no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Are the Russian Spies a Pretext for the Internet Kill Switch?

July 1st, 2010

Earlier this week it was announced that a few Russian spies had been captured operating in the U.S. That’s interesting, and I’m actually surprised that the media hasn’t made a big deal out of it.  Because it’s not. The Wall Street Journal cites a number of sources that say this story, with even as little attention as it has garnered, is still blown out of proportion.

  • Philip Shenon at The Daily Beast indicates that “The Justice Department and the F.B.I. have been unable to point to a single significant piece of classified information that the so-called spies obtained during their many years in the United States; none of the suspects is accused of espionage.”
  • Daniel Drezner, at Foreign Policy calls it the “lamest espionage conspiracy….ever.”

What is notable, is that these “spies” had allegedly been passing information to the Motherland in a manner that was previously only theoretically possible:

The accused spies posted the seemingly mundane photos on publicly accessible websites, but then extracted coded messages from the computer data of the pictures, according to the criminal complaint filed by the FBI. Although computer scientists have theorized about the existence of this communication technique for over a decade, this is the first publicly acknowledged use of the technique.

Off-the-cuff, you kinda have to wonder if this is some sort of pretext for the Orwellian “internet kill switch”, which would really concentrate the dissemination of information and “opinion” among the state-sanctioned media outlets, who would of course remain fair and impartial as they repeat the ruling party’s propaganda, and it would be the coup de grace for whatever vestiges remain of our freedoms of speech and information.

Don’t Tase Me Bro! (Philadelphia Edition)

May 4th, 2010

My friend Peter posted a link on Facebook today out of Philadelphia. Last night at the Phillies game, a kid ran out on to the field between innings. The local law enforcement on the scene apprehended him using a taser.

A police officer used a Taser gun to apprehend a fan who ran onto the field during a Phillies game Monday night, and the team and the police are investigating whether it was an appropriate use of force. (photo credits: Matt Slocum, AP)

cop tasers kid at Phillies gameWhat the hell is there to “investigate”? Lazy cop uses a ‘substitute for lethal force’ to apprehend a prankster. He ought to lose his job, his pension, and be tarred and feathered in some public square.

Tasers used to be marketed as a non-lethal alternative to using lethal force in order to subdue a criminal suspect. Besides the obvious evidence (a trail of dead bodies, actually) which suggests tasers can be quite lethal under certain circumstances,

This story, Peter says, “Shows that when police are given the choice, a taser seems to be the first option because they don’t want to run. ‘Subdue’ implies the suspect is being violent, etc. One can hardly expect a 17-year old to not run, especially since he was ‘running’ on to the baseball field between innings…”

the aftermath...Precisely! That’s why I have a problem with tasers. They encourage sloppiness, viz., no cop anywhere would’ve drawn a firearm on the kid — much less fired a fucking bullet at him from behind. So, if lethal force was not an acceptable reaction to this scenario, then the prescribed ‘alternative’ to lethal force ought to be out of the question.

With the evidence of its lethality, and the fact that the taser seems to be the go-to weapon of choice for law enforcement officers (this incident and others like it are pretty clear and convincing evidence that tasers aren’t being used as substitute for lethal force), taser introduces a level of moral hazard that otherwise wouldn’t exist.

Fortunately, this kid lived. Others haven’t been so lucky.

The “Good Cop” Fnord and Selective Enforcement of Law

December 26th, 2009

A friend of mine got a traffic ticket the other day, it wasn’t anything serious. As chance encounters with “the man” often do, this got me thinking.

The officer wrote him up for “unsafe start” or something like that, which is the equivalent of “impeding traffic”. I believe it is a moving violation so the officer can apply it towards his monthly ticket quota, but a bunk ticket worth no points against his license and minimal fine (although I think “minimal” is still $110 in MI). However, this is not what he was doing. In fact, he was attempting to complete a left-turn through a downtown intersection, and at this precise intersection (not all intersections) it seems left turns are prohibited. Oh well, it was posted, so technically he should’ve know better or whatever.

So yeah, this got me thinking. I mean, aside from the fact that every single officer in every single jurisdiction in the country has perjured himself in such a manner, that this practice is pervasively routine and accepted. Many people are content with this because of the presumption of that the officer is somehow helping you out or doing you a favor by reducing the infraction. (You know what would be even more favorful? Yep: not writing a ticket in the first place!)

This is the “good cop” fnord: the officer could’ve made your life far more miserable, but shows a degree of restraint and only subjects you to a slightly lesser degree of punishment, therefore he’s “good” and you should be grateful for his benevolence.

But consider: the officer wrote him a ticket for something they both know he didn’t do. Isn’t this “falsifying a police report”?

A common argument used by law enforcement apologists is that the officers don’t get to decide which laws they want to enforce, they don’t get to decide which laws are just or which laws to enforce, rather they are just enforcing the law to the letter (IMO this is a variant of the “following orders” fallacy). But the fact of the matter is that law enforcement officers routinely decide which laws they want to enforce. Perhaps they don’t pull anyone over for speeding unless they’re really speeding. Maybe they ignore the fact that you didn’t use your turn signal. In other cases (e.g., racial profiling) they selectively enforce laws, perhaps only pulling over speeders who are black or Hispanic, etc.

You might say, “Well, these are minor civil infractions and not crimes per se…” but you’re falling in to that exact same trap of deciding which laws are appropriate to enforce, to what degree they will be enforced and under what circumstances and you’re using only the letter of the law as your guide.

You can not use “the letter of the law” as your guide to evaluating the propriety of the law.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics