destroying our families—we don't need any help from them, thank you. We do a fine job of that by ourselves. So stop saying we are persecuted. You sound stupid.
Poor people need help. If you're not helping them but complaining about how the government helps them with your money you are not a nice person.
Be nice to the people who teach your children. Don't send them nasty emails or yell at them. Their job is 10,000 times harder than your stupid job. You are not a professional educator so just shut your mouth and be thankful someone is willing to teach your offspring.
You don't know what Common Core is. You think you do, but you don't unless you're a teacher. So stop complaining about math problem memes on Facebook. You can't do the math anyway.
ISIS is not an existential threat to the United States. We do not need to rebuild our military. Our military is the strongest, scariest, most badass killing machine the world has ever seen. So stop being afraid and stop letting politicians and pundits scare you.
Guns do in fact kill people. That's what they are designed to do. If you feel you need a gun to protect yourself in America, you are probably living in the wrong neighborhood and should move before you go out and buy a gun. There are like a billion places to live where you won't need a gun, or even need to lock your front door.
If you do own a gun, then make sure you know how to use it really, really, really well. Seriously...get some training because you still don't know how to record stuff with your DVR. Go to the gun range and shoot the thing a lot. Learn how to clean it properly and be able to disassemble it and reassemble it with your eyes closed. It's a freaking gun and it deserves that level of care, proficiency and respect. And for God's sake, keep it locked up and away from your kids.
If you are even a little bit crazy, sad, or pissed off...you shouldn't have a gun. And the Founding Fathers would totally agree with me.
Stop being suspicious of American Muslims. I guarantee the guy sitting next to you in the cubicle at work is probably more of a threat to you than any Muslim. He has to listen to your uninformed ranting day after day and has probably already imagined very colorful and creative ways to end you.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and all the rest are ENTERTAINERS! Stop getting your opinions from them. (Here's where that reading thing can really be an advantage.)
Stop sharing Facebook memes that tell me to share or else Jesus won't bless me with a laundry basket full of cash. That's not how prayer works. And I don't want money delivered (even from God) in a laundry basket. Nobody ever washes those things out and they just keep putting nasty dirty clothes in them. Yuck!
We are the United States of America and we can afford to house every homeless veteran, feed every child, and take in every refugee and still have money left over for Starbucks and a bucket of KFC.
Unless you can trace your family line back to someone who made deerskin pants look stylish and could field dress a buffalo, you are a descendent of an immigrant. Please stop saying that immigrants are ruining our country. Such comments are like a giant verbal burrito stuffed with historical ignorance, latent racism, and xenophobia all wrapped in a fascist tortilla.
That's all for now. I feel better.
LaMonte M. Fowler
Friday, November 11, 2016
Dear DNC: Get a grip on reality
“There’s going to be a fight of progressives versus the moderates, which, to be honest, is what got us into this place in the first place,” predicted former senior DNC official Mo Elleithee, now the executive director of the Institute of Politics and Public Service at Georgetown University.
Really? Do you think that just maybe Ms Clinton as a candidate might have something to do with how we got here? Perhaps it might have had something to do with ignoring working middle class voters. Or do you think that continuing the politics of the past in the face of Trump and Sanders might be involved. Really, get a grip on reality.
Really? Do you think that just maybe Ms Clinton as a candidate might have something to do with how we got here? Perhaps it might have had something to do with ignoring working middle class voters. Or do you think that continuing the politics of the past in the face of Trump and Sanders might be involved. Really, get a grip on reality.
Trump and Sanders are two sides of a common coin, the rejection of politics that ignores real people and real needs. One tapped anger, the other offered real solutions to real problems. If you continue to insist that it's about progressives v. moderates v. conservatives you remain mired in a system that hasn't worked and that lead to a President-Elect Trump.
Perhaps it's time to get over your labels and try actually offering real solutions to real problems. After all the anger vote went to the other guy. Just a thought.
Health savings accounts - a good idea that doesn't fix the problem.
I just listened to a conversation about repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something better. One suggestion was health savings accounts as though somehow having a saving account would actually do something about the cost of health care. Of course it will not have ANY EFFECT on medical cost. NONE.
Health care savings accounts have been around for some time as a way of allowing people who are able to save to set aside money in a tax advantaged account to deal with uninsured health care cost. If you have money you can save and are disciplined at saving such accounts allow you to reduce your health care cost by your marginal tax rate at the time the money is deposited and at the time it is used for a medical expense. That's all they do. Period.
As it happens, we have a health savings account and my wife needs some dental work done that is not fully insured. Of course we will use the health savings account to help pay for the work. But here's the thing, how we pay for the dental work has no impact whatever on the cost of the work. None whatsoever. Health savings accounts have absolutely no impact on the cost of medical care.
The skyrocketing cost of health care and insurance is a real problem. Health savings accounts are simply not a solution. Perhaps as a country we might want to consider approaches that actually address the cost of medical care and insurance. Just a thought.
Health care savings accounts have been around for some time as a way of allowing people who are able to save to set aside money in a tax advantaged account to deal with uninsured health care cost. If you have money you can save and are disciplined at saving such accounts allow you to reduce your health care cost by your marginal tax rate at the time the money is deposited and at the time it is used for a medical expense. That's all they do. Period.
As it happens, we have a health savings account and my wife needs some dental work done that is not fully insured. Of course we will use the health savings account to help pay for the work. But here's the thing, how we pay for the dental work has no impact whatever on the cost of the work. None whatsoever. Health savings accounts have absolutely no impact on the cost of medical care.
The skyrocketing cost of health care and insurance is a real problem. Health savings accounts are simply not a solution. Perhaps as a country we might want to consider approaches that actually address the cost of medical care and insurance. Just a thought.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Paul Ryan: Donald Trump 'just earned a mandate' - Really?
It had to happen. Someone was going to declare a 'mandate'. Never mind that Ms Clinton actually won the popular vote. After all we are now officially in Trumplandia and reality or facts just do not matter.
There was a brief period during the last two days when I thought that perhaps there were enough adults in Congress that actually believe in American values that there might be some hope for government. Of course, it was an entirely vain hope not supported by recent history.
Here's a thought, how about during the 2018 elections we think about doing what we failed to do this time and actually elect a Congress that can govern based on some sense of reality and rational thought.
There was a brief period during the last two days when I thought that perhaps there were enough adults in Congress that actually believe in American values that there might be some hope for government. Of course, it was an entirely vain hope not supported by recent history.
Here's a thought, how about during the 2018 elections we think about doing what we failed to do this time and actually elect a Congress that can govern based on some sense of reality and rational thought.
The Unchange Election
We elected Mr Trump. That election is largely viewed as a rejection of the existing political order, as a vote for change.
Personally, I completely agree that it is time for real change in government. But here's the thing,
Personally, I completely agree that it is time for real change in government. But here's the thing,
WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY CHANGE THE PART THAT MATTERED!We left in place the part of government that is actually responsible for the laws under which government operates.
Pick an issue. Any issue. Now ask yourself the simple obvious question, "What has CONGRESS done to address that issue?" If your answer is nothing or the wrong thing they next time you get to vote for Congress try voting for someone else to represent you.
Just a thought.
Media Fail
I was listening this mourning to PBS News Hour as it discussed the 2016 election. Part of that discussion addressed media failings. The consensus was that the media didn't do a good job of examining the disaffection that lead to Mr Trump's election. In that regard I offer the following observations.
So here's a thought; take a minute and read a bit about how Congress actually works. Here are some useful references:
- First, it's true. The main stream media did not understand or cover just how disaffected much of the country is with politics. For some time I have believed that Mr Sanders and Mr Trump are two sides of the common disaffection that the majority of citizens feel with government. Mr Trump harvested that disaffection with telling us who to blame. Mr Sanders addressed it with real proposals for what to do. It seems that it is far easier for most of us to decide who to blame than to actually engage real problems with real solutions. While entirely understandable, even predictable, it is a sad commentary of the state of America.
- Second, while true, that failure is entirely irrelevant. The real important failures are entirely elsewhere. The media, political parties, and common thinking continue to promote the absurd notion that the President some how runs the country. That notion is not simply untrue in that it distracts us from the way government really works! Congress, not the President, is responsible for making laws! It's just that simple. If you want good government, if you want a real problem addressed, then it is Congress and law that matters far more than the President. Want to get big money out of politics? That requires Congress to act. Want to do something about skyrocketing medical cost? That requires Congress to act. Want to do something about global warming? It's Congress! Most of us do not understand this simple civics truth. To paraphrase that old saw, IT'S CONGRESS STUPID! The media has failed because it treated an election where all of the House and much of the Senate was up for reelection as though it was a contest between two people representing a red team and a blue team. It simply wasn't!
So here's a thought; take a minute and read a bit about how Congress actually works. Here are some useful references:
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Trumpmouth Time Constant
Mr Trump has been in the news lately for using a teleprompter for some of his speeches. For the moment lets put aside the fact that it is newsworthy when a presidential candidate uses a teleprompter to deliver a coherent, though factually incorrect, speech.
Having delivered one teleprompter speech, the next day 'trumpmouth' strikes and Mr Trump manages to make another outrageous statement. Various RNC pundits bemoan this state of affairs and encourage Mr Trump to get and stay on message. OK, lets put aside that fact that staying on message is not the same as what a would be president actually believes, how he actually acts, or how he might actually govern. Staying on message is better than not.
A couple of days later Mr Trump actually manages to give a couple of back to back teleprompter speeches before once again getting a case of 'trumpmouth'. The cycle repeats. A few days later Mr Trump manages three consecutive teleprompter speeches before once again 'trumpmouth' strikes.
In what alternate reality is apparently incurable 'trumpmouth' a good thing in a president?
Having delivered one teleprompter speech, the next day 'trumpmouth' strikes and Mr Trump manages to make another outrageous statement. Various RNC pundits bemoan this state of affairs and encourage Mr Trump to get and stay on message. OK, lets put aside that fact that staying on message is not the same as what a would be president actually believes, how he actually acts, or how he might actually govern. Staying on message is better than not.
A couple of days later Mr Trump actually manages to give a couple of back to back teleprompter speeches before once again getting a case of 'trumpmouth'. The cycle repeats. A few days later Mr Trump manages three consecutive teleprompter speeches before once again 'trumpmouth' strikes.
In what alternate reality is apparently incurable 'trumpmouth' a good thing in a president?
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Trump and alternate reality
So on the news last night a 'millennial' Trump supporter picks up red 'Make America Great Again' had and puts it on then explains that he supports Trump because Trump will bring back manufacturing jobs to America.
Just one small issue - the had was made in China! Clearly reality need not intrude when supporting Trump.
Just one small issue - the had was made in China! Clearly reality need not intrude when supporting Trump.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Vote for the other guy, even if you think that's worse
Congress's approval rate is somewhere around 14%. It has been falling steadily for many years. Here's the data from Gallup.
A total of 469 seats in the U.S. Congress (34 Senate seats and all 435 House seats) are up for election on November 8, 2016. That's 88%.
Reelection rates are generally around 90%. Here's the data from Open Secrets.
A total of 469 seats in the U.S. Congress (34 Senate seats and all 435 House seats) are up for election on November 8, 2016. That's 88%.
Reelection rates are generally around 90%. Here's the data from Open Secrets.
So here's the thing,
- we actually do have a choice, and
- we do not need to vote for the guy that doesn't represent us.
Don't get me wrong. The other guy can be, and sadly often is, worse. But if we keep firing politicians that do not represent us sooner or later we'll get some that do.
It's a bit of a radical notion I know but, hey, the other way just hasn't worked. Perhaps it's worth considering.
Just a thought.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Cell phone privacy
By way of full disclosure:
If my phone is lost or stolen do I need my data secured? Not really, but then I do not store highly sensitive data on the phone.
In my particular case there is some inconvenience and marginal risk but it is really rather minimal.
It is significant that I'm a technologies and know technology actually works and have considerable experience with the way technology companies really behave. I have made an informed decision that neither the technology or the companies that provide it may be trusted to keep sensitive data secure. That being the case I rationally choose to limit my exposure. Others might want to think about that as well.
So am I willing to unlock my phone and have my data exposed if the phone is lost or stolen? No. My concerns are twofold.
First, I believe in personal privacy generally. I believe that each of us should get to decide for ourselves what to share, when to share, and who to share with. If I take a photo at a family gathering, there is really no harm in the entire world seeing it, but that doesn't make it the business of the whole world. If I do not choose to share no one else should have a right to see it. It is a matter of principal. So if by some mischance I loose possession of my phone I do not want others to have access to data on the phone.
Second, knowing the way phones and billing actually work, I really, really, really do not want someone else to be able to use my phone to create bills attributable to me. It is actually this matter that I am most concerned about, not the actual data on the phone.
What about people who actually store sensitive data on their phone? I believe that such people are stunningly naive. But, I acknowledge that cell phones are remarkably useful, more or less ubiquitous, and many people think it is OK to store sensitive data on their cell phone.
Should the data of people who actually store sensitive data on their phone be protected? Yes. As a society we frequently require that we be protected from our own mistakes and bad decisions. So while storing sensitive data on your phone is, in my view, a bad decision, I do think it should be protected.
Should that protection be absolute? No. Privacy rights in the US derive largely from the Fourth Amendment. That protection immunizes data from search unless there is a valid warrant.
This is one of the central issues at the core of the current Apple v. FBI controversy. Notwithstanding all that has been said or written there is simply no absolute right to privacy in law. Indeed, claims that cell phone data should have an absolute privacy right are novel and unprecedented in that no other data storage mechanism or device, save a corporal human, possesses such rights.
Much that has been said or written effectively asserts just such a right but it does not exist, nor, in my view should it. The Fourth Amendment expresses two essentials of privacy. The first principal is that by default our person and writings, and by extension our data, is private and not subject to government scrutiny. The second is that notwithstanding the first principal there are circumstance where there is a legitimate government interest that overrides the first principal. That is what a warrant is.
Should an exemption to warrant search be created for cell phones? No.
While there are exceptions to warrant search, such exceptions are rooted in profound social relationships such as marriage or religion. While many may have a strong personal attachment to their cell phones there is simply no underlying social relationship.
It is important to realize that cell phones that store data are simply small computing devices able to connect to various networks for various purposes including making actual phone calls. The principal distinguishing characteristic from other computers is their size. Indeed, everything I can so on my cell phone, I can do on my laptop or on my desktop even though I can not put either of these in my pocket.
Other computing devices do not have warrant exceptions. Indeed, such devices are routinely subject to search under court order.
Common sense
- I own a smart phone
- I store some data on the phone
- I do not store highly sensitive data on the phone
- The phone unlock is secured by fingerprint and long relatively secure password
- The data on the phone is encrypted
- I am a very senior technologist very familiar with the related technologies.
Now lets consider privacy.
In my particular case there is some inconvenience and marginal risk but it is really rather minimal.
It is significant that I'm a technologies and know technology actually works and have considerable experience with the way technology companies really behave. I have made an informed decision that neither the technology or the companies that provide it may be trusted to keep sensitive data secure. That being the case I rationally choose to limit my exposure. Others might want to think about that as well.
So am I willing to unlock my phone and have my data exposed if the phone is lost or stolen? No. My concerns are twofold.
First, I believe in personal privacy generally. I believe that each of us should get to decide for ourselves what to share, when to share, and who to share with. If I take a photo at a family gathering, there is really no harm in the entire world seeing it, but that doesn't make it the business of the whole world. If I do not choose to share no one else should have a right to see it. It is a matter of principal. So if by some mischance I loose possession of my phone I do not want others to have access to data on the phone.
Second, knowing the way phones and billing actually work, I really, really, really do not want someone else to be able to use my phone to create bills attributable to me. It is actually this matter that I am most concerned about, not the actual data on the phone.
What about people who actually store sensitive data on their phone? I believe that such people are stunningly naive. But, I acknowledge that cell phones are remarkably useful, more or less ubiquitous, and many people think it is OK to store sensitive data on their cell phone.
Should the data of people who actually store sensitive data on their phone be protected? Yes. As a society we frequently require that we be protected from our own mistakes and bad decisions. So while storing sensitive data on your phone is, in my view, a bad decision, I do think it should be protected.
Should that protection be absolute? No. Privacy rights in the US derive largely from the Fourth Amendment. That protection immunizes data from search unless there is a valid warrant.
This is one of the central issues at the core of the current Apple v. FBI controversy. Notwithstanding all that has been said or written there is simply no absolute right to privacy in law. Indeed, claims that cell phone data should have an absolute privacy right are novel and unprecedented in that no other data storage mechanism or device, save a corporal human, possesses such rights.
Much that has been said or written effectively asserts just such a right but it does not exist, nor, in my view should it. The Fourth Amendment expresses two essentials of privacy. The first principal is that by default our person and writings, and by extension our data, is private and not subject to government scrutiny. The second is that notwithstanding the first principal there are circumstance where there is a legitimate government interest that overrides the first principal. That is what a warrant is.
Should an exemption to warrant search be created for cell phones? No.
While there are exceptions to warrant search, such exceptions are rooted in profound social relationships such as marriage or religion. While many may have a strong personal attachment to their cell phones there is simply no underlying social relationship.
It is important to realize that cell phones that store data are simply small computing devices able to connect to various networks for various purposes including making actual phone calls. The principal distinguishing characteristic from other computers is their size. Indeed, everything I can so on my cell phone, I can do on my laptop or on my desktop even though I can not put either of these in my pocket.
Other computing devices do not have warrant exceptions. Indeed, such devices are routinely subject to search under court order.
Common sense
- Cell phones should support privacy
- It should not be immune to warrant search
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Apple v FBI: What does the judge's order actually say
The specifics of this order are very important and have been widely distorted and misrepresented. This post attempts to state the essential elements of the order in a simple non-technical manner so that others may better understand the issues.
The order itself can be found here. There was some subsequent alteration of the original order (link needed). In summary it requires the following:
The order itself can be found here. There was some subsequent alteration of the original order (link needed). In summary it requires the following:
- the creation of software that bypasses the delay and destruction features associated with unlocking the phone
- keying the software to this specific phone
- provide mechanisms that allow the FBI to access the phone to conduct a brute-force unlock
The order further provides:
- The phone may be in Apple's possession during the unlock process and work performed at an Apple facility
- Apple need not provide the software in any form to the FBI
- Apple is free to dispose of the software as it wishes
- Apple is compensated for their work supporting the FBI
Note: if this summary of the order is in any way factually incorrect or biased please let me know.
Apple v FBI: To what degree is encryption actually involved
In forming an informed opinion about this mater it is important to understand some of the technical matters involved particularly as they relate to encryption.
To understand this consider a slightly different phone. This phone is such that the only way to access the data is to unlock the phone and the underlying storage mechanism does not involve encryption and is immune to physical attack. The unlock features remain the same.
Would the users data protection on this imagined phone be more, less, or unchanged?
I believe that the answer is unchanged. Any attempt to unlock this phone would almost certainly result in destruction of the data in just the same way as the actual San Bernardino phone. Once the phone is unlocked the data would be available in precisely the same degree as the San Bernardino phone. There is simply no effective difference in the data protection.
That illustrates an import element of the San Bernardino case in that encryption of the user data is not actually at issue with respect to the work required by the judge's order. Rather it is a side effect of the work being ordered that exploits a designed in feature, many would argue weakness, of the phone.
However, there is an element related to encryption that is involved. The design of the actual San Bernardino phone requires that the software to disable the login delay and delete features that protect unlocking be signed with Apple's authorization key. This is not strictly an encryption key but is, in some ways, related. It prevents some software not authorized by Apple from being loaded onto the phone. Without this key the phone will reject the modified software and the login delay and delete features may not be subverted.
Locking and encryption on the phone
Briefly user data on the phone is encrypted with a key that is unique to the phone. The encryption technique used is strong and Apple does not have this key nor can it be accessed without unlocking the phone.
As a convenience to users Apple's design provides that once the phone is unlocked the key used to encrypt the user data is automatically available and users may conveniently access their data without encryption interference. Note that this is a conscious explicit design choice made by Apple.
As a convenience to users Apple's design provides that once the phone is unlocked the key used to encrypt the user data is automatically available and users may conveniently access their data without encryption interference. Note that this is a conscious explicit design choice made by Apple.
To protect the phone locking scheme Apple uses two features. One imposes an increasingly long delay between successive failed login attempts. This is a common technique to thwart brute-force attacks by making them take so long as to be impracticable. Another, if enabled (I believe this is optional and am unsure of the default setting), provides that user data on the device is destroyed if there are excessive successive login failures. This is another common technique to insure that even if someone is willing to take the time to execute a brute-force attack, the data will be destroyed before the attack can succeed.
The San Bernardino order
The San Bernardino order requires Apple to disable the delay and destruction features so that the FBI can execute a brute-force attack, unlock the phone, and access the encrypted user data on the phone. Technically, it is an exploit of the consumer convenience feature designed into the phone.
The specifics of this order are very important. The order itself can be found here. In summary it requires the following:
- the creation of software that bypasses the delay and destruction features,
- keying the software to this specific phone,
- providing mechanisms that allow the FBI to access the phone to conduct a brute-force unlock
The order further provides:
- the phone may be in Apple's possession during the unlock process,
- Apple need not provide the software to the FBI,
- Apple is free to dispose of the software as it wishes,
- Apple is compensated for their work supporting the FBI.
Does this work involve encryption?
The short answer, contrary to what many believe, have said, and argued is NO.To understand this consider a slightly different phone. This phone is such that the only way to access the data is to unlock the phone and the underlying storage mechanism does not involve encryption and is immune to physical attack. The unlock features remain the same.
Would the users data protection on this imagined phone be more, less, or unchanged?
I believe that the answer is unchanged. Any attempt to unlock this phone would almost certainly result in destruction of the data in just the same way as the actual San Bernardino phone. Once the phone is unlocked the data would be available in precisely the same degree as the San Bernardino phone. There is simply no effective difference in the data protection.
That illustrates an import element of the San Bernardino case in that encryption of the user data is not actually at issue with respect to the work required by the judge's order. Rather it is a side effect of the work being ordered that exploits a designed in feature, many would argue weakness, of the phone.
However, there is an element related to encryption that is involved. The design of the actual San Bernardino phone requires that the software to disable the login delay and delete features that protect unlocking be signed with Apple's authorization key. This is not strictly an encryption key but is, in some ways, related. It prevents some software not authorized by Apple from being loaded onto the phone. Without this key the phone will reject the modified software and the login delay and delete features may not be subverted.
To what degree is encryption actually involved?
Actually none. Security is certainly involved but not encryption proper.Apple v FBI - Much ado about a routine court order
Consider the following situation:
The fact pattern surrounding the current controversy over the San Bernardino cell phone almost perfectly parallels the fact pattern above. The cell phone is equivalent to the safe deposit box. Apple is the bank. Apple's software is the vault. Apple's IOS signing key is the bank's safe deposit key. Once that key is turned the FBI may execute a brute force attack equivalent to drilling the user's lock.
It is significant that the fact pattern in the Apple controversy is not new nor unique in any way. It is significant that the law is well established for dealing with this sort of issue.
There is something in a safe deposit box in a bank vault. The box requires two keys to unlock. The customer holds one. The bank holds the other. When the customer wants to access the box they must show the bank that they are entitle to access the box and present their key. The bank will unlock the vault, allow the customer to enter the vault, insert the bank's key into the box locks and allow the customer to use the customer's key to unlock the box so that the contents may be accessed.
Now suppose the FBI wants to access the contents of this safe deposit box. The FBI must ask a judge to issue an order to the bank. The judge listens to the FBI's arguments and if the judge finds they have sufficient merit, the judge will issue an order that requires the bank to open the safe deposit box. To do so the bank must unlock the bank's vault, provide the bank's key to the safe deposit box, and allow the FBI to drill the customer's lock causing damage to the bank's box.This situation occurs with surprisingly regularity. It is well established law that the bank is obliged to obey the judge's order and cooperate with the FBI to open the safe deposit box at issue.
The fact pattern surrounding the current controversy over the San Bernardino cell phone almost perfectly parallels the fact pattern above. The cell phone is equivalent to the safe deposit box. Apple is the bank. Apple's software is the vault. Apple's IOS signing key is the bank's safe deposit key. Once that key is turned the FBI may execute a brute force attack equivalent to drilling the user's lock.
It is significant that the fact pattern in the Apple controversy is not new nor unique in any way. It is significant that the law is well established for dealing with this sort of issue.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
The real issues and Apple v. FBI
So there is much ado over a judge's order in the San Bernardino terrorist shooting. It's now gotten to that special place where facts and reason are trumped by emotion and PR. That is more than just unfortunate since there are some real and very important issues that really should be examined.
As part of an ongoing investigation into the original events the FBI ask Apple to assist in unlocking one of the terrorist phones. This led to the issuance of a court order to compel Apple to assist and considerable public controversy . A description of the order events and the some of the subsequent controversy can be found in Wikipedia entries.
Much of the public controversy has centered on privacy and encryption in the context of cell phones. Among the claims made are
If we allow ourselves to be distracted from real issues they do not get addressed. If they do not get addressed we end up with unsolved problems and bad laws. It's really rather simple.
Some background
Briefly, on December 2, 2015, 14 people were killed and 22 were seriously injured in a terrorist attack at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California. A description of the events and aftermath can be found on Wikipedia.As part of an ongoing investigation into the original events the FBI ask Apple to assist in unlocking one of the terrorist phones. This led to the issuance of a court order to compel Apple to assist and considerable public controversy . A description of the order events and the some of the subsequent controversy can be found in Wikipedia entries.
Much of the public controversy has centered on privacy and encryption in the context of cell phones. Among the claims made are
- customer data stored on cell phones is private and should not be subject to government examination
- the court order is an attempt by government to gain universal access to all cell phones
- the court order is an attempt to weaken encryption and provide the government with a key that can subvert encryption
- the court order is an attempt by the government to in appropriately force Apple into government service
Briefly what is wrong with the current controversy
Consider the following:
- Is individual data on a cell phone immune to warrants for its recovery? The short answer is no. Such data is fundamentally no different from other data stored elsewhere and is no more or less subject to warrant search.
- Is the court order an attempt to secure a back door to gain universal to all cell phones? The short answer is no. Here the details of the order and the technology involved are significant. Specifically the order provides that Apple assist the FBI to unlock this specific phone by modifying the login delay and excessive login failure delete feature of IOS in a fashion that is unique to this specific phone, that the phone may be under Apple's control during this process, that Apple need not provide the software to accomplish this to the FBI, and that Apple is free to dispose of the software after the phone is unlocked. The net consequence of this is that no universal method ever exist to unlock all cell phones and that the limited ability to unlock a specific phone may be destroyed after the phone is unlocked.
- Does the court order weaken encryption? The short answer is no. Rather the court order seeks Apple's assistance in exploiting a specific design characteristic (weakness) of Apple's product on this and other Apple cell phones (though not all). While the details are somewhat technical, Apple's design provides that once the phone is unlocked the encryption key for Apple provided encryption of user data on this specific phone is available and encrypted data on the phone may then be accessed. Unlock protection for the phone is provided by the two features the judge's order requires Apple to bypass.
- Is Apple being inappropriately forced into government service? The short answer is no. It is well established law that companies and individuals are subject to judicial orders that require them to do something. Apple is entitled for compensation for its work. The law and order provide for such compensation.
What is significant here is that there is little to nothing that is unique, exceptional, or fundamentally controversial about the order or its effect. The design defect in Apple's products is doubtless embarrassing to Apple given their market positioning but the legal and technical issues are actually narrow and clear.
Real issues and why they matter
Notwithstanding all the controversy, almost all of it misses the most important issues.
- Is there a legitimate societal interest in the data at issue? In user data on cell phones generally?
- Should some data be immune to warrants? Should cell phone data specifically?
- Do users have a reasonable expectation of data protection and privacy on cell phones?
- Should manufacturers be compelled to use weak encryption?
- Should manufacturers be subject to court orders that subvert manufacturer provides electronic locking (not encryption) when the technical mechanism to do so exist?
There are doubtless other real issues.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
An open letter to voters, particularly young voters
I'm 73. I've voted in every presidential election I've been eligible to vote in and all but 2 other national elections. In my entire adult life, that's 50 plus years for those arithmetically challenged, I have voted for a political party candidate for president I actually thought well qualified and reasonably honest exactly ... once. Other than that I've held my nose and chosen the lesser of two unqualified opportunistic choices.
In my life some presidents have accomplished some good. Others have been so destructive as to make me wonder what we as a people were thinking. Most have ultimately been dishonest. We have had some congresses that worked in the interest of the electorate at least some of the time. In recent years we have had congresses that by any metric serve only moneyed interest.
A significant majority of Americans are just fed up and have adopted 'a pox on both your houses' attitude with this business as usual. That's why we have Mr Trump and Mr Sanders.
As a nation we are at something of a crossroads. We can choose business as usual, a continuation of dishonest and ultimately evil candidates for president and (this part is important) congress. We can also choose something different.
If you are a voter, if you want change, if you want honesty, if you want principled representation you need to get involved. You need to be part of the primary process. You need to be part of the actual election.
If you do, there is some hope for change. If you don't you can be certain that governance will continue as usual. If you don't you can be certain that the problems that inflict US society will continue and get worse.
Get involved. Get informed about the candidates for president and just as importantly congress. Vote.
It's just that simple.
In my life some presidents have accomplished some good. Others have been so destructive as to make me wonder what we as a people were thinking. Most have ultimately been dishonest. We have had some congresses that worked in the interest of the electorate at least some of the time. In recent years we have had congresses that by any metric serve only moneyed interest.
A significant majority of Americans are just fed up and have adopted 'a pox on both your houses' attitude with this business as usual. That's why we have Mr Trump and Mr Sanders.
As a nation we are at something of a crossroads. We can choose business as usual, a continuation of dishonest and ultimately evil candidates for president and (this part is important) congress. We can also choose something different.
If you are a voter, if you want change, if you want honesty, if you want principled representation you need to get involved. You need to be part of the primary process. You need to be part of the actual election.
If you do, there is some hope for change. If you don't you can be certain that governance will continue as usual. If you don't you can be certain that the problems that inflict US society will continue and get worse.
Get involved. Get informed about the candidates for president and just as importantly congress. Vote.
It's just that simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)