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.

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.

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.

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.

Senate approves limits on the filibuster rule to speed debate - latimes.com

Senate approves limits on the filibuster rule to speed debate - latimes.com:

Senators give up their ability to filibuster – or hold endless debate – on the procedural step that is required to proceed to a piece of legislation. In exchange for giving up the right to filibuster on the motion to proceed, both sides are guaranteed the opportunity to offer two amendments to the bill – a particularly important provision for the minority Republicans, who have long complained they are forced to filibuster because Reid blocks them from trying to amend bills with votes on provisions Democrats dislike.

Even though senators can still filibuster the actual bill, eliminating the filibuster on the procedural step will cut days off the debate time.

Over the years, senators have reached a gentlemen’s agreement not to press the requirement that they remain on the floor talking for any filibuster, as was the case in the classic Frank Capra movie.

One aspect of the “talking filibuster” will be put in place: Once the Senate achieves the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster and vote on a bill, senators will need to remain speaking on the floor if they refuse to waive the 30 hours of final debate time that is allowed.
Once the vote threshold is reached to end a filibuster on White House nominees to district court, debate time will be reduced from 30 hours to two; for sub-Cabinet positions, it will be limited to eight hours.

Voters don't get to vote on Congressional rules.  Indeed, few voters know or even care about them.  Yet these rules are at the heart of what can and can not happen in Congress.  They are at the heart of our elected representatives ability to address our country's needs.  To organize and pass laws.  To engage in the democratic process of representative government.

While it is true that the Senate filibuster rules are not the only Congressional rules problem.  They are part of the problem.  What Common Sense finds distressing about this issue, is that this even this extremely modest and largely ineffective change is the product of agreement between the Senate majority and minority leaders!  Certainly the Senators voted to approve this change.  But, and this is an extremely important but, your elected Senators didn't get to openly engage this change because the existing Senate rules would not allow a more substantive change.

Common Sense believes, as do the overwhelming majority of voters, that Congress doesn't work.  That it does not serve the needs of citizens.  Part of the problem is a handful of obstructionist congressmen.  But part of the problem is congressional rules.  Common Sense thinks it is long since past times that these rules change.  That's just common sense.

Related articles

• "Senate approves modest restrictions on filibusters"
• The Senate approves rules for a sort-of reformed filibuster

VW’s Solar Installation Largest Of Its Kind Among U.S. Auto Factories - HybridCars.com

VW’s Solar Installation Largest Of Its Kind Among U.S. Auto Factories - HybridCars.com:

Mostly my common sense postings are about things that are not as they should be.  Occasionally, though, something comes along that makes outstandingly good common sense and this is one such.  Common Sense wonders what would happen if more firms followed VW's example and generated some fraction of their own power needs?

Congressional Follies - No budget, no pay?

Now there's a proposal floating around the House, remember the House is controlled by the Republican right, that suggest raising the nations debt ceiling for 3 months.  Under the terms of this proposal, if Congress hasn't passed a budget in that time then Congress wouldn't get paid.

It seems like a fair idea.  Congress, over the years, has created the fiscal issues facing the country.  The ongoing Congressional follies have so offended voters that something around 80% have a negative opinion of congress.  Not paying employees that are not doing their job seems like a fairly good idea.  Actually firing them seems to Common Sense like a better idea, but sadly that's not on the table.

But is not paying Congress a good idea?

For openers, there is a problem with the proposal's violation of the 27th amendment.  There might be a typically Congressional way around that issue using sequestration of pay and arguing that since the money is held in escrow the 27th amendment doesn't apply.  That sort of begs the question.  Is Congress doing their job playing games like this?

There's the reality that the Senate has a long history of not passing budgets.  Life, and spending, goes on without budgets generally through the mechanism of continuing resolutions that roughly say everyone just keep spending like you've been.  The simple reality is that lack of a budget doesn't in any way effect spending!

There's the reality that Congress can, and generally does, spend money absent a budget.  Really. A budget is just that.  It doesn't actually spend any money.  Individual spending bills are where the money really gets spent.  Here it should be noted, that spending bills need not, and frequently do not, conform to budgets.  So the proposal to a significant degree just sets up a political fight without actually dealing with the reality of spending vs income, read taxes.

There's the reality that the debt ceiling has nothing to do with spending.  The authorization for spending has already happened and the money has already been spent.  The debt ceiling is really about allowing us to pay our bills (after all we are the government).  Here, Common Sense supposes, not paying Congress might make some sense excepting that the bill requires Congressional pay be held in escrow so the Congressional pay actually will get spent!

There's the reality that the proposal holds individual members of Congress hostage to the Congressional leadership's idea of what the budget should be.  Note here that individual members of Congress while they get to vote on the budget don't actually get to create the budget.  Rather the budget is the creation of Congressional leadership and various Congressional committees whose chairpersons and members are appointed by the Congressional leadership.  Holding Congress hostage to it's leadership is certainly not democratic.

All things considered, this latest episode of the Congressional Follies is just, sadly, more of the same.  Lets go have another political fight that means nothing and does nothing to solve the problem.

Here's an alternate common sense proposal, if the House and Senate can't deal with spending and taxes by the 90 days they want to allow themselves,  they are all bared from any future elected or paid role in federal, state, or local government and are bared from being employed by any entity doing business with any government entity.  The notion is that they would have to actually have a job like most Americans.  We'd still have to put up with the Congressional Follies for another couple of years but perhaps with a different set of employees we might actually get a Congress that is interested in actually dealing with the countries problems and not so much interested in political follies.

Related articles

• Possible snag for Republicans' no-pay budget plan
• "House Republicans to vote next week on three-month extension of debt ceiling"
• US Republicans back debt limit increase
• 27th Amendment gets publicity in budget battle
• The House's terrible idea

JP Morgan CEO Gets Pay Cut After Trading Loss - ABC News

JP Morgan CEO Gets Pay Cut After Trading Loss - ABC News:

Briefly the story notes that Mr Dimon's pay has been cut from $23 million to $11.5 million ($1.5 million in salary and $10 million in restricted stock) following a loss of $6 billion by a London JPM trader.  On the positive side at least something was done.  That said, Mr Dimon's cut in pay, $11.5 million, is 0.2% of the loss his failure to effectively manage cost.  Common Sense wonders, how many other JPM employees having lost $6 billion for the bank would still have a job, never mind an $11.5 billion salary?  Just a bit of common sense.

'via Blog this'

Senator Bernie Sanders, VT, and some common sense on corporate taxes

I'll admit it, Common Sense is a fan of Senator Bernie Sanders and his, well, common sense approach to government.  Here's an interesting fact sheet from Bernie that should be required reading in the next act of the Congressional Follies.


Corporations Must Pay Their Fair Share

 Today corporate profits are at an all-time high, while corporate income tax
revenue as a percentage of GDP is near a record low.

 In 1952, 32% of all of the revenue generated in this country came from large
corporations. Today, just 9% of federal revenue comes from corporate
America.

 At 1.6%, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower than any other
major country in the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development) including Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Norway,
Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and
Iceland.

 In 2011, corporations paid just 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest
since 1972.

 In 2005, 1 out of 4 large corporations paid no income taxes at all even
though they collected $1.1 trillion in revenue over that one year period.

 Large corporations and the wealthy are avoiding more than $100 billion in
taxes every year by setting up offshore tax shelters in places like the Cayman
Islands, Bermuda and the Bahamas.

 In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits. Not only did they not pay
any federal income taxes, they actually received a $157 million rebate from
the IRS.

 In 2010, Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS,
even though it made $4.4 billion in profits. Bank of America operated 371
subsidiaries in offshore tax havens in 2010. 204 of these subsidiaries are
incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which has a corporate tax rate of 0%.

 At 15.7%, revenue as a percentage of GDP is at or near the lowest level in
sixty years.



'via Blog this'