Several days ago a "powerful bomb" demolished a Shiite shrine in Iraq, and I couldn't stop myself from coming up with a conspiracy theory. I'm no expert, but pictures show thick cables sticking out, which, to me, means reinforced concrete. If that's the case, we're not talking about a stick of dynamite, or even a couple of artillery shells duct taped together; we're talking hundreds of pounds of explosives. Also, the dome seems to have been levelled completely flat at the top, which seems to imply equally distributed forces, caused by a centrally located explosive device.

If my assessment is correct (likely not, but stick with me here), this raises some questions. Who would be able to carry out such an attack? And who gains from such an attack? Unfortunately, the answer to both questions would be: the US.

The former case is obvious; we have the most capable military in the world, there's not much we couldn't destroy (well, fixed targets, at least). The second case requires a bit more of a stretch. The last few days have proven the incident to possess sufficient volatility to incite significant sectarian conflict. If the US is unable (or unwilling) to quelch such conflict, it is likely to lead to a messy, bloody, full blown civil war. This would definitely be a loss to US intentions, yet it would give us an exit strategy. If the administration were to say "We tried to bring them democracy, instead, they decided to fight themselves" the US public (and I'm talking about the same public that voted this current administration into office), would likely accept that as reasonable grounds for withdrawal (besides, Vietnam was a civil war --I think people still remember that). Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, a civil war in Iraq would compel the UN and the rest of the world to become involved in Iraq, allowing the US to relinquish control and responsibility. With sufficient international cooperation, there is also some chance of peace in Iraq, thus fulfilling a US objective that is clearly currently unattainable. Either way, the US gets an out.

This past week, Yahoo! caught some flak for cooperating with the DoJ's request for search data, while Google got some good press. From what I've read, the story's been given quite a spin, so here are some thoughts (disclaimer: I work for Yahoo! but not in Search and I don't know any more than what's been reported in the media. I do, however, have not-yet-vested interest in YHOO stock prices):

• Spin 1: Yahoo! (and others) simply rolled on their backs and cooperated with Big Bro. If the official statements from Yahoo! and others are to be believed (and I think they can be believed), this was not the case. They did cooperate, yes, but only to a limited degree, and no personally identifiable data was released. I think that's an important distinction to make.
• Spin 2: It's a slippery slope from here... Um, no. In between giving the government data with no personally identifiable information, and giving them data with identifiable information lies not so much a slope, but a big cliff. If we're at the point where companies like Yahoo! and Google hand over personally identifiable data on millions of private citizens to the government, we've gone over the edge and it's time to stop talking and start packing. But unlike slipping down a slope, you know when you've fallen off a cliff.
• Spin 3: Giving the government data sets a dangerous precedence Perhaps so. But Google went all adolescent on us, and they got themselves sued by the DoJ. What happens if, on the off chance, the DoJ wins? It sets a legal precedence, which is far far more dangerous than this "Oh, but Yahoo! gave us this data once..." type precedence.
• Spin 4: Google resisted the government's request out of ideological righteousness, because Google can't do evil Granted, that was a brilliant PR move, but anyone who thinks they're doing this to be "good" might be under the influence of the Google Reality Distortion Field. Their decision was likely based on technical and business reasons (1. they have tons of data, 2. they're very secretive), at least as much as on moral reasons.

In principle, I support Yahoo's decision. By giving the DoJ limited data with no personal information, Yahoo! (and MS and AOL) managed to balance the need for government compliance with customer privacy. Seeing how Yahoo! got hammered by Wall Street partially for high operating costs early last week, a fight with the government on this one wouldn't have benefitted anyone.

Having said that, this turned out to be a huge PR loss for Yahoo! and others. I've seen a number of people comment on how they are less likely to use Yahoo! over Google now (if they ever did use Yahoo!, of course). Yes, such people are misguided in their reasoning, but ignorance happens, and Yahoo! may suffer for it in terms of decreased search traffic -> decreased ad revenues and market share -> lower stock prices.

Then again, this may not have been a clear victory for Google either. After being heroically defiant, they got sued by the DoJ, which may have caused the sharp drop in GOOG prices. And depending on how the court case ends up, they may ultimately end up giving up data after all, or possibly set a worse legal precedence. So the jury, quite literally, is still out on this one. I guess we'll be hearing more. [Tagged: yahoo search doj google ]

As has been widely reported on the interweb, the Fench Department of Culture is apparently trying to ban the publication of Free/Open Source (and presumably, open source) software source code, and I'm rather baffled. If they had decided to ban all foreign books, for example, I'd at least understand the rationale; I wouldn't agree with it, but I can atleast comprehend how foreign books can affect culture. But source code? Programming languages are a highly constrained form of expression, barely capable of conveying complex ideas, muich less ones of any cultural significance. Hell, I'd say software (in executable form) has much more impact on culture than code, but they don't seem to take issue with that... Baffling. Absolutely baffling. [Tagged: open+source french+department+of+culture ]

Japan and Korea are apparently in a dispute (again) over a tiny island somewhere in the Sea of Japan/East Sea. According to the Wikipedia entry, Japan had claims to the islands and effectively occupied it until the end of WW2. After the war, the allies didn't quite make the status of the islands clear, and it was left out of the 1952 Treaty of San Francisco (which settled most other disputed islands) as well. In January 1953, the South Korean government ordered the army to enforce their claim over the island. The Japanese coast guard responded, an armed skirmish followed, a Japanese ship was sunk, Japan offered to take it to International Court, the Koreans rejected, and South Koreans have occupied it since. In fact, the official South Korean position says they have "effective domination" over the island, which as far as I can tell, is another way of saying "we took it over by force, deal with it."

Being (technically) Japanese, I'm constantly afraid of sounding fascist, but in this case, I gotta give it to the Japanese. You can't criticize another country for invading and colonizing your own country, then try and do the same (that is, critcizing is justified, doing the same is not). Having said that, the South Korean government apparently "considers sovereignty over the islands as more important than good relations with Japan" (from BBC article). In that case, I say give it to the South Koreans. Having good relations with your neighbors, especially neighbors you've been bad to in the past, is much more important than a tiny island (although I guess it's more about the rich fishing grounds around the island, than the island itself --and the island may also have some strategic significance, since it was used as a naval base during the war).

Just saw this on Slashdot, and it seems like it could be a huge step towards fixing our electoral system if it's passed (big if, if you ask me).

It includes all kinds of sensible things like,

• required paper trails
• designating election day as a federal holiday
• making deceptive behavior (like telling people in poor neighborhoods the wrong voting date or polling place) a federal crime
• restricting political activities of managers and executives at voting machine manufacturers
• and my favorite:

  Any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code, object code, and executable representation of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code, object code, and executable representation available for inspection upon request to any citizen.

I just added Policy Forum to my list of links (see right sidebar). Policy Forum has a laudable goal of "brining moderation back to politics" and unlike most political blogs, include contributions from liberal, moderate and conservative students.

And, Ryan McCarl ("managing editor") lives in Hitchcock.

According to reports in the Japanese media (one here, another here), Colin Powell testified at a senate hearing that "no WMD stockpiles have been found, and it is unlikely that such stockpiles will ever be found" in Iraq (my translation).

Oh, apparently it's also being reported (in English) by Reuters.

I'm greatly annoyed by the latest hubbub surrounding notes that Bush's superior from the National Guard may or may not have written. In fact, I've been annoyed every time anyone gave much attention to either candidates' history circa 1965-1975.

(Caution: political rant ahead. Turn on head lights next 10 miles.)
Show Rest of Post

The Memory Hole's obtained 361 "secret" pictures of flag draped caskets from the Air Force, and posted them on the web. In response, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said: "We must pay attention to the privacy and to the sensitivity of the families of the fallen".

Like most other things spouted forth from the Da House these days, that made me go "Wah?!". Since when was ignoring, marginalizing, and hiding someone's death considered a way to honor them? If that's true, why do we have obitraries, funerals, and marked graves? I don't know about in the White House, but in most other places in our society, we honor the dead by remembering them.

So, in honor and memory of those soldiers who perished in Iraq at the whim of an incompetent regime, I present to you the photos:

So the Pentagon apparently took a quick break from all the death and destruction, and decided to take a look at this whole global warming thing despite Bush's assertion that it's all a hoax. The result? Why, more death and destruction in a hellish world of nuclear proliferation, mass starvation, sinking nations, and wars fought for survival of entire countries. Coming soon, to your country in the next 20 years.

I hope they were just trying to scare Bush into accepting the unfortunate fact that getting rich off of oil and fossil-fuel-burning is somewhat outdated. Because if they're serious, we've got one helluva life ahead of us.

See article and key points from Pentagon report.

After seeing the Why War list of Diebold memo mirrors, I thought of putting one up on my uchicago account, but it seems like a couple of people beat me to it. But I figured I'd set up a mirror anyway: http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~ryochiji/. I haven't reported it back to the Why War folks, partially because the site's down, but also because I figured if I wait until they send the first round of C&Ds to U of C (if they do) and then put up my mirror, it'd be more work for them (they'd have to send another C&D).

Also, there's an anti-NRA petition going around that seems to have gathered quite a momentum. To sign, go to http://www.nrablacklist.com. I think it's legit, but ya never know...

Wesley Clark, has officially entered the race for presidency. I blogged about him before, but to me, he seems like the only decent candidate. He went to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, which makes him one smart cookie (and probably also means he speaks English), and he's a retired four-star general, which means he understands and knows how to control the beast of a military we have. He was against the war in Iraq, and he seems like an intelligent yet humble sort of guy. In short, he's the complete opposite of Bush (a dumb, inarticulate, belligerent, ignorant and arrogant cowboy wannabe and Christian fundamentalist) who could probably at least partially reverse the damages the Bush regime has caused, and hopefully lead this country out of the miles of shit it's dug itself into.

I spent the bulk of this morning updating OpenSSH on my server, a task which was greatly complicated by the fact that RPMs weren't available for a while, and once available, I got caught in dependency hell. At the end, I just compiled new binaries and did some switcheroos.

Anyway, that got me thinking about the whole "which OS is more secure/insecure?" question. I've heard people claim that the various free UNIX variants had just as many vulnerabilities as Windows, and were thus just as insecure. I don't think that's true, but for the sake of argument, let's say the number of vulnerabilities are the same. Does that make them equally secure/insecure?

Well, let's take a look at a hypothetical situation. Let's say there's OS A with 10 known vulnerabilities, and OS B with 20 known vulnerabilities. Which is more secure? OS A, right? Wrong. It turns out OS A with a 95% market share has 20 known exploits, while OS B with a 2% market share has none. Chances are, you'll be safer using OS B.

Let's try again. Who's safer. Me in t-shirts and shorts in an unlocked house, or someone in full kevlar armor in a locked house with boarded windows. Ah, not so simple is it? If the guy lives in Compton and he's pissed off a gang, he'll probably be dead in a day or two while I'll be sipping coffee blogging about not so important things.

The point is this. Overall security is a measure of how prepared you are in relation to the risks you face. To improve security, you can either protect yourself better, lower the risks, or do both. Either way, you can't just look at the level of protection to determine the level of security you have.

So far, I've been talking about computers, but the same way of thinking applies anywhere where there's risks. Like, "homeland security". There've been polls asking "are we safer", but that's just missleading. If the question was "is it harder to hijack a plane today than it was 2 years ago", I think the answer is definitely "yes". So the level of protection has increased. Well, how about the risks? Are there people who still hate the US? Yes; in fact, probably more now than 2 years ago. So are we safer? It's hard to say.

Government officials would claim that we are inherently more vulnerable because we have an open society. That's a lot like saying "servers are inherently more vulnerable because they have open ports". The solution, according to our government, is to unplug the thing from the network; close what's open, and you'll be safe. But they're completely ignoring the other factor: risk. Lower the risks and you won't have to close anything. If people didn't hate us, we could be open as we want (and have been for over 200 years) and still be safe.

So which is it going to be? Would we rather close society or stop pissing people off? Unfortunately, our government's stance on this seems clear...

The California Supreme Court ruled today that the protection of trade secrets is more important than freedom of speech. The score is now 1 to 0, with "monetary greed" leading "free society".

In any case, as is reported widely, the case was related to the whole DeCSS issue, which hasn't been resolved yet because the Supreme Court still questions the assumption that DeCSS contained "trade secrets". However, I also found the following quote in this article:

"In this case, the content of the trade secrets neither involves a matter of public concern nor implicates the core purpose of the First Amendment," Justice Janice Rogers Brown wrote for the court. "Disclosure of this highly technical information adds nothing to the public debate over the use of encryption software or the DVD industry's efforts to limit unauthorized copying of movies on DVDs."

Obviously, Janice doesn't get it. Let's say someone invented a device that can pick a certain type of lock that's used in many homes. If that device were outlawed and not known to the general public, those few who know about the device will have free access to any house that uses that type of common lock, and the victims wouldn't know what hit them. If, on the other hand, the device was sold for $4.99 at WalMart (or at least its presence widely publicized), there's a good chance that people using the vulnerable type of lock would change to a more secure lock as soon as possible. It would also motivate lock makers to create or invent more secure systems, which, needless to say, benefits consumers at large. The same applies for encryption and cracks. People should know about vulnerabilities in encryption schemes they come in contact to, in order to better protect them selves. Wide availability of cracks may also be the only way to motivate vendors into using stronger encryption (and if they don't want to put in the effort, drop the whole idea of encryption entirely, as should be the case with DVDs if you ask me).

Of course, I'm assuming that being able to make better educated decisions about security is "a matter of public concern", so maybe that's what Justice Janice has a problem with.

Former priest John Geoghan, a convicted child molester, was strangled to death in prison, supposedly by another inmate. He was in the so-called "protective custody" wing, where prisoners who may be in danger from other inmates are held.

I found the following quote in this article:

A state lawmaker who serves on a committee overseeing prisons said he wasn't sure whether the Legislature should look into Geoghan's death. "Not to sound cold here, but growing up, you hear about jail-house justice and this might be a case of that," said state Representative Demetrius J. Atsalis, a Barnstable Democrat on the Joint Committee on Public Safety. "Those who prey on children aren't seen in the same light as other convicts. Is it shocking? I don't think so. His crime was against children and convicts know that -- they don't like it."

I don't particularly like child molestors, but when a convicted criminal is in prison, the state has the moral and legal obligation to treat him humanely, not to mention, keep him alive. There's supposed to be a difference between a prison sentence and a death sentence. But obviously, the very people responsible don't seem to care.

This seems to be another sign that members of our government approve of extra-legal remedies, or worse, think that there's "justice" beyond the law. If that's the case, why the heck do we have laws? Why have rights? Why have due process? Oh wait. These people are throwing away rights, ignoring due process, and illegally invading countries. The leaders of this country must like that though. After all, if you can ignore laws, there's not a whole lot that you can't do.