Categories
Links Writing

Senate Delivers a Devastating Blow to the Integrity of the Scientific Process at the National Science Foundation — WASHINGTON, March 20, 2013

jakke:

jhermann:

rhizombie:

The amendment places unprecedented restriction on the national research agenda by declaring the political science study of democracy and public policy out of bounds. The amendment allows only political science research that promotes “national security or the economic interests of the United States.”

holy shit, that’s disgusting

Practically speaking this will have almost no effect on political science research. The National Science Foundation (the US government agency that manages research funding) is advancing a slippery-slope argument to talk about why their independence has been threatened. But the NSF still ultimately decides where the grants go.

It’s very easy to argue that basically all research of “democracy and public policy” is useful for national security, economic interests, or both. Maybe funding applications will need to include a paragraph explaining why their research is useful for policy applications. But that’s hardly a bad thing, right? Even fundamental-level social science research generally presents a relatively straight line to policy application. And so the NSF can keep on approving whatever ivory-tower projects they like.

So yeah I mean obviously this change is massively suboptimal and deserves to be loudly frowned upon. But in terms of actual research projects losing funding? I’d be surprised if there were any at all.

I think that it’s going to matter how the Senate’s decision is actually implemented. Of course, you’ll see social scientists trying to figure out how their work ‘fits’ the new funding objectives. However, if NSF really gets on board and refuses to fund grants that only have ‘token’ statements for how research meets the new funding objectives then the Senate’s decision could hurt some political scientists.

The decision also establishes a kind of worry amongst some academics that the government could continue to aggressively direct academic study: sure, you can study whatever you want, so long as your work doesn’t depend on federal funds. Some of the Senate’s decision was the result of particular Senators being displeased with the academic work that had been funded; their modification to NSF granting effectively acts as a clear warning to other projects up for NSF funding: if ‘bad’ work that the political paymasters won’t approve of is funded then the paymasters will get very directly involved in matters.

Categories
Aside Links Quotations

2013.3.21

An oil spill recovery vessel ran aground en route to a federal announcement on oil tanker safety in Vancouver on Monday, officials have confirmed.

The vessel was making a 12-hour trip from its base in Esquimalt to Vancouver for a tanker safety announcement by Federal Transport Minister Denis Lebel and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver when it struck an uncharted sandbar near Sandheads at the mouth of the Fraser River near Steveston.

Wow okay I feel safer already and would gladly welcome more large oil tankers in an inlet or strait near me. (via jakke)

Just…wow. I can only picture delivering the news to the Minister, and watching his face twitch upon learning about this particular PR fubar.

Categories
Links

Police spy on web, phone usage with no warrants

Just so it remains clear just how much surveillance can happen in Commonwealth countries when authorities enjoy broad lawful access to communications data without needing warrants:

Law enforcement and government departments are accessing vast quantities of phone and internet usage data without warrants, prompting warnings from the Greens of a growing “surveillance state” and calls by privacy groups for tighter controls.

Figures released by the federal Attorney-General’s Department show that federal and state government agencies accessed telecommunications data and internet logs more than 250,000 times during criminal and revenue investigations in 2010-11.

(…)

Access is authorised by senior police officers or officials rather than by judicial warrant.

Federal agencies making use of telecommunications data include the Australian Federal Police, Australian Crime Commission and Australian Taxation Office, departments including Defence, Immigration and Citizenship, and Health and Ageing, and Medicare and Australia Post.

Data is also accessed by state police and anti-corruption bodies, government departments and revenue offices, and many other official bodies.

Needless to say, that’s an awful lot of parties accessing an awful lot of information about Australian citizens. Not included: statistics on telecommunications data access by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

Categories
Aside Humour

Gold!

8bitfuture:

This is actually a hack of this original Cyanide and Happiness strip, but it’s still funny…

Gold!

Categories
Links

FBI: Smart Meter Hacks Likely to Spread

Though a little over a year old, this post concerning the security of smartmeters is particularly valuable considering the rapid adoption of the technologies throughout Canada. Particularly pertinent:

Citing confidential sources, the FBI said it believes former employees of the meter manufacturer and employees of the utility were altering the meters in exchange for cash and training others to do so. “These individuals are charging $300 to $1,000 to reprogram residential meters, and about $3,000 to reprogram commercial meters,” the alert states.

The FBI believes that miscreants hacked into the smart meters using an optical converter device — such as an infrared light — connected to a laptop that allows the smart meter to communicate with the computer. After making that connection, the thieves changed the settings for recording power consumption using software that can be downloaded from the Internet.

“The optical converter used in this scheme can be obtained on the Internet for about $400,” the alert reads. “The optical port on each meter is intended to allow technicians to diagnose problems in the field. This method does not require removal, alteration, or disassembly of the meter, and leaves the meter physically intact.”

The bureau also said another method of attacking the meters involves placing a strong magnet on the devices, which causes it to stop measuring usage, while still providing electricity to the customer.

So, this suggests that insider threats and poor shielding enable significant fraud. Can’t say it’s surprising given how often these meters have been compromised when deployed in other jurisdictions.

Categories
Aside Links

Um no? Was he not facing 13 felony charges and up to 35 years in prison? That is what I have read and what just came up when I searched it. Perhaps I am wrong.

No. Orin Kerr did a good analysis of this (see: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/) which would have had significantly reduced time in jail, if any. Also, prospective millions in harm was similarly overwrought. This is normal for prosecutors to announce, and the media usually fails to dig into the press release to tease reality from PR.

Categories
Aside

Swartz vs Rapists

Now, the charges against Aaron were reported …poorly…insofar as individuals don’t tend to get all the charges piled onto one another when it comes time to sentencing. But still, he was looking at upwards to ½ the time the rapists are facing.

He was facing up to 35-years in prison. What are you talking about?

Orin Kerr walks through (see: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/) how the charges likely would have unfolding had Aaron’s defense…and appeals…failed. My comment on sentence was a reference to the plea that was on the table (3 months, then 6 months).

(As a note: my comment isn’t meant as either supporting the prosecution of Aaron or the sentencing of the rapists.)

Categories
Links

This is not surveillance as we know it: the anatomy of Facebook messages

There are a lot of issues related to ‘wiretapping the Internet.’ A post from Privacy International, from 2012, nicely details the amount of metadata and data fields linked with just a Facebook message and the challenges in ‘just’ picking out certain fields from large lists.

As the organization notes:

Fundamentally, the whole of the request to the Facebook page must be read, at which point the type of message is known, and only then can the technology pretend it didn’t see the earlier parts. Whether this information is kept is often dismissed as “technical detail”, but in fact it is the fundamental point.

We should be vary of government harvesting large amounts of data and then promising to dispose of it; while such actions could be performed, initially, once the data is potentially accessible the laws to legitimize its capture, retention, storage, and processing will almost certainly follow.

Categories
Links Writing

Big data: the greater good or invasion of privacy?

Chatterjee has a good, quick, article on the significance of ‘big data.’. Note experts warning that, as a result of massive data aggregation, almost all individuals will have secret or sensitive information about themselves stored, traded, or used in the course of companies’ daily activities. This information isn’t necessarily about anything illegal, but legality is not the sole benchmark for whether humans want others to know things about them: embarrassing, shameful, or similar information that may not break the law could be financially, personally, or emotionally damaging should it be provided to third-parties.

Also, take note of Ohm’s warning that we should slow down and think about what is happening with regard to massive data aggregation and mining; we shouldn’t just commit ourselves to pushing the ‘privacy envelope.’ Headlong rushes and acceptance of novel technical structures that invisibly affect billions, with little clear accountability for corporate data mining practices, is a recipe for constructing futural harms.

Categories
Quotations

2013.3.19

So even in the worst cases, free products don’t usually end too badly. Well, unless you’re a user, or one of the alternatives that gets crushed along the way. But everyone who funds and builds a free product usually comes out of it pretty well, especially if they don’t care what happens to their users.

Free is so prevalent in our industry not because everyone’s irresponsible, but because it works.

In other industries, this is called predatory pricing, and many forms of it are illegal because they’re so destructive to healthy businesses and the welfare of an economy. But the tech industry is far less regulated, younger, and faster-moving than most industries. We celebrate our ability to do things that are illegal or economically infeasible in other markets with productive-sounding words like “disruption”.

Marco Arment, “Free Works