Category Archives: Rant

The wealthy have access to a different level of firearms

Posted on by

There’s going to be a lot of discussion about gun control in the next few weeks. Most of the gun control debates are going to be over varying levels of trivia. The stock type of a rifle. How many rounds of ammunition a magazine can hold. The type of handle used for a rifle.

For the wealthy, this is all bread and circuses.

What I have yet to see in any gun control debate is a discussion on how the wealthy have access to a completely different level of firearms through “taxes”, careful application of the law, and very specific turning of phrases.

To start with, the act of purchasing a “civilian” firearm is fairly straightforward. You walk into a firearm store, pick a firearm, fill out the appropriate ATF form, and depending on whether you pass the background check, walk out the door 10 minutes later with your choice from the rack.

Fully automatic firearms and “specialty” firearms are a different matter, though.

For most people who are not familiar with firearms, a gun is a gun. However there is a very important distinction in firearms: whether they are semi-automatic or fully automatic.

The difference between a fully automatic and semi-automatic firearm is what happens when you pull the trigger. A semi-automatic firearm discharges once when you pull the trigger and that’s it. To make it fire again, you have to pull the trigger again. Those kinds of firearms are (mostly) legal for most individuals to own (pistols or rifles) under the current laws of the United States and sub-laws of the states themselves.

Fully automatic firearms are completely different. There’s a lever you can set on the side of a fully automatic firearm that lets you choose what happens when you pull the trigger. One setting matches the semi-automatics: one trigger pull equals one discharge. The other setting, the full-automatic one, will let the firearm continue to fire until you either release the trigger or the firearm depletes the ammunition it has access to. Ammunition will expend quickly, but the target will be perforated with bullets far more rapidly than any single trigger pull sequence could ever achieve.

No “regular” firearm store carries fully automatic firearms on their shelves. Fully automatic firearms are generally referred to as “machine guns”, and are (mostly) not straightforwardly legal to own as an individual.

Mostly doesn’t apply to the wealthy.

Let’s say Poor John Doe wants to buy a fully automatic firearm. Since he doesn’t have a lot of money, he’s out of luck. End of story. If he ever comes into ownership of a fully automatic firearm, he’s looking at spending a very long time at a not-so-friendly federal penitentiary.

Now if Rich John Doe wants to buy a fully automatic firearm, he starts off by visiting a “specialty” firearms dealer. This won’t be a Bass Pro or Cabela’s or Academy. This “specialty” store is a firearms store specifically up and running to sell fully automatic firearms and has passed a far more vigorous owner/employee screening process than any of the “civilian” hunting stores even want to think about. They’re called Class III FFL dealers (or a Class I with a Special Occupational Tax) that deal in something called NFA firearms. (The Bass Pro or Cabela’s or Academy stores are just Class I FFL dealers with no Special Occupational Tax. The “class” legalese strictly defines the types of firearms a store can sell.)

Now all RIch John Doe has to do is pay.

That’s it.

Pay an exorbitant upfront fee for the firearm itself (anywhere from $10,000 to $300,000), pay a special “tax” for owning the firearm, fill out a few dozen forms, apply (any pay again) for any extra “tax stamps” the firearm requires, get approval from both the ATF and the local chief law enforcement office, and finally send in photos and multiple forms of ID to everyone in the exchange.

All that is all just a matter of money and time. Rich John Doe has plenty of both.

Ah, but it gets better!

Let’s say Rich John Doe has a fully automatic firearm he really wants to share or pass on to someone before he dies. With all the legal red tape involved in fully automatic firearm ownership, Rich John Doe just can’t hand it to someone and say “here you go!”

But Rich John Doe does have a way out. All Rich John Doe has to do is go to his local neighborhood attorney’s office and set up a “trust”.

A trust is a legal setup to allow for “company” ownership among distributed individuals. Ideally, this would be reserved for boring company assets like cars and condos, but trusts also apply to firearms. This trust rule for firearms was intentionally written into the 1934 National Firearms Act and still applies today.

Back to Rich John Doe. Rich John Doe goes to his attorney and sets up a trust and calls it HAPPY BANANAS and adds his good friend Rich Bob Doe. In a few weeks, the trust is “established” legally. Nevermind Rich John Doe and Rich Bob Doe are the only two in this trust. That doesn’t matter. A trust is a trust, no matter how many individuals are in it. Trusts meet the legal definition of a person even though they aren’t.

Clear as mud yet?

Once HAPPY BANANAS is up and running and all the paperwork is cleared, Rich John Doe goes back to the dealer and the fully automatic firearm is ready for the TRUST to pick up. His TRUST pays for the firearm and the firearm is registered to his TRUST. Not him or Rich Bob Doe because the TRUST owns it. But Rich John Doe AND Rich Bob Doe can use the firearm anytime they want.

A trust can own most any kind of firearm that is registered to it. Weapons and accessories that make the selection at the “regular” hunting store look like Nerf toys. Anyone in the “trust” can use and keep the firearm whenever they want, and more people can be added to the trust anytime with an attorney’s expert help.

There are a few caveats to fully automatic firearm ownership. “No fully automatic weapons made after May 19th 1986 can be owned by anyone (unless you are a FFL dealer and keep your license in good standing)… however, fully automatic firearms registered prior to May 19th, 1986 are. (There are “only” an estimated 182,619 machine guns that fit this criteria.) Machine guns imported after 1968 but before May 19th, 1986 can be bought and kept only by FFL dealers… and machine guns made after the May 19th, 1986 cutoff date are only available for dealers, manufacturers, military, and police.”

So, to sum up, a “new” fully automatic firearm (AKA: a machine gun) is out of the question, but you can get any of the 182,619 fully automatic firearms that meet the above criteria for anywhere from $10,000 to $300,000 each.

Not a problem for Rich John Doe.

Nobody talks about this level of firearm ownership because it is almost financially incomprehensible. Spend years and years of salary on a single firearm?

But now, Vegas happened. The shooter (at the time of this post) was supposedly a millionaire and used multiple fully automatic firearms.

Did the shooter have access to these fully automatic firearms through a trust? Did the shooter pay for each of these fully automatic firearms with the millions he had? Did the shooter pass all the criteria for owning multiple fully automatic firearms without raising any red flags?

The wealthy have access to a different level of firearms.

Why?

 

More detailed information about fully automatic firearm ownership is on the ATF’s website. 

The new bank heist – hacking Apple’s biometric datbases

Posted on by

Today Apple announced their new shiny shiny – the iPhone X.

<Nicholson Joker Voice> You thought the celebrity photo leak was bad? The Equifax hack terrorized? Wait until you get a load of the biometric hack. </Nicholson Joker Voice>

Apple swears “the detailed biometric data points that Face ID will use to identify individuals will stay local, stored on the phone and not remotely” BUT “face ID will work with third-party apps.”

The gold mine of biometric data won’t be held in Apple’s Fort Knox, but shared “on the open road” with third parties?

Never mind Apple. Forget about trying to get into their billion dollar systems. If I was an evil mastermind, this would be by four-step plan…

  1. Wait and see what new app requiring the iPhone X facial recognition takes off in popularity
  2. Hack their low-secure angel-funded 20-people-in-the-whole-company database
  3. Sell the users’ biometric data on the dark web
  4. Profit

If I was an government employee evil mastermind, this would be by four-step plan…

  1. Create multiple new apps requiring iPhone X’s facial recognition (match the celebrity funny face, make your own emojis, group party chat, who’s the hottest, etc)
  2. Keep a master database of all faces using the app AND constantly scan everything the camera “sees” while running in the background
  3. Keep the users’ biometric data in my master database – create cross references of who the user associates with through matching biometric facial scans, their GPS locations, and who they have in their contact list (Apple already allows app access to GPS position and contact lists BTW)
  4. Profit in a very serious long-term way

Read Apple’s statement again. The biometric data points are not generated and deleted with every use. They are stored. On the local phone.

That stored information will be shared with third-party apps.

Biometric scans are a mathematical algorithm. Your facial patterns create an identifier unique to you. There’s no changing it. Once your unique biological mathematical algorithm is out in the open, there’s absolutely no way to put that genie back in the bottle. The last cornerstone of individual security will turn to dust.

I expect the first public-aware hack in two years.

A 70 year old video is more important than ever

Posted on by

A tweet by @OmanReagan lead me to an amazing video from 1947. The movie is only 17 minutes long, but this 70 year old video needs to be re-broadcast right now.

Take a moment and watch. Jump ahead to the 2 minute 2 second mark to get the main story.

 

Sound familiar?

White supremacy is evil. Racism is evil. Nazis are evil. End of discussion.

 

Congress’ basic guidelines for automated vehicles miss the potential problems

Posted on by

In a recent article on Government Tech’s website, Congress announced they have already come up with six basic guidelines to regulate the future of autonomous vehicles.

The six legislative principles that have been defined are…

  • Prioritize safety
  • Promote continued innovation and reduce existing roadblocks
  • Remain tech neutral
  • Reinforce separate federal and state roles
  • Strengthen cybersecurity
  • Educate the public to encourage responsible adoption of self-driving vehicles

While the government is starting off some very generic principles to regulate the industry and have some other concerns they are starting to look into, I see a few very significant problems that must be addressed before fully autonomous vehicles become the nationwide standard.

  1. Since non-automated vehicles as stated in the article are already responsible for “94 percent of crashes” due to “human error or decision”, ownership of a non-connected vehicle will eventually be vilified (if not seen as an outright criminal liability). This issue may play out through a heavy “tax” and/or insurance levy on those individuals who wish to retain their non-automated vehicles, or an outright ban on the manufacture of “human driven” vehicles after a certain date. Will automated vehicles and “human driven” vehicles be allowed to co-exist? Or will there be a mandatory phase-out period in the coming decade?
  2. Navigating any city using an outdated GPS system is already a problem with “human driven” vehicles. What will happen if an automated vehicle is allowed to operate with an outdated GPS system? To avoid a potentially lethal outcome, I expect the government to create an oversight agency to mandate all autonomous vehicles have the most recent firmware and software updates at specific intervals. This may play out through updates as infrequently as every “state inspection”, or be more strict via mandatory updates at every refueling (with the option to penalize or completely restrict owners who continue to use a vehicle with outdated software). This, by proxy, also brings up the issue of standardization of GPS systems. While the government has so far been hesitant to declare a standard for automated vehicles to use, this could soon be a pressing safety issue that will not wait for a consumer verdict.
  3. When automated vehicles can be sent home at any time, as stated in the article, “this could create significantly more vehicle-miles traveled, ultimately causing worse congestion. People could potentially send their car home rather than paying for expensive parking in an urban core.” Cities would lose income on previously reliable parking garage and meter fees and will also have to address the sudden glut of unused parking buildings across their downtown areas. I don’t expect any city to gracefully accept this loss of income, and will instead create toll lanes on previously “free” roads as well as a new universal “miles usage” tax for increased “wear and tear” on the roads. Will the federal government allow this?
  4. When automated vehicles become the majority, what is to stop overreach from non-traffic related issues once vehicles become fully interconnected? If you owe the IRS, a court judgement, have overdue child support payments, or even a late credit card payment, what is to stop a restriction from being placed on a connected vehicle’s use since it will be readily available online? Is driving still a privilege and not a right in the coming era of automated vehicles?
  5. Uber is already a nightmare for city taxi services. What is to stop Uber (or a similar company) from purchasing several automated buses that pick up and drop off passengers at designated areas defined by the users themselves? Instead of losing their bus/subway/transport base (IE: income), I expect a hard push back on Uber-style companies through city-based lawsuits and insurance bribes concerns on the safety of a peer-controlled company with no external oversight.

While self-driving cars sound like a futuristic utopia we might actually see in our lifetimes, once the industry makes it to the “real world”, I think the early winners won’t be the consumers, but the attorneys who will be litigating every step of the way.

Wouldn’t a Universal Basic Income depend heavily on the “kindness of strangers” to work?

Posted on by

So here I am, late on Saturday night, waiting from remote for one final server to reboot, when I started thinking about Universal Basic Income.

Maybe it’s the coffee.

Anyhow, the more I thought about it, the more I wondered how a Universal Basic Income would work without the “kindness of strangers”.

Here’s my two cents… and five big problems.

Problem #1: Assuming UBI is granted for everyone who makes under $500k annually, and let’s say just as a hypothetical the UBI is set at $12,000 annually, what’s going to stop employers from deducting the total UBI ($12k in this scenario) from all employee paychecks? I can already hear the… “You’re still making $40k annually! What’s the problem? So we’re paying you $28k instead of $40k, but what’s the big deal? You’re still getting $40k annually with UBI factored in. And, hey, you now pay less taxes since your take-home is less! We need that $12k per to invest and build our business!” Companies will get a spike in their bottom line deducting the UBI rate per employee and the employees are gaslighted into thinking that’s OK.

Problem #2: Again, assuming the UBI is set at $12k, what’s to stop rent and housing increases? Landlords can set the low-end roach infested hole in the walls that were around $400 to the current small one-bedroom rate ($800-$1k) since “everyone can afford that with UBI”, and everything above that level will skyrocket in price. Home ownership will also be affected by this renting spike to keep the “investment” of owning a home more valuable than renting.

Problem #3: Taxation. Let’s say someone invests a significant percentage of their UBI in a profit making enterprise. Does the government get to collect tax assuming the UBI was non-taxable to start with? Or will the proceeds from a UBI funded enterprise be treated as “additional income”?

Problem #4: UBI scams. You see all the title company loan and “settlement cash now” kinds of commercials all over the place. A borrow-against futures industry that’s not well regulated and geared toward taking advantage of the uninformed and those with poor money management skills. What’s to stop this industry from focusing on setting up a “borrowing against the UBI” system? I can hear this too… “We will advance you $24k for your next two years of UBI today! Get the money you deserve now! Don’t worry about the 170% interest.” A much deeper financial trap will be possible with the existing non-regulated borrow-against the futures industry still running wild.

Problem #5: Retirement and death. Would a UBI be factored into retirement / social security plans? Assuming someone works to retirement age and draws from their Social Security fund as well as any Roth or 401k investments, will that individual still be eligible for UBI? And if someone dies before retirement age or of unnatural causes, would UBI be treated as a benefit to their surviving family as social security is now? Or would UBI be a “living” benefit only?

Of course, none of these things might happen, but they all tie into my original “kindness of strangers” (IE: employers and the government) concern. With automation and AI gaining traction at an exponential rate, though, something like UBI needs to be in the works to stave off the mass unemployment rate that will arrive in our lifetime.

It’s time for a TRUTH : CLIMATE ad campaign

Posted on by

I remember the days when smoking a cigarette was very common. Lighting up in a bar or at a restaurant was no big deal. You could even smoke at your desk at work! 

Try lighting a cigarette in any of those places now. 

In today’s society, smoking is seen as something completely unacceptable. A big of that shift was a relentless barrage by the American Lung Association and the “truth” ad campaign.

Despite the dominant shift in the acceptance of social smoking, the “truth” ad campaign is still ongoing, with this as one of their most recent commercials.

With all the recent problems on climate change, I think it’s time for a “Truth : Climate” ad campaign.

Too many people are entrenched on both sides of the climate change issue, with neither side willing to budge. Aside from the problem of the widening chasm and open hostilities, the core problem is that until there is a clear and overwhelming majority on one side, no progress can be made. The stalemate will fester and rot away part of our collective souls.

NY, WA and CA just announced a pact among their states to back the Paris Climate Accord of their own volition. Seed money for a nationwide  “Truth : Climate” ad campaign could start with them. Create and release a relentless nationwide onslaught of hard fact ads with a focused single point in each to inform and educate those who are against the Paris Climate Accord.

Of course, those that believe the climate change is all a big worldwide hoax should form their own group to inform and educate scientists and climatologists on their folly. Like the old saying goes, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Until there is a complete and overwhelming societal shift on how climate change is (or is not) affecting us, we will be stuck at a stalemate that benefits neither side. It can be done. Just try lighting a cigarette in a restaurant to see what happens with a persistent educational push for societal change.

What the iPhone 7 could have done to be different

Posted on by

The iPhone 7 is a definite “meh”. Same look, same system, same Apple repackaging of last year’s tech.

Apple keeps missing opportunities to innovate, and if they keep this trend going, more and more Apple fanatics are going to jump ship.

Off the top of my head, here some things I would like Apple to do with their iPhone line…

  • Move the top camera behind the front screen so selfies and Facetime chats are “centered” and not focused on someone’s chin or forehead. The camera would “read” the colors in front of it (whatever pixels are on the display) and correct (ie: remove) them in the output. The camera would be invisible to the user and there would be no “black dots” on the screen. Video chats would finally look like they do in the movies where people look at the screen and not at the camera four inches over it.
  • Open a mid-level API so advanced developers could make “high end” apps for the iPhone. Nothing that would tweak the core iOS, but things like real system theme changes, control over zooming and scaling, changing the mail fetch interval, reading tower signal strength, etc. All the new apps that use the mid-level API would be in an “advanced” section of the app store. If any of the apps caused problems, mid-level apps could be disabled in SETTINGS.
  • Offer a battery enhanced model of all iPhones. They would be thicker than the “normal” versions, but with 300% more battery life. Bonus points if the battery could be hot-swapped for a “new” battery and a smaller internal battery would keep the iPhone working during the switch.
  • On a related note, wireless charging for “standard” iPhones would be a long-overdue addition, but also add charging transfer for the battery enhanced iPhones to “standard” iPhones. Imagine being able to transfer power from one fully charged iPhone to another iPhone if they were touching back to back.
  • Keep the existing microphone on the bottom of the iPhone, but add one microphone on the top to allow for “stereo” recordings. Put a built-in app that shows “left channel/right channel” sound editing for extra credit.
  • Add a micro SD card port for storage and photo/file transfers already.
  • Boost iCloud’s storage to half the iPhone’s current capacity. By default, 128s would get 64 gigs of cloud storage, 64s would get 32 gigs of storage and 16s would get 8 gigs of storage.
  • Color changing LEDs have been around for awhile, so why not have the LED on the back of the phone that’s just a “white flash” change color too? Blue, yellow, soft white, etc. Add intensity control and the ability to specify color changes in the camera as the photo is being taken and Instagrammers will go bananas.
  • Open AirDrop to all phone manufacturers so it becomes the standard for phone-to-phone wireless exchanges.
  • Finally, a minor tweak to the iTunes store – allow for apps, movies and music purchased online to be completely transferred to another account once every five years.

Like I said, just off the top of my head, there’s a lot of things Apple can do to keep their iPhones popular and far ahead of their competitors. Releasing the same design with trivial changes isn’t going to be a sustainable business model no matter how much liquid cash they have in reserve.

Much ado about nothing : why no law enforcement agency needs a “master backdoor”

Posted on by

The FBI has made no secret recently about their “need” to get into a recent terrorists’ iPhone, and have currently demanded the source code for the entire iPhone system in order to access a particular device as part of their investigation.

Here’s the problem. There’s already a legal system in place for problems like this.

When a law enforcement agency has a warrant, they get the right to obtain the stated information from that specific individual or group that is listed in the warrant. For example, if there is a warrant for John Doe to open the safe in his home, John Doe has to to open the safe in his home. If John Doe refuses to act on a legally served warrant. he is jailed until he does surrender the information and fully complies with the warrant.

There’s no onus on the safe company to provide a master key. There’s no mandate for all homes to have a master key on their deadbolt so warrants can be served. It is the legal obligation of the individual(s) named in the warrant to surrender the specifically stated information to law enforcement or face severe criminal consequences.

Think about how many times you have heard about reporters being jailed for refusing to disclose their sources. How many times informants are jailed for refusing to disclose their sources. There is no trial or judge for these people, and there is no release for them until they disclose what is specifically stated in the warrant. It is a perpetual prison for the individuals that does not end without compliance or a complete overturn of the original warrant.

If the FBI has a warrant to search the terrorist’s phones and they have refused to disclose their password, then the FBI can indefinitely hold the terrorists until they disclose the password needed to access their devices.

So what’s the problem here? Wasn’t that the original intent? Jail these vermin and wait them out.

The problem is too many politicians and knee-jerk reactionaries haven’t thought the reasons a “master password” or “law enforcement backdoor” is like putting a master key for all home deadbolts in place. Sure, a master key will give you the ability to get into any door you want, but then the “oh no, Godzilla!” part is if that master key gets out, it can be used by ANYONE. Anywhere. Anytime. You can’t control who copies it. You can kiss EVERYTHING that master key is attached to goodbye forever.

Like I ranted earlier, there’s no resetting a embedded backdoor and/or “master password” software on systems without “hands on” access. Once it’s out, there’s no way to erase it, no way to change it and no way to block it. Once a master password is out in the open, it’s fair game. To everyone.

Even if the government manages to keep a master password on a For-Your-Eyes-Only-Roger-Moore level, look how often the government itself gets hacked. The IRS. The FBI. Take your pick. Target A-1 is going to be that master password, and whatever hacker finds it will gain peer immortality.

A master password on a mass-produced consumer device is a critical national security risk. This idea needs to die right now.

 

“AFTER THE POST” EDIT: For argument’s sake, let’s say a master password / backdoor does get installed in the iPhone system to “keep us safe”.

  • Does every law enforcement agency get the master password / backdoor? All the way down to the local two-officer town level?
  • Who is to judge the need of an investigation to get the master password / backdoor? Will it be for all investigations? Or just ones of a certain type?
  • How can the use of this master password / backdoor be tied to properly issued warrants and not abused as part of a “fishing” investigation?
  • What happens when a law enforcement individual leaves their employer and enters the private sector? Does their knowledge of this master password / backdoor cease to exist for them? What restrictions could possibly be put in place to ensure they do not use the master password / backdoor for their own benefit?
  • Will this master password / backdoor be shared with foreign countries? If so, how?
  • Can the use of a master password / backdoor to obtain information in a criminal case be used in a civil case?