Posts

Yesterday’s New York Times has an interesting article about how security researchers at the University of Toronto have helped uncover online spy activity, apparently conducted by the Chinese government, against the Dalai Lama’s office in India. One odd comment in the article: “And why among the more than 1,200 compromised government computers representing 103 countries, were there no United States government systems?" I find this particularly odd in that I’ve seen compromised U.S. government systems plenty of times in my information security career, including spam issued from military computers. I don’t find it plausible that the U.S. government has recently improved the security of all of its computers and networks so that there are no more compromised systems. In the context of the article, it’s discussing more specifically compromises due to the particular spy ring being monitored. The preceding sentences point out that they weren’t able to determine with certainty who was running it, and the immediately preceding sentence asks, “Why was the powerful eavesdropping system not password-protected, a weakness that made it easy for Mr. Villeneuve to determine how the system worked?" The question should actually have asked why it wasn’t encrypted, rather than “password-protected,” but the possibilities suggested to me here are that (a) this particular activity is being run by amateurs or (b) this particular activity was intentionally detectible as either (i) a distraction from other, more hidden activity or (ii) to put the blame on China by somebody other than China. ...

The April 2009 issue of Smithsonian magazine prints two letters about February’s “Darwin and Lincoln” article under the heading “Twin piques.” The first reads: The only place Darwin and Lincoln are equals is in the mind of author Adam Gopnik ["Twin Peaks"]. What a stretch to weave their lives together because they share a birthday. “High peaks [that] look out toward each other”? Total hyperbole. Rick Munsell The Villages, FloridaUnfortunately, Dr. Munsell, a veterinarian from Florida who got his college degrees in Mississippi, doesn’t tell us which reputation he thinks is exaggerated. Given his status as a southerner, he could either be a fan of the Confederacy and southern secession, or he could be an anti-evolutionist. Then again, perhaps he just thinks nobody is ever equal to anybody else…

In any event, the next Carolina sighting is only briefly detailed, sadly, since it sounds even more interesting than most. On the afternoon of 16 September 1904, in the countryside near Troutman, North Carolina, Mrs John B Lippard and her children saw “30 or more large snakes sailing through the air” over their farm. Each was about 5ft (1.5m) long and 4-5in (10-13cm) wide. “They watched the snakes sail around and alight in a piece of thickety pine woods… Most assuredly these people saw something.” (Statesville Landmark, 20 Sept) ...

The Center for Public Integrity, an organization I support, has just published the results of an investigation into the roots of the recent economic crisis and the major players involved: The top subprime lenders whose loans are largely blamed for triggering the global economic meltdown were owned or backed by giant banks now collecting billions of dollars in bailout money — including several that have paid huge fines to settle predatory lending charges. The banks that funded the subprime industry were not victims of an unforeseen financial collapse, as they have sometimes portrayed themselves, but enablers that bankrolled the type of lending threatening the financial system. … According to the analysis: ...

In an op-ed at the New York Times, Charles Blow offers a rebuttal to the claim that most people follow particular religions because they are raised in those religions with the following: Maybe, but a study entitled “Faith in Flux” issued this week by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life questioned nearly 3,000 people and found that most children raised unaffiliated with a religion later chose to join one. Indoctrination be damned. By contrast, only 14 percent of those raised Catholic and 13 percent of those raised Protestant later became unaffiliated. ...

Jinxiboo’s blog reports on Saint Sergius and Bacchus, officers in the Roman army exposed as secret Christians and martyred in the fourth century: A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men. … Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” (10th and 11th century), and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century). ...

Evidence continues to mount that human decision-making occurs in the brain prior to conscious awareness of the decision, which is evidence against the common religious view of a soul, separate from the brain, which is the seat of all of our mental capacities. It’s also at odds with an overly intellectualized view of human beings held by some atheists (as well as all Scientologists, who consider unconscious decision-making by the “reactive mind” or festering “body thetans” to be the cause of human unhappiness), on which we must strive to make all of our decisions based on conscious, deliberative reason. I don’t think this is a very common view among atheists today, who tend to have some familiarity with evolution and cognitive science, but there are still some out there who have an overly idealized view of what a rational human being should be. A view of human beings that focuses solely on the intellectual and reason is not only at odds with the facts about how our cognition works, it gives short shrift to the importance of social bonds and emotion, which are areas that some religions focus on to the exclusion of the intellectual–with great success in expanding their memberships, at least over the short term.

“It’s important for people to understand that in a democracy, there will be a full investigation. In other words, we want to know the truth. In our country, when there’s an allegation of abuse … there will be a full investigation, and justice will be delivered. … It’s very important for people and your listeners to understand that in our country, when an issue is brought to our attention on this magnitude, we act. And we act in a way in which leaders are willing to discuss it with the media. … In other words, people want to know the truth. That stands in contrast to dictatorships. A dictator wouldn’t be answering questions about this. A dictator wouldn’t be saying that the system will be investigated and the world will see the results of the investigation." And on the treatment of war crimes: “War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, ‘I was just following orders." The former quote is from the video below, the latter quote is from this March 2003 CNN transcript. (First quote via Dispatches from the Culture Wars, second quote via The Agitator.) And, for your edification, please read Scott Horton’s article, “Busting the Torture Myths." ...

The FCC rule on “fleeting expletives,” permitting massive fines even for individual occurrences of the “seven words you can’t say on television,” arguing that they always have sexual connotations even when used as an intensifier, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. The decision is noteworthy for using the terms “F-word” and “S-word” and “fing” and “s*” in its text, rather than spelling them out. Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in the majority, however, questioned the constitutional basis of the FCC’s ability to regulate content. It should be just a matter of time before the FCC’s ability to regulate indecency is curtailed, but the Supreme Court did not rule on that issue in this case. Adam Thierer at the Technology Liberation Front has a thorough commentary: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 Thierer points out that Scalia, purportedly a strict constitutionalist, in his decision has endorsed a brand-new justification for the FCC’s power to regulate broadcast content. The original justification was that the airwaves were a scarce resource that needed to be protected for productive uses; the new argument is that because there are so many unregulated alternatives like cable, satellite, and the Internet, that the government needs to protect one last refuge from offensive content. (Previously, previously.)

A nice visual depiction of what it amounts to. (Via The Agitator.) Historical Comments Ktisophilos (2009-05-03): Good one!