Issue 623 Impact of A national Police Force June 30, 2015

There were approximately 88,000 police raids in 2014.  This is an outstanding number that mostly revolves around raids against non-violent offenders who own small quantities of pot.  These raids are conducted in full riot gear, and place many people in danger including the officers.  Now, with the possibility of police becoming militarized, can you imagine them in full gear all the time?  Are you able to see them as a member of your community if they carry an M-16 assault rifle on their back as part of a routine patrol?  These are a symptom of a militarized and partially nationalized police force.  But what would it look like if they were fully nationalized?  Let's discuss.

What it would look like:

1) Military style:  For one, there will be no traditional uniforms we are used to.  A nationalized/militarized police force would be outfitted with nothing but military equipment.  They would drive light tanks and armored vehicles around and pack heavy weapons reminiscent of what they looked like during the manhunt for the Boston Marathon Bombers with machine guns locked and ready.

2) They follow Federal, not local laws:  Whatever local laws are enforced by your police, kiss them goodbye.  The federal government would decide what to enforce, and how to enforce it rather than localities and States making their own laws anymore.  As such, bureaucrats in the federal government decide law and thus determines your innocence by default.  You essentially lose all control over what laws are followed.

3) Subject to political pressures:  The advantage of local control is that you have a multitude of police departments enforcing the law and thus our ability to compare the effectiveness of each department which protects them from political pressures of local politicians.  Once nationalized, we lose that and this results in politicians putting pressure on those who govern the police at the federal level to perform actions that may in fact violate the law or even ignore it, thus creating a hodgepodge of enforcement of laws and people either escaping justice or being unfairly arrested (think Watergate on steroids).

4) Becoming thuggish:  If nationalized, the police lose all checks and balances as cops can then do whatever they deem necessary to accomplish the job of policing.  So this means more illegal search and seizure, more illegal arrests with police writing warrants and not judges as per the Constitution.  They would be able to use any amount of force they deem necessary to do the job even if it is excessive.

Conclusion:  I do not want a national police force.  My Dad, and many of my family have served as police, and I do not want their service dishonored by turning our police into a bunch of government thugs (this is how I unfortunately see it turning out after a generation or two).  While it is for you to decide if there is merit in a central authority overseeing thousands of officers each and every day, I would still prefer the local patrol whom are my neighbors and friends any day of the week.

Issue 622 Nationalizing Police June 29, 2015

There seems to possibly be an effort to nationalize America's police force.  At the moment it sounds remarkably like a conspiracy theory, but it is a topic that can be and should be discussed.  Let us begin.

Where this theory comes from:  

1) Free military surplus:  The police are getting free military surplus with the expectation that they use it within the first year that they get it.  This is the reason why we have been seeing our police with heavy armor vehicles including bomb resistant MRAPs which are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2) Police raids:  Laws on the books have police conducting raids on homes for even the most minor of drug offense, this including small bags of "pot".  However, with thousands of raids being conducted, there have been mistakes with the wrong houses being raided and people being killed.  This at the same time endangers the officers as now the person being raided (whether guilty or not) may retaliate due to the amount of force being used thinking that they are under attack.  As such, this will lead to more injuries and even deaths as the American population questions police tactics.

3) Rising racial tensions: The flame of racism is ignited once more as riots break out in Ferguson, in Baltimore with respect to the death of Freddie Gray, amongst others.  However, racism may not have been involved, the fact that it was typically a white officer conducting the arrest allowed for race baiters to make their move.  As such the media harped on these stories, and thus police tactics and fears of police brutality have caused every officer of the law to be put under the microscope.

4) Politicians and activists:  During the Ferguson riots, President Obama said for the rioters to stay the course, thus showing support for the lawless criminals destroying the city rather than police.  In Baltimore, police were held back while in riot gear as if they were meant to look menacing rather than break up the looting mob.  And finally, we have powerful activists like Al Sharpton calling for the nationalization of police.  It no longer matters if the cops are white like in the case of the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore as three of the officers including the ones driving where black police officers.  As such, the narrative is shifting to a police versus black person story as opposed to a white versus black one.

Conclusion:  Taken together, and if these trends continue, we may see an actual true movement to nationalize the police in some shape or form.  As to whether this is good or bad will be for you to decide (and I'll be discussing it in tomorrow's issue).  But just these trends alone do not bode well with our sensationalist media, and Americans now feeling it is ok to riot to get their point across rather than follow Dr. King's nonviolent principles.

Issue 621 Ransomware June 26, 2015

Ransomware is a new term to describe a new type of crime.  Let us discuss.

What is Ransomware?:  Ransomware is when you get hacked by a hacker such as through email, advertisements or visiting infected websites.  At that point, your data/secrets get stolen or in most cases encrypted so you cannot access it.  From there, you either pay up, or you can never get the files back.  In the case of encryption, the now typical form of ransomware, your files, or a business's files become inaccessible costing the individual money and distress.  Hence, the hackers create a need for the individual to get the information back.  

Hackers vs. people:  Hackers have used ransomware to make hundreds of dollars.  Some hackers do not give the information back though or they refuse to unlock it.  Additionally some victims refuse to pay as well.  So hackers have been developing a sweat spot moneywise, where the money is payable to increase the chances of people paying up despite the fear that victims may not get their data back.  As such, typical ransoms are $800 or less.  

They want your money, and they are not afraid to spread the technology around.  Apparently these hackers now invest time into tweaking their code to defeat anti-virus software, and then they may sell or give this software as a kit to other hackers.  To make sure that they keep themselves safe, the kits even include transaction software that allows the victim to pay the hacker in untraceable currencies like Bitcoins.  In short, they are getting rich while keeping themselves safe.

Conclusion:  We exist in a technological age where we are dependent on computers.  As such, ransomware is a smart move by criminals seeking to get rich with minimal risk to themselves.  Governments are getting wise to this method of crime and beginning to act, but the only sure thing to defeat them is for the government to share their information with anti-virus software companies and for companies to share information as well.  From there the shared data can be used to better counteract a hackers virus program all that much faster to minimize the victims of this crime.  Additionally, finding ways to encrypt the information encrypted by the hacker so that they do not have to pay will potentially make ransomware unprofitable which seems to be in my opinion the only way to stop this criminal act.  This is now a popular crime (though it is preferable to actual kidnappings) and we got to work on a way to stop it.

Issue 620 Make them Stateless June 25, 2015

We have terrorists, or people who have worked with terrorists coming home to places in Europe.  Apparently, we cannot stop them from coming home because of international law.  Allow me to explain.

Can't keep them out:  Under international law, it is illegal for a country to refuse re-entry of a citizen.  So this means a citizen of England, who fought on the side of ISIS/ISIL, Al Qaeda, and/or others cannot be kept from returning home to their mother country.  According to estimates (source is the Economist Magazine) 5,000 terrorists have returned home to Europe (particularly the European Union Countries).  Some of the countries require these people to wear a tracking device, but others do not, thus increasing the danger of the lone gunman attack.  Additionally, even if they are not going to be violent themselves, they can recruit members to their terrorist group(s) who will do acts of violence in their stead.

This should be changed:  I do not know why such a rule that prevents people from being refused re-entry exists, but I can imagine it was due to political circumstances, and wanting to protect people's rights as human beings.  But these laws now pose a danger, as armed groups can wreak havoc anywhere in the world.  As such, a change to the law is needed to say that if the person coming back is so dangerous, that they can be refused.  That they can have their citizenship revoked?  This is a dangerous idea unto itself because the danger excuse can be used against a number of people, including delaying politicians, or political opponents from coming home.  So my question is, now, should this law be altered?

Conclusion:  I feel that safety wise, the law should be altered, by potential problem wise, it should not be touched.  The wording must be exact and so exact it is specific, like saying "if a person returning home is currently part of a group that has publically expressed a threat of violence to the country, or the individual in question has done so themselves within the last three years, then they may be refused re-entry to the country of their citizenship, birth or any country that deems them a threatening existence".  Of course, this would mean a court like setting will be needed to adjudicate the case to prevent corruption.  Basically, a host of problems will occur, but is our safety worth it, or will us refusing them re-entry make the problem worse?  These are questions needed to be asked, and laws need to be re-evaluated.  

Issue 619 Surveillance Smell Test June 24, 2015

In an Economist article I read it outlined a smell test of sorts so that people would know if the government is going too far with it’s spying on its own people.  Here it is.

The Smell test:  Basically the economist said that if your country (like mine) is not doing this, then it is doing something illegal. Here is rule one.

- Surveillance of an individual is approved by an independent Judge or Judges.

The reason for this is because politicians have been making laws that bypass the rules where Judges have the final say if there is enough evidence to violate someone's privacy rights.  In fact, Politicians have given law enforcement unrestricted powers to spy and arrest people despite the United States Constitution dictating that only a Judge can issue a warrant and only when evidence is great enough to demand an arrest or a violation of privacy is permitted. 

Now for rule two.

-Security/spy agencies must be held accountable by requiring a supervisory bias.  As such, agencies must make as much of what they, as security and spy agencies, do as public as possible.

This is reasonable as if we as a people (let alone the politicians) cannot see what they are doing (whether it is good or bad), then how can we know our rights are being violated, or that our security agencies are going one step too far.  While I understand that there is a risk that the public will not understand the methods used, this can be thankfully solved with public education campaigns to help the public know why certain methods are followed, and when they are to be applied.  In fact, as most of the public is patriotic, they may even try to help by making suggestions to improve upon these methods.

Rule three.

-Is the power used proportionate and necessary?

This means that both rules one and two have to have a certain level of power applied without going over.  So we cannot have Judges becoming overzealous, or in contrast massive amounts of resources going toward spying on an individual from say the TEA party if they pose no threat to the public at large.  As such, balance must be had at all times.

Conclusion:  This is the smell test.  It may not be perfect as it leaves wiggle room, but it is more than adequate to be a start in my opinion to fixing the errors we have made in trying to protect ourselves from harm.

Issue 618 Privacy Versus Surveillance June 23, 2015

Surveillance technology is growing by leaps and bounds, but technology to keep our privacy is growing with equal measure.  Is there a balance to be had?

Spy versus Privacy:  As you already know, many private companies collect data on people, but the government (including the United States government) ignores their own rules with the hope to eavesdrop on terrorists.  As such, people are pushing back, with companies offering encryption technology and other methods to hide your private conversations, and moments.  While it is great that we are regaining privacy, it makes it exceptionally hard to listen in on terrorists as they will be using the same technology.  So what is there to do?  Is there a method to balance our privacy with the need for the government to protect us from harm?

Yup, but you will not like it:  There is a way, but you will dislike it I believe.  Aside from the government fixing its own system to follow the law and not collect our information, we would need the encryption and software companies to spy on us for the government.  In other words, Google will have a team dedicated to looking for keywords that the government provides them so as to look for terrorists, with the Google team deciding if each conversation, picture, or other piece of information meets the criteria for being passed along to government officials. In short, companies already collect and sometimes sell our data, so it will not be hard for them to look at said data to see if there is any red flags such as bomb making materials being bought, coded messages being sent (this so long as the government is willing to provide companies with information to find these), and other illegal activities.  Obviously, these special teams will need some sort of training as they would have the final say on if a piece of information goes to the government, save a court order saying they have to.  It is very reminiscent of the days when AT&T had a government office in their building monitoring all communications, but this time the government is becoming the equivalent of a tip line, with people spying on each other.

Conclusion:  This is the only foreseeable method I can see for this conflict to end between the government trying to protect us by spying on us, and for us to maintain privacy.  In short, we need watch dogs in the form of Facebook, Google, and others to be the first line of defense for now on.  Yes it is very 1984ish, but if codes of conduct and laws are followed, it should prevent it from becoming a corrupt deal for safety and security.

Issue 617 Conspiracy Theory Origins June 22, 2015

Conspiracy theories are just that, theories.  They are hypothetical ideas of what happened during an event.  But why do we have these theories?  Especially as these theories generally fly in the face of what actually occurred.  Let us discuss.

It’s about psychology:  Conspiracy theories developed because of people thinking that there is no way something so big can happen from something so simple.  Look at 9/11.  People doubted that the World Trade Center could have collapsed the way it did because of how similar it was to how we demolish buildings with explosives.  As such, radical ideas of our own government causing the horrible incident came about with people not believing that some terrorist organization could accomplish something of that scale.  

Let us look at it another way.  Can you have James Bond go against a small time villain?  No, you need Dr. No, and other supervillains.  People apparently want equivalency in the storytelling which results in these theories that do not have evidence to back them up.  We want the good guys to take down bad guys of equal stature.  As such the psychology of equivalency generates these fanciful, and foolish theories.

Conclusion:  People like to tell stories.  For most of the history of mankind, history was not recounted with the written word but verbal storytelling.  As such, it is ingrained in our very culture to tell stories which may be embellished from time to time to provide a source of entertainment to ourselves and others.  Conspiracy theories are the same thing, just using our desires to keep the story interesting and entertaining when the truth is so dismal, or sad.