Loss of Privacy

Under a new bill introduced in the New York State Legislature, Governor Elliot Spitzer has targeted the sale of violent video games, restricting their access under similar rules restricting those under 17 in movie theaters.

Spitzer said he will soon provide a bill that would target the ratings of video movies and video games “that are often violent and degrading” and can hurt children who repeatedly use and view them.

Under Spitzer’s proposal, retailers who sell violent or degrading videos or video games to children contrary to the rating would be sanctioned.

Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton supported two similar measures, proposed by Keith Wright and Aurelia Greene, to restrict access to violent videos and video games.  Governor Spitzer’s bill is also similar to the previous two and he has outlined details in his targeting of those who sell the games to minors.

Again, we have the government raising our children because parents are, apparently, too damned lazy to regulate what their children can and cannot see.  While the very idea disgusts me that the government is telling people what is and isn’t good for you, parents today are more and more irresponsible in raising their own children.  They haven’t a clue, and are happy that way, in what their children are seeing, reading, and learning.  Everything is left up to some state agency to be responsible for their children instead of stepping up to the plate and being an adult themselves.

Children today rail against their parents because they won’t give them a cell phone, GTA San Andreas, or let them run the streets whenever they want.  Parents give in, out of frustration, stupidity, or sheer exhaustion from arguing.  Parents are the adults in these situations but they simply lack the parenting skills to tell their child “no” and enforce that statement.

As the adults, what the parents say should be law.  They shouldn’t care how they look towards other parents.  They shouldn’t feel guilty for telling their kids no.  They should be more involved, making sure that they are raising happy, healthy, and well-adjusted children.  They should not allow their children to browbeat them into submission.  But they do.  And that is why we end up with silly legislation such as this.

Another factor to consider in this law is that all ratings systems are currently voluntary and extremely subjective.  What is considered violent to one, isn’t to another.  If such a law is to exist, it should be for all forms of entertainment and there should be strict guidelines spelled out so that there isn’t the appearance of flip-flopping from one item to the next.  The current ESRB rating system is also far stricter than those of the movie industry.

It will also be difficult to pass this law and, then, keep the law on the books.  Louisiana just lost such a case.  In fact, the judge berated the state for not paying attention to what has happened to similar laws in other states.  Still, the group said they were not deterred and that they were going to try again, wasting millions of dollars more on something that most stores already voluntarily do.

Mississippi’s proposed law died in committee.  Utah teamed up with nutcase Jack Thompson but their proposed law died in committee after everyone realized that the law might be unconstitutional, was poorly written, and would be difficult to defend in court.  Indiana’s bill was initially welcomed and had fines detailed for retailers who would break the law, but, after some discussion about its constitutionality, it was tabled to a committee for further study.

Now, state lawmakers are more cognizant of the constitutionality issues at stake. The judicial landscape is littered with the charred husks of laws passed by Illinois, Washington, Michigan, California, Louisiana, and others. All of them tried in some way or another to regulate the sale of violent video games to children, and all of them were struck down on First Amendment grounds.

The New York law only legislates parents further than they do now.  Any discipline enacted against a child could bring social services running to “protect the children.”  We have become far too accustomed to allowing the government to legislate how we should raise our children that we can no longer decide for ourselves what is the proper course of action.

In the 1980s, when I was a teenager, if you walked to the corner store and said, “Dad needs a pack of smokes,” it was no problem.  Everyone knew it was for your father.  You could see R rated movies as a teenager and there wasn’t a problem unless you caused a ruckus in the theater during the movie.  When your family had a party, you were allowed a drink or two because your parents, aunts, uncles, and older cousins made sure things didn’t get out of hand.  When you wanted to go hunting, you often carried your rifle with you.  You knew the safety precautions and were responsible with the weapon.

You simply cannot do these things today because of the fear of repercussions from the State.  Even if you play it straight and do what the State says, if your child does something wrong, you’re still responsible.  You’re somehow a horrible parent, even though the state has regulated to death what you can and can’t do and how your child should behave.

Instead of “thinking of the children” by protecting them from video games, maybe they should pump all that money into creating better health care and education for the children.  That way, the parents will be able to make these decisions for themselves and the government won’t have to legislate entertainment.

We also need to better educate parents on how to be parents.  Again, as a child of the 80s, my parents simply would not give me money for such violent games.  In the past, parents would self-regulate such items, including movies.  Many would check out the movies or video games first to see if it was appropriate for their child.  Our society today has moved towards a more lenient attitude of letting everyone do whatever they want, whenever they want.  Accountability for one’s actions has shifted to the government, or whomever else can be blamed at the moment, leaving once common tasks, such as conflict resolution and decision making, an antiquated ideology.

If no one will take responsibility for their actions, the only recourse is for the government to make the decision for you.  Unfortunately, parents are far too concerned with their careers, images, and having more stuff than their neighbors.  They no longer take the time to be fully involved with their children.  What we end up with is the State telling parents that they are too stupid to raise their children and the State knows best.

Yes, violent video games may trigger violence in an individual but that violence was  already in the individual.  If family and friends pay attention to the individual, then they would recognize the behavior and, possibly, be able to prevent such actions.  Then again, that would require others to stop paying attention to themselves for a moment and focus on someone else, something today’s society is utterly lacking.

We are full of self-indulgent gluttons, from Joe Average to the White House, who would rather get what they want than be responsible for raising the next generation of Americans.  Instead of improving the quality of life, we are diluting it with too much of a garbage-in garbage-out culture, leaving the next generation lost and confused in the world.  This is a generation of parents who dealt with constant attacks to their music, having it banned in some places.  You’d think that they would be smarter than to just accept what the government tells them is true.

A new way to help prevent identity theft is being proposed using the BioPassword Authentication Software.  It employs biometric science in identifying an individual by tracking the way that you type your password.  It works by tracking the way in which you type your password by examining speed, depression depth, and length of time each key is depressed.  The only way to access your account is for the password and the biometric pattern to match.  Or so it seems.

While keystroke recognition isn’t new, technology has advanced to the point that it could be more accurate than a similar type of technology that was used with Morse code operators in WWII.  Old idea, new software for a more modern society.  First, you need to type your password in nine times so that the computer can compile an accurate account of your keystrokes.

Well I was keen to do two things. I was keen to try and type in someone else’s password having watched them enter it to see how I could go try to be them. And then I wanted them to do the same for me. So this guy, for instance, told me his password was “kidder.” I watched him very closely type it three times. And then tried to the same and it denied me access. And then in turn I set up a password and told him to watch me type it in and replicate that as best he could and of course the system turned him down as well. What they don’t explain is that it’s using very precise measurements of the keystrokes that you make. It measures the length of time for which each key in your password is depressed and it also measures the length of time between strokes. And what you realize is that most of us type in a very consistent and a very idiosyncratic way.

This sounds great.  It can tell by several different factors how you type and could actually prevent other people from accessing your records, whatever type they may be.  However, when the question was raised as to what happens when you are sleepy because you just woke up and haven’t injected yourself with that morning coffee yet.

You’re sleepy, right. They have a few little measures to catch that. If after a couple of goes it seems you’re not typing the way it expects you to type, it will ask some additional security questions.

That’s right.  There’s the flaw.  Security Questions.  Now, no one can ever guess your security questions or discover them through many means of deception, can they?  Again, what is a promising use of biometrics to prevent identity theft, as well as highly secure document theft, is useless once the ability arises to circumvent it.

All I have to do is type wrong a couple of times and then, most likely, have to type in your mother’s maiden name, your birthday, or the name of your dog.  It doesn’t matter how accurate and secure the BioPassword system is, as long as it allows a second type of authentication, it’s never going to work.  Nice try though.

North Dakota has followed Wisconsin in banning the forced RFID chipping in humans.

The two-sentence bill, passed by the state legislature, was signed into law by Gov. John Hoeven last Wednesday. Essentially, it forbids anyone from compelling someone else to have an RFID chip injected into their skin. The state follows in the steps of Wisconsin, which passed similar legislation last year.

“We need to strike a balance as we continue to develop this technology between what it can do and our civil liberties, our right to privacy,” Hoeven said in an interview. He emphasized that the law doesn’t prohibit voluntary chipping. Military personnel who want an RFID chip injected so they can be more easily tracked will still be allowed to get a chip. There are also potential uses for the technology in corrections or in monitoring animals, he noted.

But Michael Shamos, a professor who specializes in security issues at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, believes the law is too vague to do much good. For instance, it only addresses situations where a chip is injected, even though RFID tags can also be swallowed. And it doesn’t clearly define what a forced implant really is; someone could make chipping a requirement for a financial reward.

While the intent of the law is clear, Shamos is right, it is rife for abuse.

“Suppose I offer to pay you $10,000 if you have an RFID [chip] implanted?” he asked. “Is that ‘requiring’ if it’s totally voluntary on your part?”  The idea behind the law isn’t bad, but “it looks hastily drawn and will have unpredictable consequences,” said Shamos.

Still, it is a start and privacy advocates have taken another step in preventing forced chipping.  RFID advocates, on the other hand, believe that forced chipping is good for certain situations, such as tracking prisoners or children, as well as keeping track of Alzheimer’s patients. I do not concur.

Some believe that it is just hype that people can be tracked at distances more than a few feet.  They claim that, with a prisoner, the RFID chip will only be activated when walking into a courtroom, into a prison bus, or moving throughout the prison when the chip is activated by a receiver in close proximity.  They do not believe that the RFID chip can be read at distances or tracked at extended ranges.  This simply is not true.

It has been proved that RFID can be read at great distances.  By allowing the forced chipping of individuals, the technology will only grow to the point that you can track people over great distances, possibly with the use of some GPS enabled device and a satellite.  It is not a great leap of imagination to see RFID implementation at great distances in the near future.

While I have written at length on the negative implications of chipping people, the disgusting situation is that this is even a topic for discussion.  It’s even worse that we have to create new legislation to make such ideas illegal.  To those that wish to make forced chipping a reality, I say, “Keep your damned technology away from my body.”

I don’t want to be tracked.  If I don’t want to take my medicine, you do not have the right to force some chip into me to make sure that I took it.  If I you want to know how one drug is interacting with another in my body, look at my symptoms and ask me.  I don’t want my medicine dispensed internally.  I want you to leave me alone to be my own private self.  Technology is a great thing.  Keep your RFID chips in tracking cargo shipments.  I don’t need them.

In something right out of a science fiction story, Venezuelan police will soon patrol the city of Caracas from the sky in three airships that will keep an eye on the local population and its out of control crime problem.

The Venezuelan capital is regarded as one of the most dangerous cities in Latin America, with gun crime a particular problem.

The 15 metre (49 foot) long air ships are emblazoned with government slogans. Written in bright red are the words: “We watch over you for your security.”

Ironically, this story is being reported by the BBC, that’s British Broadcasting System.  The British are the ones who already have a similar system in place with CCTV cameras on nearly every street corner in London.  The British have also already purchased the Predator UAV for the police to use in the Merseyside area two years ago.

While it is a good thing that the BBC is reporting this story, when the British government employed the same tactics, we read the never-ending apologetics about the problems of thuggery, terrorists, and general, anti-social behavior among the British population.  When the British did it, it was for the betterment of its people.  When Hugo Chavez does it, it’s another example of his over-reaching totalitarian regime.

Three years ago, the LA Police also deployed UAVs, however, they are still fighting with the FAA in getting permission to use them.  This isn’t an easy task to accomplish as the FAA requires many hurdles to be overcome before they even think of letting unmanned ships fly near the population.

New York City also used a Fuji blimp during the 2004 Republican National Convention for security reasons against terrorists and the local, American nutjob that might try to disrupt proceedings.

Currently, we only have to fear Bush and what the government is doing.  We can still protest and try to work to make things better.  Most major cities in the USA are safe enough to walk about at night without fears of something horrific happening to you.

“Our intention is to reduce criminal activity in the city, that’s a big problem, something the presidency has recognised,” he said.

The government has stopped publishing crime figures, but last year the UN said that per capita there were more deaths from guns than anywhere else in the world.

The city of Caracas is trying to do something to cut down on crime and, when you live in a city where the crime lords and the drug dealers control the show, it is very easy to agree to this sort of protection.  These people are living in a city where the criminals and the terrorists can, and do, whatever the hell they want.  Caracas, it appears doesn’t have any other way to prevent the outrageous violence that plagues the city.

Most Caracas residents agree something needs to be done to make the city safer. As they are watched, they will be watching too to see if these hi-tech machines make any difference to their lives.

Most likely, the world will watch as well.  While I don’t like the idea of UAVs or UAV blimps, in a city that is plaqued by crime, it is being welcomed by its citizens to prevent crime and make the city, and themselves, safer.

At the Ackland Art Museum, Buddhists created a beautiful sand mandala in 2001.  You can see a few small photos below or go to the Ackland Art Museum’s website and see their larger, more detailed, photos from progression from empty table to finished mandala.

The museum is housed at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  The mandala was dismantled on June 8, 2001 but, fortunately, these pictures remain to preserve the painstaking detail that went into this beautiful mandala.