UPDATE: MY PRIVACY MATTERS

On February 4, 2018, I posted here a piece titled "My Privacy Matters" in which I talked about my efforts to regain control of my privacy from the internet giants. Since then I have quit Facebook, switched to Signal for texting (and VOIP-based voice and video calls),and thought more about my on-line life. Today's post is an update.

From talking to many of my family and friends, I know that a lot of people are concerned about their privacy on the internet, and about the progress of what has been dubbed "surveillance capitalism." And yet, most people I know are too dependent on, or addicted to Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp (all Facebook-owned and operated), Google, Amazon and other internet "services" to take the steps of unplugging from these corporate behemoths. In the meantime, a number of internet pioneers, including some who have become billionaires, are expressing concerns about where the internet has gotten and is going, and some are taking steps to make corrections.

In the meantime, I have become social network isolated - by not being on Facebook and/or Instagram I am not in the loop with many family members and friends. I still post to this blog and other on-line places, but I know that few people see these things because there are no links to them on Facebook.

I read a lot about the internet, and I do not expect other people to do the same. If interested, there are thousands of articles and books available about the evils of the internet giants. Here is a short blog post about privacy by the Protonmail folks that is worth the time to read as a good summary of concerns.

What will it take for masses of people to leave the surveillance-based internet giants? Social change theory tells us that if influential people make the move, others will follow. Well, I'm not one of the influencers, but I am making the moves.

Here are my latest actions:

email: I am sending a message to my gmail contacts that I am switching my personal email to Protonmail. I will leave my business email at gmail for the foreseeable future.

text messages: I have switched to Signal. Messaging between me and other Signal users is end-to-end encrypted and very secure. signal also has internet-based voice and video calling that I use for calls overseas.

internet browsing: I use the Duck-Duck-Go extension on Apple Safari for my laptop (Macbook) and tablet (iPad), and Duck-Duck-Go is the default browser on my Android phone. (One nice feature on the DDG Android app is that it shows me the trackers it is blocking when I am on the internet; and this is eye-opening: see the images, below, when I browsed to the Portland Tribune).

socializing:  I've looked around to find an alternative to the Facebook/Instagram paradigm. There are some out there. I've signed up on MeWe, a service that intentionally does not collect user data, track users, etc. One person in my hundreds of contacts is also on MeWe. I've not used it much, but I will be looking at it more closely, see what kinds of groups exist, and maybe encourage friends and family to check it out.  In the meantime, I've started to contact people by text and phone in order to stay in touch.  Last year I started a discussion group using the Slack platform. The idea was to have a place where people could have focused discussions about specific topics. Nobody seemed interested.

additional internet privacy: we use a VPN (virtual private network) when on the internet, especially when traveling.

privacy policies and settings: this one is complex and time consuming. Ideally we would read through the privacy policies of every on-line app, software or website we use, and then go through every privacy setting for each of these and set them for maximum privacy. Obviously the vast majority of people don't do this, and simply check "I agree" for everything. We all recently received email messages from many of our provider and app developers that they have new privacy policies; this was a result of new internet rules being in effect for the European Union. I struggle with this issue.

pay for privacy and ad-free use: Some companies and apps offer ad-free service for a fee, instead of using the free version. I choose to pay for certain things, especially if I support the ethics and standards of the company (Protonmail is an example).

Despite all of these efforts, the bottom line is that there is no such thing as complete privacy on the internet, as far as I know, if I want to continue using internet services. And so the question is begged, why do I continue reading about it, trying to find ways to be more private, switching apps and providers? The answer is, it's who I am. I don't like what cyberspace has become, the extent to which it has become commercialized and intrusive, the dangers inherent in thousands of companies knowing everything about me and my daily activities. And so, nevertheless, I persist! If you care to join me, fine; if not, fine.

And thanks for reading.
--- 

WHITHER KAVANAUGH?

The day after the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and, separately, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, much has been written about the event. Here at the Fishhouse this has been a constant topic of conversation. There is not much I can say that hasn't already been said, but there is a line of inquiry I want to follow. 

What are the possible explanations for the discrepancy between the positions of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh? I will list those I thought of, and please let me know if you have others.

I'll start in the order of the appearances, with Dr. Ford. Here are the possible explanations of her testimony:

F1. Christine was sexually attacked by Brett and is telling the truth.
F2. Christine was sexually attacked by two boys, but it was not Brett and his friend Mark, and she has mis-identified the attackers.
F3. Dr. Ford is mentally unstable and, for whatever reasons, has made up the story and brought it forward to get attention.
F4. Dr. Ford has been paid a very large sum of money (dark money) by one or more wealthy Democrats to make a false accusation in order to stop the ascendency of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. 

And here are the possible explanations for Judge Kavanaugh's testimony:

K1. Brett did not sexually attack Christine and is innocent.
K2. Brett did sexually attack Christine but was so drunk that he did not, and still does not remember the incident. 
K3. Judge Kavanaugh sexually attacked Dr. Ford when they were teenagers, and has been covering it up and lying about it ever since. 

So what do you think is plausible? For Dr. Ford, I would opine that F4 is least plausible, followed closely by F3. F2 is a possibility; however, Dr. Ford is emphatic that she knew and recognized Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. That leaves F1 as the most plausible explanation. 

For Judge Kavanaugh, K1, K2 and K3 are plausible explanations. It seems to me that K3 is the least plausible because it would be so very extreme; however, it is not out of the question. That leaves K1 and K2.

If, in fact, teenage Brett did attack teenage Christine, accepting F1 as the most plausible explanation for Dr. Ford's testimony, K2 is the most likely explanation for Judge Kavanaugh. There are some friends and associates of Brett, when he was a teen and a college student, who have said publicly that he was a heavy drinker and was sometimes incoherent when drunk. Brett's close friend in high school, Mark Judge, was an alcoholic as a teen, and has written one or more books about it. In fact, Mr. Judge referred to a character named "Bart O'Kavanaugh" in his book:

If passing out was part of teenage Brett's drinking routine, and in yesterday's hearing Judge Kavanaugh talked extensively about how he liked beer and drank a lot, then K2 has more support for being the plausible explanation. (In this line of inquiry, I'm not ruling out K3 as the correct explanation, and it would truly be a juicy scandal! And, I feel compelled here to say unequivocally that my thinking and statements in no way minimize the crime of sexual assault.) 

There are a few confirmed facts in this he said - she said case. 

• Dr. Ford took and passed a polygraph test;
• the timing and method of Dr. Ford's accusation are that she first acted anonymously when Judge Kavanaugh was on the list of potential nominees, and she acted in a way to conceal her identity;
• statements by at least three other women about sexual assaults by young Brett Kavanaugh (the statements are fact, the alleged assaults are unproven); 
• statements by friends and associates of young Brett Kavanaugh that he was a heavy, often belligerent and often incoherent drunk as a teen and college student;
• statements by friends of Brett Kavanaugh that he was not a drunk, and did not treat women badly;
• statements by three people named by Dr. Ford as being at the party where she was allegedly attacked that they have no memory of being at such a gathering;
• previous background checks and clearances for Judge Kavanaugh conducted and issued for federal jobs and appointments;
• numerous letters of support and character reference for both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. 

It is obvious that an investigation should be undertaken by an impartial entity, the F.B.I., to gather factual information, interview all persons who might have relevant information, and prepare this information for the Senate Judicial Committee to use for further deliberation. Only then will the true explanation have any chance of being known.

Until then, we can only make educated guesses.
---

WHAT PRICE WILL THE GOP PAY?

In an interview on NPR this morning, Senator Marco Rubio (R Florida) confirmed what we already thought we knew about the Congressional Republicans. A question has dogged many of us about why the GOP has been so silent about the craziness coming from the White House. Here is part of the interview by Steve Inskeep, NPR host:

INSKEEP: Does the president strike you, in your interactions with him or the staff around him, as responsible, focused, on target, fit?

RUBIO: Well, he strikes me as Donald Trump, which is - he's not a political figure. He understands and describes issues differently from someone who served 20 years in the Senate would describe them. But he has a pretty clear understanding of what's at stake with China. He has a pretty clear understanding, in the conversations I've had with him, about what's at stake in Venezuela. He has a pretty clear understanding of the risks involved in this engagement with South Korea - North Korea.

INSKEEP: The understanding about North Korea, he proclaimed that the nuclear threat has been taken care of with North Korea, which is, obviously, not true.

RUBIO: Well, but again, that goes back to the nonpolitical guy. And that is someone...

INSKEEP: That's not nonpolitical. It's not true.

RUBIO: No, but let me tell you why - because in his view, he's a negotiator. He's applying his business acumen. And that's why I tell you he wouldn't express himself the way a 20-year senator or a member of the Council of Foreign Relations would. In his mind, I'm a negotiator. And the way to get the other guy to give me more of what I want is to be nice to him. But he is fully aware that North Korea poses a threat. But he's trying to reach a deal. I, personally - in my view, Kim Jong Un doesn't want a deal. And I've said that to him, and I've said it his administration.

INSKEEP: One more thing. I asked, is he fit? You answered, well, he's Donald Trump. I understand that. But is he fit?

RUBIO: I have not personally seen or been told by anybody anything that causes me to believe that he's not fit to serve as president of the United States.

INSKEEP: Are you willing to say, in a positive sense, yes, he is fit?

RUBIO: Based on everything I've seen and known. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he's done or every conclusion he's reached. And that doesn't mean that I would express myself or that he always expresses himself in ways that I would hope a president would. But that doesn't make him unfit. That just makes him different from what I would prefer. And the one - best way I would describe it is I love a lot of the things that he's doing on a lot of public policy. Many of them are things that politicians have been promising to do for a long time and never did. I just wish we could have that without all the other stuff.

If you read the above, you learned that Rubio does not think Trump is unfit to be President, or irresponsible or unfocused, or off target; he is simply Donald trump, not a politician. And as far as saying things that are not true, well, that’s O.K., he isn’t lying because he is a negotiator using his business acumen. 

And why does Rubio, and the rest of the GOP, accept Trump because he is Trump? Because Trump is doing a lot of things the GOP likes, things that politicians have been promising for a long time. And what are these things? Well, we all know what they are, they are things that benefit the wealthy donors to the GOP, people and corporations, and therefore keep these GOP politicians in office. 

So in Rubio’s view, and the view of the rest of the complicit Congressional Republicans, Trump’s misogyny, bigotry, obstruction of justice, bizarre tweeting, claims that the media is the “enemy of the people,” kidnapping and abuse of immigrant children, elimination of environmental protections, insulting and alienation of our allies, butt-smooching of authoritarians, attacks on U.S. intelligence agencies, collusion with Russia, pulling out of international climate agreements and the nuclear weapon agreement with Iran, and etc. and etc. are simply “Trump being Trump,” a businessman being a businessman! Right, and Putin is just being Putin, and Kim Jung Un is just being Kim Jung Un, and Genghis Khan was just being Genghis Khan! 

The GOP will pay a high price for their complicity with Trump and his advisors. Their chickens will come home to roost. Unfortunately, the entire world is paying the price now, and will continue to pay for a long time as a result of Trump and the GOP. 

The Republicans in Congress have no shame, and history will not be kind to them. They have been accomplices to a bold attack on the U.S. Constitution and democracy. 

Thank you, Marco Rubio, for so clearly showing the world the true colors of the Republican Party. 

—-