Author: mimiv

I was a software engineer in hi-tech for 23 years, now writing- this blog.

Categories
Rule: Cover The Topic surveillance

Surveillance & Lavabit: ‘the Gag’ on the Gag

This one really got my attention. Lavabit, a small encrypted email service, was shutdown a few weeks ago by its owner, Ladar Levison, because… well, he can’t actually say why. The post on his company’s website hints at the reason, expressing his wish to not be “complicit in crimes against the American people”, and stating he cannot “legally share … the events that led to [his] decision” even though “the first amendment is supposed to guarantee the freedom to speak out in situations like this.”

Another ISP provider, Silent Circle, also shut down abruptly. Its CEO said “There was no 12-hour heads up. If we announced it, it would have given authorities time to file a national security letter (NSL). We decided to destroy it before we were asked to turn (information) over.”

I hadn’t encountered this particular story through my usual news sources, and tripped over it a few days ago online. Despite his government directive of silence, Mr. Levison has given a series of interviews that ended up exclusively online (excepting PBS’s Democracy Now!, which also aired on TV). In each, Mr. Levison kept his lawyer close by to ensure legal lines weren’t crossed while letting the public know, as much as he could, what is happening.

And what that seems to be is- the government is using its powers, in matters of privacy and surveillance, to a degree significantly greater than has been exposed in the media.  As The Guardian put it, Levison is “stuck in a Kafkaesque universe where he is not allowed to talk about what is going on, nor is he allowed to talk about what he’s not allowed to talk about without facing charges of contempt of court.” ‘The gag’ on the gag (order).

PBS Democracy Now (no ads)

In the Democracy Now! interview, Mr. Levison states “There’s information that I can’t even share with my lawyer.” His lawyer, Jesse Binnall, says: “Ladar is in a situation where he has to watch every word he says … for fear of being imprisoned. We can’t even talk about what the legal requirements are that make it so he has to watch his words. … And that’s [the] fear that led the founders to give us the First Amendment in the first place.”

In the various interviews, Mr. Levison alludes to the existence of a Lavabit account in the name of Edward Snowden that he was “made aware of” only after the Snowden story broke. On the obvious aspect that encrypted email services are attractive to criminals, Levison says authorities did ask him on a couple dozen occasions to hand over information on certain users, and he did. He states: “I never intended the service to be anonymous. There are things that I could have done that would have catered to criminals that I would not do. I was always comfortable turning over what I had available.”

HuffPost Live (short ad)

Over the summer, as the (mostly print) news media’s tentacles reached further and further into the NSA story, reports of legal pushback by tech companies (including Apple, Facebook and Yahoo) started to emerge. The SJ Mercury News cited lawsuits filed by Google and Microsoft, and a letter signed by over 60 companies and nonprofit groups- all seeking court approval to disclose more details to the public on the governments requests for customer data from them- as part of their ongoing legal struggle. While those groups sought to loosen the terms of their court orders, what seems different about the Lavabit case, is that the gag has been extended to include legal process, as opposed to just the targets of that process.

Of the many stories reported, only a handful touched on court process. In July, the NYT published an in depth piece outlining the secret FISA court, its history, and, to a limited extent, its workings. And, in addition to the above, and other articles on government resistance to tech companies efforts, the SJ Merc wrote about Yahoo’s hard won victory over the FISA court which finally agreed to declassify legal briefs, along with its ruling, in a 2008 case. Back then, the court had ruled against Yahoo’s argument that its customers constitutional protections against warrentless searches were being violated.

On the legal wranglings taking place, The Guardian writes, “Karen Greenberg, director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School, [says] Levison along with Snowden and others [are] at the forefront of a debate over privacy.” In the same article, it goes on, “US district judge Susan Illston [says] NSLs suffer from ‘significant constitutional defects’ and violate the first amendment because of the way they effectively gag companies that receive them.”

I consider myself a realist on what it takes to maintain national security, but this is a step too far for me. Further, it seems obvious that the government, at least partially, relies on a quiescent media to enable its strong arm tactics.

Having followed the NSA surveillance story all summer, my biggest take away is (surprise, surprise) that print media’s coverage far exceeds that of television’s, the Lavabit story being a big case in point. While all the network (ABC, CBS, NBC) and cable (CNN, FOX, MSNBC) news orgs had online reports or blogs on Lavabit, I found none on TV (other than Democracy Now!).

So, to the television news media, this amounts to one, big: Cover the Topic!

Categories
Rule: Ask The Question Rule: Cite The Basis Rule: False Argument Rule: Generalization Trap voting rights

North Carolina Voting Law Changes: 2 Debates

The PBS News Hour and CNN’s The Situation Room debates on recent changes to NC’s voting law, offer a study in contrast on Rules adherence and debate integrity.  While both were illuminated by facts that supported strong arguments, CNN had more Rule breaks and became mired in False Argument with too much crosstalk because a few basic Questions were not Asked early on.

The change to North Carolina’s law, which takes affect in 2016, has 4 components:
(1) government photo ID is required
(2) early voting period is shortened from 17 days to 10 days
(3) same-day registration no longer allowed
(4) preregistration for those eligible to vote by Election Day no longer allowed

Debate participants included:
News Hour:   Tom Murry (R-NC Rep),  G.K. Butterfield (D-US Rep);
Judy Woodruff, moderator
Situation Room:   SE Cupp (R),  Stephanie Cutter (D);  Wolf Blitzer, moderator

In both debates, the case against the new law was made by contrasting the small number of actual fraud cases found in the 2012 election (PBS NH: <12 out of 4 million voters, gen. election;  CNN SR: 100-112 out of 7 million, combined prim. & gen. elections), with much larger numbers of projected suppressed votes, given the changes (PBS NH: ~300,000; CNN SR: “100’s of thousands”). Since Romney won NC by less than 100k votes, this could be significant.

PBS News Hour (no ads)

On News Hour, impacts of 2 of the provisions- voter ID (1), and shortened early voting (2)- were easier to seperate out, making for a clearer and more concise debate than on CNN. Mr. Murry noted only 3% of voters need an ID and claimed Georgia’s ID implemention resulted in increased minority voting rates. Mr. Butterfield countered that: “300k people [have no ID] and many people won’t [get one]”. On the early voting change, Mr. Murry said more locations will be added resulting in the same number of hours for early voting, overall. Mr. Butterfield clarified the law only “[gave] discretion to add more sites” and argued that an extended, not shortened, period was needed since lines were long, adding that Sunday voting, when many African Americans voted, will be eliminated.

CNN The Situation Room (no ads)

On CNN, Stephanie Cutter supplied stats on early voting: in 2012, 50% of African Americans, 50% of students, and 50+% overall- the majority for Obama- voted early, implying provision (2) would cause the vote suppression. She also emphasized that no voter ID fraud at all was found. This reasonably inferred that the voter fraud happened in areas that provisions (2-4) sought to rectify, calling into question the necessity of provision (1). (Indeed, when Mr. Murry was asked on the News Hour why voter ID was needed, he replied “it’s common sense” and “60-70% of the voters approve it”.)

SE Cupp, to her credit, acknowledged Ms. Cutters “legitimate concerns of voter access” but objected to her refusal to admit “legitimate concerns of voter integrity”. Ms. Cutter responded: “… [they are] trying to create a problem, or solve a problem that doesn’t exist …”, and asked Ms. Cupp if it’s worth trading “100’s of thousands” of suppressed votes for “100 cases of fraud?”, to which Ms. Cupp replied: “… there is so much voter fraud that isn’t reported since [Democrats won’t allow access] … “.

The debate became muddled with each talking over the other, repeating the same points, and falling into the Generalization Trap– Ms. Cupp for not specifying what type of voter fraud those 100+ cases were; Ms. Cutter for not identifying which provisions would result in what portion of those “100’s of thousands” of suppressed votes.

Ms. Cutter was effectively making a False Argument, in essence, arguing the entire law was bad because no voter ID fraud had been found, when, in the absense of attributing some of those future suppressed votes to the voter ID clause (her GenTrap), the fact that no ID fraud was found, does not even prove that that provision, alone, is bad, only that it is unnecessary. And though her early vote statistics imply that provision (2) would result in suppressed votes, by dismissing provisions (2-4) without addressing where the fraud cases occurred, debate was precluded on them.

Of course it fell more naturally to Ms. Cupp to specify what type of fraud those 100+ cases were, since she was the one claiming ‘legitimate voter fraud’. That is her GenTrap break. Had she and Ms. Cutter been more specific early on, we would have been spared the shout-fest and made progress in the debate. (Note: these 2 will soon be co-hosting a new show, Crossfire, on CNN.)

The above notwithstanding, it was really Wolf Blitzers job, as moderator, to Ask The Question (of Ms. Cupp): What kind of voter fraud were those 100+ cases?. With Ms. Cutter, he did Ask why she claimed “100’s of thousands” of suppressed votes, “when people can get an ID from a drugstore for free”. Ms Cutter’s response was: “Let’s see how that gets implemented”. Even assuming a satisfactory implementation of the voter ID requirement, this still left unclear whether, all, some, or no vote suppression would be eliminated.

As well, Mr. Blitzer was remiss in not following up with Ms. Cupps assertion that the amount of voter fraud is unknown due to ‘lack of access’, a serious charge. He should have asked her to Cite The Basis for it.

Am I splitting hairs over argument logic here given the disparity of fraud found vs. claimed impact of changes? Maybe, but it is precisely these cracks in logic that often give enough wiggle room to allow false debates to continue and persist ad nauseum. I’d rather close the discussion out cleanly, and move on.

Categories
Rule: Contradiction Rule: Double Standard Rule: Mountain Out of Molehill surveillance

The IRS & AP Phone Records ‘Scandals’

Some off-the-cuff observations on the IRS and AP phone records ‘scandals’, the daily updates of which I have only casually taking in…

For the most part, these stories have played out the way many do.  An initial report with few details followed by ‘explosive outrage’ occurs, then a cycle of additional details accompanied by retooled outrage repeats until it has become either completely politicized, and/or a core issue is finally identified and real debate can begin.  In other words, a series of Mountain Out of Molehill (Mischaracterization sub-Rule) moments, in tandem with a gradual news release, then, if we’re lucky, the nub of the matter, and substantive discussion.

IRS ‘Targetting’

In the first case, the initial story- that the IRS ‘targeted’ groups seeking tax exempt status who had ‘Tea Party’ or ‘Patriot’ in their name- lasted several days, along with the accompanying outrage. Then, the IRS response that they had “been flooded” with requests for the status, known as 501(c)(4), and its definition- a designation for groups who “operate primarily … for social improvement” and not for “political” purposes, emerged.  From this, it seemed that the ‘targeting’ might simply be a keyword search to expedite answering the critical question of “political activity”, a threshold definition for 501(c)(4) status.  With additional news (a few days later) that liberal groups were similarly targeted, and the subsequent analysis (days later still) of the difficulty in evaluating the definition, the ‘scandal’ died down.

Now, with the House investigation, sound-byte skirmishes between Rep.’s Issa (R) and Cummings (D) make it onto TV, as each releases ‘partial’ IRS interview transcripts in their efforts to determine the existence, or not, of political wrongdoing from actions that, we now know, began with a ‘conservative Republican’ who said he was the first to flag a ‘Tea Party’, 501(c)(4) application.

Stay tuned, but so far this looks like a MooM.

AP Phone Records

As with many, my assessment of the AP story was: ‘national security vs. protecting sources/freedom of press’ issue.  The AP printed an article that the Justice Department claimed jeopardized national security, spurring the DOJ’s wide phone records sweep to find the security leak. The negative reaction to the ‘press violations by the government’ with its’ AP phone sweep, seemed exactly in proportion to that of the ‘national security lapse’ in the Benghazi embassy attack, and, to me, politically speaking, a case of ‘wanting it both ways’ for political gain.  It boils down to this- at what price national security?  Too little protection for the Libyan Embassy?  But too much sought in the AP case?  Each deserves discussion within it’s own context (which eventually took, or is taking, place), but the initial, politically driven outrage seems a bit of MooM with some Contradiction / Double Standard thrown in.

That said, who exactly is guilty of those Rule breaks?  The press?  Or those expressing the outrage- political entities or otherwise?  The ATD Rules were designed to check the news media.  In my opinion, the media is right to report reactions to stories, including outrage, as long as they continue to probe and report facts, as I think they did.  Had they not done so, and/or remained focused on outrage without applying the Rules, then the MooM and Contradiction/DS charges would apply.  This is admittedly a fine point, but this is a blog about the media.  Though the Rules can, and, in fact, were designed to apply to political entities, in this blog, they can only do so indirectly, through the media, which, as the Fourth Estate, is held to a high standard of truth and, therefore, mandated to serve as a gateway against political abuse.  But that said, since these Rules are nothing more than contructs of logic and common sense, they can apply to any arena of life where debate takes place, including the political.

So this- the AP story- was a borderline call.  Though, initially, MooM and Contradiction/DS seemed to apply, I don’t think they hit the threshold as media violations.

Have a different opinion?  Comment below and tell me about it.  We may not watch the same news shows.

Categories
gun control Rule: Ask The Question Rule: Cite The Basis Rule: Contradiction Rule: False Argument

Gun Control Debate: Same Rules Broken, Multiple Times Each

The amendment for expanded background checks failed to get the 60 votes it needed to proceed in the Senate last week.  Part of a larger bill, it was hotly debated, with criticism and accusations of misinformation coming from both sides.

So how did the media do with its coverage?

Well, there was plenty of it, but with key gaps that were repeated, over and over again.  In a 10 day period, I saw several Rules violated, each multiple times, often with the same person being interviewed on the same subject, on different shows.

Ask The Question & False Argument- it’s all in the wording.

The simplest one to catch related to the wording of recent polls that revealed ~90% public support for universal background checks.  On 3 shows- CNN’s OutFront with Erin Burnett (April 8), Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room (April 10), and MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Mathews (April 11, 2:40 minutes in)– the same man, Larry Pratt who is the Exec. Dir. of Gun Owners of America (GOA), questioned the overall accuracy of the polls because of the high support they also showed from gun owners.  Mr. Pratt claimed the GOA and NRA’s own polls resulted in only 4-5% support in their orgs.

Only on OutFront, was Mr. Pratt asked if the wording of the question in the GOA and NRA polls was:  “[Do they] want a gun registry?”, to which Mr. Pratt replied “They know what the deal is”, dodging the question.  Querying the wording difference could expose a False Argument that conflates a different issue- national gun registry- with the one of universal background checks, leading to confusion on both and subverting legitimate discussion on each.  Many, including Mr. Pratt, assert there already is a national gun registry, and that it will expand and lead to gun confiscation.  (More on this below.)

On Hardball, Chris Mathews did, post-interview, read the FOX poll question:  “Do you favor or oppose…requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buyng at gun shows and private sales?”.  Supplying the poll results, he added “85% said they were in favor”.

Though Wolf Blitzer had a spirited discussion, citing the 4 polls- CNN, CBS, Quinnapiac, and FOX, he did not zero in on language.

Take your pick- OutFront, Hardball (2:40 min. in), or Situation Room.  They’re all pretty much the same. (If no video below, click here, here, or here.)

So it’s all in the wording, and how many times have we seen that escape hatch left open?  All 3 news anchors should have read the poll question they were citing, then Asked The Question:  “What is the wording of the GOA and NRA polls?”  In OutFronts case, the question should have been re-asked, with any additional non-answers noted.

Clarification made.  Confusion ended.  Move on.

Cite the Basis- existance of a national gun registry.

So, is there a national gun registry or not?

If you believe Larry Pratt, there is.  On CNN’s OutFront he said: “Records are kept in a registry on computers in Clarksburg, West Virginia.”  If you believe Mark Glazer of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, there isn’t.  He claims: ~“It’s illegal to have a gun registry. Gun dealers do background checks.  Government records are destroyed in 24 hours. Gun dealers keep paper records, [they’ve] been doing it for 40 years”.

On CNN’s The Situation Room Mr. Pratt said: “The federal government tells dealers that registration using an internet portal becomes permanent information to the federal government. These background checks are national gun registration”.

How do we know who is right?  We ask them to Cite the Basis, then follow up on it.  That’s how.

False Argument / Contradiction- background checks vs. mental health.

The exact same False Argument and Contradiction Rule breaks occurred 3 separate times recently- 2 on News Hour: April 9 with Judy Woodruf f (5 min. in) & April 17 with Gwen Ifill (4:15 min. in), both while interviewing Lawrence Keene of the National Shooting Sports Foundation; and 1 in the San Jose Mercury News (AP), interviewing Wayne LaPierre of the NRA (March 29).

The current gun background check system is a 2 tier system. The top tier consists of the gun dealers who sell guns and initiate backgound checks on buyers. The second tier is the database known as NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System), which has information- criminal, mental health, etc.- on individuals, and is what is used for the background checks.  There are gaps in each.  Only 60% of gun purchases are subject to checks, leaving a gaping 40% hole in the top tier of the gun check system.  The bottom tier, NICS, is reliant on the states supplying information to it, which is voluntary and known to be incomplete.  According to Mr. Keene, 50% of states don’t submit records.

Both Mr. Keene and Mr. LaPierre agree that there should be more “focus on unauthorized access, … mental health [being] most important”, and “getting records into NICS”.  Yet both are against expanding background checks.  In effect, they argue for closing one of the gaps, but not the other, failing to completely solve the problem of access by the mentally impaired.  This is the contradiction underlying their False Argument of why dealing with the mental health issue from the NICS side alone is all that is needed.  Even if states comply and keep NICS up to date, people whose names are in it, including those with mental health issues, can still buy guns at gun shows, part of the 40% top tier gap.

It’s one system and it either works or it doesn’t.

So…
Ask for poll wording.
Find out if there is a gun registry.
Point out an obvious contradiction in logic.

Honestly media, how hard is this?

Categories
economy Rule: Cite The Basis Rule: Contradiction Rule: False Argument Rule: False Choice Rule: False Comparison Rule: Focus Issues Not Politics

Paul Krugman & Joe Scarborough: Debt vs. Growth- A Question of Priority & Timing?

The current hot button debate over our two biggest fiscal problems- debt and growth and how to deal with them, has devolved into yet another needless stalemate in the media.  This time it has come in the form of False Argument, cast as a vitriolic and polarizing ‘either/or’ proposition, rather than a more fact and reason based- ‘both, but when’ one.  In other words, an argument that disregards the element of policy timing which, after months (actually, much sooner), has become clear is key in the discussion.

The Krugman-Scarborough debate began on MSNBC’s Morning Joe and was later excerpted, and continued on Charlie Rose.  It is not surprising that Mr. Rose, with his 50 minute format, can get to the nub and establish as minor differences between two people, what are otherwise often characterized as ‘explosive’ ones on shorter formats. Still, format brevity is not sufficient excuse to not zero in more quickly on the simple, obvious ‘difference’ here- that of the timing of policy- and to begin debate there.

The first 10 minutes of Mr. Rose’s show (including MJ excerpt) contains 3 Rule breakers and, though most are addressed as the show proceeds, those 10 minutes are representative of how this has played out on many others I’ve seen.

The first exchange has Mr. Krugman proclaiming that debt is not an immediate problem, which Mr. Scarborough counters, saying Medicaire and Medicaid are growing too fast.  To this, Krugman aquiesces, allowing for the need for cost containment, but cites the Affordable Care Act as having many pilot projects designed to be testbeds for just that.  Scarborough rejects that solution with: “you and I know that Washington DC is not capable of doing that on a micro level” citing “1993-94 and 2009-10” as examples. This breaks the Focus on Issues, Not Politics rule since it cuts off a politically legitimate and much needed debate (given Krugman disagrees with him) on health cost reduction via delivery efficiencies vs. benefit cuts.  In addition, though Scarborough gets credit for Citing the Basis with his 90‘s & 00‘s references, the False Argument rule is breached since those years seem to refer to healthcare proposals that failed to get passed into law, as opposed to programs that, once passed, failed due to bad administration (or some other reason)- two very different things.

Resuming discussion on Mr. Rose’s show, Scarborough observes: (paraphrasing: ~) “maybe Paul is more focussed on the short term & I’m more focussed on the long term” acknowledging the time frame issue, and seems to reject the either/or (debt vs. growth) premise that had heretofore shaped the debate, as a False Choice.  Progress!

Scarborough then asserts a bigger difference between them: ~“Paul thinks congress can’t do two things at once- grow the economy & focus on the long term.”, then quotes Mr. Krugman from the 90’s: ~”It is irresponsible for government to run deficits because of the aging baby boomers.” (ie. entitlements). Krugman, explaining himself: ~“It was irresponsible to be running deficits when the economy was at full employment, … we missed that window.”, continues with: ~”we should have paid down debt when economy was strong, … now economy is weak”, ~“for every federal $1 cut, GDP falls by $1.50, …will lead to higher unemployment”.  Scarborough responds: ~“The problem of aging boomers & exloding entitlements still exists.”, then issues a 2005 quote by Krugman on the danger of debt & asks Krugman if he’s been wrong for 15 years?  With his use of those quotes, the False Comparison rule is broken by implicitly equating the economic circumstances of the 90’s and 2005, with those of now, when they are clearly different.

As the debate proceeds, it is established that both agree on the importance of growth in the short term, Scarborough contrasting his emphasis on type of jobs programs, with Krugman’s- size. Thus, the false ‘debt vs. growth’ framing of the debate is rendered null, and the real difference clarified:

Scarborough:  Debt planning is needed now.
Krugman:  Any cuts now will hurt job growth.

The debate progresses, becoming more substantive and focussed, with both Citing the Basis of their claims to varying degrees of efficacy (one more than the other, in my opinion).  It is interesting to note that, throughout, the time frame in question (short vs. long) has centered on 10 years, yet when Scarborough is asked if he is concerned about the deficit in the short term, his answer is: ~“not for 3-5 years, but Medicare/Medicaid planning is needed right now”.

This flushes out subtle vagueries that have been lurking beneath the surface and now beg to be dealt with. First, while Scarborough already seems to have softened his position on the time issue with his statement above, by the ‘planning .. now’ part, does he mean congress should take it up, discuss it and maybe even pass legislation now, but not actually cut anything till later?  If so, as far as the not…cut part, he is in more apparent agreement with Krugman on that too.  As far as the ‘congress taking it up now’ part, another anomoly arises. Since Scarborough concurs that focus on growth is also needed in the short term, and has called on congress to act and even admitted to Mr. Rose: ~”congress can’t do anything .. look at the sequester”, why did he goad Krugman for not thinking congress can do two things at once, when he apparently agrees with that?  Hmm, a Contradiction?

This was dense going, but my take is that something as complicated as economic policy absolutely requires getting into details, and failure to do so has a high cost. If watching the whole debate doesn’t make that clear (and I hope you do, as it is chock full of information), then at least view the first 10 minutes plus the disappointing backsliding Scarborough did on his own show the next day in [intlink id=”110″ type=”page” anchor=”VoW_Scar_v_Krug”]this Video of the Week[/intlink].  Progress made, only to be lost!

We have to remain vigilant, people.