Proprietary Liberty Vs. Open-Source Security

Within the world of computers there is a significant sectarian divide of software being either proprietary or closed-sourced software versus open-source software. Examples of proprietary software is the vast majority of consumer purchased and freely available software such as Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer, Adobe Photoshop and Acrobat, Rosetta Stone, along with most games. Open-source software includes Firefox, Thunderbird, Pidgin messenger, Linux operating system, Libre Office suite, and GIMP photo editor. The difference between these two camps is access to the source code; proprietary software retains source code (instructions written in programming languages that can be read by human eyes before compiled and translated into 0s and 1s that are used by computers) a company secret akin to Coca-Cola's recipe. While open-source software free makes the source-code available to the user those who are initiated and know computer programming language can peruse and alter the code to one's heart content.

The division between proprietary and open-source software is a near perfect analogy for national security versus transparency debate. The national security apparatus presumes that they can not provide any semblance security or tranquillity without ad nauseam amounts of secrecy and opaqueness. Software publishers, being private companies can make the business decision to provide the source code or not, our government on the other hand are obligated to include the people's representatives on how security is exactly implemented while remaining within confines and restrictions of legal statutes (that can be plainly read by all citizens) and our Constitution; if such implementation can not be executed within legal restraint that are placed upon law enforcement and national security agencies while making the process available for public scrutiny then those demanding secrecy need to get moving to pass an amendment to the Constitution. The false argument that secrecy is absolutely needed to provide security need only to look at programming. Proprietary software may very well have impenetrable security measures when used, but the only means of knowing that is trusting the software publisher's word. Open-source ensures the usage of the software to be both rock solid stable and security not through blind trust but scrutiny of a community that revenue and test the code. Open-source being peer reviewed is a direct descendant of the Age of Enlightenment, just as scientific method and the rationale that our founding fathers borne this nation with, if public policy could not be defended in the light of day to the common person but relied on blind faith the policy was not worth implemented no matter how good the intentions are.

American national security is currently provided under a mentality straight out of the Dark Ages, with a dependence on the public to remain ignorant of both innocuous and heinous activity being done in the American public's name. The impenetrable vale of secrecy is actually detrimental to the cause of security. Arbitrary usage of indefensible actions such as torture (enhanced interrogation), indiscriminate remotely administered executions (signature drone strikes), and government intrusion into 300 million Americans' privacy (bulk domestic surveillance), all have two things in common that they are ineffective in providing security and they are not actions the American public ever wilfully consented to. It can be characterized that these actions are indefensible even by those that currently practitioners of these acts, merely by having these same actions being perpetrated by any other nation, local government, or group of individuals or these actions  done to those the elite could relate to on a personal level. I believe that Barack Obama genuinely stopped surveillance on Angela Merkel, not because it was ineffective (which it was) for American national security purposes, but because he has met her and knows her (even if they had not met face to face, Barack Obama could easily relate to fellow head of state of a Western power).

Without widespread scrutiny, national security can only be provided with as much certainty as alchemists can transform base materials into precious metals; the alphabet soup that makes up national security apparatus (NSA, CIA, DIA, DoD, FBI, DHS, etc) are never to be challenged or questioned about the effectiveness of their activity, just as royalty of old were never to be questioned no matter how ridiculous their beliefs and actions were (Von Ludwig's castle, Marquis de Sade, or the parable of the emperor's new clothes). Individuals are free to believe whatever they want, even if they are to believe the world is flat and not round, until those beliefs harm others, such as using over-classification of the inner workings of our own government while professing a false sense of security leaves the American people ready to be blind-sided by those who want to carry off mass casualty events. That is harm that is unacceptable, no matter what the intentions are.

I propose an alternative in providing security, absolute transparency of the process and means which security is provided, that even those who wish to do the public harm would be aware of the defences (not the particular investigative targets or operational details, but what the law enforcement/national security is allowed and restricted from doing) which is exactly is done within the world of open-source software development. Despite black-hat hackers and other ne'er-do-wells have the same access to source codes that the developers have, and the open-source software through this transparent scrutiny is all the more reliable and secure entirely due to being put through the gauntlet. Proprietary software may have a lot more coders on the payroll, that are able to create and edit the code but like the Encyclopedia Britannica vs. Wikipedia is liable for significant flaws such as proprietary iOS devices to the GoTo Fail when handling SSL connections. It wasn't prevented by Apple because it wasn't big enough catch it, but due to it's size Apple had the hubris of assuming that an error that egregious would never occur under the watchful eye of the thousands of coders they had on payroll. PGP encryption being the creation of Phil Zimmerman, has made improvements over the 20 years in existence with help of a plethora of coders from all over the world.

Those interested in securing America would be able to audit protocols and procedures carried out by the national security apparatus and improve and innovate to ensure best practices are carried out. If there are things that are practices that are initially deemed unseemly, then effectiveness of usage can be weighed against perceived barbarism. As the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered only a couple of weeks ago, CIA use of "enhanced interrogation" was utterly ineffective and that practice should have been ended immediately if not never attempted (as our armed service men and women are trained in resistance to such torture, even though we already understood it to be ineffective except to get coerced apologies and political speeches for the benefit of North Korean or North Vietnamese audiences). But such abandonment of American principles could only happen under the vale of secrecy that occurs when national security apparatus classifies everything embarrassing, hiding their mistakes from public scrutiny.

This openness, is not a vector which can be utilized to carry out mass casualty events since the operational details would still remain secret, it would have the additional advantage that being so open we couldn't be characterized as "the Great Satan" or the "Evil Empire" any longer (this term originally used against the USSR, but American foreign policy since 9/11 certainly a case can be made that we have usurped the derogatory title); though we would have to take years to rebuild global trust, stopping our descent into moral darkness is a great first step.

We can remain under the rubric that not knowing what is being done is what is best for democracy, but that type of thinking is delusional, dangerous, and undemocratic. As President Kennedy said:

A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

We are a nation of the brave, and a people that does not merely deserve to be trusted but entitled to be trusted by our government, anything else from our government is a treasonous act by our government.

President's Justifications For Discontining The Constitution

Below is a quote from the paper the NSA released yesterday to outline the role and authority of the agency regarding the dragnet surveillance of Americans.

Scope and Scale of NSA Collection (page 29 of PDF)

According to figures published by a major tech provider, the Internet carries 1,826 Petabytes of information per day. In its foreign intelligence mission, NSA touches about 1.6% of that. However, of the 1.6% of the data, only 0.025% is actually selected for review. The net effect is that NSA part in a million. Put another way, if a standard basketball court represented the global collection would be represented by an area smaller than a dime on that basketball court.

For the Obama administration to justify unconstitutional surveillance using the rational that it is microscopic in nature, goes in the face of the constitution itself as well as contradicts the administration previous statement that it wasn't occurring at all. On top of that The administration has refuted similar rational when put forward regulations such as Toxic Substances Control Act of 2009, which sought to regulate toxins that routinely showed up in fetuses and newborns that could not have been exposed to the toxins but from the bloodstream of their mothers-- only parts per billion within the bloodstream was beyond the pale, while parts per million of data (1,000 times larger) of unconstitutional searches should be acceptable to the American people?

Additional to the NSA paper explaining the extent of the surveillance, the Obama administration put out a 22 page unclassified 'white paper' in attempt to pacify citizens that have learned there government is spying on them, providing hokum justification that based upon the Patriot Act's Section 215's clear language that searches would need to a specific Foreign Intelligence investigation with a specific target-- not all denizens of the Internet and Americans that use phones within American borders. Glossing over those pertinent facts that, President presumes that this announcement will pacify the critics and that the reforms to the edges of the unconstitutional program is sufficient rather than uprooting and ending the illegal activities of the NSA. Senator Ron Wyden expectantly disagrees that the reforms go far enough to resolve his issues with the program. He goes as far as stating the following:

I have seen absolutely zero evidence that the bulk collection of Americans' phone records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act has provided any unique value to intelligence gathering or actually made Americans any safer, so I believe that these reforms should ensure that bulk collection is ended.

As there is no apparent end to bulk surveillance, and that the President's comments are to confirm to public the justifications of the mass surveillance, the President can no longer deny complicity in the unconstitutional activities that his administration is committing, leaving only one result: impeachment.

As someone that voted for Barack Obama in the New York State Democratic Primary, 2008 General Election and 2012 General Election, it is of great disappointment to me that he should now be removed from office.




http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-statement-on-president-obamas-proposed-reforms-to-the-fisc-and-patriot-act

Amash Amendment: Spying On Americans Should Not Be Done With American Tax Dollars

Wednesday night by a 12 vote margin the Amash Amendment failed and nearly defunded domestic unconstitutional surveillance currently being done by the NSA. This thoroughly bi-partisan effort of 94 Republicans and 111 Democrats, had come so close to being successful despite leadership of both parties had pressured their rank and file members to oppose the amendment. If it is so essential for the security of the nation (though I do not hold the opinion that there is even an external existential threat to America) to disregard the fourth amendment then make the argument, and repeal the amendment. Until the fourth amendment is repealed, then any and all general searches without a warrant or "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" is unconstitutional. Under the Patriot Act's section 215 the activities of the NSA wholesale surveillance of the American public (or just the Americans with internet access and conducted telephonic communications) were illegal*; rather than stop this illegal action it is the bi-partisan defense of the criminal activity both within the Congressional leadership and the executive branch (the activity started before Barack Obama was inaugurated), that 'secrecy is needed but trust us it is all legal'. When someone shows themselves to be a liar, it is sage advice to believe that they are liars; when intelligence community keeps perjuring themselves in front of congressional hearings going back as far as the 1970's with the Pike and Church Hearings, then we the American people should take as a fact that clandestine services and those individuals speaking on their behalf are not to be trusted.

The President's statement refer the Amash amendment as a "...hastily [attempted effort] to dismantle one of our Intelligence Community’s counterterrorism tools" as if the previous 5 years that he was unaware of what was being done in the American people's name is the reason that unconstitutional surveillance should continue. On January 21, 2009 when the President began his first term he may have not had the same reaction as the American public or their 205 members of the House that was shocked that the actions taken supposedly for the benefit of the American people were actually being done to the American people, but to claim that no action should be taken to reform the intelligence gathering of America's "enemies" after it turned out to be the American people themselves being "enemies" is ridiculous and sickening. What the President and the other defenders of constitutional debasement need to be reminded that their positions do not exist to hide decisions from the hoi poloi but instead to allow the American people make educated decisions when they mark their ballot as well as redress their government and participate in their own government in between elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/25/justin-amash-almost-beat-the-nsa-next-time-he-might-do-it/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

*(b)(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:1:./temp/~c10744onNw:e52851:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/23/statement-press-secretary-amash-amendment

Virtual Tiger Trap of America, Great Firewall of China And Other Innovations in Repression

Totalitarian government clamp down on free flow of ideas and communication under the presumption that doing so will extinguish any subversiveness. That same hetero-ideology that is being attempted to be eradicated is what burnishes the open society with so much innovation and economic progress. So a Nazi or a Soviet regime is successful to instill fear throughout the populace that anyone could turn them into the authorities and they may disappear for saying a disparaging remark; in the fear-centric world of a totalitarian regime the economic innovation also comes to a screeching halt since what was acceptable economic activity yesterday is still acceptable today and no new business paradigms are ever attempted. People's Republic of China under Mao was certainly a totalitarian regime, But Deng Xiaoping was able to open up the country at least economically and provided pseudo-property rights to get GDP growth going. As the rise of the Internet made it essential for China to participate in the global economy, the CCP found it necessary to allow the Chinese people to have access to the internet for commerce but necessitated a solution to prevent political or anything non-economic from being communicated. Thus the invention of The Great Firewall of China that prevented domestic Internet communications of undesirable (at least by the CCP's judgement) ideas or speech that was not benefiting the state/status quo.

In many third world totalitarian regimes counter-intuitively there often were elections held; these elections never were intended to let the people's voice be heard instead they were to identify where or even who was the opposition. It typically was so effective that the people (to avoid being disappeared) voted unanimously for the tin-pot dictator, who then go to the world community to show that his people loved him.

The combination of both technological surveillance and use of misdirection is where the American innovation in political repression gets both genius and diabolical. Instead of blocking websites proactively and other known undesirable forms of communication the American intelligence community allows every American with an Internet connection to freely say anything they want to whomever they want, and nothing changes in their day-to-day life. All 300+ million Americans have their communications cataloged and archived, with some secret algorithm scanning to determine who may be a threat (threat to whom and what constitutes as a threat is evidently not up for discussion), so at some future date FBI agents on the order of the Department of  Homeland Security comes and arrests a citizen either at home or at work. Any attempt to ferret why the citizen was arrested will initially be informed "Sorry, but that is classified." A tenacious attempt to get information about a love one may very well result in the questioner also in custody. Let all of the citizens run around on the internet looking up subversive information about Ag-Gag rules, financial service industy's improprieties, and the like; they can be deemed terrorists after the fact and receive the "Bradley Manning" treatment stuck in a hole for years without ever being charged. Bonus points for constitutional flexibility since it is unlikely to have public attention and therefore never need to be taken out of the hole.

But the defenders of the status quo will respond to my dystopian perspective: "Sean you have it all wrong, America isn't like that-- we are the land of the free and home of the brave. We have a constitution that strictly forbids what you are describing." The constitution is no defense if there is no means to determine what the government is doing under the veil of secrecy. The U.S. government has already dispensed with the fourth amendment since it is very explicit: ."..no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Can not get less particular in describing who and what is to be searched than everybody and everything. Edward Snowden's whistle-blowing  has had a very telling response from those already in the know, no on has denied the veracity of Snowden's claims. So we know it is true that all of our internet communication and telephonic communication both content and metadata is being archived for the past 7-8 years and also going forward for the foreseeable future.

But I would have to also have evidence that our government has disregarded constitutional protections of due process, specifically that some authoritative federal judge being instrumental to being deprived of freedom or life. Except there is already evidence that has been done to American citizens all without any judicial review nor anything other than  committee of people individuals who gather for "terrorism Tuesday" within the White House. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder when questioned why American citizens abroad could be killed without even an indictment via drones responded:

“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,” Holder said. “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

The previous 225 years since the ratification of the constitution it has been interpreted that due process was judicial process-- but here we have amazing legal innovation to squeeze what is clearly not constitutional to be pseudo-constitutional but only in practice while ignoring our tradition and legal precedent. So what would prevent our government from implementing my dystopian foreshadowing? Is it left to each of the individuals that are directed to carry out unconstitutional orders? The individuals that question the orders constitutionality, are they assured they won't be targeted for obstructing justice or prosecution under the Espionage Act or no actual crime charged but held in custody indefinitely in some legal limbo like the 80+ detainees held in Gitmo and have been cleared for release for at least 5 years now? Thomas Drake released budget overruns of NSA surveillance programs that were not classified in 2006 and was not charged until 2010 for violating the World War I era Espionage Act. But Barack Obama when coming into office in 2009 said repeatedly would look forward and not back regarding the unconstitutional torture/enhanced interrogation program, but decided to look back when he perceived the State was being embarrassed.

Arbitrary execution of law is a vacuum of law, and we were such a fine upstanding country that once long ago abode by our own self-determined laws. Alas that was so antiquated, so old fashioned, so 20th century.

If the intelligence community from nearly it's inception has nothing but failures: handpicking brutal dictators such as the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, Sukarno, Nicaraguan Contras, etc;  failing to foresee the fall of Communism, and Indian, Pakistani nor North Korean Nuclear tests; siding with mujahideen that brought the rise of Al-Qaeda; despite rolling back constitutional rights failed to protect the American public from the underwear bomber, Times Square failed bombing, Boston Marathon bombing and the events of 9/11 all occurred under the nose of America's much vaunted intelligence community.

So I ask, if the choice is that Americans have to give up civil liberties without any benefits or continue to have Constitutional civil liberties and not have these bumbling "masters of the universe" shouldn't the American public chose the latter? If we are not able to chose the nature of own protection then why bother pretend we are a democracy?

"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings."
John F Kennedy