Slouching Towards Oblivion

Friday, October 25, 2019

Today's Beau

We are not drawing down in the middle east. 

45* is not ending our involvement in the endless wars he blathers about whenever it serves his immediate need.

He's well into the Beta Test Phase of our exciting new revenue opportunity - Rent-A-Grunt.

Justin King - Beau Of The Fifth Column


Makes me wonder if Eric Prince has anything to do with this shit.

SkyNet Rising

We need constant reminding that we have to address the questions of "Can We Do This" versus "Should We Do This".

There's always a power dynamic at work, so even though "new stuff" is almost always originally intended to "make the world a better place", there are always people looking to devise ways of weaponizing it, and turning it to their own purposes in order to serve their own political agendas.

Media Assignment: Real Genius, 1985 - Val Kilmer, Gabriel Jarret, Jon Gries, William Atherton.



MIT Technology Review:

Once it was fashionable to fret about the prospect of super-intelligent machines taking over the world. The past year showed that AI may cause all sorts of hazards long before that happens.

The latest AI methods excel at perceptual tasks such as classifying images and transcribing speech, but the hype and excitement over these skills have disguised how far we really are from building machines as clever as we are. Six controversies from 2018 stand out as warnings that even the smartest AI algorithms can misbehave, or that carelessly applying them can have dire consequences.

1. Self-crashing cars

After a fatal accident involving one of Uber’s self-driving cars in March, investigators found that the company’s technology had failed catastrophically, in a way that could easily have been prevented.

Carmakers like Ford and General Motors, newcomers like Uber, and a horde of startups are hurrying to commercialize a technology that, despite its immaturity, has already seen billions of dollars in investment. Waymo, a subsidiary of Alphabet, has made the most progress; it rolled out the first fully autonomous taxi service in Arizona last year. But even Waymo’s technology is limited, and autonomous cars cannot drive everywhere in all conditions.

What to watch for in 2019: Regulators in the US and elsewhere have so far taken a hands-off approach for fear of stifling innovation. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has even signaled that existing safety rules may be relaxed. But pedestrians and human drivers haven’t signed up to be guinea pigs. Another serious accident in 2019 might shift the regulators’ attitudes.

2. Political manipulation bots

In March, news broke that Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting company, had exploited Facebook’s data sharing practices to influence the 2016 US presidential election. The resulting uproar showed how the algorithms that decide what news and information to surface on social media can be gamed to amplify misinformation, undermine healthy debate, and isolate citizens with different views from one another.

During a congressional hearing, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg promised that AI itself could be trained to spot and block malicious content, even though it is still far from being able to understand the meaning of text, images, or video.

What to watch for in 2019: Zuckerberg’s promise will be tested in elections held in two of Africa’s biggest countries: South Africa and Nigeria. The long run-up to the 2020 US election has also begun, and it could inspire new kinds of misinformation technology powered by AI, including malicious chatbots.

3. Algorithms for peace

Last year, an AI peace movement took shape when Google employees learned that their employer was supplying technology to the US Air Force for classifying drone imagery. The workers feared this could be a fateful step towards supplying technology for automating deadly drone strikes. In response, the company abandoned Project Maven, as it was called, and created an AI code of ethics.

Academics and industry heavyweights have backed a campaign to ban the use of autonomous weapons. Military use of AI is only gaining momentum, however, and other companies, like Microsoft and Amazon, have shown no reservations about helping out.

What to watch out for in 2019: Although Pentagon spending on AI projects is increasing, activists hope a preemptive treaty banning autonomous weaponswill emerge from a series of UN meetings slated for this year.

4. A surveillance face-off

AI’s superhuman ability to identify faces has led countries to deploy surveillance technology at a remarkable rate. Face recognition also lets you unlock your phone and automatically tags photos for you on social media.

Civil liberties groups warn of a dystopian future. The technology is a formidable way to invade people’s privacy, and biases in training data make it likely to automate discrimination.

In many countriesChina especially—face recognition is being widely used for policing and government surveillance. Amazon is selling the technologyto US immigration and law enforcement agencies.

What to watch out for in 2019: Face recognition will spread to vehicles and webcams, and it will be used to track your emotions as well as your identity. But we may also see some preliminary regulation of it this year, too.

5. Fake it till you break it

A proliferation of “deepfake” videos last year showed how easy it is becoming make fake clips using AI. This means fake celebrity porn, lots of weird movie mashups, and, potentially, virulent political smear campaigns.

Generative adversarial networks (GANs), which involve two dueling neural networks, can conjure extraordinarily realistic but completely made-up images and video. Nvidia recently showed how GANs can generate photorealistic faces of whatever race, gender, and age you want.

What to watch for in 2019: As deepfakes improve, people will probably start being duped by them this year. DARPA will test new methods for detecting deepfakes. But since this also relies on AI, it’ll be a game of cat and mouse.

6. Algorithmic discrimination

Bias was discovered in numerous commercial tools last year. Vision algorithms trained on unbalanced data sets failed to recognize women or people of color; hiring programs fed historic data were proven to perpetuate discrimination that already exists.

Tied to the issue of bias—and harder to fix—is the lack of diversity across the AI field itself. Women occupy, at most, 30% of industry jobs and fewer than 25% of teaching roles at top universities. There are comparatively few black and Latin researchers as well.

What to expect in 2019: We’ll see methods for detecting and mitigating bias and algorithms that can produced unbiased results from biased data. The International Conference on Machine Learning, a major AI conference, will be held in Ethiopia in 2020 because African scientists researching problems of bias could have trouble getting visas to travel to other regions. Other events could also move.

The Long Term Hopeful part is that better people than this current crop of Daddy State assholes have been trying to conquer the world for more than 40,000 years, and the world remains undefeated.

The Short Term Worrisome part is that it's always a painful and bloody process convincing them of their folly.

Thursday, October 24, 2019

Yeah - About That

Steny Hoyer, Democrat, House Majority Leader, on MSNBC:

"The rules we are following for the depositions were written by Mike Pompeo and Trey Gowdy, Republicans. 

47 Republicans are on the 3 committees the GOP is complaining they can’t attend. They’re already here. They've already heard 65 hours of testimony."

Beau Explains

Justin King - Beau Of The Fifth Column

Short Break


Now get back to work, slackers.

Congressional Mobsters

Something has gone horribly wrong with these guys.


The events we just witnessed in the House of Representatives will surely earn an honored place in the annals of congressional clownishness.

Just as the House Intelligence Committee was preparing to hear testimony from another important witness in the impeachment inquiry, a couple dozen Republican members of Congress stormed into the room, phones in hand, and started live-tweeting their protest.

Because the hearing was to be held in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF — after all, it involved potentially sensitive and classified information — that put Republicans in violation of the room’s ban on cellphones.

Why did Republicans want to disrupt the proceedings? Because the testimony on tap is likely to add to the case against President Trump, perhaps substantially.

The person set to testify is Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper, the Pentagon official in charge of policy toward Ukraine. The committee wants to nail down more information about the hundreds of millions of dollars in security aid appropriated for Ukraine that Trump withheld to leverage the Ukrainian government into launching sham investigations to help his reelection campaign.

- snip -

“They know that Laura Cooper today would corroborate parts of that very damning testimony against the president,” Lieu continued. “And they’re trying to stop that from going forward.”

This display of lawlessness is not a small matter. As former congressional aide Mieke Eoyang helpfully explains, the whole point of having a secure facility is that it’s, well, secure.

So there are good reasons electronic devices are not allowed in a SCIF. There might be documents or other materials present whose exposure would be harmful to national security. Members of Congress are frequent targets for foreign intelligence services who might want to, say, hack their phones to turn them into listening devices. To have a bunch of them just storm into a SCIF compromises that security.

What’s more, the main argument Republicans are making to justify this display is just nonsense. They’re pretending to be outraged that the impeachment inquiry is being carried out behind closed doors.

“If behind those doors they intend to overturn the result of an American presidential election, we want to know what’s going on,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), one of Trump’s most rabid defenders.

“This shouldn’t be happening in the United States of America, where they’re trying to impeach a President in secret, behind closed doors,” added Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.).

But here’s the thing: These hearings are being conducted with the full involvement of the Republican members of the three committees doing the inquiring. Not only are Republicans given equivalent time for questioning, but any member of any of the committees — Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight — is welcome to attend any of these sessions.




Under 40 USC §§5109(b) & 5104(e)(2)(C), entering a SCIF without authorization, is a federal crime and the penalty is imprisonment of up to 6 months and/or a fine. 30 CFR 2001, and 20003 CNSI prohibits use of Portable Electronic Devices in SCIF zones.


Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Today's Tweet



From a while back - and unconfirmed - but damn, that's really funny if it's true.


Put It To Bed

Same ol', same ol'. We get days of banner headlines, but when it turns out they got it all wrong, there's a "retraction" on page 7, buried in the middle of the ads for bras and panties.

From a series of tweets by Kurt Einchenwald:

I began to read the New York Times's editorial today, "...But Her Emails" and was excited it was catching up to what I wrote in 2015 based on regs and documents, and acknowledging the Clinton email "scandal" was about nothing. They my heart sank. They got it wrong again.

I don't understand it. It's all right there. I figured it out in a day and a half, just by poring through the regulations that were supposedly violated. And. They. Weren't. 

So, one more time, let's go through this incredibly important error so many STILL make.
This is the key paragraph in the Times editorial, the "on the other hand" element that lays out why what Clinton did was supposedly wrong. The argument being made is, essentially, while the email imbroglio was not that important, there was still a violation of the regs.


This is true - NOW - as of 2013 - AFTER Clinton left office. This is like driving 50 MPH in a 50 mile zone, and then getting a ticket because the speed limit was changed a year later.

So, let's go to the regulation at issue here, the one that seeming no one has ever read.

This is 36 CFR Chapter XII, Subchapter B. Yes, its complicated. Yes, its hard to find the relevant section. But if reporters are going to write articles & broadcast stories that they know can affect the outcomes of an election, they have do to it.

So, to make this easier for all reporters handling this story in the future, you go to 36 CFR Chapter XII, Subchapter B, Subpart C, § 1236.22. Now, read it carefully:


In that reg, there are 19 words - 19 - that tell you the primary argument under the email "scandal" could be wrong. "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency.." 

Two questions are left ... sorry, 4 questions:
A. Was State an agency that allowed "employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency."
Yes. It was. 

B. Did regs allow for those documents to be printed out for preservation?
Yes. They did.

C. Are there records showing that Clinton's government staff in charge of document preservation used that method of printing out to follow the preservation rules?
Yes. There are. And yes. They did.

Finally, and most important - and the key to this entire ridiculous affair:

D. Are there two systems of emails for everyone with classified access, one for general business and one for classified?
Yes. There are.

Let's go through the last one so people understand how awful this reporting has been.

Regular emails, like those sent & received on HRC's personal email system, are general business. Those on the State system used that instead. It is not a classified system. The retroactively designated confidential emails would have gone through a nonclassified system.

In other words, no matter what was done, whether it was the State non-classified system or the HRC non-classified system allowed under the regs, those few retroactively marked emails in question would have gone through a permitted non-classified system no matter what anyone used.

Now, which was more secure? Not that it matters, since the regs allowed for HRC to do exactly as she did, but the answer is: HRC's. The State dot gov email was hacked by the Chinese and petabytes of information was taken by them. But not Hillary's. Her system was more...secure. 

OK, so if that is not where the classified emails were, where were they? Here is the system. Hold onto your hat, it's complicated: Those emails came through a highly secured system only accessible through a sensitive compartmented information facility, or what is known in intelligence circles as a SCIF. 

Most senior officials who deal with classified information have a SCIF in their offices and their homes. Hillary did. These arent just extra offices with a special lock. Each SCIF is constructed following complex rules imposed by the intelligence and defense communities. Restrictions imposed on the builders are designed to ensure that no unauthorized personnel can get into the room, and the SCIF cannot be accessed by hacking or electronic eavesdropping.

A group called the technical surveillance countermeasures team (TSCM) investigates the area or activity to check that all communications are protected from outside surveillance and cannot be intercepted. Most permanent SCIFs have physical and technical security, called TEMPEST.

The facility is guarded and in operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week; any official on the SCIF staff must have the highest security clearance. There is supposed to be sufficient personnel continuously present to observe the primary, secondary and emergency exit doors of the SCIF. Each SCIF must apply fundamental red-black separation to prevent the inadvertent transmission of classified data over telephone lines, power lines or signal lines.

I could keep going but this was what was in Hillary's house for the classified emails.

The reason you get these imbecilic chants of "lock her up" is journalists almost never point out there are two systems, and that HRC was not just sitting around sending classified emails on her private system. 

Just like Colin Powell, who used a personal AOL account for his emails. 

Or the staff of Condoleezza Rice used personal accounts for their business emails. 

Reporters were just listening to Republican members of Congress, writing their outrage, and making it seem like there was something here. There was nothing there. There never was. And it was easy to figure out.

So it sure would be nice if, when journalists now apologize for overblowing the email "scandal," they stop repeating the very same errors that made them think it was a scandal to begin with.

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Overheard


People scratch their heads and wonder - how did we get this Trump guy in the White House?

C'mon - we have an extensive history of this kinda shit. It's not like nobody coulda possibly not seen it coming.

  • Honey Boo Boo
  • Duck Dynasty
  • WWE
  • Survivor
  • Judge Wapner
  • Divorce Court
  • Queen For A Day
The real question is - what took us so long?



Today's Tweet



"Only an idiot would do that. Exactly."




I think Cult45 believed their own bullshit about how Mueller had cleared them for everything, so they had a green light for whatever kind of "shooting someone on 5th Ave" bullshit they had in mind.

It fits the pattern.
  • It's not illegal
  • and even it is, it shouldn't be
  • and even if it is and it should be, it's not a big deal
  • and even if it is and it should be and it is a big deal, it's already done and you didn't do anything about it
  • so we can do whatever we want.