December 14, 2004
Social Security = Ponzi Scheme
Social Security has recently appeared in the news as George W. Bush considers making drastic changes to its inner workings. Most Americans have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the way Social Security works, and changes that are based on these flawed premises are not viable because they're likely to cause a fragile pyramid scheme to run out of money early.
People view the nation's Social Security system as a giant bank account, or a trust fund. In this model, money that's taken out of each working American's paycheck gets deposited, grows over time, then is paid back out. In effect, the government acts as a bank for the money, and when retirement comes, you get money back--not dollar for dollar--but based on Congress' social priorities at the moment.
If the budget really worked this way, there would be a huge asset consisting of cash and obligations owed to the uS somewhere on the United States Balance Sheet; and there would be a huge balancing liability in the form of money owed to the taxpayers. However, in reality we don't see any of this!
Instead, what we see is that the government budgets for Social Security income and expenses, and the current expectation is that income exceeds expenses. The result of this situation, though, is not a trust fund that grows in size, but rather a public debt that decreases in size. In other words, our tax money, whether from income taxes or from Social Security, goes into a giant pot and is meted out. As long as there's enough money coming in to pay the Social Security obligations, there's no problem; but once our age demographics become top-heavy, there will no longer be enough wage-earners to pay for everybody who's retired. This is a big concern that everybody's aware of, but the continual presentation of Social Security as a trust fund makes one scratch his head and wonder how the trust fund runs out of money. Good question. What we end up with is a pyramid scheme, and we all know that at some point there will be winners, and there will be those left holding nothing but losses.
The US government likes to present the federal debt as a number exclusive of other factors, including Social Security, with misleading numbers resulting. This is akin to an individual telling the bankruptcy court that all the money's gone, except for retirement money, but that you're not counting that because it's not politically expedient to tell your family that it has no savings. Same thing with Social Security.
I could write about this for a while, but in poking around to get some facts for this post, I discovered a great web page at the Congressional Budget Office. This is required reading for anybody wondering how a properly managed trust fund can run out of money, and where the disconnect is with Social Security.
Posted by Pat at 10:33 PM
January 04, 2006
Bush the Crook
I'm reeling at the George W. Bush's claim of authority to break well established and considered law, despite his repeated assertions that "rule of law" must prevail back when it benefited him in the year 2000 elections. Whose laws is he working by? Certainly not the ones that Congress put in place.
In ordering unfettered wiretapping, Bush has committed crimes against the hundreds of millions of people in this country, and he must be held accountable for this activity.
The personal security of each American is at stake, and Congress must now act. Bush must be impeached and tried, as must Dick Cheney, who was complicit in these activities. The crimes against the people in the form of warrantless surveillance cannot be permitted to continue.
Posted by Pat at 02:25 PM
January 08, 2006
Massport Versus WiFi
Massport takes issue with airlines and others offering their own WiFi service at Logan airport, using security as their justification. As an information security specialist, I have a couple of words to say about that, and Massport won't like hearing them.
The recent battle over WiFi (wireless internet) availability at the airport has been brewing for a little while now. The airlines want to offer this service to their premier travelers for low or no cost, which means that Logan's $8/hour service gets less business. Of course, this makes it harder for Massport or its chosen WiFi vendor to earn revenue from travelers that are most likely to be able to spend the money.
I've been wondering for some time, though, about Massport's claims of diminished security that resulting from other WiFi services. Thinking about the problem from a technical standpoint, it's pretty clear to me that Massport either has no legitimate argument, or they are relying on WiFi for things they shouldn't be. I'll talk about this but try to keep the explanations understandable.
Massport's premise here is that a private WiFi hotspot diminishes airport security. In other words, if people connect to that private hotspot, they can disrupt or cause harm to Massport or Logan. In what ways could this possibly happen?
- Denial of Service (DoS) - There is so much WiFi traffic on the airwaves that Massport's hotspots are drowned out.
- Massport can't monitor users of alternative hotspots - "If we can see what people are doing, we can decide whether we need to send out the police"
These are the only direct security concerns I can come up with. Neither of these justifies a prohibition on alternative hotspots, though.
WiFi denials of service can happen just by flooding the airwaves with bogus traffic, or jamming WiFi frequencies. Somebody who wants to prevent the use of WiFi can do it easily. A bigger question is why this is even a travel security concern for Massport, if indeed this is the case. If Massport is relying on WiFi for its own critical operations, then it has made a mistake that can't be corrected by quashing alternative hotspots. The only guarantee against a DoS attack is to operate within a closed network, which WiFi is not.
The ability to monitor communications has become a topic of discussion in the mainstream press recent. Massport, like any other ISP, has the ability to monitor the internet connections made by its WiFi clients, and to examine the information contained within those communications. By setting up a hotspot, Massport enables itself to review and store all of the messages it carries. Following an attack against an airliner or a facility, the logged data might help reconstruct terrorist activities leading up to the event.
However, who says that terrorists will use Massport's WiFi? Who says they've even use one of the alternative hotspots? Perhaps they are using their own 2-way radios, completely untraceably. Or they could be using cell phones, like many other Logan passengers and relatively untraceably. They could even be using Massport's own WiFi, but using VPN software to conceal their communications from anybody who might be watching.
If Massport thinks it can prevent or mitigate attacks by being the only WiFi game in town, it is mistaken. The "Security" argument falls down pretty quickly, leaving the astute observer to realize that the real reason Massport doesn't want competing WiFi hotspots is that it wants to collect all the revenue - the one argument that doesn't fall flat on its face.
When "Security" becomes the catch-all justification for decisions, especially when it's not accompanied by any justification, people stop listening. What we really need is thoughtful security, and Massport needs to be party to this. Shutting down competing WiFi services is neither thoughtful nor effective, and Massport needs to rethink this decision.
Posted by Pat at 10:19 PM
January 31, 2006
Denial of Cindy Sheehan's Rights
Call me old fashioned, but guests to the State of the Union address really ought to be appropriately dressed. Unfortunately for Cindy Sheehan, a vocal critic of the war in Iraq whose son was killed during the conflict, she chose to wear a tee shirt with an anti-war slogan and was not only ejected from the speech, but she was arrested by the Capitol Police.
Unfortunately for Cindy Sheehan, the Capitol Police felt that the message on her shirt was illegal. And unfortunately for the people of the United States of America and for the cause of freedom, a citizen has been trampled down by the government for exercising her first amendment right to free speech. Her alleged crime: "Unlawful Conduct".
There was no indication that Ms. Sheehan actually intended to commit an illegal act, or even that she would disrupt the event by inappropriate behavior, such as heckling the President. All she did was wear a tee shirt with a message containing the number of service people killed in Iraq and asking how many more. Wearing a tee shirt with controversial social or political message is not only not illegal, it is a long-accepted means of personal expression.
It is understandable that Ms. Sheehan would be dismissed from the speech due to inappropriate attire, after she revealed her tee shirt and was asked to cover it. But that a person in this country would be arrested for the act of displaying such a message stands contrary to our ideals and to our history, and is more suggestive of other regimes that attempt to control what their citizens think and say. This is not who America is, this is not what America is about, and anybody who would claim otherwise is leading us down a path of something that America must never become.
The Capitol Police will have many questions to answer in the days and weeks ahead. My very first question is, "Wouldn't it have been enough to eject this woman from the event?", immediately followed by, "As police, you have a sworn duty to uphold the constitution, among other responsibilities. The constitution is a foundational document on which our other laws hang. What conceivable interpretation of this document would lead you to believe that arresting a citizen for expressing a viewpoint is legal and appropriate?" There will be many other questions as well, and it is my hope that the Capitol Police are held accountable for their questionable actions.
As Americans we are entitled to our exercise our rights responsibly. As members of a nominally free nation, including the freedom to think and to and express those thoughts, we should be very concerned about what may lie down the road.
[ed: Corrections made based on additional news available the next morning, 2/1/06]
Posted by Pat at 10:29 PM
October 10, 2006
Are schools really the issue in school safety?
Today's CNN.com Quick Vote asks, "Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to fund school safety?" The question's premise is faulty.
Who wouldn't want to see schools be safer? On the other hand, would this mean that the kids will act out more when they are other places?
The question is not of school safety per se, but a broader issue of youth conduct. You can pour money into metal detectors, K-9 sniffers, security guards, and generally make the kids feel like they are in jail for six hours a day. This doesn't seem to be a constructive solution to problems with youth conduct.
A better way to provide school safety is to research the factors leading to misbehavior in and out of school, and begin to address those as a society. There could be serious problems that we'd otherwise never know enough about to be able to fix them. It could be that kids need to be reached out to more than is happening. Contemporary media, including the internet, may play roles by establishing the unusual as the norm, and by promoting development of cliques that isolate kids on the outside. Pervasive images of war, and feelings of helplessness to do anything about it, must certainly contribute to teen angst. Lack of after-school activities at low or no cost, and lack of part-time jobs, may fuel a search to end boredom, with unproductive results.
The point is, there may possibly be so many motivations for misconduct that solving the school safety problem by making schools more secure is to miss the target entirely.
Posted by Pat at 11:01 AM | Comments (0)
January 17, 2007
We Don't Want No Stinkin' Checks and Balances
Q: Hey Mr. President, if you like the Terrorist Surveillance Program so much, why are you not going to seek to renew it?
A: Because I don't want it subject to judicial review.
That's the message we've gotten, loud and clear, from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, as he explains that the TSP is now subject to FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) review. AG Gonzales added, "Accordingly, under these circumstances, the President has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires."
Just so it's clear. The president is going to kill a program that he has argued benefits the USA, for the sole reason that it's now subject to FISA.
Given FISA's longstanding reputation as a rubber stamp, I find it very telling of Mr. Bush's bad intent that he feels he can no longer operate his Terrorist Surveillance Program.
The degree of secrecy and unchecked surveillance this administration seeks is downright frightening. This is not the way a healthy democracy runs, and Mr. Bush has damaged this nation's health by demanding to undertake actions and operate programs such as this absent any checks and balances whatsoever.
Media reference: AP Story posted at CNN
(link updated 2/24/07)
Posted by Pat at 03:23 PM | Comments (0)
January 18, 2007
FISA Review Maybe Not Such A Rosy Development?
The Boston Globe published an article with more detail about the FISA court oversight of the president's Terrorist Surveillance Program today. The experts and congressional leaders are questioning the nature of this oversight, and whether the court has provided any type of blanket authorization for wiretaps and such, or if it will continue reviewing requests on an individual basis. The Globe article also makes no mention of the president stating he will not renew the program in light of the new oversight. Gotta love developing news, and I can't wait to see what happens next on this.
Media reference: The Boston Globe
Posted by Pat at 10:39 AM | Comments (0)
March 21, 2007
Time to Revisit the National Security Letter
We've got an item that I can't categorize today. It's either an "I told you so" or "That was the obvious outcome".
It seems that the FBI has misused its privilege of issuing National Security Letters to obtain information kept by banks, ISPs, libraries, etc. about individuals. Congress is unhappy.
Here are the specifics for those who haven't been keeping score:
- The FBI can issue warrantless National Security Letters to obtain records about people.
- The FBI is supposed to do so only in emergency situations.
- The letters are issued without court supervision.
- The FBI has failed to document these "exigencies" in sufficient detail, and not at all in some cases.
- Because the FBI failed to document its National Security Letters, it is unable to fulfill its mandate to report to Congress on the quantities of letters issued.
- Due to lack of documentation, the FBI cannot even provide a list of whom these letters were delivered to.
- Due to lack of documentation, the FBI cannot provide a list of Americans whose civil liberties were violated for lack of due process.
This is a clear affront to Americans and the values we stand for. This is the type of unaccountable activity we expected from the Soviet Union two or three decades ago, and never did we think back then that this would happen in our own country.
Had they not already started to do so, I would now be calling on Congress to examine the use of these letters and put some reins on the process. Fortunately, they've already seen the light. This problem reeks so badly that both sides of the congressional aisle can't help but notice it. I'm hoping for real reform here, in the shape of accountability for these letters, and in the application of due process for production of these letters.
Posted by Pat at 12:49 PM | Comments (0)
June 28, 2007
Made In China
Is it time for a ban of Chinese food products for people and animals?
Diethylene Glycol has now been found in toothpaste made in China and shipped to the US. Unlike the melamine found in gluten for animal feed, toothpaste is intended for human consumption. And like the melamine, diethylene glycol is poisonous.
What gives? Why are the Chinese putting poisons into food products?
Honestly, why is this happening? Clearly they're trying to save money by using cheap ingredients, but why would you want to alienate your customers by making them and their pets sick, or in the ultimate form of alienation, dead? This simply defies reason.
What also defies reason is the dogged insistence of Chinese officials that foodstuff made in China is safe. Clearly it isn't, and the officials' denials of systemic issues suggests that they're not open to investigating their manufacturers' production practices, nor are they open to regulating their industries to detect and punish companies when their products are found to be adulterated.
Given these facts, the only sane course of action is one that must take place as part of national policy. Simply stated, no foods, whether intended for human or animal consumption, should be mass-imported into the United States. China relies on food exports for income, and hitting them where it hurts may be what it takes to make them pay attention.
Posted by Pat at 07:22 PM | Comments (0)
November 30, 2007
Hillary Soft on Terrorism
Today Hillary Clinton's campaign headquarters were raided by a hostage taker who demanded to talk to Hillary. Fortunately he finally surrendered without anybody getting hurt.
These events underscore that it could be foolish to elect Hillary as president. If she can't secure her own campaign headquarters, how can she protect the WHOLE COUNTRY from terrorism?
I'm kidding, of course, but I wanted you to hear it here first.
Posted by Pat at 08:19 PM | Comments (0)