Category: moral hazard

Inch, Meet Mile

Give ’em an inch, they will take … a continent.

When Edward Snowden broke the secrecy of the NSA’s illegal surveillance on innocent Americans, many folks (especially those in government) said the snooping was OK, because

it is necessary for our security, and, besides,
the collected data would only be used against terrorists, as supervised by the FISA courts.

Well, it is now known that, whatever “a.” may be, “b.” is a dead letter, swept away by broken promises and a new information practice.

Yes, the National Security Agency now shares its (unconstitutionally obtained) information with various and sundry government agencies, for a wide variety of purposes.

Last week, Radley Balko noted in the Washington Post that “the ‘sneak-and-peek’ provision of the Patriot Act that was alleged to be used only in national security and terrorism investigations has overwhelmingly been used in narcotics cases. Now the New York Times reports that National Security Agency data will be shared with other intelligence agencies like the FBI without first applying any screens for privacy.”

That didn’t take long, eh?

Many of us have opposed the NSA’s data collection on American citizens because we believed the data would not continue to be used just for the alleged purpose they were collected.

It is not a “slippery slope” argument so much as an “inch-mile” one. Government tends to grow, in size and especially in scope.

And usually at the expense of our freedoms.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags National Security Agency, NSA, patriot act, surveillance, surveillance state, terrorism

crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom moral hazard national politics & policies Snowden

Structurally Opinionated B. S.

Post author By CS Admin
Post date March 10, 2016
2 Comments on Structurally Opinionated B. S.

Edward Snowden, iPhone, First Amendment, privacy, Apple, illustration

Edward Snowden, the infamous American whistleblower now exiled in Russia, says the FBI’s claim that it cannot decode the infamous San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone is, and I quote, “Bernie Sanders.”

Oops.

He used another word-set, also sporting the initials B. S.

I got confused because, though the press has been fretting endlessly about the B.S. coming from Donald Trump, the real corkers of late have come from Bernie Sanders, who seems to think that white people cannot be poor or oppressed* and that the successes of free markets elsewhere serve perfectly as excuses for Big Government interference here in America.**

Mr. Snowden, who knows a lot more about encryption and decryption than I do, has given more weight to my suspicion that the whole FBI case against Apple — demanding that Apple create software to decrypt the company’s customers’ iPhones, and supply (on an allegedly case-by-case basis) the decrypted private information to the government — is a sham.

Snowden insists that there are multiple ways to do the job.

“Other technologists have explained how the FBI could have easily accessed the phone’s latest iCloud backup,” a report on Snowden’s judgment elaborated, “if agents working with San Bernardino County had not reset the iCloud password.”

Once again, a government failure leads to another push by government to correct for its failure, burdening citizens.

In this case: folks at Apple.

Interestingly, Apple’s legal defense appears to rest heavily on the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees, arguing that the demanded software is value-laden speech, is literally made up of such.

The exact term is “structurally opinionated,” which I nominate for the jargon phrase of the year.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Sanders has recently said, in one of those interminable debates that I can no longer watch in full, “When you are white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto, you don’t know what it’s like to be poor, you don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you are walking down a street or dragged out of a car.” As if “white privilege” amounts to immunity from poverty or oppression.

** Sanders, whose Tweets are as insane as his spoken pronouncements, recently lamented how Romanians in Bucharest have faster Internet speeds than Americans — without realizing they’d achieved these levels of access by wide-open, unrelenting, and wild competition. That is, Laissez Faire capitalism.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags Apple, Apple Inc., Edward Snowden, first amendment, free speech, iPhone, privacy, security

Accountability general freedom ideological culture moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility

Impatience as a Political Impulse

Post author By CS Admin
Post date March 8, 2016
2 Comments on Impatience as a Political Impulse

impatience, frustration, politics, radicals, balance, caution

It is not demonization to recognize a besetting sin.

Yesterday, I warned against demonization, though admittedly, I have “picked on” both Trump and Bernie here at Common Sense and in this site’s new Steal This Meme section. In my defense, to refrain from seeing only the worst in one side or the other (or both) is not to resist telling the truth about the characteristic worst aspects, right or left.

Neither the Donald nor the Bern are good party men. Trump has never been close to the GOP; Sanders has registered “independent” throughout his Senatorial career.

But Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist, and his support is “from the left”; Trump is vague ideologically, but his characteristic blunt pronouncements seem “right-wingish” even if not obviously conservative.

Maybe this is all about frustration and impatience.

Socialism has long been associated with impatience at the “slow pace” of progress, as economist Yves Guyot made clear in The Tyranny of Socialism over a hundred years ago. The fact that, even in our bumbling age, all segments of society have gotten richer is not enough. More must be extracted from a few and given to the many. That is the Bern of it.

Trump’s supporters are obviously impatient with things “not getting done” in Washington, and upset that “we don’t win anymore.” But one reason things are hard to do, politically, is that limited government, a rule of law, and separation of powers makes it difficult. Cutting through the b.s. sometimes means destroying the bedrock of a free society.

That sort of “winning” would be a Pyrrhic victory.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Presidential campaign 2016, separation of powers, socialism

Accountability crime and punishment general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies privacy too much government

Breaking the Safe

surveillance, privacy, iphone, security, NSA, CIA, FBI, terrorism, illustration

As we tromp repeatedly to the polling booth this year, we should wonder: are we being played?

The answer: yes … at least on the issue of Apple’s iPhone security.

I’ve written about this before. Our politicians and government officials are playing demagogue, trying to convert (too successfully?) the electorate into a mob bent on destroying privacy and private property — out of unwarranted fear.

The case for terrorist worries in this case is not even plausible: the FBI waited too long to be convincing, and the NSA supposedly has the metadata anyway. The government doesn’t need the info. It’s after something else.

As former congressman Bob Barr put it, the government’s case is “pure applesauce … simply the latest chapter in a decades-long push by Uncle Sam to gain access to Americans’ digital technology and place this booming sector of our economy under its thumb.” He goes on:

[T]he government is for the first time demanding that a company actually invent a way to defeat the very encryption safeguards it builds into the devices it sells. Attorney General Lynch has taken to citing an obscure law, the All Writs Act of 1789, to justify this unprecedented exercise of power to compel companies to do the government’s work for it.

To my knowledge, the government has never demanded that Allied Safe and Vault, or any of its competitors, go out of its way to cook up “a way in” to its security systems.

Government is just trying to retain its old relevance. Folks in power see it slipping. And it is, as Americans outsource their privacy and security not to governments, but, increasingly, to private providers.

That’s a good thing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful, please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags Internet privacy, privacy, security, terrorism

folly general freedom ideological culture meme moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

You Asked For It America!

And now you’re going to get it!

Click below for a high resolution version of the image:

A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful, please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, meme, Presidential campaign 2016

folly ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies too much government

That’s Entertainment

presidential, debates, candidates, three stooges, illustration

This presidential campaign has been very entertaining.

The three leading Republican candidates could give The Three Stooges a run for their money. Front-runner Donald Trump calls his opponents liars and chokers (or “chockers”) as often as Moe used to smash Curly and Larry in the face.

Slapstick has made a comeback.

Indeed, food fights attract a large TV audience, obviously giving many viewers what they want. And they no doubt produce windfall advertising profits for the television networks that host the debates.

This may be as close to creating economic growth as these politicians will ever come.

No surprise that the media is giddy at the mud-slinging, but why do the candidates go along? Nastiness apparently works.

At least in attracting media attention.

Mr. Trump has dominated the news cycles for months, cycling outrageous statements and cutting remarks, rinse and repeat. As Sen. Marco Rubio explained to those questioning his recent resort to dishing out invective, “I’m insulting Trump because it’s the only thing you [media] guys pay attention to.”

Even the debate rules actively encourage pugilism. By giving candidates additional time to speak when verbally assaulted by name, the ground rules are in place.

No wonder the mostly ignored Dr. Ben Carson interjected during the last debate, “Can somebody attack me, please?”

Neophyte Carson doesn’t understand that the game is tit-for-tat: to be attacked, attack first.

Sure, the critical issues facing our country — terrorism, war, debt, economic stagnation — get short shrift. But what a fun way to choose the next stooge to sit atop the dysfunction.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful, please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.