Monday, June 7, 2010

Trolling berlinbrowndev: On the Maddow and Rand Paul Interview

Rand Paul made some controversial statements on Civil Rights... I am responding to the interview.

He doesn't have to answer the question directly on Civil Rights. He isn't setting up businesses that doesn't allow African-Americans or gays. He is attempting to serve his district as a legislator. I just don't see the question on private business discrimination as a major topic. Of course, no one goes into business to discriminate. At the same time, it is hard to stop businesses from very explicit, out right discrimination. But, hopefully the people will stand up against that business. In a political debate, under the civil rights act, a business can't discriminate based on race, religion. But in theory, a business can discriminate based on what kind of clothes you wear or how you smell, whatever. I don't think the topic Maddow brought up was very interesting or relevant.

People want to attack Paul? I say attack Maddow. What a silly series of questions. It smells of a cheap Bill O'Reilly. Most Americans won't setup a private business and then discriminate against people. It isn't good for business. But in theory, a business can covertly discriminate. What is the issue here? Is the government really going to spend time going after businesses that might discriminate against people (MSNBC included, do they even have any black hosts?) or should the federal government deal with more pressing issue.

Plus, it isn't the 1950s. Times have changed. There are some aspects of the Civil Rights Acts that might not be as relevant today. For example, they mention hotels, movie theaters. What about discrimination on online sites? Can I setup jdate for jewish people and not allow the amish to join my site. Some people might not complain about that. Would the government have a case against jdate or 100kplus jobs.

Civil rights laws are tough. So Maddow's incendiary questions are difficult to answer.

Trolling berlinbrowndev: On Mac/Linux/Windows Computer Viruses and Trojans

Why do some users get computer viruses and others don't?

I swap between using Win, Linux, Mac. I haven't gotten a bad/crippling virus on my Windows machine because I am careful. And I even do simple things like turn my machine off when I am not using it.

For windows machines, they are just insecure by design. Most people don't even use Windows with the knowledge that they can setup other user accounts. So they don't setup less privs accounts. There is one, login, one machine and a virus has a potential to disrupt that machine.

I don't know if Viruses, Trojans always get in this way, but Windows has some very insecure APIs. The ActiveX is basically a Win API component that can be triggered by the web or desktop software. ActiveX is a basically a gateway into your machine, if you the hacker know what you are doing. And now you have PDF, Javascript, Flash and all of these filetypes and runtimes that can read web documents. You read the document, a trojan is downloaded on your machine. The trojan launches ActiveX. ActiveX is a world into the WinAPI. You can add registry settings, setup windows services, etc, etc.

So, there are major flaws with Windows (at least WinXP and prior, I only know Windows XP, I haven't used Win7).

I am not bashing Windows, I am just pointing that there are major security issues. And these issues have been around for a decade or more. So, virus writers have been writing for Windows. The Win32 API hasn't changed much. And it is popular. It is a win/win if you are hacker writer.

On Windows, I haven't gotten a crippling virus. I watch what sites I go to. I only use Firefox. I use a less priv'd account for general use. I disabled Flash.

Trolling berlinbrowndev: On Immigration

We here at berlinbrowndev like to cover all topics. I am posting some comments that have I have posted on various sites on various topics.

"An estimated 50,000 Thousands of people walked five miles through the streets and heat of Phoenix on Saturday in protest of Arizona’s new immigration law, which is slated to take effect July 29."

I respond to the immigration marches and took a controversial position...

From what I have heard from the other side, including Arizona cops.

The law was created to curb illegal alien activity which the federal government won't do. Basically, the law was targeting the federal government in their unwillingness to curb an increase in illegal immigration crime. That includes the "rape trees", where coyotes and illegals rape people along the border. Also, coyote's that do illegal human trafficking and sex trading. Also, many Arizona kids have their social security and identity information stolen.

Also, the language in the bill is similar to the federal laws on illegal immigration. The states just want to give misdemeanor crimes maybe to curb the increase in illegals in their states. According to state officials, it doesn't look like the federal government is doing enough. That is the main legal issue I have. Normally state governments can't enforce federal law. E.g. Arizona can't wiretap people under the Patriot act.

"First, the person ultimately responsible for signing the bill into law, state governor Jan Brewer, can’t come close to verbalizing what, precisely, an alleged illegal immigrant might look like, admitting to reporters during a recent news conference, "

It is not so much looks but in the finding of illegal activity, the Arizona cops should be allowed ask about status and apply misdemeanor charges. Even federal laws requires that you have your papers if you are on a temporary visa or in the process of legal immigration.

"It’s one thing for a lawmaker to have a vague notion of the problems they want proposed policy to solve. "

I mentioned those above.

"The driver is white-looking but can only produce his license to drive, which isn’t proof of citizenship. Will the officer detain the suspect? Of course not."

I don't think the goal is to arrest people just because they might be illegal. But, in the process of a crime, like human trafficking, the cops may detain a person for being an illegal.

So, if the person is doing something illegal, why can't they just arrest them for that?

Apparently cops can't because trafficking and other similar laws fall under federal laws. But if an illegal is doing something suspicious, cops can use the SB1070 to stop them.

From a legal standpoint (I am not a lawyer), it seems sound. But like others have said, it may be abused.

Illegal/undocumented people are abusing the law by being here illegally. They are side-stepping how others have taken years to gain their citizenship.

Like this guy, he is human smuggling...

I guess it isn't as much a problem if we cherry-pick the scenario where a family comes here to work. But that isn't what the cops want to use the power for. They are trying to go after human traffickers and drug smugglers, adding the illegal immigration charge onto other charges. I can get the youtube video of the Phoenix and other Arizona police chiefs.

"Fifteen percent of state prisoners are illegal immigrants. Phoenix has become a hub of human trafficking, and it has kidnapping numbers that rival cities in Mexico because of smugglers who hold illegal immigrants hostage in drop houses."

Say, if a undocumented drug runner shoots someone, you want hold them on the gun charge but also the illegal immigration charge... I am thinking for legal purposes.

Why couldn't the police just charge them with the crime that they were originally stopped for? I am guessing that they want to do additional legal book-keeping. It looks like a lot of human trafficking, drug laws, blah, blah fall under federal law. Maybe Arizona wants to ADD this additional charge to keep track of the document violators without red-tape from the federal government

I think the Arizona immigration was created for two reasons. And the actual people who have created the law have basically said this:

1. Send a message to the federal government. Enact some kind of illegal immigration.
2. Some kind of legal scenarios where you want to keep track of illegals that break the law.

The law and local government operates almost like a business. The state and city governments have state and local funding. They collect tax revenue. They pay cops. They pay fireman. Part of the cop budget goes to keeping the peace, making sure the rule of law is followed, blah, blah. They could have harsh laws and enforce them. If you are going 1 mile over the speed limit in a car, you are ticketed If you are jay walking, ticketed. They can arrest and check people that might have an ounce of weed on them.

This "business" still has to manage resources properly. They may task Arizona cops with dealing with drug cartels at the border or arresting DUI offenders. Solving murders. For whatever reason, they believed that dealing with the 500k illegals in Arizona was a problem for them. So, they created a possible law to add an arrest charge to being here undocumented.

The state business does factor "racism" into. What race is hateful towards whatever race? Do you really believe that a state government went through hearings and state sessions to come up with a racist law? Arizona State Legislature: "How can we be more racist?"

Ask yourself this, would the city governments spend their resources to arrest legal citizens, put them in jail, send through the courts and then possibly facial charges for detaining people? Or would they try to use the law to curb problems associated with illegal immigration. Like I said, it comes down to a resource issue. Most police forces are strapped for cash. I can't imagine that the Arizona cops are going to get into just arresting random people.

Especially in the name of racism. At some point, people need to realize that we live in a diverse culture. When I say that, there a lot of people in political positions that AREN'T white. So, it is hard to claim racism on this law, when it is possible that immigrants helped design the law. California has an immigrant governor. There are a lot of people in Arizona that are Hispanic that serve at the state level.

Is it possible, heaven forbid, that the illegals that are here illegally ... are the problem? And amnesty and relaxed federal laws that contribute to so many illegals being here are also a problem.

I have heard that illegals don't commit as many crimes. Or that they are just hard working people. That is really non-issue. A lot of people arrested are hard working. Drunk drivers, habitual speeders, the guy stealing a loaf a bread, marijuana users. But (for whatever reason), these laws are on the books and sometimes they are enforced.

On the illegal immigration issue, there could be a host of reasons to detain people that remain undocumented. There are laws for legal citizens (say operating a vehicle) to get "documented". We have to have driver's license, motor vehicle registration, proof of insurance. Aren't you pissed if someone gets into an accident and they don't have a license or insurance. Or worse yet, what if they don't have any documentation as a legal citizen at all?

It is a law. It is up the police to decide when to use the law. The police can arrest you for any suspicious behavior. Why are people suddenly complaining about this particular law?

It is possible that the police don't have infinite resources to arrest all brown people and then go through the court process only to find out that the people won't do anything. What a waste of time. It is possible that the cops want to deal with people committing crimes and they also want to keep track of legal status by adding an additional charge.

OK, that is two.

But if you wanted people to be racist, they will be racist. How does a cop asking for immigration status in the process of some other violation and misdemeanor charge and a $1000 fine contribute to racism.

For example, it will not make sense for Rhode-Island to have harsher immigration laws, but I could see where Arizona might add additional charges to immigration violators.

(image from