April 13, 2018--Post-Privacy

More than usual people are concerned about privacy. This the result of the news that Facebook did not prevent the sharing of very personal information about 87 million of us. In fact, they sold it to Cambridge Analytica, which, in turn may or may not have used that data in shady ways to support Donald Trump's run for the presidency.

What did people addicted to Facebook (me included) think they were doing with all the data about our intimate selves we so casually handed over to them? 

Facebook makes billions every month but doesn't charge users to use their "platform." What was Facebook's business model that yielded so much money? If we had paused for a minute to think about how Instagram's and Google's and Snapchat's and YouTube's and Twitter's business models make a fortune but do not charge users we would have realized they made their money by selling us out to marketers and political consultants. 

So all the outrage directed toward Facebook sounds a little self-serving and inauthentic. My bet is that hardly anyone will as a result stop using Facebook or the others.

And, it seems to me, that very few people care profoundly about this. I want my Facebook; I don't want to pay to use it; and I don't care very much, perhaps not at all, about losing my privacy.

After all, don't the social network platforms depend upon us eagerly wanting to surrender our privacy? Aren't they ultimately narcissistic-enabling vehicles for us to let it all, or much of it, hang out for "friends" and friends of friends and friends of friends' friends? Isn't the dream of much of this to have one's postings widely shared, go viral? How else can that happen unless we put it all out there to be passed around?

Years ago I had early glimpses of how people were moving to sacrifice privacy for the sake of convenience and expediency. Though at the time I really didn't get it.

About two decades ago I was online at Citibank (not on-line) waiting to deposit a check. This in the day before there were ATMs. Ahead of me were two women who were talking at full volume. One was worried about her daughter, "I'm afraid she's becoming addicted to cocaine," she said loud enough for everyone on line to hear. "I don't know what to do with her. I can't afford to pay for a recovery program. I suppose I just have to hope for the best."  

Her friend put an arm around her and, changing the subject, began to talk, equally audibly, about her boyfriend, "He punched me the other day. We were having an argument and he got violent. Slapped my face hard enough that I think he loosened a couple of my molars." She opened her mouth wide and showed her friend the two teeth. Her friend leaned closer to examine her teeth.

Thankfully, they soon got to the head of the line and were summoned by one of the tellers. The memory is still vivid for me.

A few years later, walking home on Broadway, there was a young woman who appeared to be talking to herself in a very loud voice. Another crazy person, I thought. So young to be talking to herself, I thought. But as I moved quickly to pass her, I realized she was speaking to someone on her cell phone, talking into the wire attached to the phone on which there was a small microphone. Again, without needing to strain to pay attention I could hear every word she said. They were talking about meeting that evening at a local restaurant. All very benign, but evidence that the culture was shifting. I realized we would soon have no need for the phone booths with accordion doors that were still common on urban streets.

Some time after that I was in Washington for a meeting with Alaska Senator Ted ("Uncle Ted") Stevens. He was the chair of the all-powerful Appropriations Committee and I was, I confess, seeking his support for a $20.0 million earmark for a promising public school reform project that, to lubricate the process of seeking his help, we were more than willing to bring to his state.

He was about to be term-limited out of the chairmanship so the timing was urgent. 

We spoke about the project (which he later arranged to be funded) and then he told me that as a consolation for losing the Appropriations chair, he was to become the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. He wasn't, to tell the truth, happy about this. It was a much less powerful position.

"One thing I'm concerned about," he said, "is the responsibility for protecting internet security. Really, privacy. And to be honest with you, I'm 82 years old, and don't know anything about the internet or, for the matter, computers."

"So, what are you going to do?" I asked.

"I'll tell you what I already did," he said, smiling, "I asked my youngest staffers to do a little looking around and see what they could learn about me on the internet. You know, when and where I was born, where I live, who I'm married to. Things of that sort. I told them to get back to me in a week or so and they said no problem."

"I think I know where this is going," I said.

"Well, later in the day, the same day, they appeared in my doorway holding stacks and stakes of paper. 'What's all that?' I asked them. They told me it was what they had already come up with on the internet. You wouldn't believe what they found in just a few hours."

"I would," I whispered. He was on a roll and I didn't want to interrupt him.

"You know I have six kids. Well, not only did they find out everything about Cathy-Ann and me but also about them. Where they were born, how old they are, where they went to school, what they studied, and what they did after college. Also, where they live, and if they owned a house how much they paid for it. They even knew about their student loans and any mortgages on their properties."

He shrugged his shoulders, "And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's enough to say that everything's out there to be found by anyone who knows how to do that. And my staffers told me how easy that is. From what they explained to me I understood why it only took a couple of hours to gather all that information."

"This is terrible," I said, "And so as the about-to-be chair of the Commerce Committee what are you thinking about doing?"

He stared off into space, "Probably nothing."

"Nothing?" I was incredulous. Remember, it was years ago. For most of us knowing about the power of the internet was rather new.

"It's too late," he said, "No one in Congress cares anything about this. They think it's good for business. No one gives a rat's ass about privacy. As I said, it's all over."

This was 2005 and from an 82-year-old senator from Alaska who never turned on a computer. He was still able to see the future.

"It's over. It's all over," he said as I thanked him and turned to leave.

Senater (Uncle Ted) Stevens

December 7, 2017--Al Franken

As I write this a number of events are unfolding that are closely connected--

Additional women have stepped forward to accuse Senator Al Franken of sexual improprieties.

Support among his Democratic Senate colleagues--mainly women including Kirsten Gillibrand, Patty Murray, and Claire McCaskill--is collapsing. A number of male Senators have joined them in calling for Franken to step aside.

Gillibrand said, "It would be better for our country if he sent a clear message that any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn't acceptable by stepping aside to let someone else serve."

Senator Bob Casey said, "I agree with my colleagues who have stepped forward today and called on Senator Franken to resign. We can't just believe women when it's convenient."

Meanwhile, in Alabama, it is looking as if Roy Moore will be elected and Republicans in the Senate will "seat" a likely pedophile in their caucus.

While the Republicans are backed into a corner--most would like Moore to up and disappear--for the Democrats there is a political opportunity.

No matter how good a senator Franken has been (I think his work and influence are overrated), he has become a political liability to Democrats. 

It will be difficult to point a finger at the GOP, claiming they are the party of sexual predators Donald Trump and Roy Moore (I can already see the 2018 political ads) while going through months of investigations and technical procedures to determine if Franken is fit to be a U.S. senator.

I am not saying that what Franken has admitted to doing is morally or even legally equivalent to Moore's transgressions, but they both should go. 

From my partisan liberal perspective, I would be happy to have Moore in the Senate and ranting on CSPAN while Franken moves on. I am therefore proud of the Democrats who are finally acting as if they want to stop whining and win.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

April 30, 2015--Burn, Baby! BURN!

"Burn, Baby! BURN," during the 1965 Watts riots, was the trademark of on-air rhythm-and-blues DJ, Magnificent Montaque. He and others proclaimed, some said encouraged insurrection as a large section of Los Angeles was in fact burning. During the 60s and 70s, so-called race riots spread to many American cities and to some, Burn, Baby! BURN became a rallying cry for the violent minority. Others protested peacefully, most stayed safely out of sight and were only marginally engaged.

As a much smaller section of Baltimore was being looted and torched on Monday, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake uttered a 2015 version of Burn, baby! BURN. She said--

While we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we work very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to deescalate, and that's what you saw.

What we also saw was a three-hour period when the rioters and looters had free range--or should I say had "space" "to destroy"--what we saw was an almost complete absence of police and not even a glimpse of Mayor Rawlings-Blake.

I can only conclude one or two things--she was ether cowering somewhere not able to think clearly about what to do or, more likely, was closeted with her political advisers since her primary preoccupation these days is not being mayor but how to launch a campaign for the U.S Senate seat about to be vacated by long-serving Barbara Mikulski.

After this week, I think she can forget about her Senate dreams.

But is there something to think about in her psychobabble about giving young people "space" to do their thing?

Much of urban America has missed out on the recent improvements in our economy and the steady growth in new jobs. As someone said, if a rising tide is to lift all boats, first you have to have a boat. Too few in the ghettos do.

Unemployment among the under-educated, especially young men of color, looms imperviously at at least 25 percent. Local schools are dysfunctional, families are shattered, street thugs rule the neighborhoods, and there is little left to do other than attempt to act as "cool" as possible, not to show concern about one's reality and sad prospects.

As with most of us, in order to become reconciled to our position in life, our reality, we find ways to validate and flaunt our circumstances, no matter how impoverished. And it doesn't help in Baltimore, New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago, to see the glittering city meant for and protected for other people--those of us who through fortune and effort have done well.

In everyones' faces, if they choose to look up, is evidence of the widening inequalities that are manifestly worsening.

So what to do with that frustration, anger, hopelessness, and rage? With so few on-the-street examples of friends and neighbors making it (except in the underground economy) where and how is that pent-up pressure going to express itself, get some relief? In what private and public space?

This is not to find bleeding-heart excuses for criminal behavior but rather to ask, if social remediation is not likely, what do we expect of people whose lives are so full of insult and despair? In the absence of hope what is the appropriate response to oppression and containment by the criminal justice system--the police, prosecutors, courts, and prisons?

Listening to Wolf Blitzer and Jeffery Toobin on CNN in real time Monday when the looting and arson was occurring, not so much from their words but from their tone they conveyed nothing but disgust as mainly young men looted a CVS pharmacy. They didn't deserve sympathy, but they were not the "animals" Blitzer and Toobin implied them to be. How many viewers privately agreed with them?

More likely, they were desperate people who felt the world had no respectable place for them. That too needs to be part of the narrative.

What would we expect them to do? In their circumstances, what would you do? For myself I do not have a good answer. Or one that makes me feel good.