Tom Dalton :: Doer of Good

A woman is awarded millions for spilling hot coffee in her lap at McDonalds.

Then a woman "finds" a human finger in her chili at Wendy's.

Do punitive damages work? What is the point of the "punishment" in the punitive damage? Why are they awarded to people?

KPMG's recent woes recently came home to me as a great example of the problem with punitive damages as currently implemented.

Remember Senator Hatch's "inducement" act, that would have held P2P companies liable for the copyright infringement of their users? (No? What are you, normal?)

The issue is coming up again in the form of lobbyists and proposals for laws to hold software developers liable for security vulnerabilities in their products. Under some versions of this concept, if I bought a Microsoft operating system and my computer got hacked, Microsoft would have to pay me.

In a lively discussion about this on Slashdot, the following comments emerged:

=============
Person 1: Whatever happened to holding the people who exploit vulnerabilities responsible?

Person 2:That's crazy talk! What are you thinking, man? Next you'll suggest that when I walk down the street with my entire head completely exposed and vulnerable, that somehow the mugger than hits me over the head with a baseball bat may somehow be responsible for the outcome! See how crazy you are?

Or, when I lock my door and leave my house for the day, and a guy comes along with a sledgehammer and just breaks in anyway - I suppose you think that the person with the sledgehammer is somehow responsible for that? Totally twisted, man.
=============

I need say nothing more.

"I wish to be useful, and every kind of service necessary to the public good becomes honorable by being necessary. If the exigencies of my country demand a peculiar service, its claim to perform that service are imperious."
-- Nathan Hale, spy for the colonial forces under General George Washington

One of our country's first spies, Nathan Hale also left us the immortal phrase: "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country." Character coupled with patriotism placed Nathan Hale among the great people who helped bring forth our nation.

In 'The Lord of the Rings,' the ring is a potent force -- and some of the men want to take it up and use it against their enemies. Tolkein's ring is a wholly evil creation, however, and the book shows the inevitable end of any who would use the ring. Power corrupts, temptation destroys. Even the pure-hearted Frodo is left empty and exiled after he is forced to carry it. Aragorn, the true king, is shown to be a wise leader because he refuses to take it up.

The magic escape prepared for the forces of men by Tolkein, however, is to take the ring and destroy it. Throw it back where it came from, and remove its force from the world entirely.

If we take the ring as a metaphor for lying, we don't have the option. There is no mountain into which we can throw lies, to remove the danger of deception from our world.

We need men of character to slip on the ring and wear it as we fight.

"And now, as Moroni knew the intention of the Lamanites, that it was their intention to destroy their brethren, or to subject them and bring them into bondage that they might establish a kingdom unto themselves over all the land; and he also knowing that it was the only desire of the Nephites to preserve their lands, and their liberty, and their church, therefore he thought it no sin that he should defend them by stratagem; therefore, he found by his spies which course the Lamanites were to take."
-- Mormon, Nephite historian and general

The scriptures teach that defense of righteousness and country are of overriding importance. I will probably never have to wear the ring, but I stand in support of those who do.

What is the role of the US government in relation to US citizens performing data-gathering and other intelligence functions under "deep cover" in other countries?

If the US has helped forge documents for that person, it is certainly liable. However, how would a foreign government prove that? What if the US is receiving communication from that person? Could the US get in trouble for what one of its citizens is doing?

That sounds a lot like Palestinian terrorism, I suppose. Citizens may decide to strap bombs on themselves and head into Israel. But when it happens, the Palestinian government takes heat for it. They are then forced to make a big show of stopping it, by cracking down.

More to come.

"People look at this conflict in Iraq and think the results will be driven by big people in big places making big decisions," says Hall, who spent hours interviewing the 20 war veterans. "But, actually, where the individual Iraqi places his or her allegiance largely depends on that 19-year-old soldier walking down the street with an assault rifle."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48355-2005Apr12_2.html

This article details one of the training methods the Army is trying out. Gator Six, a set of videos that present scenarios and ask the captains to work out what they'd do. A great idea -- teaching people not what to think, but how.

More of us should learn that.

Some wars are won with battleships, tanks, and masses of troops. Those wars are the ones that start with tanks or troops. Wars that don't start that way, though, aren't won that way either.

The world wars -- both clashes of massive armies. The first Gulf war -- tanks and planes. The current Iraq mess -- they didn't start with tanks. We brought tanks to a knife fight.

Star Wars. The little X-Wings slipped through the defenses of the Death Star and hit the exposed exhaust port. Sadly, we're acting like the Death Star in many ways. We've got incredible military strength. We can blow up anything we choose.

But the ability to destroy is not going to win this war.

We allied with the British in WW1 and WW2. We're best friends. But during the revolution, they came in like the Big Bad Army and we beat them with a rag-taggy little group of guys with more spirit than training.

Will there be a positive, military outcome to the present conflict in Iraq? Will we one day soon have killed everyone who wants to blow up an American soldier?

Or will someone in Iraq step up and bring harmony? That's what needs to happen.

Like Lord of the Rings. We can try to create an environment in which the right person can step up and solve the problem, but we cannot solve the problem ourselves. We're Aragorn with the big army at the gate. Frodo -- some Iraqi -- needs to take action.

This entry has been a mess of half-developed ideas. I'm refining my own thinking.

Want to buy a lockpick in Utah? Wondering if it's legal?

Here's the actual text of the Utah law about lock picks and other 'instruments for burglary':

============

76-6-205. Manufacture or possession of instrument for burglary or theft.

Any person who manufactures or possesses any instrument, tool, device, article, or other thing adapted, designed, or commonly used in advancing or facilitating the commission of any offense under circumstances manifesting an intent to use or knowledge that some person intends to use the same in the commission of a burglary or theft is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

Enacted by Chapter 196, 1973 General Session

===========

My non-authoritative interpretation of this is: if you're carrying a lockpick while climbing over somebody's fence at night, the lockpick will get you in extra trouble. But you had to have already been doing something that evidenced intention to commit a burglary. (By way of contrast -- if you were climbing that same fence with a Unix live-CD, the CD wouldn't get you in extra trouble.)

Just having one and picking your own locks is fine. And my birthday is coming up soon!

What is religious freedom?

Triggered by the best news quote of the day, and comprising my long response to it:

The school remains adamant that their decision to suspend Killian for a day has nothing to do with his religion, and quite a lot to do with his repeated refusal to heed warnings against wearing pirate outfits.

I'm a firm believer in the importance of religious freedom. But that doesn't mean "freedom to do anything in the name of religion." The important question that has not been answered is this: what activities are covered under the protection afforded religious beliefs?

Even the most draconian enforcement of anti-religious laws couldn't actually stop people from believing whatever they wanted. When Pharaoh threatened to burn to death anyone caught praying to the Hebrew god, people could still believe in the Hebrew god and pray to him in their hearts. The point of having a law protecting religion must be to protect certain, observable religious behaviors.

Does that law protect the ritual killing of children? How about assembling on private property each Sunday and singing hymns? There's a rather clear difference between the two, huh?

I think the important thing to answer is what specifically religious activities are allowed that would not be allowed under other laws? We have other laws that allow us the right to assemble. We don't need religious protection for that. If you follow that line of reasoning, you'll find that there are no activities that should be protected by 'religious freedom' that would not otherwise be legal.

So why does the Constitution have a religious freedom clause at all?

Because history has shown us many examples of activities that became illegal simply because they were religious. Praying is legal under free speech laws. The point of the religious freedom clause is to ensure that the federal government never enacts laws specifically restricting otherwise legal behavior simply because it is motivated by religion.

That's what I think. Tom Dalton, Constitutional Scholar. Oh yeah. :o)

From a UK think-tank, regarding climate change in the next thirty years:

"The drop in temperature might exceed that of the miniature ice age of the 17th and 18th centuries."

An ice age? Woolly mammoths and crazed, razor-tooth coelacanths with heat vision? That's what wiped out humanity in the 17th and 18th centuries! We can't survive yet another of Mother Nature's fierce attempts to kill her babies.

Do you remember what happened during the 17th and 18th centuries, during the last miniature ice age? Here's just a sampling of the horrors we might face:

The Franco-Dutch war breaks out over who gets to stand closest to the heater
The Salem witch trials, triggered by icy cold weather and resulting cabin fever
Isaac Newton is pummeled by vicious (frozen) apples as gravity kicks in
The Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 -- so cold!
The American Revolution marks the end of the mighty Ice Age

Clearly, another ice age will disrupt all of humanity. The scarred survivors, if there are any, will be unable to rebuild and civilization will be forever lost. Science has spoken.

From an article about cellphone jamming:

“If anything characterizes the 21st century, it’s our inability to restrain ourselves for the benefit of other people,” said James Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University. “The cellphone talker thinks his rights go above that of people around him, and the jammer thinks his are the more important rights.”

The problem with this analysis of rights is that it omits the necessary complement of responsibility. Both rights are equally valid -- the talker and the one who wishes for quiet. (The jammer doesn't actually have the right to jam, but let's assume he's not really jamming, and just wishing he could enjoy a quieter subway ride home from Foggy Bottom.)

Every exercise of a right should include a careful examination of associated responsibility. Might you upset someone nearby if you engage in a long phone call? The government cannot mandate this, but for society to work, you need to consider it.

That's what I say. And if I felt like typing more, I'd write up a fringe-case analysis of the situation. Maybe later.

So... a couple Iranian speedboats walk up to a US Navy destroyer and say, "Hey, dude! We're going to blow you up!"

And the Navy says, "Oh, no you don't!"

And the American public says, "Stupid Navy! How could speedboats blow up a Navy destroyer? You're seriously overhyping this thing, probably playing it up for political reasons or propaganda."

And the American public never remembers the USS Cole. Al Qaeda has already successfully demonstrated that a speedboat can sink an American Navy guided missile destroy and kill American sailors.

Fortunately, the Navy keeps on protecting America anyway.