Odd what can stand out
I was reading through the NY Times liveblog of the protests in Egypt, and in the 9:19am update, there was a series of videos and pictures. One of those pictures was of one of the oft-mentioned US-made tear gas canisters.
What jumped out at me, more than the fact that it was made in the US, is that the canister expired 5 years ago. Just at the top of the shell, two lines of text are visible:
3. SHELF LIFE 5 YEARS AFTER DATE OF MANUFACTURE
4. DO NOT USE AFTER EXPIRATION DATE
And then of course, there is the big sticker which reads "MFG 2001". And since "MFG" is a fairly standard abbreviation for "manufacturing", it would seem as though the canister expired some time in 2006.
Tunisia & Facebook: private global entities acting on a national scale
At this point you're probably at least somewhat aware of the revolution of sorts which has been going on in Tunisia. You've probably heard that it was instigated by the self-immolation of a fruit vendor who the government had put out of business. You may even have heard that a prominent Tunisian Twitterer has joined the newly formed government and that Twitter itself has been key for Tunisians to spread the word of their protests and the government's abuses.
There is no doubt that social media has played a role in widespread protests in several nations. But in Tunisia, Facebook has taken it to a new level. Prior to, and during the widespread protests, the Tunisian government, which controlled internet access in Tunisia had instituted a script which was harvesting login information for the people who were accessing Facebook and using that information to delete the profiles of people who were posting anti-government and pro-protest statements and information. It does not appear that they took the next step and rounded up any of those people, but the story isn't completely clear.
What's interesting to me is that Facebook took it upon itself to counter the government's actions by adding some extra security to the login process for Tunisian IP addresses. I don't know Tunisian law or international law (or any law, for that matter), but I'm curious about the larger issue. If a government says that it has the legal right to access any information transmitted through the internet service which it provides, what legal right does a private entity, based outside of that government's nation, such as Facebook, have to circumvent the government's access to that information? Especially after the fact? Facebook was not using https to encrypt the login information preventing the keylogging style harvesting script the Tunisian government put into place until after they became aware of the keylogging.
Even in the US there is a disconnect between an individuals privacy regarding electronic information on stored on computers and networks and their privacy regarding physical information on paper and objects in their homes. And if the US government obtained a warrant to access a US citizen's Facebook account, I believe that Facebook would be obligated to give that information to the government. Maybe Tunisia doesn't require a warrant. So, again, would not Facebook be obligated to allow Tunisia's government to access that information?
On the whole, I'm rather happy that Facebook took the steps it did. (Amused also, considering how much Facebook tries to default to sharing an individual's personal information with other people and companies.) But with the global growth of the internet and entirely online entities such as Facebook and Twitter and Google and others, I'm curious about how they are able to interact with different nations and their informational policies. Last year we saw Google close up shop in China because of that government's informational practices which the company did not want to support. And it briefly (I think it's no longer functioning) provided full Google access to Chinese citizens by directing their access through a different domain.
Over the past 100 years we've seen massive growth of international businesses. Calling companies like Coca-Cola "American" simply because that is where their headquarters is located is almost farcical when they are publicly traded and have ownership distributed globally and do most of their business and base most of their employees outside of the US. And internet based ventures blur those lines even further. How are such companies to be governed and policed? While they are headquartered in a country like the US, they are nominally subject to certain laws and restrictions and obligations. But what if they don't want to be?
Perhaps I've read too much dystopian science fiction, but imagine a world in which various internet corporations have banded together to purchase a small area of land, say, an island in the Caribbean or South Pacific and declared that island's independence from it's prior government, or just buy off that government. They then draft up a constitution that is completely beneficial to their own needs and desires, completely freeing them from the obligations of the laws of their original host nations. How then would they be restricted, or held responsible? Some might say that the powers of the free market would compel them. But that isn't really likely when they already control so much of the activity within their business domains. And at that point, they'd essentially be a nation (or nations) themselves. Forget granting companies the rights of the individual which people got up in arms about after the Citizens United case a couple years ago. Now they'd have the ability to declare war. Imagine a group of the most significant international businesses and internet entities placing an embargo on a nation. They would possibly be able to almost completely isolate that nation electronically.
This idea is pretty far ranging from the original issue. Morally, Facebook very much had an obligation to protect the identities and privacy of its users from a hostile government. And it came through on that obligation. But considering the criticism Facebook has faced regarding its policy toward user privacy, it might be somewhat surprising. And at the same time (or possibly before) we concern ourselves with corporate nations, we need to concern ourselves with the ability of any government accessing our private information which we maintain online. In Tunisia it was just Facebook accounts getting shut down. But what if next time it is people getting arrested or killed? How do people protect themselves from that? What ability and legal right do companies have to take action to prevent that?
A joke
A Pole walking along the road happens to spy a lamp. He picks it up, and as it is covered in rust he gives it quick rub. Out comes a genie.
"I'm the genie of the lamp and I can grant you three wishes," the genie says.
"OK," says the Pole. "I want the Chinese Army to invade Poland."
Odd choice, the genie thinks, but nevertheless he grants the wish, and the Chinese Army comes all the way from China, invades, and goes back home.
"Right, second wish. Maybe something more positive," says the genie.
"No," replies the Pole, "I want the Chinese Army to invade again."
So the Chinese come all the way from China, lay waste to more of Poland, and then go home.
"Listen," says the genie. "You have one last wish. I can make Poland the most beautiful and prosperous place on earth."
"If you don't mind, I want the Chinese army to invade one more time."
So the Chinese army comes again, destroys what's left of Poland, and then goes home for the last time.
"I don't understand," says the genie. "Why did you want the Chinese army to invade Poland three times?"
"Well," replies the Pole, "they had to go through Russia six times."
Foreign Policy has been asking for readers to submit foreign politics related jokes. I especially liked this one.
Rally to Restore Sanity: The Experience
Two parts to this post. First is the summary of my experiences. Second is my thoughts about it after the fact, which I'll post tomorrow.
My brother came up for the weekend and we biked over to the Mall a little before 11am. I was too busy navigating pedestrians to get a look at the size of the crowd from the top of Capitol Hill, but when we rolled across 3rd St SW, I had a definite "Holy Shit" moment when I realized just how crowded it was already. We locked up our bikes in front of the Air and Space Museum and worked our way into the crowd. We didn't get all that far, because it was ridiculously crowded. But it was an exceedingly polite gathering. Bumps and jostlings and stepped on feet were followed by sorries and excuse mes. Everyone was rather gleefully looking around to read the various signs.
My brother and I found some standing space right on the inside edge of the gravel path around the main grassy areas of The Mall. We had a clear sight of one of the big screens and the speakers which were showing clips from The Daily Show and Colbert Report which had led up to the Rally. We got to chatting with some of the folks around us, discussing the crowded metro ride they had, pointing out funny signs and costumes. It made me really wish I'd followed through on my idea to dress as the Grim Reaper and attach an "I <3 Fear" sign to the scythe.
The Roots started up right at noon and they and John Legend put on a pretty nice show for about 20-30 minutes. Then the Mythbusters came out and had us do the wave a few times, front to back. Cameras followed it and showed it on the screens. The crowd was pretty solid all the way back to the Washington Monument, which is about a mile away from the stage (and there were people crowded on the museum steps flanking the Mall who occasionally chanted "Louder! Louder!" because the speakers weren't carrying the sound out to them.) The wave took just under 2 minutes to travel that distance. They did some other silly things as well and then had us all jump simultaneously and measured the "groundswell" on a seismometer. Apparently the crowd had a total impact approximately equal to the impact of a car traveling 35 mph.
After the Mythbusters, the show proper started. Jon Stewart was the main focus, Colbert serving as the foil that his character definitely is. The general dynamic was of reasonableness vs. fear. The two clearest examples of that occurred during one of the musical acts and during a brief "debate", the latter of which served primarily to set up Stewart's closing speech.
The music set in question was amazing in itself. Stewart started it off by bringing out the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens, who adopted the name Yusuf Islam when he converted and is now performing just as Yusuf. I hadn't even known he was performing again as he left the music business following his conversion in the 70s, but Wikipedia tells me he's been back on stage since 2006. I've always loved his music, and getting to hear and see him perform "Peace Train" live gave me chills. And when Colbert interrupted him and said that there was no way he was getting on that train, I turned to the folks we'd been chatting with and said, "If he brings out Ozzy for 'Crazy Train', I'm gonna shit myself." (I'm a pretty big metal head, but have never seen Ozzy perform.) And a couple of moments later, my pants were metaphorically heavier and smellier. The two went back and forth for a bit before leaving the stage arms across each other's shoulders to let Stewart and Colbert argue about which artist should be playing. And then out came the Ojays to play "Love Train", which satisfied Colbert's desire for fear because of the possibility of STDs.
Until the final sequence, the rest of the rally was mostly forgettable. Each comedian gave out a few awards recognizing the sane people and the people who have promoted fear who have made a mark in the public consciousness recently. A few musical guests who no one really cared about — Kid Rock and Sheryl Crow and some others — but nothing especially offensive to the ears or mind.
Then Stewart came out to give a "keynote speech", but before he could get going, Colbert came out to turn it into a debate. Colbert used a series of video montages of news media clips promoting fear to "defeat" Stewart's special guests who showed that generalizations didn't apply to all people who had those labels (e.g. Kareem Abdul Jabbar to show that Muslims are normal). But Stewart was "saved" by a Daily Show correspondent dressed as Peter Pan who got the crowd to cheer their support of Stewart and sanity and in a rather transparent gimmick showed that by working together, Americans can defeat the people who are promoting fear.
That led to Jon Stewart's actual closing speech. And boy oh boy what a speech. The Vietnam veteran, Harley-Davidson riding biker next to me turned to his wife and said, "This is the best damned speech I've heard in 40 years." If you haven't seen the speech, you should definitely watch it. Everyone wanted to know why the rally was held, and I think this speech tells you pretty clearly, as Stewart says, the reason why he wanted to hold the rally. Why we came is something else entirely, but the point Stewart makes about the quality of the American public is something I wholeheartedly believe.