Politics: February 2008 Archives

Lauren posted a blog entry today, responding to the issues that caused Pakistan to accidentally wipe YouTube off the map for a few hours. He questions why we are bowdlerizing the internet to keep everyone happy. Yes, the companies who comply with foreign take-down notices have commercial reasons for doing so. But couldn't they find another way to keep insulted/shocked countries from limiting what the rest of us see?

So he's proposed that there be a mechanism for tagging content so that it can be avoided by those who don't want to see it.

But we've been here before. The system is called PICS, the "Platform for Internet Content Selection", and the 1.1 version was finalized by the W3 in 1996.

The third-party rating system in particular is perfect for Lauren's proposal. You could configure your browser to point at the rating body of your choice. (Imagine the possibilities—you could browse a web where only sites rated acceptable by FleshBot (NSFW) were visible!)

So, why isn't PICS built-in to every web browser and web site?

?

Okay, I confess, it was eleven years ago and I don't remember what happened. Internet Explorer did have support for it, perhaps it still does.

The real question is do we want it to be built-in to every browser? There's a very strong case to be made that once browsers have an easy way of censoring "bad" content, censorship of that content will become mandatory in large portions of society. Many governments (Australia and Britain recently, and of course multiple attempts in the U.S.) have made it clear that they don't trust parents to "protect" their own children. Adding content filters at the ISP-level would be an obvious and "simple" solution. Governments want to do it already; do we really want to make it easy for them?

The other issue is more practical, and I believe it will kill Lauren's proposal. Internet Services live and die on customer support. Which is to say that, for the main part, they die if they have to provide any. The overhead of providing a tagging and filtering service that can be used by any concerned government (or heaven forbid, organization) to complain about any content) is just too much to manage. And if the countries and organizations have to do it themselves, then they might as well just create a block-list of URLs and content words… oh wait, they already do that.

I understand the concerns that are driving the desire to compromise on content take-down. But fundamentally, I don't think it's a good idea. The risks of misuse are just too great.

I really hadn't been following any of this, and I'm not big on conspiracy theories (no, not even when they involve Karl Rove (as featured on the new depleted uranium half-gallon coin)). Also, it was a bribery case, and that would seem to be relatively straightforward, right? More on that after the fold. First the highlights.

Article pointer courtesy of Dave Winer.

So, the date on the check doesn't match the story, and the story-teller admits his memory needed prodding. That doesn't sound good at all. But unless those missing notes surface, there doesn't seem to be much hope of a re-trial.

Two points to take away.

• "Bribery," particularly in politics, is distinguishable from "campaign donation" only by intent and timing. The former is virtually impossible to determine, and the latter is easily faked. There's not a lot that can be done about that fact, and it's why politicians need to make such an effort to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. (Unfortunately, some of them get so focused on "appearance" that they forget they are supposed to avoid the "actual" impropriety as well.)
• Anybody can be appear guilty if you monitor everything they do, particularly if the folks doing the monitoring are selective about what they disclose. This is of course especially true of politicians, but it's also true of you and me. And it's a very good response to people who are willing to give up their privacy to the Government because they have nothing to hide. The issue isn't what you've done—it's what you might appear to have done.

[I originally posted this to my "Iran Outside In" blog, but I'm closing that down, and moving over a few articles that seem appropriate.]

I am a big fan of Fareed Zakaria. He is one of the few columnists out there who not only recognizes America's responsibility to appear moral to the world (and I mean that as an addition to "being" moral, not as an alternative), but also has the ability to understand and articulate how others view us, regardless of whether those people are friends or foes.

In this particular column, Fareed uncomfortably recognizes that the reason he prefers Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton on foreign policy is precisely because he believes Barack has a better "feel" for how non-Americans perceive our country. In other words, it's not about foreign policy "experience", it's about being able to empathize (in the sense of "deep understanding").

I call the recognition "uncomfortable" because of course, Fareed has made a career out of foreign policy (degrees, books, experience…). Yet, here he has to admit that while those gave him the necessary tools, what makes him really good as an advisor to America is his non-American upbringing.

Which leads me to something that always seems to be forgotten when we get around to picking our leaders. In the end, the true strength of a leader is not what they know, but how well they choose their advisors. It's a rare person who has the courage to surround themselves with people who are smarter than they are, and an even rarer one who can do so without being manipulated. Where would Kennedy have been without his brother as Attorney General? And since then, only Carter and (perhaps) George Bush Sr. have had those skills.

A leader may provide the ideology, but the advisors provide the tools and information. A smart leader knows that, and isn't afraid to pick advisors who differ in ideology but have greater skills.

But whomever becomes President next year, they could do far worse than choosing Fareed Zakaria as an advisor.

I've got a full day, and this post wasn't in the schedule, but then I got this twit from marshallk…

In this video, a young film-maker decides to go and recreate a test once used to help justify desegregation. Young black children are asked which doll they prefer between two almost identical dolls; the white one, or the black one. They overwhelmingly go for the white one. The results are the same when asked which is the "good" doll and which is the "bad" doll. But the heart-wrenching part comes when, having just identified the black doll as the "bad" doll, a little girl is asked which doll looks more like her. She's not happy with the choice she has to make.

I don't want to leave you completely depressed though. So here's another tale of dolls—white and black—that ends up somewhat better. Like the video above, it has a long history, and the better part takes a while to come. I wish I could find a complete version of the song on-line, but you ought to buy the album anyway, it's all excellent. In the meantime, listen to an excerpt from "Number One in America" on "Coming up for Air" and read the full lyrics below.

"Coming up for Air" (David Massengill)

Here are the lyrics, courtesy of AHistoricality.

Number One In America
© 1987 David Massengill

In Nineteen hundred and sixty-three
In my hometown, Bristol Tennessee
I was sitting on my mother's knee
Watching "Amos 'n' Andy" on TV

Amos was Santa Claus on Christmas Eve
A little girl was tugging at his sleeve
Saying, "Can I have a doll my own color please?"
He Said, "Honey, you can make believe..."

Just then came a call on the telephone
It was the mayor, he asked if my daddy was home
This was for his ears alone
Mom and me listened on the second phone

Mayor said, "The freedom Riders are on their way
And they'll be here by Christmas day
Our laws they vow to disobey
'Cause our school is as white as the milky way

Well, now we're really in a fix
We can't let 'em show us up like country hicks
But once the races mix
It's good-bye Jim Crow politics

First it's forty acres and a mule
Then they want to swim in our swimming pool
Pretty soon they'll be wanting to go to school
Where we were taught the golden rule"

Imagine them telling us how to live
Imagine them telling us how to live

Chorus:
We're number one in America
Number one in America
Beat the drum for Uncle Sam
Overcome in Birmingham
Dynamite in a Baptist church
Four teenaged girls lost in the lurch
Fire hoses and the billy clubs
Police dogs and the racist thugs
Nightriders and the lynching mobs
Lawmen say they're only doing their jobs
To stay number one in America.

Ax-handles vs. the right to vote
All white jury, that's all she wrote
Back of the bus, don't rock the boat
Separate but equal by the throat

That was twenty-odd years ago
Where's the change in the status quo?
The freedom land is lying low
it's shackled down on rotten row

The black skinned man still gets the snub
When he applies to the country club
But he still gets hired to trim the shrubs
Get down on the floor and scrub

There's a businessman out on his yacht
He's a rain or sunshine patriot
He says it's all a commie plot
To be Number One in America...

[Chorus]
The Ku Klux Klan is still around
With a permit to march in my home town
But only on Virginia's ground
The Tennesse side turned them down

The sheriff stood there with his deputies
Ostensibly to keep the peace
But he made us this guarantee
"By God, They'll not march into Tennessee!"

The network cameras were triple tiered
We laughed and cried, we hooted and jeered
But mostly we stood there unfeared
'Til the Ku Klux Klan dissappeared

In some far off distant dawn
When a Black is president and not a pawn
Will they burn crosses on the white house lawn
And talk of all the days bygone

Imagine them telling us how lo live
Imagine them telling us how to live

We're number one in America...
[Chorus]

Last Christmas Eve at the K-Mart store
A white family there, they was dirt poor
Father said, "Kids, pick one toy - no more
Even though we can ill afford..."

I watched his son choose a basketball
The oldest girl a creole shawl
The littlest girl chose a black skinned doll
And she held it to her chest and all

I watched to see how they'd react
Since they were white and the doll was black
But the mom and dad were matter-of-fact
They checked to see if the doll was cracked

So may you make a rebel stand
Where black and white go hand in hand
Until they reach the freedom land
Where the lion lies down with the lamb

Chorus:
O Number one in America
Number one in America
Beat the drum for Uncle Sam
Overcome in Birmingham
Dynamite in a Baptist church
Four teenaged girls lost in the lurch
Firehoses and the billy clubs
Police dogs and the racist thugs
Turn back the clock to Little Rock
Bought and sold on the auction block
Nightriders and the lynching mobs
Lawmen say they're only doing their job
To stay number one in America

We shall overcome someday

Wikileaks.org is (was?) a site created for whistle-blowers to post incriminating documents. There's obviously potential for abuse there, and WikiLeaks claims to have posted 1.2m documents, which is certainly a lot of incrimination.

There are a couple interesting things about the take-down which should concern any domain owner.

1. Wikileaks was not at the hearing which closed the site. They claim to have been given only a few hours warning via email. The take-down was done via the registrar (Dynadot). Additionally, the court (apparently being more technical than most) also ordered Dynadot to prevent any domain transfers.
2. A California court took the entire site offline because of a legal issue in Switzerland over specific documents.

I suppose going through the registrar is similar to having a landlord change the keys on an apartment, but I find it very disturbing that this was apparently done without first attempting to negotiate with the Wikileak maintainers. This isn't a case where there is any time critical element, or where evidence might "disappear" if the owner was given a warning. Quite the contrary. So what's the rush? And what are the legal implications?

I also find it disturbing that a California court is enforcing Swiss laws, particularly ones that don't appear to have U.S. analogues. And that they would take such draconian measures. They've shut down the presses in order to prevent the repeated publication of an "article" that has already been made public. I certainly hope that someone rules that they've overstepped their bounds.

BTW. There are of course, still mirrors to the site. (You should be so lucky if your site gets taken down.) You can find one here. And their article on the take-down his here.

The current administration wants immunity for the telecom companies who performed (probably illegal) wiretaps at the request of the government.

The administration has also made it clear that they want to leave torture (or things very like it) on the table during interrogation of terrorists.

The logic in both cases is similar. They don't want to punish people who are, in good faith, trying to stop terrorism. And they don't want people to delay, worried about the consequences, in time-critical situations.

I'm a strong believer in personal responsibility. That responsibility applies to individuals and to corporations. They have a responsibility to do what they believe is right. And they need to be willing to take the consequences if they turn out to be wrong. So oddly enough, my logic is very similar to that of the administration's—I just come to the opposite conclusion.

When the government shows up on your doorstep and asks you to do something, I believe that you have a responsibility to make a decision for yourself as to whether it is legal to do that thing. And if you decide that it isn't legal, you have to make a moral decision. "Is it worth it for me to break the law? Am I willing to take the risks that come with such a decision?" The government wants to relieve individuals of making moral decisions. I believe that is wrong. What could possibly be more immoral than telling people that they can do things that are wrong without having to suffer consequences?

I believe that when you believe lives are on the line, you should go right ahead and do whatever you feel necessary to get the answers you need. I also believe that if you turn out to be wrong, you should accept the consequences of that fact. I want you to stop and think about what you're doing, and whether it's worth it. Because we all know that if you don't have to think about it, you'll take the "safe" course and do the things you shouldn't do—just in case. And lest you say that they had no choice, I'll point out that when the government came calling to them, Qwest said, "No." And we all know how far "I was just following orders" is supposed to go as a defense.

"But wait!" I can hear my critics say. "How can we possibly punish someone who saved thousands of lives by breaking the law? That's not right!"

And I agree, it isn't right. Fortunately, we have a solution for that problem. It's called a presidential pardon. That's where the President puts his reputation on the line by pardoning people who broke the law, because he believes that they shouldn't be punished for it.

So, should we legalize torture? No. Should individuals in the government use torture? Only if they are willing to face the consequences.

Should the telecom companies testify under immunity for whatever it is that they did or didn't do? Absolutely not. If this administration truly believes that they did the right thing, they are free to pardon them after the fact.

Let's be serious. This isn't about saving the telecom companies from hassle. It's about trying to hide the fact that our government acted illegal. And why should we be surprised, when we see how amoral they want citizens to be when they make a request. The ends apparently always justify the means. And personal responsibility has lost all meaning. It's gone in government, and it's gone on the streets, where cars parade by with bumper stickers that read, "God Bless America" as though heaven were a prize awarded to the best country, not the best person.

Here's a list of the Democratic Senators who refused to stand up for responsibility. Please contact them and let them know what you think. It's not too late.

As posted on Facebook:

I've decided to re-integrate my political and Iran-related postings into TechnoSocial. It's hard enough managing one blog, two was too much. They'll be categorized as "Politics", "International" and/or "Iran" as appropriate. Read or ignore as you wish.

This is a good article with a brief history of Iran/U.S. relationships, and how they color (and hurt) our interactions today. I recommend reading the rest of it.

The report summary can be found here (United States Institute of Peace). The PDF of the report is here.

Photo Credit - souroshbagherzadein the "Iran Project" pool on Flickr.