Republic, Lost

Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It by Lawrence Lessig
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Lessig lays out in unequivocal detail how the U.S. Congress has become soaked in corruption. Not the standard quid pro quo type (which is illegal), but rather something he refers to as "dependence corruption", where the dependency is on money, the money that drives campaigns and legislative behavior. Lessig uses the analogy of a "gift economy" to get at the concept of how this type of corruption differs from direct deal making, but leaves no stone unturned in detailing how it is just as real, and just as destructive.

Lessig goes further, describing how eradicating this corruption is fundamental to making any significant problems in the larger problems facing our nation (such as health care and education).

Lessig is a would-be Messiah. He concludes the book with four strategies for how we might address this important problem, the last calling for a constitutional convention to adopt a citizen-led Constitutional Amendment.

I have to say, I am inspired. Before reading this, I of course knew there were problems in Washington, but after reading this, I have a solid foundation on which to understand these problems, some hope that a solution is possible, and a reason to get behind a national movement for election reform.

View all my reviews

Frictionless Sharing and Curation

There is a lot of hubbub recently over Facebook's introduction of what is being called "frictionless sharing". Frictionless sharing is really a redefining of how people will share interests digitally. The FB "I Like" feature, along with related services, have accustomed people to actively sharing interests with friends. Frictionless sharing ushers in a new era where sharing can be done passively. That is, my activity can be monitored passively, and events are forwarded to friends without my direct involvement.

I think it's pretty clear why people may have concerns...

From a privacy perspective, in a way FB has done people a service. They have made blatant and obvious, and in a manner people can understand, the true power and danger of digital communication. Namely, every thing we do, at the finest level of detail, can in principal be monitored. Activity details can be stored indefinitely, processed, data mined, aggregated and sold. It's a good thing that people are being made aware of this fact.

There are also concerns about data overload, and how activity streams will eventually (and may already) hit a signal-to-noise ratio so low as to be useless. I have to disagree. Or at least I have to say that it is way too early to make this kind of conclusion. In fact, if managed correctly, such an advancement could have beneficial effects not only for the usefulness of sharing online but also benefits for user privacy. Of course the crucial phrase here is "managed correctly."

Taken to its logical conclusion, Facebook is in a position to own two valuable assets: 1. the social graph (that is, identity and association), and 2. user activity streams. At this point users MAY (depending on the pleasure and behest of M. Zuckerberg) be given two types of "curation" tools: a. the ability to manage data streams produced by their on-line activity, and b. the ability to manage data streams of others that they consume. It is also quite possible that FB simply expose these two types of assets to 3rd party developers, which can in turn provide tools for managing these data streams (aka "activity streams".) Of course FB will maintain control, and if there is some risk to their business, can and will rollback access as they see fit.

If nothing else, this presents non-trivial problems in balancing flexibility with simplicity. No doubt users will have to be exposed gradually to these types of services. It's quite possible that FB moved too quickly here, but they have shown every ability to correct and adjust as necessary.

A further complication involves content providers (such as media companies, music sharing sites, etc.) Over time users will develop (potentially complex) control and privacy relationships with a proliferation of content providers, creating a fractured privacy environment, which creates further risk for the user.

No doubt FB is struggling with these many issues as we speak. The recent media attention has almost certainly sent the signal that they may have over-stepped here or moved too quickly. It would be nice to imagine that this will signal a weakening of FB's dominance over these valuable assets, and that we may enter an era where consumers wake up to the value these assets present and the danger of one commercial interest obtaining a monopoly over them. And in turn the rise of more open alternatives...

The Patriot Act and American Civil Liberties

The first subject of tonight's Republican National Security Debate was the continuing and strengthening of the Patriot Act. It certainly was no great surprise that there would be nearly universal support (with the exception of Ron Paul and John Huntsman.) What I do think was interesting was the approach taken to mollify concerns about privacy and civil liberties.

In short, the nearly universal strategy (with the exception of some batshit-crazy comments from Bachmann about phones being wired into walls and Miranda rights for foreign citizens) was to characterize the Patriot Act as something that applies primarily to foreign citizens and in particular foreign terrorists. Here are a few examples (see full transcript):

Gingrich: I think it's desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty, if it's a matter of criminal law. But if you're trying to find somebody who may have a nuclear weapon that they are trying to bring into an American city, I think you want to use every tool that you can possibly use to gather the intelligence.

Romney: And that is Congressman Paul talked about crime. Newt Gingrich was right. There are different categories here. There's crime and there are rights that are afforded to American citizens under our Constitution and those that are accused of crime. Then there's war. And the tool of war being used today in America and around the world is terror. There's a different body of law that relates to war... And that means, yes, we'll use the Constitution and criminal law for those people who commit crimes, but those who commit war and attack the United States and pursue treason of various kinds, we will use instead a very different form of law, which is the law afforded to those who are fighting America.

This is an effective strategy. It certainly plays perfectly into the fears Americans have of future terrorist attacks, but also directly addresses concerns about the erosion of personal liberties.

Unfortunately it is also extremely misleading, inaccurate and ultimately dangerous. The Patriot Act is in fact a direct assault on the privacy and 4th Amendment rights of American citizens. The details on this are really too numerous to present here, but for an overview of how the Patriot Act effects American citizens, see this recent overview from the ACLU. Here is one excerpt:

The Patriot Act applies the distinction between transactional and content-oriented wiretaps to the Internet. The problem is that it takes the weak standards for access to transactional data and applies them to communications that are far more than addresses. On an e-mail message, for example, law enforcement has interpreted the "header" of a message to be transactional information accessible with a PR/TT warrant. But in addition to routing information, e-mail headers include the subject line, which is part of the substance of a communication - on a letter, for example, it would clearly be inside the envelope.

In some cases, it is certainly possible that candidates taking this position actually believe what they are saying. But I really have a hard time believing that either Gingrich or Romney do not know any better. Of course they do, and at least in Gingrich's case, knew just how far they could go in finessing their response so that voters would hear what they wanted, but they would not veer too far from being technically correct. Still not sure how these guys sleep at night...

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Sarah: You know what's good for him?
Burt: To win.
Sarah: For whom and for what?
Burt: What makes the world go round? For money and for glory.
Sarah: For whom?
Burt: Today for me. Tomorrow for himself.
Sarah: You own all the tomorrows because you buy them today, and you buy cheap.
- The Hustler

"Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light."
- The Fountainhead

Rand is the champion of the prime mover. The Fountainhead drives a stake into the heart of collectivism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", how beautifully egalitarian, what could possibly go wrong? But hidden beneath this would-be nirvana lies a dark underbelly. Nothing less than the systematic stripping away of our fundamental human nature. Our nature to think, to reason, to create and to move mankind forward. Rand shines a bright light onto this dark underbelly of collectivism.


View all my reviews

Myth and the New Atheists

The so-called New Atheists have levied a strong charge against organized religion, and in particular the manner in which organized religion is practiced in the West today. Much of the arguments inherent in this movement are traceable to the excellent essay Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell in 1927.

From a purely rational perspective I find these works, and in particular Russell's position, to be difficult, if not impossible, to tear down. I believe this is an interesting question not only because an important charge made by Russell and the New Atheists is utilitarian in that the lay out the damage caused by organized religion in the modern age, but also the inherent conflict this movement has with the fundamental fact that so many people, educated and otherwise, find religion to be such an important part of their lives. These facts lead to all kinds of intellectual conflicts, such as the number of great scientists often acting as "apologists" for organized religion, trying to find any manner of complex argument to rectify science and religion.

One approach that may have some merit is the notion of myth. We can understand myth as at least one important foundation of any modern organized religion. The literal interpretation of ancient gospel, such as the Bible, is easy prey for the likes of Dawkins and Russell. However, as Karen Armstrong points out in The Case For God, this kind of literal interpretation is really a modern phenomena, and I think results in a straw-man attack, leaving out the heart of the matter. Consider the very powerful Christian myth: "Jesus, the son of God, died for your sins." This myth hits at a very emotional level. The emotional impact is very different than the kind of language relevant to a literal interpretation of the Bible attacked by the New Atheists. It resonates instead at a personal level. I don't need to think about distracting details such as why God would have have a mortal human son, or why an all-powerful God would need to impress mankind in this way. From an emotional level this is immaterial. In this context a sacrifice is being made, the ultimate sacrifice open to God and one that as a parent or child I can feel directly, and it is levied directly at me. Consider how different the impact would be if it read: "Jesus, the son of God, died for our sins." This is a personal statement, directly from God to me. It resonates at a personal, emotional level. Rational considerations are not relevant here.

I believe this is the power that myth plays in the context of religion. Taken together, the myths associated with, say, the Bible resonate with fundamental needs and concerns we have as people to understand and get at basic questions we have about who we are, why we're here, what our purpose is, etc. Rationally it very well may be the case that these questions cannot be answered (beyond the answers provided by, say, natural selection.) But at some emotional level it may be possible through myth to satisfy curiosities of this type.

If this is true, an important observation can be made. In the end, it does not matter at all that these myths are based in any rational or factual foundation. Rationality and some kind of consistent historic fact is simply not relevant here. The litmus test for myth to have value here is that at some emotional level these stories resonate with people and as mentioned above provide some satisfaction to these basic, abstract questions. For example, the Native American Sioux have a myth whereby a group of girls are chased by a bear, they pray to the Great Spirit to save them, and the Devil's Tower rises up from the ground saving the girls. When the girls reach the sky they are turned into the constellation Pleiades. Did this really happen? Is this how the stars of Pleiades was actually formed? Does it really matter? This myth allowed the Sioux to relate to the world around them. It brought the distant stars into something they could relate to more directly, at least in an emotional way.

Occupy Wall Street

I can't help but think that the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement is a direct reaction to the progressives disappointment with President Obama. Yes, things are bad. We have what looks like an essentially jobless recovery, and gaps between the haves and the have-nots are reaching unprecedented levels, but even with this, the OWS movement would quite possibly not have happened, and likely not gained the momentum it has, if progressives felt they had a voice in the White House.

Unfortunately they don't. We all knew when we put him in office that Obama was more of a centrist than a progressive. At least that's what his voting record implied. But the campaign speeches and campaign promises at least provided some hope that once in office Obama would be the champion of progressive causes he could have been. However, after escalating operations in Afghanistan, failing to close Guantanamo, signing into law four more years of the Patriot Act, and a long list of other disappointments, it is clear that Obama will not be delivering on that hope.

This means that progressives have painted themselves into a corner. Coming out of the dark years with G.W. Bush, Obama was seen as perhaps more than we could have hoped for in terms of someone who could restore our confidence. Someone who could take steps to turn back at least some of the damage done. In foreign policy someone who would build bridges with the Middle East, finding a peaceful long-term solution to our differences. But this was not meant to be. And worse, with Obama's approval ratings at an all-time low, it is likely he will be replaced with a Republican in 2012. Yikes!

So, if this is all true, where do progressives turn?

The first step to fixing a problem is admitting there is one. In some collective sense, with the OWS movement the American middle class may be doing just that.

I'll admit, my first reaction to the movement was that America was a nation of laws, and if people are unhappy with the greed coming out of Wall Street then they have two choices: prosecute those that have broken the laws and/or modify the laws to make the behavior they disagreed with illegal. Either way, they were yelling at the wrong people. They should be in Washington going after the law makers (and the SEC, etc.)

While I still agree that it will need to come to this for the movement to affect change, I am warming up to the initial phase of targeting Wall Street. After all, this is where all the trouble began, and no doubt this is where we (politicians and citizens alike) will need to focus our attention if we are going fix what is broken.

Identity and Anonymity in the Digital Age

The importance of anonymity in a functioning society is summarized well in the following quote from Justice John Paul Stevens from 1995:

"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."

The question of anonymity is relevant today as social network providers struggle over the perceived tradeoff between anonymity and self-expression on the one hand and accountability on the other hand. For example, Google Plus has received some attention over their naming policy which includes the provision that your Common Name should be "the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you."

There has been some great commentary regarding the restrictive nature of this kind of policy (see for example this piece from the Electronic Frontier Foundation), and I certainly agree that these arguments regarding privacy and security alone are convincing. However, an additional argument can be made with respect to the transcendent nature of identity in the age of social networks. In particular, the consideration of the kinds of abuse that Google and others are attempting to mitigate.

A primary concern for Google and others is the proliferation of spam that comes along with allowing anonymous interaction. This is well known. However, the requirement that accounts be directly tied to real-world identities seems to be a fairly blunt reaction. Historically the use of pseudonyms in digital interaction has been the source of rich dialog. Is it possible to prevent this kind of abuse without taking such drastic action? A digital identity separate from a real-world identity can over time take on many of the responsibilities normally associated with a real-world identity that can hinder the kinds of abuse considered here. Is it possible for Google and others to create a privacy policy that can tap into this, thus allowing for separate digital identities?

US vetoes Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements

Continued disappointment.

The other 14 members of the Council voted for the resolution, which demanded that "Israel, as the occupying power, immediately and completely ceases all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem and that it fully respect its legal obligations in this regard." But as one of the five permanent members, the negative US vote is the equivalent of a veto.

In explaining her veto, US Ambassador Susan E. Rice said the vote should not be misunderstood as support for settlement activity.

"On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity," she declared. "Continued settlement activity violates Israel's international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace..."

Sorry, I'm no politician, but if we reject these settlements "in the strongest terms", wouldn't that include joining a UN Resolution on the topic? And H. Clinton's hair splitting of "illegitimate" vs. "illegal" sounds like doublespeak (or maybe newspeak...?)

Reminder of statement Obama made in Cairo:

"Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's," Mr. Obama said. "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

Scott