This essay first appeared in Cliterati on August 17th; I have modified it slightly to fit the format of this blog.
I’ve written on many occasions about what I call universal criminality, the crowning achievement of the modern police state, under which there are so many vague, overbroad and counterintuitive laws that every single person is in violation of at least a few of them at all times. Nearly any encounter with the police can be turned into “assault on a police officer” or “resisting arrest”, almost any business can be twisted into “racketeering”, virtually any financial transaction can be redefined as “money laundering” and even normal friendships or business interactions can be tortured into “conspiracy”. But while charges like these can be used to harass, bankrupt and imprison the target, possibly for many years, they often lack the firepower necessary to totally destroy his life forever; after his release from prison he might still be able to find work, have a normal social life and rebuild his shattered fortunes into some semblance of a comfortable existence. Worst of all (from the prosecutorial viewpoint), the public might even side with the victim, turning him into a martyr both during and after his state-sanctioned torture and caging. But there is one weapon in the state’s arsenal which, used properly, will utterly destroy a person’s life. At the end of the process he will have no money, no friends and no home; he will be completely unemployable and condemned to everlasting surveillance, shunned by society and unable even to avail himself of even paid companionship without triggering still more awful consequences. If the prosecutor is really lucky, his victim may even be murdered by the police or other thugs or take his own life. And all it takes to detonate this thermonuclear weapon of modern law is the sending of a single email. Consider this recent case:
Two men have been convicted for “storing” extreme porn on their smartphones — despite the fact they were sent it by a third party, and in one case didn’t even watch it…Gary Ticehurst and Mark Kelly were both sent images and videos from another person via WhatsApp…Kelly… “deleted the videos…but I had no ideas they would save to my camera roll”…Ticehurst…said…he…“decided not to look at them” [but neglected to delete the files]…
The judge was “lenient” in that he “only” stole £500 from each and “only” put them on probation for two years rather than caging them. Because, as everyone including the judge admits, these taboo images were sent them unsolicited by a third party. That third party could be anyone, including the police themselves trying to manufacture a crime:
Simon [Walsh] was a successful professional and politician…who, amongst other things, prosecuted police officers accused of disciplinary offences…the police had to “interrogate” Simon’s personal email account…in order to discover a few images they deemed questionable” …the images were in an incoming email and may not have been opened. In other words, it’s highly likely that the police simply sent the images to him, then pretended to “find” the “evidence” as they do with planted drugs.
In fact, thanks to the fascist surveillance complex, the police might actually know about the “evil” collections of ones and zeroes (that’s what an electronic image actually is, after all) before the mark does:
…a Houston man, John Henry Skillern, was arrested by police for possession of child pornography [after]…Google…spotted three allegedly pornographic images of children in [his] email and…tipped off the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children…Google has never made a secret of the fact that it scans email content…an attempt by non-Gmail users to create a class action suit against Google for non-consent of its scanning failed…those who already have concerns about privacy will wonder what other circumstances might cause Google to inform authorities of one kind or another…
Don’t use Google? Don’t worry, the “authorities” can spy on you directly:
USB devices…have a fundamental flaw that [allows] a malicious hacker to take over your computer and infect any other USB device that is plugged into it…this is not limited to USB drives…Because the exploit lives in a USB device’s firmware, it can be passed around by any USB device, like a mouse, Bluetooth dongle, your printer…anything. The malware can also be spread from the computer to any USB device plugged into it…If someone plugs in an infected USB drive…every…USB device plugged into that computer afterward would become infected…This USB exploit sounds very similar to the NSA’s “Cottonmouth” device…it could…be using the exploit to increase its access to as many computers as possible…
In other words, millions of computers may already be affected, and could be controlled to download child porn from a government source without the owner even being aware of it until the cops show up at his door in the middle of the night, beat him, throw him in a cage and then proceed to “find” the pictures they put there in the first place. And even if the owner could somehow prove his ignorance, that’s not a defense:
…even if everyone involved was pretty sure you never even saw the pictures…prosecutors are so inhuman and irresponsible [that they]…charge people with crimes they know aren’t in the spirit of the law…The career incentives are that investigations must lead to charges, and charges must lead to convictions…once something is investigated prosecutors are motivated to make sure someone goes to jail…the law effectively treats every bit of crufty data, every teenage file system mistake or selfie indiscretion as if the possessor had abused the child themselves…
As long as our society clings to the primitive belief that an inanimate object can be intrinsically evil, there is absolutely no way to stop this. And literally everyone with an internet connection, or who ever uses any usb device which is not exclusive to his own computer, is vulnerable; any government operative can literally destroy his entire life simply by hitting “send” and then dispatching uniformed thugs to pick him up.
This is because we’ve long stopped being citizens of our nation, especially in the US and UK, and are now seen as “consumers”, as problems to be handled by authorities. we are no longer seen as intelligent, self determined adults who should be dealt with with reason and honor, and our bosses do not deal with us as such. When a people behave as sheep for a long enough time, don’t be surprised when we are treated as such.
That’s because most of us AREN’T intelligent, self-determined adults.
I mean, that’s just a fact. Here in the US … the attention span of a typical adult has a duration roughly equal to the length of Lil’ Wayne’s newest music video.
Look at who gets elected in this country. Idiots.
Painful as that realization is, I have to agree fully. Democracy fails as soon as those in power realize how easy it is to manipulate the masses into any perceivable kind of stupidity.
Makes one wonder, then, why complain? You all know (or claim to know) what is bound to happen. Doesn’t every day bring us that much closer to that moment when the system will crash and millions (or billions) of people will perish, thus leaving room for those who were smart enough to stockpile supplies and self-sustaining knowledge?
If all of man’s knowledge and technology has only brought us to this miserable point, I don’t see much reason for survivors to build anything bigger than a barn, much less try to rebuild anything that came before.
But I digress, since Krulac’s original point prompts me to share a theory. Probably a half-baked theory, but it is what it is.
Krulac, you say we elect ‘idiots’ because we have short attention spans and are thus easily swayed. People like Maggie, yourself, the folks at places like Reason, etc., know this and know how the tools of manipulation work. Well, what has kept or would keep some far-thinking Libertarian from seizing those tools in order to manipulate the country’s way to greater freedom?
For the sake of argument, let’s take someone like yourself, Krulac, for example. A Navy veteran who survived harrowing moments at sea thanks to your quick thinking and courage under fire. After your Navy service you’ve continued serving the US in your globe-trotting exploits to far off places. And when you’re not doing that, you’re a reliable blue-collar worker (is it correct to say a bouncer is blue-collar?) providing for your wife and child. I could think of few better stories to rouse a red-blooded American voter.
If someone like yourself ran for president, either as a Republican or a Democrat, said all the right things and got elected, what would stop you from using your position to say “you know what? No one person should have as much power as I have now” and then set about the business of delegating that power back down to Congress, the states, the people, what have you, through repeal of laws, nullification of executive orders, etc.
I’m not saying such a thing would be easy. It would take someone with an unwavering devotion to the goal and who has a very clear-eyed view of what they are going to do (and not do) and what they are willing to do (or not do) to get there.
I realize it would be a bait-and-switch, perhaps the greatest one in history, and perhaps that sort of manipulation (even if it resulted in a better outcome for everyone) is too anathema to libertarians for it to happen. But many have argued that our current President has been a bait-and-switch too, yet he’s still in office.
Krulac,
It wouldn’t matter if we had an informed citizenry, votes are rigged regardless.
Eh, I don’t really think its that’s new. They’ve really just changed the word from ‘peasents’ or ‘surfs’ to ‘citizens’. Controlling the peasantry has always been the goal of large governments.
A step in the right direction?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/2014/09/17/2612af58-3ed2-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html
And … another …
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/18/newest-androids-will-join-iphones-in-offering-default-encryption-blocking-police/
Very much so. If Apple did this right, anybody careful in selecting their pass-phrases can only be attacked by high-effort attacks, i.e. hacking their phone remotely via a real, unintended vulnerability. These are expensive and have a limited lifetime, and even more so if used often. That means the police can still get a small number of really dangerous people, but general access is out of the question. That is just as it should be.
I expect that Apple will have made a real effort to get this right, they do _not_ want to have to admit to other intentional backdoors in the future. I also expect that part of the reason behind this are enterprise users that do not want their business-secrets in the hands of any cop that feels like it.
I do however predict that there will be another push that you can be forced to open up your device for them for any small perceived or real infraction.
Isn’t the “pass phrase” your fingerprint? I don’t know – I have a 5S and it has no fingerprint capability.
I am not sure. I don’t have an iPhone and I do not want one. If it is the fingerprint, then users are screwed, also because that one is pretty hard to change. But I think there is some “passcode” you can at least have in addition. For any real security, you probably need at the very least 12 random characters and digits.
As an IT security expert, I can confirm that it is really that simple, as long as the law is this fundamentally evil and corrupt. There is also the variant where you get a parcel or letter containing illegal paper or pixels. Anonymous mailing of letters is available to everybody. As long as possession itself is a crime, regardless of whether you had any part in causing it to happen, or even any knowledge, this can be used against anybody. Criminalizing the possession of any kind of data is an exceedingly stupid and unethical idea, as it is extremely easy to abuse.
In engineering, we call such a mechanism “broken by design”, as it has a fundamental flaw that cannot be fixed by interpretation. Of course, this has also zero connection to morals or ethics, as there, intent and action matter very much, as does the actual damage caused by intent. In a police-state the goals are different: One goal is to never have to admit any mistakes, and a simple solution is to make sure everybody is criminal if one looks closely enough. Suddenly the police can do not wrong, as even arresting arbitrary people off the street will result in convictions. A second goal is to be able to “find” as many criminals as desired. And a third one is to be able to “take out” anybody critical of what is going on. Hence I strongly suspect this mechanism is not only broken by design, but intentionally so and with the most evil and despicable motivation possible in the context of “the law”.
Side note to the USB flaw: I have serious doubts that it is actually this easy. This seems to be more of a publicity stunt. Until somebody demonstrates this in a realistic setting, it should be taken with a grain of salt. It seems to spark the imagination of many people though and so was widely reported. It is not a relevant risk at this time, it is still far easier to just put normal malware on an USB-stick. And the reports that “any” USB device could be compromised are just hyperbole. For example, my keyboard has a whopping 256 bytes of storage and most of that is needed to hold the key-mapping. Nobody will be able to infect anything there.
I agree. There are already virus scans that “check” usbs whenever they are plugged in, and most OSs require at least some user input before installing a virus.
I’d just like to add that the solution here is really to disimpower the legal system, not to expect that you can remain safe by simply being “unplugged”.
We have permanently entered the digital age, and there is no going back. We need to take the fight to where is will matter the most- not our digital media, but the court systems.
Courts should be banned from using digital information to make a case unless that information is handed over with the explicit concent of the person it pertains to. Further, vice laws must be struck down, and police should be discouraged from making unnecessary arrests by punishing them (or at least, subjecting them to investigation and fines) if they are ‘forced’ to make too many arrests.
The power to accuse has become the power to destroy. Perhps I mean it has come back around to it – Salem witch trials, anyone?
You know, one of the outer islands of Rarotonga sounds better and better as a place to live. Sail into Raro once or twice a month to get supplies, and back to one’s island, to just get away from it all…..
Was it Heinlein who said that every new law simply created a new group of criminals?
I have long believed that the U.S. needs the office of Tribune, who can protect the average citizen from unfair laws and illegal police operations. I’m just not sure how to set it up so it doesn’t become the problem it was in Rome in the late Republic.