The power of the people (corporate edition)

One of the first things you learn in any beginning economics course is that corporations exist to make a profit. This isn't necessarily an evil thing, and Adam Smith is the best explainer of why this is indeed the case.

The situation with internet security is an excellent example of how corporations best understand customers more than anything else. Standing up for our rights has pressured them into standing up for our rights and this is what we must do.

This is applicable to everything we do as activists, and we need to be able to have something to affect them with, because people don't listen to people who have no ability to act on their convictions. If progressives continue this sort of action (demanding the providers of services we use change their policies, or else) there is no force in the world that can stop us from making a gigantic change. We need to buy the voting stocks of companies that need to change, we need to continue to organize strong consumer advocacy organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation that amplify our demands, we need to be politically organized, and we need to not let down our demands with the exception of a more reasonable or more ethical argument. Only then will we be able to change the world.

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/which-tech-companies-help-protect-you-government-data-demands

Nanny states

I was in Germany for the first two weeks in June. It was amazing, I was able to get everywhere I needed by mass transit in the cities, they were efficient, hospitable and fast (in Germany). You could do pretty much anything you wanted, no limits on pictures, get anywhere by bus, u-bahn, s-bahn or if you are going outside the greater area for the city, the train goes everywhere. Buses are starting, but they aren't as fast or comfortable as deutsche bahn. Most people use mass transit because it goes where you need to go. As long as you aren't being dangerous (eg leaving your guns where a burglar can get them, or in the business world bribing or committing fraud) freedom reins supreme. Customs in the Netherlands and Germany was efficient and quick, with one check point and one scanner for your bags. I didn't observe anything like what conservatives deem out of bounds, living beyond your means, or the big bad gubment.

Then I get on the plane going home and my welcome is "don't take out your cameras on the beautiful German countryside, sit tight, arms at your sides and be scared." (I'm paraphrasing, the meaning was clear) as if I am a child and need the government to tell me not to use my arms. I knew I was home with those types regulations. As I read on the news evidence has proven the American government is spying on the British government and everyone in the world. I land in Atlanta and go through three different checkpoints, and have to carry my bag from one carousel to another, different from both Amsterdam schippol and Istanbul where they did it for me. Customs was harder and took more time with more questions for this American who has committed no crimes than the Netherlands, Germany, Georgia, Canada, and Australia.

I notice differences in our culture, while Germans and Georgians all use cell phone while driving at higher speeds with no large difference in accidents, we drive at lower speeds and can't communicate with our destination (big gov?). As I ride my bike there are fewer places I can ride here than in Europe where if you aren't clearly being reckless they will be ok with you. The only ways I can think of Germany being more restrictive than America is privacy laws, which I have already blogged about, and it is more difficult to commit fraud in Europe without going to prison. I saw friends in Germany who are going to college and like most if not every German they will be debt free when they graduate, which gives more economic freedom than the USA. I could think of different cultural differences where Europeans are able to do more, but these come to mind. In general I feel the US is the most restrictive country in the day to day lives of the average citizen than other countries I have been to (with an exception of gay rights in Georgia, though I haven't been to and won't go to Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia, or North Korea). We can do better. We must do better. We deserve it.

Which leads me to the question, who really is the largest nanny state?

European Privacy Law Improvement

Concerning: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57590869-38/eu-court-lawyer-backs-google-in-right-to-be-forgotten-case/

A case in the European Court of Justice recently decided that European residents do not have a right to force search engines like Google (the main party because they are the best search engine for most things) to eliminate results on them. This is a good decision for several reasons:

1. If you have committed a violent crime and are seeking employment the last thing you would want is for a potential employer to find that information. If the (I'm dying not to say crazy people) plaintiffs in Spain had won their case then a felon (or the reasonable equivalent in their country's law) would under  EU law have the right to remove their information from the internet making it harder for people to find their crime. Also, there are many types of search engines that are specific to finding information about people and if the EU gave people this right to remove their information from search engines than private investigators who companies hire to screen their employees would be unable to check that their applicant is safe unless if they had to go right to the specific location where the crime is placed. Since this is extremely tedious looking through every local court in the entire European Union this would of course be an absurd ruling and make background checks far too expensive for most small businesses to do because of the time it would take to get all that information every single time. This has no benefit to society and it is good that the EU decided people have no right to remove publicly available information from search engines. While I would understand some laws for people who have been acquitted of a crime removing information, a blanket allowance of removing information is a very slippery slope, and such a law would be extremely difficult to get right. An easier approach would be to not have restrictions on information (except threats, obviously) and that if someone acted inappropriately based on information they found on someone online they would be committing a crime which would be hitting the problem at the source, easier to enforce, and have no possibility of devolving into an infringement of the freedom of speech which is critical for democracy to function.
2. The website that hosts the information was not the party being targeted, it was the search engine which only directs people to other information. If one search engine started getting infringed on another search engine would pop up (probably through the Tor Network) that would allow people to get the information anyways. Information wants to be free. Despite their best attempts, both North Korea and China cannot block out the outside world's information, which makes this entire purpose completely moot.

I am pleased with this decision, it would be like arresting journalists for uncovering government corruption, like is happening right now with Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, but it is most like Julian Assange's charges for hosting a website whose purpose was to host news stories that are not covered by the private media. Now we just need to insert whistleblower protections to our laws to prevent further abuse of power as the next step.

Please be Reasonable with computers

Dear world, yes, I understand you want privacy and you don't want to feel trespassed, and regarding some things I feel the same way, but please be reasonable. Yes, bank accounts, social security numbers, and personal information you don't want to share isn't public unless if you choose. But for the love of GOD you have absolutely no reasonable right to privacy when you are in public places or in view of the street, are we all supposed to put our eyes to the ground while you walk around downtown Miami in a bikini so you don't feel "exposed"? because that is how I feel about this needless obsession with privacy regarding Google Street View and other extraordinarily useful technologies. Be reasonable please, it's a real drag when it is taken to the unreasonable extreme. Taken to the extreme it just is a drag to everyone because privacy is the most popular myth in the world, and if your relative with you in your will who you haven't talked to for a while has money for you, do you want to lose out on a nice sized paycheck? It happens. Thank you.

 If I am going to travel to a new city and I am going to need to find my way around I want to know what my destination looks like so that I won't get lost as easily, or if the voters of a region don't want my tourist money they always have that right. If they want me to be lost in a new city then I guess they don't want my business. Just be reasonable.

Google Street View

Debates over technology can be very interesting and this issue is very good and hot!
I must side with Google on taking pictures of every street in the world for the following reasons:

1. Tourism will boom when we can see everything. Planning trips becomes easier because you know exactly what the place you are going to looks like.
2. We have had satellite imagery for the entire world for decades. Street view cameras blur names, faces (which is so effective it even blurs signs of faces), and numbers, protecting privacy, and when there is offensive imagery  the image is either not put on or promptly removed.

This is clear to me that it is no threat to privacy with Google's effective blurring of sensitive information. So I must say that it is no realistic threat to privacy.