Kalimat al-Mutafalsif

I've been reading through the Heller decision (also known as The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case last summer that decided handgun bans were unconstitutional) and it has been *very* enlightening. I consider myself well read on gun laws, statistics and all that, but man, this is good stuff. Both sides have good arguments, this is one of the few times I've actually understood the reasoning behind a 'Lets ban all guns' argument, as presented by the Stevens [don't completely agree with] and Breyer [see much more eye to eye with] dissents. I highly recommend picking up a copy of this book, nice and concise with the full majority and dissenting opinions.

But its had me wondering about various facts, googling around to see what data I can dig up, and what opinions I can find. I stumbled across two great quotes tonight I just had to pass on.

The first is Ghandi, in his autobiography:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." (page 238 according to the site I found it on)

The Act in this case is referring to (I believe) the Indian Arms Act of 1878. This act made it impossible for a non-British citizen to get a weapon unless they could prove they were loyal. Something about making sure British rule (which was in place by force) wasn't overthrown by the legitimate subjects, or some such. So, we can see that Ghandi recognized that even though he preferred non-violent means, a population without arms cannot fight against an oppressor.

The second is another bastion of peacefulness, the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso:

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg." (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001)

This was apparently in response to a question about a student turning a gun on another student. I will let go the argument for giving students the right to carry, but just focus on his words. Here we see a (mainly) peaceful man arguing on behalf of the right to use guns in self defense.

Amazing how even those who choose non-violence recognize the inherent need for weapons in our culture.

I'm currently in a nasty quandary: I'm at a time in my life when I want to pursue shooting as a sport and a hobby, going down an amateur competition road, and I'm also at arguably the worst time to afford shooting since, oh, probably WWII when all spare metal was going to the military. The price of firearms is incredibly inflated, and the price of ammo is outrageous.

"Assault Rifles" that were around $600 might now fetch $1200, and a complete package with goodies can easily top $2000. Cheap WWII surplus that may have been picked up sub $100 at a gun show is now being auctioned above $300. A box of 20 rounds of 30-30 has gone up from around $10 to $20, and more, since I started shooting that rifle, and some calibers (such as .50) have gone up as much as 3-5 times the previous cost just 5 years ago. This is due to a number of factors (fear, low supply due to fear, some crazy shenanigans trying to change how ammo is produced as to outlaw guns, and the rising cost of metal in the cases), but the fact remains, its a sucky time to try to get into shooting.

5 months ago I was looking at building a second AR-15 but the cost of the stripped lower receiver had almost doubled in just 7 months (I paid $120ish after tax last summer, and was looking at paying over $200 to $250 for the same receiver in February), and I really couldn't justify my purchases. I wandered into the local Bass Pro Shops just to see what I could get for the same price, on a whim. I asked around about what they might have that I could afford to shoot on a regular basis, specifically looking for a .22 caliber rifle (.22LR rounds currently run around $20 for 500 rounds).

The man helping me said that Ruger had good stuff, and the 10/22 started around $220 (note for those who opened the link... this is cheaper than the website price as dealers always buy under MSRP). I asked about one, was informed they were out of stock, then the guy checked in back and they had one left. Pulled it out, waved it around a bit, and decided "Why not?" So I walked out with it that day, with some ammo, for about $250 total, as opposed to $220 for one piece of one gun.

Took it out to the range, and wasn't immediately impressed, it put rounds down range, but made the tiniest of sounds (its a .22) and was just OK.

Fast forward to the summer. Now I'm going to the range a lot more (once a week), shooting a lot more (few hundred rounds a week, mainly .22 and 9mm), and getting a lot more into it (treating it as 'practice', concentrating on my posture, breathing, control, getting smaller groups). In the last week I've had the 10/22 out three times to the local indoor range, and tossed 800ish rounds through it.

First night was around 250 (of my ammo, more with his) with my roommate, fairly easy (taking our time, not really concentrating). We had two failures to eject the spent case, both with his (cheap) ammo, and I'm attributing it to the ammo being fairly weak (noticeable sound difference between his cheap, and my cheap).

The next night I took it out with another friend, and we proceeded to do a very fast rate of fire, with one of us loading the spare mag as the other emptied the first, maybe a 3 second turn around time in between every 10 shots, just pounding them. Was also staying fairly accurate. After 200 rounds the barrel got too hot to hold, but she was still accurate as we could be. After 340 rounds in 30 minutes we'd had no failures to feed or eject, no problems whatsoever, in fact. It was still accurate by the end, though dirty dirty dirty (told you it was cheap ammo).

After that night, I was very impressed. For a $220 piece of metal, I did not expect it to stand up to that kind of punishment.

Finally yesterday I took her out and blew through the rest of my 200ish rounds, taking my time and focusing on accuracy. She actually had some nice groups when I worked at it, much better than I expected from a bottom of the line .22 rifle.

I highly recommend this rifle. The 10/22 family consists of (currently) 35 models, so there's something for everyone. Bottom of the line is a wood stock, simply open sights, nothing to speak of. Goes up to some serious marksmanship pieces, good platforms for amateur shooting, as well as pretty pink models to get the girls interested. The prices are rock bottom (for this economy) and its an American company (made in the USA as well).

I like it so much when I was looking for a .22 pistol I just picked up a Ruger Mark 3, as I know I can trust the manufacturing and quality.

So if anyone's looking for something small, something to try out shooting with minimal investment and easy shooting (girlfriends that are scared of big bangs will even like them [although I prefer the ones who don't mind tossing an AR around]), look no further than the Ruger 10/22.

Tragically, there was another school shooting at the beginning of this week. This one was in Finland, and their second in 12 months which left 10 dead, 11 including the shooter. We can expect the cry for more gun control, both domestically, and in Finland, so I pulled out a post I've been saving due to not having time to finish it.

Finland

First I want to address the Finland shooting. Finland is third in the world in terms of gun ownership per capita, behind the US, and Yemen. This is because hunting is huge in Finnish culture, as one person puts it, "the national sport". And yet more people are killed by knives than guns (according to that article). The youth are raised around weapons, they can legally own a firearm at 15 with parental permission, and for handguns they must be a member of a gun club. Yet until 12 months ago, they'd never had a tragedy like this.

The conclusion we should be able to come to, is its not the gun's fault, its the human's. You have a person capable of cold-blooded, calculated murder, and no amount of laws will stop them from carrying out what they want to do. It requires human intervention: Parents who care, friends who realize when someone's hurting inside, kids that are strong enough in their self-image that they can get through school without bullying. As many are so fond of criticizing the War on Terror, its more than just people with guns, its a social problem that requires compassion, and understanding. However, if those fail, you had better be prepared to fight for what you love, because when a person reaches the utter mental darkness these killers were in, there's going to be no reasoning.

Its worth pointing out that in this most recent case the killer had homemade bombs with him, as did the Columbine shooters, if they had no access to guns, they would have still been able to kill.

But that brings us to Gun Control.

Gun Control

Gun Control: At its heart, the idea is fairly basic, to control the guns that are in public circulation so that bad people can't get them. While I know people who would argue against any limitation on weapons, I think most will agree that there are people out there who shouldn't own firearms, just like there are people who shouldn't be able to drive, people who shouldn't be allowed to practice law, and people who shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine. One obvious answer here is felons, if you're convicted of a violent crime, you forfeit your right to bear arms.

Unfortunately, in recent years gun 'control' goes way beyond 'control'. Now people want a gun ban in the name of gun control in some places, such as the District of Columbia (recently overturned), and Britain. Yes, this will keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, unfortunately we have to remember that these guys who shot up their schools were not law-abiding. They committed many acts of cold-blooded murder, and no gun ban would have prevented that. Now, it would have made it harder to get the gun, but as we can see from Britain, it would by no means have stopped them from getting guns. There violence went up once private citizens lost the right to bear handguns. I've heard first hand accounts from friends that if they ever did something wrong, and the bobbies wanted to stop them, they'd simply run, since the worst they had to face is a night stick, and they could out run the cops.

Piracy

Now, I'm going to play to my (intended) audience for a while. You know I'm not just some crazy gun nut, I also fancy myself a (white hat) hacker, and know most of the arguments for and against music|software piracy. What does that have to do with gun control? Lets examine DRM, or "music piracy control". DRM is a system whereby a company can have "absolute" control over their intellectual property, in this case lets say music. If I went to any hacker, and said that Congress passed a law requiring DRM on every digital music download, to prevent piracy, do you think they'd be put out at all? No, they'd laugh, and explain how in 3 minutes or less they'd be able to bypass the DRM (I'll refrain to linking to those news stories... I value my freedom). I know, I know, this is completely unrelated! Or is it?

In both cases we have an arbitrary control system, X, designed to stop the user from doing Y. In the case of gun control, X is "legal ramifications" and Y is "buying guns", and in the case of DRM, X is "DRM", and Y is "copying the music". In both cases it is the honest people that suffer here from a lack of freedom and security. In the case of guns its physical security and the freedom to defend yourself, and in the case of DRM its the lack of freedom to use what you've bought and the security that if your computer dies you can have a backup. So why is it that one of these is a perfectly smart move, and the other will never work?

As a security professional I know that there's no such thing as a secure system, I don't believe that for a computer with limited physical access and a decent firewall. So why would I believe that any country, or even any city, could pull off a complete gun ban, eliminating the ability for criminals to get their hands on them? Now, in the case of my computer, I plan for Bad Things to happen. I keep backups, I make sure there's spare hardware around just in case, and I look at my security logs to make sure. But how do we plan for Bad Things to happen when the gun ban falls through? Should we sit around, and pray the cops come quicker than the 5 minute average? I've had my car trashed before, had two friends of the criminal take their time, and walk away right past the cops who took 10 minutes to get to my call. Do I have faith that they'll be that much quicker when I call and say someone's held me up at gun point? Or that Someone's broken in and has a gun? Of course not! I'm not saying citizens should take the law into their own hands, just be given a chance to defend themselves until the cops can show up.

Deal with the Problem
For the sake of the argument, I'll say we have a completely 100% secure gun ban in effect in America. This won't stop violence, as Britain has shown us, there must be another cause. In the end, crime is a human (not social, humans created society, therefore its a human problem at its root) problem, and will be around as long as humanity is. What we, as a society and a race, need to do is recognize those human problems, and combat them, not the weapons used. When guns are banned, knives will be used. When knives are banned, shanks will be made (look at prison), when all sharp objects are eliminated from our society, ropes will be used to strangle (again, look at prison). There's no end to violence, the best we can hope to do is recognize what causes humans to become killers, and fix it.

The most obvious period, is during childhood. There's a recurring pattern of these school shootings where the kids doing the shooting were "outcasts" in their school, or were ridiculed, or bullied. Those are by no means reasons for murder, not even for retaliation! But, those killers should stand out to school counselors as people who need extra concern (not pills, actual human care), and stand out to the students as people who need their compassion. We're a society who wants to do away with moral and personal responsibility, when what we should be doing is recognizing that a successful society will care for each other.

Conclusion
In conclusion, I feel that the true control needed in our society, is that of controlling ourselves. Guns are regulated enough, we need to turn ourselves now to the people next to us in society, that man on the bus who's always looking sad, that driver who just cut you off, the quiet kid in your class that you all think is just a bit odd. Take it upon yourself to say hi, or not flick off the driver, or ask him to sit with you at lunch. Not because this may prevent a shooting, or a suicide, or an incident of road rage, just because they're humans too, and we all know the dark places a human mind can go to when depressed. I guarantee you, if we spent as much time and focus on helping those next to us in society (I don't mean hand outs, socialized health care, or any of that, I mean honest to goodness one citizen helping another kindness) then violence will go down in a way we'll never know through straight gun control.

This past week saw the release of Geert Wilders' "Fitna". I'd like to quickly say this post is not endorsing that film, the author of it, or any specific religion. I hope, instead, to point out what the film has actually accomplished, and look at the issues surrounding it. I'd also like to point out that I fully support all basic human rights, including those of Freedom of Speech and Religion. I won't be giving a link to the video as I don't support it. In addition, those viewing it might be disturbed by a few scenes (beheadings, hangings, close range gun shots) and I don't want my site affiliated with any of that. Read below the cut to see my analysis.

Read More »

I've neglected this blog lately not due to lack of programming, but because I'm only coding on projects that I've already discussed on here. I had planned to do a mundane post about new features on the DungeonRunner character viewer, but then I stumbled across some stories that work well together.

Remember the 'equipment malfunction' during the Super Bowl a few years back? How it was a severe understatement, as well as a stupid excuse for a dumb plan? The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) has just made a digital version. They traditionally blame college students for all manner of atrocities, everything from wanting to watch legal DVDs on their Linux machine to downloading movies. A wee bit ago (2005) they announced shocking statistics that proved college students were responsible for 40% of all illegal movies downloaded. This led to a campaign of terror at many big-name schools, as well as lobbying to force Congress to add in stipulations for cracking down on file sharing in new higher education funding. It turns out, they were wrong. Taken from their statement:

While in the process of recently updating that study with current data, we discovered there
had been an isolated error in the LEK process two years ago that resulted in an inflated
number for piracy by college students. The 2005 study had incorrectly concluded that 44
percent of the motion picture industry’s domestic losses were attributable to piracy by
college students. The 2007 study will report that number to be approximately 15 percent...

That's right, they had a little math error, and inflated the number by 3 times its value. That's a nice sized oops. Of course they're very apologetic, but that doesn't really change the fact that after the 2005 study MPAA increased its lobbying in Congress to punish college students. This increase resulted in two bills now going before Congress, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, which will require schools to crack down on filesharing or lose all federal financial aid, and the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property, which will increase fines and create a new federal agency devoted to tracking down 'large-scale' infringers. Thankfully both of these bills haven't been passed yet, there's still time to call your representatives and tell them to vote it down! Do you want your kid's college losing financial aid because they haven't devoted enough resources to tracking down music downloaders instead of teaching your kid? Do we really need a new Agency (your tax dollars at work!) to protect the money of MPAA or RIAA?

There is an upside to all this, believe it or not. Amazon is releasing its MP3 service now. It sells MP3's (no issues with having to change format for iTunes, Windows Media Player, or any other player) that are DRM free! Plus it has songs from the four big labels, the first DRM free site to do so. And, though it may vary by song, the songs are cheaper than Apple's DRM'd music (I saw hot new singles at 89 cents each). This is a huge win win situation. Not only are the songs relevant (3.3 million and counting), and cheap, but DRM free and supported by a major company! I'll be supporting this site for sure, if more people use Amazon as opposed to your other favorite (lets say iTunes, remembering that all Amazon songs can be put into your iTunes library as well) hopefully the industry will get the idea that DRM is bad.

Here's a great example of our nation's colleges selling out their students and bending over to RIAA's demands. I just had an email passed on to me that originated from Indiana University's Associate Vice President for Information & Infrastructure Assurance dealing with file sharing that is just plain sad. It shows a complete lack of caring for their students, as well as a lack of understanding about the laws involved. Oh, as well as the worst tag-lines for anti-file sharing I've ever heard!
Read More »

Every now and then I'll be taking a shower and some song will come to me. Typically its whatever was playing before I went to bed, or some commercial jingle. Sometimes its actually creative. Had the idea for a Bob Dylan remake the other week, and just now got around to writing the whole thing. Without further ado, 'Tapping on my Keyboard':

Nothing's left for me to do
They say that I'm to be abhorred.
Unless they realize its untrue
I'm stuck here tappin on my keyboard.

Tap-tap-tappin' on my keyboard
Writing down my last request
Tap-tap-tappin' on my keyboard
Til they come for my arrest

Nothing's left for me to say
When people want me in the ward.
Now all my rights have gone away
I'm stuck here tappin on my keyboard.

Tap-tap-tappin' on my keyboard
Writing down my last request
Tap-tap-tappin' on my keyboard
Til they come for my arrest

Meaning
The original song (lyrics found here) was from the movie "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid", and used in the death scene of Slim Pickins. My version is written from the standpoint of a hacker who faces criminal charges thanks to a wonderful society where hackers are assumed evil and never have good motives (not unlike the plight of Christopher Soghoian last fall, in fact his case is what I was thinking of while writing this).

A friend just pointed me to a really interesting development in the fight against RIAA. Apparently William and Mary stood up to their John Doe subpoenas and the judge actually threw the case out. A quick snippet follows, the full article can be found here, as I'm about to go to sleep.

"Plaintiffs' motion and accompanying brief neglect to mention that Congress provided a framework for subpoenas to identify internet infringers in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 'DMCA'), specifically 17 U.S.C. § 512(h)," wrote the judge. "Section 512 of the DMCA establishes safe harbor provisions for four categories of internet service providers ('ISP') based on the function which the ISP performs with respect to the infringing material—'transmitting it per § 512(a), caching it per § 512(b), hosting it per § 512(c), or locating it per § 512(d).'"

And in English....

In order for a subpoena to be issued under the DMCA, according to Judge Kelley, the record labels must first issue a DMCA takedown notice to the ISP: in this case, William and Mary. However, since the college did not host, cache, or transmit the music in question, there's no place for a takedown notice... and no room for a subpoena to be issued.

What does this mean? It means William and Mary is safe for students. I'm not condoning piracy, but this means that if, for instance, your computer was trojaned, and used to download media which is entirely possible, the students wouldn't be out on their own!

Of course, any good dark net would try to recruit a student or two on that campus to be their go to person for new music, or just install proxies on some select computers, but that is neither here, nor there.

I saw a commercial on TV the other day that made me laugh. I'm sure normal people see this commercial as a sign of how advanced our technology is, and how convenient modern life is, but all I see is theft.

Here's the video

Watch that through, then think about this. Elephants can't obtain credit cards, so that must have been the trainer's card. Not one clerk ever thought to get a signature for their sales. The elephant spent $40 without ever having an ID checked or even needing to know a PIN.

To quote Mastercard's offer: "Signature is not required for purchases under $25 at participating locations. PIN may be required for debit transactions," so this would be fairly limited in the US, aside from doing a bunch of small purchases stealing groceries or small items.

But this card is valid in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Turkey, Lebanon, Malaysia, Australia, Taiwan, the Philippines, and South Africa. Some of those places are hardly known for being safe to not have your credit cards stolen, and I'm sure shop keepers would be fairly lax regarding getting signatures for large purchases.

Anyways, I just found it really funny that Mastercard touts this great new service, when in reality its showing how easy it is to use their service to steal!

Friday night I went over to a friend's apartment for a nice dinner, as his parents were coming through town on their way home. It was a nice evening, though I didn't really jump into the conversation until it turned to more technologically oriented ideas. One topic we got onto was music downloading, or "piracy", as my friend ran afoul of RIAA at one point in time. By that, of course, I don't mean he DID download anything, merely that they claimed he did, and his school was too scared to offer any form of defense. I ended up butting heads with my friend's dad on this topic, as I think RIAA has stepped way over the boundary of protecting their property and now is just using scare tactics trying to keep online music purchases from taking off any more. Now, at the time I really couldn't think up a good argument articulating why I felt so strongly against RIAA (besides just their tactics in general, I mean why I dislike their underlying ideals), and how to get across to someone in their early 50's who may have never bothered to download music, legally or otherwise, what the real issues are. Luckily I always replay conversations in my mind for days afterwards to rethink my positions and prepare myself should that topic ever come up again.

Just before America started the Revolutionary War, many colonists took up the slogan "No Taxation without Representation" because the American colonies were being taxed by Britain, yet given no say in the British Parliament. The British claimed a 'virtual [funny they should use that word] representation' by British representatives across the ocean. James Otis is recorded as having said "Taxation without representation is tyranny." What he meant by that is if some power can take a group's money, and yet give them no way to express themselves, they are no better than slaves under a dictator. Most Americans, would agree what was happening was unjust, and our fighting against those policies was justified.

Now imagine that RIAA is Britain back in 1765, and the colonists are music lovers. Don't quite see the comparison? Try this. The 'Taxation' that we're speaking of is the price of buying music, or movies in any format, hard or soft copy. Obviously it is necessary to pay for these, otherwise there'd be no music out there. However, the 'Representation' is the customer's rights. In our current society they don't exist. Hence we have a case where the consumer is being taxed ($12 for a CD), but then getting no representation (No rights to copy that CD for themselves, and if things go as RIAA plans something like a one CD per one player could happen). Wow, all of a sudden our outlook changes. Now its not tyranny, but necessary for our country. Congress even took time our of their busy schedule to write 15 major American universities to pressure them to expel more students for downloading.

I know exactly what will be said at this point. "Aha! You said downloading, it is illegal and therefore your whole argument is invalid!" That's interesting, as a major event in our (American) history would be the Boston Tea Party, where 90,000 lbs of tea (worth 10,000 pounds) were dumped into the harbor. 8,000 soon-to-be Americans cheered when they saw this. It is important to note this took place on the night of the biggest protest they had held against the British, it wasn't just 5 guys in Indian costumes acting on their own. Yet we are proud of that moment, many see it as one of the sparks for the American Revolution!

Lets jump back to today. We have millions of music lovers oppressed by crappy DRM schemes, the DMCA, and RIAA's lawyers who go so far as to set up fake music sites to catch and sue people. Yet we now accept that as the norm, and absolutely warranted to protect the sacred intellectual property. I put forth that something must be done to end this tyranny, as something was done over 200 years ago. With a big enough outcry the RIAA will be forced to recognize that what they're doing won't fly. With enough calls to your representatives they will understand that to keep signing things such as the DMCA, and writing letters asking for good students to be expelled for downloading one song will mean the end of their time in public service. The government is in place to serve the people, not the lawyers or the greedy, and it is time for RIAA's tyranny to end. I am not advocating any illegal action, obviously the choice to download music is your own to make, but it did take illegal actions for our country to be free, so I won't limit my call by criminalizing downloading either.

So tell me, how do you feel? If you were back 200 years ago, would you have cheered when they dumped that tea overboard? Or would you have said that property is sacred, and the rights of those being oppressed should take a back seat to the law?

EDIT: Ideas for how to get this 'revolution' to work. Boycott major labels that institute the worst DRM. Call your congress representatives. Refuse to buy music online unless it comes DRM free (While Apple supports this now, I'm boycotting their service as they make you pay a higher premium to get your rights). Encourage friends of yours that are in a band to look up the Creative Commons license for their work. Petition your favorite band to write their label and express discomfort at the scare tactics RIAA is using now. IF you download illegally, do it in such a way that you can't be caught, the more RIAA catches people the stronger they become (Yes, it is entirely possible to acquire DRM free music undetectably. No, I won't tell you how).