g m g D e s i g n . c o m

I think about security a lot. I backup my data on removable drives, and those drives are not only stored in a safe, but are fully encrypted. Even the file system structure is encrypted, meaning that if you connect the removable drive via USB, Windows(R) thinks the device is unformatted. I use TrueCrypt to “mount” the device; a new drive letter is mounted and I can access the files/folders on the drive as I normally would. However, if a thief stole the device, that person would 1) not even know anything was on the device, since it would appear as unformatted, and 2) would have a helluva time getting anything useful from it.

On my desktop, I make liberal use of EFS (encrypting file system). EFS is similar to TrueCrypt in that it provides transparent, on-the-fly encryption, but differs in that it is file-system based (metadata is not encrypted, but file contents are). EFS is functionally different in other ways too, but logically accomplishes the purpose of securing data-at-rest in the event that the storage device is physically removed/stolen.

I take a lot of other steps to ensure the security of my data. But this blog entry concerns data at rest. Data is at rest when a laptop is stolen. Data is at rest when a company loses its backup tapes. The computer is not on and the storage device is not plugged in. But when it is, is the data safe? If files are encrypted, is it a certainty that file fragments don’t exist in unencrypted form on the file system somewhere? What about the pagefile? Does it contain plaintext fragments of important, confidential information?

Vista Business (and higher) include the ability to use EFS to encrypt the pagefile, in addition to non-system files in the file system. The Enterprise and Ultimate editions of Vista include a s/w or h/w-based FDE (full disk encryption) implementation (h/w-based when using the TPM, s/w-based otherwise). That can secure the contents of the entire drive (volume), potentially mitigating the “file fragments” concern.

Home users may not be as concerned as government & businesses are (or should be) about security, but for those of us who don’t want our personal and financial docs leaked on IRC, full disk encryption and other easy-to-use solutions may be just what the doctor ordered.

This article in the Times reminds me that we have our own domestic terrorists here, and not just the Salafist sort. I’m talking about environmentalist terrorists. What pushes people to commit terrorists acts for the environment? Given our personal & political freedoms as well as our economic prosperity, some people reach the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs not by any reasonable spiritual endeavor, but instead by worshipping the idol of Mother Nature. Rather than productive, reasoned actions, they sell their soul to environmental extremism.

There’s good news for women in Algeria. Check it out:

In this tradition-bound nation scarred by a brutal Islamist-led civil war that killed more than 100,000, a quiet revolution is under way: women are emerging as an economic and political force unheard of in the rest of the Arab world.

Why is that good news? No where in the world has a nation gone from backward to modern without first enfranchising women. When women are suppressed, the society is backward (men are suppressed as well, as freedom of speech is stifled, and other freedoms). Where women enjoy quasi-parity with men, the country is either modernized or modernizing.

Why the correlation? My guess: because women civilize men. And civilized men don’t a backward society make.

Current/future action item of State Dept? Ensure that the many backward regimes of the world in Africa and elsewhere are giving legal parity to women. And why do we care (aside from the strong moral argument in favor of an interventionist foreign policy)? Because backward states are more likely to sponsor & harbor terrorist orgs.

Good no-nonsense article by John Stossel regarding ethanol’s non-answer to the energy issues facing this country.

Important points: the Gov shouldn’t impose its will on the People for obvious political reasons (like raking in votes from corn-producing states like Iowa); and, it’s stupid to assume that corn-based ethanol will provide for our energy needs or reduce greenhouse gases.

Note that sugar-based ethanol seems like a smart option, but again, it’s certainly not pollution free and, furthermore, the free market can lead the way in alternate energy innovation, not the Gov. That means that agri-companies need not receive huge subsidies (our money!) and we need not have tariffs against the import of sugar from countries like Brazil (which effectively stanch our economic freedom for no good reason).

Good article on OpinionJournal regarding the ACLU’s selective defense of free speech. I.e., the ACLU will defend your right to free speech contingent on the content of that speech. In other words, if you’re anti-Bush or pro-gay and your case becomes well-known, then rest assured the ACLU is on your side. But if you’re pro-Christian or anti-gay, the ACLU will be oddly silent.

I liked Thomas Sowell’s column regarding the presumptions of the political Left in this country as well as an unrelated blog entry by Thomas Barnett regarding China. First, let’s talk about some of the presumptions on the Left. Here’s a quotable quote from Sowell:

Many on the left may protest that they do not believe in the ideas or the political systems that prevailed under Hitler, Stalin or Mao. No doubt that is true.

Yet what the political left, even in democratic countries, share is the notion that knowledgeable and virtuous people like themselves have both a right and a duty to use the power of government to impose their superior knowledge and virtue on others.

They may not impose their presumptions wholesale, like the totalitarians, but retail in innumerable restrictions, ranging from economic and nanny state regulations to “hate speech” laws.

And further down…

That is why free markets, judicial restraint, and reliance on decisions and traditions growing out of the experiences of the many — rather than the groupthink of the elite few — are so important.

OK, so the bottom line is: left-wing radicalism, for all its (supposed) good intentions, is just the imposition of a minority view on the majority, in this case, the view of the leftist elites imposed on the rest of the population. It differs from totalitarianism only in degree.

—–

Barnett has a scathing rebuke of a Wash Post commentary which itself lambastes the “China model” of opening markets but closed political rule. Barnett challenges the idea that the “China model” is actually new and opposes the flawed “China is a threat” idea proposed by so many. Some excerpts:

China is no “new” model or threat. It follows the model of Singapore, and before that South Korea, and before that Japan: a single-party state that bases almost all of its legitimacy on rising income and development through export-driven growth. It is a self-liquidating model: eventually the society wants more political freedom to go with that wealth. China’s just so fricking huge and so poor that this process isn’t going fast enough for Mann–hence the inevitable “threat.”

And my favorite point (note: emphasis added by me):

As for our take on it, we should logically welcome any so-called model that promotes external economic connectivity, because we know where that goes historically (i.e., where Japan and South Korea finally ended up: creating political freedoms that match their system’s potential–something that took us a while to achieve as well).

Interesting perspective by Thomas Sowell. Well worth a read, and not just for conservatives, but especially for liberals who are concerned that far-leftist rhetoric is distorting America’s perception of liberals in this country.

Spoiler (last 2 paras):

Their greatest anger seems to be directed at people and things that thwart or undermine the social vision of the left, the political melodrama starring the left as saviors of the poor, the environment, and other busybody tasks that they have taken on.

It seems to be the threat to their egos that they hate. And nothing is more of a threat to their desire to run other people’s lives than the free market and its defenders.

Interesting blog entry on FP’s site. Evidently, the “French are the world’s whiniest workers” (what a shock), and addicted to their socialist, protectionist labor system. It’s going to be difficult for France’s new prez, Sarkozy, to reform a system that is as screwed up as France’s restrictive, non-dynamic labor laws. But as the blog entry points out:

Another interpretation is more plausible, though. If some of the best working conditions in the world haven’t been enough to make French workers happy, then maybe the paternalistic coddling and stifling embrace of its system are at fault. The Swedes’ foul moods lend credence to that interpretation. If so, then Sarkozy‘s “rupture” might be just what the doctor ordered to cure the French maladie.

System “ruptures” can be a good thing–can be. The Coalition caused a system-level rupture in Iraq (a war I supported). Good thing, unless one doesn’t follow through (the tragic mistake of the Bush admin, which is looking more feeble and obtuse as the days go by). But when one plays the game well, system ruptures can be a good thing.

Economically speaking, France desperately needs a freedom-based economic model that works to include their huge number of immigrants. Now is the time for a French system rupture by Sarkozy. Better now than waiting till disfranchised immigrants and Salafist extremists cause a rupture of their own.

As always, a great post from Dr Thomas Barnett on China’s changing rule-sets. His point: a China that opens up its economy is increasingly allowing for pluralistic view points in other matters, including politically.

And, an amazingly polemical point, at least to our current batch of “liberal” thinkers who would wall us off from globalization “for our own good”:

Funny how it took markets to finally empower the workers in the socialist state.

Ah, but of course, this is the same capitalism that “enslaves” everyone over here and ruins societies the world over through globalization.

Funny how that works in people’s minds, too.

Watch out. China is already more pro-capitalist than France and may very well become freer than the aforementioned in our lifetime. The current batch of Cold Warriors in our Congress and our military should take note of this development.

The NY Times may think that “28 Weeks Later” was a brilliant satire, but it’s really a grotesque movie whose satire is obscured by the absurdly bloody and horrific scenes of violence and mayhem. Not worth watching, in my view.

I thought I’d append an entry following that last blog. When I talk about the “tyranny of Big Government,” I often find people either “get it” or they don’t get it at all. Or, worse, things just boil down to some absurd left- vs right-wing discussion, where it is assumed that my views are straight ticket Repub/conservative merely because of my (rational) accord with Milton Friedman’s perspective on the role of government.

The people who just don’t get it tend to react to my view point by suggesting that 1) we need government (yep, I agree), and that 2) “pure” capitalism doesn’t work and breaks down into aristocracy (not sure what “pure” capitalism is, since capitalism exists in the context of a viable political system, society, and everything else), or 3) that, absent of any regulation, “evil” capitalists would oppress everyone, destroy the environment, etc (I never make the irrational argument that all regulation should be eliminated). The list of pseudo-complaints against the smaller-gov view point go on, but you get the gist.

Finally, it should be pointed out that free-market capitalism is not merely correlated with free societies, it is freedom, or rather, an important dimension of freedom. Civil freedoms and political freedoms are also significant, no less than economic freedom. The absence of economic freedom erodes other freedoms, and vice versa. Milton Friedman makes this argument far more effectually and cogently than I in his book “Capitalism and Freedom,” a must-read for capitalists and socialists alike.

… according to John Stossel. The article, entitled The Public Trough is Bigger than Ever, is worth a read for anyone concerned about welfare statism and the tyranny of Big Government.

Per the NY Times…

Rudolph W. Giuliani called on Saturday for a large-scale increase in the overall troop strength of the Army and the creation of a special force to specifically handle post-combat operations.

Given the vast disparity in our capacity to obliterate our enemy (first 4 weeks of Iraq war) vs our ability to re-build nation-states (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq), I’d say Giuliani has scored some points here. Furthermore, he specifically cites the need to add troops not on a whim, but for post-combat ops. Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!

Oh, and check this out:

To try to avoid the chaos that has ravaged Iraq, Mr. Giuliani called for a hybrid force whose role would be to provide stabilization and help rebuilding.

That “hybrid force” sounds a lot like Thomas Barnett’s idea of a Leviathan force and a System Administators force, with the first being a seek-and-destroy military force and the latter being a longer term nation-building force.