Featured Photos


Baseball Hall of Fame - 8/23/11

Featured Video


Avery's QuEST Project - It's Healthy!

House Construction


The Completed Home Renovation


Home Renovation - Complete!


Our House Construction Photoblog

RSS Feed

Political Rantings

« Previous Entries                     Next Entries »

Google Achieves Microsoft-like Evil Status…

Tuesday, February 14th, 2006

Google’s recent Desktop Search tool provides a feature that copies the search index across networked computers, so when you search on one machine, you can see documents stored on another. Sounds reasonably harmless, right?

Turns out the copy is done by temporarily uploading encrypted versions of the files to Google’s servers and then downloading them to the other machines. Google says it deletes the files roughly every 30 days. It also says the user has complete control over which files/folders are included in the search, and that it automatically filters out password protected files and secure web pages.

But none of that matters to the EFF, who is recommending that no one use the feature.

Why? Because Google might one day turn that data over to the federal government if it is subpoenaed during that 30-day window.

Isn’t this just amazing? Forget all the extra features they put in to protect the user. Forget the vanishingly small likelihood that a particular file is residing in a Google server’s temporary cache at the precise moment a subpoena is issued, and forget the relative usefulness of the tool itself (Remember, Google doesn’t build these tools to try and step through privacy minefields – they build them to be useful to their customers). The big news story from a couple of weeks ago has put Google in the bullseye with regard to privacy issues, and all because they refused to submit data after a government request.

Imagine what they’d be saying about the company if it had complied?!?

Categories: Political Rantings, Tech Talk | 2 Comments »

And he Wasn’t Even a Suspected Terorrist…

Sunday, February 12th, 2006

Dick Cheney just shot a guy.

Seriously.

That’s got to be a violation of his civil rights, no?

Categories: Political Rantings, The World Wide Weird | 3 Comments »

Good Thing Congress Doesn’t Count the Votes…

Wednesday, February 8th, 2006

Apparently, when the House of Representatives voted on the new house leadership, they cast more votes than there were members present. (Hat tip: Jeff Porten)

I’m reminded of something I was told during the whole “hanging chad” thing in 2000: on an average weekday, the New York Stock Exchange processes more than two billion stock trades. And they count each & every one of them correctly every day.

This just shouldn’t be this hard…

Categories: Political Rantings | Comments Off on Good Thing Congress Doesn’t Count the Votes…

Congressional Decorum

Wednesday, February 1st, 2006

Some quick thoughts on the State of the Union:

Content-wise, I think the President knows that Congress has degraded to a simple numbers game, so it doesn’t really matter what he proposes in his speech. He either has the numbers to get something through or he doesn’t. So, I’m glad to hear he thinks we’re addicted to oil, I’m glad to hear he wants to study the entitlement programs, I’m glad to hear he wants to keep my taxes lower, etc. Still, each of these things is either all-but-done right now, or it’s never going to happen.

Regarding the tone, I was glad to see him get a little ticked off at Congress a couple of times during the speech. First, when he scolded them for substituting angry, ad-hominem attacks where rational debate should be:

Even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of good will and respect for one another, and I will do my part

And then later, while discussing social security, he said “Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security.” A bunch of Democrats lept to their feet in mocking applause. Hillary Clinton was caught on camera with a giant grin on her face, and others were talking to each other and laughing over their success in defeating the President’s agenda. All that was missing were high-fives and head butts. They looked like a bunch of high school kids disrespecting a substitute teacher.

Bush became visibly annoyed and continued on with “Yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse.” Then, the Republicans lept to their feet in an equally classless display of counter-applause. I don’t think they even realized they were applauding the fact that our entitlements problems are getting worse. I mean, if you think about it, it doesn’t even make sense.

This morning, I also learned that members of Congress weren’t the only ones misbehaving last night. Cindy Sheehan got herself a ticket to the speech, and showed up wearing a T-Shirt that said “2,245 and how many more?” Capitol police asked her to leave (there’s a House rule against demonstrating in the Capitol Building) and when she refused, they handcuffed her and arrested her. This was obviously an attempt at making a political statement (getting arrested, that is, not the T-shirt), and it worked like a charm. So much for “spirit of good will and respect for one another.”

(Oh, and before anyone takes the bait and decries the Bushies for stomping on the civil rights of their enemies, note that the wife of a Republican representative was also ejected for wearing a pro-Bush t-shirt.)

To sum up, what was supposed to be a night of communication – proposals and counter-proposals on where the country is going – turned into nothing more than multiple opportunities to shout slogans and mock the opposition, both from the people and their elected representatives.

Nice job, folks. Nice job.

UPDATE: Instapundit reached the same conclusion, as did several others that he links to.

(Links courtesy of John Scalzi)

Categories: Political Rantings | 4 Comments »

More Search Engine Privacy Mania

Wednesday, January 25th, 2006

More noise about the major search engine companies turning over data to the government. It seems we’ve gone right past what has actually happened, paused only briefly at what could have happened, and proceeded directly to what could theoretically happen:

Once government prosecutors get non-identifiable information, they could see patterns that they decide are suspicious, and then go back to subpoena specific data that could identify people whose searches fell within those patterns.

“It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the government would say, ‘we know these searches occurred, so lets have more information,'” Serwin said.

There is no indication that the Justice Department is heading in that direction in the current case, but providing such large amounts of data could be the beginnings of a trend, the lawyer said.

Did everybody get that? There’s no indication that anything of the kind is happening, but what if it did? Wouldn’t the government be evil, evil, evil? And wouldn’t the search engine companies be evil, evil, evil by proxy? Federal government AND big business painted as evil-doers – a double score!

What seems to be missing among all the hysteria is a simple technical question: when a user is logged in to one of these services and performs a search, does the company store the name of the user that conducted the search? If not, then there is nothing to fear – even if the government came calling, the companies would have no data to give them.

Theorizing for a second, I’m tempted to say that the answer is no for two reasons:

1) None of these sites (to my knowledge, anyway) offer a list of recently performed searches for easy re-running (other than client side things like auto-complete or the dropdown in the Google toolbar). If they had history data on a per-user basis, this would seem an obvious, easy to build, and convenient thing to give users.

2) This from Google’s Zeitgeist page:

We should note that in compiling the Zeitgeist, no individual searcher’s information is available or accessible to us. What you see here is a cumulative snapshot of interesting queries people are asking

Categories: Political Rantings, Tech Talk | 3 Comments »

Privacy Paranoia Strikes Again

Friday, January 20th, 2006

Two stories in the news today about supposed “privacy concerns.”

First, Google:

Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration’s demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet’s leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.

The government wants a list all requests entered into Google’s search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.

In court papers that the San Jose Mercury News reported on after seeing them Wednesday, the Bush administration depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore online child protection laws that have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It goes on to say the government asked all the major search engines for a random sampling, in order to determine how often web searches return pornographic sites. Note that they’re not asking for who did the searches, just the searches themselves. We continue:

Although the government says it isn’t seeking any data that ties personal information to search requests, the subpoena still raises serious privacy concerns, experts said. Those worries have been magnified by recent revelations that the White House authorized eavesdropping on civilian communications after the Sept. 11 attacks without obtaining court approval.

(Side note: Another example of news cataloging, as discussed previously).

But aside for creating a chance to mention the eavesdropping case again, why are privacy experts concerned? We continue again:

The content of search request sometimes contain information about the person making the query.

For instance, it’s not unusual for search requests to include names, medical profiles or Social Security information, said Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum.

“This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with search engines for some time,” Dixon said.

OK, Pam – here’s a news flash for you: the name in the search request is the name of the person the searcher is looking for, not the name of the searcher. If someone Googles “Brian Greenberg,” it could be me (OK, yeah, I admit it, I check every so often. What, you don’t???) But if someone Googles “Pamela Anderson,” odds are pretty good it’s not her. This sounds a whole lot like a concern in search of a problem, me thinks.

Moving on, we come to a company that usually stays out of the “ticking off consumers” fray: Apple:

The MiniStore, part of the latest version of the iTunes music store, displays a bottom pane that shows artists and music titles a person may be interested in buying, based on the songs they selected in their personal music library. According to a posting on the Boing Boing blog directory, the store transmitted to Apple information related to users’ listening habits, as well as their unique Apple identifier that’s tied to their credit card, mother’s maiden name and other personal information.

The disclosure brought criticism from privacy advocates, who objected to Apple not making it clear to users that it was gathering personal data, and not asking permission first.

“Allowing users to upload information voluntarily and expressly with adequate privacy protections is pro-user; surreptitiously siphoning it into a remote database without any privacy guarantees is not. It’s time for Apple to pick a side of the line and walk it,” Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote on its Web site.

The quote from the EFF sounds ominous, but if you read more deeply into their article, you see this:

What Apple does with this information is unknown, although Apple has represented that they are not collecting data on its users — yet. Nor has Apple disclosed the steps they take to prevent disclosure or leakage of the information to third parties.

Ironically, this news comes on the heels of the recent Sony BMG DRM fiasco, a part of which included an undisclosed “phone home” feature of its own. Is the Apple MiniStore a rootkit DRM? Not from what we can tell, but it is part of a dangerous trend EFF has been witnessing in the digital music space market.

(Another Side Note: See the news cataloging again? This has about as much in common with Sony’s rootkit as chocolate does with brussel sprouts. No matter – we need to mention something that’s already established as “serious” to add “serious points” to our current story. But I digress…again).

According to Apple, they’re not storing the data – just using it to determine a recommendation and then throwing it away. Now, of course, they could be lying. Or they could be telling the truth, but have secret plans to start keeping the data one day. But as of now, the phrase “surreptitiously siphoning [user data] into a remote database without any privacy guarantees” seems a little, well, presumptuous, no?

In the end, Apple responded to the criticism by adding an opt-out feature to iTunes, which seems to have placated everybody. That’s a good result, although it makes me wonder: if Apple’s intent was to try and sell more music (as opposed to eventually blackmailing people who are still listening to Brittney Spears, for instance), then their modification to iTunes was done as a bow to political pressure in order to avoid a public relations nightmare, not as a way to preserve user privacy. With that kind of influence over a major retailer like iTunes, doesn’t what the EFF did seem a little like blackmail itself?

Categories: Political Rantings, Tech Talk | 2 Comments »

The oldest form of piracy…

Wednesday, January 18th, 2006

If you’re of my generation, the first thing you did that even resembled piracy was taping songs off the radio. I can remember putting the tape recorder right next to the speaker (no audio in/out in those days), and insisting that everyone in the house/room be quiet during the song.

Well, technology has improved far beyond the presence of audio in/out, and now (digitally) taping something off the (satellite) radio can score you a professional quality CD.

So guess what? The RIAA is trying to make it illegal.

Why am I not surprised?

Categories: Political Rantings, Tech Talk, Words about Music | Comments Off on The oldest form of piracy…

Really?

Thursday, January 12th, 2006

Senator Ted Kennedy has a children’s book coming out called “My Senator and Me: A Dog’s-Eye View of Washington, D.C.” It’s the story of a “a full day in the Senator’s life, but also explains how a bill becomes a law” as told by Senator Kennedy’s dog, Splash.

Seriously? Ted Kennedy has a dog named Splash?

<forehead smack>

(via Michelle Malkin)

Categories: Political Rantings, The World Wide Weird | 1 Comment »

Lileks on rites and rights

Monday, January 9th, 2006

Today’s Screedblog entry from James Lileks covers two topics: faith and George W. Bush. He better watch it – this kind of thing could catch on…

On faith, he quotes a Sunday Strib editorial (not available online) which suggests that:

Regular formal worship really does seem to improve a family’s economic outcomes, increased children’s chances of graduating from high school and reduce the likelihood of getting divorced or going on welfare.

I think the most useful thing I learned in my freshman year’s Statistics 101 class was the difference between causation and causality. Comes up all the time. To wit: Has this study proven that religious people are richer, smarter and more happily married? Or has it proven that rich, smart and happily married people are more likely to be religious? Or, perhaps, it proves that folks who meet certain other criteria (not studied here) are richer, smarter, more happily married and more religious as a result.

None of which matters, of course, unless someone is trying to suggest that becoming more religious will make you richer or smarter or solve your marital problems. There’s no control group for that kind of statement.

On Bush, Lileks flames those who worry more about the government trying to spy on us than the terrorists trying to kill us:

If President Clinton had used the same tools as President Bush, intercepted communications between McVeigh’s associate and, say, Philippine Islamist cells, and this nifty intel operation thwarted the OKC bombing, most Americans of all political stripes would have nodded approval, turned the page and forgotten about it. (Just as most forgot about the 1993 WTC attack.) That’s what we pay you guys for! Nice job.

First of all, as an unwilling participant in the 1993 WTC attack, I’m not sure what he means by “most forgot about” it. That certainly doesn’t go for folks around here, but maybe things are different in Minnesota.

As for government spying, I think most people would have been fine with them catching McVeigh talking to Terry Nichols, even if he wasn’t a Philippine Islamist. It’s not much of a leap to point out that folks are in favor of actions that prevent terrorist attacks.

On the other hand, this isn’t an either-or proposition. When successful spying operations raise questions about constitutional freedoms, the system is working. We’re having (or should be having) a healthy discussion about the pros and cons of an approach, and finding a way to maintain effectiveness while retaining our civil liberties.

I can’t help but feel that this is exactly what would be happening, if not for hysterics on both sides. The political left and the MSM have jumped all over the costs of this program, completely ignoring the benefits. Folks like Lileks, in turn, react by focusing on the benefits and minimizing the costs. Much to everyone’s chagrin, both exist and both need to be weighed.

Oh, and in case anyone thinks this is new, here’s something I wrote almost four years ago that hits on the same themes.

Categories: Political Rantings | 7 Comments »

I Hear They’re Considering Using Computers Too…

Tuesday, January 3rd, 2006

InternetWeek is reporting that the NSA’s website has been caught “placing files on visitors’ computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most of them.” These insidious little files are called “cookies.”

All together now….<forehead smack>

Six paragraphs in, the article mentions that “Cookies are widely used at commercial Web sites and can make Internet browsing more convenient by letting sites remember user preferences.” Of course, it then goes on to mention the recent New York Times flack regarding the NSA and the warantless phone call tapping. How many millions of people do you think will read this somewhere and take it as absolute proof that the government is spying on us through their websites?

Now, to be fair, persistent cookies on federal websites were made illegal in 2003 (session cookies are not). The NSA got a software upgrade and the software installed with persistent cookies defaulted on. When alerted to the problem, they turned them off. Sounds legit to me. But Daniel Brandt, the privacy activist who found the cookies says, “mistakes happen, ‘but in any case, it’s illegal. The (guideline) doesn’t say anything about doing it accidentally.'” That’s right Daniel – let’s throw ’em all in jail for persistent cookies. Maybe they’ll even start calling it “cookie-gate.” Sheesh…

Categories: Political Rantings, Tech Talk | 4 Comments »

« Previous Entries                     Next Entries »