Bar Chatter

Bar Chatter #34

Sometimes it's not enough for a post...so it's just bar chatter.  

Cleaned my fridge out last night, all the stuff I'd wrapped up or put in something that I swore I was going to eat later went in the garbage. I need to do better. Looked in my freezer. I have two and half pounds of shrimp, three steaks, and two pounds of chicken.  

I had popcorn for dinner twice this week. Twice! 

Oh, yeah. I have to clean up after. Ugh. Now I remember.

But I really, really, like not joking, need to do better.

Apple vs the US Government

This is a political post.

I spotted in the news that Apple has decided to fight a court order to assist the government in unlocking an iPhone. This on it's face would be wrong, privacy and all that, except the phone belonged to the man who killed fourteen people at the San Bernardino County Department of Health, and may be instrumental in figuring out what happened. What you might call, mitigating circumstances. Even if the phone contains nothing, and that is a possibility, it behooves the investigators to check and be sure.

Then there is what the government is asking for, which Tim Cook seems to want to categorize as a backdoor, but when you look at it, probably isn't. I understand why they're 'standing' up to the government. In the hyper competitive business environment they exist in, they're in an extremely vulnerable position as the perceived luxury brand. Other firms can do what they do, and charge less for it. But, they can work there luxury hook by exploiting their also perceived existence as the one major tech giant who is NOT packaging and selling your personal data to make its profits. We're the good guys, do business with us! And Cook has mounted his argument the idea that this is a slippery slope involving phone security that we shouldn't start down.  

Only there is a problem. Technically, and since this really is a technical issue this is important, Tim Cook's argument is wrong. 

Now, let's be clear here, I believe in consumer privacy and would not want a backdoor or master key created which would allow someone to access my phone without my permission. Ever. And since this is the one phone the alleged shooter didn't try to destroy, there probably is little evidence here that might be useful. But even so, I think the government has a reasonable interest in the contents of the phone if only out of procedural and professional thoroughness. And maybe that Apple is being just a bit oversensitive.

Okay, to explain myself, when I say Tim Cook's argument is wrong its that he makes it sound like the government is asking for a backdoor to built into all future Apple devices so that they can access them when they need to, hopefully meaning only when they have a court order. But this isn't what the government is asking for. And Cooks more nuanced "actual argument" that the government would use this single copy of the software to reverse engineer their own master key...like they couldn't just buy a phone and do it if they really wanted to...is just hyperbole. Actually considering what they're asking for, they should have just requested an actual backdoor. It would be simpler.

You see, what the government IS asking Apple to do is to build a custom version of their 9.0 software to use on that single phone that disables two security features, but don't actually unlock the phone. The first feature the government is trying to circumvent is the auto erase after ten unsuccessful access attempts. The second part is the time required between entry attempts, which increases after five tries. What this will allow the government to do is essentially try every combination until they get it, a brute force solution. By the way, if the phone has an eight digit code it could still take years. Many, many hundreds of years. For some reason, Apple and Cook want to classify that as a backdoor. It's not. It's not even a particularly effective access tool. And the other weird part is, this requested version of software that might still take hundreds of years to work is only that little tiny bit of effective on this particular older model of the phone, not the newer products. A change in the architecture of the iphone 6 (which certainly also will exist on the iphone 7) makes this particular method which is already just about useless, the argumentative equivalent of railing against not giving a spoon to somebody hoping to empty the Atlantic. This particular technical question isn't even really a question going forward. Makes you wonder what this argument is really about.
  

Is this really a corporate defense of an unsettled privacy issue caused by advances in technology that the law hasn't had time to adapt to? As we go forward, and with our growing reliance on technology - specifically cell phones - we should be drawing bright lines where possible as to what can and cannot be searched without just cause. Only narrow slice of law doesn't really apply here. Is this an attempt to check the limitations of court powers on trade secrets and intellectual property? We already have legislation and precedent here. Maybe it's addressing a future collision of two areas of law that will only get worse as our lives get more intertwined with technology going forward? Striking a balance between the new services business model technology is moving towards with police power is important with regards to individual privacy, but I'm not sure this is the case to attempt to prove a point.  Or is it a marketing ploy to help polish the company image? Very likely.

Because this story still has a number of things which make the larger arguments seem like distractions, not legal thought abstracts.

What the government suggested was that the custom version of the software that Apple would have to build under the court order be constructed to only operate on a single device. It seems a smart compromise. But it's here that Apple raises it very real concern about reverse engineering on the part of the government for future use. Or it would been a real concern about their motives, if the government hadn't offered to let Apple create and install the software, KEEP THE PHONE, and then send their attempts to unlock it to Apple remotely. The company gets total control, and the authorities get the suspects data. But Apple said no. It could be that I'm missing something, but it sounds like the government is trying to be accommodating to industry concerns and just getting stonewalled on principle. I'm starting to kind of get the impression Apple wanted to call attention to this make a philosophical point. Which is weird.

Because our friend Apple uses a closed system, allowing only programs they have taken apart and approved on their company products. This will continue for the foreseeable future. Their products, as a default, track a sinful amount of your data. And so, the company that as a policy disables YOUR phone remotely for using third party repairs, now has the idea that YOUR phone and YOUR data are somehow now sacrosanct in the eyes of the law.

But apparently this idea only applies to the government and not the company itself.

One loathes to use the term hypocrite....but Apple is being a hypocrite here. Which undermines any grand philosophical point they might be trying to make. And while I applaud their effort, and the idea of individual privacy, they may have chosen the wrong horse to ride to glory here.

(Full disclosure: I have an Ipad. And I like it.)

What if the Supreme Court....was liberal?

This is a political post.

As much as I wanted Scalia to no longer be a part of the supposedly non-political court that controls quite possibly the fate of the world, if you read back I just wanted the man to retire someplace quiet. And take Clarence Thomas with him. But I'm ashamed to admit my first feeling was an inappropriate glee at his passing. Two or three seconds, but I would like to apologize because it was just that very, very inappropriate. A man has passed on and his passing should be embraced with the solemn respect of one who has affected so many of our lives.

I just wish someone had told the conservatives. 

It goes without saying that there is a belief on the part of the conservatives that this country is theirs, by right, and those of us who disagree with them but who were also born here and are citizens should have no say in it's running. I'm not sure why this is, or why the version of free they espouse has so many limitations in it for things they don't agree with, but I try not to let the incongruity get to me. Lest my head explode. So, it goes without saying that of all the things that could have happened, the most conservative of the conservatives Supreme Court Justices passing on was not something that was supposed to happen. At least not now.

Because before everyone was even sure the man was dead, the GOP establishment and the candidates running were of the very verbal opinion that Obama was on his way out and the next president should pick the next Justice. Then had the gall to got upset if anyone (else) tried to politicize the man's death. But there plan has an issue. Obama has officially more than three hundred thirty (330) days left in office. A lame duck president he is not. Someone suggested that maybe the Republicans thought because he was black he only gets 3/5ths of a term. But since the average time to confirm a nominee going back to Rehnquist is about three (3) months, let's see, some quick math, let's see carry the week, divide by a weekend...yep, he's got time to get it done. Twice. Maybe three time. It turns out the long thought of as permanent conservative majority of the Court may not be as permanent as they thought.

Which leads us to our next issue: Instead of playing and rigging the game, they ANNOUNCED that they're going to turn the table over, grab all the chips and hide in the bushes until the next election. Not exactly sporting. And it an election year, potentially politically fatal. There plan is already falling part less than a week later, as some Republicans have refused to toe the party line and are saying we should consider one. Of course this might be a ploy - say they'll consider one and then just continue to call them unfit until after the election, but still. And hopefully they realize that even this plan runs the risk of them tagging someone obviously qualified as unfit and making it clearly political. It's a delicate game they're playing, and right this second they're using sledgehammers and baseball bats.

But what if the Supreme Court had a liberal majority? It's had a conservative majority for so long we've all just assumed that it's the normal state of things. But what if it's not. What if the Supreme Court wasn't a ref checking the rule book as the Executive and Legislative branches duke it out, but instead a more of what it was designed to actually be...the third branch of government. While we deride the idea of legislating from the bench, is that such a bad thing? And isn't that within the bounds of the court, with it's intentionally vague constitutional mandate. Could the Founding Fathers who crafted a document that seemed to encompass so many other checks and balances have left that one out...on purpose? One of my law professors, as I've explained here, likes to refer the Supreme Court as American's Counsel of Wise Men. Maybe he had a point.

But, most giddy for me, does this mean the return of....BATMAN Obama.   

Again Oscar?

Ramblings Post #310
Honestly, my only real Oscar interest is when Turner Classic Movies does its Thirty One Days of Oscar film fest. There are some nights on TCM that you find yourself watching something and you have to wonder how this got made...even in 1950! But during Oscar month, just about everything is gem. Old favorites come out, popcorn is popped and I don't even mind that it's cold outside.  

Once again the Oscars have been announced, and once again the majority white, pretty much all male, and mostly over 60 members have decided the best actors in the country for the past year pretty much look like themselves. Again. Gee that was unexpected.

When you consider the films that emerged this year that were well written and well acted, but that didn't star the same old same old or follow the same old formulas, and had actors that were minorities in prominent roles, this is a little disappointing. But not wholly  surprising. I know we've got a black president, but Hollywood is Hollywood and when you consider that it still thinks films with female or minority leads can't open big (*cough*Force Awakens) or aren't internationally marketable (see Exodus: Gods and Kings) the idea that they then, and probably without even thinking about it, omit certain films is...well, understandable.  It's kind of why some of the other award shows - The Image Awards, The BET awards, etc, - came into existence. Because nothing feels worse than knocking it out the park and not being recognized at all for it.

The one acting nomination that did emerge even connected to a minority led and minority lead picture garnered it's sole accolade for the acting of the White Male supporting actor. What surprised me even more is that somehow this was a shock to those who have worked in the industry for decades. 

Which brings me to Jada Pinkett-Smith, who suggested the Black Hollywood boycott Regular Hollywood.

I'm not saying it's because her husband was nominated, but I'm just saying the timing shole is funny. (By the way, my friends from Africa tell me his accent was wrong based on the character, so that's one point not in his favor.)

The term boycott to me is always interesting, because it is the go-to method of protest for upper class black outrage. Even when it's use won't actually help it's the first idea anyone bougie throws on the table. Boycott'em. Because it sounds historic and requires little effort. But to make a boycott efficient, it has to be something that depends on business with blacks to thrive, and where taking away that black trade would inflict heavy financial damages. That model won't work with Hollywood. Further, Pinkett-Smith is asking some black actors to risk their livelihood. Sure, Sam Jackson will find work, but a few of the actors on the cusp who just got their first invite can't really afford to bite the hand that feeds them. Not even nibble on it really.

My first suggestion is that instead of a boycott, everyone black who is invited should go. But they should coordinate, and everyone wear the same color outfit, one just offsetting enough to catch the eye but not enough to throw the whole night off. Say, all the men who support the diversity effort wear a yellow gold tuxedo jacket. And all the women wear matching gold dresses of various shades. This way you include non-minorities who support the cause. Imagine George Clooney and Sam Jackson showing up in the gold...and explaining what they're doing in a calm and patient manner, over and over again to the assembled press. A camera sweep of the room with heavily laid out against black would be a striking image you could probably put on posters. Why not that instead of boycott? Just a suggestion. 

My other suggestion for the "black elite" those whose talents and skills have blessed them with fortunes is why not establish their own "base." Long I have heard the stories of black people in Hollywood and the diminished, stereotypical roles they are offered. And the question I've often asked, much like you ask anyone else on any other job, if you're this dissatisfied, why not create your own future instead of waiting for the world to serve you what you need? Why hasn't Black Hollywood made it's own Hollywood?

Black athletes and actors should get together, pool their monies, and create their own production companies. Plural. Three or four. I realize that all actors aren't wealthy, most of them are living project to project, so some of this is old school asking those who got something to lookout for the rest of us. Will, Jada, looking at you. Those that can invest a few million need to do so, and if we can raise a few hundred million from a thousand or so folks that all would go into Film Trusts or Associations. Then we choose two or three old school black actors or directors to serve on the boards and select various projects. With a that little bit of money (comparatively speaking) we're talking about three or four medium budget ($5-10 million dollars) films per year, with a profit sharing plan that pays out to the investors but also pays back into the Trust.

This business model gives young minority directors a chance to flex their skills, young minority script writers a chance to put hone their skills and get a resume going, and minority crew members as chance to work as well. These need not be exclusively black projects, but all minorities, with shorts, television shows, animation, web shows and features that show that minority actors can be the any character in the spectrum, from sci-fi to prestige dramas.  

But these just a few ideas that I had. Not that I'm anyone important.

Barkeep. I need a glass of white. And drop three grapes into it. It's a class thing.

Martin Luther King Jr.

If ever there was a need to build a time machine and to go back and pluck someone from the past because we need him today, it's Dr. King. A voice of calm in an ocean of outrage. A man who endured because he had to, because he knew that his people needed him to be more than just a man, but a symbol.

The most sad part about this idea is that he would recognize where we are now without any prompting...because I swear ain't that much changed.

1958 or 2015... ain't much changed.

Thank God SOMEBODY Won the Powerball...

Ramblings Post #309
I laugh at suggestions like Mark Cuban's who suggested that money can't buy happiness. Statements like that in my opinion mean the the man hasn't seen a bill he hasn't been able to pay for a while. Broke isn't what he thinks it is. The general idea might be that money might not buy happiness, but it will allow you to purchase a spot right next door to it and become good friends. At the bare minimum, moneys makes being miserable a whole lot more comfortable. 

As it has become clearly evident due to reporting in news and confirmed by my bank account, I did NOT win the Powerball. And most likely you didn't either. 

Good. 

Not that we shouldn't believe in long shots or beating the odds, it's what makes American great, but like many of you, for the past few days my mind would wander to what I do if I won. It was a lot of money, you just kinda had to get in on taking a shot. I thought of who I would share the money with, what gifts I would hand out as college loan and mortgage payoffs, friends I would hook up and the like. And yes, I imagined either building a small town just outside Atlanta or buying one of the two or three super expensive mansions that I researched in the real estate listings. The coolness of it all consumed us as we dove into our fantasies. And now it's all over and we can go back to our regularly scheduled lives. Which may have accounted for all that surprising morning traffic the day after. Were folks all late this morning checking tickets? 

The lottery had become THE topic of conversation. Around the office there were the usual jokes and shared dreams. We talked about strategies for handling the money while we worked. I got into conversations with my father about it during phone calls. Bringing up the lottery became an icebreaker when talking to people I hadn't seen in a moment, with wishes of luck and promises to let them super-size the dinner I would buy them if I won. I think we all got a little too caught up. 

By my calculations the 44 states that participate in the education lottery should see a 30-plus million dollar bump in their allotments per participant for this little period, which is great. The idea that providing much needed funding for education gets lost in the shuffle when we talk about the lottery. On the occasions I participate, I ask the clerk if I can make my "donation" to the education fund. Since this is going for a good cause, we might need to get this hyped up about it twice a year. 

But I picked up a couple of tickets, sure, although I am well aware that statistically the second ticket had no real affect on my odds of winning anymore than say, the good luck dance I did in living room that night. And also I played with a group from work, this on the simple theory of "if you win, you're not leaving me here." I actually have that concept as a story idea, the person getting left behind after a group wins, as a screenplay treatment. But I in reality I made no huge investment of any kind, and I doubt I'll play again until it gets back up there and I happen to be in the store, with money, and don't want potato chips or something.  

Most of us had no business dreaming that hard on something that far outside the realm of the possible. We have skills and talents we let linger when we could be making those work, instead we focus on the 292 million to one shot. I thought about it way more than I should have, even after I admitted to a co-worker that I wouldn't even check to see if I won. The deluge of needy well wishers and sudden relatives would have turned my life upside down, but I think the total amount would have been hard to burn through. And keeping it under wraps would have been difficult. Although if it wasn't going to stay a secret, I'd have to shoot my own reality show so I could control the message. See, it thought of everything. 

But it's over now. And life returns to normal. The seemingly endless cycle of getting up, working and scrambling for something better. Oh, how I missed you. 

Barkeep. Let's start over at the beginning. Beer. No, not the good beer. Mass market American beer. Yes, I said it.