Get Off Your Ass

For a post about 2016, I know I'm three weeks too late. Bear with me though, it took a LOT of effort to pull something positive out of that year. A huge number of beloved celebrities died (culminating with Carrie Fisher: sci-fi darling, outspoken feminist/mental health advocate, and raunchy badass). Innocent black citizens were shot again and again. Brexit. Aleppo. Pulse Nightclub. And perhaps most distressing of all, we had to endure not only the campaign but, gallingly, the election of He Who Shall Not Be Named.

I've heard several people say that 2016 was a pretty good year for them. Others have tut-tut-tutted the rest of us for our superstition, not understanding that #Fuck2016 is a coping mechanism for those of us who are near our emotional and psychological breaking point. Luckily for the Positivity Police, I can say something good about 2016.

2016 was the year I got off my ass.

For various reasons (which some of you may know better than others), I have never been a great at taking initiative. Worse, I had grown increasingly cynical. About me, a friend once wrote on her blog that, while others accused me of negativity, her perspective was that I had incredibly high expectations for humanity, and humanity consistently fell well below those expectations. She was right. I was mired in the perception that most humans are simply nearsighted, awful creatures.

My job was no longer enough to give me ample satisfaction. I felt powerless. I was blasting links into my social media sphere and snarling at trolls in comment threads: yelling into my own echo chambers and yelling at others. What else could I do? The system is rigged. Capitalism is a pyramid scheme. Etc, etc...

Then something happened. Some of my friends, two in particular, told me to get off my ass.

They did it gently at first, with advice like, "Maybe you should get more involved," Or, "What have you got to lose?" or even the oh so cloying, "We need people like you." I resisted at first. After all, I voted, and I engaged in progressive dialogue and debate on social media. What more could reasonably be expected of the average citizen? If the world is still a crappy place, it's solely because the progressive politicians we elected aren't doing their jobs, right?

WRONG.

I'll tell you what I did. It began in late 2015, but I don't count that because I didn't just start doing it, I kept doing it, and that's the key. I started writing again, doing tight think pieces about technology. But I didn't just blast those pieces into my social media echo chamber, I submitted them to people like OpenMedia and boingboing, organizations I knew were like-minded and had the ability to expose my works to larger audiences. Two of my very first new articles, on encryption and municipal archives, were reposted by the aforementioned sites and received wide readership.

In April, OpenMedia asked me to get more closely involved and write material just for their site. They have been enormously supportive of me and enthusiastic about my work. With them, I've had the opportunity to educate and influence lots of minds.

The same month, one of my aforementioned friends finally twisted my arm into joining my local constituency association for the BCNDP. Working with them, I hope to help sweep out our morally (and sometimes literally) corrupt government.

Since then, I've taken the time to speak to our lawmakers at public "town hall" events. I could tell that I changed minds, minds that went back to Ottawa with knowledge and opinions I had imparted. In my own small way, I am making a huge fucking difference. Yes, this post is slightly more self-congratulatory that I prefer to be. But you know what? In a shitty world, after a shitty year, the fact that I made a difference is the one glimmer of goodness I can truly clutch onto.

So I'm going to give you the best, most loving advice I can give you:

GET. OFF. YOUR. FUCKING. ASS.

Did you go to one of the Women's Marches yesterday? Good job getting off your ass.

Did you join a progressive political party or action group? Good job getting off your ass.

Are you volunteering your time for a worthy cause? Good job getting off your ass.

Are you going to keep doing it? Not just tomorrow, but the next day, and the next? Good job getting off your fucking ass.

Allow me, for just a moment, to me wipe away the good feelings you had watching the news and social media yesterday: He Who Shall Not Be Named won because progressives didn't get out and vote for Clinton. Some didn't like her. Some were angry about Bernie. So American progressives didn't do the one thing, do the absolute minimum thing that they could do. That's not good enough.

Didn't like how Hillary was elected candidate? Get involved in the party. Campaign for procedural change. Get off your ass.

Worried that He Who Shall Not Be Named is going to turn the US into a police state? Join the ACLU. Give them your money. Give them your time. Get off your ass.

Not satisfied how Justin Trudeau's administration has panned out? Join the party. Voice your concerns. Write letters. Join a political action group and badger the government into making it right. Get off your ass.

I got off my ass because I suspected (rightly) that my political impotence was harming me more than the challenges of getting involved would. I got off my ass as self-help; perhaps that will work for you too. But more importantly, the world changes for the worse every time that good people sit on their hands and do nothing. Our apathy and cynicism allow bad people to win. I'm tired of being polite about it. I hope you are too.

Get off your ass.

After the Fire: The Collateral Damage of Vancouver's Housing Crisis

It was August 26th, I was browsing the internet during slack time at work. "WTF is on fire downtown??" asked someone in the /r/Vancouver subreddit, posting a picture of black smoke billowing from somewhere near the edge of Strathcona. It soon became clear that a home was on fire in that neighbourhood. As I glanced at my Facebook feed through the rest of the day, something else became clear: that I knew a person who lived in that home.

More accurately, it was my partner's friend Erin. I'd never met Erin in person, but she was one of those people who, as happens in our modern lives, I knew obliquely. My girlfriend hung out with her now and then, and I'd interact with her in the comment threads of other people's Facebook posts. After hearing that she was okay, my next thought was a blend of panic and concern: Where is she going to live now?

In the summer of 2016, Vancouver's rental vacancy rate dropped to 0.6%. With such a highly competitive market, landlords can charge premium rent for lackluster suites. What's more, landlords often require their applicants submit extremely personal information and undergo credit and background checks. No smoking? No pets? Try no cooking, no guests... perhaps they'll even expect the occasional massage or booty call. The Vancouver landlord demands an obedient, bespoke tenant. Furthermore, landlords know that although some of the aforementioned demands aren't legal, no applicant will complain, because the applicants desperately need housing. So, finding a house, even under ideal circumstances, is a daunting, near-impossible task.

Obviously, Erin's circumstances were not going to be ideal.

Erin grew up in Kelowna, and moved to Vancouver as a young adult, in 2008. She works two part time jobs, and was planning on attending UBC this past fall for philosophy, since she has a keen interest in the field of bioethics. I talked to Erin about her experience the day of the fire:

"I was at home alone, it was around noon, and I was just getting ready to go out. Suddenly, one of my neighbours around came banging on the door, yelling, 'Fire! Fire! We have to get out!'"

When Erin looked outside, she could see that flames were pouring out of the window of the neighbouring suite. In a panic, she tried to herd her three cats into their carriers, but it became clear that there wasn't time, and she was in danger. Discouraged, she was forced to flee her suite.

"The fire department arrived quickly, but it was an hour and a half before firefighters were able to go in and get my cats out."

The building was an older, renovated, six-unit apartment building. "We found out later that the neighbours in the unit where the fire started had left their stove on – a gas range."

After the fire was out, Erin and her roommate were allowed to go into their suite to get a change of clothes and toiletries, but only because their suite was relatively removed from the fire damage. Vancouver Social Services arrived and gave everyone a food voucher. They also put everyone up in a hotel for the next few days, but every one of the tenants had pets, for which the tenants needed to find additional accommodations. After another few days, some of the tenants were allowed to go in again for a quick move-out. With some effort, Erin managed to rent a van and a storage locker on very short notice.

"I was able to stay at a friend’s at Knight and 59th, which is pretty far away. I don't have access to a vehicle, so I'd have to leave significantly earlier just to get to work on time."

Not knowing what her circumstances would be, Erin made the difficult choice to withdraw from her coming school semester. "I had no idea how long it would take me to find something. I was seeing ads asking $1,450/month for a bachelor suite. I sent like 20 to 30 e-mails per day sometimes, most of them didn’t even get responses. And each place I went to see, there were at least ten other people looking at the suite. In some cases, all the applicants were there at the same time, filling out applications."

"I only was invited to look at eight places. I made offers on all of them. I saw people begging to the landlords – twice I saw people crying. People had their references on speed-dial. It was very competitive, very strained."

If such circumstances weren't constraining enough, Erin had to grapple with being a pet owner in a city of landlords notorious for not wanting pets. But she wasn't prepared to give up her cats: "I had to watch my building burn knowing my cats were inside. I wasn't going to give them up after that because a landlord wouldn’t let them stay."

Luckily, Erin's story has a happy ending. After furiously hitting the rental listings, she was able to find something for the middle of September. However, her outlook remains pensive.

"All things considered, I was very lucky."

"I have a steady income, I have savings. I got my deposits back and all I lost was a clock that I didn’t like that much anyway. But what if I had a serious disability? What if I was elderly? What if I had no savings? Circumstances in addition being very suddenly displaced from one's home, in this rental market? That could be insurmountable."

Indeed, the price of housing in Vancouver has hidden, yet wide-reaching societal costs. As blogger/journalist Cory Doctorow recently wrote:

Housing ranks just below food on the hierarchy of human needs. Stability in your shelter is the key to stability in every other area of your life. Precarious housing undermines family life, education, and work performance. ... Treating housing as an asset class means that governments want to make it more expensive -- if a government presided over a doubling in the price of food, it would be viewed as monstrous. If it doubles the price of housing, it is lionized for "increasing property values."

Vancouver's housing crisis, fuelled in part by wealthy foreign speculators, means that child poverty is on the rise. It means strained romantic relationships. It means that women aren't able to escape from abusive relationships.

Personally, I know of a couple who have now been rennovicted twice in the space of two years. Another couple, who just had their first child, were evicted and weren't able to find anywhere to live. The new mother is my friend Yaara, who has lived in Vancouver for nine years. She and her newborn have now temporarily moved back to Israel, to live with her parents.

I have lived in Metro Vancouver since I was twelve – that's 25 years. My closest friends are here. My father, my girlfriend's parents', our jobs – all here. I have been told by some that living in Vancouver is no longer realistic for a household of our income range. Though not meant in malice, it's an extremely unhelpful suggestion.

I decided that I'd end my interview with Erin by asking her outright: is it unreasonable for us to expect to live here? Should we just go somewhere else? Pausing, she took a deep breath before answering:

"Well, I have health issues that are exacerbated by cold. I don’t drive, so I need to live somewhere that has accessible public transit. Here in Vancouver, I have two jobs which have good long term prospects. My support network of friends is here."

"But, more to the point, why should anyone be displaced from where they live? Whether you’ve lived here for a few years or your entire life, why should you have to leave in order to accommodate people just because they’re higher on the socio-economic ladder than you are?"


My partner and I are grateful to have a landlady who wants to exchange a reasonable rate of rent for friendly tenants. Many of my peers are not as lucky. I hold out hope that, within my lifetime, our society will internalize the idea that the basic essentials of living are not products, or investments to game against the market. Food is for eating. Water is for drinking. Homes are for living.


Cover image: "3 Cats, No Home" by Jesse Schooff
created using vector art by Leremy/Shutterstock

The Future of Encryption Under Trump

No one's got a crystal ball, but given what we do know, the future of encryption (and all the technology which depends on it) looks grim, thanks to You-Know-Who. Read all about it in my latest article for OpenMedia (header art by yours truly): The Future of Encryption Under Trump. 

"It would be apt to say that the result of the recent U.S. presidential election has thrown many advocacy and civil rights groups into a kind of circumspect panic. President-elect Donald Trump has taken a myriad of misinformed and often shifting policy positions on a great many serious issues, including technology, surveillance, and Internet freedom..."

Read the full article at OpenMedia.org...
  

Ensemble… and Trumpets

Sometimes, in a quiet moment, I’ll try to deconstruct all the influences which helped to form my socio-political views on how society should endeavour to function. My mother’s progressive outlook during the Mulroney years was one of those influences. Star Trek was a huge one - the United Federation of Planets permanently cementing into my mind the ideals of a sharing, multicultural, pluralistic, civil society. The friends I have had growing up, and continuing into adulthood, both in terms of their own political outlooks and their diverse natures. But there is one thing that, only recently, I have realized had a huge influence, one that you might not expect.

Band class.

Love Wins

The Line in the Sand: iOS Encryption

By now, anyone who cares to read this article probably knows the background, but here's the short-short version:

Apple has been compelled by a court order to comply with an FBI demand to circumvent security on the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters. Specifically, the FBI wants Apple to create a custom version of iOS that bypasses data protections, which could be loaded unto the phone to break the passcode and/or encryption. Apple has refused this order, and an open letter by Apple CEO Tim Cook has explained why following this order would be disastrous for computer security and have broad-reaching repercussions.

We Are the Nerds: and You Need to Listen to Us

First and foremost, I apologize for my extended absence. Between a ten-day vacation, the rush of the holiday season, and a subsequent spate of random winter colds and flus, writing hasn't exactly been at the top of my list of priorities.

But more than that, I've been stuck. I write on this blog because there are an enormous number of technology-politics topics that deserve the public's attention. They're absolutely crucial issues: the effect that the TPP will have on archives and copyright; or whether the NSA can spy on Canadians' medical or tax information; or - perhaps worst of all - the fact that politicians are considering banning end-to-end encryption, putting the data of ordinary citizens at risk of interception by spies, criminals, hackers, and yes, even terrorists.

The problem is, these topics aren't sexy. 

Add to that the fact that everyone's Facebook, Twitter, and reddit are chock-full of articles vying for their attention - from social justice issues and world news, to celebrity gossip and the latest Buzzfeed listicle. Technology politics is a particularly difficult subject to cover, because it combines two things that a lot of people consider to be, frankly, boring.

That would be okay, just as long as politicians and leaders were heeding our advice - particularly the advice of computer security experts and privacy advocates. 

The second problem is that leaders aren't listening either.

The third problem is that they think they know better.

Those may sound like inflammatory accusations, but the proof is in the encryption debate. I won't rehash (pun intended) all the evidence I've provided on this blog, the tl;dr is that banning end-to-end encryption, or providing a secret backdoor for government agencies will make encryption useless, and fundamentally break the internet as we know it in dangerous ways. America's best and brightest - Apple, Microsoft, and Google, to name a few - have told the US government as much. 

Then, Democratic US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said things like this:

"...we need Silicon Valley not to view government as its adversary. We need to challenge our best minds in the private sector to work with our best minds in the public sector to develop solutions that will both keep us safe and protect our privacy."

... and...

"I would hope that, given the extraordinary capacities that the tech community has and the legitimate needs and questions from law enforcement, that there could be a Manhattan-like project — something that would bring the government and the tech communities together to see they're not adversaries, they've got to be partners."

... and then...

"I don't know enough about the technology ... to be able to say what it is..."

Re-read those passages again if you need to, I'll wait. Let them sink in. Ready?

In summation: One of the front-runner candidates for President of the United States (a progressive, experienced, and actually-qualified candidate, no less), called the tech community - the people who are telling her that adding secure backdoors to encryption is impossible - "our best minds" with "extraordinary capacities". She admits that she herself, in comparison, has no idea what she's talking about; and yet, despite this, and despite the fact that the tech community has told her this request is impossible, she unequivocally expects them to just sort of figure it out, and randomly evokes the development of the nuclear bomb as an analogy.

Not to split hairs (about splitting atoms), but nuclear physicists were pretty certain that a nuclear bomb was possible before they even tried to figure out the mechanics of how to build one. Encryption experts, security experts, computer scientists all know, right now, that engineering a backdoor to encryption schemes is a terrible idea which negates security. Adding to that general horribleness is the fact that politicians and law enforcement seem to be misrepresenting this issue as a debate about balancing privacy and security (which itself is a false dilemma), rather than an impossible proposal by laypersons which will destroy our entire security apparatus. 

Hillary isn't alone. Both Republican frontrunner *shudder* Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister David Cameron are outspoken advocates of this incredibly bad idea, despite the intense opposition of tech industry and security experts. One wonders: Are they simply not paying attention? How can you, in a single breath, characterize a group of people as experts who are the "best and brightest", then roundly ignore their response that what you've asked for is unfeasible and dangerous? How do you not sense your own hypocrisy when you're in it up to your nose?

As an IT professional, such attitudes are sadly not unfamiliar to me. While I must laud my own co-workers for being respectful and polite when they approach me with problems, I've had my share of horror stories: like when you ask someone if they're sure this-or-that is plugged in, they rail at you about how they're not stupid, only to realize a second later that this-or-that was not actually plugged in (troubleshooting starts at the ground floor, friends); or when a friend or family member begs for your advice fixing this-or-that, then proceeds to argue against all of your advice, assuring you that "I already tried that", generally cutting down your expertise and making the methodical troubleshooting process impossible.

While I was preparing to write this article*, I realized that my experiences as an IT professional might be more generally universal than I'd first considered. I reached out to an old friend of mine, who is now a medical doctor specializing in anesthesiology. I explained my frustrations, using encryption as a specific example. My friend resoundingly echoed very similar frustrations: a portion of patients regularly feel the need to contradict her advice on even basic medical knowledge. They make outlandish requests, and those requests are frequently dangerous.

Stop to think for a moment and you realize that this is a widespread problem. Conservative politicians are willing to listen to a tiny minority of fringe scientists over the 97% majority who say climate change is real and man-made. Frightened parents believe that vaccines cause autism despite the fact that you'll be hard-pressed to find a real doctor who agrees. America's inspectors and structural engineers are telling their government that bridges and causeways are on the verge of collapse, yet politicians seem to ignore their own experts, putting the safety of everyday citizens at risk.

What's the problem? Are we, as a people, unable to trust? Are our egos so big that we can't yield judgement to more knowledgable persons, even when it concerns our own safety? Are we a culture of people who insist on bucking even the smallest authority? I don't know, I'm neither a psychologist nor a sociologist... There, see how easy that was?

One thing is for sure, if we, as a society, can't get our leaders to listen to even the most basic advice of experts and professionals, the future is not going to look as bright as we might imagine. So, the next time your local computer nerd gives you some advice - for the love of Jobs, please - listen to them.

Extra Credit Reading: Still here? Wow! Here's a list of nerds experts, professionals, and organizations who oppose banning encryption. Listen to them!

The Information Technology Industry Council

Who They Are: A technology council which includes any tech company of importance. Like, every one. You might recognize Adobe, Apple, Blackberry, DropBox, Facebook, Google, HP, IBM, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, Samsung, Sony, Symantec, Toshiba, Twitter, Visa, and Yahoo. That's just a sampling. They all oppose backdooring encryption. 

Listen to Them: Because they're... well... every single major tech company in existence.

Cory Doctorow

Who He Is: Besides being the co-editor of e-zine boingboing, a regular columnist for the Guardian, and an accomplished writer, Cory Doctorow is a longtime advocate for digital rights, privacy, and fair copyright worldwide.

Listen to Him: If his experience doesn't convince you that he knows what he's talking about, perhaps his writing will.

OpenMedia

Who They Are: An utterly tireless group of (mostly) Canadians who are at the forefront of lobbying for digital rights, open access, and fair copyright in Canada and elsewhere.

Listen to Them: Read what OpenMedia's Digital Rights Specialist Laura Tribe has to say about encryption backdoors.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation

Who They Are: The CEO of T-mobile might not know who EFF is, but you should. The EFF has been lobbying for digital rights and fair copyright in the US since 1990.

Listen to Them: See what the EFF has to say about their government's plan to backdoor crypto.

Edward Snowden

Who He Is: The infamous NSA whistleblower, currently living in exile, who exposed the NSA's programs of mass, warrantless spying on ordinary Americans, which included inappropriate access for voyeuristic purposes.

Listen to Him: Besides being an expert simply by virtue of having been on the inside of domestic spying, Snowden has rightly pointed out that many terrorists, including the Paris attackers, aren't using encryption.

General Michael Hayden
Who He Is: The former director of the NSA, from 1999 to 2005.
Listen to Him: If even a former head of America's domestic spying apparatus thinks banning encryption is a bad idea, then it's probably a really, REALLY bad idea.

Some of the Leading Minds on Encryption Technology via MIT

Who They Are: I believe I just explained that. But specifically, they are Harold Abelson, Ross Anderson, Steven M. Bellovin, Josh Benaloh, Matt Blaze, Whitfield Diffie, John Gilmore, Matthew Green, Susan Landau, Peter G. Neumann, Ronald L. Rivest, Jeffrey I. Schiller, Bruce Schneier, Michael Specter, and Daniel J. Weitzner.

Listen to Them: This is a scholarly article, so it's heavy reading. But if you're really looking for the hard facts and nitty gritty, Keys Under Doormats will give you all the technical reasons why what governments are asking for is not feasible.

* This article was originally entitled "You Aren't an Expert? Then Shut Up." I decided on a slightly gentler approach.

cover image compiled using vector art by Leremy/Shutterstock

The TPP vs. YOU

Today, governments released the full, final text of the TPP.

It's bad. REALLY BAD. Even worse than we thought. Here are some highlights:

Copyright will be life of the artist plus seventy years. This is up from the current life-plus-fifty years in Canada. I explained in depth yesterday how this this will do enormous harm to Canadian institutions such as municipal archives and to the public domain.

Your ISP has to give your name to copyright holders if they ask. This is really, REALLY scary. I recently recalled to you my experience where my ISP screwed up and associated my name with the wrong account for Notice and Notice. Now, if a rights holder has "sufficient evidence" that you committed a copyright infringement, they can demand your subscriber information. We know what happens next, because US laws have given us a preview. The copyright holder will hand over your info to what constitutes the equivalent of a copyright-infringement collection agency, who will harass you endlessly, demanding payment and threatening further legal action. Those enforcers have already tried to use these tactics through the Notice and Notice system, with less ability to back up their threats.