In a time when privacy is of such concern…

thisisyourbrainontheinternet.jpgWhy is it that almost every single company you apply to for a job asks for you to create an account on their site?

Are we applying for jobs or are we providing information for data mining?

Well, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out, it’s both.

I detest having to create an “Account” just to apply for an advertised position, and I’m always concerned when a job application site asks me “Security Questions”

What’s your mother’s maiden name

Where were you born

What’s the name of your pet

What school did you attend

These bits of data, when aggregated with other bits gleaned from other sites can form a very complete picture of you as an individual.

Why do I need to create an account in the first place? The company I’m applying for hasn’t hired me, and in all likelihood we’re only going to have one time when we have contact with each other. The Odds of my returning to a particular corporate web site for anything other than prepping for an unlikely phone interview are exceedingly small. So why should I have to provide anything other than a resume and cover letter?

bigstock-210973132.jpgThere are currently something like 300 accounts stored in my web account password manager, at least 250 of those are from sites that I don’t visit or have only visited one time. Yet each one of those entries represents a corporation that has some amount of my personal information. This is information that I shared in the hopes of getting a job and it’s information that is no longer under my control.

Knowing how data can be scraped and related, and how easy it is to include similar results from other people, I’ve become concerned not only about my loss of control of that data, but also the veracity of data presented as “Me” on sites like Mylife.com, Beenverified.com, spokeo.com, and peoplefinders.com. That doesn’t even touch what Google may report.

The issue for me is, due to the proliferation of these sites, it could be a full time job just asking them to remove me from their records and verifying that they’ve done so.

I don’t particularly have anything to hide, but I am concerned that these sites could inexpensively be used to create a very convincing false identity, leading to successful identity theft. I’ve been through that once and have no desire to repeat the experience.

As a minor example of how easily data can get screwed up, I once had an argument with a lady, (who may or may not have been a very distant relative) on Ancestry.com over whether my Father was in fact my father.

According to her research, my step siblings were my Father’s original family and my half brother (we share the same father) and I didn’t exist. She had pictures of my Dad in her ancestry page but the birth dates were all incorrect for all of my step siblings. I figured “Fine” live in your own fantasy world lady, but I was there and I know who my father and mother are.

The problem was, that every-time I corrected the data for MY immediate family in my account, her data would override mine. Matters were made worse when my stepfather and mother started adding information from their ancestry page and my mom discovered her marriage to my biological father and my subsequent birth were being erased by this lady that we didn’t even know. My mother tried reasoning with this woman and got nowhere. You do not want to piss my mother off, she will rent a bulldozer and get certified as a heavy equipment operator,  just to smash your car into a pancake.

I lost interest after a while because I was beating my head against a wall. I signed off of ancestry and haven’t been back. I purchased an application that runs locally on my computer. That way I can maintain the integrity of my personal family data without having someone arbitrarily make changes.

You see, this stranger was searching for context and her locating my branch of the family was easier than finding the real branch of the family that she was connected to. So instead of doing the research, she started creating or editing data that fit her narrative.

Imagine a scenario like this in more important matters. Your job history, your credit history, your criminal history…

How would you even go about correcting it? Unless you ran a background check on yourself periodically you might not even know that you had been cross-linked with someone else. The problem there is, the longer the cross link exists the more “True” it becomes.

I explain all of the above to support my implied assertion that we are being “Programmed” to give away random bits of ourselves without much thought. The consequence of which is that our identities and security is being eroded.

SocialNetwork.jpgDo you really want your employer, your date, spouse, or your mother, to know about that rather large kinky sex toy you purchased on Dec 27 2005 at 3 PM in Los Angeles?  Or how about that time when you went to a shooting range with your boyfriend?

You may have purchased the toy as a practical joke, you may have gone to the shooting range to see what guns were all about and decided they weren’t for you, but the people looking at the sales records won’t know that, and you’ll never have the opportunity to explain because the folks looking at the data will never give you the chance.

We’re moving more and more toward a contextless world.

We see it in media coverage of political figures, Who cares if some politician dressed up in blackface AND a KKK outfit for Halloween in 1977, when they were 13 years old?

In a contextless society, that event reads as… Politician dressed in Blackface KKK robe. This insensitive leader must be removed from office immediately! It’s an outrage!

Not only do I not want to participate in that kind of society, I don’t want to hand a society the weapon to harm me.

So that’s why I’m very twitchy about websites demanding that I create an account for the simplest of things.

Call me paranoid if you wish, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

Just some food for thought…

JROppenheimer LosAlamos

I wasn’t planning on another piece about Apple v. The FBI. But here goes…

For all those pundits, wags, celebrities, politicians, and now Rabbis speaking out and telling Apple that they should decrypt the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone, I submit this.

Apple is apparently applying the thought Robert Oppenheimer had after he helped create the atomic bomb.

When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb.
– J. Robert Oppenheimer

I believe this quote is often paraphrased to;

Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn’t necessarily mean you SHOULD do a thing.

I’ve lived my life using that paraphrase as a test for certain actions. I look at it as a cautionary signpost for all scientists and researchers.

Project t virus by linkin368 d3gt57g

Just because you can modify the DNA of influenza to deliver a genetic update to all the people of the world… should you? What about murphy’s law? Can you really limit the unintended consequences? 

OR is it simply better to recognize that never creating the technology is the best course of action?

Thumb01m

All these people saying Apple should crack the phone, have no idea what they’re talking about. It’s not an easy task, even for Apple. Cracking encryption isn’t what you see in the movies. 

You don’t just plug a widget into a port, have some dialog about how cool you are and then hear a beep as the NSA computers start spilling all their information onto your impossibly small storage device.

At this point it’s unclear if the iPhone in question is using something as simple as a 4 digit code. It’s likely, but depending on the IOS version being used, the phone could be locked using a phrase.

If there’s a passphrase the odds of success hacking it with a brute force attack drop precipitously with each character added to the passphrase length.

James comey fbi

The brute force attack that the FBI is describing is crude and there is no guarantee that if they win in court, forcing Apple to be their bitch, that when they finally get into the phone there won’t be a nasty little application that has encrypted all the files the FBI wants using an entirely different algorithm, from another manufacturer.  If that’s the case, is the FBI going to get another court order? Probably not, because this is about the FBI making an example. Apple just happens to be the biggest target. 

It’s just as likely, this Jihadi fucker was using a messaging application that wiped the messages 5 minutes after they were read.

Federal and state fbi agent

If the guy was at all concerned about security, He probably turned off all the Apple Tracking software, I know I did right after Edward Snowden blew the whistle.

I’m not a criminal, but I value my privacy and am willing to forego my phone being able to tell me where the nearest Häagen-Dazs is, to maintain my privacy.

This means that Apple providing a custom operating system to disables the automatic wipe on the phone and allow unlimited access to the phone’s password system is likely not going to get the FBI anything more than they already have based on cell tower records.

By the way, because of the number of towers in the San Bernardino area, cell tower data can pinpoint the movements of this Jihadi asshole to within a couple hundred feet or less.

The NSA Actually Has A Program Called SKYNET

So the FBI is lying right from the get-go, when they say they want access to the phone so they can figure out where this Jihadi and his diseased rancid whore of a wife, were before, during the shooting, and after. 

The cell tower records would already provide that information and if the guy turned off his phone while visiting some nefarious underworld figure. Or dropped it in a Faraday bag or cage…

LOKSAK SHIELDSAK Flexible Fabric Faraday Cage Anti RF Protective Bag RF Fortress Radio Frequency Camouflage NDIA SOFIC 2014 David Crane DefenseReview com DR 10

Then the FBI would still get nothing from the phone because at that point the phone would have been cut off from the cell tower or any GPS information and likewise wouldn’t have been able to transmit any of that information.

But we know that the FBI has nine OTHER phones they want to force Apple to help them unlock. 

Apple icon apple

The problem here is that Apple has never created the software to unlock or hack their devices.

Why should they?

Apple tells you, “don’t lose your password, we cant help you if you do.”

So they have a secure device, and they can insure the device’s security because they’ve never created any software to undo their encryption or their locking mechanism.

Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn’t necessarily mean you SHOULD do a thing.

Achmed

Dear Apple customer… “If you loose your password, you can wipe the phone and start over. We strongly recommend you have the data backed up. Apple provides the iCloud service for this purpose.“

It’s recently come to light, that the FBI ordered the San Bernardino County IT department to change the password on the iCloud account and therefore broke a link that could, with Apple’s help, have gained access to the phone.

Now the FBI wants to use a court order to force Apple to UNFUCK their fuckup. But that’s not the end game.

The end game is that the FBI wants to force manufacturers to build government backdoors into all devices. 

BMZ9g3ZCMAAvZN2

The FBI is using “terrifying terrorists” and criminals, to spook congress and the courts into passing legislation that mandates government access be built into all machines. They and their supporters are using the time honored B.S. line;

For the safety and security of the public…” or that old favorite “We do this for THE CHILDREN

I’m not sure I believe in the slippery slope argument but I do think it’s a very short walk to losing rights that we’ll never get back.

That walk begins with statements that start out, “It’s worth losing a little privacy, or freedom, or changing the laws, or, or, or,  for safety.” see; The Patriot Act

 When I see our government behaving this way, and I hear people saying, “it’s just a little invasion,” I can’t help but think of the poem The Hangman.


I could see a time in the future when it’s illegal for you not to have your phone on your person.

After all, the government would only want to keep track of your movements and communications to insure your safety… Right?

Back doors in our devices are, I think just a stepping stone to full surveillance.

You have nothing to fear, if you have nothing to hide.

1.1 Trillion?

Oh if I could have the overnight interest on that!

It takes that kind of money to run our government?

I can’t help feeling like I’ve been the recipient of BAD TOUCH!

After this, I think we need a President and a Congress that has never been politicians. Some reports suggest that the Omnibus is loaded with so much pork it’s bacon scented.

Sarah Palin’s quip about the GOP made me blow coffee out my nose this morning.

They did it again. But like a battered wife, we keep going back because every four years they bring us flowers, beg our forgiveness, and swear they’ll never hit us again.
– via Breitbart

I don’t know that I agree with all Mrs. Palin’s points, but I do think that this Omnibus should have been ONLY about funding the actual government. The other porky stuff should have been debated individually and each item decided on it’s own merit.

Mrs Palin makes another comment that stuck out.

Basically, everything commonsense conservatives despise – and Republicans promised to put an end to if elected – was funded by this omnibus.
– via Breitbart

I guess that’s why I feel dirty this morning.

Read this today and feel like it’s a Red Pill Blue Pill situation

Salem Witch Trial

Funny, when I typed the title, I just now got the metaphor.

Hey, when I’m watching SciFi I’m watching the story, not looking for deep political meaning. Hell, I don’t even remember which pill Neo took to escape the Matrix.

I’d sign up for the Mars Colony mission if I could avoid all the political bullshit.

Mars One

Unfortunately, when you think about it, the Mars Colony mission is fraught with political issues and since the mission is one way and everyone is expected to die on Mars…

Well… just imagine having a political disagreement and having to worry about being “Spaced” on the way there, or getting tossed out on the Martian surface without a suit.

Hillary Clinton


Anyhooo…

The Conservatives are saying that Trey Gowdy’s committee “won” because they got Hillary Clinton to sorta admit that there was some illegality in her dealings as Secretary of State.

Salon, on the other hand likens the hearings to McCarthyism or the Salem Witch Trials. The Author goes so far as to say that Hillary Trounced the evil Republicans.

To some extent I agree that the Hearings have gone well beyond Benghazi.

Benghazi

To Sum up what I think we know.

  1. The unrest in Benghazi was not the result of a YouTube Video
  2. The “Embassy” was not secure
  3. The Ambassador requested additional security and his request was either denied or ignored.
  4. The British and several other embassy missions had already left Benghazi due to local unrest and Libyan inability to protect diplomatic personnel and those missions.
  5. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly lied about the events in Benghazi, as has the White House, and State Department.
  6. The Ambassador and security people were killed during a coordinated attack – NOT A PROTEST, on a US embassy.

What we don’t know is; What Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and the State Department were/are covering up.

Not directly related to Benghazi, we know that Hillary has also broken laws and ignored White House guidance, regarding her email server.  We also know that Hillary has lied about this and other things too.

Romulan Commander

It’s human nature to keep picking at a lie. I think in the case of a lawyer, that nature is magnified by a factor of at least 100.  Trey Gowdy is a lawyer, and former prosecutor. As long as Hillary keeps lying, his nature won’t let it go.

It’s not about destroying Hillary it’s about Hillary looking him in the face, smiling and lying.

She knows she’s going to get away with whatever the hell she’s done. As a prosecutor, Gowdy’s nature is to run the bullshit to ground, expose the crime in all it’s hideous detail and demand justice.

You can’t blame a leopard for having spots, or for not being able to change them.

I personally think that Hillary Clinton is guilty as sin for any number of things. I think she should be in prison and I believe that Hillary Clinton is not fit to be President. Were she anyone else, her career, campaign, and life in the public eye would already be over.

Scandals follow her like dark clouds. She has repeatedly behaved as though she was above the law. The implosion of her career and campaign should it happen, will not be due to the Republicans, or Trey Gowdy, it will be by Hillary Clinton’s own doing.

Mikandynothem 2015 Oct 24

My beliefs however, are irrelevant, the facts are not. It is the facts that Gowdy’s committee is trying to get at, it is the right of the American people to have those facts.

As the writer in Salon points out. The side benefit for the evil Republicans, is that Hillary gets knocked out of the running for the Presidency.

I think that would be best for the Country but I’m only one voice. I don’t believe these hearings are about destroying Hillary.

I do believe there is more than enough smoke surrounding these hearings to justify investigation into every single lousy transaction, donation, and donor to The Clintons and their foundation.

As I read through the contradictory reports on Hillary’s Benghazi appearance, I found myself asking, “isn’t it the best interests of both the Democrat and Republican parties to put this to bed? Instead of the Democrat leaders rallying around Hillary shouldn’t they instead be rallying around the truth? ”

ElijaCummings

Every time I see or hear Elijah Cummings I want to grab him, shake him, and ask if the truth is important to him then why does he obfuscate and waste time in every hearing?

Why not, instead become a champion for expeditiously getting to the bottom of all the allegations?

Why isn’t HE asking Hillary Clinton questions like, “WHY does it take an FBI investigation to get the information that this Committee requested two years ago? WHY, Mrs. Clinton have you been hiding material and wasting the tax payer’s money by confounding and drawing this hearing out? WHY Mrs. Clinton are we STILL here having to tease the facts out of you, your staff, and even the State Department?”

Both parties should be asking those kinds of questions, not playing partisan politics.

It shouldn’t matter which color pill you’re taking, truth and reality should trump either of them.

Not a “Hero”

kimdavis1

Kim Davis is not a hero, no matter what the religious right or ultra conservatives say.

She is a very narrow minded person who is a classic case of a person living in a glass house throwing stones.

She’s a hypocrite and spectacular failure at marriage, not to mention an adulteress and obvious fornicator, both I should point out were punished harshly under biblical law.

When she starts spouting about religion, and God, and all that stuff, all I can think is that she’s damn lucky she’s living in the United States now. Just a hundred years ago she’d have been in a much different circumstances. Even today if she where in the middle east she’d be stoned.

kimdavis2

Mrs. Davis is in jail for defiance of the law, and rightfully so.

She defied multiple court rulings and a direct order from the governor of the state. I argue that she should have been FIRED for failure to do her job and obstructing others in her office in the completion of their jobs.

Mrs. Davis as a public official is required to execute the lawful duties of her position. She can take vacation time to picket a law she doesn’t agree with. She can speak out against the law. She can hold prayer vigils, and light candles. She’s welcome to handle rattlesnakes and scorpions and spiders, while asking God to make the gay go away, for all I care.

kimdavis3

What she CANNOT do is pick and choose which laws she will obey. She’s not allowed to look at her job as a buffet.

As I was thinking about it,  I pictured that if Mrs. Davis were not the clerk, and instead the clerk had been a devout old school Catholic,  Mrs Davis wouldn’t have been issued a marriage license due to religious reasons.  Think about it, In the eyes of the church she wouldn’t be divorced unless her former marriage(s) were annulled.  Henry VIII had the same problem, the Catholic church’s refusal to grant him divorces resulted in several murders and the creation of the Church of England.

supremecourt

Had my hypothetical situation occurred, Mrs. Davis would have been screaming bloody murder about the violation of her legal rights, by a religious zealot. It’s doubtful that anyone would be rallying to a Catholic clerk jailed for refusal to issue marriage licenses to a known adulterous person. That whole religious argument cuts both ways. 

Neither Mrs Davis, or any of the other people across the nation, refusing to issue marriage licenses or perform their legal duties are heroic, they’re misguided hypocrites using religion to selectively deny a specific group of people the ability to enter into a contract. 

Yes! It’s a contract nothing more.

contract

The contract put simply says “We’re gonna share everything equally, if you die it’s all mine, if I die it’s all yours.” This contract is freely entered into, and broken thousands of times a day. There is nothing special or divine about it except the specialness the participants bring to their joining and that the state (the government) recognizes and enforces the financial aspects of the contract.

The state was essentially providing privileged status, (which was otherwise unavailable to non members of the class), to selected  members of the population. If that’s not segregationist and unfair I don’t know what is.

The minute GLBT soldiers were accepted in the military, the government had a problem. Two service people married in a state which allowed same sex marriage were entitled to survivors benefits. But if that couple was transferred to a state which did not recognize same sex marriage, what is their status then?

Can you prosecute under the UCMJ adultery in a state where to gay people aren’t legally married anymore? Does the military still pick up the tab for spousal healthcare? Are survivor benefits still payable?

whatmarriageis

The legal wrangling could have, and probably would have, gone on for years. The governments only logical choices were to forbid same sex relationship in the military, OR simply allow any two consenting adults to be married. The court decided in favor of the simplest, fairest, and most direct solution based on common sense.

We’re all equal under the law. Marriage is an important aspect of many people’s lives, we should all be allowed to participate equally in every aspect of our society.

If these hypocritical religious people were really smart, they’d be going to school to become wedding planners and divorce attorneys. I have a feeling these will be the next growth industries.


Fired

Since I started writing this I noticed that Mrs. Davis has doubled down on her stupidity. Now she’s asking the 6th circuit to exempt her from following the law and the governor’s orders.

Why the hell doesn’t someone relieve her of her JOB? That would spare her from all the pain to her soul and spare those of us who call the South Home, and specifically those of us who grew up in Kentucky continued embarrassment.