The Threat of Government Backdoor Access

Someone yesterday asked me what is so wrong about the government having backdoor access to our computers. As I see it, such unfettered access actually has several dangers that we should bare in mind as citizens.

First, backdoor access into our computers circumvent any firewall or antivirus protections. If a hacker learns how to access via the government's backdoor access (and you can be assured they will sooner or later), every computer so equipped will be unsecured. Your personal information on your computer would be an open book to the world, as would your bank accounts, the controls over our power grid and potentially every computerized military system.

Second, such access wouldn't allow them to just view your files, they could manipulate them as well. Why should the government wait for you to commit a crime if they want you in prison? With such access, they could load your computer with whatever materials they want, from child porn to "The Anarchist Cookbook", complete with "emails" sent by you to the heads of terrorist organizations around the world. Don't believe that? Try looking at the arrest warrant they used against the "terrorists" that were arrested in Aurora, Colorado a couple years ago. All the evidence was digital (computerized) records.

Third, the backdoor access could be used to install software that would render your computer useless, permanently or temporarily. A particularly interesting ability if they wanted to destroy the computers of anyone who criticizes the government. They could also do the same to computers controlling power grid infrastructure components without actually destroying the infrastructure, the perfect weapon for false flag operations. The gem of it is, they could then claim that terrorists, foreign agents or even "anonymous" hackers were responsible for destroying vital computer systems.

As a well-known computer security expert said a few years ago, it is poor civic hygiene to allow the installation of technologies that may one day be used by a police state against us. Allowing a government whose trustworthiness and credibility is decaying rapidly to have what seems like a minor ability could end up being the ultimate Achilles Heel that ends the last vestiges of Constitutional America.

Think about it, my friends.

Building a Supportive Environment

The story is told of a man who came home one day and informed his wife that he had just lost his job. The wife, instead of being upset, smiled and said that it was good, he would now have time to write the book he had talked about. The man was confused and asked how the bills would be paid if he took time off to write his book.

The wife smiled again and informed him that she believed in him. Over the past few years she had tucked away money from each week's pay and had enough to last them a year. Over that year, the book was written and began selling well, enough that the author was able to continue his new career.

"The Scarlet Letter" was the first novel of Nathaniel Hawthorne and is considered one of the all-time classic novels. It raised an unknown man to literary prominence, a recognition that last to this very day.

And it all started with the loving support of Hawthorne's wife.

This is not the only case of success in which such support can be cited as the influencing force. Over the years nearly every Olympic medalist has cited the support of their family and friends as the driving force in their success. I could continue with examples ad nauseum, but you get the picture.

This same rule of support applies to our social, environmental and political movements as well. Our leaders need a level of faithful support to achieve success in their endeavors, just as Hawthorne needed it from his wife.

It is frequently easier to criticize an idea or proposal than to support it, yet if we are going to make any headway in finding solutions to the problems we face today, we must overcome this pattern of criticism.

Case at point:

Governor Ritter of Colorado proposed massive changes for Colorado to position it as a leader in the fight against global warming and environmental destruction. Yet critics have openly condemned the proposals. They did not do so because the changes would have been bad for Colorado. They condemned them because Colorado alone executing the changes would have little impact on the problems.

I have just one thing to say about this:

DUH!

The whole idea was, and remains, for Colorado to become a leader in these issues. By setting the example, Colorado can inspire others to take up the changes, spreading the effects of those changes across the nation and, hopefully, around the world. It is not easy to be a leader. The one who would be leader must take bold stands and push for common sense changes to social policies. When such leadership is presented, we as citizens must show our support.

I am not talking about blind obedience to political figures, but faith that such ideas can work, that we as a community can make a difference. I am talking about faith in ourselves and about taking personal responsibility for solving the crisis that looms before us.

When Ritter took office, I initially had my doubts about him. I am proud to say that at least some of my concerns were washed away when he stepped up with his proposals. I see him today as a leader. As such, he is exactly what Colorado, and our nation, needs.

All he needs is a little support from his friends and family.

I know he has mine.

Loyalty, Honor and Integrity

In my research, I have come across many complaints about the lack of loyalty in employees. This lack of loyalty is cited as a factor in the increased costs to businesses of hiring and training new employees. Due to this, many employers are today requiring a Bachelors degree or higher and/or three to five years work experience in hopes of limiting the amount of training they must do with a new employee.

The net effects of such educational requirements effectively shuts out a majority of newly educated or non-degreed employees who might otherwise be fully qualified to do the job. It has long been acknowledged that many potential employees who have a degree may or may not be ready for the job, being book-smart but not world-smart. It is also acknowledged by many that the lack of a degree does not necessarily mean the potential employee doesn't already have the skills for the job. Add to this the fact that most employers expect these highly educated/skilled employees to begin at the lowest pay rates in the company and one quickly begins seeing employee loyalty being undermined. Why should the employee show loyalty to a company that is disrespecting their skills, education and experience by not paying them livable wages?

For example, a new employee earning $8 an hour would have to work 40 hours normal time, plus 40 hours overtime, just to earn $40,000 a year, slightly over the amount the Colorado State government cites as being necessary for an acceptable quality of life here. This is based on a 2000 hour work year assuming 50 work weeks at 40 hours per week with two weeks unpaid vacation. The majority American workers do not get that many hours and many never qualify for the vacation time. As is my custom, let us turn to the words of our ancestors.

A wealthy landowner cannot cultivate and improve his farm without spreading comfort and well-being around him. Rich and abundant crops, a numerous population and a prosperous countryside are the rewards for his efforts.
Antoine Lavoisier

Rule #1 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must be willing to pay a fair wage for them.

Another area of loyalty undermining is the practice of arbitrary and discriminatory promotion and firings. How many times have we heard of an employee getting promoted not based on skill or experience, but on currying favor by taking undue credit for themselves? Or a highly skilled employee getting passed over for promotion or even fired over getting sick and not being able to work for a short time? Or a seasoned, skilled woman getting overlooked for a management position because of her gender or age? Or a loyal white male employee who is highly qualified getting passed over because the company must show themselves diversified by promoting a less qualified woman or minority.

Throw in employers outsourcing good paying jobs to third world countries and laying off thousands of American workers and I think you get the point. Loyalty earns loyalty.

Sometimes, I feel discriminated against, but it does not make me angry. It merely astonishes me. How can any deny themselves the pleasure of my company? It's beyond me.
Zora Neale

Rule #2 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must treat them fairly and reward their hard work and loyalty.

I read an article recently about a Japanese technology development company. Employees were encouraged to take naps when they needed them and to take activity breaks throughout the day. They must have been doing something right because they had a third the amount of employee sick days as we have in America and about twice the productivity. I'll let you read into that what you will.

Here in America we balk at being required by law to give our employees a couple fifteen minute breaks and a half-hour for lunch each day. Forget about naps, we'll just fire them if they make mistakes due to fatigue. God forbid an employee plays solitaire on our computers, even if it is during their fifteen minute break.

The companies that are more flexible on such issues laud the increase in productivity and profitability, yet most companies still don't get it.

Pleasure in the job put perfection in the work.
Aristotle

Rule #3 - Employers who expect loyal and skilled workers must never patronize nor underestimate the abilities or willingness of their employees.

In summary, if American corporate society wants American workers to be more loyal, they must be more loyal and respectful to the employees. When we ignore the needs of our workers, disloyalty and betrayal are the least of our worries.

The Power of a Single Man

Sometimes one man with courage is a majority.
Andrew Jackson

Talking with people yesterday on the buses about House Wyldstar and the Social Policy Center blog, I was asked if I really think my efforts will make a difference.

In truth, I do not know. My late aunt once told me that the true purpose of a warrior is not victory or conquest, but to struggle against adversity so that the people might survive. It is the struggle that is important. If man never attempts to prove himself worthy and to preserve the rights, liberties and freedom for himself and others, he condemns himself and those around him to mediocrity and slavery.

Until recently, I have lived a life of mediocrity as a common wage slave, travelling through time without a cause, a career, or discernible direction. But no longer.

Over the years I have experienced many things; mental illness, disability, imprisonment, homelessness, poverty, discrimination - they have all become a part of me, an epiphany if you will ... and given me an unexpected direction to my life. I can no longer sit by the sidelines and watch as our society slowly crumbles. I can no longer turn a blind eye to those I once thought beneath my attentions. I can no longer remain silent as our nation forgets the price of true liberty.

Will I make a difference? Perhaps, if I can educate people about the issues and needs of our society, get them to see and talk about what can be done to address them, and (if I am lucky) to inspire them to action. Some say this makes me a politician. Personally, I hate that title because of the social ineptitude associated with it today. I would rather think that it makes me a teacher. Perhaps one of the most important kind of teachers; one that gets his students to honestly and intelligently think for themselves.

Please understand, I do not pretend to be an expert on anything. I am an ordinary citizen. But I try to open my mind to see how each issue is linked to the others and how these interrelated issues affect each other. You can blame my world history teacher in high school, Mrs. Rowland, for that. She taught me to never look at an event or situation as isolated, but to look around it at the environment and the previous events that led up to the event or situation. By doing so, one gains more insight into the event or situation and can more readily see or design a response to it.

Can a single man make a difference?

With courage and an open mind, eager to find solutions to our problems, I believe he can.

John Kerry - Silenced Student

This in from the University of Florida.

A student was tasered for allegedly getting out of hand during a question and answer session with candidate John Kerry. According to reports, the student supposedly used profanity during a series of questions that led the session moderators (read censors here) to cut off his mike and to have police remove the student.

This was, to put it lightly, poorly handled.

First, if the student was in the middle of a question when his time ran out, he should have been allowed to finish it and Mr Kerry given time to answer it before the student was asked to step aside. This would have been respectful of the student as both an adult and a human being.

Second, there are a lot better ways of handling a young man than tasering him. Those things have been known to trigger heart attacks and neurological damage and should be outlawed for everyone, including the police. Might need to list pepper spray in this too, one shot of that stuff would put me in the hospital with total asthmatic shutdown.

Third, seeing the obvious overkill in this situation, John Kerry, self-proclaimed defender of our civil liberties, should have been all over the police officers and officials about this incident and the sorry way it was handled. Guess I won't be voting for him after all.

Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.
Henry Steele