Looks like police are tracking people on almost no probable cause, and the rest of us are losing our privacy and our 4th Amendment protections in the process.
The fastest and easiest way to fix this -- I believe -- would be to establish that you have a property right in data about your location in time and space, with an exception for direct observations. In other words, if I happen to see you in a store or on a sidewalk, that's normal; if I use a GPS bug to track you without authorization, then I'm stealing data about you.
That property right also means you are free to sell your data -- such as to a traffic monitoring system that would rebate part of your subscription in exchange for you feeding the system with info about your driving experience. And the monitoring firm could be barred from reselling that data without your consent, unless it was rendered anonymous. If your stalker ex-boyfriend hacks their system and uses it to track you, he's stealing from both you and them, in addition to being a stalker -- making it much easier to prosecute him.
Police can still track people provided they get a warrant. Warrantless tracking, however, would be forbidden. (Parolees could be tracked at any time without a warrant, just as today the police can search a parolee's home at any time without a warrant -- that's part of the deal when one is released on parole.)
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Thomas Frank hates Republicans, Conservatives, and workplace democracy
Frank is beginning to improve his game here. I look to him for principled criticisms of my side, and this time he's got one - the indifference (or complicity) of the federal Labor Department towards unsafe and illegal working conditions.
That's a legitimate hit, and I thank Mr. Frank for drawing my attention to it. I'll return the favor by pointing to the multiple ways he weakens his own case:
1. Unions in Mexico are so strong - far stronger than in the US - that they stifle Mexican job creation, fueling illegal immigration. In his one-sided praise of all unions everywhere, Frank doesn't acknowledge this.
2. Iowa has a labor department too, and they are much closer to this problem and have a primary responsibility for addressing it - why are they spared criticism? Is it because Iowa has a Democratic governor, and has been ruled by Democrats since 1999? Frank's silence is profound. Perhaps Frank thinks state labor departments should be abolished or subsumed within the federal organization.
3. "Card check" legislation isn't about freeing workers to unionize, it's about subjecting them to workplace intimidation and union-boss thuggery. Frank's mincing steps around this are shameful in anyone with a commitment to respect for liberty and freedom from coercion.
4. Through artful wording, Frank implies that AgriProcessors has only been fined once before - untrue. The Des Moines Register reports that "In the past, Agriprocessors has had potential fines for workplace safety violations reduced substantially through negotiations with Iowa labor officials." Furthermore, "...those cases were handled as administrative matters, not as criminal cases. Any fines imposed as a result of the alleged child-labor violations will be through a court order, since the matter is now being treated as a criminal matter."
So the supposed lax oversight maybe wasn't so lax, and the reductions in fines that Frank so craftily puts in the passive voice, "The fines levied against AgriProcessors, however, were eventually reduced...", were reduced by the DEMOCRATIC administrations Vilsack and Culver.
All in all, Frank's sweeping language and over-broad conclusions are masks for a weak argument where the facts undercut his case. I think he's right about the federal Labor department needing to be more active around workplace safety and child labor law enforcement. He's not right about very much else, and his conclusion, that "conservatism" is the root of his catalog of ills, is unsupported.
That's a legitimate hit, and I thank Mr. Frank for drawing my attention to it. I'll return the favor by pointing to the multiple ways he weakens his own case:
1. Unions in Mexico are so strong - far stronger than in the US - that they stifle Mexican job creation, fueling illegal immigration. In his one-sided praise of all unions everywhere, Frank doesn't acknowledge this.
2. Iowa has a labor department too, and they are much closer to this problem and have a primary responsibility for addressing it - why are they spared criticism? Is it because Iowa has a Democratic governor, and has been ruled by Democrats since 1999? Frank's silence is profound. Perhaps Frank thinks state labor departments should be abolished or subsumed within the federal organization.
3. "Card check" legislation isn't about freeing workers to unionize, it's about subjecting them to workplace intimidation and union-boss thuggery. Frank's mincing steps around this are shameful in anyone with a commitment to respect for liberty and freedom from coercion.
4. Through artful wording, Frank implies that AgriProcessors has only been fined once before - untrue. The Des Moines Register reports that "In the past, Agriprocessors has had potential fines for workplace safety violations reduced substantially through negotiations with Iowa labor officials." Furthermore, "...those cases were handled as administrative matters, not as criminal cases. Any fines imposed as a result of the alleged child-labor violations will be through a court order, since the matter is now being treated as a criminal matter."
So the supposed lax oversight maybe wasn't so lax, and the reductions in fines that Frank so craftily puts in the passive voice, "The fines levied against AgriProcessors, however, were eventually reduced...", were reduced by the DEMOCRATIC administrations Vilsack and Culver.
All in all, Frank's sweeping language and over-broad conclusions are masks for a weak argument where the facts undercut his case. I think he's right about the federal Labor department needing to be more active around workplace safety and child labor law enforcement. He's not right about very much else, and his conclusion, that "conservatism" is the root of his catalog of ills, is unsupported.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
LNG and the Columbia River Keepers
Last week I was Board Host for a debate-format panel discussion at the City Club of Portland. The topic was a proposed LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) terminal on the Columbia River, a few miles upstream from Astoria.
As Board Host I got to ask the first question, and I asked one that was almost certainly inappropriate coming from the person in that role. A good Board Host question is thoughtful, balanced, and invites the audience into the conversation. It may explore ambiguities in the presentation, or draw attention to an aspect of the topic not covered by the speakers, or press on an apparent contradiction. It really shouldn't be an attack from one side or the other.
My question was partisan enough to be seen as an attack. I told the River Keepers' speaker that as far as I could tell, if LNG was kept out of Oregon, and my family ended up cold and shivering in the dark because of it, his organization would consider that a success.
This question from me, particularly in my role as Board Host, upset several of the more fluttery members of the audience.
One audience member - quivering like a drenched cat with poorly directed outrage - characterized it as "shameful". Yes, it was a lousy board host question, but that's not what got people upset. The upset ones universally were deeply in the tank for (i.e. on the side of) the Riverkeepers. Their upset-ness stemmed from that emotional attachment to one side of the debate, and my obvious disdain for "their" side.
Being in the minority is a test of one's courage. Being in the majority is a test of one's tolerance. So far I'm holding up my end pretty well, and the side of intolerant outrage is the side that could appropriately feel shame.
And my question was essentially unanswerable. The commercial firm that wants to build the LNG plant will happily jump through whatever safety, environmental, or regulatory hoops are put up, because they want to profitably supply energy in LNG form to the region. This is inherently a position of accommodation and compromise.
The eco-fanatics will happily add, move, and change the hoops to ensure that the firm cannot meet them, because they only care about their vision for the river (and restricting commercial uses of it), not about Oregon's energy needs. Theirs is inherently a position of extremism and non-compromise.
And that's as it should be for the River Keepers. They aren't the "balanced energy plan for Oregon" keepers - they are the RIVER keepers. That's their thing. If they backed off of that to be "moderate" they'd be betraying their purpose. (They can't admit that, generally.)
It's for the rest of us to be the ones with moderation and perspective, to listen to both sides and discount at least some of the eco-hysteria and the capitalist puffery and find a workable answer.
And that is a point that many of our more committed leftist City Club members don't want to hear. I made them hear it and they didn't much like it.
Tough.
As Board Host I got to ask the first question, and I asked one that was almost certainly inappropriate coming from the person in that role. A good Board Host question is thoughtful, balanced, and invites the audience into the conversation. It may explore ambiguities in the presentation, or draw attention to an aspect of the topic not covered by the speakers, or press on an apparent contradiction. It really shouldn't be an attack from one side or the other.
My question was partisan enough to be seen as an attack. I told the River Keepers' speaker that as far as I could tell, if LNG was kept out of Oregon, and my family ended up cold and shivering in the dark because of it, his organization would consider that a success.
This question from me, particularly in my role as Board Host, upset several of the more fluttery members of the audience.
One audience member - quivering like a drenched cat with poorly directed outrage - characterized it as "shameful". Yes, it was a lousy board host question, but that's not what got people upset. The upset ones universally were deeply in the tank for (i.e. on the side of) the Riverkeepers. Their upset-ness stemmed from that emotional attachment to one side of the debate, and my obvious disdain for "their" side.
Being in the minority is a test of one's courage. Being in the majority is a test of one's tolerance. So far I'm holding up my end pretty well, and the side of intolerant outrage is the side that could appropriately feel shame.
And my question was essentially unanswerable. The commercial firm that wants to build the LNG plant will happily jump through whatever safety, environmental, or regulatory hoops are put up, because they want to profitably supply energy in LNG form to the region. This is inherently a position of accommodation and compromise.
The eco-fanatics will happily add, move, and change the hoops to ensure that the firm cannot meet them, because they only care about their vision for the river (and restricting commercial uses of it), not about Oregon's energy needs. Theirs is inherently a position of extremism and non-compromise.
And that's as it should be for the River Keepers. They aren't the "balanced energy plan for Oregon" keepers - they are the RIVER keepers. That's their thing. If they backed off of that to be "moderate" they'd be betraying their purpose. (They can't admit that, generally.)
It's for the rest of us to be the ones with moderation and perspective, to listen to both sides and discount at least some of the eco-hysteria and the capitalist puffery and find a workable answer.
And that is a point that many of our more committed leftist City Club members don't want to hear. I made them hear it and they didn't much like it.
Tough.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Control your Inbox
From a trusted source comes this posting and link to an excellent Google Lecture on getting your email inbox to zero, and how it can boost your productivity.
The basic idea is to use your inbox as a starting point only - for each new email, DECIDE what to do with it and get it resolved, so you can get back to work.
There are only five things you can do with an email. These are the VERBS.
Delete (or Archive)
Delegate (Forward and Followup)
Respond (Reply)
Defer (Wait)
Do
I've been doing this for some months now, and it's working well. For each new email, I ask, what action do I need to take with this?
If there isn't an action for me to take, or if I've already taken the action, I delete the email.
If it's something I should delegate, I forward it, I often cc: the original person so they see it getting forwarded, and I move the original to a "@Pending" folder that I browse every so often (2-3 times a week) so I can check in with my delegee and my original requester.
If I can resolve it by responding, I do - as briefly as I can. Then I delete the original, or perhaps move it to "Archive".
If I can't handle it now and I do need to handle it, I move it to "@ActOn".
And if it involves an action other than an email reply - maybe walking a folder over to someone, or putting an appointment on my calendar, or making a brief call - I simply do it, and then delete the email.
When I left the office today my email inbox was empty. It felt VERY good.
The basic idea is to use your inbox as a starting point only - for each new email, DECIDE what to do with it and get it resolved, so you can get back to work.
There are only five things you can do with an email. These are the VERBS.
Delete (or Archive)
Delegate (Forward and Followup)
Respond (Reply)
Defer (Wait)
Do
I've been doing this for some months now, and it's working well. For each new email, I ask, what action do I need to take with this?
If there isn't an action for me to take, or if I've already taken the action, I delete the email.
If it's something I should delegate, I forward it, I often cc: the original person so they see it getting forwarded, and I move the original to a "@Pending" folder that I browse every so often (2-3 times a week) so I can check in with my delegee and my original requester.
If I can resolve it by responding, I do - as briefly as I can. Then I delete the original, or perhaps move it to "Archive".
If I can't handle it now and I do need to handle it, I move it to "@ActOn".
And if it involves an action other than an email reply - maybe walking a folder over to someone, or putting an appointment on my calendar, or making a brief call - I simply do it, and then delete the email.
When I left the office today my email inbox was empty. It felt VERY good.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Style at Work
In a WSJ column on workplace dress and professionalism, we read about a double standard of sorts.
I detect a double standard, or at least a mixed agenda.
Both Jim Holt and Tom Mills got taken to the woodshed for public comments about how they view workplace attire. Yet the same women in the workplace who criticized them so viciously, are complaining that they aren't getting good feedback on what to wear to look professional.
Nobody gets good, candid feedback for long if they regularly shoot their messengers.
The reality is, the opinions of senior (often male) managers matters. You can seek to learn and understand those opinions, or you can seek to shape them. You will have a hard time pursuing both goals at once - listening and browbeating being mutually incompatible activities. And those opinions are opinions - not fact, not solid, very much a product of society and of social and cultural norms, very subject to change over time.
My advice to women is, if you want candid advice, create a safe space for that conversation to happen. Otherwise you'll silence the voices you need to hear.
At the same time, don't stop agitating outside of that safe space for equality, respect, and non-sexism at work. That struggle may be eternal - it's certainly worthy.
Of course, I'm just a guy, so what do I know?
-Tom
I detect a double standard, or at least a mixed agenda.
Both Jim Holt and Tom Mills got taken to the woodshed for public comments about how they view workplace attire. Yet the same women in the workplace who criticized them so viciously, are complaining that they aren't getting good feedback on what to wear to look professional.
Nobody gets good, candid feedback for long if they regularly shoot their messengers.
The reality is, the opinions of senior (often male) managers matters. You can seek to learn and understand those opinions, or you can seek to shape them. You will have a hard time pursuing both goals at once - listening and browbeating being mutually incompatible activities. And those opinions are opinions - not fact, not solid, very much a product of society and of social and cultural norms, very subject to change over time.
My advice to women is, if you want candid advice, create a safe space for that conversation to happen. Otherwise you'll silence the voices you need to hear.
At the same time, don't stop agitating outside of that safe space for equality, respect, and non-sexism at work. That struggle may be eternal - it's certainly worthy.
Of course, I'm just a guy, so what do I know?
-Tom
Thomas Frank: Sad Little Progressive on WSJ
I'm trying to enjoy Thomas Frank's leftist columns in the otherwise right-libertarian Wall Street Journal. This latest one just makes it harder.
Frank starts off with a wonderfully useful premise, that Conservatives really blew it while in power in the Congress over the period 1994-2006, and are now busy failing to learn from it. His quotes of the architect of the Republican sell-out to power, Tom DeLay, are hilarious. (DeLay tries to paint himself a pure conservative who is pained by the Republican fall into corruption, rather than as one of the leaders of the plunge.)
And he's right to skewer those who define "conservatism" as being inherently incorruptible, meaning that all "those" corrupt Republicans are of course "not conservatives" - the sort of cute verbal trick I usually attribute to the Left. Conservatives who so embraced DeLay so long and so strongly need to answer, why they didn't reject him before he got caught.
Unfortunately, Frank's column quickly falls apart.
He tries to tie Republican corruption in Congress to the basis of conservative ideas. He wants us to believe that conservative ideas are "bad ideas" that naturally and inevitably led to "disastrous consequences."
Here he offers nothing but 'proof by blatant assertion' - no analysis, no explanation. He doesn't even bother to list what ideas he means, other than 'true conservatism is opposed to "big government."'
Had Frank offered some real (or imagined) link between corruption and the values of limited government, personal responsibility, individual liberty, and free markets, then he would have done us a favor. Instead he merely asserts that conservatism is somehow inherently bad - a logical fallacy also known as assuming your conclusions.
Here's hoping we get a better column from him next week.
Frank starts off with a wonderfully useful premise, that Conservatives really blew it while in power in the Congress over the period 1994-2006, and are now busy failing to learn from it. His quotes of the architect of the Republican sell-out to power, Tom DeLay, are hilarious. (DeLay tries to paint himself a pure conservative who is pained by the Republican fall into corruption, rather than as one of the leaders of the plunge.)
And he's right to skewer those who define "conservatism" as being inherently incorruptible, meaning that all "those" corrupt Republicans are of course "not conservatives" - the sort of cute verbal trick I usually attribute to the Left. Conservatives who so embraced DeLay so long and so strongly need to answer, why they didn't reject him before he got caught.
Unfortunately, Frank's column quickly falls apart.
He tries to tie Republican corruption in Congress to the basis of conservative ideas. He wants us to believe that conservative ideas are "bad ideas" that naturally and inevitably led to "disastrous consequences."
Here he offers nothing but 'proof by blatant assertion' - no analysis, no explanation. He doesn't even bother to list what ideas he means, other than 'true conservatism is opposed to "big government."'
Had Frank offered some real (or imagined) link between corruption and the values of limited government, personal responsibility, individual liberty, and free markets, then he would have done us a favor. Instead he merely asserts that conservatism is somehow inherently bad - a logical fallacy also known as assuming your conclusions.
Here's hoping we get a better column from him next week.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Two Scenes from Election Night
I got to see two sides of Portland yesterday on Election Night.
The first was a Multnomah County Republican gathering at the Grand Central Bowl, an upscale bowling alley and restaurant. We took over the upstairs and actually filled it with over 100 Republicans. Who knew we had those numbers?
What struck me was the mood - reflective and even up-beat. There was the usual ain't-it-awful complaints that I've heard so often before. Perhaps it's denial. Or maybe it's a corner being turned - maybe we're ready to start doing the things we need to do to start winning. Like stand for something worthwhile.
The second was the tail end of the Sam Adams victory party, in a tent behind a hotel near 9th and E. Burnside. It was the usual mix of donors, volunteers, activists, and interest group reps common at victory parties, and they all reveled in the cheer of a winning race.
I had to wear my "Tom Cox - Republican" name tag on my dark double-breasted suit. You know - fly the flag, smile, see how I got treated.
Alas, not much happened. Everybody was talking with their friends in little groups, the light was low, and few cared to look at name tags. Of those who did, a few opened their eyes wide, one looked at me and asked "Really?" (Yes, I said, and got a nod in return) and one big smile from a spouse who leaned in close to say "I thought I was the only one here."
That alone made it worth while.
The mood there, at least for the little while I was there, was upbeat yet a little odd. I got no sense that there was an agenda or a mandate - it was more personality driven. What does Sam Adams now have a mandate to do? I have no clue. Maybe he does.
Maybe the funniest thing about Sam Adams as mayor is that he's a little less wacky leftist than the average Portland voter. He actually once voted to lower business taxes. It may be the most unpopular thing he's done, in their minds.
The first was a Multnomah County Republican gathering at the Grand Central Bowl, an upscale bowling alley and restaurant. We took over the upstairs and actually filled it with over 100 Republicans. Who knew we had those numbers?
What struck me was the mood - reflective and even up-beat. There was the usual ain't-it-awful complaints that I've heard so often before. Perhaps it's denial. Or maybe it's a corner being turned - maybe we're ready to start doing the things we need to do to start winning. Like stand for something worthwhile.
The second was the tail end of the Sam Adams victory party, in a tent behind a hotel near 9th and E. Burnside. It was the usual mix of donors, volunteers, activists, and interest group reps common at victory parties, and they all reveled in the cheer of a winning race.
I had to wear my "Tom Cox - Republican" name tag on my dark double-breasted suit. You know - fly the flag, smile, see how I got treated.
Alas, not much happened. Everybody was talking with their friends in little groups, the light was low, and few cared to look at name tags. Of those who did, a few opened their eyes wide, one looked at me and asked "Really?" (Yes, I said, and got a nod in return) and one big smile from a spouse who leaned in close to say "I thought I was the only one here."
That alone made it worth while.
The mood there, at least for the little while I was there, was upbeat yet a little odd. I got no sense that there was an agenda or a mandate - it was more personality driven. What does Sam Adams now have a mandate to do? I have no clue. Maybe he does.
Maybe the funniest thing about Sam Adams as mayor is that he's a little less wacky leftist than the average Portland voter. He actually once voted to lower business taxes. It may be the most unpopular thing he's done, in their minds.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
On negotiating - Conservatives get it right
Experimenters discover that empathy isn't as useful as understanding - at least if you're trying to achieve a win-win outcome.
Subjects were instructed to take one of three approaches:
In an experiment between a buyer and seller of a business, the perspective-takers were half-again more likely (76% vs 54%) than the empathizers to reach a deal.
In a further experiment between a job-seeker and a recruiter, the perspective-takers were twice as likely (40% vs 22%) than the empathizers to reach a win-win deal.
Worse, the empathizers actually under-performed even the control group when it came to protecting their own interests.
I believe that's a continuing problem for liberal-socialist, empathy based approaches to public policy - especially foreign policy. Those who take an emotion-based approach - even those who aren't blame-America-first types - still risk sacrificing America's interests.
Subjects were instructed to take one of three approaches:
- Get inside the other person's head - try to understand what the other party is thinking; what is his interest and purpose?
- Get inside the other person's emotions - try to understand what the other party might be feeling; what emotion is he likely experiencing?
- No guidance (the control group)
In an experiment between a buyer and seller of a business, the perspective-takers were half-again more likely (76% vs 54%) than the empathizers to reach a deal.
In a further experiment between a job-seeker and a recruiter, the perspective-takers were twice as likely (40% vs 22%) than the empathizers to reach a win-win deal.
Worse, the empathizers actually under-performed even the control group when it came to protecting their own interests.
...[I]n terms of an individual gain, the perspective-taking recruiters did far better—pushing the empathetic recruiters into last place.
What this shows is that even with one negotiator having perspective-taking abilities it can produce a better overall outcome for both sides. "You want to understand what the other side's interests are, but you do not want to sacrifice your own interests," says Dr Adam Galinksy of Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, Illinois. "A large amount of empathy can actually impair the ability of people to reach a creative deal."
I believe that's a continuing problem for liberal-socialist, empathy based approaches to public policy - especially foreign policy. Those who take an emotion-based approach - even those who aren't blame-America-first types - still risk sacrificing America's interests.
Nothing is Certain
From the Wall Street Journal's Science column:
I'm not sure which surprises and pleases me the most -
Not everything in the solar system adds up, of course. The moon's actual orbit is off its calculated course by about six millimeters a year. No one knows why. The standard yardstick for length on an interplanetary scale, the Astronomical Unit, grows by about seven centimeters a year. Scientists have yet to agree on an explanation.
I'm not sure which surprises and pleases me the most -
- Scientists can measure the moon's actual orbit to a precision of six millimeters
- Scientists can measure that and still not know why
- Scientists are willing to admit freely that they have observed something they can't explain
Monday, May 12, 2008
Quotas Suck
I've been active in the City Club of Portland (CCOP) for a few years and just got recommended as a possible member of the Board of Governors. This is the text of my reply to a friend, regarding whether the Club should use quotas as part of any "diversity" effort for either Club membership or Board membership:
I'm actually in favor of both outreach and metrics. I'm sour on quotas in part because they've often been accompanies by lowering criteria (far more minority law students fail law school when admitted under "affirmative action" criteria that include lowering admissions standards), as well as other ways of gaming numerical systems.
I think the way to get (say) more black members is to go find groups of black people and invite their members to join, and do it in a way that makes clear how the CCOP addresses the things they already care about.
Jaime Escalante managed to get a record high number of poor and minority students to pass AP Calculus by starting with elementary school teachers to build a pipeline of students who would be ready for harder math by the time they hit high school. It was an eight year process. (The movie "Stand and Deliver" completely ignores this part of the story.)
There was no lowering of the bar, no "affirmative action" of the quota type. This was real engagement addressing real root causes - my kind of change.
I cringe at the idea of CCOP setting a numeric quota, then looking superficially at the "usual suspects" for dark skin (or whatever attribute we're looking for) and stopping as soon as the number is reached - no true outreach, no true attempt to make CCOP relevant to groups who may currently be detached or alienated from us, no long term attempt to bridge any gaps we find.
Quotas suck.
Having said all that, it may be that CCOP is naturally going to be attractive to (say) rich intellectuals with time on their hands and pretensions of good citizenship. And that group may demographically (around here) be disproportionately white liberals. And if that's the case, we should continue the outreach while accepting something other than numerically precise demographic balance.
I'm very clear on the fact that I'm being proposed for the Board because I'm a wacky libertarian, and there's a quota for wacky libertarians. If there were great riches associated with Board membership, I'd be suitably chastened. Quotas still suck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
