I Love My Phone, I Hate the Phone Industry

In college I built my own computer. It was a great experience, and I still use that computer 7 years later when writing this. Saying you built your own computer tends to earn a lot of tech savvy points with the average person, but it's really not that hard. A lot's changed since the days of Wozniak's home brew club & the Altair, and these days you can by the parts and put them together without much more difficulty than assembling a piece of Ikea furniture. If you need an upgrade later, you can open your case up & snap a piece in.

This ease is based in no small part on the standardization of the ATX & PCI standards, a set of guidelines for how hardware should be made in such a way as to be compatible with other devices. One thing that's impressed and worried me lately is the dearth of such a standard for cell phones, and the perhaps anemic attempts to create one. It's an unfortunate marker of the way technology has gone from a scientific industry with the goal of empowering individuals and humankind to a consumer industry chasing fashion and trendiness, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

People are talking a lot these days about a little thing a little, 3.5 millimeter thing. Apple decided not to include a headphone jack on their phones, Google is following suit with their latest Pixel, and the creator of the android OS also axed the jack with the Essential Phone. The last one really bugs me, because empowering the tech consumer with more choices is one of the reasons why essential was founded, and yet the most ubiquitous, easy to use, and powerful interface options was deemed unnecessary.

OK, when I started this blog I wanted to stick to bigger issues, things that effect society or even humanity. Why am I letting myself get distracted by the minutia of what's popular in cell phones these days? Well, it's because this is a symptom of a larger, much more insidious cultural disease. Wow, OK that could be overselling it, but as I've mentioned before the choice to go with something stylish or convenient instead of something which creates an empowering infrastructure is perilous.

The Essential phone has some special connectors for accessories. Motorola is making phones with attachable accessories as well, but they go the extra mile of providing a developer kit for independent companies that want to produce these. The highest level of this was the now tragically defunct Project Ara which planned to produce an entirely modular smartphone. It also had the distinction of being the only project I know of that would have released a standard that could be used by any company to produce appropriate components. If the essential accessories or moto mods take off, any other manufacturer that wants to let customers use these will have to license the specifications from essential or Motorola, and that means they probably won't proliferate anytime soon.

And thus we, the consumer, have to be content taking whatever the phone companies decide to give us. Oh, we can shop around a little for more memory here or a better camera there, but the reality is we can't really choose what we want in our phones, or how they work. A handful of tech giants makes those decisions for us. And that's not only true for phones. that's true for social networks, gaming platforms, and more. What's the more? Well, perhaps news organizations, political parties, and advertisements. This is where the insidious cultural disease part comes up. Most people have their phone on them for most of the day in 2017. We can't act like decisions about how that works being made by some team of marketers and engineers rather than individuals is OK and won't siphon away independence and freedom from the individual.

Are We Ready for Post Scarcity? Part 3

So technology has brought us a new world.  The new technologies developed in the 20th and 21st centuries have created a world with changes as drastic as the invention of agriculture over 10 millenia ago.  This new world is awe inspiring in its productive capabilities.  Like the soviets upon seeing American grocery stores or backyard pools, those of us from the old worlds look in disbelief on the abundance the highly automated modern world offers.  Will that disbelief be an awestruck hopeful wonderment, or a horrified cringing at the dystopian nightmare on display?

What becomes of the human being, the individual in the post-scarcity world?  While objectively unanswerable, for now, science fiction and current trends can give us an idea.  Star Trek provides the most hopeful vision, a humanity that devotes itself to self improvement and growth, bravely venturing out to explore the universe or just starting a small restaurant to share the joy of old family recipes (like Joseph Sisko from DS9).  People engage in their passions and become the greatest captains, scientists, or chefs that they can thanks to the freedom from desire and from the struggle for the basic necessities of life.  While this optimism is one of the reasons we love Star Trek it doesn't strike us as realistic.

On the other side of the spectrum we see the 'dystopian,' or broken utopia, genre of fiction.  The lack of scarcity in information and communication enabled by the internet has made government surveillance and monitoring so easy that the protections for citizens seem to come only from law these days.  And that can easily fail, as the victory of the ACLU against ongoing programs of the NSA showed.  The NSA's activities have many shouting that, "1984 was not an instruction manual."  A conversation from the video game Deus Ex indicates another interesting, and all to realistic, future:

JC Denton: Some people just don't understand the dangers of indiscriminate surveillance

Morpheus (an AI system who is 'a prototype for a larger system'): The need to observed and understood was once satisfied by God.  Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms.

JC Denton: Electronic surveillance hardly inspires reverence.  Perhaps fear and obedience, but not reverence.

Huxley's Brave New World gives us one vision of a post scarcity world that's also terrifying.  People are raised from conception to death to fill a certain role, with much of the population raised to lack mental faculty and drive so that they can be contented with menial jobs.  Innovation is suppressed if the rulers decide it doesn't support the economy.  The population is essentially drugged into compliance and acceptance of the system that promotes nothing but the status quo ad infinitum.  At least everyone has a job, though.

These uncomfortable futures are just fiction, for now, but sadly they seem to strike us as truer to reality.  One of the consequences of post-scarcity living is that power can evaporate.  It can also become much more concentrated.  Abuses by law enforcement that were once prevented by their sheer infeasibility now need laws in place to protect citizens (the supreme court decision on GPS tracking is a good example of this to add to the NSA's recent abuses of power).  However when laws are needed the question inevitably arises of who will write them.

The genius of American government is the idea of the powerful individual, that every citizen has strength enough to make their voice resonate in the halls of power.  The idea has caught on so strongly that it's easy to forgot how revolutionary and unthinkable this idea would be only 500 or so years ago when monarchs were the norm, and for basically all of human history before that when the strong took what they wanted without regard for whether or not the man they were taking it from cared to give it up.

The same power of technology that can eliminate scarcity could also conceivably eliminate freedom.  Corporate influence over lawmakers could barely be necessary if companies like John Deere, Apple, and Comcast continue along their trajectories.  Imagine the power the tractor company would hold if they were able to dictate whether or not their machinery were allowed to be repaired or you would just have to buy a new one to continue sowing grain.  Consider the power of a company with similar power over electronics and personal computers.  All the innovation and creativity in the world doesn't mean a thing if a company controlling the means of distribution for new products and stories can decide to refuse their service.

How can we dilute these powers, without only strengthening centralized government power, and while still providing opportunity and daily bread for the individual?  I don't know.  I have some ideas, but truly I can't say what I'd really do if I were ruler of the world, or even just the US.  What I can say is that no one else really can either.  There's a dearth of ideas and solutions floating around out there because we're not addressing the issue.

The idea of a post-scarcity economy and society is so revolutionary that it doesn't sound real.  Talking about robotics and computing replacing human beings as the driving force in the economy sounds like science fiction, despite the fact that we continually experience it as reality.  The whole issue is so massive and so out there that it's not addressed seriously in politics, and rarely in thoughtful conversation.  If this continues we'll find ourselves in a world clinging to obsolete social mores and struggling to make them fit in the modern world.  We can't let that happen, so let's think about getting ready for post-scarcity.

Are We Ready for Post Scarcity? Part 2

It's easy to romanticize scarcity when looking to address the problems that arise as it fades from the eyes of humankind.  Recent bouts in popular culture of "paleo-nostalgia" show us just how absurd our longing for "the good old days" can get.  But the good old days were never as good as we pretend they were.  The fifties had Jim Crow laws.  Pre-industrial society was awash in the filth of both the horses that pulled carriages and the humans that rode in them.  Why I should have to point out the scourges of humanity in medieval, bronze age, or stone age days is beyond me, but I'll mention crusades and inquisitions, the slavery that built the pyramids, and war among rival tribes of cave men just to be safe.

I bring this up because it's important to note that I'm not advocating we avoid creating a post scarcity world.  Precisely the opposite, I want to acknowledge that we're in the middle of doing so, and embrace the change.  To do that though, we need to be wary and accepting of the consequences.  Some of those may be unimaginable and have to be addressed as they come.  Others are more predictable, especially when we consider history.

I mentioned the abundance of food in part one.  Now consider farming, the production of that food.  Farming is remarkably different in the modern world, and it's so efficient that we can produce so much food that our primary concerns don't regard abundance.  We take abundance of food for granted, instead seeking better quality and solutions for what to do with the excess.  This has come at a price, though.

The great depression featured, "Farming communities and rural areas suffer[ing] as crop prices fell by approximately 60%." (wikipedia, citing three other sources)  The abundance and efficiency of farming is so staggering that only through heavy subsidies is agriculture profitable today.  These subsidies are so severe that Lawrence Lessig in his book Republic, Lost titles his chapter on government farming subsidies, "Why don't we have free markets?"  We recoil at the realization that government is deciding what food gets grown, and yet this might be important and beneficial to society, since we all like to eat.  Surely subsidizing agriculture is better than milk being spilled into gutters while thousands only a few hundred miles away starved, a characteristic image of the depression?

Food is one thing, it's physical and tangible.  We're all familiar with it and easily understand what it means.  Information is quite another, yet it's the next thing whose scarcity is being obliterated.  Personal computing and the internet have done a pretty good job already, once again changing the problems from availability to find-ability of information of high enough quality and relevance.

What have humans done with this?  We haven't become a society of well read polyglots that understand the conflicts between relativity and quantum mechanics as we might hope.  We're very well entertained, though.  Entertainment is just a form of information, after all.  A textbook has roughly the same form as a storybook.  With Netflix, Hulu, & Youtube,  for videos alone we can spend our entire day being entertained for probably not quite $100 a month.

This doesn't (necessarily) mean we're stupid or shallow, though.  Many of the most popular shows are sharply written character and political dramas like House of Cards, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Game of Thrones.  The recent revival of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series did well.  It could be argued more people are writing than ever before thanks to blogging sites like what you're reading now and maybe even social media.

OK, I'll admit I might not be buying the idea that the lack of scarcity in entertainment is improving us as a people either, but on the other hand I'm not going to dismiss it outright.  A stronger example might be video games.  The juggernaut game Minecraft is almost exclusively a creative tool rather than a traditional game.  Gaming has a strong community of "modding," or learning some basic (or in some cases extremely complex) programming tools used in a game to create a variant of that game. These variants span anything between the original game with a failure message changed from, "You died." to "Thanks, Obama!" to entirely new games built on the same graphics and gameplay engine.

In both food and entertainment we do see demand for quality now that availability is so high.  People grow from just being happy to have something to eat to wanting something that is organic, gluten-free, or maybe even something actually important.  People start paying attention to what their food is over whether or not it's there.  Likewise in entertainment we are demanding quality more and more.  We are seeking entertainment that we can, as Kevin Spacey says, "engage with...with a passion and an intimacy that a blockbuster movie could only dream of."

Bertrand Russell writes in his essay In Praise of Idleness about the odd disconnect that exists between our valuation of production and consumption.  While we admire productivity we don't highly value consumption.  Those who earn money have prestige, but not those eager to spend it.  He points out the oddity of this, particularly when we only earn money is by others' spending of it.  "We think too much of production, and too little of consumption. One result is that we attach too little importance to enjoyment and simple happiness, and that we do not judge production by the pleasure that it gives to the consumer."

Russell also alludes to the caste and class scaffolds that these attitudes seem to stem from.  He even goes so far to argue that the traditional work ethic arose largely as a tool of slave-owners and autocrats to keep their populations  content with their tyrannical rule.  If this is starting to sound like Marxist thinking to you then you're actually very clever.  A serious point of departure I must take to this essay is his praise given to the (only ten years old at the time of writing) Russian revolution and newly formed USSR.

We all know how that experiment turned out, so how can I possibly be suggesting that going at it again is a going to be a good thing?  The short answer is that I'm not.  I am arguing that an economy with abundance for humanity requiring very little input of labor from humanity is on the horizon, or even just finishing its arrival and is starting to settle in.  One of my great concerns is the way this could create a dictatorship masquerading as efforts to provide equally for all men like existed in communist Russia.  I'll delve into this a little more in part 3.

Sadly, the porn must flow Part 3: Regulatory and Governmental Concerns

I've now addressed concerns with a mandatory pornography filtering system based on conceptual considerations on the nature of pornography and technical ones about how the system might work.  Now I will focus on a critique of the plan based on the governmental and regulatory considerations, as stated in the title.  A main point in my last part could be summed up as, "Don't trust your ISP to keep you safe, you're better off ensuring that on your own."  If we replace ISP with government that same idea will be found here.

America has a unique approach to government in that a fundamental value we hold is liberty, and are sensitive to the power of government to curtail this among individuals or groups.  The conflict between this and the need for law forms a basis to our society.  Whether pornographic filtering should be mandatory is another manifestation for this conflict, and I will be falling on the side of liberty as opposed to security.

The concept of safety curtailing our liberties is one hotly contested in the media with the government's efforts in the last ten years to crack down on and protect against terrorism.  This even has a more direct parallel in the field of communications with recent Snowden leaks on NSA data and metadata collection efforts that, in my own personal opinion and that of at least one court of law, violates American citizens' rights granted by the first (including and perhaps primarily the right of association) and fourth amendments.  With these already in peril, why would we want to introduce a new government mandate and increase their ability to curtail citizens' rights online?

Yes, yes, I know, "No one's rights are being curtailed, anyone can still opt in and get the content they want."  In the short view this may be true, though many of the points in my previous two essays on the subject should demonstrate ways it may also not be.  Though I'd rather not delve too deeply into the 'slippery slope' argument as it necessarily relies on speculation and unverifiable prediction, it would be prudent to mention that any law or regulation would set a precedent that our personal communication methods are something the government has every right to manage.

The proposal would grant new regulatory powers over our methods of communication.  It would be handed off to either ISPs or/and government committees and reduce choice for the individual.  While it's only a default setting that would change right now, the shame often involved in the complex issue of obscenity could easily cause this to be the societal norm, and forcing those who either held liberal views about sexuality or possibly a desire to protect their privacy and security online to be forced into an 'internet ghetto.'  Eventually these people might be lumped in with criminals and subject to greater invasion of their rights because they 'chose to use the internet in a manner recognized to reflect dangerous and deviant behavior.'

Let me explain by way of analogy.  How would you feel if car dealerships were now required to sell cars that would automatically avoid driving you anywhere where obscene or illegal activities were known to occur?  They would naturally have to standardize and define what obscene behavior was, and so a federal committee would now decide what parts of town you were allowed to drive to.  If you wanted to have full control over where you could go in the car you bought you would need to ask the dealer, and maybe they would have a special license plate for your car so that everyone else wouldn't accidentally follow you or wonder why they were having trouble getting to a place that you went to without problems.  Does that sound OK to you, or does it seem like a massive intrusion of government control in your life?

The internet is indeed a radically new method of communication.  Earlier methods often fell naturally into a pattern of self-regulation when it came to pornography.  Movies created a rating system, magazines went under the counter, TV shows had a set of standards to follow until after the watershed.  Phone lines were pretty much just as available to youngsters as much as anyone else but you needed to know what number to call and the commercials didn't go on until after the watershed, so their exposure wasn't really significant and in any event parents would get the bill later.  The internet, on the other hand, is hugely interconnected and once you're online you have access to most resources with nothing more than a name, or if you're not sure of that a search term will probably work just as well.  The industry doesn't lend itself well to self regulationas it is a personal service, the connection is to your home, connected to a vast public network.

It does lend itself easily to personal regulation, though.  In my last post I mentioned a few good and fairly easy solutions to filter pornography.  I explained my feelings that those who were unwilling to gain the technical skills to implement these shouldn't be foisting their responsibility to protect themselves on the country at large as well, but there's another aspect to this naivete I'd like to address: that pornography is a problem that technology or regulation can only slow, not stop.  It plays to the most basic human drives and desires.  This is what makes it so tempting, and destructive.

The way to fight pornography is to teach the right values, habits, and behaviors.  I admit the prevalence of pornography can make this difficult, but teaching our children and selves the truth of what pornography is is the most effective way to fight it.  We shouldn't pretend that we can shut off any exposure to it, and instead prepare ourselves and develop the mental and spiritual discipline to be strong against it when we do.  This may include a personal decision to install some sort of filter on our own networks.  Others might not even see a need for this.

Maturity comes with responsibility, taking on accountability for the way we live and the decisions we make.  I see this petition as immature, trying to abdicate the responsibility for avoiding pornography by passing it along to organizations believed to be more capable of doing so.  We must take this responsibility upon ourselves though, immense as it may seem, because immaturity and liberty cannot coexist.  The more we decide that something is too hard for us and should be handled by the government, the greater the state will become as the citizen becomes smaller and smaller.

Sadly, the porn must flow 2 : Technical Considerations

So I've gone over the conceptual problems with a government mandated ISP based pornography filtering system and given an overview of how these systems might work.  One of the problems with this kind of legislation, however, is that there are numerous technical considerations.  Much like the recent SOPA bill, a pornography filtering requirement could possibly work out to be a government mandate to restructure how the internet works in the service of a specific special interest.

On the surface this seems like an overreaction, porn filters already exist so how difficult would it be for these to be implemented broadly by ISPs rather than requiring users to implement them personally.  It's not, though, as scalability isn't simple.  There's a reason why programs have run locally on personal machines for years but only now can be served out from a remote location to hundreds of thousands of users.  There's a reason enterprise servers are different from personal computers.

Still, though, it's certainly doable.  It would take a lot of work, though, and skilled programmers, network engineers, and system administrators don't work for free.  That means forcing this to happen at the ISP level will be expensive.  A government mandate means everyone's prices will go up.  Think about if a similar resolution were to be passed for gasoline, electricity, or food.  People would rightfully be incensed that either they're being forced to pay more for a service they don't want or are already using from a provider they trust and have established a good relationship.

Also, people don't often think about what their ISP is doing with their internet traffic.  Usually that's because it's assumed that they shouldn't be doing anything with it apart from passing it on to the intended recipient.  That's not the case, though.  Your ISP is watching you, much like Google, Facebook, or other online advertising companies are and like these they plan to sell information about your habits to interested parties for some extra cash.  They're also watching you as a favor to their friends in the entertainment industries to make sure that you don't "copy or share a movie, television show, or song improperly."  The more I find out about the ISP industry, the less I trust them.

Knowing this we're likely to see two things happen should any sort of legislation pass from this petition: First, pornography filtering will be put in place, but thanks to a grant from the pornography industry to ISPs will make this laughably easy to circumvent.  There could possibly be a sort of 'protection money' situation where ISPs block the pornography sites that don't pay up to be on their list of sites that aren't too 'extreme or hardcore.'  Second, the system will be implemented with little thought to protecting those that want to avoid pornography, but as a great excuse to further other goals for the ISP.

I mentioned encrypted traffic in my last post and how this can create a problem for porn filtering systems.  My feelings about ISPs give me every reason to believe that they would be happy to use porn filtering mandates to try to subvert users' efforts that are trying to remain anonymous and gain a modicum of privacy while online (such as when using a VPN service like ProXPN to hide traffic from the ISP, or connecting to a Tor node to remain anonymous).  This way they could continue collecting information about you and your habits to sell to advertisers or make sure you fall in line with the entertainment industry's demands.  They'd also have the power to brand anyone trying to get around these restrictions on the service they're paying for with a 'scarlet P' by saying that they had opted in to the internet with pornographic access plan.

Going back to the phrase from the petition, "Parents and individuals have to go to great lengths to install Internet filters that often don't weed out all porn," I'm not really certain what these 'great lengths' are.  Installing a free program like K9 web protection on your computer, or an app on your cell phone like this web filter?  Admittedly my preferred solution, OpenDNS, is a little technical but even then you don't even need to sign up and they'll still provide straight forward instructions like these on their website.  Why do we feel it necessary to have the government partner with our ISPs to do this for us?  If staying safe from pornography is important to us shouldn't we be willing to put an iota of effort into doing it in a way we understand and are in control of?

This leads me back to one of my original points: naivete.  I recently watched a documentary on prohibition and one thing that was pointed out was that once the prohibition amendment had passed the prohibitionists had thought they'd won the war on alcohol.  Anyone with a smattering of US history knows that wasn't the case, and a tacit law saying porn is to be avoided won't make it any less desired or sought after.  We'll be handing over a good degree of power over our lives, remember the internet is only becoming more and more important to who we are, in exchange for avoiding something like an hour a week, at most, to install, configure, and maintain a filtering solution that fits our personal needs.

I'm writing a novel this month for National Novel Writing Month in the tradition of cyberpunk.  One characteristic of the cyberpunk genre is that it features technology not as an enabling  force that brings about Utopian lives for mankind, but instead becomes a force for control and oppression.  There's hints of this in my novel, but one of the themes is also supposed to be that this happens because people give up their rights, their strength, and their power to others because they think it's too hard to develop the technical skills necessary to understand the systems they use.  Society has fallen back into being controlled by a few select elite, but this time we chose it because math, programming, physics, engineering, and computing are hard and we'd rather enjoy ourselves while someone else did those complicated things.  This petition is a sad reminder that the bleak future I'm writing should be fiction, but might not be someday.

The Fourth Amendment in the Information Age

In my last post I mused on the nature of data and how the information about us defines who we are.  I was spurned to write this and finished off the post presenting disappoint with Verizon, my cell carrier, and their failure to protect users' privacy and respect their charge in holding data about us.  Lately Verizon has been in the news for handing over call records to the NSA, so the wound has had salt thrown in it rather than had time to heal, so to speak.  In my investigations into jumping ship from a company so cavalier about it's responsibility to protect who I am in the form my data I've had some interesting experiences.

I sent an email to Sprint asking if their company does anything to protect users' data and privacy.  Their response was,

Sprint as a company is not commenting on this report. We do not have 

any information to share, and that Sprint will not be commenting on the 

subject. 

which I found alarmingly curt and evasive.  Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting anything terribly profound or telling, I was expecting a sorta non-committal PR department generated canned response along the lines of, "Sprint is committed to protecting customers' data and ensuring their privacy, however we still must comply with any lawful U.S. Government agency request."  There's no real way to peer behind the curtain and discern why they responded with the air of, "Oh geez I don't want to talk about this please don't make me say anything why are you doing this to me?"  My speculation on the subject, which I feel such a curious response deserves, would be that either Sprint is just as uncaring when it comes to customers' data and privacy and can provide no unembarrassing response to a customer asking these type of questions, or that they are actually fearful of what might happen should they take a stand.

Both could of course be true, in fact the latter may be the cause and the former the effect.  I find the latter more interesting, though.  It's easy to dismiss concern with how a company protects (or more often fails to protect) our information as unfounded worry about "government conspiracies" (in fact, that's exactly who a T-Mobile salesperson ended up characterizing my concern when asking about it at a store location).  While the fact that most citizens probably won't be much affected is true and the majority of people (including myself with all my seditious comments coming out on this blog) aren't interesting, influential, or dangerous enough for the government to take the effort to spy on, the issue is far from unimportant for everyone save a few security advocates, legal scholars, and tech enthusiasts.

As I pointed out in my last post we're seeing the importance of the physical diminish.  The things that are important to us are increasingly in the form of data accessed in a number of different ways?  As these changes in the way we communicate, work, and create emerge so the laws which will govern these new methods of living.  And they are being changed.

"The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause."  This worked well for many years when communication took place between two people in the form of physical letters that they could keep on their property and evidence showed up as physical items that, again, could be held on someone's property. These laws are essentially being re-written as more and more of what's important to us has a digital presence.

The fourth amendment seems to grow out of the presumption of innocence.  We aren't to be observed, investigated, or seized until some degree of proof of guilt can be obtained.  This is what's being eroded by modern electronic surveillance.  It echos the complaints by so many in gaming when considering many invasive digital rights management (DRM) systems, "I'm being treated like a criminal when I haven't done anything wrong.  They're just assuming I'm going to steal things."

Privacy and the internet is always, and may always be, a thorny issue.  There's many conflicting theories, ranging from the internet being a surveillance state, to the assumption of privacy which is continually being shown to be unsupported, to complex privacy policies written by lawyers and mostly ignored by users, to understanding that privacy is only there when one takes the steps to encrypt their data and secure their connections.  The internet is increasingly how we live our lives-in both private and public contexts-and after fighting for our rights and freedoms in the physical world we need to take up the fight once more for cyberspace, whether that means holding elected officials accountable, suffering the inconvenience of using security software, or considering privacy and data security when selecting service providers.

Our Data is Who We Are

 The physical is becoming less and less important in the modern world.  Sure, there will always be a need for physical mediums (after all "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter"), but information is what reigns supreme in importance.  This has always been true, in many ways.  As Carl Sagan said, "The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, it's the way those atoms are put together."  In another way, humanity has been marching toward this for ages; Since the invention of writing a stone could be transformed into the law of the land or God, a history of a people, or an agreement between two parties.  The invention and standardization of money intensified this.

The idiom that you can find out a lot about a person by going through their trash may still be true, but it's been found that with a handful of data readily made available people can know exactly who we are (in this study 4 locational data points were enough to identify 95% of participants).  While it's (probably) true that you wouldn't be you without your physical body, too often we forget that we wouldn't be who we are without our memories, habits, and interpersonal connections-all of which computers are increasingly involved in and therefore archiving.

As a Verizon wireless customer I was devastated to see this report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation surveying different companies and what measures they were taking to protect users' privacy.  I've known for a while that Verizon was kind of a scumbag company, managing to continue living only because they've acquired a great deal of infrastructure.  When (also scumbag, when it comes to users' data) companies like Comcast and Facebook (I'm not including Google even though many might have worries about the amount of data they collect because they did manage to collect 5 out of 6 stars in this survey, and I genuinely appreciate the company) as well as the two lower end Apple and AT&T still manage to find some way in which they can protect users' data rights are still beating out my carrier, I worry.

I'm seriously considering leaving Verizon, and would probably side with Sprint.  The financial, coverage, and overall convenience implications makes me hesitate, but I really feel like making sure a company that isn't making any effort to protect my digital self shouldn't be supported by my money.  I'd love to leave Comcast for the same reason, and may look into campaigning within my complex to get a different service provider.  The power a service provider has in my life is unnerving, considering how important my data is to me.  After all, in a very real way the data about me is who I am.

Not excusable, but understandable

I have been thinking since for a little bit now on the title of this post. I suppose I should say that my thoughts about it might just barely crystallize here as I write them, or maybe not. It's an interesting thing to think about, and has meaning and importance, and it's about time for the monthly post here on my blog so here goes.

I think my idea here is what drives reformation. What drives one to become better? To leave bad habits and grow to be better. This is similar to my previous post on the idea of a PGF. My question here though focuses more on bad habits, or vices. I've been struggling with some of my own lately. Perhaps it may be better to say that a particular struggle has been highlighted recently, as I hope to be continually struggling with my vices and weakness always. Getting to the point, I see the poor decisions I make and I decide that they're not excusable, but sometimes understandable.

This means I seek to understand what drives me to do what my better judgment tells me not to. I look for the conditions and the reasons behind bad decisions, internal and external. I usually find them. I usually find a good explanation for why I don't do what I think I should. Knowing this empowers me to be better, to avoid those pitfalls in the future, and to build situations around and within me that will propel me to good rather than away from it.

Knowing what caused my iniquities, though, doesn't mean that they don't exist. It doesn't mean, to use my hated phrase, "I'm a good person." On the other hand, weeping and feeling sorrow for what I've done wrong won't help either. I can't live in the past, wishing I hadn't done what I've done. I can only accept my previous faults, and strive to make sure they do not become present faults.

War is Hell which brings Heaven

Wow, just the title and I already know I'm stepping on some serious toes. Please, just bear with me a little, take in my ideas, and hopefully you'll see that I'm not quite the warmonger I'm sure you've assumed I am.
Obviously the question I'm trying to tackle here is: Under what circumstances is war justified? Simplified thusly, the answer is easy. I take it from the Book of Mormon: "Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies."[Alma 43:46] The principle is clearly taught and widely recognized by most, violence is justified when necessary for self defence. This goes for large states, governments, and organizations. One must be attacked before having legitimate reason for striking back. Thusly, addressing the current war in which the United States is involved, the "Preemptive Strike" is not justifiable. That's right, I want to go on record that I don't believe that a preemptive strike, an attack for the purpose of preventing one, is a valid reason for going to war. Moreover, therefore, that the Iraq war's declaration is justifiable.
Unfortunately, though, there is a however. However, I believe at least some deal of good has come, or at the very least could have had the political and sociological ends been pursued like they should have. A brutal dictator was overthrown and a peolple freed from his tyranny and torture. Remember those first days of whatever the P.R. label for this war is now? Iraqis celbrating in the street, hitting posters of Hussain with their shoes, which gesture as a military interrogation specialist our family knows says is one of such disdain, hatred, and malice that it's akin to saying, "if you ever are able to obtain the resources and opportunity, please hunt down and kill me and my family." That same specialist said that when some Iraqis were questioned upon being released to go back home they broke into tears and were overjoyed, because they were used to the fact being that if you were taken for questioning, you would never be seen again. Did this atmosphere last? Sadly, it seems not to. Perhaps it's just hopeful on my part, but I think that if the Iraqi democracy agenda had been pursued as hard as either candidate's campaign it might have.
The point I've wanted to make here is thus: Was the war justified? No. Was the war evil? No. Or, at the very least it's certainly on a level higher than the parade of sorrows and atrocities that folk like Micheal Moore would have you believe it is. And I think war in general must be recognized for the good that it brings. Of course the suffering brought on by the flood of violence which sweeps a land called, "combat zone" during a war is terrible. But the destruction of Nazis, unjust monarchs, or terrorists (I want to make sure it's pointed out I mean those who'll kill anyone regardless of...well anything but most importantly the worth of human life) brought forth through that sadness is important.
So, I supppose maybe I should sum up my opinion on the Iraq war, as that's where all the ire tends to lie. I think we should never have gone there. I think the reason for the war was not justifiable-though I believe Saddam's threat of W.M.D.'s was real, if only like someone brandishing a gun in your face is real even if it turns out the weapon wasn't loaded. I think the efforts going on now, though, are at least understandable and maybe honorable. And perhaps what I really want to say is just that the best way to honor those soldiers who fight on our country's behalf isn't to show disdain for the venture they're currently engaged in and wish it over, but to hope that the great deal of good which is possible does come from it, and a people learn to live for themselves instead of in fear of a soul crushing government.
War is hell, but as Dante had to pass through hell on his way to heaven, so must some communities pass through times of war to become places where goodness and happiness can abound.