Books read in 2019

Not much blogging going on here still, but here's my annual list of books read for 2019. Graham T. Allison, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap? Ross Anderson, Security Engineering (3rd edition, draft chapters) Herbert Asbury, The Barbary Coast: An Informal History of the San Francisco Underworld Heidi Blake, From Russia with Blood: The Kremlin's Ruthless Assassination Program and Vladimir Putin's Secret War on the West Rutger Bregman, Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World Oliver Bullough, Moneyland: The Inside Story of the Crooks and Kleptocrats Who Rule the World Bryan Caplan and Zach Weinersmith, Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration C.J. Chivers, The Fighters: Americans in Combat Sefton Delmer, Black Boomerang Nina J. Easton, Gang of Five: Leaders at the Center of the Conservative Crusade (bio of Bill Kristol, Ralph Reed, Clint Bolick, Grover Norquist, and David McIntosh) Ronan Farrow, Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies, and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators Ronan Farrow, War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence Ian Frisch, Magic is Dead: My Journey into the World's Most Secretive Society of Magicians Anand Giridharadas, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World Reba Wells Grandrud, Sunnyslope (Images of America series) Andy Greenberg, Sandworm: A New Era of Cyberwar and the Hunt for the Kremlin's Most Dangerous Hackers Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story That Helped Ignite a Movement Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq Michael Lewis, Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt Jonathan Lusthaus, Industry of Anonymity: Inside the Business of Cybercrime Ben MacIntyre, A Spy Among Friends: Kim Philby and the Great Betrayal Joseph Menn, Cult of the Dead Cow: How the Original Hacking Supergroup Might Just Save the World Anna Merlan, Republic of Lies: American Conspiracy Theorists and Their Surprising Rise to Power Jefferson Morley, Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA Sarah T. Roberts, Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media Hans Rosling, with Ola Rosling and Anna Rosling Rönnlund, Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think Russell Shorto, Amsterdam: A History of the World's Most Liberal City Alexander Stille, The Sack of Rome: Media + Money + Celebrity = Power = Silvio Berlusconi Jamie Susskind, Future Politics: Living Together in a World Transformed by Tech Erik Van De Sandt, Deviant Security: The Technical Computer Security Practices of Cyber Criminals (Ph.D. thesis) Tom Wolfe, The Right Stuff Tim Wu, The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads Top for 2019: Bullough, Farrow (Catch and Kill), Wu, Chivers, Rosling, Greenberg, Blake, Allison, Caplan and Weinersmith, Kinzer, Delmer. I started the following books I expect to finish in early 2020: Myke Cole, Legion versus Phalanx: The Epic Struggle for Infantry Supremacy in the Ancient World Walter LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America (2nd edition) Brad Smith and Carol Anne Browne, Tools and Weapons: The Promise and Peril of the Digital Age Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire: A Thousand Years of Europe's History Two books I preordered and look forward to reading in 2020: Anna Wiener, Uncanny Valley: A Memoir (due out January 14) Thomas Rid, Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare (due out April 21) (Previously: 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

January 1, 2020 · 3 min

Rep. Tom Graves' Active Cyber Defense Certainty Act

Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA14) has circulated a draft bill, the “Active Cyber Defense Certainty Act” (or ACDC Act), which amends the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 USC 1030) to legalize certain forms of “hacking back” for the purposes of collecting information about an attacker in order to facilitate criminal prosecution or other countermeasures. The bill as it currently stands is not a good bill, for the following reasons: ...

March 12, 2017 · 11 min

Al Seckel exposed

"I believe that we are rapidly transitioning from an Age of Information to an Age of Misinformation, and in many cases, outright disinformation." -- Al Seckel, in an interview published on Jeffrey Epstein's website, "Jeffrey Epstein Talks Perception with Al Seckel" Mark Oppenheimer's long-awaited exposé on Al Seckel, "The Illusionist," has now been published and I urge all skeptics to read it. Seckel, the former head of the Southern California Skeptics and a CSICOP Scientific and Technical Consultant who was listed as a "physicist" in every issue of the Skeptical Inquirer from vol. 11, no. 2 (Winter 1987-88) to vol. 15, no. 2 (Winter 1991) despite having no degree in physics, has long been known among skeptical insiders as a person who was misrepresenting himself and taking advantage of others. Most have remained silent over fear of litigation, which Seckel has engaged in successfully in the past. An example of a legal threat from Seckel is this email he sent to me on May 27, 2014: Dear Jim, News has once again reached me that you are acting as Tom McIver's proxy in spreading misinformation and disinformation about me. Please be aware that I sued McIver in a Court of Law for Defamation and Slander, and after a very lengthy discovery process, which involved showing that he fabricated letters from my old professors (who provided notarized statements that they did not ever state nor write the letters that McIver circulated, and the various treasures who were in control of the financial books of the skeptics, also came forth and testified that no money was taken, and McIver was unable to prove any of his allegations. The presiding Judge stated that this was the "worst case of slander and defamation" that he had ever seen. Nevertheless, even with such a Court Order he is persisting, and using (and I mean the term "using") you to further propagate erroneous misinformation. Lately, he has been making his defamatory comments again various people, and posting links to a news release article by the Courthouse News (a press release service) that reports the allegations set forth in complaints. Just because something is "alleged" does not mean it is True. It has to be proven in a Court of Law. In this case, after a lengthy discovery process (and I keep excellent records) the opposite of what was alleged was discovered, and the opposing counsel "amicably" dismissed their charges against me. The case was officially dismissed. In fact, the opposing counsel has been active in trying to get the Courthouse News to actively remove the entire article, and not just add a footnote at the end. I note that you have been trying to add this link to my wikipedia page. I have never met you, and am not interested in fighting with you. I am attaching the official Court document that this case was filed for dismissal by the opposing counsel. You can verify yourself that this is an accurate document with the Court. So, once again, McIver has used you. My attorneys are now preparing a Criminal Complaint against McIver for so openly violating the Court Order (it is now a criminal offense), and will once again open the floodgates of a slander and defamation lawsuit against him and his family, and anyone else, who aids him willing in this process. This time he will not have his insurance company cover his defense. This time that axe will come down hard on him. For now, I will just think you are victim, but please remove any and all references to me on any of your websites, and that will be the end of it. You don't want to be caught in the crossfire. Yours sincerely, Al Seckel -- Al Seckel Cognitive neuroscientist, author, speaker Contrary to what Seckel writes, we have, in fact, met--I believe it was during the CSICOP conference, April 3-4, 1987, in Pasadena, California.  I am not an agent of Tom McIver, the anthropologist, librarian, and author of the wonderful reference book cataloging anti-evolution materials, Anti-Evolution, who Seckel sued for defamation in 2007, in a case that was settled out of court (see Oppenheimer's article). I have never met Tom McIver, though I hope I will be able to do so someday--he seems to me to be a man of good character, integrity, and honesty. The news release Seckel mentions is regarding a lawsuit filed by Ensign Consulting Ltd. in 2011 against Seckel charging him with fraud, which is summarized online on the Courthouse News Service website. I wrote a brief account of the case based on that news article on Seckel's Wikipedia page in an edit on March 13, 2011, but it was deleted by another editor in less than an hour.  Seckel is correct that just because something is alleged does not mean that it is true; my summary was clear that these were accusations made in a legal filing. Seckel and his wife, Isabel Maxwell (daughter of the deceased British-Czech media mogul, Robert Maxwell), rather than fighting the suit or showing up for depositions, filed for bankruptcy.  Ensign filed a motion in their bankruptcy case on December 2, 2011, repeating the fraud allegations.  But as Seckel notes, Ensign did dismiss their case in 2014 prior to his sending me the above email. So why should anyone care?  Who is Al Seckel, and what was he worried that I might be saying about him? This is mostly answered by the Oppenheimer article, but there is quite a bit more that could be said, and more than what I will say here to complement "The Illusionist." Al Seckel was the founder and executive director of the Southern California Skeptics, a Los Angeles area skeptics group that met at Caltech.  This was one of the earliest local skeptical groups, with a large membership and prominent scientists on its advisory board.  Seckel has published numerous works including editing two collections of Bertrand Russell's writings for Prometheus Books (both reviewed negatively in the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies, see here and here).  He has given a TED talk on optical illusions and authored a book with the interesting title, Masters of Deception, which has a forward by Douglas R. Hofstadter.  Seckel was an undergraduate at Cornell University, and developed an association with a couple of cognitive psychology labs at Caltech--in 1998 the New York Times referred to him as a "research associate at the Shimojo Psychophysics Laboratory." His author bios have described him as author of the monthly Neuroquest column at Discover magazine ("About the Author" on Masters of Deception; Seckel has never written that column), as "a physicist and molecular biologist" (first page of Seckel's contribution, "A New Age of Obfuscation and Manipulation" in Robert Basil, editor, Not Necessarily the New Age, 1988, Prometheus Books, pp. 386-395; Seckel is neither a physicist nor a molecular biologist), and, in his TED talk bio, as having left Caltech to continue his work "in spatial imagery with psychology researchers as Harvard" (see Oppenheimer's exchanges with Kosslyn, who has never met or spoken with him and Ganis, who says he has exchanged email with him but not worked with him). At Cornell, Seckel associated with L. Pearce Williams, a professor of history of science, who had interesting things to say when McIver asked him about their relationship. While in at least one conference bio, Seckel is listed as having been Carl Sagan's teaching assistant, I do not believe that was the case. The Cornell registrar reported in 1991 in response to a query from Pat Linse that Seckel only attended for two semesters and a summer session, though a few places on the web list him as a Cornell alumnus. Seckel used to hang out at Caltech with Richard Feynman. As the late Helen Tuck, Feyman's administrative assistant, wrote in 1991, Seckel "latched on to Feynman like a leach [sic]." Tuck wrote that she became suspicious of Seckel, and contacted Cornell to find that he did not have a degree from that institution. You can see her full letter, written in response to a query from Tom McIver, here. As the head of the Southern California Skeptics, Seckel managed to get a column in the Los Angeles Times, titled "Skeptical Eye." Most of his columns were at least partially plagiarized from the work of others, including his column on Sunny the counting dalmation (plagiarized from Robert Sheaffer), his column on tabloid psychics' predictions for 1987 (also plagiarized from Sheaffer), and his column about Martin Reiser's tests of psychic detectives (plagiarized directly from Reiser's work). When Seckel plagiarized Sheaffer, it was brought to the attention of Kent Harker, editor of the Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet (BASIS), who contacted Seckel about it. Seckel apparently told Harker that Sheaffer had given his permission to allow publication of his work under Seckel's name, which Sheaffer denied when Harker asked. This led to Harker writing to Seckel in 1988 to tell him about Sheaffer's denial, and inform him that he, Seckel, was no longer welcome to reprint any material from BASIS in LASER, the Southern California Skeptics' newsletter. While most skeptical groups gave each other blanket permission to reprint each others' material with attribution, Harker explicitly retracted this permission for Seckel. This is, I think, a good case study in how the problem of "affinity fraud"--being taken in by deception by a member of a group you self-identify with--can be possible for skeptics, scientists, and other educated people, just as it is for the more commonly publicized cases of affinity fraud within religious organizations. This just scratches the surface of the Seckel story. I hope that those who have been fearful of litigation from Seckel will realize that, given the Oppenheimer story, now is an opportune time for multiple people to come forward and offer each other mutual support that was unhappily unavailable for Tom McIver eight years ago. (BTW, one apparent error in the Oppenheimer piece--I am unaware of Richard Feynman lending his name for use by a skeptical group. He was never, for example, a CSICOP Fellow, though I'm sure they asked him just as they asked Murray Gell-Mann, who has been listed as a CSICOP Fellow since Skeptical Inquirer vol. 9, no. 3, Spring 1985.) "Oh, like everyone else, I used to parrot, and on occasion, still do." -- Al Seckel (interview with Jeffrey Epstein) Corrected 22 July 2015--original mistakenly said Maxwell was Australian. Update 22 September 2015--an obituary has been published for Al Seckel, stating that he died in France on an unspecified date earlier this year, but there are as yet no online French death records nor French news stories reporting his death. The obituary largely mirrors content put up on alseckel.net, a domain that was registered on September 18 by a user using Perfect Privacy LLC (domaindiscreet.com) to hide their information. (That in itself is not suspicious, it is generally a good practice for individuals who own domain names to protect their privacy with such mechanisms and I do it myself.) Update 24 September 2015: French police, via the U.S. consulate, confirmed the death of Al Seckel on July 1, 2015. His body was found at the bottom of a cliff in the village of Saint-Cirq-Lapopie. Update 21 December 2015: A timeline of Al Seckel's activities may be found here. Update 14 April 2022: Al Seckel's death has been declared a suicide. Update 19 November 2025: Robert Sheaffer's recollections of Al Seckel including being plagiarized by him as noted above can be found here. Geoff Coupe (2015-07-22): Robert Maxwell, while deceased, was not Australian - he was born in Czechoslovakia and became British. I think you are confusing him with another R. M. - Rupert Murdoch ...

July 20, 2015 · 11 min

The myth of fingerprints

I’ve been reading Ross Anderson’s epic tome, Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems (2nd edition, 2008, Wiley), and have just gotten into the chapter on biometrics (ch. 15). Section 15.5.2, on Crime Scene Forensics, points out three major criminal cases where fingerprint matches have been in error, including the Brandon Mayfield case which I wrote about at this blog back in 2007. Anderson points out that law enforcement agencies have claimed to juries “that forensic results are error-free when FBI proficiency exams have long had an error rate of about one percent, and misleading contextual information can push this up to ten percent or more” (pp. 470-471). It’s probability at work: ...

August 11, 2012 · 4 min

Work-at-home scams

I was asked earlier today if I could give my opinion on whether the work-from-home opportunity advertised at the domain onlineprofitmasterssystem.com is a scam. A quick bit of research produced some interesting results, my conclusion is that it is almost definitely a scam, by people with a history of promoting scams. First, the domain registration: Registrant: Phillip Gannuscia 1780 W. 9000 South #315 West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Registered through: Go Daddy Domain Name: ONLINEPROFITMASTERSSYSTEM.COM Created on: 04-Nov-11 Expires on: 04-Nov-12 Last Updated on: 29-Nov-11 Administrative Contact: Gannuscia, Phillip [email protected] 1780 W. 9000 South #315 West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States (801) 803-5769 Fax – The very domain and URL and web content of the page are already screaming red flags, and there are more to be found in the above data. It’s a recently registered domain, and the contact physical address appears to be a private mail drop service. Both the address and telephone number listed are associated with multiple other companies (e.g., BBB F-rated eVenture International, run by Richard Scott Nemrow, who was cited multiple times by the Utah Division of Consumer Protection in 2009) and domain names (e.g., makerichesfromhome.com, educationtrainingsonline.com, executivelearningonline.com, learningresourceontheweb.com, and lightlifemaster.com) which also look like scams,. This particular company, Online Profit Masters, has an F rating from the BBB. The named contact, Phillip Gannuscia, has an email address with someone else’s name, [email protected], apparently Essent VP Nathan L. Kozlowski, a former Mormon missionary. Does Gannuscia even exist, or is the name just an alias for Kozlowski? The company whose domain is used here for the contact email address, Essent Media LLC, another Richard Scott Nemrow company, has a corporate registration which expired in 2010. I’d steer clear of any business with these guys. And if you come across this blog post because you’ve already been ripped off by them (like this guy reports), I suggest you file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center as well as contacting your local law enforcement agency. ...

February 11, 2012 · 2 min

Cory Maye to be released from prison

As a result of the investigative reporting of Radley Balko, Cory Maye is about to be released from prison after ten years of incarceration and seven years after being sentenced to death on the basis of a terrible defense and kooky testimony from a now discredited and removed medical examiner. Maye shot and killed a police officer during a no-knock drug raid against a duplex property in which Maye resided, on the basis of a report of unusual traffic at the other unit of the duplex by an unreliable informant. Maye was defending his daughter from an unknown intruder kicking his door in. Through the efforts of Balko and a legal team from Covington & Burling, Maye was removed from death row in 2006.

July 3, 2011 · 1 min

5-4 bad decision against Arizona Clean Elections law

The decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett came out today (PDF), a 5-4 decision ruling Arizona’s Clean Election laws unconstitutional. The dissent, it seems to me, has a much better case than the majority: the program does not discriminate against any candidate or point of view, and it does not restrict any person's ability to speak.  In fact, by providing resources to many candidates, the program creates more speech and thereby broadens public debate. ... At every turn, the majority tries to convey the impression that Arizona's matching fund statute is of a piece with laws prohibiting electoral speech. The majority invokes the language of "limits," "bar[s]," and "restraints." ... It equates the law to a "restrictio[n] on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign." ... There is just one problem. Arizona's matching funds provision does not restrict, but instead subsidizes, speech. The law "impose[s] no ceiling on [speech] and do[es] not prevent anyone from speaking." ... The statute does not tell candidates or their supporters how much money they can spend to convey their message, when they can spend it, or what they can spend it on. ... In the usual First Amendment subsidy case, a person complains that the government declined to finance his speech, while financing someone else's; we must then decide whether the government differentiated between these speakers on a prohibited basis--because it preferred one speaker's ideas to another's. ... But the speakers bringing this case do not make that claim--because they were never denied a subsidy. ... Petitioners have refused that assistance. So they are making a novel argument: that Arizona violated their First Amendment rights by disbursing funds to other speakers even though they could have received (but chose to spurn) the same financial assistance. Some people might call that chutzpah. Indeed, what petitioners demand is essentially a right to quash others' speech through the prohibition of a (universally available) subsidy program. Petitioners are able to convey their ideas without public financing--and they would prefer the field to themselves, so that they can speak free from response. To attain that goal, they ask this court to prevent Arizona from funding electoral speech--even though that assistance is offered to every state candidate, on the same (entirely unobjectionable) basis. And this court gladly obliges.(See my previous argument against the Institute for Justice's position on this, with some subsequent clarifications on other aspects of the law.) The majority position on this issue is that the unconstitutionality arises from the way that the subsidy to clean elections candidates is tied to campaign spending by the non-clean-elections candidates; I take it that had the subsidy been a fixed amount the argument would not have worked at all. There's a good overview of the issues at the SCOTUS blog.

June 27, 2011 · 3 min

Many Species of Animal Law

Today I went to hear Bruce Wagman speak on the subject of “Many Species of Animal Law” at ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Wagman, an attorney with Schiff Hardin who is also an outside litigator for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, has litigated cases involving animals for 18 years, written a case book on animal law, and teaches animal law courses at several law schools as an adjunct faculty member. He was introduced by ASU Law School Dean Paul Berman and Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Pat Norris. Wagman began by defining “animal law” as any law where the status of an animal matters–psychological, biological, welfare, etc. status of the animal, as opposed to its value as property. He suggested that animal law attorneys “may be the only lawyers on earth whose clients are all innocent." He divided his talk up into multiple “species” of animal law. Species 1: Companion Animal Issues He said this makes up the majority of his cases, and includes injuries by or to animals, including veterinary malpractice. The challenge is to get courts to recognize that animals are not merely property, since historically companion animals have been viewed as property with low or even zero market value. In cases where an animal is injured or killed, the market value doesn’t recognize the interests of the animal or other kinds of value that companion animals give. Under the American Law Institute’s Restatements of the Law, however, there is a notion of “special property” (or “peculiar property” in California’s statutes) which allows quantification of other kinds of worth to an animal owner, for instance if the animal is a therapy dog. There are no emotional stress damages available. Other sorts of companion animal cases include custody disputes, which often occur as a result of one partner just trying to inflict distress on another rather than having actual interest in the animal. Wagman said that courts are beginning to take a better look at the interests of the animal in such cases, and be willing to appoint a guardian ad litem, as occurred in the Michael Vick case and in another case in Tennessee where there was a dispute over custody of a dog between a dead man’s girlfriend and parents. There are dangerous dog issues, where an attorney may be fighting against the classification of a dog as a dangerous or vicious animal, or against its euthanasia–what he called “capital cases” for animals. In three counties surrounding San Francisco, what happens in the case of a dog biting another dog that requires stitches varies dramatically. In one county, the dog gets a period of probation. In another, the dog gets labeled as a dangerous or vicious dog, which requires the owner to meet various conditions of housing the dog, having a certain height of fence, carry additional insurance, and so forth. And in Santa Clara County, the dog gets euthanized. He pointed out that that county’s statute has an exemption for “mitigating circumstances” which he’s successfully used to prevent dogs from being euthanized. Finally, there are wills and trusts–he said he doesn’t do that sort of work, but that 48 states now have mechanisms for having trusts for animals. He said he considers companion animals to be a sort of “gateway animal” for getting recognition of animals in the law, and noted that we tend to be “speciesists” who would feel very different about snakes vs. Labrador Retrievers. [IMO, this is rational to the extent that animals differ in cognitive capacities, and I note that at no point did he discuss litigating on behalf of cockroaches against pest control companies.] Species 2: Farm animal issues–legislation and litigation. His second species of animal law was about animals killed for food–about 10 billion per year in the United States. He said the goal here is not to stop the killing, but just to improve the living conditions of animals before they’re killed for food. This is problematic, however, because the animal cruelty statutes are criminal rather than civil (with an exception in North Carolina that will be discussed with regard to Species 3 of animal law), and that the criminal law for animal cruelty excludes farm animals in 35 states. He discussed a few of the more abusive methods of animal treatment in factory farming–calf crates, in which calves are placed for about the first 60 days of life, gestation crates for pigs (outlawed in Arizona since 2006, as well as illegal in Florida, Oregon, Colorado, and California), and battery cages for chickens. He also discussed downer animals–animals which are either so seriously injured or ill that they are unable to move, which the meat industry wants to drag in that condition to slaughter. Wagman raised the concern that such animals, if sick, could potentially spread illness to humans, and listed a bunch of diseases that could potentially so spread, with BSE (mad cow) at the top of the list along with avian flu. Of these, only BSE has been documented to spread to humans, and the industry position is that there should be no restrictions on downer pigs unless and until a human actually gets sick. The state of California passed a law that said that all downer animals must be euthanized on the spot; the meat industry sued and overturned the statute in federal district court, but the 9th Circuit just reversed it last week (National Meat Association v. Brown). Species 3: Animal hoarding–private ownership, breeders, and the sanctuary that is not Wagman said that there have been 250,000 documented cases of animal hoarding, and that they are difficult cases to work with in multiple ways. He said he believes such cases involve mental illness, but while the APA has a diagnosis for “hoarding” behavior, it excludes animal hoarding which is considered to be different. How many animals constitutes hoarding? He said he likes to say “more than eight,” because he has eight animals at home. Hoarders characteristics include possessing more animals than they can care for, having a sense of being persecuted, and living in deplorable conditions. He discussed two cases that he litigated, ALDF v. Barbara & Robert Woodley, and ALDF v. Janie Conyers, which involved over 500 animals between them. The former case, in North Carolina, was able to use North Carolina statute 19a, which allows a civil cause of action for animal cruelty. Wagman had some horrifying photos from the Woodley case. They had hundreds of dogs in their home living in their own feces, where ammonia levels were 20 times the USDA maximum allowed in a pig facility. These ammonia levels caused blindness in the dogs, as well as chemical burns to bare skin that contacted the floor, such as dogs’ scrotums. Multiple dogs were kept in wooden boxes with lids on them, and never let out. Mrs. Woodley’s favorite dog, Buddy, not only had his eyes burned to blindness from ammonia, but the bone in the dog’s jaw deteriorated from malnutrition. Local officials had known of Woodley’s problem for 20 years, but considered themselves powerless to do anything about it, since the scale of the problem was so large–the local shelter had only eight kennels, while the Woodleys had about 450 animals. The ALDF had to coordinate a massive effort to manage the rescue of the animals through their case. Conyers was an AKC poodle breeder who had 106 poodles living in their own feces. Wagman said that animal psychological suffering is difficult to show, but it can be done; demonstrating physiological suffering is easier, with objective criteria like the ammonia levels and physical injuries to animals. There is no law against hoarding (except in Hawaii), just the criminal abuse statutes (and civil in NC). In the hoarding cases the abuse is typically neglect rather than active abuse. Species 4: Exotic animal ownership Wagman has handled about 10 chimpanzee cases. One was a case involving a couple in West Covina, California who had a chimp named Moe for 35 years that bit two people. He argued for a guardian ad litem to determine what was in the best interests of the chimp, and arranged to get Jane Goodall and Roger Fouts for that role. The court looked upon it favorably, but the couple came to an out-of-court settlement. He also briefly discussed the Stamford, Connecticut case of Travis, the 200-pound chimpanzee who attacked a woman that was in the news last year. He argued that there should be a legislative fix to ban exotic animal ownership completely–they’re wild animals. [A complete ban seems to me too much–there should be exceptions for research, conservation, breeding programs for endangered species, and so forth. And shouldn’t it be possible to domesticate other wild animals?] Connecticut has taken the step of banning chimp ownership. Species 5: Shelter practices - euthanasia, veterinary care, adequate food, water, and sanitation, and hold periods Animal shelters have an overwhelming job, said Wagman. The County of Los Angeles, which he sued, operates seven shelters which handle tens of thousands of animals per year. California law says that all animals must get veterinary care and be held for five days, and allowing animal suffering without treatment is not permissible. The shelters’ own records showed that they weren’t meeting that standard for thousands of animals, but they’re now working to meet them and having their activity monitored for compliance. A similar set of cases occurred in Kentucky, when the state transferred all shelter responsibility to the counties. Although the standards of care were minimal, they weren’t meeting it, and there were nutrition, veterinary care, and euthanasia issues. Upon getting notice, they quickly took action to remedy. In Georgia, by contrast, there is a statute that prohibits the use of gas chambers for euthanization at shelters, but the Commissioner of Agriculture sent out letters to the shelters asking that they purchase gas chambers for euthanization. Gas chambers apparently have very ugly results in some cases, such as with unhealthy dogs. A lawsuit against the state of Georgia for its failure to comply with its own statute resulted an an injunction, which they then immediately violated by sending out more letters asking for gas chamber purchases. After obtaining a contempt ruling from the court, they finally got compliance. Species 6: Entertainment Wagman called this category both the most obvious and the most hidden. The use of animals in entertainment is obvious, but what is not obvious is what goes on behind the scenes, the knowledge of which drains the fun out of the entertainment. Circuses, zoos, film and TV ads, animal fighting, public appearances, racing and rodeos, and hunting and fishing are all cases of animals used for entertainment. Wagman first discussed elephants in circuses, commenting on a recent Ringling Brothers case which was tossed out on an issue of standing. The case involved the use of bullhooks for elephant training, which injures the animals. The defense didn’t deny use of bullhooks, but claimed that they only use them as “guides." Elephant treatment in zoos is also problematic, since standing around on hard surfaces causes painful arthritis. In the wild, elephants are awake 21 hours a day and may move 35 miles per day. Wagman discussed dog fighting, and said that the Michael Vick case was a wakeup call for America to the reality of dog fighting, which exists in every state and most major cities. He argued that the use of great apes in film and television should be banned, because of how the training process works. He said that while trainers claim to use only positive reinforcement training, an undercover person who volunteered for a year and a half with trainer Sid Yost found otherwise. A young chimpanzee is immediately treated to beating and punching to get them to comply. Their performance lifetime is about 3-5 years, after which they become to strong to conrol, and end up in private homes, in research, or in zoos, often all alone in barren cases. Wagman pointed out that the common use of a “smiling” chimpanzee is actually a fear grimace. He does lots of work for sanctuaries, of which there are nine in the U.S. for chimpanzees (including chimpsanctuarynw.org). Regarding hunting, he distinguished traditional hunting from canned hunting and Internet hunting. Hunting is protected in most states, including in many state constitutions. Canned hunting ranches, where animals are fed by hand by humans before they are flushed out into open areas to be shot, are not considered to be hunting by most traditional hunters. [But is considered hunting by our former Vice President, Dick Cheney.] Internet hunting, where a rifle can be fired at live animals over the Internet, has been banned in 30 states. He mentioned mountain lion hunting in the Black Hills of South Dakota, where mountain lions have become fairly scarce. A lawsuit was filed to try to stop the hunting on grounds of near-extinction of the animals, but the injunction was denied on the grounds that there were unlikely to be any mountain lions even found and killed. Two mountain lions were killed shortly thereafter in fairly quick succession, and even though there was a law that prohibited killing female mountain lions with cubs, the second one killed had a cub, and there was no prosecution. Some Adidas shoes are made with kangaroo skin, and the state of California has banned the importation of kangaroo skin, which Adidas ignored. Adidas was sued as a result, and they lost at the California Supreme Court–but they responded by persuading the legislature to repeal the ban rather than changing their practices. Species 7: Species and breed-specific legislation and ADA breedism case. A variety of dog breeds have been considered at various times and places to be “bad dogs” that create a special danger. After WWII, it was German Shepherds and Dobermans. All cases to stop such breed-specific legislation have failed, because the “rational relation” standard is met by only a single case of harm. A case in progress right now in Concord, California involves Theresa Huerta, a woman suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act to keep her pit bull therapy dog from being euthanized. Wagman concluded by saying that his overall objective is to keep the public and the courts focused on the real issue, which is ending blatant cases of animal abuse. Animal law is a growing field, and there’s an annual animal law conference in Portland that’s now in its fifth year. ...

April 8, 2010 · 14 min

Science as performance

The success of science in the public sphere is determined not just by the quality of research but by the ability to persuade. Stephen Hilgartner’s Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama uses a theatrical metaphor, drawing on the work of Erving Goffman, to shed light on and explain the outcomes associated with three successive reports on diet and nutrition issued by the National Academies of Science, one of which was widely criticized by scientists, one of which was criticized by food industry groups, and one of which was never published. They differed in “backstage” features such as how they coordinated their work and what sources they drew upon, in “onstage” features such as the composition of experts on their committees and how they communicated their results, and how they responded to criticism. The kinds of features and techniques that Hilgartner identifies as used to enhance perceptions of credibility–features of rhetoric and performance–are the sorts of features relied upon by con artists. If there is no way to distinguish such features as used by con artists from those used by genuine practitioners, if all purported experts are on equal footing and only the on-stage performances are visible, then we have a bit of a problem. All purported experts of comparable performing ability are on equal footing, and we may as well flip coins to distinguish between them. But part of a performance includes the propositional content of the performance–the arguments and evidence deployed–and these are evaluated not just on aesthetic grounds but with respect to logical coherence and compatibility with what the audience already knows. Further, the performance itself includes an interaction with the audience that strains the stage metaphor. Hilgartner describes this as members of the audience themselves taking the stage, yet audience members in his metaphor also interact with each other, individually and in groups, through complex webs of social relationships. The problem of expert-layman interaction is that the layman in most cases lacks the interactional expertise to even be able to communicate about the details of the evidence supporting a scientific position, and must rely upon other markers of credibility which may be rhetorical flourishes. This is the problem of Plato’s “Charmides,” in which Socrates asserts that only a genuine doctor can distinguish a sufficiently persuasive quack from a genuine doctor. A similar position is endorsed by philosopher John Hardwig, in his paper “Epistemic Dependence,” (PDF) and by law professor Scott Brewer in “Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process,” which points out that the problem faces judges and juries. There are some features which enable successful distinctions between genuine and fake experts in at least the more extreme circumstances–examination of track records, credentials, evaluations by other experts or meta-experts (e.g., experts in methods used across multiple domains, such as logic and mathematics). Brewer enumerates four strategies of nonexperts in evaluating expert claims: (1) “substantive second-guessing,” (2) “using general canons of rational evidentiary support,” (3) “evaluating demeanor,” and (4) “evaluating credentials.” Of these, only (3) is an examination of the merely surface appearances of the performance (which is not to say that it can’t be a reliable, though fallible, mechanism). But when the evaluation is directed not at distinguishing genuine expert from fake, but conflicting claims between two genuine experts, the nonexpert may be stuck in a situation where none of these is effective and only time (if anything) will tell–but in some domains, such as the legal arena, a decision may need to be reached much more quickly than a resolution might become available. One novel suggestion for institutionalizing a form of expertise that fits into Hilgartner’s metaphor is philosopher Don Ihde’s proposal of “science critics”, in which individuals with at least interactional expertise within the domain they criticize serve a role similar to art and literary critics in evaluating a performance, including its content and not just its rhetorical flourishes. [A slightly different version of the above was written as a comment for my Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology core seminar. The Hardwig and Brewer articles are both reprinted in Evan Selinger and Robert P. Crease, editors, The Philosophy of Expertise. NY: Columbia University Press, 2006, along with an excellent paper I didn’t mention above, Alvin I. Goldman’s “Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?" (PDF). The term “interactional expertise” comes from Harry M. Collins and Robert Evans, “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience," also reprinted in the Selinger & Crease volume; a case study of such expertise is in Steven Epstein’s Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Thanks to Tim K. for his comments on the above.] ...

February 24, 2010 · 5 min

Wikileaks to release over 500K text pager intercepts from 9/11

Wikileaks is releasing over 500,000 U.S. national text pager intercepts from September 11, 2001, over the next two days: From 3AM on Wednesday November 25, 2009, until 3AM the following day (New York Time), WikiLeaks will release over half a million US national text pager intercepts. The intercepts cover a 24 hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. The first message, corresponding to 3AM September 11, 2001, five hours before the first attack, will be released at 3AM November 25, 2009 and the last, corresponding to 3AM September 12, 2001 at 3AM November 26, 2009. Text pagers are mostly carried by persons operating in an official capacity. Messages in the collection range from Pentagon and New York Police Department exchanges, to computers reporting faults to their operators as the World Trade Center collapsed. This is a significant and completely objective record of the defining moment of our time. We hope that its entry into the historical record will lead to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of how this tragedy and its aftermath may have been prevented. While we are obligated by to protect our sources, it is clear that the information comes from an organization which has been intercepting and archiving national US telecommunications since prior to 9/11.The Transparent Society getting closer, it appears…

November 25, 2009 · 2 min
Mastodon Verification