"Have you ever wondered how Google tracks where you are? How about what
those terms and conditions mean when you access free Wi-Fi?
As
scary as it sounds, your smartphone’s apps share a lot of the private
information on your device with marketing agencies, phone operators and
other private companies. But where does all that data go? And what
happens to it?
AJ+ and the interactive documentary series “Do Not Track” investigate.” *
The full interactive experience from Do Not Track: http://www.donottrack-doc.com
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Tapping A Maple On A Cold Vermont Morning
By Ken Cosgrove
First came finding
the trees. We had tagged them that summer—loops of red twine, tied
tightly around craggy trunks—when Fitz had been home, when the chill of
winter had seemed distant and unthinkable. The twine would help us find
the right maples, he explained—the hard ones, the thick ones, the ones
that would yield the sweetest sap—even in the snow.
That year, though, the flurries of January had given way
only to wayward morning frosts. In place of the solemn silence of
fresh-fallen snow, we would have only the indolence of ice. The thick
soles of Fitz's boots crunched the stray sticks beneath them, stomping a
path that would be soon be un-pathed by the lushness of spring. He
squinted as he scoured the distance for narrow strips of red. He had
glasses back home; Carol had insisted. They remained folded, neatly, in a
corner of his bedstand drawer. It was too soon for glasses, he said, in the joking way that made clear how deeply he believed it.
Fitz heaved and huffed as he plodded through the forest’s
crunching carpet, breath meeting air in a frenzy of human steam. He had
not planned to be maple-tapping this morning. He had not planned to work
at all, let alone to spend these early hours doing the bland work
required of coaxing the sweetness from trees. He had planned instead to
have breakfast in bed—pancakes, he told me with a glare, oozing with
butter and flooded with syrup. It was best, I told myself, not to point
out the irony.
The buckets, hooked to his thick belt, jangled as Fitz walked—cliiiiiiiiing, claaaaaaaaang,
like the ancient bells whose peals called the people to their gods. The
clatter broke the air. We were strangers here, in this flash-frozen
forest, human hunter-gatherers in that most foreign of lands: one not of
our own making. The still-chilled air stung my face and pierced my
lungs. I found myself, gradually and then suddenly, wishing for a
cigarette to warm the walk—something to heat and soothe. Something
toasted. There are few things as smooth, I couldn’t help but remember,
as a Lucky Strike.
"Got one!" Fitz called, the triumph in his voice shaking
the silence. He wove his way toward the twine-marked maple, buckets
jangling. He examined the tree's trunk, the ripples and runs of the
bark. He tugged at a loose strip, examining how stubbornly it clung.
Fitz nodded, satisfied. He took a measuring tape from his pocket, its
free end unfurling. He anchored it against the rough surface, right hand
grabbing the free end, running it along the bark until his hands met in
the middle. "Exactly 18 inches around," he murmured, still hugging the
tree. "That'll work."
"Could you hand me the compass?"
The south side of the tree, Fitz had once explained, gets
the most direct light from the sun. The heat, day after day, would warm
and soften the sap, making it more pliant, more easily yielding to our
desires—as if, I thought with a chuckle, it had availed itself of Secor
laxatives. Fitz held the compass in an outstretched arm, eyes narrowed
toward the hovering needle. It shook like a Relax-a-cizor. He moved
slowly around the narrow perimeter of the tree trunk, circling, slowly,
until, with the strength of Right Guard deodorant and the confidence of
Richard Nixon—
"Here," he said.
He had found the spot for the tap. He drilled; he hammered
the spile. The trunk shook with each impact. I imagined the sap—soon,
the sap—slow and sweet, its trickle as voluptuous as a siren wearing
both a red dress and an even redder shade of Belle Jolie lipstick.
What would happen, I wondered, if we did not come back,
one day soon, to collect it? What if the sap hardened? What if it became
frozen—not just in the frigid air, but in time, sealing its secrets in a
golden egg of amber? What if it outlasted the little towns of Bethlehem
Steel, the cities constructed with Cartwright Aluminum, the future
built on the sandy foundations of Liberty Capital? What if, some day in
the distance, a man ventures through this same, tree-studded forest,
along the long-covered path Fitz and I had carved for ourselves? What
would he think of us—of what we did, of who we loved, of what we wanted
to be? What would he want? Could he buy it at Mencken's Department
Store?
Will Dr. Scholl's cushion your path? Will Vicks silence your cough? Will Kodak save your memories? Will Clearasil save your soul? Who’s Peggy going out with? How did Pete get such a swell wife?
And, God, what is Don’s deal? Why won’t he ever have a drink with me
after work? He likes me, right? He thinks I’m an okay guy? Don, if
you’re reading this, I would really love to have a drink with you after
work.
The sugar seeped from inside the maple tree. It was
yielding to us, slowly, inevitably. There would be syrup for our
pancakes—for everyone’s pancakes.
Drip.
Drip.
Drip.
Friday, May 15, 2015
College Student to Jeb Bush: ‘Your Brother Created ISIS’
By
Michael Barbaro
RENO, Nev. — “Your
brother created ISIS,” the young woman told Jeb Bush. And with that, Ivy
Ziedrich, a 19-year-old college student, created the kind of
confrontational moment here on Wednesday morning that presidential
candidates dread.
Mr. Bush, the former
governor of Florida, had just concluded a town-hall-style meeting when
Ms. Ziedrich demanded to be heard. “Governor Bush,” she shouted as
audience members asked him for his autograph. “Would you take a student
question?”
Mr. Bush whirled
around and looked at Ms. Ziedrich, who identified herself as a political
science major and a college Democrat at the University of Nevada.
She had heard Mr. Bush
argue, a few moments before, that America’s retreat from the Middle
East under President Obama had contributed to the growing power of the
Islamic State. She told the former governor that he was wrong, and made
the case that blame lay with the decision by the administration of his
brother George W. Bush to disband the Iraqi Army.
“It was when 30,000
individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out — they
had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access
to all of the same arms and weapons,” Ms. Ziedrich said.
She added: “Your brother created ISIS.”
Mr. Bush interjected. “All right. Is that a question?”
Ms. Ziedrich was not finished. “You don’t need to be pedantic to me, sir.”
“Pedantic? Wow,” Mr. Bush replied.
Then Ms. Ziedrich
asked: “Why are you saying that ISIS was created by us not having a
presence in the Middle East when it’s pointless wars where we send young
American men to die for the idea of American exceptionalism? Why are
you spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars?”
Mr. Bush replied: “We
respectfully disagree. We have a disagreement. When we left Iraq,
security had been arranged, Al Qaeda had been taken out. There was a
fragile system that could have been brought up to eliminate the
sectarian violence.”
He added: “And we had
an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept
10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, could have created the
stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress. The result was
the opposite occurred. Immediately, that void was filled.”
He concluded: “Look,
you can rewrite history all you want. But the simple fact is that we are
in a much more unstable place because America pulled back.”
Mr. Bush turned away. The conversation was over.
Ivy Ziedrich, College Student, Warms to Role as Jeb Bush Critic on ISIS
By MICHAEL BARBARO
Ivy Ziedrich told Jeb Bush, “Your brother created Isis,” and now she finds herself both a target and a hero on social media.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Skynet is real, and it could flag you as a terrorist
Summary:If you visit airports or swap SIM cards often, you might be flagged by "Skynet."
It may not be quite the self-aware computer network that takes over millions of computers and machines, but "Skynet" is real.
Documents published by The Intercept, leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, confirm that the Skynet program exists -- at least in name only. Its name comes from the intelligent computer defense system in the "Terminator" films, which later destroys most of humanity in a nuclear apocalypse.
As the Snowden leaks began, there was "fear and panic" in Congress
Just a few minutes after the first NSA leak was published, the phones of US lawmakers began to buzz, hours before most of America would find out over their morning coffee.
The National Security Agency program analyzes
location and metadata from phone records to detect potentially
suspicious patterns, according to the publication.
In one example, it was used to identify people that act as couriers
between al-Qaeda leadership. (This may have been the program that helped identify Osama bin Laden's courier, leading to his targeted killing in Pakistan by US forces in 2011.)Just a few minutes after the first NSA leak was published, the phones of US lawmakers began to buzz, hours before most of America would find out over their morning coffee.
According to one of the documents, it uses "behavior-based analytics," such as low-use phones that only take incoming calls, SIM card or handset swapping, or frequent disconnections from the phone network (such as powering down cellphones). Also, repeated trips mapped out by location data, including visits to other countries or airports, can flag a person as being suspicious -- or a potential terrorist.
More than 55 million cell records collected from major Pakistani telecom companies were fed into the Skynet system to determine targets of interest, the document said.
But questions remain around why the program flagged a prominent Al Jazeera journalist as a "member" of al-Qaeda. It's probably not a surprise that the system alerted on Ahmad Muaffaq Zaidan, a Syrian national, based on his frequent travel between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the fact that it identified him as a member of a terrorist group is a mystery, as well as a great concern.
Zaidan "absolutely" denied that he is a member of al-Qaeda, and criticized the US government's "attempt at using questionable techniques to target our journalists."
We reached out to the NSA to see why it used the name, but didn't hear back at the time of writing.
Chris Christie spent $82,000 on food at NFL games
By Igor Bobic
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) spent more than $82,000 in taxpayer money on concessions at NFL games - a sum that Republicans later reimbursed to the state Treasury to avoid impropriety.
According to a New Jersey Watchdog analysis of records from the governor's office that was published Monday, Christie used $300,000 of his $360,000 state allowance over five years to purchase food, alcohol and desserts. Some $82,594 of that sum went to Delaware North Sportservice, which operates the concessions at MetLife Stadium, the home of both the New York Giants and Jets teams.
According to the analysis, Christie was also a big fan of the grocery store Wegmans Food Markets, where he spent $76,373 in 53 shopping runs. A spokesman for the governor defended the nature of the expenses, explaining they were for "official" and "business" purposes.
This isn't the first time the potential 2016 presidential candidate's expenses have come under scrutiny. In February, The New York Times detailed the governor's taste for private jets and access to celebrities. And earlier this year, ethics watchdogs raised concerns about Christie's all-expense-paid trip to watch a playoff game featuring the Dallas Cowboys -- of which the governor is a fan -- that was paid for by team owner Jerry Jones.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) spent more than $82,000 in taxpayer money on concessions at NFL games - a sum that Republicans later reimbursed to the state Treasury to avoid impropriety.
According to a New Jersey Watchdog analysis of records from the governor's office that was published Monday, Christie used $300,000 of his $360,000 state allowance over five years to purchase food, alcohol and desserts. Some $82,594 of that sum went to Delaware North Sportservice, which operates the concessions at MetLife Stadium, the home of both the New York Giants and Jets teams.
To avoid a potential scandal that could embarrass their rising political star, the New Jersey Republican State Committee reimbursed the Treasury in March 2012 for Christie’s purchases from “DNS Sports.” Since then, the governor has refrained from using his expense account at MetLife and other sports venues.
According to the analysis, Christie was also a big fan of the grocery store Wegmans Food Markets, where he spent $76,373 in 53 shopping runs. A spokesman for the governor defended the nature of the expenses, explaining they were for "official" and "business" purposes.
This isn't the first time the potential 2016 presidential candidate's expenses have come under scrutiny. In February, The New York Times detailed the governor's taste for private jets and access to celebrities. And earlier this year, ethics watchdogs raised concerns about Christie's all-expense-paid trip to watch a playoff game featuring the Dallas Cowboys -- of which the governor is a fan -- that was paid for by team owner Jerry Jones.
Monday, May 11, 2015
CHIP - $9 Computer To Beat Pi & Arduino
Written by Harry Fairhead |
Monday, 11 May 2015 |
I have seen a lot of amazing low-cost, single-board computers recently, but the CHIP is perhaps an amazement too far. It's not that I don't believe in it, I do, it is more that this really does threaten to be a revolution and I hope it succeeds. The C.H.I.P is a small computer, similar to the Raspberry Pi with Arduino compatible I/O, that is set to cost only $9! Even if it cost a little more it would still be a revolution because it has Bluetooth and WiFi built in. If this isn't enough for you, then consider that is powered by a LiPO battery without needing any extras. There is a Kickstarter running at the moment and it has already exceeded its goal of $50,000 reaching over $350,000 with 28 days still to go. It has been funded but you can still buy a CHIP for a $9 pledge. The company behind the project has run one successful Kickstarter project before, see OTTO - The Hackable Raspberry Pi GIF Camera. If you are expecting some limited PIC chip running the show then you would be wrong. The device has a 1GHz ARM A13 (Single core Cortex A8) compatible processor with 512MB of RAM and 4GB of Flash storage. It also has a Mali GPU with OpenGL support. Notice that the latest Pi 2 has quad core A7 running at 900MHz and the original Pi has a single core version 6 ARM running at 700MHz - so the CHIP is some where between the original Pi and the new Pi in terms of processor. It is also more powerful and an Arduino and it has a composite video output which can be converted to VGA or HDMI as required. The first models to be available will only have the composite output converters will be available later. You can connect a keyboard and mouse via Bluetooth or via USB. There are two USB ports a full size USB and a micro USB with OTG. This means that you can use a CHIP as a "desktop" computer if you want to. And if you do want to then there is Pocket CHIP. This is a slightly unlikely, tiny, case for the CHIP complete with tiny keyboard and 4.3-inch touch screen. It claims to operate for 5 hours from a battery and it will fit in your pocket. I'm not at all sure what this could be useful for, but I still want one. The case also has a full GPIO breakout connector on the back so one possible use is as a teaching/experimental IoT setup. A CHIP plus a Pocket CHIP costs $49. Turning to its IoT capabilities, the first thing to say is that this is already WiFi-enabled so no need to use Zigbee or Zwave to get connected. The basic CHIP has connectors that are compatible with Arduino shields, although there is no way to know what will or will not work. As standard you get eight GPIO lines, PWM, I2C, SPI and a UART. There is also support for MIPI-CSI cameras and LCD display. The connector for the 3.7V LiPo battery is also a charger and power can be supplied via the microUSB connector. There is also an audio connector. It comes with a version of Debian Linux and a lot of standard software such as LibreOffice and Scratch. Of course you can install other applications using the usual package manager. Take a look at this OTT video and try not to be put off the really good idea: Why is CHIP so cheap? The answer given is:
"QUANTITY. Our partners at Allwinner
worked hard to help us find how to reduce costs, so that we could
introduce C.H.I.P. to EVERYBODY. To sell C.H.I.P. for $9, we need to
order tens of thousands of chips. By using common, available, and
volume-produced processor, memory, and wifi chips, we are able to
leverage the scales at which tablet manufacturers operate to get
everyone the best price."
Allwinner is a Chinese chip manufacturer responsible for the chips that power so many of the low cost (around $50) Android tablets that you can buy at the moment. Even so, $9 seems like a very low price and it is hard to see where the profit is coming from on the basic model. However, if you want a VGA or HDMI adaptor as well the price rises to $19 and $24 respectively. Add a PocketCHIP and an HDMI adapter to the basic CHIP and you arrive at a cost of $64. Still amazing value, but there might be a little more margin built in. You might be wondering why I think this might be a revolution? There are two aspects to the revolution that a successful CHIP might bring about. The first is in the hi-tech world of IoT. A battery-backed SBC with WiFi connection for $9 makes it possible to think of building disposable sensors. If you need to measure something, throw a CHIP with a sensor at it. You can instrument lots and lots of things without having to justify the cost. In the same way an appliance module based on CHIP could control lights, motors and other equipment without using unreliable and complex radio protocols such as Z-wave. This might just be where the IoT revolution actually starts. The second is in computers as appliances. If an additional computer just costs $9, you can always throw another CPU at the problem. In education you can use Pocket CHIP and give one per student and still have some over for spares. You can assign a media server to each TV, have your own VPN server, mail server and so on. This is the move from personal computing to personal disposable computing and it could be as revolutionary as the move from the fine handcrafted pen to the ballpoint. And, of course, it is all open source. The first units should ship in December. More InformationCHIP - The World's First Nine Dollar ComputerRelated ArticlesOTTO - The Hackable Raspberry Pi GIF CameraArduino Zero Pro Released Amid Legal Dispute Raspberry Pi 2 - Quad Core And Runs Windows Intel IoT Dev Kit Reaches v1.0 New Raspberry Pi A+ Just $20 BBC Giving Away 1 Million Microcomputers Raspberry Pi or Programming - What shall we teach the children? To be informed about new articles on I Programmer, install the I Programmer Toolbar, subscribe to the RSS feed, follow us on, Twitter, Facebook, Google+ or Linkedin, or sign up for our weekly newsletter. |
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Saturday, May 9, 2015
TPP: Race to the bottom
Undercover
documentaries reveal horrible working conditions in parts of Asia,
raising questions about America's ability to regulate trade partners
practices. Ed Schultz, Charles Kernaghan, Jim Keady and Lori Wallach
discuss.
Social Security In Far Worse Shape Than Official Numbers Show
By Janet Novack, Forbes Staff
Over the last 15 years, the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary has consistently underestimated retirees’ life expectancy and made other errors that make the finances of the retirement system look significantly better than they are, a new study by two Harvard and one Dartmouth academics concludes. The report, being published today by the Journal of Economic Perspectives, is the first, the authors say, to compare the government agency’s past demographic and financial forecasts with actual results.
In a second paper appearing today in Political Analysis, the three researchers offer their theory of why the Actuary Office’s predictions have apparently grown less reliable since 2000: The civil servants who run it have responded to increased political polarization surrounding Social Security “by hunkering down” and resisting outside pressures—not only from the politicians, but also from outside technical experts.
“While they’re insulating themselves from the politics, they also insulate themselves from the data and this big change in the world –people started living longer lives,’’ coauthor Gary King, a leading political scientist and director of Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science, said in an interview Thursday. “They need to take that into account and change the forecast as a result of that.”
In its annual report last July, Social Security predicted its old age and disability trust funds, combined, would be exhausted in 2033 and that after that point the government will have enough payroll tax revenues coming in to pay only about three quarters of promised benefits. King said his team hasn’t estimated how much sooner the fund might run out, but described it as in “significantly worse shape” than official forecasts indicate.
In addition to underestimating recent declines in mortality (i.e. increases in life expectancy) for those 65 and older, the Actuary has overestimated the birth rate—meaning the number of new workers who will be available to pay baby boomers their benefits 20 years from now , the researchers assert.
Before 2000, the Actuary also made errors, but they went in both directions and the Actuary was readier to adjust the forecasts from year to year as new evidence came in, King said. Since 2000, he added, the errors “all are biased in the direction of making the system seem healthier than it really is.’’
A Social Security spokesman said today that Chief Actuary Stephen Goss couldn’t comment on the papers because he wasn’t provided them in advance and is tied up today in meeting with the Social Security Advisory Board Technical Panel. But he pointed to an Actuarial Note Goss and three colleagues published in 2013 in response to a New York Times op-ed by King and one of his current coauthors, Samir Soneji, an assistant professor at Dartmouth’s Institute for HealthPolicy & Clinical Practice.
In that op-ed, they attacked the Actuary’s methods of projecting mortality rates and predicted the trust fund would be depleted two years earlier than predicted. In their response, Goss and his colleagues called Kind and Soneji’s methods of predicting death rates “highly questionable” and noted that the Actuary’s methods have been audited since 2006 by an independent accounting firm and received unqualified opinions.
The dust-up might be ignored as bickering by the pointy heads, if it weren’t so consequential. In a recent Gallup survey, 36% of workers said they were counting on Social Security as a major source of retirement income. Differences over the estimates are important, King observed, because they affect “basically half of the spending of the U.S. government,’’ including Medicare. Moreover, the forecasting assumptions affect the projected impact of any proposed changes to the program.
In their political paper, King, Soneji and Konstantin Kashin, a PhD candidate at King’s institute, recount how partisan fighting over Social Security intensified in the late 1990s, when conservatives began arguing the program was unsustainable and should be partially privatized, with younger workers offered individual savings accounts. In 2001, newly elected President George W. Bush appointed a commission intended to support such a change, but he put the issue aside after the September 11 terrorist attacks. After his reelection in 2005, however, Bush started pushing for changes in a series of town halls and speeches that, the paper notes, put the Social Security actuaries under “an extreme form of political pressure.’’
Democrats and news reports pointed to changes in the language used by the Social Security Administration that seemed (in line with White House policy) to emphasize that the program was not financially sustainable. Goss openly clashed with a Republican Social Security Commissioner.
Bush’s privatization push flopped and during recent elections Republicans have attempted to cast themselves as the protectors of Social Security, which enjoys strong support from voters across the political spectrum. In 2013, after President Obama proposed a deficit reduction deal that, along with raising taxes on the rich, would have chipped away at inflation adjustments in Social Security, the idea was attacked by politicians from both parties.
But the problem of how to solve the system’s long term funding deficit has hardly gone away and the partisan divide seems to be widening again. Democrats have slammed a provision adopted by the new Republican Congress that they would block a transfer of money from the Social Security old age fund to the Social Security disability fund, which will be depleted next year. They say such transfers have been routine in the past and that it is a ploy by Republicans to force cuts tor retirement program too. Last month, Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a possible Presidential candidate, proposed that the age for receiving full Social Security benefits be raised gradually to 69 and that benefits be limited for individuals with more than $80,000 in other income and ended completely for those earning more than $200,000.
King emphasized that there is “no evidence whatsoever,” that Goss and his actuaries are bending to political pressure from either Democrats or Republicans. On the contrary, he said, while resisting such pressure, they’ve put too high a value on remaining consistent in their forecasts, in part because they don’t want to “panic” the public. “They’re trying to show the numbers don’t change because they think it will inspire confidence. Maybe in the very short run it will inspire confidence by not changing the numbers. But having the numbers be wrong doesn’t inspire confidence at all,’’ King said.
The political paper asserts that Goss has resisted changes in forecasting assumptions suggested by the Social Security Advisory Board’s Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods—a panel of actuaries and economists that meets once every four years and is in session now. In some cases, the paper claims, the Actuary has made some suggested change in an assumption, but then changed another, unrelated assumption in the opposite direction “to counterbalance the first and keep the ultimate solvency forecasts largely unchanged.”
In their 2013 Actuarial Note, however, Goss and his colleagues say that while the 2011 Panel did push for faster changes in mortality assumptions, the panel’s recommendations, if adopted in full, would have actually resulted in a projection that the Social Security trust funds would run out a year later.
King, who presented his own findings to the Technical Panel yesterday, is pushing for one big change in the Actuary’s practices that he says the Panel has also favored: making all the Actuary’s data and methods open for scrutiny by others.
“This is a period of big data. When you let other people have access to data, things like Money Ball happen,’’ King said. In addition to new algorithms, he said, the government actuaries need to take note of recent findings about unconscious bias by researchers and apply new methods social scientists have developed to guard against such bias.
“Four hundred years ago you had people sitting in a monastery and thinking they thought great thoughts and that was their entire life,’’ King said. “Now we check on each other. If they would leave things open they’d have so much help and they’d be better off politically because their forecasts would be better.”
Over the last 15 years, the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary has consistently underestimated retirees’ life expectancy and made other errors that make the finances of the retirement system look significantly better than they are, a new study by two Harvard and one Dartmouth academics concludes. The report, being published today by the Journal of Economic Perspectives, is the first, the authors say, to compare the government agency’s past demographic and financial forecasts with actual results.
In a second paper appearing today in Political Analysis, the three researchers offer their theory of why the Actuary Office’s predictions have apparently grown less reliable since 2000: The civil servants who run it have responded to increased political polarization surrounding Social Security “by hunkering down” and resisting outside pressures—not only from the politicians, but also from outside technical experts.
“While they’re insulating themselves from the politics, they also insulate themselves from the data and this big change in the world –people started living longer lives,’’ coauthor Gary King, a leading political scientist and director of Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science, said in an interview Thursday. “They need to take that into account and change the forecast as a result of that.”
In its annual report last July, Social Security predicted its old age and disability trust funds, combined, would be exhausted in 2033 and that after that point the government will have enough payroll tax revenues coming in to pay only about three quarters of promised benefits. King said his team hasn’t estimated how much sooner the fund might run out, but described it as in “significantly worse shape” than official forecasts indicate.
In addition to underestimating recent declines in mortality (i.e. increases in life expectancy) for those 65 and older, the Actuary has overestimated the birth rate—meaning the number of new workers who will be available to pay baby boomers their benefits 20 years from now , the researchers assert.
Before 2000, the Actuary also made errors, but they went in both directions and the Actuary was readier to adjust the forecasts from year to year as new evidence came in, King said. Since 2000, he added, the errors “all are biased in the direction of making the system seem healthier than it really is.’’
A Social Security spokesman said today that Chief Actuary Stephen Goss couldn’t comment on the papers because he wasn’t provided them in advance and is tied up today in meeting with the Social Security Advisory Board Technical Panel. But he pointed to an Actuarial Note Goss and three colleagues published in 2013 in response to a New York Times op-ed by King and one of his current coauthors, Samir Soneji, an assistant professor at Dartmouth’s Institute for HealthPolicy & Clinical Practice.
In that op-ed, they attacked the Actuary’s methods of projecting mortality rates and predicted the trust fund would be depleted two years earlier than predicted. In their response, Goss and his colleagues called Kind and Soneji’s methods of predicting death rates “highly questionable” and noted that the Actuary’s methods have been audited since 2006 by an independent accounting firm and received unqualified opinions.
The dust-up might be ignored as bickering by the pointy heads, if it weren’t so consequential. In a recent Gallup survey, 36% of workers said they were counting on Social Security as a major source of retirement income. Differences over the estimates are important, King observed, because they affect “basically half of the spending of the U.S. government,’’ including Medicare. Moreover, the forecasting assumptions affect the projected impact of any proposed changes to the program.
In their political paper, King, Soneji and Konstantin Kashin, a PhD candidate at King’s institute, recount how partisan fighting over Social Security intensified in the late 1990s, when conservatives began arguing the program was unsustainable and should be partially privatized, with younger workers offered individual savings accounts. In 2001, newly elected President George W. Bush appointed a commission intended to support such a change, but he put the issue aside after the September 11 terrorist attacks. After his reelection in 2005, however, Bush started pushing for changes in a series of town halls and speeches that, the paper notes, put the Social Security actuaries under “an extreme form of political pressure.’’
Democrats and news reports pointed to changes in the language used by the Social Security Administration that seemed (in line with White House policy) to emphasize that the program was not financially sustainable. Goss openly clashed with a Republican Social Security Commissioner.
Bush’s privatization push flopped and during recent elections Republicans have attempted to cast themselves as the protectors of Social Security, which enjoys strong support from voters across the political spectrum. In 2013, after President Obama proposed a deficit reduction deal that, along with raising taxes on the rich, would have chipped away at inflation adjustments in Social Security, the idea was attacked by politicians from both parties.
But the problem of how to solve the system’s long term funding deficit has hardly gone away and the partisan divide seems to be widening again. Democrats have slammed a provision adopted by the new Republican Congress that they would block a transfer of money from the Social Security old age fund to the Social Security disability fund, which will be depleted next year. They say such transfers have been routine in the past and that it is a ploy by Republicans to force cuts tor retirement program too. Last month, Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a possible Presidential candidate, proposed that the age for receiving full Social Security benefits be raised gradually to 69 and that benefits be limited for individuals with more than $80,000 in other income and ended completely for those earning more than $200,000.
King emphasized that there is “no evidence whatsoever,” that Goss and his actuaries are bending to political pressure from either Democrats or Republicans. On the contrary, he said, while resisting such pressure, they’ve put too high a value on remaining consistent in their forecasts, in part because they don’t want to “panic” the public. “They’re trying to show the numbers don’t change because they think it will inspire confidence. Maybe in the very short run it will inspire confidence by not changing the numbers. But having the numbers be wrong doesn’t inspire confidence at all,’’ King said.
The political paper asserts that Goss has resisted changes in forecasting assumptions suggested by the Social Security Advisory Board’s Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods—a panel of actuaries and economists that meets once every four years and is in session now. In some cases, the paper claims, the Actuary has made some suggested change in an assumption, but then changed another, unrelated assumption in the opposite direction “to counterbalance the first and keep the ultimate solvency forecasts largely unchanged.”
In their 2013 Actuarial Note, however, Goss and his colleagues say that while the 2011 Panel did push for faster changes in mortality assumptions, the panel’s recommendations, if adopted in full, would have actually resulted in a projection that the Social Security trust funds would run out a year later.
King, who presented his own findings to the Technical Panel yesterday, is pushing for one big change in the Actuary’s practices that he says the Panel has also favored: making all the Actuary’s data and methods open for scrutiny by others.
“This is a period of big data. When you let other people have access to data, things like Money Ball happen,’’ King said. In addition to new algorithms, he said, the government actuaries need to take note of recent findings about unconscious bias by researchers and apply new methods social scientists have developed to guard against such bias.
“Four hundred years ago you had people sitting in a monastery and thinking they thought great thoughts and that was their entire life,’’ King said. “Now we check on each other. If they would leave things open they’d have so much help and they’d be better off politically because their forecasts would be better.”
Friday, May 8, 2015
Malwarebytes: look out for PUPS masquerading as the GOG Galaxy client
By james_fudge
Less than 30 hours after GOG.com launched its Galaxy beta client, scammers were lining up to trick gamers into infecting their computers with malware, according to a new blog post from security research firm and anti-virus software maker Malwarebytes. Malwarebytes security analyst Jovi Umawing details how some users are getting tricked in a new blog post today.
Once a scammer tricks users into visiting their fraudulent download site and jumping through several web pages, they give them access to a fake client download. Once executed, the file displays a dialog box claiming that it is initializing, followed by an error window. Ultimately, nothing is stalled, save a PUP.
What is a PUP? The short answer is a "potentially unwanted program." The long answer can be found on the Malwarebytes web site. You can learn about this GOG Galaxy related scam here.
Of course, the only real place you can get the GOG Galaxy client is on GOG.com.
Less than 30 hours after GOG.com launched its Galaxy beta client, scammers were lining up to trick gamers into infecting their computers with malware, according to a new blog post from security research firm and anti-virus software maker Malwarebytes. Malwarebytes security analyst Jovi Umawing details how some users are getting tricked in a new blog post today.
Once a scammer tricks users into visiting their fraudulent download site and jumping through several web pages, they give them access to a fake client download. Once executed, the file displays a dialog box claiming that it is initializing, followed by an error window. Ultimately, nothing is stalled, save a PUP.
What is a PUP? The short answer is a "potentially unwanted program." The long answer can be found on the Malwarebytes web site. You can learn about this GOG Galaxy related scam here.
Of course, the only real place you can get the GOG Galaxy client is on GOG.com.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Ring of Fire: Koch Brothers Launching Republican Fear Campaign
The Koch brothers are at it again. POLITICO recently revealed that
Americans for Prosperity will be putting $125 million into “Get Out The
Vote’ campaigns in deep red states like Alabama and Utah. The only
reason for this is to drum up cultural wars in these areas to incite the
craziest of the crazies for the 2016 election.
Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins discusses this.
Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins discusses this.
Ancestry.com Caught Sharing Customer DNA Data With Police With No Warrant
By Jay Syrmopoulos
Idaho Falls, Idaho – Would you find it frightening— perhaps even downright Orwellian — to know that a DNA swab that you sent to a company for recreational purposes would surface years later in the hands of police? What if it caused your child to end up in a police interrogation room as the primary suspect in a murder investigation?
In an extremely troubling case out of Idaho Falls, that’s exactly what happened.
Police investigating the 1996 murder of Angie Dodge targeted the wrong man as the suspect, after looking to Ancestry.com owned Sorensen Database labs for help. The labs look for familial matches between the murderers DNA and DNA submitted for genealogical testing after failing to find a match using traditional methods.
According to The Electronic Frontier Foundation:
This is when things become even more convoluted. The DNA from the Ancestry.com database linked a man, Michael Usry, to the case that didn’t fit the police profile, as he was born in 1952.
The cops then used the genetic information and traced his line of male descendants, ultimately finding his son Michael Usry Jr., born in 1979, which much more closely fit the police profile of the killer.
Once they had targeted Ursy Jr. as the suspect, they began to scour his Facebook page looking for connections to Idaho, finding a couple of Facebook friends that lived in the area of Idaho Falls.
Police then, by Google searching, realized that Usry Jr. was a filmmaker and had done some short films containing murder scenes. Law enforcement subsequently got a warrant for Usry Jr.’s DNA based upon the completely circumstantial evidence presented by Idaho investigators.
The cops then called Usry Jr. and asked him to meet them, under the guise that they were investigating a hit-and-run accident. Thinking he “had nothing to hide,” he agreed to meet with the investigators, without an attorney present. He was subsequently taken to an interrogation room where he eventually allowed them to collect his DNA.
Despite the flimsy circumstantial evidence used to get the warrant, ultimately the test showed that although there were a number of familial alleles shared with the murderers sample, Usry Jr.’s DNA did not conclusively match the killers.
This case is particularly troubling as it seems to decimate an individual’s right to privacy in the name of “public safety,” while allowing the police to run roughshod over people’s civil rights.
“It’s not very common to see this sort of thing, and I frankly hope it doesn’t become very common because an awful lot of people won’t bother testing” their DNA, Judy G. Russell, a genealogist and attorney who writes The Legal Genealogist blog, told The New Orleans Advocate.
There is one key difference between traditional DNA testing and familial testing. The traditional method consists of taking a sample and looking for a specific match with a given database, such as the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System, while familial searching looks for common alleles, or gene variants.
According to Voices of Liberty:
This case makes it clear that even when a private business states in writing that your data will be held as private and safe from prying eyes, that may very well not be what transpires.
Jay Syrmopoulos is an investigative journalist, freethinker, researcher, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay’s work has previously been published on BenSwann.com and WeAreChange.org.
You can follow him on Twitter @sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on tsu.
Idaho Falls, Idaho – Would you find it frightening— perhaps even downright Orwellian — to know that a DNA swab that you sent to a company for recreational purposes would surface years later in the hands of police? What if it caused your child to end up in a police interrogation room as the primary suspect in a murder investigation?
In an extremely troubling case out of Idaho Falls, that’s exactly what happened.
Police investigating the 1996 murder of Angie Dodge targeted the wrong man as the suspect, after looking to Ancestry.com owned Sorensen Database labs for help. The labs look for familial matches between the murderers DNA and DNA submitted for genealogical testing after failing to find a match using traditional methods.
According to The Electronic Frontier Foundation:
The cops chose to use a lab linked to a private collection of genetic genealogical data called the Sorenson Database (now owned by Ancestry.com), which claims it’s “the foremost collection of genetic genealogy data in the world.” The reason the Sorenson Database can make such an audacious claim is because it has obtained its more than 100,000 DNA samples and documented multi-generational family histories from “volunteers in more than 100 countries around the world.” Some of these volunteers were encouraged by the Mormon Church—well-known for its interest in genealogy—to provide their genetic material to the database. Sorenson promised volunteers their genetic data would only be used for “genealogical services, including the determination of family migration patterns and geographic origins” and would not be shared outside Sorenson.
Its consent form states:
The only individuals who will have access to the codes and genealogy information will be the principal investigator and the others specifically authorized by the Principal Investigator, including the SMGF research staff.
Despite this promise, Sorenson shared its vast collection of data with the Idaho police.
Without a warrant or court order, investigators asked the lab to run the crime scene DNA against Sorenson’s private genealogical DNA database. Sorenson found 41 potential familial matches, one of which matched on 34 out of 35 alleles—a very close match that would generally indicate a close familial relationship. The cops then asked, not only for the “protected” name associated with that profile, but also for all “all information including full names, date of births, date and other information pertaining to the original donor to the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy project.”Ancestry.com failed to respond to questions about how frequently it receives court orders in criminal investigations or if the company attempts to resist law enforcement requests for peoples’ private genetic information, according to The New Orleans Advocate.
This is when things become even more convoluted. The DNA from the Ancestry.com database linked a man, Michael Usry, to the case that didn’t fit the police profile, as he was born in 1952.
The cops then used the genetic information and traced his line of male descendants, ultimately finding his son Michael Usry Jr., born in 1979, which much more closely fit the police profile of the killer.
Once they had targeted Ursy Jr. as the suspect, they began to scour his Facebook page looking for connections to Idaho, finding a couple of Facebook friends that lived in the area of Idaho Falls.
Police then, by Google searching, realized that Usry Jr. was a filmmaker and had done some short films containing murder scenes. Law enforcement subsequently got a warrant for Usry Jr.’s DNA based upon the completely circumstantial evidence presented by Idaho investigators.
The cops then called Usry Jr. and asked him to meet them, under the guise that they were investigating a hit-and-run accident. Thinking he “had nothing to hide,” he agreed to meet with the investigators, without an attorney present. He was subsequently taken to an interrogation room where he eventually allowed them to collect his DNA.
Despite the flimsy circumstantial evidence used to get the warrant, ultimately the test showed that although there were a number of familial alleles shared with the murderers sample, Usry Jr.’s DNA did not conclusively match the killers.
This case is particularly troubling as it seems to decimate an individual’s right to privacy in the name of “public safety,” while allowing the police to run roughshod over people’s civil rights.
“It’s not very common to see this sort of thing, and I frankly hope it doesn’t become very common because an awful lot of people won’t bother testing” their DNA, Judy G. Russell, a genealogist and attorney who writes The Legal Genealogist blog, told The New Orleans Advocate.
There is one key difference between traditional DNA testing and familial testing. The traditional method consists of taking a sample and looking for a specific match with a given database, such as the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System, while familial searching looks for common alleles, or gene variants.
According to Voices of Liberty:
Proponents argue familial searching is a harmless way for police to crack otherwise unsolvable cases. The closest partial matches can steer investigators toward a criminal’s family members, whose DNA profiles closely resemble those of a convicted or incarcerated relative.
Skeptics like Murphy, the NYU law professor, warn that the technique drastically expands DNA testing beyond the function envisioned by states that compel criminal defendants to submit DNA samples upon arrest. Many states lack formal legal rules governing the use of familial searching by law enforcement, while Maryland has explicitly outlawed the practice.This case exposes the very real danger posed to privacy and civil liberties by familial DNA searches and by private, unregulated DNA databases.This case only serves as a glimpse into the dystopian reality we will soon find ourselves living in, according to The Electronic Frontier Foundation.
“This risk will increase further as state and local law enforcement agencies begin to use Rapid DNA analyzers—portable machines that can process DNA in less than an hour. These machines will make it much easier for police to collect and analyze DNA on their own outside a lab. Currently, because forensic DNA analysis in a lab takes so long, we generally see its use limited to high-level felonies like rape and murder. However, Rapid DNA manufacturers are now encouraging local police agencies to analyze DNA found at the scene of low-level property crimes. This means much more DNA will be collected and stored, often in under-regulated local DNA databases. And, because most of the forensic DNA found at property crime scenes is likely to be touch DNA—this only increases the risk that people will be implicated in crimes they didn’t commit.”Is this really the kind of future we want to create for our children? Shouldn’t we be able to research and learn about our family’s genealogical ancestry without fear that police will be reviewing our genetic information without our consent?
This case makes it clear that even when a private business states in writing that your data will be held as private and safe from prying eyes, that may very well not be what transpires.
Jay Syrmopoulos is an investigative journalist, freethinker, researcher, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay’s work has previously been published on BenSwann.com and WeAreChange.org.
You can follow him on Twitter @sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on tsu.
Chuck Todd had to be schooled again, this time by Martin O'Malley
By Egberto Willies
Likely Democratic Presidential Candidate slams... by ewillies
Once again Chuck Todd showed how gullible he is to Right Wing manipulation. Luckily, likely Democratic Presidential Candidate Martin O'Malley would have none of it. It started innocently enough.
"I want you to respond to something that Speaker Boehner said to me about blame when it comes to America's inner cities," Chuck Todd said. "Let's take a listen."
He then played a clip from Speaker John Boehner. "Chuck, what we have here," Speaker Boehner said. "is 50 years of liberal policies that have not worked to help the very people that we want to help." That comment is to be expected from any Republican as their Ayn Rand ideology dictates policies lacking in social assistance.
Chuck Todd then referenced the Washington Post article titled "Why couldn’t $130 million transform one of Baltimore’s poorest places?" He must have forgotten that many times editors give stories titles that have very little to do with the conclusions the article would come to. He must not have read the article. "A hundred million dollars was poured into this community over the last 20 years," Todd said.
"Are we not spending the money correctly? What are we getting wrong here? Money has been there."
Martin O'Malley would have none of it. "Chuck that's just not true," Martin O'Malley said. "We haven't had an agenda for America's cities for at least two decades."
Chuck Todd snapped back with a simplistically silly statement. "So we've had money but no agenda."
Martin O'Malley went on to state that there has not been an agenda for cities since Democratic President Jimmy Carter. He pointed out that even with limited support because of the dedication and innovation of mayors, cities are actually coming back. He pointed out that the failure to invest in infrastructure, the off-shoring of American jobs, and the basic lack of investment was the problem.
Most importantly he pointed out that the $130 million over 20 years Chuck Todd speaks about is a spit in a bucket.
Had Chuck Todd read the article he would have understood the following.
Chuck Todd once again allowed his program to be used as an Ayn Rand message conduit. Many cities are on the brink of rebellion because of the despair and income inequality. The Right Wing machine needs to convince these people that real investment in both physical and human capital are not the answers lest these 'rebellions' force progressive change.
It is for this reason why a Democratic primary is necessary. It will give America a vision of what it means to have a real progressive agenda. It provides the platform to remind America that it has been living under a conservative biased agenda for north of thirty years. The catastrophic results surround us all.
Likely Democratic Presidential Candidate slams... by ewillies
Once again Chuck Todd showed how gullible he is to Right Wing manipulation. Luckily, likely Democratic Presidential Candidate Martin O'Malley would have none of it. It started innocently enough.
"I want you to respond to something that Speaker Boehner said to me about blame when it comes to America's inner cities," Chuck Todd said. "Let's take a listen."
He then played a clip from Speaker John Boehner. "Chuck, what we have here," Speaker Boehner said. "is 50 years of liberal policies that have not worked to help the very people that we want to help." That comment is to be expected from any Republican as their Ayn Rand ideology dictates policies lacking in social assistance.
Chuck Todd then referenced the Washington Post article titled "Why couldn’t $130 million transform one of Baltimore’s poorest places?" He must have forgotten that many times editors give stories titles that have very little to do with the conclusions the article would come to. He must not have read the article. "A hundred million dollars was poured into this community over the last 20 years," Todd said.
"Are we not spending the money correctly? What are we getting wrong here? Money has been there."
Martin O'Malley would have none of it. "Chuck that's just not true," Martin O'Malley said. "We haven't had an agenda for America's cities for at least two decades."
Chuck Todd snapped back with a simplistically silly statement. "So we've had money but no agenda."
Martin O'Malley went on to state that there has not been an agenda for cities since Democratic President Jimmy Carter. He pointed out that even with limited support because of the dedication and innovation of mayors, cities are actually coming back. He pointed out that the failure to invest in infrastructure, the off-shoring of American jobs, and the basic lack of investment was the problem.
Most importantly he pointed out that the $130 million over 20 years Chuck Todd speaks about is a spit in a bucket.
Had Chuck Todd read the article he would have understood the following.
The effort to revive Sandtown was massive. More than 1,000 homes were eventually renovated or built. Schools were bolstered. Education and health services were launched. ... The most significant problem, according to community organizers and the Enterprise report, was that new businesses and jobs never materialized. And as Baltimore’s decent-paying manufacturing jobs vanished — a problem shared by Detroit, Cleveland and other Rust Belt cities — there were fewer and fewer opportunities for Sandtown residents to find meaningful work.
In the absence of jobs, the drug trade flourished.In other words the $130 million was invested mostly in real estate capital and not human capital. It was not sustainable and the results are probative.
Chuck Todd once again allowed his program to be used as an Ayn Rand message conduit. Many cities are on the brink of rebellion because of the despair and income inequality. The Right Wing machine needs to convince these people that real investment in both physical and human capital are not the answers lest these 'rebellions' force progressive change.
It is for this reason why a Democratic primary is necessary. It will give America a vision of what it means to have a real progressive agenda. It provides the platform to remind America that it has been living under a conservative biased agenda for north of thirty years. The catastrophic results surround us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)