Then Don't Say Anything

It was announced yesterday that Joe Paterno has just recently been diagnosed with a treatable form of lung cancer. Now, I'm not going to get all conspiracy theory-ish here and wonder if someone is trying to do a little damage control by making folks feel sorry for Mr. Paterno instead of currently think of him as some sort of vile individual who shields child rapists from detection. And while I'm far from the conspiracy theory type of person,I could see something like that occurring in this particular situation. I wouldn't put anything past Penn State at this point.


But here's my favorite part about this and all stories like this. Joe Paterno's son issued this statement: "Last weekend, my father was diagnosed with a treatable form of lung cancer during a follow-up visit for a bronchial illness...As everyone can appreciate, this is a deeply personal matter for my parents,and we simply ask that his privacy be respected as he proceed with treatment." Wait. What now?


Yes, I would tend to agree that being diagnosed with any form of cancer would be a personal matter for those personally involved. So I asked you...Scott, was it? I ask you , Scott, if this is so flipping personal, why in the hell did you tell the entire world about your dad's condition? Does the world need to know? I'm not so sure that they do if it's as personal as you'd like us all to believe that you think that it is. If you wanted privacy, I'm pretty sure that not telling the entire world you business is a much better way to go about getting said privacy.


I guess I just don't get how those people over there do anything. They hear about child rape and they keep that a secret. They get diagnosed with cancer and they tell the entire world. shouldn't it have been the other way around?

Sphere: Related Content

Facebook Wins

Terms like "a lot" are only accurate when used in the correct context, unless you're a very small child, in which case, your perception and context is a bit skewed, not to mention a bit limited. Thus, if you're not a small child and have more than four or five years experience on this planet, you're going to have to use terms like "a lot" correctly so that it doesn't make you look and/or sound like a complete moron. Though in this case, I don't think that's all one will have to do in order to avoid the moron moniker.

There is apparently a movement underfoot (or under CPU) for folks to delete their Facebook account. According to the huffy folks over at The Huffington Post, "A group of dissatisfied Facebook users have teamed up in an effort to organize a mass, coordinated exodus from Facebook". Whaaa...?? A mass coordinated exodus from Facebook? That sounds serious! And while the propelling rationale behind such a movement is serious, I'd hardly call what they have going on a "mass coordinated exodus".

The issue has become the privacy settings on Facebook. Now, I am one person who is fully behind the school of thought that if you don't want the world to see something, for God's sake, don't post it on the Internets (yes, all of them!). But I'm also someone who thinks that I should have control over my own stuff. I'm not a big fan of someone else telling me what is private and what is public. How about if I decide that? Uh, well, if you're asking Facebook, they're not going to let you.

Now, there's nothing making you use Facebook in the first place. I find it ridiculous, yet at the same time, rather entertaining. I am not a big fan of having anything about myself plastered all over anywhere. (It almost makes me cringe every time I see my own picture on this blog. I'm not comfortable with it.) That being said, I never really cared because I could always clamp down my privacy setting so that I could keep certain things (ie, everything) private except to those who were my "Friends". Granted, my life is so boring that there isn't anything on there that would cause scandal in my life, but I'm trying to make a point! Can we pretend that I have a social life just for the sake of a freakin' argument, for cryin' out loud?!

It's when Facebook decided that they would decide what its users had control over is when people started getting up in arms. According to Huffington Post again, Facebook's privacy police "...is now longer than the Constitution and offers some 50 settings and over 170 options." OK, do I care that it's longer than the Constitution? Not really. A lot of things are longer than the Constitution. Most owner's manuals are longer than the Constitution. That isn't reason alone for me to stop buying products. (Man, if you're going to come up with an inflammatory argument, try to make it better than "it's longer than the Constitution". That's pretty weak. The Constitution might not be very long, but I will say that with all of that swirly, old-timey writing, it is a bit difficult to read as it was written. At least the Facebook policy has a more eyeball friendly font.)

But if you're using the Constitution as a guide for what is an acceptable length for any sort of document and/or policy, and you are now considering deleting your Facebook account, then you're going to want to know about Quit Facebook Day. And it is just what it sounds like. The website cited is a proponent of that "mass exodus" I mentioned above. As of this writing, they have 1,745 folks who claim to be committed to deleting their Facebook account on May 31st. That's about twice as many as the 780 that had made the commitment when the Huffington Post article went up. If that sort of commitment continues, then it might turn into something that might be more interesting to watch than paint drying.

Facebook has over 400,000,000 user accounts. From what I can tell, only about a quarter of those are daily users. Don't get me wrong. That's a heckuva lot of people, that one hundred million. But it's a far cry from the user base that Facebook claims to have. And I'm sure that there's a point where it doesn't matter how many users there are for any practical arguments. But since I don't know where that point is, I'm still going with whatever it is that I've been spelling out up until this point.

Facebook is free because it is an information mining organization. It takes every single thing that you post on there and logs it in a very large book (I'm guessing here) and then sells that information to companies who can't figure out how to mine their own data (mainly because they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground). If you have even 100,000,000 active user's information to sell, having 1,725 people quit isn't going to even register a blip on the Facebook radar. They don't care. They're not going to care. Why would they? They're making a gazillion dollars off of the apparent fact that some folks cannot resist the temptation to post half-naked, drunken, frat party pictures of themselves every weekend.

Does it suck? I don't know. Maybe. I guess I wished that privacy controls weren't necessary. But in a world where online identity theft is rampant, they kind of are. Do I wish that I could post half-naked, drunken, frat party pictures of myself every weekend and not have to worry about ramifications? Sure, but only because I'd really like to be half-naked and drunk at a frat party (it's been a while). I think I wish more that people were smarter and more responsible than that, but I have better things to think about and wish for than the impossible, let alone, the improbable.

And while the only thing that is going to make Facebook reconsider whether or not it should be in charge of determining what is private and what is public is to have another option available, that's not going to fix things for a lot of people. The problem here is that the definition and probably more importantly the expectation of privacy is being changed. No one is going to use another option if they don't think that not having privacy is a problem. Granted, no one has to use any of these things at all. But if the definition and the expectations of privacy are changed to the point where real privacy no longer exists, then it becomes more than just about freaking Facebook. Then it becomes about all of the Internets (all of which I love dearly). And then it becomes one of those cases where it doesn't need to be about change right at the moment. It needs to be more about awareness.

Sphere: Related Content

No One Wants To See That

As I'm sure you've probably heard, some jackass following in the footsteps (as the Weird Beard followers do) of other al Qaida losers thought he was trying to blow up a plane on Christmas Day as it flew in for landing in Detroit. Now, I've been to Detroit, so I can understand the feeling of wanting to off yourself upon approach, but bringing a plane load of people along with you is really unnecessary. I mean, they might not be thrilled about the idea either, but it's their choice. It's really not up to an inept terrorist to make that decision.

Here's the thing. Despite this guy's complete moronic-ness (made that up), it could have been a total disaster. Planes blowing up are usually nothing short of total disaster. And it's really not clear to me why it didn't work. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that he had the bomb woven or strapped or sewn or something into his underwear. Behold!

Wow. I'm a little surprised that he chose the groinal region to conceal an explosive device. After all, men are so touchy/feely about their grundles (there's probably a pun in there somewhere), the thought of any harm coming to it usually causes them to recoil immediately and gasp in horror. But I'm guessing that he chose that region because it would likely go undetected with any sort of normal, non-invasive pat-down that is sometimes administered as an attempt to feign some sort of safety measure for those who are flying. That's probably a given. What isn't really so much a given is whether or not these inadequate measures provide enough security to folks that are traveling by way of the airs that they really feel secure, or if it's the way that I suspect and that it doesn't do much of anything, but when you're the one flying and barely being patted down, you prefer not to think about the fact that it's useless and you could be seated next to a maniac with a bomb strapped to his grundle.

Anyway, the point of this is that even though this guy got on the plane in a different country (Amsterdam, I believe) that is reason for the US to heighten their security measures at airports. Now, I don't have a problem with that. Anything that we can do to help planes and the people on them become less 'splode-y, I'm all for it. And what's not to be for? Flying? Good. Flying safely? Good. Flying without getting blown to smithereens at 20,000 feet? Gooooood!! But have you heard what they're doing?

According to the folks over there at MSNBC.com "All travelers flying into the U.S. from 14 nations considered high risk will be patted down and have carry-on luggage searched under new security procedures starting Monday."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

I'm sorry...starting when? Monday? Monday. This Monday? Tomorrow, Monday? THAT Monday? Monday? Perhaps the TSA was not aware that this guy tried to blow up this plane on Christmas Day. Um, that was nine days ago. NINE days. And NOW, NINE days later, NOW they've decided that folks from the sand lands (Oh, come on! You know that's what they mean! They're not doing this with the French!) will be searched?! It took them nine days to come to that conclusion?! What's wrong with nine hours? Why did it take so long? Actually, why in the world weren't we already doing this? In case no one has noticed, we're kind of in the middle of a couple of wars with those sorts of countries. The Iraq. The Afghanistan. Both high risk. Both war zones. It would not seem unusual to have had these policies instituted...oh, say...right around...September 12, 2001? What is going on over there at the TSA? Nine days? Seriously?

In case you're wondering (or preparing for a stint on Jeopardy!) the 14 nations are referred to as being "Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen." The article at MSNBC says that those countries "...are on the list as countries of interest." Countries of interest? What the heck is a country of interest? Is that like how when some guy's wife disappears and it's totally obvious that he did it (a la Scott Peterson) but they just don't have enough to pin it on them just yet so they call them a "person of interest"? Is that what's going on here? Are we so soft that we have to call these God forsaken lands "countries of interest"? Huh. I can't imagine why we're not winning this thing sooner. Way to make the whole country sound like a pussy there, TSA. And if you were still able to count after reading that and realizing that there were only 10, the other four are "Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria" because "...they have long been identified as "state sponsors of terrorism" by the United States.

CUBA?! Cuba. We're calling Cuba a "state sponsor of terrorism" but we're calling freaking Pakistan a "country of interest"? Oh, we are so doomed. (I need more alligators for my moat.) Are they kidding? Well, hopefully they're coming up with something other than just catchy titles for places to keep us safe. Hopefully they've got a little bit more than that. What about screening procedures? Anything new there?

Glad you asked. According to The Washington Post the number of full body imaging machines (think really big X-ray) at airports is increasing. The machines "...scan passengers' bodies and produce X-ray-like images that can reveal objects concealed beneath clothes." It's been that if the Undiebomber had gone through one that it would have most likely revealed his extra package he had concealed in his package area. And even though it's an X-ray, I don't think that there's a whole lot to worry about as far as feeling like you're going through some sort of virtual strip search. Do you feel violated when you have a regular X-ray or MRI? It's the same thing. And it would make stuff a whole lot safer and easier. Whew! I'm glad that's in the works. What now? People have a problem with this? Oh, good Lord, what's wrong now?

Well, if you're asking a one Kate Hanni, the founder of FlyersRights.org, she'll tell you that "The price of liberty is too high" and that "...the full-body scanners may not catch the criminals and will subject the rest of us to intrusive and virtual strip searches." Oh, for cryin' out loud, what is wrong with you, woman? Does this look too intrusive?! Does it?! Behold!

Of course it doesn't! What about this? Behold!

Oh, look! A gun! And you're telling me that the price of liberty is too high? I'm looking at my chart here (and that gun) and the price of liberty does not seem to be quite as high as the price of life. Life? Extremely valuable on my chart. Liberty? Definitely a close second. The founding fathers even had it in that order. Life, liberty, justice for all. Maybe you've heard of it. Anyway, I have no idea what she's talking about. Do you really care if someone sees an X-ray version of yourself? I can't imagine that you do, but if you do, please tell me why because I don't get it. It's not like you're getting Playboy centerfold images here. Please. And an invasion of privacy? Spare me. Have you flown lately? It's like a leper colony on most planes. Do you think that anyone really wants to invade any of those folks privacy to the point of having to see them sans clothing? I don't think that we do!

Really, I think that the only issue with the full body screening system is what we're going to pay the screeners. Because let's face it, they're going to be looking at some pretty gnarly folks going through those things. They're going to need a higher than average salary and an extra week of vacation time. Their insurance plan is going to have to include excellent vision coverage. (I worry that some might close their eyes so tightly after a few years of having to look at so many people that you really don't want to look at with clothes on, let alone scanned, that they could cause permanent damage to their ocular facilities. They're going to need Botox also. All of that eye closing could really induce facial wrinkles at a much faster than normal rate. Ooh! Hair plugs, too!)

And in the end, what are we really talking about here? Not getting blown up, that is correct. You want me to strip naked and do a cartwheel through that little metal detector gate thing? If that's going to assure me that I'm going to land at my destination in one piece and not being scattered across a tri-state area in bite sized bits, I'm all for it. Hold my shoes and stand back. I never was very good at cartwheels. (Helmets! Those screeners are going to need some helmets as well!)

Sphere: Related Content

Say Cheese and Lock Up!

Here's a new one. Tiburon, California. A small town with a population of around 9,000 located along the San Francisco Bay has decided that they're going to take an extra step in their efforts to prevent crime and to solve crimes after they've taken place. But don't you worry! It only involves taking a picture of the license plate of EVERY SINGLE CAR that drives into or out of Tiburon. That's all. Oh, and we're doomed.

Yes. From the Land of the Free, we have a town wanting to take pictures of everyone's car and license plate "just in case" there's a crime that needs solving. And in a poorly written article about this Orwellian implementation, the AP states that "In 2008, police report there were 99 thefts, 20 burglaries and two auto thefts." Compare that to the 2007 figures given in the Tiburon Talk newsletter which states that there were "...99 thefts from vehicles,15 residential burglaries and 10 auto thefts." So the number of thefts remains about the same. (I'm assuming that they're both for "thefts from vehicles" as they've covered burglaries and auto theft in separate categories and there aren't any other numbers for crimes involving thievery.) Burglaries are up, but auto thefts are WAY down. So from 2007-2008, their crime rate has actually decreased and all without the use of roadside cameras documenting every single vehicle that goes through town. Amazing. How DID they do it?

Apparently it doesn't matter that their crime rate has decreased, because they're pretty hell bent on this camera idea. In 2007, the estimated property loss from theft was $500,000 and half of that was the value of the cars. And without their extremely invasive camera system, the Tiburon authorities managed to recover about $190,000. That's 38%. But in 2008 things got WAY better, as the total loss from theft was only just over $200,000 according to the City of Tiburon's Proposed Security Camera Information Sheet. According to that same document, the system is expected to cost between $50,000 and $100,000, an estimate which seems to be clearly fabricated as if pulled directly from someone's arse. (Seriously. They're saying, "It's either going to be this number OR it's going to be twice as much." You don't think that they could narrow that down just a bit for people? I mean, saying that something is going to cost a certain amount is fine, but then saying that it MIGHT be twice that much? That doesn't sound like there's been a lot of shopping around for this dealio.)

According to that same document, the question "Is this a cost-effective use of public resources?" is at least ASKED. And the answer blows me away. "No one can say for certain whether the system will help the TPD capture criminals, but it is likely to provide a very valuable tool to develop leads for solving crime."

Wait. What? Oh, riiiiiight. That means "No, but we think it's pretty cool, so we're going to go ahead with this anyway."

According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, the average percentage of all stolen property that is recovered in this country is 33.4%. But while vehicles have the highest rate of recovery at 63%, the next highest rate of recovery is 12.9% and it goes downhill from there. But the point here is that Tiburon is doing just fine on their own, way better than the national average, without having Big Brother monitor every single vehicle moving through town. I can't imagine that their crime solving rate is going to improve SO much that it will pay for itself. But then again, the reason I can't imagine this is because no one is really explaining how this is going to work. Wait. What?

They explain how the SYSTEM of the photographing of vehicles would work, but they don't explain how that information is going to help them take a bite out of crime. They claim that, "Officers would search for plates of vehicles in town at the time of the crime that are connected to someone with a criminal history. Any hits would be used as leads." Um, used as leads HOW?

And what exactly would constitute a "criminal history"? Does the criminal history have to be related to the crime that the Tiburon police are investigating or can it just be any old thing? And how far back are they planning to go before deciding that an individuals "criminal history" isn't relevant in a particular instance? Yeah, NONE of this is addressed. (Again, NICE job, AP! Way to go!)

So let's say that 10 years ago "someone" was drunk and disorderly (and boy, was I were they EVER!) and let's just say, hypothetically of course, that there was some sort of an incident in a park involving, oh, say...one too many wine coolers, a couple of pigeons, and almost NO frontal nudity. And all of which led to an arrest for public intoxication. Hypothetically. Is that a criminal history that would concern the Tiburon authorities is that person had been driving through Tiburon at the time when a crime was committed? (Assuming it's a crime NOT against pigeons.) Granted, in general, it's something that's cause for concern, but in this case, is it going to be considered one of their "leads"? And if so, then what? Start hanging out in parks with decoy pigeons trying to lure the almost totally rehabilitated former criminal out into the open? I don't get it.(Also, this whole idea also makes the grand assumption that the person driving the vehicle is the person who owns the vehicle and to whom the vehicle is registered to. I see loads of problems with that aspect of this as well.)

Obviously, this idea is highly disturbing as far as the right to privacy aspect of it goes. Aside from that, there's the cost of the program, how the program will work and be implemented and whether or not it will even be effective AT ALL. I cannot see one positive aspect of this idea other than the POSSIBILITY that it MIGHT help solve crimes. But what if there were a way that would likely only cost a small fraction of what this camera idea is going to cost that would make it so that the number of crimes dropped and dropped by a lot? Less crimes would lean toward less of a need for this sort of thing, wouldn't it? couldn't it? Sure! Of course it "could". But how could that happen? How could they get the number of crimes to go down without having to use ANY taxpayer money, without having to use ANY city funds, without having to use ANY police hours, without having to do ANYTHING really? Here's an idea: Lock your damn cars.

What now?

According to the Tiburon Talk, "Most of the crimes occurred between midnight and dawn and most were thefts from unlocked cars." MOST? MOST?! You want to implement a program to help solve crimes and MOST of those crimes were because people were too boneheaded to lock their cars?!? Are you kidding me??

How does the stupidity of vehicle owners justify the "need" to take a picture of the license plate of every single damn car going in and out of your town all the live long day? Let me just see if I've got this straight. You leave your car unlocked AND you're stupid enough to keep valuable items in there and then, to your COMPLETE surprise, your stuff gets ripped off and that indicates that CRIME is a problem. How is it not an indicator that stupidity is a problem?

MOST. Most of the thefts were from unlocked cars. That is amazing. Sure, don't do a public awareness campaign encouraging people to lock their vehicles or, at the very freaking least, don't keep stuff in there that you don't want to have stolen. Why is that not an alternative to the camera thing? Why hasn't that been brought up? MOST of the thefts are enabled by the person who was stolen from. That seems to be an important factor if you're trying to decide if ANY system to help "solve crimes (that could have been prevented)" is warranted in Tiburon. But of course, that isn't mentioned anywhere.

Note to self: Detour around Tiburon.
Next note to self: Lock your damn car.

Sphere: Related Content