meta-roj

good-person and defender of the right to “opt out” (in so many ways), Lawrence Lessig has left us a pointer to yet another example of bad government.

Larry references an article in the washington post (sometimes they ask you for demo info), with the following quote from Lois Boland (director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office): “…open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights.”

this, of course, implies that the mission of WIPO and, by extension, the Patent and Trademark Office is to work only for those persons or entities that intend to restrict rights, as opposed to those that intend to assign, waive or freely license their duly-earned and protected rights. this further implies that rights are subject to intent, and that your government and friendly neighborhood bureaucrat is both capable of discerning your intent and empowered to determine what rights then apply to you.

this feels a lot like many of the other inconsistent policies i see on the part of my government here in the united states.

isn’t the fundamental nature of a “right” that it applies universally? does it matter if it’s a civil right, a criminal right, a political right, a first amendment right, or an intellectual property right?

today, apparently, it does. someone will decide what rights you may or may not have, based on what they think you might do with those rights. i say that is wrong.

i just couldn’t resist the timing of these two events.

yesterday, on august 18, the World Markets Research Centre released their Global Terrorism Index 2003/4. i haven’t read this report (i don’t have $1500 burning a hole in my pocket at the moment), but, some other people have, and they reveal an interesting tiny bit of information. The author of the report is cited in this AP story (courtsey yahoo): “The report says the country least likely to be attacked by terrorists is North Korea.”

today, attorney general john ashcroft kicked off his campaign to “clear up some myths” about and build support for the usa patriot act with a speech before the american enterprise institute. this is apparently the first stop in a three-week, 18-city tour, but the details are being kept quiet. (the ACLU apparently thinks this is to discourage protest).

“If we knew then what we know now, we would have passed the Patriot Act six months before Sept. 11 rather than six weeks after the attacks” — ashcroft, AEI, August 19, 2003.

i guess the usa patriot act has worked so well that we are so “secure” that our attorney general can take a few weeks off to make some speeches. ashcroft apparently also cited today’s bombing of the un hq in iraq as evidence of a continuing threat. and that gives me an opening….

i observe that with 146,000 [heavily armed] soldiers on the ground, full military “control” of the country, 10,000+ dead iraqi soldiers, 6000+ dead iraqi civilians, 200+ dead american [coalition] soldiers – that the un headquarters in iraq wasn’t “safe from terrorists.”

iraq is roughly the same land area as california, with about 70% of the population (almost 33.9 million california residents, compared to about 24.6 million iraqi residents).

let’s return to our model of homeland security for a moment. north korea has about 1 million troops for about 22.5 million residents, and, according to the WMRC, is the safest country in the world (from terrorism). so about 1 soldier for every 22.5 people is “safest.”

extrapolating, maybe we can “secure” iraq with 1.1 million troops, and maybe we can “secure” california with 1.5 million troops (it’s a regime-change thing), and the whole united states with 13 million troops. then again, maybe not.

that’s not the kind of security i want, no matter how many cities ashcroft visits pitching expanded police-state powers. i appreciate the best intentions here, but this is the road to hell.

update: surprisingly, there is a flaw in the logic. israel has 550,000 active servicemembers “protecting” 6.1 million residents, and is most assuredly, “not safe.” so, a 1-to-11 ratio of troops isn’t adequate. i guess you can’t beat the terrorists with an army.