Another Case for the Supreme Court?

An Exception That Will Make a Rule

This is a really interesting issue.  On the one hand is the US Department of Justice and the FBI.  On the other is Apple.  

The Department of Justice is seeking to compel Apple to build a tool which would override and nullify the in-built privacy protections of Apple i-phones.  The US Government wants this "special tool" to read the phone(s) of the two terrorists who murdered people in San Bernadino.  Apple is refusing.  Here is Apple's argument:

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow

Rand Paul, National Review, and a View From the Cheap Seats

Blog and Mablog

Posted on Monday, March 10, 2014  

By Douglas Wilson 

I first subscribed to National Review when I was in high school, which would be somewhere northwards of 42 years ago. I  have been a faithful subscriber since that time, and — disagreements and all — it remains my favorite magainze. They are still genuinely conservative, although it should be said at the outset that they are not conserving quite as much as they used to.

Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky, is a skosh more libertarian than I would like, but I like what he has been doing very much. About time somebody did, and all that. There are places where the libertarian streak will lead you astray (e.g. marriage), but there are other places where it supplies a much needed corrective to our putative lords and masters (e.g. metadata).

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow

Let’s Watch Them for a Bit

Posted on Friday, January 24, 2014  

By Douglas Wilson 

Blog and Mablog

A policeman doesn’t need a warrant, and shouldn’t need a warrant, to look at your house. But there is more to it.

I have noted before that many contemporary Americans are demanding privacy when what they really want is anonymity. But these are not the same thing at all. If I am walking down a city street with thousands of others, I have anonymity. I don’t have privacy. Anybody who wants to can look at me — the next guy who passes by, the cop on the corner, or the surveillance camera outside the jewelry store. And the cop has every right to follow me if he saw that I have that look on my face.

But what the digital revolution has done is create a need for some radical extensions and applications of our definitions of “inside” and “outside,” not to mention “public” and “private.” Just as I don’t mind a cop seeing the outside of my house, I don’t mind him seeing the outside of my phone. But when is he “inside”? When does he need a warrant? When does he need to show a judge probable cause? If the answer is “we don’t really do that anymore,” the follow-up retort should be “because we are now slaves.”

The Big One

The Panoptican State Is Actually Operational

Yesterday the "big one" dropped.  The Guardian reported that the US and UK spy agencies have conspired together to gain control over on-line encryption, so that it is able to be cracked by them at will.  The Guardian also reports that internet companies known as the Big Four (Hotmail, Google, Yahoo and Facebook) are all complicit.

Through "covert partnerships with tech companies, the spy agencies have inserted secret vulnerabilities into encryption software", reported the Guardian. 

Those methods include covert measures to ensure NSA control over setting of international encryption standards, the use of supercomputers to break encryption with "brute force", and – the most closely guarded secret of all – collaboration with technology companies and internet service providers themselves. Through these covert partnerships, the agencies have inserted secret vulnerabilities – known as backdoors or trapdoors – into commercial encryption software.

The bottom line is this: the United States and the UK (so far--there may be more) can access any and all internet communications and material by private citizens and corporations and all non-government entities at will.

Government Spying Bill

Much Better

The NZ Government has put out a press release documenting amendments to its new spying bill.  These were agreed to as a result of consultation with the government's minority party (ACT) and with Peter Dunne (Independent).  The Bill now has enough votes to pass the House.  The Prime Minister has said that he still prefers a wider political consensus, and is continuing talks with the NZ First party. 

Have the amendments made a difference?  We believe so.  In fact, we are heaving a sigh of relief.  Here they are:

Keeping Perspective

The Greater Treachery

Ad hominem attack is mounting upon Edward Snowden.  Apparently he conspired from the get-go to infiltrate the government spy agencies and exfiltrate information and data.  A local blogger had this to say:

So let's put aside the fantasy of Snowden being some sort of caped crusader, fighting for truth and justice; he is anything But. He made a deliberate and conscious decision to take up a job with the pre-meditated intention of stealing data and releasing it publicly. We reckon that this will harden people's attitudes towards Snowden. He is a spy, just like those that he is trying to vilify. He has certainly forfeited the moral high ground.

It has been reported that the US Government has cancelled Edward Snowden's passport, so that he cannot legally enter Russia, nor can he go anywhere else legally. Perhaps 10 years "incarceration" in the transit lounge of a Russian airport might give Snowden the opportunity to reflect on his treachery and deceit.

Treachery and deceit.  Well, it seems to us that such a petard would hoist all whistleblowers.

Here to Help

Jabba the Hut Gives us Nightmares

Ronald Reagan famously quipped that the most dangerous sentence in the English language was, "We're from the government and we're here to help."  Authoritarian rulers who believe they know what is in your best interests (better than you do) and who have pompously convinced themselves that they are kindly, considerate, and thoughtful--that is, they have noble motives--are the most dangerous of all.  After all Judas believed he was doing his people a great service, having their best interests at heart, when he betrayed our Lord for thirty pieces of silver.  In reality, he had fallen under the control of the Devil (Luke 22:3). 

Consequently, since the price of liberty is perpetual vigilance, we have to scrutinise very closely "well-meaning" governments.  The more well-meaning they are, the more dangerous they become.  At the very least it evidences a mode of thinking which considers citizens to be infantile children.  Such arrogance is both demeaning and minatory.

New Zealand's privacy laws are an example.  Conceived by civil righters and faceless bureaucrats and NGO-bureaucrats, privacy has become a classic example of the genre of authorities knowing what is best for you even if you don't.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From America

Homo Republicanus 

Culture and Politics - Sex and Culture
Written by Douglas Wilson
Sunday, 26 August 2012

I sometimes think that secularists, including the conservative ones, have never heard of Venn diagrams. The concept of overlapping spheres of thought continues to elude them. The idea of layered hierarchies is floating above their heads, just out of reach. 

If you point out the incoherence of secularism (or say that you do such a thing repeatedly, over the course of years), they will just come back at you with what they think is a deep Jeffersonian retort ("separation of church and state!"), but which is actually just another coup manqué from the historical/political illiterati, which is actually a degree field at Harvard now.

Here is an article, rich with examples of such fruitesqueries.

Chutzpah Indeed

 Very Smelly

The poor old NZ Herald.  It claims to be New Zealand's Fishwrap of Record, but these days it is smelling decidedly stinky.  When anyone attempts to cloak naked self-interest by conjuring high moral principle the stench of decay usually becomes overwhelming.  And so it is in this case.  

Our Fishwrap of Record is continuing to beat up on the Crown seeking to recover costs from one over litigious journalist.  The "story" has been framed not just as a David versus Goliath struggle (although there has been plenty of that) but more importantly a struggle between individual freedom versus overreaching government power.  Now it is democracy itself which is at stake.  Wow.

Privacy and Public Discourse

The Case of Two Coy Beneficiaries

How diverting the madding crowd has become. We have been thoroughly entertained by the brouhaha over Paula Bennett, the Minister of Social Development (an oxmoronish government department if ever there was one) publicly releasing the welfare benefits being received by two individuals.

Some (Sue Bradford, et al) have muttered darkly about beneficiary bashing. Others have claimed an illegal breach of privacy on the part of the government. Others have expressed outrage over two defenceless individuals being persecuted by the power of Big Brother. The media (some, not all), sensing an outrage in search of a scandal, have rallied round to posture breathlessly. The blogosphere, as normal, carries opinions and views of all stripes. Zen Tiger at NZ Conservative has opened a discussion thread on the rights and wrongs of government releasing personal information as part of a political debate.

So, let's recap. The government is axing certain welfare payments. Two individual solo-mother beneficiaries complain publicly. They use their own circumstances as case studies of why the axe is evil. They are perfectly entitled to do so. But having entered public debate, and having made their own circumstances public as case studies to promote their argument, they cannot--as the same time--claim the privilege of privacy. It does not work like that. Unless, of course, they believe they are above contradiction.

Imagine if an employee called up a TV station, complaining that employers were unfairly hammering vulnerable workers during the recession. As a case in point, he claimed his employer had reduced his wages so that he had been forced into a mortgagee sale, lost his house, and his family were now living on the street. After the inevitable outcry the employer in turn released a statement saying that it had not reduced wages, but it had reduced overtime. Then, the employee responded with a complaint that his privacy had been breached because the employer had no right to disclose publicly that he had been working overtime. That was a private, employment matter.

Yes, that is how stupid this whole brouhaha has been. Shame on cheap politicians trying to make political capital out of it. Shame on the two complainants whose coyness is unbecoming their political activism. Shame on the gullible and complicit media (not all) whose laziness and ineptness beggars belief.

Thankfully, it would appear that the vast majority of commoners have seen right through the posturing of the politerati and applaud the application of a common sense kick up the posterior.

Now the women are reporting they feel bruised. They deserve it. If you live in a glass house don't throw stones. By all means make your views part of public debate. When you do, you have a choice. You can either be completely silent on your personal circumstances, and focus instead upon the issues and principles in a general frame, or your can make your own circumstances intrinsic to your argument. If the former, you are entitled to privacy from your opponents. If the latter, you are not. End of story.