Tag Archives: freedom

Be Careful what you Wish For

Posted on by
Reply

As the Wall Street Journal notes,

Video cameras played a critical role in helping authorities track suspects in this week’s Boston bombings.  Now calls for increased camera surveillance in the US are putting a spotlight on the technology and the debate about its use.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg bragged about that city’s surveillance system.  It can

alert police to abnormalities it detects on the street, such as an abandoned package that is left on a corner.

Charles Ramsey, Philadelphia Police Commissioner, said on Fox News Sunday:

It gives you that historical record.

But such a ubiquitous government-run surveillance system also can alert government to abnormalities of which it disapproves—like individual citizens taking part in “right-wing extremist” peaceful rallies and meetings.  And there’s that government record on us private citizens thing, again.

In the present case, though, the matter of the Boston Marathon bombing, whose cameras were they?  The government’s cameras were involved in the data collection and subsequent hunt, certainly.  However, so were thousands of privately owned still and video cameras—all those smart phone cameras in the hands of Marathon fans and other ordinary citizens just out taking care of their own business in the area.

It was private citizens’ imagery and private citizens’ eye witness reports (one injured witness: “he looked right at me” and the boat owner’s sighting and 911 call) that generated the imagery, descriptions, and location data that so thoroughly supported the hunt, the tracking, and the capture.

Does government, today, really need such a widespread surveillance system?  No doubt the government’s surveillance cameras were highly useful, too, in this incident.  A tool for keeping track of the citizenry that’s in government hands, though, is subject to misuse, even if the tracking is for the best of reasons, as our government might assure us.  A tool for tracking one’s neighbors—or strangers—in private hands is subject to misuse, also, certainly.

Think, though, about which misuse is capable of the greater damage.

Think, also, about the extant government abuse of its surveillance capability.  Already, for instance, the present administration (and both national political parties) are scraping social media for personally identifying data for government (and party) purposes.  The IRS already is asserting its authority to read, without a court’s order, private email as part of its investigations (while denying it actually does so).  Do we need government actively tracking us private citizens?

Hmm….

The Boston Lockdown

Posted on by
1

While the second terrorist in the Boston Marathon bombing still was being hunted, Boston and a number of surrounding suburbs were put on lockdown, as police recommended (strongly) that everyone should stay indoors while they searched for the terrorist, a terrorist who, as it turns out, had escaped the perimeter the police had set up to enclose a small part of the city.

During that lockdown, Boston took a number of hits, and so I have some thoughts about the pros and cons of the matter.

  • Pros:
    • easier to spot the terrorist on the move (which the police never did)
    • clearer lines of fire should they need to engage
  • Cons:
    • citizens were unable to participate in the manhunt, even though part of a citizen’s duty is to aid the police
    • citizens were unable to go about their own business, except at government behest
    • economic activity in the city came to a halt for the duration
    • a “go inside and hide” mentality makes it easier for a government to dominate its people

The city and people of Boston took hits from the impairment of their individual freedoms (this time, brief) and to their economic activity (this time, both brief and local).  In the end, too, the lockdown contributed very little to the actual tracking and capture of the remaining terrorist.

There are a couple of things about this: for one, these now are tools for subsequent terrorists in their subsequent activities.  On an individual basis, the loss to Boston and to Bostonians was small—but scaled up, with terrorists now acting so as to prompt further lockdowns, the losses can easily mount to a scope far beyond the reach of any physical terrorist act or collection of them done in concert.  Disruptions to our lives get us dancing to the terrorists’ tune as surely as actually killing us.

Widespread lockdowns also get us in the habit of letting the government corral us, for our own good.

Keep in mind Benjamin Franklin’s warning:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, will have neither Liberty nor Safety.

Although the warning might be hard for some to understand, it being older than one hundred years.

Are We Projecting?

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China, in its latest national defense report, is accusing the US of “destabilizing” the Asia-Pacific region, because we’re shifting the focus of our attention there instead of keeping it on Europe.

PRC Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun, referring to enhancements of our ties with our friends and allies around the Pacific and the South China Sea, and to our strengthening (a little bit) our military presence in the area:

Certain efforts made to highlight the military agenda, enhance military deployment and also strengthen alliances are not in line with the calling of the times and are not conducive to the upholding of peace and stability in the region[.]

We hope that the relevant parties would do more to enhance the mutual trust between countries in the region and contribute to peace and stability

Never mind that the PRC defense budget is second in the world only to our own, it’s grown by 500% over the last dozen, or so, years, and they’re currently engaged in a massive sea grab.  Things would be much more stable if we’d just abandon our allies, friends, and trading partners, and let the PRC get on with it.

Projecting, are we, Mr Yang?

We’re Moving in the Right Direction

Posted on by
Reply

At least on some things.  A Fox News poll, taken just after the recent Boston Marathon terrorist bombing had these results, among others (the full poll is at a link in the article).

On the question of trading some personal freedom for an increase in personal safety, Americans had this to say:

7. Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?

Yes

No

(Don’t know)

16 Apr 13

43%

45

12

This compares with past results:

16-18 May 06

54%

36

10

10-11 Jan 06

61%

27

13

26-27 Jul 05

64%

21

15

8-9 Sep 02

61%

24

15

4-5 June 02

64%

21

15

17-18 Oct 01

71%

20

9

Those October 2001 results are just after the terrorists crashed the Twin Towers, damaged the Pentagon, and attacked (unsuccessfully, via United Airlines Flight 93) the White House.  Americans are recalling Benjamin Franklin’s remarks on that tradeoff, that without personal freedom, there is no security.  At all.

Another Unintended Consequence

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a pending “revenue saving” failure in which both parties are on track to be complicit.  President Barack Obama’s latest budget guess includes a measure purported to

improve the financial stability of Medicare by reducing taxpayer subsidies for retirees who can afford to pay a bigger share of costs. Congressional Republicans agree with the president on this one, making it highly likely the idea will become law if there’s a budget deal this year. … Obama’s budget would change Medicare’s upper-income premiums in several ways.  First, it would raise the monthly amounts for those currently paying.  Then, the plan would create five new income brackets to squeeze more revenue from the top tiers of retirees.

We’ll leave aside the dishonesty of pulling the rug out from under current retirees by changing the rules on them after they’re irrevocably committed to a retirement expense and income stream based on the original rules.  Instead, the unintended consequence, illustrated by the example of Sheila Pugach:

[S]he’s being penalized for prudence, dinged for saving diligently.

It was the government, she says, that pushed her into a higher income bracket where she’d have to pay additional Medicare premiums.

IRS rules require people age 70-and-a-half and older to make regular minimum withdrawals from tax-deferred retirement nest eggs like 401(k)s.  That was enough to nudge her over Medicare’s line.

“We were good soldiers when we were young,” said Pugach….  “I was afraid of not having money for retirement, and I put in as much as I could.”

And now she gets to pay even more money to Uncle Sugar as her reward for her honoring her duty to herself and to her family.  Were this nonsense current law, Pugach would pay roughly $168/mo for outpatient coverage under Medicare Part B instead of her present $147/mo—a jump of more than $250 per year.

There are a lot of alternative uses for that kind of money for a person living on a fixed income and little to no job prospect.  Oh, wait—Pugach is an “upper income” retiree.  Well, we know Obama’s reaction to that, don’t we?

I do think at a certain point you’ve saved enough money.