Emergent Chaos

Who Watches the Watchlists?

The idea of "watchlists" has proliferated as part of the War on Terror. There are now more than 63 of them:

As part of its regular "risk management" service, which provides screening, tracing, and identity and background checks on potential clients or trading partners, MicroBilt will now offer a "watch list" service that checks these individuals against 63 different lists from 35 sources, including OFAC, the FBI, and Interpol, Bradley says. ("Companies May Be Held Liable for Deals With Terrorists, ID Thieves", DarkReading)

I say more than 63 because some unknown number are secret. The poor souls who find themselves on these lists have, in essence, no recourse. Convincing 35 or more agencies that their presumption of your guilt is incorrect might, in theory, be possible. In reality, the agency has no reason to do anything but drag its feet: there are no penalties to them for declaring you guilty. In contrast, a failure to put your name on the list risks them not having prevented you from your future thoughtcrime.

But there's hope. And it's not in MicroBilt's stock price (MicroBilt is a subsidiary of First Advantage). Rather, it's in the courage of a judge, who ruled that any American who has been routinely detained because they are on a watch list knows that they are on a list, and thus the government's 'State Secrets' privilege isn't applicable:

since the government admits it has stopped the six men and two women more than 35 times, federal Magistrate Judge Sidney Schenkier of the United States Northern Illinois District Court dismissed that argument. Instead he found that the government "failed to establish that, under all the circumstances of this case, disclosure of that information would create a reasonable danger of jeopardizing national security." (" Court: Government Must Reveal Watch-List Status to Constantly Detained Americans," Wired's excellent 27B-6 Mk IIa blog)

Generativity, Emergent Chaos and Adam Thierer

Jonathan Zittrain, a professor at Oxford, has a new book, "The Future of The Internet." He's adapted some of the ideas into a long and worthwhile essay, "Protecting the Internet Without Wrecking It."

In that essay, he uses the term "generativity" to refer to a system which has what I would call 'emergent chaos.' A generative system is one which is open enough that people do strange things on it, and new stuff emerges. There's no need to get permission. In The New School, we talk about the difference between the internet, where anyone can run anything, and the old phone network, where only Ma Bell had any way to innovate. And never did.

In commenting on these ideas, Adam Thierer says some things I want to respond to:

I see no reason why we can’t have the best of both worlds–a world full of plenty of tethered appliances, but also plenty of generativity and openness. In a follow-up essay, I pointed out how Apple’s products create a particular problem for Zittrain’s thesis because even though they are “sterile and tethered,” there is no doubt that the company’s approach has produced some wonderful results.

...

And what’s wrong with this? Answer: Nothing! People are getting the choices and configurations they want. Older generations are simply not comfortable with the “general purpose” devices that tinker-happy gadgeteers like Zittrain and me prefer.

(From "another problem for the Zittrain thesis — old people!")

So I'm all for choice in who gets what. At the same time, I think that Thierer makes the mistake of thinking that generativity happens in a vacuum. I don't think it does. I think that the more generative devices you have, the more chaos (both good and bad) emerges. If only a few hundred people have Chumbys, then no one is going to write the alarm clock my buddy Nathan wants.

On the other hand, if there are a million Chumbys then someone might.

I think anyone writing for a blog entitled "The Technology Liberation Front" would get this, but let me lay out it. If I'm thinking of creating a widget to connect an ipod to a stereo, then I have to pay for my R&D out of the sale price of each device. If I'm spend a million bucks on R&D, then if I sell a million units, I can add a buck to the price of each. If I sell 10, then I'm going to lose money.

Entrepreneurs know this. They learn to prefer larger markets. They gravitate to larger markets. And thus the larger markets develop an advantage, which is that people want to participate, there's a talent pool available, there's a greater opportunity to partner, more investors willing to invest, etc. It's a virtuous circle. You can buy a wider variety of parts to customize a Scion or a Mini than you can with a Ferrari. There just aren't enough Ferarris to support a broad ecosystem of innovation. (There may be a network of engineers who wouldn't bother touching a lower end car.)

And so each "tethered" device may reduce generativity by reducing the chaotic froth which exists in the generative world. I'm not saying that such devices have no innovation. I have (and enjoy) an iphone. I'd love to be able to SMS people URLs or contacts. And maybe when we get the SDK, and the iPhone becomes generative, I'll be able to.

Until then, generativity has existed in active conflict tension with the tethering. I think that generative and tethered systems can co-exist. But it's not the "best of both worlds."

Algorithms for the War on the Unexpected

Technology Review has an article, "The Technology That Toppled Eliot Spitzer." What jumped out at me was the explicit statement that strange is bad, scary and in need of investigation. Bruce Schneier is talking a lot about the war on the unexpected, and this fits right into that.

Each category is analyzed to determine patterns of ordinary behavior. Every single transaction by customers in these groups, and even patterns of transactions stretching back as far as a year, are then scrutinized for evidence of deviation from this norm using measures such as the number, size, or frequency of transactions, among others.

When "not behaving normally" is considered grounds for investigation, there's an inevitable chilling effect. The willingness of people to do new, exciting things is reduced by the risk that they'll get on some financial blacklist, and be unable to buy a house or a car.

(Via Paul Kedrosky)

Liechtenstein Über Alles?

The New York Times had a story, "Tax Inquiry? Principality Is Offended:"

After weathering days of criticism from Germany over a spectacular tax evasion case, Liechtenstein — sometimes seen as the inspiration for the satirical novel from the 1950s about a tiny Alpine principality that declared war on the United States — is digging in for what may be a prolonged battle to defend its lucrative tradition of banking secrecy against what it views as attacks from a giant neighbor.

Of course, Germany, and the other large nations would like to pretend this is about fraud, not competition for business. They'd like the smaller nations to harmonize their tax codes, and prevent the messy chaos of having to compete on their laws. Countries such as Liechtenstein offer alternatives, and act as a brake on the unfettered invasions of privacy that otherwise intrude on all our lives.

This isn't about Liechtenstein above all others, it's about diversity. It's about diversity in approaches to taxation leading to diversity of choices. It would be stereotyping to assert that the orderly Germans or the bureaucratic French don't like Liechtenstein solely because it's different. Really, it's because few governments have any appreciation of, or love for liberty.

Governments and their employees focus on their goals and their (always enlightened) rules. This isn't about Liechtenstein putting itself above others, but allowing people to put their own self-interest ahead of that of the functionaries and bureaucrats.

Some chaos emerges, and we think it's a fine thing.

Chill, dude.

Because Baltimore police officer Salvatore Rivieri seemingly was unable to tell he was being filmed. Pity.

There's some infosec relevance to obsessing and overreacting to one thing, while being oblivious to another that could prove far more damaging.

One man's vulgarity is another's lyric

DOYLESTOWN, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A man who wrote a vulgar message on the memo line of a check he used to pay a $5 parking ticket has apologized in writing, leading police to drop a disorderly conduct charge against him. David Binner sent the check after receiving a $5 parking ticket. He calls it "a temporary lapse of judgment." Clerks were offended by the message, and the disorderly conduct charge was filed because the comment was obscene, police Chief James Donnelly said. "He was contrite enough to offer an apology, and I think that satisfies the people who were insulted by it," he said.

Associated Press, via CNN So what vulgarity was so "obscene" the police had to step in?

"The F-word isn't what it used to be," attorney [for the check-writer] Keith Williams said. It doesn't have a sexual connotation anymore and so can't be considered obscene, he said.

I guess that about says it. Meanwhile, the local police Chief explains that clerks were "insulted" when they saw this naughty, naughty expression while they were being paid from the public purse. As an idealistic youth, I read Cohen v. California. So should the Chief:

The ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

Guinness is Good For You, but don't tell anyone

A pint of the black stuff a day may work as well as an aspirin to prevent heart clots that raise the risk of heart attacks.

Drinking lager does not yield the same benefits, experts from University of Wisconsin told a conference in the US.

...

The researchers told a meeting of the American Heart Association in Orlando, Florida, that the most benefit they saw was from 24 fluid ounces of Guinness - just over a pint - taken at mealtimes.

They believe that "antioxidant compounds" in the Guinness, similar to those found in certain fruits and vegetables, are responsible for the health benefits because they slow down the deposit of harmful cholesterol on the artery walls.

Even though it's true, companies are scared of making health claims for booze. "Draft legislation could outlaw any health claims in adverts for alcohol in Europe, [a spokeswoman for Brewing Research International] said."

It's sad when the ability to make true statements is suppressed because 'authorities' worry that people are too dumb to listen to a bunch of statements and make up their own minds.

All quotes from the BBC, "Guinness good for you - official"

Toasting Repeal Day

Today marks the 64th 74th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition in the United States.

For 14 years, Americans were unable to legally have a drink. This led to a dramatic growth in the acceptance of organized crime and violence. Al Capone made his money in the demon rum, and was willing to fight for income and market share. It led millions of otherwise law abiding Americans to speakeasys. The imposition of controls made the problem worse.

Back then, Congress had the wisdom and backbone to recognize a broken policy when they saw it, and passed the 21st Amendment to repeal prohibition.

An awful lot of chaos emerged from that day. People can now buy a staggering variety of vodkas, all perfectly identical in taste. There are thousands of wineries, all around the country, some internationally famous, and others providing great value wines. There's a movement for the quality brewing of beer, ranging from stores providing everything you need to brew at home to Michelob trying to redefine their industrial process as craft brewing.

So raise a toast to the fact that you can buy booze from a wide variety of producers, and forget, for a moment, the worries of the day.* Enjoy the blessings of liberty which the Constitution aspires to, and hope that they'll be expanded one day to the entire United States, to our youth, and to a wider variety of intoxicants.

Image: Enoteca, by Conmani, via SXC.hu.

* Void where prohibited by law. Advice not intended for people under 21. Emergent Chaos encourages you to enjoy our products responsibly.

[Update: I can't subtract. Thanks, Puck!]

Total Kabab Awareness

In a May, 2006 post entitled Codename: Miranda, I joked about having my grocery purchases linked to another Chicagoan due to poor schema design.

There, I joked about buying:

... granola, yogurt, hummus -- the healthy stuff which probably alerts Admiral Poindexter's Bayesian classifier to my fifth-column status.

Maybe this wasn't jocular after all, as a Congressional Quarterly article (referred to by Ryan Singel) reports:

Like Hansel and Gretel hoping to follow their bread crumbs out of the forest, the FBI sifted through customer data collected by San Francisco-area grocery stores in 2005 and 2006, hoping that sales records of Middle Eastern food would lead to Iranian terrorists.

The idea was that a spike in, say, falafel sales, combined with other data, would lead to Iranian secret agents in the south San Francisco-San Jose area.

I hope Miranda is not in Gitmo as a result of my healthy eating habits.

Gordon Brown on liberty

While this great tradition can be traced back to the Magna Carta, it was the rise of the modern state with all the new powers at its disposal that made the 17th century the pivotal period in the struggle against arbitrary and unaccountable government ------ as Britain led the way in the battle for freedom from hierarchical rule, for human rights and for the rule of law.

And tracing Coke's defence of common law, the work of John Locke and the Bill of Rights of 1689 right through to the first of the Reform Acts, Macaulay concluded that 'the authority of law and the security of property were found to be compatible with a liberty of discussion and of individual action never before known'. ("Speech on Liberty," Gordon Brown)

It's a fascinating speech for the depth of understanding it goes through before proposing national ID cards and a DNA database. In today's United States, I can hardly imagine the President giving a speech this deep or nuanced.

Well worth the read on Guy Fawkes day.

Via the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

[Update: As Nicko suggested in comments, I read too much into this, and in the Queen's Speech, Brown made no clear mention of ID cards or DNA databases.]

MIT, Logan, the Chilling Effect and Emergent Chaos

If you're not hidden under a rock, you know about the latest bomb scare in Boston. Some MIT kid forgot that Boston cops think anything with an LED on it is a bomb.

A lot of people are saying she got what she deserved, or that she's lucky to be alive. These people probably think that Jean Charles de Menezes should have worn different clothing before getting on the London Metro, and that Andrew Meyer should have never asked a question of John Kerry.

I think this is a tremendously dangerous trend for society, and not just the creative or strange types. Should we give police such broad license to use force that everyone needs to consider, first and foremost, if their actions, their legal actions, might freak out a policeman?

If we do so, there are substantial costs. They're not visible. A few moments of time every day, considering how the police feel about you. A little less bizarre or riqsue public art. A little less creativity and verve in life, as we all ask "what if a cop shoots me?"

What would have happened to the first people designing and testing cell phones, if homemade electronics with a battery had been cause for concern? How would we test keyless car entry systems, if a police officer had shot people walking up to cars without unlocking them? Even Dave Maynor would be in trouble. Just look at his art:

When I was a kid, Radio Shack sold breadboards (like the one the student was wearing.) Tinkering with electronics was a key part of what launched the Homebrew computer club. Tinkering with dangerous chemicals was an important part of the development of modern photography.

Do we want everyone who tinkers, invents, hacks or makes projects to have to worry that cops with submachine guns are going to show up and ask agitated questions? Are those filters good for society?

Here at Emergent Chaos, we're fans of, well, emergent chaos that happens when those filters go away.

Photos: Lisa Poole, AP, and Dave Maynor, Errata, respectively.

[Update: Chris Soghoian makes the useful point that lots of bombs have no visible wires at all, being hidden inside other things. And while protecting against dumb terrorists is useful, it's not worth giving up our ability to tinker, build or innovate.]

TSA knows what you read

Privacy advocates obtained database records showing that the government routinely records the race of people pulled aside for extra screening as they enter the country, along with cursory answers given to U.S. border inspectors about their purpose in traveling. In one case, the records note Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Gilmore's choice of reading material, and worry over the number of small flashlights he'd packed for the trip.

The breadth of the information obtained by the Gilmore-funded Identity Project (using a Privacy Act request) shows the government's screening program at the border is actually a "surveillance dragnet," according to the group's spokesman Bill Scannell.

"There is so much sensitive information in the documents that it is clear that Homeland Security is not playing straight with the American people," Scannell said. (Wired News, "U.S. Airport Screeners Are Watching What You Read.")

In related lying news, last week it came out that Director of National Intelligence McConnell lied to the Senate about wiretaps.

If this was a political blog, we'd analyze the trend. Since we're all about information security, and pirates I'll just say that in an environment where the security measures are unclear and scary, you can expect users to behave in strange ways.

Free, as in milk

What the hell are the idiots at Facebook thinking?

If there's anything stupider than banning a woman from breastfeeding in public, it is banning a picture of a woman breastfeeding on the grounds that it is "obscene", which is what the morons at Facebook have done, as reported (for example) by the Toronto Star.

Attention Facebook idiots:

"Obscene" is a legal term. If your lawyers tell you that something like this is obscene, you need lawyers who didn't go the Springfield Upstairs School of Law. It sure as hell looks like it has redeeming social value to me.

Much is being made about the hypocrisy of Facebook allowing umpteen pro-anorexia groups, when anorexia is itself demonstrably damaging to women and when such web content (according to recently-published research) is as well. I think this is a foolish argument.

Facebook's position isn't wrong because it does more harm than good, or because it is inconsistent. It is bad because being able to advocate controversial things is an essential element of freedom.

Fake Steve and Real Mackey

So with the small, literal men at the New York Times poking through the veil of anonymity that allowed Fake Steve to produce the best blog since "The Darth Side," we have a serious threat to the stability of the republic, which is the false hope that by assigning people names, we can control them. Prevent the random, the funny, the disrespectful. The powerful have always hated having fun poked at them by the anonymous. They forget that anonymity acts as an important social valve, allowing people to share ideas without retribution.

John Mackey took a different approach. He didn't blog, but engaged in conversation on a message board about his company.

I think it's a good thing to be able to hear from CEOs shedding their spin, from journalists freed of their need for access, and everyone else who wants to put forth their own words to stand or disappear on their own strength.

Fake Steve is a little less interesting since the unveiling. The posts about immortality were a nice touch, but, I thought, over-wrought.

Maybe if I yell at you, you'll trust in what I'm saying

Tourists visiting the White House must now adhere to a dress code which bans jeans, sneakers, shorts, miniskirts, T-shirts, tank tops, and flip-flops.

Since this is an extremely important rule, signs were posted and emails sent White House staff (writes Al Kamen in the Washington Post).

A telling detail, per the WaPo:

The e-mail reminder was all in capital letters.

Sigh.

(Title yanked from some Luna lyrics, .sig fragment from the Usenet Oracle via Wikipedia)

Help EFF Analyze Formerly Secret FBI Docs

In "Help EFF Examine Once-Secret FBI Docs," the folks at EFF ask for your help doing what Congress won't. Engaging in oversight of our civil servants:

We've already started scouring newly-released documents relating to the misuse of National Security Letters to collect Americans' private information. But don't let us have all fun — you, too, can dive into the docs and help uncover the truth about the FBI's abuse of power. All 1138 pages are freely downloadable (with searchable text) from EFF’s website, and we'll be posting a new batch every month.

A related request, from Ryan Single over at 27B-6, is to "Help Wired News Make Sense of FBI Computer Crime Stats."

Really, there hasn't been such a good opportunity to uncover illegal activity by Uncle Sam the Church Committee hearings. It's like shootin' fish in a barrel.

Go take a look.

Pseudonyms In The News

The Wall Street Journal reports that the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, posted on the Yahoo! Finance board for Whole Foods under the pseudonym Rahodeb, which is an anagram of Mackey's wife's given name. (It's also an anagram of "A Bread Ho," but since the WSJ doesn't stoop to that sort of cheap joke, it falls upon me.)

Rahodeb apparently posted prolifically for eight years, quitting last August. While some people are clucking their tongues at this, it seems that if a CEO is going to natter about his own company, it's okay if we're all surprised that it was him when he's outed.

Mackey says in his defense that he did a lot of trolling. "The views articulated by rahodeb sometimes represent what I actually believed and sometimes they didn't. Sometimes I simply played 'devil's advocate' for the sheer fun of arguing. Anyone who knows me realizes that I frequently do this in person, too." For example, when someone on the board made fun of Mackey's haircut, Rahodeb said, "I think he looks cute!"

His final defense at any tongue-clucking comes from the circumstances under which he stopped posting as Rahodeb. He made a bet with Hubris12000 about the performance of Whole Foods stock, and that bet required that he stop posting if he lost. I think we've all seen web boards with both Rahodeb and Hubris12000 and didn't know which side to cheer for.

Full disclosure: "Mordaxus" is an anagram of "Doxmursa" which is thankfully not my SO's name. "Pseudonym" is an anagram of "Does my pun?" which is ungrammatical, but an interesting question nonetheless.

Photo "This Bread is Such a Ho" courtesy of Jason and Heather.

In Congress Assembled, July 4, 1776

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one pe