Happy Birthday, Ludwig von Mises
125 years and the recognition you deserve is still far away.
« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »
September 29, 2006
September 22, 2006
The Law Protects Your Privacy!
I wrote Why is the Census Bureau Taking GPS Coordinates of Americans' Front Doors? and Fuck the Census Bureau and Their 2006 Census Test (among others) without much comment regarding the practical problems of such a massive centralization of American demographic data.
Well, here's one: Census Bureau Loses Hundreds of Laptops
The Census Bureau collects the most personal information about Americans, from how much money they earn and where they spend it to how they live and die. It's all confidential - as long as no one steals it.Lost or stolen from the Census Bureau since 2003 are 217 laptop computers, 46 portable data storage devices and 15 handheld devices used by survey takers.
Although the number of people affected isn't known, the Commerce Department reports that passwords, encryptions and other safeguards were in place. Nothing so far indicates a misuse of any information.
Let's just say that the degree of my trust in the state to physically secure their hardware is about as much as my trust in the state to digitally secure their software.
"The department takes very seriously these high instances of missing laptops, as well as potential breaches of personal identity data," Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez said Thursday in response to an internal review of Commerce Department computers."All of the equipment that was lost or stolen contained protections to prevent a breach of personal information," he said in a statement. "The amount of missing computers is high, but fortunately, the vulnerability for data misuse is low."
Once a secured device is in the hands of a determined cracker, all bets are off. Every IT department knows the average office worker has little concept of security. People will do all sorts of dangerous things to make their passwords easily memorable. If the software allows it, they'll use their
- user ID
- name
- birthday
- address
- social security number
- names of family members and pets
- and other easily harvestable user-specific code
as their password. Often, they'll use that exact password for several (if not all) systems that require one. Sometimes they'll write it down on a post-it note and stick it to the monitor or save it in a text file. A dedicated hacker will try social engineering and talk this information out of users and their co-workers.
Commerce found that since 2001 the department's 15 operating units had lost track of 1,137 laptop computers. Most, 672, belonged to the Census Bureau. Of those, 246 contained personal information.Thousands of Census field representatives - many of them temporary, hourly employees - use laptop computers to compile survey data. The department said half of the laptops containing personal information were stolen, often from employees' vehicles, and 113 were not returned.
[...]
Among government departments recently reporting data thefts and security breaches, the Veterans Affairs Department suffered the biggest loss with the theft in May of a laptop and external drive containing information for 26.5 million veterans and active-duty troops. Burglars stole the equipment from the home of a Veterans Affairs employee, but the computer was recovered and showed no signs of having been accessed for the personal data.
Other departments reporting the loss of computers with personal information include the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Transportation. The Federal Trade Commission also has lost laptops with sensitive data.
Second only to the Census Bureau in missing laptops at the Commerce Department was the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It reported 325 missing computers, three of them containing personal data.
Among those stolen was one used by a NOAA law enforcement agent and containing some case file information. In July, a laptop containing Social Security numbers and other information on 146 employees and contractors was reported stolen after a fire in a NOAA facility in Seattle, the department said.
Gutierrez said the department was taking steps to protect against further missing laptops or potential breaches of personal identity data. Among them were inventory reforms, including creating a database for all departmental property, and "raising employee accountability standards."
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All right reserved.
The law can't protect against the general stupidity, forgetfulness, and malice of government agents. Just one more reason to want The Law to have as little power and reach as possible.
P.S.
What about private companies amassing giant databases of customer information? If that information is collected voluntarily and without the threat of violence against holdouts then the people who've given their information understand there is the possibility of their information leaking out. This is one reason why, if given the option, refuse to store bank/credit card/address info in online shopping cart systems and flat-out will not use an online billing system with anything less than 128-bit encryption for transactions.
September 21, 2006
The Perils of Infinite Empiricism
Andrew Sullivan quotes a reader's e-mail:
Eric Hoffer once wrote, "The uncompromising attitude is more indicative of an inner uncertainty than a deep conviction. The implacable stand is directed more against the doubt within than the assailant without." This could not be more true of anyone, Right or Left - we all have the propensity. Once we stop accepting criticism as an opportunity to reflect and evaluate, we become less.
There are two kinds of people who say things like this: those who mean it, only to contradict themselves a moment later and those who just say it, only to contradict themselves a moment later.
Let's say I make a claim: humans act. Now, this is not a very controversial claim to make and it is not only easily provable in reality, but impossible to disprove, because the very attempt to disprove is itself an action by a human. In light of this, it seems clear to me that it is possible for there to be statements that are true and do not require constant empirical testing to continually establish their validity. Therefore, choosing to "[accept] criticism as an opportunity to reflect and evaluate" on such truths is foolish. While there might be value in opportunities to educate the ignorant on those claims (such education being increasingly needed, unfortunately) as well as value in taking the time to reveal the emptiness of counter-arguments to such truths in partisan literature, of what value is there in subjecting a fact of reality to repeated test?
The outcome of such an approach taken seriously is a constant broad skepticism that cripples your ability to function.
Do I exist? Whew, yep. Will I float away if I rise from my chair? Whew, nope. Is water wet today? Whew, still is!
The absurdity of that outcome is why so few people actually mean it when they assert philosophical skepticism. Press them for any length of time and most folks will reveal they do indeed believe in some hard truths that, while perhaps vulnerable to criticism, are still truths they think don't require never-ending verifiability. Memento has the following scene:
NATALIE
You decided to help me. Trust yourself. Trust your own judgment. You can question everything, you can never know anything for sure.
LEONARD
There are things you know for sure.
NATALIE
Such as?
LEONARD
I know the feel of the world.(reaches forward)
I know how this wood will sound when I knock.
(raps knuckles on coffee table)
I know how this glass will feel when I pick it up.
(handles glass)
Certainties. You think it's knowledge, but it's a kind of memory, a kind you take for granted.
People who take the stance that we can't know anything for sure are guilty of at least one contradiction: they are themselves claiming an absolute truth, and by their philosophy their claim is only as good as the last successful lab test. They are guilty of an additional contradiction when they proceed to live their lives without stopping to test each proposition and assertion they encounter, instead choosing to assume reality hasn't shifted under their feet with each passing second.
Of course, "being open to criticism" can be meant in the sense of being capable of hearing criticism without exploding into a litany of insulting accusations, red herrings, and fallacies. One day my comment system will be up and running again and I'll face the same statist arguments I've faced for years. I've chosen to be patient and give each person a good faith credit chance each time I encounter them. I'm prepared to toss my ideology if someone can prove it incorrect (i.e., prove it incompatible with reality), but that hasn't happened and frankly, I don't see how it can.
September 20, 2006
What Does Capitalism Imply?
Unfortunately, the answer to that question is far too often: ignorance and distortion.
From an Anarcho-Capitalism group discussion on MySpace:
Sweet Louie wrote:But capitalism is patriotism. So it seems to me the irony is in being a capitalist and not believing in joining the army, fighting in wars, being a racist nationalist etc.
Lou, why do you bother to discuss things here if you absolutely refuse to listen to what we have to say in response to your posts? Do you enjoy being a troll?Free markets in private property have nothing to do with an irrational devotion to a nation-state, agitating for unprovoked war, or bigotry. At the most, those are the vices of misguided individuals who have, for lack of a coherent doctrine of their own, generally co-opted libertarian talking points superficially similar to their beloved Founding Fathers' in furtherance of their own coercive collectivist goals. PNAC Republicans, in other words, do not equate to anarchists seeking voluntary trade in all walks of life.
There are some people who have made it a point to disavow the term "capitalism" for a radical free market anarchist philosophy. I am not one of them, though I recognize the intense baggage involved in its use.
In any event, if you are the kind of person who, upon seeing statist troglodytes calling for Jesus to come down to fight the invading Mexican hordes right after some modern-day Patton reduces Mecca and Qom to smoldering nuclear ash, thinks it's clever to claim these monsters as "capitalists," then you'd better at least have the fundamental reading comprehension to see that a group of people who believe quite strongly against anyone initiating physical force anywhere for no matter what possible justification just might not be the ones you wish to lump together with said troglodyte assholes in this grade school analysis of yours.
September 18, 2006
ACL Reflections
left: Damian "Jr. Gong" Marley || right: Muse
The Shins were good, as were Damian Marley and his reggae crew. A Finnish pop rock band called Husky Rescue was fun. Thievery Corporation kicked ass, as I expected and hoped they would. Murder by Death and I Love You But I've Chosen Darkness both put on good performances, though I'd give the edge to Murder by Death and their electric cello. Ben Kweller started off fine but had a horrible nosebleed and he bled all over his guitar. An audience member tossed him a tampon...and even after sticking a tampon up his nose he bled right through it (contrary to the rather bland explanation put forth by the Austin-American Statesman, it was not merely a "paper product"). He moved to the piano and played one song but he had to call it quits early. Iron and Wine was a pleasant alt-country surprise. Matisyahu's reggae probably would have made a bigger impression on me but we were too far back to hear it clearly. Ditto for The Flaming Lips, whose stage show looked wild and crazy. Ben Harper didn't interest me too much but he got the crowd going.
Lots of pictures to come.
September 15, 2006
Off to ACL Fest
I have wonderful friends. One of them bought me a ticket/wristband to ACL Fest for all three days. Bands I'm most interested in seeing: Thievery Corporation, Explosions in the Sky, Massive Attack, G. Love and Special Sauce, and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.
Pictures and commentary to come.
Does Instapundit Actually Support Private Property?
Internet gambling seems pretty lame to me, but if people want to do something as dumb as that, well, it's their money. I don't think Washington should tell them what to do.This is true. The money I earn is mine and mine alone and if I want to spend it on gambling, drugs, alcohol, pornography, consensual sexual activity, firearms, or bio-mechanical upgrades to my body (things and activities Professor Reynolds stands with when the threats of regulation or prohibition arise), well, tough shit if you think I'm a fool, a degenerate, a pervert, a nut, or a freak. I don't presume to tell others what to do with their property because I have no claim on them until they use their property to interfere with me and mine. This is standard libertarian stuff.
However, accepting this argument implies a few things. It stands as an absolute rejection of taxation. It represents a total rejection of government licensing laws. A great deal of the things Professor Reynolds advocates on his blog would be, at the very least, deeply questionable on this single principle alone. There would be no American executive government to send military forces overseas. There would be no American legislative government to constantly lobby, contact, and influence in order to shape existing, delay proposed, or introduce new laws. There would be no American judicial government, either. There would be private businesses engaged in the production of values in order to voluntarily transact with individuals and all the vibrant flourishing of human civilization attendant to such a system.
So does Glenn Reynolds support private property? That depends if he advocates the existence of government. If the answer to the latter is "yes" the answer to the former is "no."
September 14, 2006
Was Kimveer Gill's "rapid-fire" rifle a Beretta Cx4 Storm?
The AP via My Way News: Montreal Gunman Liked 'Columbine' Game
In postings on a Web site called VampireFreaks.com, blogs in Gill's name show more than 50 photos depicting the young man in various poses holding a rifle and donning a long black trench coat and combat boots.[...]
Witnesses said Gill started shooting outside the college, then entered the second-floor cafeteria and opened fire without uttering a word. At times, he hid behind vending machines before emerging to take aim - at one point at a teenager who tried to photograph him with his cell phone.
Police dismissed suggestions that terrorism played a role in the lunch-hour attack.
The gunman opened fire haphazardly at no target in particular, until he saw the police and took aim at them, Delorme said.
Police hid behind a wall as they exchanged fire with the gunman, whose back was against a vending machine, said student Andrea Barone, who was in the cafeteria. He said the officers proceeded cautiously because many students were trapped around the assailant, who yelled "Get back! Get back!" every time an officer tried to move closer.
Eventually, Barone said, the gunman went down in a hail of gunfire.
[...]
Police said the attacker had a rapid-fire rifle and two other weapons. They did not provide details.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All right reserved.
The My Way News has a photo of Gill holding a gun. It immediately struck me as familiar because I was browsing through a firearm buying guide last night. I think it's the Beretta Cx4 Storm.
Their stocks appear to be molded the same. This CBC article identifies it as a weapon he held in his pictures.
If this is the primary weapon he allegedly used in the shooting, then he was firing a semi-automatic carbine in 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP with magazine capacities going respectively from 15 to 8 rounds. It is a "rapid-fire" rifle in the sense that it shoots a round as fast as you can pull the trigger until the magazine is empty. It also uses the standard Beretta 92 magazine, so perhaps those other two weapons mentioned in the AP report were Beretta 9mm pistols.
The Gun Week reviewers were able to put 16 rounds from the Cx4 into a 1.25" circle with a mounted aftermarket sight at 50 yards, so it is certainly accurate. Using the factory sights, they fired "4-5-inch 10-round groups" at the same distance. They describe the recoil as more like a .22 long rifle rather than a 9mm. The reviewers also said they were able to empty the 9mm magazine in less than 3 seconds.
From the perspective of a layman taking fire from it, this would be a fearsome weapon. Hopefully, the Canadian people and Canadian government won't rush to ban or restrict firearms ownership as a result of this incident. The actions of a psychopath don't justifiy it. Morally, it doesn't follow. Pragmatically, "gun control only disarms the victims."
The Cx4 certainly isn't an "assault weapon" or an "automatic weapon", as the typically ignorant media are beginning to portray it as or, at least, allow it to be portrayed as. That Toronto Star article, paraphrasing another newspaper, says
He had, La Presse reports, parked his car close to the college, opened the trunk and removed: a 9-mm semi-automatic rifle, a .45 pistol and a bag containing a 12-calibre gun that can shoot four bullets per shot.
That's much more helpful, but the article's subtitle remains inaccurate.
New Ideas for John Hewitt
He started Liberty Tax Service, "the second largest international tax service." The company is "one of the top franchise opportunities in Entrepreneur magazine's list of top 500 franchises."
Since he's been doing tax work for decades, perhaps it's time he left the industry and attempted other lines of business? Here are a few suggestions off the top of my head for company names:
Jovial Funeral Services
Beautiful Combover Salon
Or he could simply continue the current trend and go for Effective Government Agency.
September 11, 2006
Rethinking September 11, 2001
I asked recently if America deserved to be attacked on September 11th and think it should be read as a companion to this post.
When one browses through my archives, the impression is of someone who for the most part advocated the same line as the Bush Administration. In particular, see the long pro-war/anti-war dialogue I had this time in 2002. Generally speaking, I was in the camp that advocated preemptive state war against nations harboring or helping terrorists, specifically calling for war against Afghanistan and Iraq as necessary actions to reduce the threat those states posed to the people living in them and the threat the terrorism they supported posed to the United States. The essential lesson I learned from 9/11 was two-fold: we cannot continue current methods of counterterrorism because the existential threat was too great with which those methods to contend and an aggressive (literally and figuratively) foreign policy against these terrorist-supporting states is justified because they are despotic authoritarian regimes.
I was in the middle of a political transformation when I thought this. I didn't think or know much of libertarian, classical liberal, or small-government conservative philosophy...let alone free market anarchism. I remember wanting to seek out a moral justification for free exchange and private property and in the middle of that search, a bunch of assholes committed low-tech mass murder in one of the most iconic places in America. Then, a well-known asshole started gloating about it and preachingly scolded my country about this and that.
The emotions generated by those events combined with the latent "shoot first, ask questions later" tendency I had to see straightforward approaches to Bad Guy Termination to create a temporary restraint on what I had set out to learn. I continued to make and learn arguments in support of freedom in the realm of economics but would not budge on more fundamental questions of security, societal order, and ethics. Actually, I hadn't really spent significant time even considering these issues and just kinda aped along with assumptions and preconceptions I carried over from my high school years.
Of course, when researching justifications for individual freedom, it won't take long until you run into Objectivism, the Austrian school of economics, and the vast array of libertarian intellectuals in between. Taking their arguments seriously meant reconciling their pointed criticisms of state action with my desire to see the American federal state undertake these massive burdens. Even harder was trying to explain to myself how the state could ensure domestic security in an ethical and effective manner.
I wonder what would have happened if I had read the following authors shortly following the 9/11 attacks. Most famously, Harry Browne wrote a series of four articles at WorldNetDaily that stood clearly and proudly against the rising tide of sentiment with which I agreed. Others expressing similar ideas:
Gene Callahan - Reaping the Whirlwind
Karen de Coster - A Tale of Two Deliriums
Jesse Walker - Resisting Hysteria: This is a time for expert police work, not unfocused war
Jacob Sullum - Words of War
Llewellyn H. Rockwell - What Not To Do
Sean Corrigan - A War on Capital
Victor Milan - It Didn't Work
Jeff Elkins - It Can't Happen Here?
Ivan Eland - Don't Give Bin Laden Total Victory
Larry J. Sechrest - Let Privateers Troll for Bin Laden
Jacob G. Hornberger - A Time for Calm Reflection and Adherence to Law
Sheldon Richman - Mistaken about Motives
Just as it is not true that today I endorse everything written in the above columns, I don't necessarily endorse the authors and what they've written since. However, I sit now in sober understanding that their warnings, accusations, and predictions deserved the serious attention they were denied by those who would accuse such concern as anti-American, treasonous, counter-productive, and childish.
The essential lesson I should have learned from September 11th is that the state causes more problems than it solves and that is a direct result of the moral bankruptcy of the arguments in support of it and its actions.
I've posted the following picture a few times on this blog:
I now realize the fundamental error at its core. The error is in assuming a collective responsibility against the crimes committed by individuals against individuals. The "we're" and the aggression implicit in that famous Uncle are the problems. The time has long since come and gone to drop those two assumed necessities.
September 07, 2006
A Progressive Tax System
I had no idea that advocating a more progressive tax system was the moral equivalent of throwing acid in Cindy Crawford's face.Here's a better way to look at it.
The result of a more progressive tax system is to throw more acid on Cindy Crawford's face than the average person's. Say, a pint rather than an ounce.
Neither action is justifiable because both constitute an act of aggression against the individual. Similarly, it doesn't matter whether a tax rate of 5% or 90% is advocated. Neither are justifiable because both constitute an act of aggression against the individual.