50 Shades of Grayson (Lighter)

Snakes on a plane (redux)

society, stupidity, Uncategorized Comments Off

Aug 272014

I fly fairly consistently though by no means am I row 13 troll racking up 100,000 miles a year or more. That said, I’m on enough to know that airlines squeeze people into too small a space for actual comfort.

More than that, people flying on business tend toward pulling out laptops to make productive use of the time in the air. That laptop has to sit in the already unsuitable space on the meal tray. So when the person immediately in front of the worker exercises his/her right to recline the seat back for greater comfort, it not only invades the already cramped space but makes using the computer all but impossible. I, personally, have had the clamshell lid cracked because it got sandwiched when the seat in front of me was thrust back.

So when two 48-year olds come just short of blows because one guy, sitting in the worst seat (middle) uses a little piece of plastic that costs 14-cents to make but is $22 at retail called the Knee Defender to prevent the seat from coming back, forcing the plane to be diverted from destination, you can do nothing but say, “Yeah, so what?” (See BBC story here)

Have to say that because it’s inevitable and has probably happened without such media fanfare many times. You also have to say it because both of these people were being douche bags (though I sympathize more with the guy using the device than with the gal who wanted to recline). Douche bags they might be, likely very self-righteously protecting their position and logic.

The airline, on the other hand, never mind the regulators, are culpable and should be punished. Here’s why. They create and foster the situation.

They create seat pitch (the gap for knees and breathing space) and squeeze it as tight as they can get away with. They do this because over 30 rows, 1-inch adds up to another row of seats which adds up to more revenue at a solid marginal profit. Notably, this fight broke out in a part of the plane that already had a larger pitch than cattle class.

They install seats that recline. Frankly, I think this whole notion is ridiculous and warrants physiological testing. The amount of recline the seat affords is not enough to be really any more comfortable; only enough to be irritating, imposing, and beyond annoying to the person behind you.

They make (and sell) the space and time on the plane to business travellers as a time to get things done. For crying out loud, they’re installing wifi on-board. Wifi is useless without a device to connect and trying to do real work on a tablet or smart phone is preposterous.

So, it’s the airline that creates the conditions that create the possibility for nobody’s wrong, self-righteousness.

Reclining passenger says, “Hey, the seat reclines and it’s my right to get more comfortable (or at least have the feeling that I’m getting more comfortable) by reclining completely. As far as I’m concerned, given the structure of the seating, that space MUST be mine to recline into.

The passenger being reclined into says, “Whoa, hold on, this space between my nose and your upright seat is inadequate to begin with. As soon as you recline, especially if the person in front of YOU isn’t reclining, you’re getting more space–MY space, which I need to work in. Back off. Reclining is a privilege, not a right.”

At the end of the day, the douche bag who pushes her seat back is probably more in “the right,” but in any case, the airline is in the wrong. And who suffers? The recliner, he being reclined upon, and EVERY OTHER PASSENGER who didn’t get to Denver as promised or has to listen to the kerfuffle.

Nonsense.

Take the train. It’s civilized.

The Safety Dance: one step forward; three steps back

Canada, ethics, politics, society, stupidity, Uncategorized Comments Off

Aug 242014

Today’s politically correct vogue is to wring one’s hands and fulminate about how dangerous the world is and how dire the need to protect one and all from its perils. Mental health disabilities and concussions are, among other human traumas, serious stuff. But it all seems a little overdone.

While the incidents of mental health claims and sport-related serious injuries are as high as ever in raw volume, a doubter might question its significance. Is there really more? Or are we just searching for, noting, and recording it now? This challenges the premise of greater danger, and the argument applies as readily to mental health injury as to cancer and allergy epidemics. It’s harder, I think, to argue that concussions went unrecognized and so could have been under-reported 30-years ago. That suggests greater danger. It does not mean it’s not ridiculous. Not the injuries; the circus of problem-solving.

The same day newspapers carried the story about Minister Clement’s pronouncement on mental health action, I saw a fellow on a bike wearing what looked like a 40-year old Cooper™ hockey helmet. It wasn’t a zippy cycling helmet, so it caught my attention and took my thoughts to the ongoing, very public finger wagging about concussions in hockey. I recalled that there was a time when that flimsy piece of plastic with an eighth inch of Styrofoam was the only wrapping on kids’ heads. Yet, so many of us live to reminisce about it.

What bothers me most about the well-meaning debates and pronouncements, be it about depression furloughs or kids’ cranial collisions, is that they are just so typically focused wrong. It is, of course, easier and more socially acceptable, never mind profitable, to push protection and palliatives than it is to deal with real problems. We leave uncomfortable stuff alone.

Regarding employee mental health issues untenably impacting labour costs, what we really don’t want to talk about is that we’ve done and keep doing it to ourselves. We avoid how mobile devices and PCs before them inconveniently changed what it means to be working. Not only are we all expected to be available within the hour if not actually responding in the moment, it doesn’t end at 5:00PM or Friday at the pub. That is fact.

Instead of acknowledging and debating the incompatibility of commercial efficiency and human frailty, we are treated to paeans to the “new reality” or some derivative. It’s liberating, they say. Not so much unless fetters factor into your definition of free. But it is an efficiency gainer, so it’s not going anywhere. That leaves the chattering classes to accept the root issue wholesale and babble on about the deleterious effects.

What about the hollowing out of the organization? It’s good for organizations because short-term productivity is high. It’s not good for people, because no machine runs at the yellow line for years on end without burning out. People in “management” are being overworked, the demands on their time extend well beyond what was traditionally work time, and they know that they are always one false move from not having to worry about it at all. Why would anyone be stressed or depressed?

Then there’s this business of sports injuries, with concussion trending right now. Of course being concussed is bad, especially for a brain still being formed. Then again, so is pushing a teenage body to meet the demands of an adult body. Speaking only of hockey, what we don’t want to talk about is that WE are the cause of the problem, one that we’re not eager to cure.

Back to the Cooper™ helmet. Hockey is a pretty rough sport. It was when I played as a kid. But it was rough within limits. Bad helmets and other variants of plastic, felt, and sponge left a lot of opportunity to feel pain, which took some spirit out of the boys. You didn’t try doing too much harm to others because, among other things, it was probably going to hurt you too.

Over the past forty years, we’ve outfitted our little gladiators with Kevlar and ballistic protection that makes them (feel) practically invincible. When over-protected, the most important organ in the body doesn’t work effectively. Because there is no pain escalation to indicate it’s time to back off, one can forget that one is, in fact, going to get hurt. And when it inevitably does happen, it won’t be just a little owey either! Add a persistent hockey season. Unlike the few boys that went to one-week, summer hockey camp in the 1970s, now every child has pre-season training and development prior to the try-outs that precede the season, which gets followed by a post-season work-down, etc… In other words, kids have the protection needed to detach them from the reality of being hurt, plus we train them to be stronger and more aggressive earlier. Never mind the parents who demand that little Mikey behaves like the NHL star that dad wishes he’d been, and then encourage aggression by behaving like lunatics in the stands.
Hockey today isn’t more dangerous, nor is cycling or skiing or any other sport. Work and life is not harder than a century ago. What we’ve done to ourselves in the name of progress, though, is create everything we need to push ourselves and our children up to and past the breaking point physically and mentally. Contrary to my first employer’s view, people are really not machines. You can’t merely grease them and replace worn parts.

They can’t work at their limit all the time. They can’t be expected to always self-heal from the inevitable injuries. But every employer knows that there is plenty of supply. So, ultimately, they can be replaced when worn out. It’s just costly; and not very pleasant salon conversation.

Meantime, we can all talk about how children are being physically injured and adults are being mentally tormented, and about what paternalistic safety equipment and palliative programs we can enforce. It makes us feel like we’re doing something valuable. And that’s good for our mental well-being.

* I wrote this a few months ago and submitted it for op-ed… nothing.

Foretelling decline by observing focus and attention

Canada, politics, society, stupidity Comments Off

Aug 212014

The National Post headline says, Canada’s language watchdog probing John Baird’s Twitter account over lack of French posts. Sadly, the headline says it all. There is, of course, a story that challenges the requirements for a “public” account to be in both official language. That is, as opposed to a “personal” account. Implicit, of course, is the recognition that Twitter has a growing and overwhelming institutional side equivalent to broadcast media. After all, that’s what the parallel would be.

That challenges the entire notion of Twitter, a question or dark secret that ought to come out into the open: Twitter has been co-opted by the corporatists (as is everything eventually). All you Libertarian technologists take note.

In any case, isn’t this situation (i.e., a federal government minister, elected in a riding in the nation’s capital, who ought to be communicating with constituents in both official languages as appropriate for this circumstance) something that “the market” should address. And here, of course, “the market” is the electorate which can determine whether he is offside or not. Do we really need a public office to tilt at this windmill?

Personal Information as Money

ethics, IT Security, Privacy Comments Off

Aug 192014

I’m a fan of bit torrents. To be clear, I rent movies legally; I do not “share.” Still, bit torrents fascinate me because the peer-to-peer system represents thinking for what could be the next great leap in online privacy protection.
The obvious problem with privacy (online) shows up in one of two types of news items. One: a breach of data on some organization’s servers or lost off someone’s USB drive puts thousands or perhaps millions of people’s private information into the hands of unauthorized and probably unsavoury characters. Two: an organization that has amassed privileged, personal information about customers or citizens for some purpose shows its industriousness and uses its “intelligence” to draw undesired conclusions about and harass those same people. In either case, when such a situation is exposed, people feel justifiably violated… even if there is no real harm done.
As I say, these are obvious challenges to privacy. They are not, however, the real issue. Privacy breaches are a symptom and proxy complaint. What’s happening in both circumstances is a breach of trust. In the first case by criminals (or the government) who have larcenously acquired private property (your information), and in the latter by an institution that said “trust us with your important information,” then misused it without your understanding or approval. Blame gets properly directed toward those that have let us down.
Funny that we don’t turn that blame inward. After all, the root of the problem is that we have trusted some organization to keep safe and use only as prescribed something of value to us: our most personal information. At least that’s what we say while we’re railing on about its loss or misuse. But we did let go of that information in the first place, likely without appreciating the potential impact. And probably for not even fifty pieces of silver. So the real problem is that we have ignorantly given up what is dearest to us to somebody else’s keeping. Worse, we gave it to someone or something that is acquiring similarly valuable information from many others and keeping the whole lot in a single place. That creates a treasure trove of value for a thief and a wicked temptation to any other amoral entity.
Is it really any wonder not that there are privacy breaches at all but rather that there aren’t more?
Whether you are reading this as an individual whose information is so entrusted or as an organizational leader in possession of that information, perhaps you’re thinking about information wrong. Chances are that you imagine all this personal information is ones and zeros. Less of a nerd, perhaps in your imagination it is benign sets of discrete data. In any case, “information” is almost certainly an abstraction. Even when rendered as reams of paper (Who else does that anymore?) it has no substance. That makes it very easy to minimize and marginalize.
Try a little thought experiment with me. Contrast and then equate this personal data with cash. Yes, now your (customers’) information is money! Now it has meaning and substance. Doesn’t that change things a bit?
If it’s your information/cash, don’t you take more care with it? Won’t you be a bit more circumspect about where you pull it out, where you put it, and with whom you entrust it—and why? The problem with information (and where this metaphor breaks down, actually) is that it is not a diminishing asset: when you give it up, you still have it. So, perceptually, there is no fine point on losing possession of it.
On the other hand, if you are entrusted with money (information), you now have a fiduciary responsibility for it. Financial institutions (except certain S+Ls, derivatives houses, and mortgage lenders) tend to take their responsibility for their customers’ money seriously. To start with, their customers take it seriously. Then, of course, so does society in the form of strict regulations and governance.
Moral, legal, and economic incentives seem to have the necessary impact. So you don’t often hear about frivolous or cavalier disregard for how a financial institution tends to and uses its customers’ money. And, we don’t hear about too many thefts arising from the interception of bits and bytes that represent real money. When there is such a theft, there are again many incentives to pursue and recover the money, and prejudicially prosecute the crime.
Only a fool expects complete safety and everyone wants some control and means to exert control to get (what’s left of) their money back from those to whom they have entrusted it. The entire system of “tangible” fiat money makes everyone care more about the exchange.
We could do a lot worse than think about our allegedly valuable personal information with the same concern that we give dirty old cash.

CUPW protests lack of irony in the news

Uncategorized Comments Off

Jan 272014

Most news outlets are carrying a story today similar to this one (CBC) that covers the Parliament Hill protests by CUPW, directed toward the Prime Minister, against the Canada Post changes to service–most specifically to the end of door-to-door delivery. CUPW’s interest: membership will decline. And, to the organization, it doesn’t matter whether that’s because of terminations resulting from reduced work, attrition from retiring members not being replaced, or lunar conjunction. The end result is the same: the organization, like the employer, (first irony) has its very purpose and survival at stake.

The second, and even better irony, comes with a leaflet that I found in my mailbox (third irony). The leaflet, “Produced by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers,” is provided below so you can see I’m not making this up. In point of fact, I couldn’t: I’m not THAT creative.

Pamphlet side A Pamphlet side B

For anyone who needs training wheels for dark humor, let me assist. The leaflet, which is a petition to MPs, showed up in my mailbox. It has NO POSTAGE, and I am certain it was not delivered via Canada Post (don’t ask why). It clearly indicates what to do to mail the completed form to the MP for the area NO POSTAGE required (because it’s Parliamentary mail). Need more help? The union is complaining about the cuts to service, which start as a result of revenue from postage/mail declining precipitously. And even they don’t use the system to generate revenue toward their own health. It’s as if Henry Ford went to the trouble of giving his employees a good wage so they could afford to buy cars for their families as goes the legend, and instead they went out a got more horses and oats with their new “wealth.”

Love it.

Sympathy and its limits

Uncategorized Comments Off

Jan 232014

As a parent, you have to feel sympathy for the Calgary mother who found out that her son was killed in Syria. Perhaps the sympathy wanes just a little bit when you find out that the son had converted to Islam and had gone to Syria to fight the jihad and ended up dead at the working end of another faction’s machine gun. The mother was apparently ignorant of all of this, though his reason to her for heading to the Middle East was to learn Arabic in Egypt. All this according to news reports and nothing else.

Put yourself in her shoes: her child is dead and somebody or something is at fault. We all need reasons; and in the case of ourselves and especially our children, it tends to be reasons external to ourselves. “My child was a victim.” It allows for a modestly less troubled sleep. But when this mother blames the government, saying, “‘In my eyes, the government is just as guilty as if they had pulled the trigger themselves,’ the mother told the National Post in her first public comments since the death was announced,” we head into dangerous territory. It’s likely that this is an emotional lashing out in the moment that will pass as Kubler-Ross predicts. But, recently, it’s as likely that this is the position that will harden into accepted truth.

At which point, I begin to be unsympathetic. Not for the loss but for the denial and blame. The boy became a jihadist in a war zone. Is that normal for a Calgarian? Should the government be blamed for that too? Couldn’t they have warned her and forced the boy into a Catholic school? Is it the parents’ (the mother’s) fault? How could they watch this develop and allow the boy to go to the Middle East?

Blame is an interesting parlour game, but it hardly matters in most instances. It’s not nice to say, but sometimes… shit happens. And there’s nothing anybody could do about it. A nanny state that issues or denies a passport on the basis of what it thinks is in your best interest is not something that anybody wants. Except a grieving mother who can’t believe that her little boy from the Prairie died in a far away land fighting for something that didn’t affect him for a reason that nobody can comprehend.

The “consumer” they call us…

Uncategorized Comments Off

Jan 192014

I’m reminded by Andrew Coyne’s column this weekend of a 1970s song by Stompin’ Tom Connors that gained particular reknown as the theme music for CBC’s “Marketplace” consumer affairs program. Tom was not given credit as a bard or for foretelling the future. About 40-years later, though, and Tom turns out to be more right than he could have imagined.

Andrew Coyne’s column was about the way that the political parties and the political process in Canada has now fully framed all 33+-million of us as “consumers” of government services and of the output of politics (and politicians). Despite his never responding to me–directly to the emails or indirectly when I reference his work, I like Mr. Coyne’s writing and, whether I agree with his position or not, how he arrives there. Usually. In this case, I tend to agree but think he’s been sucked in to the implicit premise that his column and the odious way government treats us is based. That is: We are consumers.

The argument, loosely, is this: the Conservatives and now the New Democrats are talking about how to treat their consumers (read: us) and how to best address our needs. It is premised on Mulcair’s charge against high prices, which warrants Mr. Coyne explaining fundamental economics and competitive structures. Mr. Coyne is right on both counts, and so the rejection of the politicization of the word “consumer” is complete. There’s a problem with all that.

By immediately moving to capitalism, laissez-faire, the value of competition and how successive governments make mockery of it, Mr. Coyne accepts and assumes the validity of us being “consumers”… of government and politics. I get where it comes from: the notion that good businesses that provide value to their customers are satisfying those “consumers” by putting their interests, needs, and desires at the forefront. (I would argue that this rarely happens at the best of times, let alone in politics, but that’s another blog.) So, this being an accepted truth of capitalism that applies without thought in every dark corner of society, it makes sense to assume it and get on with the hypocrisy of politicians and political parties putting the consumer front and centre, or so they say.

Last time I checked, I was not a consumer of the nation, of society, and of my own (social) existence. I am, as is Mssrs. Coyne, Harper, and Mulcair–as are we all–CITIZENS of Canada. As such and within a democracy, we have given to those we elect to administer on our behalf the right and responsibility to serve our (social) needs. It is not their place to treat me like a consumer; they are not making a profit. It is not their goal to satisfy my typically fleeting desires for X, Y, and Z, but to show some foresight and wisdom for not only my long-term good but for the nation’s long-term good. Consumer businesses exist, these days, in conveniently demarked 90-day reporting periods and respond to the fickleness of trends, fads, fashions, and evolutions in technology. One would hope that Canada is not and should not be operated on the basis of a persistently, creatively-destructively cycle of pandering to consumers. (Perhaps my real issue is that as consumers we have become idly, compliantly ready to be told what we need by those who have something to sell us–need it or not. Again, different blog.)

Good for Andrew Coyne for calling to task at least two political parties and specific politicians for their misleading use of the already insipid “consumer focus” meme. It’s just too bad, though maybe a constraint of a 700-word column, that he opted to accept something that is a bastardization of two parts of our life. To which, I say,

“Soylent Green is people!“

Reasonable accommodations…

Uncategorized Comments Off

Jan 192014

Maybe it’s because of the Polar Vortex: there has been an unusually large (a few, admittedly) number of bizarre demands for accommodation going on recently. The largest by far is what’s happening in Quebec viz. the proposed Secular Charter. The most extreme might be the demand for judicial interference to accommodate a child’s food allergies. The most institutionally gut-wrenching, because of its seesaw reversals and impact on not only religious but gender “rights,” seems to have been the circumstances around a male student at York University who asked to be permitted to not work with women on religious grounds. And, while not in Canada, today I read about a snowboarder who is launching a constitutional challenge to a Utah ski resort’s policy to allow only those on two planks not one. The severe cold–not severe by the measure of temperatures during my childhood on the Prairie, but no mind–seems to be affecting synaptic activity in a large number of uncovered heads.

In Quebec, the Marios government’s pendulum has moved so far to the right that it begs for being both pilloried and ridiculed. That said, at its root it would appear to be a response to what is an ongoing, persistent (successful) demand for individual accommodation with regard to all things “religious,” irrespective of how dubious or discomforting to the majority. It’s probably too late to stay clear of religious freedoms at this point, but I need to say that I’m not entirely in disagreement with the underlying intent. It is a very fine line between cultural protection of the nation and odious persecution. At this point, the Quebec government would seem to have both feet firmly planted on the fetid side of the line–a condition that is not uncommon for successive editions of that august body. But it does raise the very valid question of where should that line between the will of the majority and the demand of the individual lay. And the problem with even putting one’s hands on the line is that it is so charged with the electricity of emotion (and “unreason,” which I use to describe religious beliefs) that the thickest rubber gloves will not prevent a ringing shock.

The most significant, and obviously hypocritical aspect of the York University situation was that the student ultimately withdrew his request and need to be accommodated. At least that’s what I’ve read. So, after the verbal acrobatics undertaken by the professor (“Grayson” — no relation), the administration, the ink-stained wretches and blog floggers such as myself, the boy determined that he would do the assignment even with the women. Funny and perhaps not even warranting comment… but I’ll say it anyway. The situation reminds me of a Groucho Marx line: “These are my principles. And if you don’t like them, I’ve got others.” So, after miles of column-inches and histrionics in debate about the religious and gender issues, it was for naught. The principle seems to be squishy.

In southern Ontario, a parent wants the world (or at least the school) to accommodate her child’s allergies. I do not know, beyond what I’ve read and heard, how long or how far these demands and attempts to accommodate or refusal to do so went. I do know that the mother has raised it to judicial intervention. At root, her child has allergies to foods that are, unfortunately, now and for at least the past couple millennia, considered “staples.” That means, they are foundational to the diet of the entire population, perhaps around the world. That the girl is presently (“presently” because children have been known to outgrow allergies) allergic to these foods it very unfortunate for her and for her family, who want to both protect their child and ensure that she has as normal a childhood as possible. Focus on the words “as possible.” We should all want the same for the child.

Where this gets particularly thorny is in the nature of accommodations. As I understand it, the school tried to ban milk and egg products, but apparently even the mere proximity to someone who has eaten such things (without them actually being present or the girl coming in contact with them) can set off anaphylaxis. That is terrible. It’s also a bit dubious–to me. But let’s go with it to the extreme. So that has resulted in the stand-off that the Court will hear. But if we extend this, should this girl be allowed in public at all, never mind school? What if she’s on a bus and somebody that she will come in proximate contact with only once in her entire lifetime is hurriedly scarfing down an egg salad sandwich between school and work or somesuch? Won’t that cause shock? Should everyone in the city, on the basis of the argument that mere proximity is dangerous and the child should be fully accommodated, be forbidden to eat eggs? Should the movie theatre, where the girl wants to go see Despicable Me 2, enforce a breathalyzer test at the door to ensure no milk or egg product fumes are exhaled by anyone going to the 24-theatre complex? It becomes ridiculous very fast. My child, thankfully not allergic to anything to the extent of mortal danger, was once drummed out of a classroom because of her egg salad sandwich because one of the 30 children was allergic to eggs. My, frankly, furious response was something of the sort: “Let me understand this. The kid with the allergy is being accommodated and specifically not being “ostracized” by having to leave the room because in some corner of it there is an egg. But my child is, in full fact does get ostracized. After all, within the group it was not my child that was different and in a perilous circumstance because of a chicken ovum. Yet her ostracization was OK, while asking the child to protect himself by leaving a place where there was an egg is not. Please refer back to the bus trip and movie theatre earlier in the paragraph.

All of that is thorny social issues that should be dealt with reasonably and sensibly by all parties. In our case: my child went to the hallway; I ranted at home as I did above; we saved egg salad for sandwiches at home from then on. What is most disturbing about this, however, is just how much ink has been spilled and how many soundwaves have been generated over all this; how much has been written; and how little has been said. When the vast majority of the media reporting on this are satisfied to “report” and provide the enormous insight that it shouldn’t be like that or the Court should not be involved or we need to talk it out and be reasonable, without taking a position and providing light rather than mere heat to the dialogue, it is a clear comment on the weakness of the media’s (and by extension it’s editorialists and opinionators) knees. Positions should change and that’s OK. But that is an impossibility if there is no position to begin with because we are ready to accommodate even the notion that there could be valid reason to take a firm stance and debate.

At the very least (and it is the VERY least), the Quebec government has put on the table something to expose real views and values. We could stand for more of that.

The ACLU has a job to do, no matter how odious

Uncategorized Comments Off

Dec 182012

Only in California…

I saw an article in the National Post today, Convicted sex offenders have a right to privacy, advocates say, that is repugnant on first (and second..n) read. The gist of it is that the ACLU is holding up a law passed by plebiscite a California last month by an 80% majority. The “proposition,” numbered 35 and to be implemented next year, compels convicted sex offenders (who have obviously by this point done their time) to reveal to police their Facebook and other online social accounts along with their residential address and so forth.

ACLU lawyers, doing their job, are mounting what looks to be a Constitutional appeal based on the apparent foregoing of First Amendment rights (freedom of speech and assembly, etc., for those without their copy handy) as a result of this law. The surrender of civil rights to the government is not something to be taken lightly lest the dripping loss of such rights ends up emptying the bucket of civil liberties. It is a good thing that the ACLU is taking up this issue among others.

Still, the repugnance of the situation suggests that we can hope that their legal counsel is second rate. What is repugnant is the mere thought of protecting the civil liberties of anyone convicted of a crime let alone a sexual offender (and worse yet, the sexual offender of children). It seems that liberties are reasonably suspended if one has breached their civic duties–the counterpoint that gets nearly no attention by comparison to the liberties side of the coin. But what the ACLU is “fighting” for may not be the convicted sex offender so much as for you and me (if you happen to be American, actually) on what its apologists in these cases tend to refer to as the slippery slope: first its sexual offenders, then before long its… If you buy that argument, then what the ACLU is doing is justifiable.

Here’s where the situation loses me in its Scarlet Letter drama: 80% of Californians voted in favour (and we know that people always behave rationally in herds) to compel social network information be turned over to police just as address information. What’s the issue? Is there really a freedom of speech issue here? To my meagre intelligence, it’s not a freedom of speech issue as much as a loss of anonymity issue. And, last time I looked, the Constitution is fully silent on the issue of anonymity. Think about it: what is really at stake is not the loss of the right to speak or assemble; only the ability to do so either anonymously or pseudonymously or fraudulently. That’s the real issue. People, particularly justifiably convicted (sexual) offenders are considerably at higher risk of reoffence, at least as compared to everyone else, if they know they are not being watched. Hell, everyone–especially the assholes behind the wheel of cars with full blackout windows–is more willing to do what is socially unacceptable when they (feel they) are anonymous. The Scarlet Letter was obvious and Hester’s liberties were not taken away. The effect was fully felt though.

That, frankly doesn’t seem like the wrong thing to do even if there might be one in 100 convicts who have either reformed or were wrongly imprisoned in the first place.

Buffering… Buffering…

Uncategorized Comments Off

Nov 302012

So about a year ago, I think, I get a call out of the blue from this guy named Jay Shah. I have no idea how he found me. But he would like to tell me about this business start-up he and some friends at Waterloo have got going and get a bit of feedback. The concept he describes is for a conveniently-located, transient, secure package delivery station. It’s called “BufferBox,” he says.

My response, to the best of my recollection, was that (a) the idea sounded very interesting; (b) the underlying concept and technology for managing the logistics of reusable depositories (think a bus-station locker with a lock that is managed through numeric codes sent to users by email) was probably more valuable than the delivery station concept; (c) think bigger and smaller–what would a box that could hold a letter or an engagement ring-size box, or a locker that could hold a standard container (trailer on an 18-wheeler) do; (d) align with somebody whose interests correspond but don’t overlap; (e) think about NFC and the mobile phone as the enabling device; and (f) good luck with it and remember me just before you go public.

Well, I’m sure the advice went in one ear and out the other. Or did it? I just read in both of Canada’s national newspapers that BufferBox was acquired for an undisclosed sum by Google. Apparently Google’s interest is in how this fascinating piece of an end-to-end value chain fits with its mobile ambitions. (Hmmm….)

I don’t have any actual or optional, gratuitously provided founders shares–not one!–but I do have a warm feeling for these three guys and what/where they’re going. Good for you. My bet is that Google is going to help you push outward mostly in the ways that Jay and I talked about a year ago. Maybe they’ll be a little more focused on alignment of interests and they’ll also overlook the last item.

Congratulations. My bet is that this is just the beginning of an interesting run for this little business (and Google) in ways that putting a package into the hands of a university student can’t begin to contemplate.

Older Entries Newer Entries