Category Archives: Security

Schroedinger’s Cat: Another Look at American Conspiracy Theory

I used the word terror because I am working from a simple and common definition:

calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious

The attack by Loughner therefore seems to me a form of terrorism. With that in mind…

Foreign Policy has an article called “A Very American Conspiracy Theory” that says Loughner was a student who succumbed to extremist rhetoric, which has a long history in America.

Arizona has, by some measures, become a ground zero for anti-government conspiracy theories. Loughner lived in a politically polarized state in which the federal government’s policies, from health care to immigration, were excoriated by mainstream politicians as evidence of a tyrannical plot against liberty. And these theories took root beyond Arizona’s borders. Throughout the United States, conspiracists rage against the alleged subversion of their country by “un-American” forces that reside in the U.S. government itself.

Conspiracy theories may seem to thrive on the margins of American politics: When historian Richard Hofstadter diagnosed a “paranoid style” in American politics in the 1960s, these views were easily characterized as fringe. But they become central when they gain powerful sponsors in the media and politics who inject their paranoid theories into the body politic. These conspiracy theories can be ridiculed in pop culture, but they will eventually lash out against reality — as they tragically did last Saturday.

A blog editorial in the Broward Palm Beach New Times goes even further and criticizes several people for a conspiracy theory linked to “un-Americans”:

The right wing has no monopoly on hyperbole, but it has very nearly cornered the market on the weaponizing of difference, on the insistence that a political opponent is not a citizen with ideological differences, but an enemy, immoral and un-American. Joyce Kaufman does this. Allen West does this. In Loughner’s back yard, Jan Brewer does this. These individuals do not merely craft the occasional martial metaphor; they are in the business of articulating a whole, martial political philosophy.

Another take on the same issue of semantics and persuasion is found on the Lawyers Guns Money Blog, which defines and explains “violent rhetoric”

The more pernicious rhetoric here is the conspiratorial variety being mainstreamed by the likes of Glenn Beck: rabid and ahistorical anti-federalism feeds into the beliefs of those who believe they’re being persecuted by vast faceless conspiracies.

The tragic attack in Tucson obviously is bringing forward a whole new look at conspiracy theorists in America. This, of course, will further alarm the conspiracy theorists. Like the dilemma of Schroedinger’s Cat, America has a need to assess a culture of violence without increasing the culture of violence by trying to assess it.

Take the reaction after California passed a law limiting the online sale of handgun ammunition (AB 962), for example. Conspiracy theorists worried that their supply of bullets was being limited, which only helped to push up demand and reduce supply, which increased conspiracy theorists fear of government control and demand for bullets increased, reducing availability12 billion rounds of ammunition were apparently sold in 2009, up from 7-10 billion in “a normal year”. And therein lies the paradox of the box with Schroedinger’s Cat — can Americans find a reliable way to renounce terror as an undesirable state, or will some remain so fearful of judgment that they will try to maintain superposition (duality and the unknown)?

The Governor of California’s signature on the handgun bullet limit law explains how he decided:

I am signing Assembly Bill 962. This measure would require vendors of handgun ammunition to keep a log of information on handgun ammunition sales, store ammunition in a safe and secure manner, and require the face-to-face transfer of ammunition sales.

Although I have previously vetoed legislation similar to this measure, local governments have demonstrated that requiring ammunition vendors to keep records on ammunition sales improves public safety. These records have allowed law enforcement to arrest and prosecute persons who have no business possessing firearms and ammunition: gang members, violent parolees, second and third strikers, and even people previously serving time in state prison for murder. Utilized properly, this type of information is invaluable for keeping communities safe and preventing dangerous felons from committing crimes with firearms.

Moreover, this type of record-keeping is no more intrusive for law abiding citizens than similar laws governing pawnshops or the sale of cold medicine. Unfortunately, even the most successful local program is flawed; without a statewide law, felons can easily skirt the record keeping requirements of one city by visiting another. Assembly Bill 962 will fix this problem by mandating that all ammunition vendors in the state keep records on ammunition sales. As Governor, I have sought the appropriate balance between public safety and the right to keep and bear arms. I have signed important public safety measures to regulate the sale and transfer of .50 caliber rifles, instituted the California Firearms License Check program, and promoted the use of micro-stamping technology in handguns. I have also vetoed many pieces of legislation that sought to place unreasonable restrictions and burdens on firearms dealers and ammunition vendors. Assembly Bill 962 reasonably regulates access to ammunition and improves public safety without placing undue burdens on consumers. For these reasons, I am pleased to sign this bill.

The law goes into effect Feb 1, 2011.

It was based upon limits that were studied in Los Angeles and Sacramento (LA, California, Code Chapter V, article 5 $ 55.11; Sacramento, California, Code $$ 5.66.010 – 5.66.090), as presented to the Sacramento City Council in 2008.

Harnessing the Danger of Lake Kivu

It sounds like a race against time, to capture the methane gas bubbling up from beneath the water in Rwanda.

In 1986, a similar phenomenon killed an estimated 1,700 people when gas erupted from Lake Nyos in Cameroon, suffocating almost everyone within 25 kilometers of the lake.

Scientists believe a similar process occurs at Lake Kivu roughly every 1000 years, devastating life in the area. If it were to occur today, some two million people living around the lake could be killed.

In order to prevent this, the Rwandan government is trying to pump the methane out of Lake Kivu, and put it to good use.

The infrastructure, however, is not ready to support the new source of available energy.

“The gas in the lake has the potential to produce a total of 700 megawatts of electricity,” [engineer Alex Kabuto] said, adding that it is much more than Rwanda needs. “It is our aim to generate enough energy to be able to export electricity.”

But that is currently far from reality.

As things stand only ten percent of homes are connected to the grid. About 11 megawatts are generated by hydroelectric power, but most of Rwanda’s energy comes from diesel generators.

I wonder if anyone is considering this as a good use case for methane-diesel options, like experimental Volvo engines.

Gizmodo calls iPhone ‘miserable’

Gizmodo, the Gadget Guide, tells us that a 2-year contract should be a reason enough not to buy the Verizon iPhone 4.

The day that Verizon gets the iPhone will be remembered as glorious by everybody who’s dropped 12 calls in a row, been taunted by meaningless signal bars and just plain had a miserable AT&T experience. But they shouldn’t buy one.

Availability seems to be a killer feature but then they tell us that a low or no-cost upgrade is more important. They probably value…new features. I think they could do a better job differentiating the positions, despite the irony. Their advice sounds like this: consumers who want stability should consider buying an iPhone now, whereas consumers who want to risk an awful experience with Apple should wait.

Time, coming from the opposite perspective, explains it like this:

Several providers are selling monthly 200-megabit data plans for $15, and T-Mobile’s cheapest plan is only $10 a month.

Combine that with a reasonable talk-messaging plan and you’ve got yourself a smartphone that’ll do just about anything you’d want—with the exception of impressing strangers because it won’t be the sleekest, newest model out there.

But if you’ve held out this long without a smartphone, you probably don’t care about impressing people, keeping up with the Joneses, or any of that guff. You probably care more about your own bottom line.

In other words, they don’t recommend an iPhone at all.

And then there’s the Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Verizon iPhone Announcement
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

Likert Scale for Risk Assessments

NGO Security has a good explanation of how to create more granularity and levels for risk assessments with a Likert Scale:

You don’t need to be a math or stats-guru to use a Likert Scale, it’s actually quite simple to implement and understand (an especially good feature when explaining the rationale for security decisions to management). For risk assessment, here’s how it works.

For probability, use the following ratings:

1 – Very improbable
2 – Improbable
3 – Somewhat improbable
4 – Neither probable or improbable
5 – Somewhat probable
6 – Probable
7 – Very probable

For impact, use these ratings:

1 – Very insignificant if it happens
2 – Insignificant if it happens
3 – Somewhat insignificant if it happens
4 – Neither significant or insignificant if it happens
5 – Somewhat significant if it happens
6 – Significant if it happens
7 – Very significant if it happens

Take the rating values for a possible incident and multiple them together. For example, let’s say the potential of someone stealing office supplies at a large NGO’s HQ is probable (6) but insignificant (2). That gives the incident a value of 12.

Compare that to the potential of a staff member being abducted in a certain conflict zone. Let’s say it’s somewhat probable (5) and very significant (7) if it happens. This incident tallies up as a 35.

The higher the number, the more time and effort you should devote toward preventative and contingency measures.

That is a lot easier to read, although less entertaining, than the Lickert post at Oregon State University.

A Lickert scale is a multi-item instrument composed of items asking opinions (attitudes) on an agreement-disagreement continuum. The several items have response levels arranged horizontally. The response levels are anchored with sequential integers as well as words that assumes equal intervals. These words–strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree or disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree–are symmetrical around a neutral middle point. Likert always measured attitude by agreement or disagreement. Today the methodology is applied to other domains.

[…]

Referring to ANY ordered category item as Likert-type is a misconception. Unless it has response levels arranged horizontally, anchored with consecutive integers, anchored with words that connote even spacing, and are bivalent, the item is only an ordered-category item or sometimes a visual analog scale or a semantic differential scale.

Likert
“I can only strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree or disagree, somewhat agree, or strongly agree with you.”