Category Archives: ethics

No, It’s Not

Posted on by
Reply

On the matter of an organization’s cybersecurity responsibilities, Kurt Knutsson opened with this in a Fox News article:

When a hospital or nonprofit falls victim to a cyberattack, it’s hard to place blame. Cybersecurity isn’t their strength, and many lack the budget for a dedicated security team, let alone a chief technology officer.

It’s completely straightforward to fix blame in such a case, as in all other cases. Knutsson identified the culprits even while denying the difficulty of identifying them. The lack of sufficient budget and (not or) the lack of security-capable IT personnel is directly the fault of the hospital or nonprofit’s management team, who refused to provide the budget necessary to have proper security against cyberattacks.

Especially for hospitals, which maintain so much personal and personally identifying medical data, such conscious decisions to not perform are inexcusable. Cybersecurity needn’t be an organization’s strength, but cybersecurity—and the personnel and resources needed to achieve and maintain it—most assuredly need to be a serious undertaking.

Disingenuous

Posted on by
Reply

The Canadian government has ordered binding arbitration in the dispute between Air Canada and its flight attendants union, the latter which struck the airline a week ago last Saturday. The union is crying foul over not having gotten its way, accusing the airline, in typical union fashion, of sandbagging (the union’s term) the negotiations.

On the other hand, there’s this, also, from the union regarding those negotiations.

The airline said it offered its flight attendants a 38% increase in total compensation over a four-year period. The proposal also offered a 12% to 16% rise in hourly pay in the first year. The union said the pay offers failed to help its members recover after historically-high inflation this decade.

Leave aside the minor fact that the airline didn’t cause the inflation, the Canadian government’s response to economic factors did, so the union’s beef regarding the effects of inflation is properly between it and the government.

What the union is choosing to ignore in its inflation beef is that the airline suffers just as much from that historically-high inflation and must also deal with the resulting price increases and current elevated price levels.

Land Swapping

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) is upset with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over the latter’s pointing out that he cannot, under the Ukrainian constitution, agree to any land swap with Russia, as a condition to a ceasefire or for any other reason.

On this matter, though, Trump is badly mistaken on two grounds. The first is that Zelenskyy must follow his nation’s most basic law (as well as all of its legislatively generated laws), and that forbids him from agreeing any land swap.

The other ground is at least as big an obstacle. Russia is not offering any land to swap for Ukrainian land. The barbarian is only offering—and only may be offering here—to swap some barbarian occupied land in return for being allowed to retain other barbarian occupied land. This is akin to the burglar offering to return some of the jewelry and other valuables he stole if, in return, he’s allowed to keep the rest of the jewelry and valuables he stole.

Trump should know better than this.

He’s anxious to force this deal, though, because he’s chary of all the killing that’s going on in the barbarian’s war, and he wants it to stop. Trump needs, however, to recognize that he’s dealing with a barbarian chieftain, not a civilized leader of a civilized polity. The killing won’t stop in the wake of this sort of sham deal.

The fastest way—if only because it’s the only way—for the killing to stop is for Ukraine to win this war outright and decisively, the only way that can happen is for Ukraine to succeed in driving the barbarian wholly and completely back out of Ukraine, and the only way that can happen—and it’s virtually guaranteed to happen if this criterion is met—is for the US, which is to say Trump, to stop slow-walking and instead to transfer arms and logistics of the kind the Ukrainian military say they need, in the amounts and at the pace they need them and without limits on targeting, to Ukraine. Additionally, Europe (with or without pressure from Trump to do so) needs to execute the same arms and logistics support.

The faster Ukraine wins this war, the faster the killing about which Trump is so worried will end.

Abandonment of Duty, Attempt at Tyranny

Posted on by
Reply

Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) has asked the Texas Supreme Court to remove State Congressman Gene Wu from office and declare his seat vacant. Wu is the Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair and one of 57 Progressive-Democrats who ran out of Texas for the explicit purpose of denying the Texas legislature a quorum and thereby prevent it from operating at all.

Abbott’s argument centers on this [citations omitted]:

Every elected officer of this State, including Wu, swears an oath to “faithfully execute the duties of the office” to which they are elected. The principal duty of a legislator is to attend and participate in legislative sessions as required by Article III, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution. The quorum provisions further underscore that attendance is not optional; it is an affirmative constitutional obligation. The Texas Constitution authorizes the House to “compel attendance of absent members.” That power would be meaningless if members could freely make themselves absent for political advantage without consequence. Such actions also render meaningless the Governor’s authority to call a Special Session, for which the Legislature “shall meet.”
Representative Wu has openly renounced these constitutional mandates by fleeing the State of Texas to break quorum, obstruct legislative proceedings, and paralyze the Texas House of Representatives.

Wu answered via television interview (he doesn’t have to respond to the filing until late this afternoon).

Let me be unequivocal about my actions and my duty. When a governor conspires with a disgraced president to ram through a racist gerrymandered map, my constitutional duty is to not be a willing participant.
Denying the governor a quorum was not an abandonment of my office; it was a fulfillment of my oath. Unable to defend his corrupt agenda on its merits, Greg Abbott now desperately seeks to silence my dissent by removing a duly-elected official from office.

Aside from the fact that Wu’s irrelevant ad hominem inclusion illustrates the intellectual bankruptcy of his position, his oath of office requires him to obey his constitutional duty to appear in the State Congress when it is in session. There is no leeway for absenting himself solely because he disagrees with the outcome of a policy debate and ensuing vote—most especially is there no leeway for absenting himself as part of an effort to prevent that vote from occurring.

That he’s part of Party’s movement to block a single piece of legislation, a redistricting bill, from being acted on is merely the narrow, proximate implication of his action.

The question here, though, is much larger than a single disputed piece of legislation; it embraces the nature and basis of democratic governments. In a democracy, especially in a republican and representative democracy such as ours, there are those who win in a policy contest and those who lose. The foundation of (representative, republican, even popular democracy) requires that the defeat be accepted by those in the minority and that those who lost are free to try again in a succeeding, even later renewed, policy debate but are not free to shut off all legislative capacity unless and until they, this minority, get their losing position fully accepted.

Texas’ Progressive-Democratic Party politicians who are deliberately shutting down the Texas government, denying it its ability—its obligation—to legislate, are not filibustering a single piece of legislation in an effort to block its passage. Their behavior is categorically different from that. These persons are not just violating their oaths of office. They are attempting to impose, from their minority position, their demands on an entire government at the cost of no functioning government absent the majority acquiescing to them. This is the stuff of tyranny, and thus their preventing a quorum is antithetical to democratic principles. All of them should be removed from office.

Abbott’s filing can be read here.

An Additional Angle

Posted on by
Reply

There’s another approach to this problem that also would be highly useful, and in a much more general way. The problem is the apparent debanking of Conservative enterprises and others like Crypto by too many banks. President Donald Trump appears to be setting up an Executive Order that would direct[] bank regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions might have violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws for political reasons.

I would approach this from another direction, a more generic one, in addition to this apparent EO. I would require, via EO (with legislation to adjust and then codify the EO after a year to see how well the EO works) to the relevant regulators, all financial institutions that close an existing account or that reject an application for one—not only debt accounts—to provide the account holder detailed, concrete, measurable reasons for closing the account, those reasons to accompany the closure, and to provide the account applicant with the same kind of detailed, concrete, measurable reasons for denying the application, with that response required to be provided within one calendar week of the application.

In addition to this, I would require the financial institution, since it has already developed its position and underlying…data…to answer all requests for clarity of any of the reasons within 24 hours of the request being transmitted if done electronically or within one calendar week if the request was transmitted in writing: USPS, UPS, Fedex, and the like. In this context, email and fax would count as electronic transmittal.

In Trump’s putative EO, [v]iolators could be subject to monetary penalties, consent decrees or other disciplinary measures. So it would be here, with these clarifications: monetary penalties would apply both to the financial institution and to the relevant managers in the C-Suite and the business’ Directors, since those persons are the ones animating the financial institution. Additionally, disciplinary measures would include termination for cause of those managers and Directors found culpable enough to be fined.

This move is not tailored to political closures or rejections, but would apply to all such, and it would apply to individuals as well as to businesses with accounts or applications for accounts.

One more thing: my move would not require financial institutions to suggest avenues for correcting the reasons for closure or rejection. A properly detailed notice will provide the account holder/applicant with plenty of ways to correct via the explicit reasons contained in the notice.

There’s also this from the banks’ side:

A Bank of America spokesman said the bank welcomed the administration’s efforts to provide regulatory clarity. “We’ve provided detailed proposals and will continue to work with the administration and Congress to improve the regulatory framework,” he said.

If the bank has these detailed proposals already developed, there is no reason why it cannot implement one of them without waiting on Government to tell it what to do. That would be what used to be good old American initiative.