Privacy update

This post is gonna be real ugly, sorry. Corporations routinely tell us how very seriously they take our privacy and security. Reality doesn't match the rhetoric.

In my opinion, greed is the biggest

Link (not paywalled):

Nearly unlimited highly personal info is available for anyone willing to pay. AI provides many ways to turn that into illicit profit or undermine national security.

Hackers are using artificial intelligence to mine unprecedented troves of personal information dumped online in the past year, along with unregulated commercial databases, to trick American consumers and even sophisticated professionals into giving up control of bank and corporate accounts.

Armed with sensitive health information, calling records and hundreds of millions of Social Security numbers, criminals and operatives of countries hostile to the United States are crafting emails, voice calls and texts that purport to come from government officials, co-workers or relatives needing help, or familiar financial organizations trying to protect accounts instead of draining them.

The losses reported to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center nearly tripled from 2020 to 2023, to $12.5 billion, and a number of sensitive breaches this year have only increased internet insecurity. The recently discovered Chinese government hacks of U.S. telecommunications companies AT&T, Verizon and others, for instance, were deemed so serious that government officials are being told not to discuss sensitive matters on the phone, some of those officials said in interviews. A Russian ransomware gang’s breach of Change Healthcare in February captured data on millions of Americans’ medical conditions and treatments, and in August, a small data broker, National Public Data, acknowledged that it had lost control of hundreds of millions of Social Security numbers and addresses now being sold by hackers.

With no federal privacy legislation to stem the flood, national security experts fear that foreign spy agencies will keep vacuuming up everything they need to hack, recruit or blackmail officials with sensitive missions, debts and embarrassing personal secrets. “Six or seven years ago, people said there was too much data; adversaries don’t know what to do with it,” CFPB Senior Counsel Kiren Gopal told The Washington Post. “Now they have AI tools to sift through for things that are actually useful.”  

Even if all that and more comes to pass — and Trump adviser Elon Musk’s threat to wipe out the CFPB remains unfulfilled — so much data is now available about so many people that any government action is likely to have limited effect.

That speaks for itself and the standard corporate spew, “don’t worry, we take your privacy seriously.” What a farce.

And this from an article, The 7 Biggest Business Lies Ever Told:

1. Equifax data breach

Equifax is one of the three major credit bureaus in the U.S., and in 2017, it was involved in a data breach that affected 143 million consumers. Hackers were able to access personal information like credit card numbers, Social Security numbers, home addresses and even driver’s licenses. The breach happened because the company failed to implement basic security measures.

The breach itself was bad enough, but the company deliberately misled customers and withheld information. It also later came out that additional data breaches occurred, but customers weren’t informed. As a result, Equifax had to pay a minimum of $575 million as a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and 50 states and territories. CEO Richard Smith was ousted three weeks after the data breach was revealed.

The takeaway: Don’t compromise on cybersecurity, especially if your business houses sensitive customer data. If your company does experience a breach, own up to your part in it and be forthcoming about what went wrong. Lying and trying to cover up the problem will only make it worse.

Now who is it saying that we need to deregulated businesses so they can solve problems and spread prosperity, peace and happiness on the land? . . . . . Oh yeah, Project 2025, DJT, MAGA and the GOP.

Time to rank Joe, the Dem party, etc.

Now that the wave of emotions from the election has subsided some and heads are cooler, its time to rank some stuff.

Adding to things to consider, Joe released this statement regarding his pardon of Hunter. He gives his justification for the pardon. Previously he promised to not pardon his son, but changed his mind.

One can only wonder what jail would have been like for Hunter, if one takes as a model how Putin, who has immunity from all crimes, official acts or not, treated Alexei Navalny while he was in a Russian jail on trumped up criminal charges. To be clear, Putin had Navalny poisoned and then murdered when poison failed to get the job done. Would DJT sink that low? Who knows? Maybe.

Where does Joe rank among US presidents, taking into account all the good, bad and ambiguous things he has done (Infrastructure bill, Gaza war, clamp down on pro-Palestinian protesters, climate policy in the Inflation reduction Act, withdrawal from Afghanistan, bad messaging to the public, etc.) and left undone, but probably could have done (illegal immigration, etc.)? 

For context, here is how professionals rank Joe and some other US presidents.    

What about ranking DJT as a president, candidate and president-elect?

In view of all the circumstances, successes, failures and muddle throughs, how does the Dem party rank from 2020 to now in 2024 on a scale of 1-7 where: 

1 = the worst possible in a messy democracy

2 = solidly bad but could have been noticeably worse

3 = modestly bad on balance, but not as bad as 2

4 = about as mediocre as politics can get, part good & part bad & part unclear

5 = modestly good on balance, but not as good as 6

6 = solidly good but could have been noticeably better

7 = the best possible in a messy democracy

Using the same scale, what rank for the GOP from 2020 to now in 2024? What about the American public?

What are the top 2 or 3 most important factors in your assessment of Joe, DJT, the Dems, the Repubs and the American people?

Me tentatively:

Joe: 25 (poor messaging, failed immigration policy, pro-environment policy)

DJT: 46 (rabidly anti-democracy and rule of law, deeply corrupt, thoroughly morally rotted)

Dem party: 2 (poor messaging, out of touch, inept)

Repub party: 1 (solidly anti-democracy and rule of law, deeply corrupt, thoroughly morally rotted)

American people: 3 (too many low information, too many unreasonably deceived and manipulated, unreasonable expectations)

Updates: Project 2025; MAGA criminals in power; Environmental protections in collapse

A NYT article (not paywalled):

Trump Disavowed Project 2025 During the Campaign. Not Anymore.

President-elect Donald J. Trump has filled his administration with people who have ties to the right-wing manifesto

During the campaign, President-elect Donald J. Trump swore he had “nothing to do with” a right-wing policy blueprint known as Project 2025 that would overhaul the federal government, even though many of those involved in developing the plans were his allies.

Mr. Trump even described many of the policy goals as “absolutely ridiculous.” And during his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, he said he was “not going to read it.”

Now, as he plans his agenda for his return to the White House, Mr. Trump has recruited at least a half dozen architects and supporters of the plan to oversee key issues, including the federal budget, intelligence gathering and his promised plans for mass deportations.

The shift, his critics say, is not exactly a surprise. Mr. Trump disavowed the 900-page manifesto when polls showed it was extremely unpopular with voters. Now that he has won a second term, they say, he appears to be brushing those concerns aside.

“President-elect Trump has dropped all pretense and is charging ahead hand in hand with the right-wing industry players shaping an agenda he denied for the whole campaign,” said Tony Carrk, the executive director of Accountable.US, a watchdog group that has been tracking Mr. Trump’s cabinet picks with ties to the project.

Mr. Trump has picked Russell T. Vought, one of the authors of Project 2025, to lead the powerful Office of Management and Budget. In choosing Mr. Vought, Mr. Trump will have someone who views the position as far more expansive than just overseeing the budget.

Mr. Vought wrote in Project 2025 that the person picked for the job should view themselves as an “approximation of the president’s mind,” while establishing a reputation of the keeper of “commander’s intent.”

If that isn’t authoritarian intent, I don’t know what is.

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

DJT is putting felons in power:

President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday named Charles Kushner, a real estate developer and father of Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, as his nominee for U.S. ambassador to France.

Charles Kushner, convicted felon and

US Ambassador to France

The announcement, made on Trump's Truth Social platform, praised Charles Kushner as "a tremendous business leader, philanthropist, and dealmaker."

"I am pleased to nominate Charles Kushner, of New Jersey, to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to France. He is a tremendous business leader, philanthropist, & dealmaker, who will be a strong advocate representing our Country & its interests," Trump wrote. "Together, we will strengthen America's partnership with France, our oldest Ally, & one of our greatest!"

The nomination comes after Trump controversially pardoned Charles, along with several other close associates, in 2020. Charles was sentenced to two years in prison in 2005 after he pled guilty to 18 counts, including tax evasion and witness tampering.  

The legal case was prosecuted by Chris Christie, a then U.S. attorney for New Jersey and later governor of the state and Republican presidential candidate. .... Christie had previously described Charles' actions during a January 2019 interview with PBS as "one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes that I prosecuted when I was U.S. attorney," and alleged in a 2019 book that he was fired from Trump's transition team because Jared held a grudge against him over the elder Kushner's prosecution.

If that isn’t corruption, nepotism and astonishing sleaze, I don’t know what is. The rule of law is taking a massive pounding right in front of our eyes, right now.

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Not surprisingly, international efforts to protect the environment are stalling:

Plastic waste

Divided over whether to stop making plastic, U.N. treaty talks collapse

Delegates from more than 170 countries huddled for a week of marathon negotiations but came up short on delivering a deal

Global talks to forge a landmark treaty aimed at reducing plastic pollution broke down after negotiators from more than 170 countries remained deadlocked over how to curb the world’s growing mountain of plastic waste. .... More than 100 countries favored measures to ratchet back plastic production, while oil-rich nations pushed back, arguing that the world should target plastic pollution, not plastic itself.  

Each year, the world produces more than 450 million metric tons of plastic, mostly from fossil fuels, and generates 350 million metric tons of plastic waste. About half of that waste is dumped into landfills, .... Another 19 percent is incinerated, while less than 10 percent gets recycled [about 9% is recycled]. A little less than a quarter is mismanaged, with some of it ending up in rivers and oceans.

A big pile of plastic

A sad sight, but profits must not be impaired!

A criticism of liberalism: Liberalism sacrifices too much liberty for security

CONTEXT

These comments led to this post:

Me: Does liberalism necessarily sacrifice too much liberty in return for security? I don't think so. Liberty and security are compatible. But, that's just my opinion.  

Commenter: Benjamin Franklin who said something to the effect of “Those who would trade liberty for security will have and deserve neither.” Maybe Thomas Jefferson.

Me: Excellent point. That's very interesting. We need to know, if possible, what Franklin or Jefferson had in mind with a reasonable degree of accuracy. What I have in mind probably overlaps some but likely isn't mostly the same. I would need to do some research.  Tell you what, this is the first time that I can recall this point being brought up like you did. It's quite interesting to me, so I'll do a post on just this to explore it.

BLOG POST

If one sets up questions to AI properly, giving wording of the question careful thought, one can usually get reasonably good, on-point answers. Perplexity:

Q1: Ben Franklin allegedly said something like this: “Those who would trade liberty for security will have and deserve neither.” That was part of a criticism of Democrats and liberalism that alleges that liberalism necessarily sacrifices too much liberty in return for security. I am unsure what “security” the criticism refers to, maybe mostly liberals “defunding the police” and/or being soft on crime. In general, I believe the criticism refers mostly to liberal support for allegedly intrusive, authoritarian, threatening and/or oppressive policies such as same-sex marriage, DEI initiatives, support for the BLM movement, defunding the police, persecution of Christians, high taxation, high federal debt, high inflation, aggressive wokeness, support for LGBQT and racial minority rights, open borders, illegal immigration and so forth. How much truth is there in the allegation that liberals are trading liberty for security, (1) at least in the sense that Franklin intended, and (2) in any other reasonably asserted sense regardless of what Franklin said? 

A1: The criticism you've described misinterprets Benjamin Franklin's famous quote and misapplies it to modern political issues. Let's examine this in two parts:

1. Franklin's Intended Meaning

The quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" is often misunderstood and taken out of context1 2. Franklin was not actually warning against trading liberty for security in the way it's commonly interpreted today.In fact, Franklin meant almost the opposite of how the quote is typically used. He was advocating for the ability of a government to govern in the interests of collective security 1. The "liberty" in question was the right of self-governance, and the "security" was not personal safety but financial security for the community 2.

2. Modern Application

Regarding the modern application of this concept to liberal policies, the criticism you've described appears to conflate several distinct issues and mischaracterizes many liberal positions.

Civil Liberties and Security

Civil liberties are constitutionally protected freedoms that act as restraints on how the government can treat its citizens 4. Many of the policies mentioned in the criticism (same-sex marriage, DEI initiatives, LGBTQ+ rights) are actually expansions of civil liberties rather than restrictions. 

Police Reform and Public Safety

The "defund the police" movement, despite its provocative name, is generally about reallocating resources to address root causes of crime and social issues, not about reducing public safety 3. Many advocates argue this approach could enhance both liberty and security by addressing systemic issues.

Economic Policies

Issues like taxation, federal debt, and inflation are complex economic matters that don't directly relate to the liberty-security trade-off in the way the criticism suggests.

Immigration and Border Policies

These are complex issues that involve balancing various factors, including economic needs, humanitarian concerns, and national security. It's an oversimplification to frame them solely as a liberty-security trade-off.

Conclusion

The criticism misapplies Franklin's quote and oversimplifies complex political issues. Many liberal policies aim to expand civil liberties and address systemic issues, rather than trading liberty for security. While there are always debates about the proper balance between government action and individual freedom, it's inaccurate to characterize liberal policies as universally sacrificing liberty for security.

In any democratic society, there will always be tensions between different rights and values. The key is to find a balance that respects constitutional protections while addressing societal needs. This requires nuanced discussion and policy-making, rather than relying on oversimplified slogans or misapplied historical quotes.

The fear

Q2: How do different political ideologies interpret the balance between liberty and security?

A2: Different political ideologies interpret the balance between liberty and security in varying ways, reflecting their core values and priorities. Here's an overview of how some major ideologies approach this balance:

Liberalism

Liberalism generally emphasizes individual liberty while recognizing the need for security. However, the interpretation can vary:

Classical Liberalism: Tends to prioritize individual liberty over security, viewing government intervention as a potential threat to freedom. It advocates for minimal state involvement in personal and economic affairs 1. 

Modern Liberalism: Often seeks a balance between liberty and security, recognizing that some restrictions on liberty may be necessary to ensure collective security. However, it remains wary of excessive government power 2.

Conservatism

Conservative ideologies often place a higher emphasis on security and social order:

Traditional Conservatism: Generally favors strong national security measures and law enforcement, sometimes at the expense of individual liberties 2.

Libertarian Conservatism: Closer to classical liberalism, it prioritizes individual liberty and is skeptical of government expansion, even for security purposes.

Authoritarianism

Authoritarian ideologies typically prioritize security and social order over individual liberties:

Far-right Authoritarianism: Often advocates for strong security measures, even at the significant cost of personal freedoms, particularly for minority groups 3. 

Left-wing Authoritarianism: While emphasizing economic security, it may also restrict personal liberties in the name of collective well-being.

Social Democracy

Social democratic ideologies attempt to strike a balance:

Advocates for strong social safety nets to provide economic security. Generally supports civil liberties but may accept some restrictions for the sake of collective security 4.

Libertarianism

Libertarian ideology strongly favors liberty over security:

Advocates for minimal government intervention in both personal and economic spheres. Views most security measures implemented by the state as infringements on personal freedom.

Pragmatic Approaches

Many modern democratic governments adopt a pragmatic approach:

Attempt to balance liberty and security based on specific contexts and threats. Use frameworks like the "harm principle" to determine when restrictions on liberty are justified 1. 

In practice, the balance between liberty and security is often context-dependent and can shift based on perceived threats or societal changes. The challenge for any political system is to find an equilibrium that provides adequate security without unduly compromising essential liberties 5.

In view of the foregoing information, I do not believe that liberalism unreasonably sacrifices liberty for security. The pragmatic approaches are personally most appealing, maybe because I am a pragmatic rationalist.

Q: Do you believe that liberalism sacrifices too much liberty for security?

Regarding authoritarianism, Viktor Orban and the MAGA wealth and power movement

A NYT opinion by Hungarian born reporter Kati Marton (not paywalled): 

Why I’m Not Giving Up on American Democracy

For a time [after 1989], Mr. Orban, no longer bearded or skinny, head of the youth party Fidesz, befriended Richard and me. He invited us to dinner and the opera, and we hosted him in our New York apartment at a return dinner. (As it happens, the financier and philanthropist George Soros — whom Mr. Orban has aggressively attacked in recent years — was also present on that occasion.)

Orban in 1989

But in 2002, defeated at the polls after a single term as prime minister, Mr. Orban made sure that he would not be defeated again. Re-elected in 2010, he proceeded to weaken much of Hungary’s nascent civil society — its independent judiciary and its independent media. In this way, he began turning the country into a one-party state.

By some views, Mr. Orban’s Hungary is a soft autocracy, since dissidents and reporters aren’t jailed; they are merely driven out of business and — in the case of thousands — out of the country. Mr. Trump has evidently been impressed by Mr. Orban’s skill at eroding democratic norms and ridding himself of pesky political opponents. “There’s nobody that’s better, smarter or a better leader than Viktor Orban. He’s fantastic,” Mr. Trump has gushed.

Neither individuals nor nations escape history for long, and with Mr. Trump’s election, history threatens to barge into our American democratic sanctuary with a vengeance.

No American child has yet had to open her front door, as I did in 1955, to face three secret policemen, disguised in workers’ overalls, declaring, “Your mother called about the meter. Go get her.” I called out, “Mama!” returned to my room and my playmate, and did not see my mother for a year. There was no one to report my parents’ arrest to the world, since they were the last independent journalists, and now they were silent inmates.  

A chapter of my parents’ past opened in 2005, when, after their death, I got access to the files that the secret police had kept on my family during the years of Soviet domination (even the drawings I made as a 6-year-old merited a place in the Marton dossier). .... I found a document stating that under brutal interrogation my parents “did not compromise a single Hungarian citizen.” In his “confession,” which I also found in the files, my father had written how 10 years earlier, under the Nazis and their Hungarian allies, “we lost pretty much everything we owned, and I have absolutely no hope that in my lifetime I can rebuild again.” .... Even though they were victims of the two worst experiments on humankind, Nazism and Communism, my parents did rebuild again, here in the New World.

As much as I miss my parents, these days I am almost relieved that they are not alive to see the current version of the country they considered the greatest on earth, the United States. They would now barely recognize it.

Today, I do not contemplate leaving the New World, which allowed us to restart our lives several decades ago. As my parents’ daughter, I will not flee into the silence of internal exile, but hold tight to my first glimpse of America: an offering of oranges for a little girl temporarily orphaned by an indecent state. (emphases added)

Yes indeed, history threatens to barge into our American democratic sanctuary with a vengeance. But most Americans cannot see it. This is the sort of authoritarianism I fully expect DJT, MAGA elites and GOP politicians to try very hard to establish by 11/1/26, just before the next mid-term elections.

Q: Will people like Germaine and sites like Dissident Politics face the kind of self-righteous discipline inflicted by MAGA that Orban and his thugs inflict on Hungarians who oppose him?

Bonus stuff for the hard core politics enthusiasts:

And, for those who forgot this 5 minute interview with Kim Scheppele I posted here in Aug. 2022, here it is again:

Orbann argues democracy is failing and power like his is rising to replace it. He just might be right.