ex cathedra

Via the tremendously brilliant Boing Boing, there is a op-ed piece by Richard Clarke (DE/EN), anti-terrorism czar to the Clinton and Bush II administrations, chairman of the 9/11 Commission and cyber-security authority, that once again demonstrates the boundless work-shopping potential of the hubris and reach of the US Department of Homeland Security.

His modest proposal urges the President to augment the role of the DHS and reality (through extended metaphor) by directing the agency to screen all electronic communications leaving the US—literally or figuratively as one would screen baggage or freight, not checking one's laptop at the boarding-gate for contraband but rather outbound information, bits and bytes. This sort of outbox surveillance would not only hinder piracy but also help stop corporate espionage, the editorial maintains. Apparently, American innovation has slipped not because of lack of investment in the sciences and education but rather due to thievery of good ideas by the usual suspects. As it that were not enough, DHS should also monitor the æther for any American data that may have been kidnapped and in circulation beyond its borders.  How this dragnet would work—compelling something incorporeal like data to submit to inspection, interrogation, surrendering fluids, removing its shoes and belt, being harassed by goons, irradiated, a whole process that’s quite off-putting to tourism and might make the data not want to travel back there—I can’t imagine. To try to realize the impossible, however, will surely cause a lot of damage all around since such insane measures usually don’t collapse on themselves without residual and collateral damage.

honorarium

A very clever young man from the Netherlands, named Jurre Herman, offered a very elegant solution to help staunch the currency-crisis in the euro zone, which I think deserves more than an honourable mention in the open contest economic contest calling for submissions from all sources. Herman suggests that the Greeks, and probably with wider applicability, revert to using the drachma for day-to-day, internal affairs, buying drachmas from the government at an equitable rate with their euros. The government then can use the euro to pay down the debt. The value of the drachma of course drops precipitously but that again can make industry and the labour force more competitive. For those hording euro or stowing it away overseas, there would be a punitive exchange rate applied. And for those doing business internationally, they would be able to sell their drachma back for euro, at a rate slightly favourable to the government. With some tweaking, I think such a plan might work and perhaps economists and analysts are not the one to dictate what is and is not feasible.

kopfgeld

The awkward tension between Switzerland and Germany over emerging taxation treaties, banking reforms and German bounty-hunter tactics has resulted in a legal volley between the two countries, including the arrest-warrants for the offending tax-inspectors, a travel-ban for employees at a major Swiss bank for Germany and harsh language that threatens to undermine any progress on transparency and cooperation struck recently (DE/EN). In February 2010, three German tax-inspectors entered into negotiations with an anonymous former bank executive, perhaps disgruntled, to acquire a data CD pilfered on the executive’s way out, which supposedly contained intelligence on international clients who may or may not have been banking in Switzerland for purposes of tax-evasion (the overwhelming countries and banking systems of choice for tax-dodgers are UK and American parking-spots, despite all the flailing and over-reaching of jurisdiction by Britain and the US) .

There was certainly a lot of second-hand absconding and economic sniping by proxy, but the transaction is ultimately criminal in nature. Neither country’s statutory privacy laws would sanction such an exchange, which was paid for with tax-payer funds by the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, and it will remain unclear who was baited or was the instigator since the only witness who might have known the executive’s identity committed suicide shortly after the sale. This may be a very chivalrous skirmish, but it is having negative effects on further negotiations for a repatriation programme of secreted money and trust between Europe and the Confederation that’s rooted in plunder. Regardless of philosophical questions and whether the greater good is a Kantian moral imperative, this act was still executed illegally (at best—and there are strong indicators that more intrigue is at work) with the German government knowingly buying stolen goods. What was done cannot be easily undone or forgiven and this blunder deserves discussion, regarding how else financial straits are eroding sovereignty and the rights of private citizens. Swiss laws and Swiss neutrality are constituted differently than German or European Union standards, and it is no accident of history that Switzerland, by direct vote, has refused overtures to join the EU and other institutions time after time. Such stanchness for democracy, instead of wholesale commitment of the public without the public’s assent, is a Swiss hallmark and ought to be respected before the escalating situation can ever be put right.

churben

Der Spiegel International reports (auf Englisch) that legislation is being entertained in the US Congress, under the close watch of all parties, that would form a legal framework for the survivors or their relatives who were forcibly deported to sue the national railway networks that transported them to concentration and prisoner-of-war camps in Nazi-controlled territory during World War II. The bill’s sponsor calls it the “Holocaust Rail Justice Act,” and while it names the French rail company for complicity specifically and not the Deutsche Bahn, whose responsibility was previously settled (not absolved) in toto with other German businesses, this precedence and allowance could expose many companies to new law suits. The resolution was introduced just over a year ago in mid-March 2011 and has yet to move forward, so I wonder if the refreshed currency of this news is a bit of damage-control or a PR offensive on the part of Deutsche Bahn.

I cannot say whether those who profit from war and human tragedy have made their reparations in full, but it also does not seem like the pursuit will enrich anyone, other than the lawyers.  Suits have been brought up in the past against the rail-lines with American courts as the venue, but all this grasping greed and boundless litigiousness of the new language, which respects neither history, what was ignored then but could never be unseen and what people suffered nor international borders (though no company should be able to cloak itself in national-identity or cast it off to escape its responsibility) honours no one and nothing.

airstrip one or britons never will be slaves

There was a strange, quiet collusion, like a cold-shudder that’s inspired of unseen connections and truly action-at-a-distance, of proposals that came out of the UK government regarding freedom of movement and association. Though the latter, at native initiative, is probably destined to be diluted and pulled apart by public outrage and walked down by checks and balances (a government scheme to grandiosely expand the powers to survey the on-line activities of each and every citizens), the former concerning transportation, is a kowtowing to America’s security apparatus, which might well escape any vestige of debate or scrutiny and land flatly on the traveling public. The assault against the freedom of association, requiring internet service providers to bundle spying hardware with their routers that will log a user’s ambling and contacts (though apparently not the content of emails) seems too ambitious and ill-advised to achieve, like making a map that’s at a one to one ratio.
Such plotting is not good and even if it were technically possible and didn’t put undue hardship on ISPs to denigrate their customers, I wouldn’t be for such an invasion of privacy and violation of trust—though I do believe that such lofty plans are not airworthy and probably ought to be taken in perspective: people volunteer private information all the time on social networks and submit to having their boredom, curiosities and interests tracked by companies and services that may not be less trustworthy than the government. The surrender of freedom of movement is a more worrisome and novel development: US secret no-fly lists have taken on a bit of manifest destiny. A UK citizen, planning to fly to Canada, Mexico or even the Caribbean British holdings (and with no connecting-flight in the States and without passing through American airspace, just near it) could be denied boarding, without warning, if the individual (or someone bearing a similar name) is on the list or if due to bad record-keeping or technical difficulties, the computer cannot prove that the individual is not named therein. This of course has no relation to reality either (to remove oneself for a moment and remember that the intent is to keep people safe), but it’s like an American citizen being told that he or she cannot fly from Los Angeles to Honolulu because the Public Service Intelligence Agency of Japan has unclear or incomplete files on the traveler—but the denied passenger would never know even this much. It is something to send a chill down one’s spine.