11/5/07

So last week, during my English 015 class,  I brought up the issue of biometrics and rfid technology; needless to say, it was an interesting conversation. We began by discussing the research with rfid chips and mice (or mouses if you prefer) and the "benign" tumors that are growing in some of these test mice. My students didn't seem that concerned with the rfid chips in mice or the tumors, so I switched gears and asked about the pros and cons of rfid chips in human beings. Many students argued that rfid chips would be great for people if used solely for information mobility, and they would be especially helpful for people with serious medical conditions. The article I used for the foundation of the discussion said that nearly one thousand people die every year because of unavailable medical information. My students felt that if the rfid chip were an option method to store medical information, as the article claimed, then it could be a great way to prevent unnecessary deaths in the ER every year. I wasn't surprised by their support of the chips for medicinal uses, but some of their other suggestions surprised me a bit. Many students were arguing that former prisoners should be "required" to have rfid chips implanted into their bodies prior to release from correctional facilities, so that the government can monitor their behavior and possibly prevent future crimes (Minority Report?). Of course I had to point out the fact that the argument iappears to be predicated on assumptions about criminal behavior and in many ways ascribes a criminal pathology to incarcerated individuals. What was even more disturbing, in my opinion, was that no one was really advocating for the rights of ex-cons and their freedom to choose. Are they not people?

Although in our class discussion I expressed a dislike in the rotoscope technique used for The Scanner Darkly, I think that I have changed my mind and can now see the efficacy of the artistic choice. When I think back on the film, I realize how unstable and confusing so much of it is, not only for the viewer but also for the characters. They seem just as unsure unsure of everything around them as we, as viewers, are, so we (characters included) spend an enormous amount of time trying to discern cops from drug dealers, personal drug addiction from good police work, and reality from fantasy. Realizing the ambiguity and cloudy nature of the film, rotoscoping makes perfect sense because it blurs the line between live film and animation, the "real" and the "fabricated." I wonder how different our favorite sci-fi movies would be if they were filmed using rotoscope (the Matrix trilogy, for example).

10/21/07

After reading Ubik, I completely fell in love with Philip K. Dick, and I may become a closet sci-fi fan. Anyway, as I read Ubik, I couldn't help but notice moments in the book that reminded me of the historical context in which Dick wrote Ubik. Although he is able to create a futuristic 1992, as he envisions it, with telepathy and effortless space travel, he doesn't conjure up any new concepts or terms relating to racial identity., as early in the novel, we see the narrator describe Al as a negro. Now of course in 1969, when the book was published, many, if not most, blacks would identify as negroes, but how many people in 1992 actually identifed as negroes. Not many I assume. Dick's decision to describe Al as a negro makes me wonder if he was implicitly arguing that the future would see no changes in global racial dynamics. Obviously, I'm not sure what Dick's motivations were, but it is seems plausible that despite his ability to fabricate a highly complex fictional world 23 years in the future, he was unable to or unsure how to incorporate racial dynamics into that new world.

10/15/07 - hacked! - David ;)

Please excuse my hiatus; I'm not sure where I've been, but I'm back. Anyway, I wanted to discuss John Lilly's claim that "All human beings, all persons who reach adulthood in the world today are programmed biocomputers. None of us can escape our own nature as programmable entities. Literally, each of us may be our programs, nothing more, nothing less."

His claim intrigues me because in our post-Matrix society, I can't help but consider the possibility of his claim being true. And although Lilly frames his programming within the context of learning and adaptation, I would like to think about programming in an instantaneous context, being able to adapt "in the blink of an eye."

If you remember the The Matrix movies, you may recall Neo and his revolutionary counterparts being plugged into the Matrix through plugs and wires inserted into their heads. Not only were these interfaces used for a direct connection to the Matrix, but also for skill "programming." When Neo needed to learn Kung Fu or how to fly a helicopter, Tank, the computer programmer, would simply upload a file into Neo's brain. The entire process was fascinating, despite its fictitiousness. And while the Matrix trilogy depicted human "programming" in a more technologically modern way, earlier films like The Manchurian Candidate explore the idea of programming the human mind, as well. These films seem to suggest that the brain can be hacked and manipulated by external users/programmers. If this is true, what security measures do we take to prevent illegal manipulation of the mind?

10/04/07

A week, or so, ago I was asking about the security risks of RFID and biometrics and I came across the following excerpt from: (http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/1564/1/82/)

The Privacy Debate

The possibility that a business could loose control of the privacy of its information is one of the largest risks associated with RFID. For example, the potential exists for [javascript:OpenGlossary("tag");|tag] "sniffing" of a running production line from the parking lot. Like Ethernet networks, wireless tag communications are subject to capture and analysis. With all but the strongest data security algorithms subject to successful brute-force cracking using portable or networked computing resources, the cryptographic capabilities of tags becomes an important consideration in their selection.

The information inside RFID tags is vulnerable to alteration, corruption and deletion. The first question to be answered is how vulnerable the tag data is. Tag security can be expressed in terms of the strength of the cryptography employed, the processing speed of the tag and the amount of time it takes to establish a secure channel of communication with that tag. Compromising the security techniques employed in an effort to reduce tag complexity—and cost—yields tags whose mean time to "crack" is measured in mere minutes.

The security of information between RFID tags and readers is only now being strengthened to meet commercial needs with [javascript:OpenGlossary("Gen+2");|Gen 2] tags. Tags that present surmountable barriers for compromise represent a potential supply chain disruption opportunity. In the extreme, such disruptions might include the purposeful re-programming of tags to reflect errant weight, quantity or size information. Companies that select a weakly secured tag give competitors a low-cost opportunity to passively gain details about their suppliers, quantities on-hand, inventory turns, shifts in product mix and product destinations (customers).

10/02/07

Can anybody tell me why in the h@ll our government's "intelligence" agencies are so frickin' STUPID? Seriously, how is it that in a technologically driven society, the people responsible for national security are lagging in their use of current technology. Simply put, No 16-year-old internet wizard should have a better computer setup than an NSA security analyst; it just shouldn't happen. Yet, it does and we have no good reasons as to why. Am I to believe that capable well-trained human resources are not at the disposal of the government? Am I to truly believe there is no funding for technology updates when the governmnent PRINTS MONEY? Of course not! There are no viable excuses for the lag. Since September 11, 2001, and before I assume, the United States intelligence agencies have been in disarray, attempting to save face and deflect criticism by pointing fingers at each other. As Clive Thompson points out, technology and the absence of inter-agency communication has lead to deadly consequences. There should be a plethora of secure information networks open to all government agencies to maximize the capabilities of the government, as a whole. Working to ensure the safety and stability of the United States and its interests is a task that cannot be managed by one agency, as the mere existence of numerous agencies suggests. Lets get it together people!

9/27/07

Though Biometrics did not make much sense to me a few weeks ago, I get it now. The Biochallenge document outlines the uses of Biometrics and the I think I like the direction of the area of study, especially as it relates to personal information and business transactions. And though biometrics is definitely a move in the right direction for identity security, I wonder how long it is going to take for thieves and criminals to dismantle biometric security systems. Seriously, it is inevitable, if not because of the "genius" of criminals, then for the greed of capitalists who will eventually create security weaknesses in their own systems to justify the sale of new overpriced security systems.

On another note, I read recently that an elementary school, somewhere in the U.S., is petitioning for the use biometric technology to improve the efficiency of lunch sales. Essentially, the school wants to upload all of its students fingerprints into a computer system that would allow the school to manage lunch purchases through fingerprint recognition. Of course, there is a backlash from parents who fear what may happen with the digital information the school is acquiring, as identity theft is a big issue in the U.S. currently. I'm interested to see whats going to happen with this school and the students.

9/24/07

In the spirit of radio personalities, I want to give a shoutout to my Main man Guten Organ for posing that oh-so lovely question at the end of his latest blog. I can dig it my man and I think Robodemic has the remedy...(radio pause)...for the inquiry. Honestly, the government is obsessed with acquiring and denying power, plain and simple. Pirate radio, and all other "things," for lack of a better word, that function oustside of and in opposition to existing government regulations appear to undermine the "authority" of the government. And I want to stress the word "appear," because, as GutenOrgan pointed out, its seemingly nothing more than harmless fun, more annoying than dangerous. At least, that's how I see it. So, perhaps we can compare this conflict between government and pirate radio to the relationship between a human and a fly (work with me, if you can). The fly buzzing around in your apartment or your car isn't dangerous to your welfare, but it is annoying beyond belief. It flies and buzzes incessantly around your head and your home, disrupting the balance of your home. You run around the house in pursuit of this fly and just when you think you've got it cornered and at your mercy, it does that super-duper light speed reverse take off, and disappears until it thinks you are no longer a threat to its existence. And of course this pattern continues until you finally KILL that Son-of-a-Fly, which allows you, momentarily, to rejoice in your victory. But, its short lived, because within in days, and sometimes minutes, another frickin' fly appears, apparently a brave soldier replacing his fallen comrade. Perhaps, you can argue that killing the fly was accomplishment, but if the destruction of the original fly did not deter the proliferation of flies, what exactly have you accomplished? Such is the relationship between the FCC and pirate radio stations. The FCC is more annoyed than intimidated by the pirate radio station, and as it is the self-proclaimed watchguard of the airways, it relishes all opportunities to flex its electromagnetic muscles (this may be a stretch). This is probably oversimplified, but in a nutshell, that's how I see it!

9/19/07

Although I've always heard of rogue radio stations that find unoccupied frequencies in radio land, I never really understood how it was done. The website about the history of Radio Free New York explains a lot about the process and it is very interesting and in many ways amusing. Its funny, to me, that such small group of people could develop such a huge and loyal following, break FCC regulations and get away with it, while creating more support via the media frenzy that ensued. Its...so American. However, as I read, I wondered about how that radio station and other pirate radio stations may have been utilized more politically, as vessels for the voiceless members of society. I don't make this point in criticism of any pirate radio station; rather, I am simply making an observation about the potential of such an unrestrained media outlet.

In Franz Fanon's book A Dying Colonialism, there is a section where he writes about a pirate radio station in Algeria during the Algerian Revolution. The station, which exploited a gap in France's radio frequencies, functioned as a voice for the voiceless people of Algeria during the country's rebellion against French occupation. It was designed, primarily, to boost Algerian morale, by combatting the misleading propagandistic broadcasts of the French government.

The role of pirate radio within the context of the Algerian revolution is what prompted my previous statement about the potential of RFNY, and though the circumstances of each station's existence were quite different, I feel that the voids each station sought to fill were similar. People, all people, need an opportunity an

9/17/07

As I sit in front of this Dell computer, sick and achingly (I hope thats a word) tired, I am pondering on two things: OncoMouse's analysis of ads and viral infiltration, in technological and human contexts. First, let me say that I agree with Oncomouse, but because I'm sick, I want to talk about OTC drug advertisements. Do you all remember that nasal decongestant commercial that had the "Ginormous" nose with legs walking around a major metropolitan city? It was simultaneously scary and fascinating. Well, thats how I feel right now, like a huge nose stuffed with cotton balls and Bounty paper towels, but I digress. Whats more important, at least to me, is that although the I can't remember the name product, at all, I clearly remember that large nose walking down the street, red, swollen, and stuffy. (I have to run, but I'll finish this later). I'm back, thanks to good ol' Thera-Flu! I'm about 85% (thats football talk for how health status) and I'm feeling much better.

9/16/07

The premise of The Manchurian Candidate made so much more to me after Thursday's viewing than it did when I saw the updated version a while back. I know its the same movie, essentially, but the original version seems so much easier to follow. As I watched the film, I began thinking about the genre, if one exists, of intellectual film. I thought about how this movie might fit into such a genre and I found that some of the most interesting things about the movie were rooted in the subtle academic and literary allusions that were sprinkled throughout the film. For example, naming the Chinese government's brainwashng facility the Pavlov Institute (or something close) was a very strategically creative move on the part of the screenwriter. It suggests that the writer had an intellectual audience in mind (Did we not all laugh at the first moment the Pavlov facility was mentioned?), though we can assume that more than just "intellectuals" saw and enjoyed the movie. Even later in the film, while Jocie and Raymond are the watching news, we see that the media coverage of their elopement is being discussed within a Shakespearean context, with Raymond and Jocie's families being described as the Montagues and the Capulets, the forever warring families in Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet. My observations are, by no means, profound, but they were aspects of the film that stood out to me? So, my question is as follows: Beyond appealing, presumably, to an intellectual audience, do these allusions have a greater function in the film?

9/12/07

I must admit that the Psychological Operations of Guerilla Warfare is a disturbingly fascinating document. As an American, "where at least I... think... I'm free," I don't think I ever put too much thought into the conceptual framework of guerrilla warfare. Its always the war strategy of the other. Whenever guerrilla warfare is discussed in high school history courses or pretentious political arenas, the term always seems to be viewed as the "unfair" battle tactic that cost the U.S. the Vietnam War, created chaos during the Sandinista Guerrilla Movement of the 1960s and '70s, and is disrupting the U.S. battle strategies in Iraq, i.e. car bombs. Consequently, the political and psychological complexities unique to guerrilla warfare were foreign to me; I was green, to say the least . What I find most interesting in the document is its focus on the importantce of civilian population in the ultimate goal of government reform. Because the people, as the guerrilla movement claims, are the reason for the movement, and, theoretically, the strongest alliance of the movement, it is important to create and maintain a symbiotic relation between the guerrilla soldier and the civilian through, what appear to be, any means necessary. Through what better mean can this goal be accomplished than through RHETORIC? As the document makes clear, one of the first tasks the guerrilla soldier must master is the ability to "persuasively justify his actions when he comes into contact with any member of the People of Nicaragua...," because one he is able to master this skill, "enemy propaganda will never succeed in making him an enemy in the eyes of the people" (my emphasis). This is, obviously, but once element in a large document but I couldn't help but comment on it because it speaks to a much more complex political system than larger political machines would have people to believe.

9/5/07 (5:00 p.m.)

Could America "The Beautiful" be a national security state? I mean, is it really possible that behind the red, white, and blue banner of the most powerful "democratic" nation in the world stands a monstrous militaristic national security state. Hmmm...perhaps! After checking out the write up on sourcewatch.org, I must say that many of the idea seems rather applicable to our home nation. Of course, none of you is gasping at my "bold" suggestion as you read my blog, but consider the number of people in our country who fail to see the world, our world, as it truly exists; there are millions. One would only need a rough cafe napkin, an ink pen, and the ability to count to determine whether America is or is not a national security state. According to the site, a " feature of a National Security State is its obsession with enemies. There are enemies of the state everywhere. Defending against external and/or internal enemies becomes a leading preoccupation of the state, a distorting factor in the economy, and a major source of national identity and purpose." How many "enemies" do we have again (As I look up at the ceiling fan and tap my lip)? Moreover, it suggests that "any means used to destroy or control these enemies is justified." The U.S. military does seem to blow up a lot of stuff and kill a lot of insurgents everyday, but why? I don't believe I need to say much more, so I digress and leave with this final thought. Perhaps, the United States of America is not a national security state, but it sure is evolving in that direction. I can't help but think so when TSA bans breast milk because it poses a security threat. So, as I leave you until my next blog, I must say that I hope no one is monitoring this. (Curtains)

9/5/07 (5:50)

It has long been speculated that the deaths of the two most prominent civil rights leaders of the 1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, were funded and orchestrated by the United States federal government. During the 1960s, Dr. King and Malcolm X were men whose political powers were overwhelmingly intimidating to the American public and government. As men, they were, undeniably, the two biggest threats to the racist political infrastructure of the United States and much of white America feared the leaders' abiltity to mobilize black Americans in the struggle for equality. Given the context, it is little surprise to me that the U.S. government has documentation of its attempt to "neutralize" Dr. King. As the FBI documented in its file on Dr. King, the FBI task force had a mission to neutralize Dr. King "as an effective civil rights leader" (10). The FBI's willingness to kill Dr. King is even more conceivable when considering the bureau's involvement with CoIntelPro, or Counter Intelligence Program. With Hoover's backing, CoIntelPro was able to illegally infiltrate and completely dismantle many anti-government/pro-civil rights organizations the FBI saw as threats to national security. Perhaps, the most famous organization dissolved by CoIntelPro was the Black Panther Party. The blatantly unconstitutional nature of the FBI's behavior during this political epoch and beyond and my own distrust are what make me second guess our government.

9/6/07

I'm really hungry right now. I ate breakfast, and it was wonderful but I'm still hungry. I think I should have eaten another waffle or something. Anyway, I'm the only person in the office right now and its quite pleasant. There are no students, no teachers, no conversations, just me, my water bottle, and a computer. This is like being at my apartment, for the most part. I believe today will be a very long day, but I am definitely going to make the best of it. Tomorrow is Friday, and that gives me something to work towards, even though I have absolutely nothing planned for the weekend, aside from reading. Because lethargy is consuming my soul, I will stop here. (Curtains)