Monthly Archives: December 2015

Encryption and Backdoors

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) wants (this is old news) a means for Government to read our private communications, most especially those we’ve chosen to encrypt. She wants Government to be able to penetrate that encryption, via, perhaps, a backdoor.

I think that Silicon Valley has to take a look at their products. [I]f you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way,…that is a big problem.

They have apps to communicate on, which cannot be pierced even with a court order[.]

On the one hand, perhaps hammers and screwdrivers should be Government controlled—they get used by evil monsters to commit mayhem.

Perhaps guns should be Government controlled—oh, wait….

Then, there’s this:

A major breach at computer network company Juniper Networks has US officials worried that hackers working for a foreign government were able to spy on the encrypted communications of the US government and private companies for the past three years.

The FBI is investigating the breach, which involved hackers installing a back door on computer equipment, US officials told CNN.

Yet, Government, folks like Feinstein who should know better and others who are simply pandering, wants a deliberate backdoor inserted into our private communications.

I’ll say it again. There is no safety without intact individual liberty.

Wrong Mindset

Posted on by
Reply

An American B-52 bomber on a routine mission over the South China Sea unintentionally flew within two nautical miles of an artificial island built by China [in the Spratly Island group], senior defense officials said, exacerbating a hotly divisive issue for Washington and Beijing.

The PRC has filed a diplomatic protest, and the Pentagon is investigating the flight.

This is the wrong mindset. We should be making such flights often, at a variety of altitudes, and with a variety of aircraft types. We should be sailing as closely through the Spratlys and might safely be done, with individual ships and with squadrons of them.

The [PRC Defense Ministry] said this and other US operations in the area were “serious military provocations” that endangered Chinese personnel and could cause the militarization of the South China Sea. It added that the Chinese military would take “all necessary measures” to protect China’s sovereignty.

No, the only military provocation is the PRC’s ongoing militarization of the Spratlys, the South China Sea generally, and the East China Sea, as well. Its own militarization activities are all that might “endanger Chinese personnel.”

Finally, the PRC should take all necessary measures to protect its sovereignty. That’s not at risk in the South or East China Seas; although Japan’s, the Philippines’, Vietnam’s, Brunei’s, and on and on are certainly at risk.

This isn’t PRC territory, and we—and those other nations—need to be more enthusiastic, more direct, in enforcing that simple fact.

Another Foolish Argument

Posted on by
Reply

Nebraska and Oklahoma have asked the Supreme Court to strike Colorado’s 2012 marijuana initiative on the grounds that the Colorado constitutional amendment has sparked crime increases in their own states. To the extent that can be shown, it’s an argument worth having.

Enter President Barack Obama through his Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, in Verrilli’s brief to the Supreme Court, in which Obama urged the Court to reject the case:

Entertaining the type of dispute at issue here—essentially that one State’s laws make it more likely that third parties will violate federal and state law in another State—would represent a substantial and unwarranted expansion of this Court’s original jurisdiction.

Here’s what our Constitution says about the Supreme Court’s role in disputes between States, which Verilli’s brief also cites:

In all Cases…in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

Verrilli’s brief also cited the First Judiciary Act, a hoary old law passed by the First Congress’ first session in 1789 averring, among other things, that the Supreme Court in particular has

original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

Notice those two cites: there is nowhere contained within either any caveat or limit. There is nothing that says, “Except when it’s inconvenient to Government,” or “Except when there’s something else,” or….

Despite that, the Solicitor General, in his brief (undoubtedly written for him by that better lawyer than his lawyers—it certainly contains Obama’s depth and style of legal thinking [/snark]), made the claim that taking the case would represent a substantial and unwarranted expansion of the Court’s role in settling a dispute between States.

Nonsense. This is a textbook example of a dispute between States, and it’s directly within the Court’s constitutionally mandated function, especially as fleshed out by Congress and a President who signed the fleshing-out into law. The Court may decide it’s a bogus beef, and that would be a useful precedent to set.

But it’s entirely a Supreme Court decision. Verrilli and his boss know this full well.

A Difference in Philosophy

Posted on by
Reply

British Prime Minister David Cameron is…discussing…the British requirements for continued membership in the European Union with the rest of the leadership of the EU. One of the points of contention is the degree of welfare participation migrants from mainland EU should receive while in Great Britain. Cameron wants to

curb[] welfare benefits for other EU citizens working in the UK for four years.

EU leaders have voiced strong opposition to his plan, saying it would breach the fundamental principle of free movement of people within the bloc.

The EU leaders’ objection, of course, is nonsense. A benefits freeze would leave migrants free to come and go as they please; the British position is a benefits freeze, not a movement restriction. The only thing being frozen would be the migrants’ ability to freeload off the British taxpayer.

Cameron also points out that a benefits freeze would help reduce migration to the UK. Well, duh. Reducing the incentives to come where the freeloading is easy certainly reduce the amount of movement in that direction.

The difference between Cameron and the European leaders is the difference between a measure of self-determination and individual responsibility on the one hand, and Government Knows Better on the other.

Who Doesn’t Trust the PRC Government?

Posted on by
Reply

Recall late last summer when the People’s Republic of China’s stock market melted down over the PRC government’s interference in currency exchange rates and its subsequent failures to handle the stock market result of that. In a Wall Street Journal article centered on a different matter was this little tidbit [emphasis added].

While China’s main stock index is up 20% since August, it is still down 33% from its June peak. About 15% of Chinese stocks remain suspended from trading, and trading volumes are at one-third of their June levels.

Hmm….