We celebrated the Fourth of July by going to our family’s house near Saratoga Lake. During the visit, we first took a ride on the boat:
After the boat ride, we were deciding whether to go to the pool or the beach. B prefers pools over the beach, but I generally like the beach more. The pool was too busy so the beach won out. The boys and I had a great time splashing around in the huge waves and playing in the sand.
How did you spend your Fourth of July?
In a piece for the Washington Post, Robert J. Samuelson wrote that, were he in charge, he would repeal the Internet. Though he admitted that the Internet brought with it some "astonishing capabilities", he claims these are more than offset by the existence of cybercrime and by cyberwar destroying "the institutions and networks that underpin everyday life."
Sadly, I think that Mr. Samuelson is overstating the risks, understating the rewards, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Even worse, I think he might be more than a bit biased in his opinions.
The Risks
First, let’s look at the risks of being online. Yes, there are criminal gangs who would like nothing better than to hack into your computer. Mostly, this is to use it to send out spam messages or to show you unwanted ads. Sometimes, it might be to see what useful data is on your system. More often, though, these criminals attack big companies. Why grab little bits and pieces of data from individuals when you can break into a database awash with personal information. One decent database breach can net you thousands of credit card numbers as well as enough personal information to steal the identities of tens of thousands of people. Meanwhile, people from other countries would like nothing more than to cripple our country by hacking our utility companies, airports, stock markets, and more.
Scared yet? Good. But instead of cowering in fear and pulling the Internet’s plug (metaphorically speaking since it doesn’t have one in real life), let’s use that fear to spur some security upgrades.
Computers should run firewalls and antivirus software, both of which should be kept up to date. People can be taught not to open any links they are e-mailed unless they come from a trusted source (and even then be suspicious). They can be instructed not to run random software that they "bought" from a really cheap website hosted in Russia. If that version of Photoshop was only $39 when it retails for hundreds of dollars, perhaps you should wonder just WHY it is so cheap. As for those databases, they can be secured as well.
Of course, nothing is unhackable. You can put fence after fence in the path of a hacker but some might still slip through. This doesn’t mean you need to make it easy for them. The more difficult you make it to hack in, the more you a) convince people to hack some other computer/server and b) require advanced hacking skills (which not every hacker might possess) to break in. Raise the bar enough and your server, though not "unhackable", will be hack-proof enough to survive most attacks.
What about cyberwar? For this, I’d recommend something that is indeed unhackable: an air gap. This means disconnecting the sensitive computer or network from the Internet. Why does a power company’s computer system need to be on the Internet? Why would an air traffic control system? Don’t connect these systems to the Internet and even the most skilled hacker won’t be able to penetrate them. Want to see an air gap in action? Try to hack the CIA’s sensitive information. The CIA’s website might come under attack from time to time, but the actual sensitive information isn’t stored there or anywhere accessible from there. (Documents might leak via people, but this isn’t an "Internet" issue even if said people post the documents online.)
The Benefits
Ok, so the risks, while there, aren’t so horrible and can be protected against. Did Mr. Samuelson understate the rewards of the Internet? Here, I must stop and admit my own personal bias. I work as a web developer. Were the Internet to disappear tomorrow, I’d be out of a job. So, although there are plenty of economic benefits, I won’t focus on those. Instead, let’s look at the social ones.
I’m a geek. I like shows like Doctor Who and Star Trek and various other things that people around me don’t normally like. In addition, I have Asperger’s Syndrome and don’t know too many people in real life who struggle with that. In fact, I don’t know too many people in real life at all. I struggle with real life interactions while I thrive online. Were I to go back to "the old way" of meeting and talking to people, I’d wind up not talking to many people.
In addition, the people I did talk to would have a decidedly region-locked viewpoint. With the Internet, I can talk to one person in New York, another in California, a third in Canada, a fourth in Australia, and a fifth in the Middle East. Heck, I can even follow the tweets of someone orbiting the Earth in the International Space Station (@astro_luca and @AstroKarenN). Try doing THAT sans Internet.
Furthermore, research would become a chore again. Prior to the Internet, researching a topic meant going through thick encyclopedias (which sometimes might be a few years old), leafing through newspapers, or scanning through microfiche. It was a slow and laborious process. Nowadays, a few key Google or WIkipedia searches can get you much of your data. While you should always back it up with better sources if your query is for a serious endeavor (e.g. a research paper), the Internet can jump start your research in ways that non-Internet methods can’t.
Is there a lot of fluff on the Internet? Of course. There’s a lot of trash too. The key, though, is realizing that one man’s trash is another’s treasure. I love Doctor Who and Disney. So when I saw an image of a Dalek merged with Figment, I fell in love. Someone without a passion for either of those, though, might look upon that image as a waste of bandwidth. Meanwhile, I’m not a fan of Game of Thrones and so wouldn’t appreciate a parody video of it while a fan might find it the funniest thing he’s seen in months.
Baby. Bathwater. Bye-Bye.
No technology is without its risks. Television can be used to educate (Sesame Street) or to play mindless fluff like some reality shows. Cars can be used to speed travel or to run someone over. A hammer can build a building or bash in a skull. Electricity can light our way or fry us to a crisp. Nuclear power can generate electricity or blow us up.
Technology isn’t evil by itself. It is only a tool. People make those tools do some wonderful things and some horrible things. If we banned technology every time someone used it for the wrong purposes, we’d be back to living in caves. (No fire, though. You might burn someone with it so it’s banned.) Ditching the Internet just because a few malcontents and thieves misuse the power it grants doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Where The Bias Lies
So why would Mr. Samuelson want to turn off the Internet? Perhaps the answer lies in where he works: The Washington Post. The Post, along with many other newspapers, used to be THE source of up to date information about national and world events. If you wanted to see who won the Presidential race or what was going on in other countries, you’d pick up the newspaper and read. All the news would be printed there for you – or at least all the news the editors deemed fit enough.
With the advent of cable news, newspapers began a decline. After all, they printed once a day. Maybe twice if they ran an "evening edition." Cable news programs, however, could update stories on a minute by minute basis. If a big, important court case was nearing a verdict, you could read about it in the paper the next day (if they were able to stop the presses) or you could tune in and watch it happen live.
Once the Internet became popular, though, the floodgates were opened. Suddenly, news could be relayed instantaneously about any topic. You didn’t need to worry about the fact that CNN or the Times didn’t cover elections in Peru. You could look at a few Peruvian websites to see how things were going. Once social media took off, information would even spread from person to person. Yes, this means that rumors can spread fast as well, but that’s a risk with the old methods as well.
With the news speed turned up to Ludicrous, newspapers just couldn’t keep up. Some have managed to slow their descent, but many have gone out of business or are headed that way. Were the Internet to go away tomorrow, newspapers (and columnists like Mr. Samuelson) would benefit greatly.
Sorry, Mr. Samuelson, but the Internet isn’t going away. Yes, there are plenty of risks, but there are way more rewards. And while I might need to dodge a hacker or stalker or troll here and there, I wouldn’t trade being online for all of the printed encyclopedias and microfiche in the world!
"I’m BORRRRED!"
Every parent dreads hearing those words come out of their child’s mouth. This means that the child will get increasingly antsy and agitated as he or she tries to figure out how to pass the time. This can be somewhat understandable if the boredom strikes during a long winded speech. However, when it occurs between the ordering of food and said food’s arrival, it’s less likely to garner sympathy.
Recently, I’ve noticed my kids getting bored when, by all rights, they shouldn’t be. They’ll complain about having nothing to do – while standing next to a veritable mountain of toys. They’ll whine about how there’s nothing to do when we just need to sit quietly for a bit. Boredom seems to strike the moment that they cease being entertained.
(At this point, I’d like to pause to point out that they don’t do this ALL the time. They seem perfectly able to entertain themselves sometimes. Other times, they’ll become bored at the drop of a hat.)
I’m a "techy dad", so it makes sense that my kids are "techy kids." In fact, they are wizzes at the iPad, computer, Nintendo DS, Roku, or pretty much any other electronic devices. At times, though, I fear that today’s always on-instant entertainment environment has made kids today unable to handle "downtime." Yes, I realize that makes me sound like an old geezer – even more so for having used the word "geezer."
Kids aren’t the only ones affected, though. I’ve found myself instinctively reaching for my phone to check Twitter, browse the web, or read some e-mail while waiting. When I can’t use my phone, I’ve often found myself coming close to declaring my boredom in a loud, whiny voice. Before I judge my kids for their lack of tolerance to lack of entertainment, perhaps I should put away the smartphone and wait a mile in their shoes.
But first, I need to check this incoming tweet…
Do your kids complain about being bored? Do you ever find yourself unable to handle downtime without the aid of a smartphone or other electronic device?
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Prop 8 Amendment were unconstitutional. Already, proponents of marriage equality are saying that this will open the door for gay marriage in every state while opponents are either mourning the "loss of traditional marriage" or are vowing to fight on.
Personally, I see marriage as a union between two consenting adults. I don’t care if those adults happen to be a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man. So long as they love each other, they should be able to wed and gain all of the rights that are inherent in marriage. These include (but aren’t limited to) filing taxes jointly, hospital visitation rights, child custody, and automatic inheritance when one partner passes away.
Years back, when I first heard of the marriage equality movement, I thought long and hard about how I felt. I listened to arguments on both sides and came to a a few realizations.
Sacred Marriage and Church State Split
One big argument I keep hearing is about how marriage is "sacred" and how we can’t redefine marriage because God has set the rules. It seems to me that this touches upon two issues: The Two Kinds of Marriage and the Separation Between Church and State.
First of all, marriage actually refers to two very different institutions. There is religious marriage where a couple has a priest, rabbi, or other clergy member declare them as married according to the customs of the clergy’s religion. Then, there’s the government definition of marriage which involves an application for and issuance of a marriage license form.
The problem comes into play when people confuse the two. When you talk about "God sanctified" marriages, you are talking about religious marriages, not government marriage. The government isn’t allowed (thanks to the Separation of Church and State) to limit people to religious marriage. If it did, then how would it decide which religions would be acceptable and which weren’t? Would atheists be allowed to marry or would they be forced to join a religious group first? Would any religious group qualify or would only "approved" religions be allowed?
What "marriage equality" really refers to is the government definition of marriage. This definition is essentially a social contract. Two individuals of consenting age decide to join into a contractual arrangement to share societal responsibilities such as finances, health care, and government services. Under this model, there is no reason to artificially limit the contract rules to only cover man-woman contracts.
The Meaning of Marriage
Another argument that is often given is that the purpose of marriage is reproduction. Since the marriage of two people of the same sex won’t result in a child, this union is unnatural and wrong. (Or so the argument goes.)
The truth, though, is that plenty of marriages are formed that don’t result in children. Couples can decide not to have children or might try for years with no success. In addition, Elderly folk can marry without producing a child. If a women is single after menopause, does that mean she can never again marry? If a man has a vasectomy, can he not wed until he has it reversed? If a couple marries and doesn’t produce a child after a few years, is their marriage invalidated?
The History of Marriage
What about the argument that marriage has always been between one man and one woman and thus it should always remain so? Unfortunately for those using this argument, it isn’t true. Marriage has changed drastically over the years. A few centuries back, marriage was a pre-arranged affair whose primary purpose was to secure property rights. Even the woman to be married were regarded as property within the marriage context. Marriage took on many forms as the current concept of marrying for love took shape.
Fifty years ago, men and women weren’t allowed to be married if the color of their skin or their ancestry was different. At the time, a great debate was held with one side contending that people should marry who they want and the other claiming that tradition dictated a separation.
The Future of Marriage
So, with these Supreme Court rulings, what is the future of marriage? Some marriage equality proponents are proclaiming that this means all states will need to legalize gay marriage. Meanwhile, those on the other side are declaring that this will destroy marriage. Honestly, I don’t believe either.
The Supreme Court stopped short of declaring marriage equality a right and thus striking down all state laws banning gay marriage. Instead, they held that the states have the right to set the rules for marriage, provided said rules aren’t discriminatory. Once the state sets the rules, the federal government can’t deny people married according to said rules. The next battle will be over a) whether laws banning gay marriage are or aren’t discriminatory, b) whether states can pick and choose which out-of-state marriages it accepts, and c) what happens to federal benefits if someone is married in one state and then moves to a state that doesn’t recognize the marriage.
As for marriage being destroyed, I’m reminded of this PVPOnline comic. Neither my marriage nor anyone else’s will be negatively impacted at all because different couples can marry just like marriage wasn’t destroyed when men and women of different racial backgrounds were able to be married.
While the momentum is definitely on the side of the marriage equality proponents, the fight will still go on. Advances will be made and setbacks will be encountered. I firmly believe, though, that our children’s children look back on this era and wonder just why marriage equality was so controversial. They will merely accept it as a fact of life just as we accept the fact that a woman gets a say in who she marries and shouldn’t be forced into marriage because her parents told her to.
Yesterday, NHL got braces put on. To help ease his anxiety, we got him a stuffed Mike Wazowski. Both Mike and him have similar metallic dental work.
