Analytics

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Miscellany: 4/20/16

Quote of the Day
From long familiarity, we know what honor is. 
It is what enables the individual to do right in the face of complacency and cowardice. 
It is what enables the soldier to die alone, 
the political prisoner to resist, 
the singer to sing her song, hardly appreciated, on a side street.
Mark Helprin

Tweet of the Day
Libertarian Party Debate Part 3

I'm testy on the eminent domain point with respect to pipelines, because the salient issue is an easement across the property, not property condemnation. The classic example is someone buys all the property surrounding mine: do they have a right to restrict my liberty to and from my property? Of course not. Now suppose some environmental group deliberately purchases property in the path of a pipeline, simply for purposes of blocking the project? Usually the pipeline company must agree to be a common carrier for the privilege of easements, and one can make the argument that pipelines are better, more ecology-friendly, cost-effective means of transporting energy to refineries or urban areas. So McAfree lost some points on his response.

I didn't like Johnson's discussion of the river pollution example. It's not clear that you need to prescribe the use of state force, say, in place of private property rights. If pollution by others impaired my property rights, I could sue the polluter for damages. Johnson on a few of the questions was a little bit squishy on being willing to discuss restrictions on principled things, like the right to self-defense.

The encryption question was important. McAfee was good on this point, but I would have pointed out that the prohibition of effective encryption technology is essentially unenforceable and a crippled technology which could be exploited by others for nefarious purposes. It really doesn't make sense. As a thought experiment, why would I keep sensitive data on my phone, knowing its vulnerability to potential malware, hacker access, or even forgotten passwords? If I maintain multiple copies, there are multiple points of vulnerabilities. In the case of the San Bernardino terrorist, they had destroyed their private phones--but not the work phone, which the FBI wanted to decrypt. Why would the terrorist leave the work phone untouched? Did he need to review his nefarious plans while on his government job? Now the government is going to say they want access to everything "just in case", just doing their job, due diligence. But keep in mind they already had access for phone records to and from that work phone. Even supposing there was some network coordinating attacks, there would be no need to communicate details beyond a need to know basis for obvious reasons, and what I've read is that many of the 9/11 operatives were communicated to on a need to know. Moreover, even supposing operatives had been detained, the network would have surely modified any planned operations in the face of possible disclosure. And we are not even discussing use of technologies like disposable phones. Is it possible the terrorist was stupid? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it,

We know the FBI did manage to access the iPhone without Apple being forced to modify its operating system. I haven't heard what, if anything, they found, but I doubt Emily Litella is going to make an appearance and say, "Never mind!" I think they're going to continue to press the point for future phones.



Free to Choose: Inequality



Allow Medical Research; Reschedule Marijuana

I don't encourage and have never transacted in marijuana. For people experiencing pain, epilepsy, etc., there is anecdotal evidence it can help in various forms. Decriminalize and destroy drug cartels' black market profits and violence. Stop prosecuting victimless crimes.



Choose Life: Daddy Reveal!



Inspirational



Political Cartoon
Courtesy of Gary Varvel via Townhall
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

Rod Stewart, "You Wear It Well"

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,