Showing posts with label freedom of expression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of expression. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Hack Attack: Good News, Bad news, Security, and Freedom

First, the good news. This could have been a lot worse:
"Sophisticated cyber-attack hits Energy Department, China possible suspect"
FoxNews.com (February 4, 2013)

"The Energy Department has been hit by a major cyber-attack, which resulted in the personal information of several hundred employees being compromised and could have been aimed at obtaining other sensitive information, The Washington Free Beacon reports.

"FBI agents are investigating the attacks, which happened two weeks ago, at the Washington-based headquarters. Fourteen computer servers and 20 workstations reportedly were penetrated during the attack....
It looks like the Energy Department's hack attack is about as serious matter as what happened to Sony Playstation back in 2011. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (April 26, 2011) Individuals were affected, and the organization had a public relations headache: but that's as far as the trouble went.

Apparently hackers got information about Energy Department employees. That could be serious for the individuals involved, if folks who steal identities for fun and profit get it. Identity theft is a real problem, and a bit off-topic for this blog.

Politics, Editorial Views, and Motive

I'm not familiar with the Washington Free Beacon, but understand that it's editorial stance is "conservative." That might explain why the service was interested in posting this article: but doesn't mean that the hack attack didn't happen.

Another Employer's Personnel Files Hacked: So What?

The Energy Department handles information that's a tad more important than usernames and passwords for online games. They're interested in solar energy, wind farms, nuclear weapons, and other energy-related tech. (More at energy.gov)

I don't share the reflexive revulsion toward nuclear weapons, and unquestioning enthusiasm over solar power, expressed by some of my contemporaries. On the other hand, on the whole I'd rather have some technical details of America's nuclear weapons stay where it's supposed to be.

Back to that article:
"...While no classified information was compromised, the Free Beacon reports there are indications the hackers could have been seeking access to such data. Chinese hackers may be suspects, as the department is a known target of Beijing -- according to the Free Beacon, the sophistication of the attack indicates the involvement of a foreign government.

"The department includes the National Nuclear Security Administration, which maintains nuclear weapons.

" 'It's a continuing story of negligence,' former Energy Department security official Ed McCallum told the Free Beacon, explaining that the department continues to have security problems despite controlling some of the most 'sophisticated military and intelligence technology the country owns.'..."
(FoxNews.com)
Mr. McCallum might simply be an irate ex-employee, out to make trouble for his former boss, he may be an irate ex-employee who's legitimately concerned about a clueless former boss, or maybe there's another explanation for what he said.

Old-School Skills, Information Age Issues

I think it's quite possible that whoever's making decisions at the Energy Department is well-meaning Washington bureaucrat: who is very good at managing paperwork; diligent in pursuing greater intradepartmental communication; and clueless about the Internet. Folks in top leadership positions tend to be a bit on the old side, and less than familiar with information technology:
Clueless management is funny - in the comics.

Dilbert.com

In the real world, having a boss who doesn't understand why keeping a network safe from hackers could be a big problem.

Being 'Protected'

I think it would be nice if everybody could share information about anything, and do so without being concerned about anyone's safety. I also think it would be nice if everybody would be nice: but that's not the way the world is.

Reality being what it is, there is a need for secrets: and weapons, and that's almost another topic. Folks who decided to kill several thousand people on September 11, 2001, were not nice. What's happened since strongly indicates that outfits like Al Qaeda and the Taliban are still determined to behave badly.

Sadly, they're not the only ones who threaten the safety of the rest of us.

China isn't the same country it was a half-century back: but its leadership still seems to be unwilling to accept folks whose ideas don't follow the 'party line.' China isn't alone, of course. It's easy to see disagreement as a threat.


I'm concerned about threats from outside America. I'm also concerned about Americans who want to 'protect' us from ideas they don't like. And that is another topic. (March 9, 2008)

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Egypt, Morsi, and Dealing With Change

It looks like at least 100,000 folks in Egypt don't like their new president's recent actions. That's how many showed up at a demonstration in Cairo today.1

One official says that President Morsi left when the crowds outside "grew bigger;" another official, speaking for Mr. Morsi, said that the President's departure was routine.

Whatever Morsi's motives, I'd say that Egypt isn't the 'stable' country it was under Mubarak.

As I've said before, "stability" isn't necessarily a good thing: not when it means that a small group makes decisions for a nation; tells the general public what the leaders think is 'proper;' and criticizing the leaders is punished.

Folks whose position or influence make them part of that small group don't, understandably, like criticism; sometimes don't distinguish between reasonable complaints and treason; and aren't necessarily 'those people over there.'

Related posts, about dealing with:
1 Excerpt from the news:
"Egyptian President Morsi leaves presidential palace as protests turn violent"
Foxnews.com (December 4, 2012)

"Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi left the presidential palace Tuesday as violence erupted between police and at least 100,000 protesters gathered in Cairo.

"In a brief outburst, police fired tear gas to stop protesters approaching the palace in the capital's Heliopolis district. Morsi was in the palace conducting business as usual while the protesters gathered outside. But he left for home through a back door when the crowds 'grew bigger,' according to a presidential official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

"The official said Morsi left on the advice of security officials at the palace and to head off 'possible dangers' and to calm protesters. Morsi's spokesman, however, said the president left the palace at the end of his work schedule through the door he routinely uses...."
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Anti-American Protests, Anti-Islamic Film, and Getting a Grip

I've been out of town on business all week, and started catching up yesterday. I discovered that four Americans had been killed Tuesday at an embassy in Libya, and that both Libyan and American authorities seemed to think the attack had to be treated seriously.

That's progress of a sort. As for the usual protests:
Today I learned that many of the protests were a response to "...a film ridiculing Muhammad produced by an American in California and being promoted by an extreme anti-Muslim Egyptian Christian campaigner in the United States...." (AP, via FoxNews.com)

I think killing Americans and torching an embassy isn't an appropriate response: not even for someone who's really angry. That said, I can sympathize with Muslims who are upset about what seems to be the latest anti-Islamic film.

But folks who get upset, and then kill someone? That's unacceptable.

Ridiculing 'Those People'

I'm part of a religious minority in America, and long ago got used to having my faith ridiculed by other Americans:


(Chick Publications, via FoxNews.com, used w/o permission)

I don't like comics like the one in that excerpt. But I'd much rather live in a country where folks are free to express their opinions: as long as I'm allowed to do the same. I remember the trailing edge of McCarthyism, and the more recent political correctness: and didn't like either one.

"Freedom" shouldn't mean "free to agree with me, or be quiet:"

Living in a Big World

Like I've said before, we live in a big world. Like it or not, the 7,000,000,000 or so folks who share the planet don't all:
  • Look alike
  • Wear the same clothes
  • Follow the same
    • Faith
    • Customs
I like living in a world where not everyone is like me. It would be unreasonable for me to expect everyone to enjoy a world of differences - but I think most of us can learn to say 'I don't agree' without killing someone.

I also hope that more of us can learn to say what we believe: without hurling insults at 'those people over there.' And that's another topic.

Here's a bit of what started me writing this post:
"Fury about a film that insults the Prophet Mohammad tore across the Middle East after weekly prayers on Friday with protesters attacking U.S. embassies and burning American flags as the Pentagon rushed to bolster security at its missions.

"At least seven people were killed as local police struggled to repel assaults after weekly Muslim prayers in Tunisia and Sudan, while there was new violence in Egypt and Yemen and across the Muslim world, driven by emotions ranging from piety to anger at Western power to frustrations with local leaders and poverty.

"A Taliban attack on a base in Afghanistan that killed two Americans may also have been timed to coincide with protests.

"But three days after the amateurish film of obscure origin triggered an attack on the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi that killed the ambassador and three other Americans on Sept. 11, President Barack Obama led a ceremony to honour the returning dead and vowed to 'stand fast' against the violence.

" 'The United States will never retreat from the world,' said Obama, who in seeking re-election must defend his record on protecting U.S. interests, both at embassies and more widely in a region where last year's Arab Spring revolts overthrew pro-Western autocrats to the benefit of once-oppressed Islamists...."
(Ulf Laessing and Tarek Amara, Reuters)
"...Protesters angered over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad fired gunshots and burned down the U.S. consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, killing one American diplomat, witnesses and the State Department said. In Egypt, protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo and replaced an American flag with an Islamic banner.

"It was the first such assaults on U.S. diplomatic facilities in either country, at a time when both Libya and Egypt are struggling to overcome the turmoil following the ouster of their longtime leaders, Muammar Qaddafi and Hosni Mubarak in uprisings last year.

"The protests in both countries were sparked by outrage over a film ridiculing Muhammad produced by an American in California and being promoted by an extreme anti-Muslim Egyptian Christian campaigner in the United States. Excerpts from the film dubbed into Arabic were posted on YouTube...."
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)
Related posts:
In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, November 11, 2011

Freedom, Even For 'Those People Over There'

I've posted about Veterans Day; AKA Armistice, National, Poppy, and Rembrance Day; before. Links to some of those posts are under "Veterans Day posts," below.

This post isn't about Veterans Day, or the folks who served in the military. It's more about why there's been a fairly steady stream of folks willing to sacrifice for this country's welfare.

That other post is about two related threats to freedom of speech: which I think warrants doing links and excerpts here.

"My Take on the News: 'There Oughtta be a Law?' "
A Catholic Citizen in America (November 11, 2011)

"The threat of Islamic laws forbidding blasphemy, and hostility toward religion, have been in the news. I think both are really bad ideas...."

"...I've noticed that many folks act as if it's their duty, or right, to force others to act 'correctly.' I remember the trailing edge of McCarthyism, endured American academia when political correctness was in flower, and didn't particularly like what either philosophical fad did to personal freedoms...."
As the blog's name, "A Catholic Citizen in America," suggests, I'm a practicing Catholic. One reason I like living in America is that folks here are free to worship as they see fit, or not worship at all. That's a big plus for someone who's part of a religious minority.

Back to that other blog's post:

" 'Everybody Knows What Those People are Like' "

"On the whole, I'm glad that I've never been part of a self-identified group of self-righteous do-gooders who had the power to make others act the 'right' way. Not being part of 'the establishment' can be an advantage.1"

"If that doesn't sound like what 'one of those religious people' should say: I'm not surprised. I'll get back to that...."
(A Catholic Citizen in America)
After that bit, I discuss bias, and offer a Bias Made Easy checkoff list of qualities often ascribed to 'those people over there.'

Freedom of Religion, Not Freedom from Religion

Editorial views of The New York Times notwithstanding, people with religious beliefs are not necessarily ignorant weirdos.1 Which brings me back to religious freedom and that other blog:
"...I'm a practicing Catholic, so I have to support freedom of religion. It's in the rules (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2104-2109)"

"Freedom: For Everyone

"That freedom is not 'freedom to worship my way.' Even if I could, I wouldn't be allowed force someone to 'act Catholic'..."

"...Today's threat to freedom isn't just 'those terrorists over there.' I think Americans should be at least as concerned about folks in today's establishment who seem determined to protect us from religion.

"'For our own good,' of course...."
(A Catholic Citizen in America)
I am grateful to the generations of American veterans who fought and died so that we could remain a free nation. I sincerely hope that America's upper crust don't accomplish what enemies abroad have failed to do: end this country's long tradition of freedom.

Veterans Day posts:
1 The New York Times ran an editorial recently, that compared people who admit having religious beliefs to those who believe in flying saucers. I am not making this up:I can't know why the NYT editor made the assumptions he did, but I suspect that he may be like the expert who only reads his own books. Old-school American journalism's upper echelons are, I think, an increasingly isolated and insular little subculture. Which may explain why they they act the way they do:Finally, despite what Americans often see in the news, these colorful folks aren't typical Christians. In my view, they're not even representative of American Protestants:


(Reuters photo, via FoxNews.com, used w/o permission)


(Oakland Blog, via SFGate, used w/o permission)

I've made the point, in another blog, that not all Christians are dolts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Business-As-Usual in Bahrain: Poet Imprisoned

Ever wish people would stop criticizing the President?

Think 'there oughtta be a law' against saying bad things about America? Or Australia, or India, or whichever country you call "home?"

Some countries work that way:
"Bahrain tries ex-lawmakers, imprisons poet"
CNN (June 12, 2011)

"...Meanwhile, poet Ayat al-Qormozi, 20, was found guilty of assembling at Pearl Roundabout, the epicenter of anti-government demonstrations in the kingdom earlier this year. Additional charges included speaking out against Bahrain and the king.

"The Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights said she read a poem criticizing government policy at the Roundabout.

"Mubarak, the government official, said Bahrain had freedom of speech, but that there were limits.

" 'Freedom of speech in this country has its boundaries and cannot touch on the leadership, and cannot call for the overthrow of the government,' he said.

"Her poem, he said, 'caused incitement and hatred to his majesty the king and to the prime minister' with lines such as 'we are people who kill humiliation' and 'assassinate misery.'..."
I think it's reasonable, in America, that calling for the overthrow of our government to be illegal.

That's what we have elections for - to swap out the current nitwits for new ones, who at least may do less damage.

Laws against criticizing the government? That makes revolution sound more reasonable. As I recall, that's part of why colonists got fed up with George III's administration, back when.

And that isn't, quite, another topic.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, June 6, 2011

France and Online Social Media: Dealing With E-Mail and Other Threats

I live in central Minnesota, and love it here. I'm rather pleased that the pontoon boat was invented by a Minnesota farmer. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (October 15, 2007)

I have, however, long since resigned myself to the fact that the world does not revolve around Minnesota.

Then there are the folks who run France.

I am Not Making This Up

"French TV, radio programs slapped with social media restriction"
Catherine Clifford and Saskya Vandoorne, CNN (June 6, 2011)

"A decree from the early 1990s, reimplemented by French regulators, is putting an end to French television and radio announcers naming social networking sites on air except for news purposes.

"The decree banned 'clandestine advertising': the promotion of a brand outside the boundaries of recognized publicity avenues.

"The reimplementation of the ruling by France's Superior Audiovisual Council means that French programs will no longer be able to urge their viewers or listeners to follow them on specific sites, such as Twitter, as has become the norm in worldwide broadcasting.

"The controversy began when an unnamed French TV channel approached the council to ask whether, under this decree, they had the right to direct viewers to social sites.

"Christine Kelly, spokeswoman for the council explained: 'Facebook and Twitter are commercial brands like Coca-Cola or L'Oreal or any other. There are many social networking sites on many topics -- cooking, animals -- why should we mention one and not others?'

"From now on news anchors will be able to give only vague instructions as to where to find information online, such as 'follow us on social networking sites.'

"French bloggers have been up in arms on Twitter and some have even composed tongue-in-cheek ways to get round the ban. One suggested: 'find live coverage of the trial on our thread on the platform which spreads messages of 140 characters'

"French commentators have been speculating on the real roots of this regulation. Matthew Fraser, a social networking expert and author of 'Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom,' a book looking at the online social media revolution, believes the ban could be a sign of defiance against Anglo-Saxon cultural domination.

" 'In my mind,' he said, 'if it had been a French social networking site then nobody would have wanted it to be regulated, but because these sites symbolize the United States, regulation is there.'

"This is not the first time anglicized, Internet-related vocabulary has been banned in France. In 2003 the use of the word 'e-mail' was forbidden in all government literature. This was due to the Toubon law, which tries to protect the purity of the French language from anglicized words and phrases.

"This time, however, the Superior Audiovisual Council insists that the ban is in no way linked to language purity...."
(CNN) [emphasis mine]
I like freedom of speech. I'm not at all comfortable when a government wants to control what people say.

And I think that when a country's leaders think they must force citizens to maintain the country's language and culture - it's a sad situation.

Related posts:
In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Iran, Dissent, and Threats to National Security

Like I've said before, stuff involving people isn't simple. Not as a rule, anyway.

Take good guys and bad guys for example.

It's 'obvious' in some circles that the good guys are forward-looking visionaries dedicated to improving the lot of the masses - whether they want it or not. And the bad guys are, what else? The American empire and the military-industrial complex and the Marines. Yes: I'm over-simplifying. A little.

It's equally 'obvious' in other circles that the good guys are fine, upstanding 'real' Americans with good, honest American names like Smith and Jones and Robertson: who stand for motherhood, apple pie, and good 'Christian' values like women not holding jobs. For that lot, the 'bad guys' are those foreigners who look, talk, and dress funny and don't have 'real' American names - - - another oversimplification.

I've been over this before:
Here's some news from Iran. I don't think much of the Ayatollah's government: but I'll get back to that after the excerpt.
"Iranian authorities have blocked reformist websites and detained several opposition supporters and activists, opposition website Saham News reported Thursday.

"The arrests come days after Iran's two leading opposition figures called for a rally next Monday in support of the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East.

"Iranian authorities on Wednesday warned against any attempt by the opposition movement to hold the rally, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.

" 'We definitely see them as enemies of the revolution and spies, and we will confront them with force,' Revolutionary Guard Cmdr. Hossein Hamedani told IRNA.

"Opposition leaders and former presidential candidates Mir Hossein Moussavi and Mehdhi Karrubi requested permission to hold the rally earlier this week, according to Saham News, Karrubi's website.

"It was unclear whether the government has denied the request...."
(CNN (February 10, 2011))
I don't think 'detaining' folks who don't agree with the government - and say so - is a good idea.

I don't think it's a good idea when it's done in Iran. Or anywhere else.

I don't think America's leaders are immune from the temptation to equate dissent with treason. America has even locked citizens up for not looking like 'real' Americans. Happily, this country also learns from mistakes. (October 2, 2010)

I'm personally interested in freedom of speech - and the rights of minorities - because I'm an American citizen - and a member of a religious minority. It's all too easy, I think, for folks who grew up in a country's dominant culture to assume that anyone who isn't like them - is the enemy:
Despite what some folks seem to think, as a practicing Catholic, I have to be a good citizen. It's one of the rules. Specifically:
"It is the duty of citizens to work with civil authority for building up society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2255)
(Cited and discussed by me in A Catholic Citizen in America (September 24, 2008))
I am of the opinion, though, that there's a huge difference between working with the establishment, "for building up society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom" - and blindly supporting everything some government executive says.

Which is, in my opinion, where Egypt's permanent president and Iran's Ayatollahs are going wrong.

And where, with just a little nudge, America could go wrong.

I'll get back to that.

next, something from the United Kingdom about Saudi Arabia, America, and giving orders. Sort of.

More of today's posts:
Related posts:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, October 22, 2010

WikiLeaks: Again, Still

It's in the news: WikiLeaks dumped another few hundred thousand classified documents into its website. I don't think it matters whether the usual newspapers and broadcast news studios re-publish parts of that set of information.

This is the Information Age, and even those folks who still read newspapers are generally able to go online themselves - or know someone who can.

Those 'classified' documents aren't secret any more.

WikiLeaks and the Real World

I've written about WikiLeaks before. (August 13, 2010) I think what they did earlier this year was wrong: Not because 'America can do no wrong,' but because America is trying to protect journalists, the WikiLeaks bunch, and the rest of us from religious crazies who are determined to kill anybody who won't do Islam their way.

And these WikiLeaks stunts don't make that job any easier.

A few American news outlets have mentioned the possibility that bad things will happen to folks in Iraq as a result of what WikiLeaks has done. That's likely enough. And, if Iraqis get killed because they helped free their country from Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda: I'm pretty sure it'll be blamed on America. And/or the Bush administration. Or western imperialism. Or maybe Mickey Mouse.

War is Not Nice

I've made the point before: War is not nice. Things get broken and people get killed. (February 15, 2010)

I think it would be nice if there was no more war.

I think it would also be nice if everybody everywhere would be nice.

That would be: nice.

Problem is, there are not-nice people in the world. Some of them have decided that their particular version of Islam is the only 'real' one - and that anybody who doesn't agree should be killed.

That's not nice.

It would be nice if Al Qaeda and all the rest would come to, say, the Berkeley campus; hug a tree; throw a Frisbee; chat with someone in the political science department about peaceful coexistence: and from that day forward do nothing more violent that carry a sign or burn a flag. An American flag, of course.

My guess is that burning something like a Saudi Arabian flag would be classified as 'hate speech.'

'Everybody Knows' What Those American Soldiers are Like

The word "torture" is already in the news, regarding these WikiLeak documents. I have no doubt that, somewhere in that mass of 400,000 or so docments, there's an account of a soldier doing something wrong.

I remember Abu Gahrib. The dirty picture. The abuse that didn't stop until the commander learned about it. And was being investigated by the time reporters got the story. (January 25, 2009)

That wasn't an Iraqi My Lai, and I rather doubt that there's one in this latest dump.

Motivation and Responsibility

I don't know why whoever's calling the shots at WikiLeaks is putting peoples' lives in danger. I could make some guesses:
  • Money
    • WikiLeaks is getting huge publicity from these data dumps
    • Traffic at the WikiLeaks website should increase
    • Some may now give money to WikiLeaks
  • Idealism
    • 'The people have a right to know!'
    • The vile fiends must be revealed - America's
      • Military
      • Government
      • Imperialism
      • Whatever
  • A desire for
    • Attention
    • Causing strife
    • Something Freudian
I don't know why WikiLeaks is putting the lives of Iraqi patriots on the line. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably idealism. Whoever makes decisions for WikiLeaks may really believe that the outfit is doing the right thing.

Whatever the motive(s), what WikiLeaks has done doesn't surprise me. And I'm pretty sure if there's something unpleasant about an American soldier in those documents, it'll get full press coverage. It's the sort of clueless, irresponsible foolishness that I've come to expect from Western mainstream news media.

And that's another topic.

Related posts:
In the news:
Background:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Actions have Consequences: Burning the Quran

An outfit calling itself the Dove World Outreach Center says it plans to burn a Quran on September 11 this year. They're marking the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 attack that killed thousands of folks in New York City and elsewhere.

They're also exercising their constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of expression - and demonstrating world-class foolishness, in my opinion.

Or, maybe not. That Quran-burning could be useful to reinforce loyalty in the group's followers, or as a marketing tool for merchandise.

It's also, in my opinion, a dangerous act. More importantly, the top U. S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan thinks it is.
"...'Images of the burning of a Koran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan -- and around the world -- to inflame public opinion and incite violence,' Gen. David Petraeus said. 'Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult.'

"His comments followed a protest Monday by hundreds of Afghans over the plans by Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Center -- a small, evangelical Christian church that espouses anti-Islam philosophy -- to burn copies of the Koran on church grounds to mark the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks...."
(FOXNews (September 7, 2010))

No, I Don't Feel Sorry for Terrorists

Given the screwball attitudes and beliefs floating around these days, I'd better clarify a few things. I'm quite sure that:
  • The 9/11 attacks
    • Really happened
    • Were committed by Islamic terrorists
    • Were not committed by
      • The CIA
      • The FBI
      • The Jews
      • The Illuminati
      • Shape-shifting space-alien lizard people
    • Were not justified
  • Islam
    • Is not a monolithic block of people with identical
      • Cultural standards
      • Sophistication
      • Background
      • Psychological stability
    • Muslims are
      • Individuals
      • Not all alike
I've used the leadership of Indonesia as an example of Muslims who - by and large - seem able to deal with a world in which not everybody is exactly like themselves. Other followers of Islam don't seem as willing to accept the idea that it's no longer considered polite to kill people you don't like. The latter are in for a long, hard period of adjustment, in my opinion.

'There Oughta be a Law:' Maybe

I'm pretty sure that burning a Quran - or a Bible - is legal in America. Freedom of expression, and all that.

Whether or not it should be legal may be discussed, after that bunch of (self?)-righteous folks in Florida go through with their Opernplatz reenactment. I'm not at all sure that defining some actions as 'thought crimes' is a good idea. I was doing time in American academia while political correctness was in flower, and am no great fan of "hate speech" legislation as a result: largely because too often "hate speech" was defined as any expression of an opinion that the establishment didn't like.

As I said, I'm pretty sure that burning a Quran - or a Bible - is legal in America. In some countries, like India, it's not legal to deliberately offend another person's religious sentiments. (A Catholic Citizen in America (February 22, 2010) As a member of a religious minority, that sort of law has a certain appeal. As a survivor of higher education, I'd be hesitant to endorse that sort of legislation.

'Incitement to Riot' isn't an Excuse to Riot

I think that the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida is ill-advised to consider burning a Quran. They'll probably enjoy short-term gains - at the risk of endangering the lives of other people.

I do not think that the Outreach Center's appallingly warped judgment is an excuse for others to lash out. Not because I don't think a Muslim should be angry about what is planned: but because I think that violence is not an appropriate response in this case.

A couple years ago a university professor trashed a page from the Bible, the Quran, and another book, shoved a nail through a consecrated host, posted a photo of the lot online and bragged about it. (August 5, 2008) I was angry about that. Doubly so, since as a Minnesota taxpayer I'm required to help pay his salary.

But violence was not an appropriate response to that act - and I don't think it would be to what that Outreach Center has planned, either.

Still, I think that what the "evangelical" group plans is wrong.

Related posts:In the news:
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Burning the Quran? Better Than Burning a Muslim: Still - - -

America is, really, a very tolerant country. Which isn't to say that all Americans are tolerant. From yesterday's news:
"Thousands of Indonesian Muslims protest US church's plan to burn Koran on 9/11"
The Associated Press, via FOXNews (September 4, 2010)

"Thousands of Indonesian Muslims rallied outside the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta on Saturday to denounce an American church's plan to mark the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by burning copies of the Koran.

"The Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, said it will burn the Islamic holy book Wednesday, the ninth anniversary of the terror attacks. Local officials have denied a permit for the bonfire on the church's grounds, but the center - which made headlines last year by distributing T-shirts that said 'Islam is of the Devil' - insists it will go ahead with the plan...."
I don't think much of that church's (self?) righteous actions. Partly because I don't think that burning books is a good way of showing how decent and good one is: partly because I'm a member of another religious minority that some virulently virtuous folks say is 'of the Devil.' (A Catholic Citizen in America (March 5, 2010)

If that Florida church simply has more T-shirts to sell, or wants its members to reinforce their loyalty to the "Outreach Center," maybe that book burning makes sense.

If they're seriously interested in reaching out to folks who aren't just like themselves - that reenactment of the Opernplatz book-burning probably isn't the best move they could make.

Related posts:In the news:Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, August 13, 2010

WikiLeaks, Real Journalists, and Common Sense

Reporters Without Borders / Reporters Sans Frontières apparently doesn't think that WikiLeaks should dump tens of thousands of classified documents. Apparently the reporters-rights group realizes that releasing the names of Afghans who cooperated with coalition troops might not sit well with the Taliban and others.

And, what is impressive, Reporters Without Borders realizes that the folks running the Taliban are inclined to kill people they don't approve of. And, that letting these Afghans get killed wouldn't be nice - even though they did help free their country from the Taliban.

Beware Unintended Consequences

Reporters Without Borders also seems concerned over what the American government might do in response to dumping these documents. With, I think, good reason.

On the whole, I prefer living in America and think that this country offers a great deal protection for freedom of expression than, say, North Korea, Sudan, or Somalia. I also think that America's leaders aren't perfect: and can make serious mistakes.

Like clamping heavy controls on what people are allowed to publish and read on the Internet.

I'll admit to having a personal stake in this: I maintain 10 other bogs, besides this one. At this time, I am free to do so. I don't have to pay a government agency for a permit to publish, I don't have to pass a background screening and loyalty test: and I rather hope that continues to be the case.

I like being free to speak - or, rather write - my mind.

Endangering the lives of people who helped free their country from religious crazies - even for the groovy reason of 'ending the Afghan war' - could give the American government reason - or excuse - to take control of what so far has been a free medium of communication.

I don't agree with everything that everyone puts online - but I don't want to be "protected" from folks who don't agree with the administration, either.

Here's that open letter from Reporters Without Borders / Reporters Sans Frontières:
"Open letter to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange: 'A bad precedent for the Internet's future' "

"Julian Assange
"Founder
"Wikileaks

"Dear Mr. Assange,

"Reporters Without Borders, an international press freedom organisation, regrets the incredible irresponsibility you showed when posting your article 'Afghan War Diary 2004 - 2010' on the Wikileaks website on 25 July together with 92,000 leaked documents disclosing the names of Afghans who have provided information to the international military coalition that has been in Afghanistan since 2001.

"Wikileaks has in the past played a useful role by making information available to the US and international public that exposed serious violations of human rights and civil liberties which the Bush administration committed in the name of its war against terror. Last April's publication of a video of the killing of two employees of the Reuters news agency and other civilians by US military personnel in Baghdad in July 2007 was clearly in the public interest and we supported this initiative. It was a response to the Obama administration's U-turn on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. The White House broke its word in May 2009, when it defied a court order and refused to release photos of the mistreatment of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"But revealing the identity of hundreds of people who collaborated with the coalition in Afghanistan is highly dangerous. It would not be hard for the Taliban and other armed groups to use these documents to draw up a list of people for targeting in deadly revenge attacks.

"Defending yourself, you said that it was about “ending the war in Afghanistan.” You also argued that: “Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future.” However, the US government has been under significant pressure for some time as regards the advisability of its military presence in Afghanistan, not just since your article's publication. We are not convinced that your wish to 'end the war in Afghanistan' will be so easily granted and meanwhile, you have unintentionally provided supposedly democratic governments with good grounds for putting the Internet under closer surveillance.

"It is true that you said that 'a further 15,000 potentially sensitive reports' were excluded from the 25 July mass posting, that they were being 'reviewed further' and that some of them would be released 'once it was deemed safe to do so.'

"Nonetheless, indiscriminately publishing 92,000 classified reports reflects a real problem of methodology and, therefore, of credibility. Journalistic work involves the selection of information. The argument with which you defend yourself, namely that Wikileaks is not made up of journalists, is not convincing. Wikileaks is an information outlet and, as such, is subject to the same rules of publishing responsibility as any other media.

"Reporters Without Borders has for years been campaigning for a federal 'shield law' protecting sources, one that would apply not only to the traditional media but also to the new Internet media without exception. This is why we condemn all forms of harassment of Wikileaks contributors or informants – such as the recent arrest of Wikileaks researcher Jacob Appelbaum – by government agencies and immigration officials. We also condemn the charges brought against US army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, who is suspected of leaking the video of the Baghdad killings. However, you cannot claim to enjoy the protection of sources while at the same time, when it suits you, denying that you are a news media.

"The precedent you have set leaves all those people throughout the world who risk their freedom and sometimes their lives for the sake of online information even more exposed to reprisals. Such imprudence endangers your own sources and, beyond that, the future of the Internet as an information medium. A total of 116 netizens are currently in prison in a dozen countries because of the comments they posted online. Can you image the same situation in the country of the First Amendment?

"Wikileaks must provide a more detailed explanation of its actions and must not repeat the same mistake. This will mean a new departure and new methods.

"We look forward to your reply,

"Sincerely,

"Jean-François Julliard
"Reporters Without Borders secretary-general

"Clothilde Le Coz
"Reporters Without Borders representative in Washington DC"
(from http://en.rsf.org/united-states-open-letter-to-wikileaks-founder-12-08-2010,38130.html, used w/o permission)
Related posts:In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Blogs, Freedom of Speech, and Threats to the Status Quo

This is - interesting.
"Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution? "
Ernest S. Christian & Gary A. Robbins, Perspective, Investors Business Daily blog (July 30, 2010)

"The Internet is a large-scale version of the 'Committees of Correspondence' that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

"People are asking, 'Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?'

"Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency...."

"...Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily...."
The bloggers' view of America's current administration is somewhat less than favorable: understandably, in a publication devoted in part to the idea that owning private property is okay.

The bulk of the post concerns economic issues which I believe are important, but which fall outside the purview of this blog. The point of interest, for Another War-on-Terror Blog, is in the first paragraph:
"The Internet is a large-scale version of the 'Committees of Correspondence' that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another...."
(July 30, 2010)
Before writing what I think about the Internet, information gatekeepers, and change, a few points:
  • This is not a political blog
    • I occasionally discuss politics because that's how America selects its leaders
    • I am not "for" or "against" the president
      • Particular policies are another matter
  • I do not call for the overthrow of the American government
    • That would be
      • Illegal
      • Messy
      • Likely to give us something even less acceptable

What are Information Gatekeepers? Why are They So Upset?

I've discussed this before:
...According to Princeton's WordNet, an gatekeeper is literally a doorkeeper or doorman: someone who guards an entrance. "Gatekeeper" may also be used as a metaphor:
"gatekeeper (someone who controls access to something) 'there are too many gatekeepers between the field officers and the chief' "
(Princeton's WordNet)
So, an "information gatekeeper" is someone who controls access to information.

Information Gatekeepers in America

For several generations, the traditional information gatekeepers in American culture included
  • Newspaper editors
  • Teachers and organizations of teachers
  • Leaders of colleges and universities
  • Entertainment industry executives
  • Publishers of books and magazines
There are others, like politicians and military leaders - but I'm inclined to think, "...if you will let me write the songs of a nation, I care not who makes its laws...."1

A problem I see with America's traditional information gatekeepers is that, by the 20th century, a very small group of people had a great deal of control over what the rest of us were allowed to know. I don't think this was (entirely) intentional....
(August 14, 2009)
That's the way it was for most of the latter part of the 20th century. Then people started using the Internet, and now we've got blogs - including this one - publishing ideas that haven't been approved by America's traditional information gatekeepers.

I don't mind the way things are, in terms of freedom of speech: but I'm not part of America's established order, either. My ideas are not politically correct: I even think it's okay for people to use dangerous technology like guns, LP gas and computers. (June 27, 2008)

I think America's traditional information gatekeepers are very concerned that people like me are free to share ideas with others.

They should be.

It seems that many folks who are not part of America's power structure now realize that they're not the only ones who are fed up with the status quo.

Back in the 'good old days,' it was possible to convince many - perhaps most - folks who didn't entirely agree with the establishment's way of thinking that their only allies were inarticulate crackpots. (A Catholic Citizen in America (April 1, 2010))

Today, not so much. Some bloggers are crackpots. Some aren't - and there isn't any way of making sure that anti-establishment ideas are presented almost exclusively by crackpots.

No wonder folks in the establishment are concerned.

Saving a Spunky Girl Reporter, Retaining Our Freedom

At least, America doesn't have a way of filtering what "the masses" see on the Internet - yet. That may change.

Earlier this week, a attractive ESPN reporter made an emotional appeal for the government to do something about those awful people on the Internet. (Apathetic Lemming of the North (July 29, 2010)

She's got a point. What happened to her wasn't right. Stalking is a bad thing, and people shouldn't do it.

But I'm very concerned that, months before an election, an attractive young woman makes an emotional cry for help - pleading that the government save her from nasty people online.

As I said, she's got a point: existing laws against stalking should be enforced, and perhaps the penalties are insufficient.

But that's not what she asked for.
"...She said, 'If somebody could think of something, I mean, they'd be a hero because, you know, there's just a lot of stuff that needs to be policed; that needs to be looked at. No one's held accountable for what they put on the Internet.'..."
(Erin Andrews, quoted on CNS News, via Apathetic Lemming of the North (July 29, 2010))
'Will no-one save her?!' My concern that the American Congress will rush to rescue this fair damsel - and set up regulations that will keep unsavory characters away from the American public.

Unsavory characters like stalkers, terrorists, and Ron Paul supporters.

Related posts:Baqckground:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, July 19, 2010

Blogetery Shutdown, WordPress, Al Qaeda, the FBI, and C3PO

It made a memorable line in a famous movie:
"No! Shut them all down! Hurry!"
(C3PO, Star Wars Episode IV, via entertonement.com)
And, in context, C3PO's instructions to R2D2 were appropriate.

Ordering someone to 'shut them all down' isn't always a good idea, though.

Last Friday, I read about 73,000 WordPress blogs hosted by Blogetery going silent. I was - concerned. Particularly since, hyperventilating Tweets and blog posts notwithstanding: all those blogs apparently had been silenced.The least-unlikely explanation I ran into was that Blogetery had been involved in some sort of intellectual property rights infringement.

I wasn't going to suggest that terrorism was involved, one way or the other: there were enough wild rumors flying around as it was. So I missed my chance to write 'told you so.' Which is okay.

Earlier today, I read that the FBI had called for Blogetery's shutdown because one (1) blog hosted on their servers had terrorist-related materials on it.

So the feds shut down all 73,000?! That seemed - excessively zealous. Unless law enforcement had reason to suspect that someone on the Blogetery staff was the one who had planted the terrorist-related data - in which case the only safe thing to do would be to shut everything in Blogetery down, until technicians could go through the code and equipment.

Check Facts, THEN Issue Orders

Apparently, some hapless employee - misinterpreted? - what the FBI, or someone, had said, and told both Blogetery and the media that the FBI had said 'shut them all down.'
"...But [Burst.net chief technology officer Joe] Marr said a Burst.net employee erred in telling Blogetery's operator and members of the media that the FBI had ordered it to terminate Blogetery's service. He said Burst.net did that on its own...."
(CNET)
What still isn't clear is why old-school news media in America hadn't reported on the Blogetery shutdown. I suspect that my father's advice may apply here: "Never ascribe to malice, what can be explained by stupidity."

Or, in the case of old-school media, institutional inertia and a monumental level of cluelessness about Information-Age issues.

Conspiracy? I Rather Doubt It

The 'addled employee' explanation could be part of some sort of plot to silence somebody or other. Or to prove that America's federal government can silence critics, or to keep people from knowing the the mothership finally came for Elvis.

But I don't think so.

I also don't think that we know everything there is to know, about what happened to Blogetery. But I'm not as concerned as I was on Friday. The explanation first given on CNET is plausible, given how excitable people can get when the FBI, blogs, and terrorists are involved.

My guess is that somebody, somewhere along the line, overreacted - big time - and caused a whole lot of unnecessary excitement.

Or maybe not-so-unnecessary.

Cloud Computing and Solid Realities

I've briefly discussed cloud computing in another blog. I think the idea is attractive: and somewhere between impractical and dangerous right now.

The Blogetery shutdown shows, I think, how vulnerable data stored on someone else's server is.

About Blogetery and the missing blogs: I suggest reading that CNET article. Of the published reports I've read, it seems to be the best-researched and calm discussion of what we know to date.

Do I Trust America? The FBI?

I've made the point that, in my opinion, America isn't perfect. I am convinced that this country is run by human beings. Mistakes happen, and sometimes bad things are done on purpose.

But, on the whole, I think that America is a pretty good place to live. And, yes: I 'trust the government.' To the extent that I must assume that, on average, its institutions act in accord with a set of laws that are intended to prevent officials from doing serious harm to American citizens.

The CNET account describes what appears to be a legal operation of the FBI, done with judicial approval: in which some yahoo overreacted and added fodder for a new crop of conspiracy theories.

The FBIPressOffice, on Twitter, linked to the FBI's 'top 10 of the week' lists on Friday, July 16, and hasn't mentioned anything about the Blogetery situation since then.

Which I don't find too surprising, since the (real) issue is probably still under investigation.

I've put excerpts from four news articles after the links, interspersed with brief comments.

Related posts, aboutIn the news:
Excerpts:
"Blogging platform Blogetery.com was cut off by its hosting company last week after the authorities said al-Qaeda 'terrorist material' was found on one of its servers, its web host, BurstNET Technologies said Monday.

"Blogetery, a platform for some 70,000 blogs, was taken down by BurstNET after the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked BurstNET 'to provide information regarding ownership' of the server hosting Blogetery.com, BurstNET said in a statement.

"BurstNET shuttered Blogetery at its own discretion after concluding it was violating its 'Acceptable Use Policy.'..."
(Threat Level, Wired)
This is the most recently-published article I read today. The 'AUP' violation explanation makes sense, particularly since there seems to have been a pattern of bad behavior. Still: 73,000 blogs?
"The blogosphere and online message boards have been buzzing with speculation as to why blogging website Blogetery.com, which claims to have hosted more than 70,000 bloggers, was suddenly shut down last week.

"Was the site a haven for terrorists? Packed with how-to advice for bomb builders? Rife with child porn? And did the FBI really order the blogging site's host BurstNET to pull the plug?

"BurstNET officials on Monday attempted to set the record straight by issuing the following statement:

" 'On the evening of July 9, 2010, BurstNET received a notice of a critical nature from law enforcement officials, and was asked to provide information regarding ownership of the server hosting Blogetery.com. It was revealed that a link to terrorist material, including bomb-making instructions and an al-Qaeda "hit list", had been posted to the site. Upon review, BurstNET determined that the posted material, in addition to potentially inciting dangerous activities, specifically violated the BurstNET Acceptable Use Policy. This policy strictly prohibits the posting of 'terrorist propaganda, racist material, or bomb/weapon instructions". Due to this violation and the fact that the site had a history of previous abuse, BurstNET elected to immediately disable the system.'..."
(PCWorld)
That "was the site a haven" style reminds me of some of the more colorful journalism of the late 19th and 20th centuries - and that's another topic.

I'm presenting these excerpts in reverse chronological order, by the way: most recent to earliest.
"A popular website that hosted more than 70,000 bloggers was shut down suddenly last week after the FBI informed its chief technology officer that the site contained hit lists, bomb-making documents and links to Al Qaeda materials, it was reported on Monday.

"When the WordPress platform Blogetery.com went dead, the initial explanation from the site's host, Burst.net, was that 'a law-enforcement agency' had ordered it to shut down, citing a 'history of abuse.' The explanation caused a wave of conspiracy theories in the blogosphere.

"But according to a report on CNET Monday, Burst.net shut down Blogetery.com when it became spooked by a letter from the FBI, in which the bureau detailed the presence of terrorist materials among the blog posts...."
(FOXNews)
"Spooked" isn't quite the sort of stuffy prose that a more literary outlet might employ - but I think it fits what we know, to date.

Finally, what I regard as the must-read article, from CNET. There's more detail, after this excerpt:
"More details are surfacing about why Blogetery.com, a blogging platform that claimed to service more than 70,000 blogs, was mysteriously booted from the Internet by its Web-hosting company.

"The site was shut down after FBI agents informed executives of Burst.net, Blogetery's Web host, late on July 9 that links to al-Qaeda materials were found on Blogetery's servers, Joe Marr, chief technology officer for Burst.net, told CNET. Sources close to the investigation say that included in those materials were the names of American citizens targeted for assassination by al-Qaeda. Messages from Osama bin Laden and other leaders of the terrorist organization, as well as bomb-making tips, were also allegedly found on the server.

"But Marr said a Burst.net employee erred in telling Blogetery's operator and members of the media that the FBI had ordered it to terminate Blogetery's service. He said Burst.net did that on its own.

"This past weekend, reports surfaced that Blogetery was shut down by the federal government and suggested that it was likely due to copyright violations. On Sunday, CNET reported that the shutdown had nothing to do with copyright violations and that a similar service, Ipbfree.com, a platform for message boards, was shuttered within days of Blogetery. It is still unclear why Ipbfree was cut off...."
(CNET)
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.