TIME has given an AP freelancer, Pete Muller, a prestigious best photographer award for his work documenting the creation of a new country in Africa: Southern Sudan

The U.S.-born photographer moved to Sudan in 2009 knowing that the country was at a critical point in its history. Sudan had been devastated by decades of brutal civil war between the Arab-Islamic north and largely Christian south and was on the cusp of formal division. This July, southern Sudan became the world’s 193rd country, and Muller knew that very few journalists were in the region covering the story. “I thought that spending a few years documenting southern Sudan’s transition to independence would be of value to the historical record and might shed light on an underreported but geopolitically significant story,” he says.

[…]

“I hope that, when appropriately paired with words, it contributes to the record of South Sudan at its long-awaited birth,” the photographer says of his work. “In an intellectual sense, I hope that it underscores the challenges of national identity and nation-states that exists in countless countries across the world and has, for centuries, been the source of immense bloodshed.”

TIME says his works stands out from all the other photographs on the wire as more intimate; he posts an insider’s view. As you can see below he spent enough time in the area building trust to capture the essence of his subjects — creates close, compassionate and individual portraits. Apparently this intimacy gave him the edge over other photographers and earned him a TIME award.

Photograph by Pete Muller

Although, given their explanation of what they like in photos, I have to say it is odd to see how completely different his portrait photographs are from what TIME seems to say are their best of the year. The images they selected for their showcase of their best portraits, none of which have a foreign or remote story, all seem cold and detached like from a lab. There is no environment, no prop like the gun and the drum you see above, as if the viewer needs no references. Here’s an example from their Best Portraits of 2011, a photo of Dick Cheney:

Photograph by Marco Grob

Where’s his gun?

I just read an excellent letter from the bus company to an irate actor after he publicly compared security measures on an airline to a “Greyhound bus experience”:

Dear Mr. Baldwin, as president and CEO of Greyhound, I was disheartened to hear about the comments you made regarding our company.

[…]

My guess is you’ve never traveled with us, I ask you to give us a try for a number of reasons and see for yourself that we’re really a great way to travel.

First of all, we have hundreds of new buses in our fleet where we’ve added more legroom, leather seats, power outlets and free Wi-Fi. I think you especially would find the latter two amenities exciting, because we don’t require our customers to turn off their electronic devices–ever.

Power, wi-fi and no shutdown period? Not bad. Buses in America are now approaching the features of those found in other countries ten years ago. We’re finally catching up some.

Now if only there were meeting/VIP rooms/lounges (e.g. segmentation for those who can’t handle being in public) and buses could travel over 200 mph…yes, this is a perfect opportunity for Baldwin to become the spokesman for high-speed train campaigns in America.

He should apologize to Greyhound. Moreover, he should tell all the bad actors (pun intended) to jump on board, turn on and tune out. That would A) reduce the number of drunken disorderly security incidents during travel that impact all passengers and B) re-invigorate train campaigns. America needs faster, better trains now more than ever. Win win.

This is Part I in a series of articles on hacking back or aggressive cyber defense. The questions I would like to explore, and ask for comments on are whether hacking back in self-defense is legal or illegal; ethical or unethical; should be pursued with clearly defined parameters or in a wild west manner, and more?

If you have read my article, “Hacking Back In Self-Defense: Is It Legal; Should It Be?,” you are aware that I believe hacking back in self-defense, in certain circumstances, is legal.

When I lecture on this topic though, I get at least one person in the crowd who is adamantly opposed and claims it is it illegal. Usually when their argument is analyzed it comes down to an ethical argument rather than a legal one.

So, in addition to the questions I have posed above, I ask one additional one: if your system has been compromised and is being used to attack my network or computers, do I have the right to hack back or aggressively defend my network against your attacking system, even if it means my defense may disrupt your computer or network?

Please provide comments below and I will continue in a few days.