More on Computer Security 01/30/2007 12:11:11 pm by Dan Krohn

	According to a recent study by Sophos, the threat of virus from email attachments has been eclipsed by the risk of obtaining one from a visited website. So one might be wise to be selective in which websites one visits. This is a pity as one of the wonderful aspects of the Internet is the ability to access quality work by unknowns. A new wrinkle has arisen in the phishing world. Now there are phishing emails which direct the victim to a telephone number where someone might obtain data for identity theft purposes over the phone. VOIP has seemingly made long distance telphony sufficiently inexpensive as to make this scam variation profitable. This blogger suspects that most people are much more willing to trust a human voice, so there is definitely clever method to this evil madness. Lastly, one seller of GPS systems has announced that a substantial number were shipped with a virus pre-installed. Wow! What a deal. Apparently when one of those units is connected to a PC the virus is copied to the computer. Lastly, it seems cybervandals are continuing to use weather warning emails to sucker people into opening their computers to viruses and malware. This blogger's filter has picked off some this very day. So get your weather information from a trusted website - not an email from an unknown source. The creative capabilities of the human mind are remarkable. Pity there is so much creative thought going into greedy and malicious efforts.

	[1 comments]

Democracy Slipping Continues 01/18/2007 05:37:58 pm by Dan Krohn

	A couple of interesting developments regarding the decline of democracy in the United States which has been a subject of this blog recently. In a rather obvious effort to avoid appellate court review and publicity, the Bush administration has announced that it will now comply with the requirements of the FSIA concerning domestic wiretaps. However, details as to the program in its new state have not been forthcoming. There have been comments about how it might be that the actual court orders ought not be disclosed because of some interesting concept of “separation of powers”. Separation of powers to the Bush administration clearly means that no power should exist separate from the current president. It is simply impossible to see this move as anything other than a technical effort to render a lawsuit moot and avoid a court decision. In any event, the Bush administration’s concept of separation of powers includes the principle that the powers of courts should be less than those of the presidency. This is not a matter of this blogger’s imagination; rather the Bush administration has clearly stated that a belief in the inherent inferiority of the courts is a consideration when selecting nominees for federal benches. Two other reasons the change is a transparent effort to avoid court review rather than what one would hope would be a change of heart to respect a duly passed statute are (1) that the Bush administration clearly stated that this policy change does not indicate a change in its view that it may order warrantless searches since that is an inherent power of the president, and (2) that the Bush administration within the last month issued a signing statement to the effect that it held the inherent power to order warrantless review of Americans’ mail. In another development which is rather scary to civilized persons, the administration has issued a policy manual for the conduct of prosecutions under the military tribunals. These tribunals have the power to order capital punishment. And apparently they may do so on the basis of “coerced testimony”. The language is nice, but the meaning is not. Simply put, the administration intends to permit accused persons to be tortured and convicted on the basis of their statements under torture. So much for civilization and the ideals of the United States as this blogger was taught them as a kid. Now to understand what is going on, one has to read carefully. The politicians of today are extraordinary masters of spin and euphemism. So when we read of things like “coerced testimony” we need to inquire determinedly as to just what that means. Given the Bush administration’s opposition to Sen. McCain’s bill which prohibits torture, this is not a matter of rocket science. Rather it is so bizarre and contrary to American principles that we simply refuse to believe what we read and hear. The American experiment in democracy and human rights was a great one. It might possibly still be saved. But it looks like an increasingly long bet.

	[1 comments]

Security Holes 01/16/2007 11:47:55 am by Dan Krohn

	Recent articles from ComputerWorld alert to security problems in two areas most people do not expect. Apparently it is not that difficult to bring down a VOIP system with a variation on the traditional denial of service attack. Likewise, for savvy hackers VOIP is appartently rather easy to hack into for the purpose of listening to calls. These two problems will only increase and the methodology for VOIP hacking becomes better known and use of VOIP both becomes more ubiquitous. Readers beware. A second ComputerWorld column warns of the possibility of viruses entering a network through print servers and printers. The methodology will become better known to hackers in the near future. Printers are often ignored as possible entry ways for viruses. Raders who are concerned with such things can take appropriate measures.

	[comments?]

Iraq and Governing 01/15/2007 04:49:15 pm by Dan Krohn

	This is a follow-up to the previous blog entry on Iraq. It has become clear that this is a tricky situation. And it seems rather clear that we are going about it in the wrong way. If one favors getting out of Iraq, it seems we should go and go rather quickly. We did get rid of Saddam Hussein, got Iraq through some sort of election, and demonstrated that we did not need to worry about WMD’s. So that done, and with most of the Iraqis apparently wanting us out - there is a strong argument that we should just leave. If one favors not leaving Iraq, then for goodness sake, do it right. Our leading military experts have continuously argued that a greatly increased troop force is needed to pacify and rebuild that country. Colin Powell, who favored a much larger force, was marginalized. And any number of leading generals were retired or ignored. Now the administration finally has admitted that things have not gone well and that more is needed for the “surge”. But in terms of numbers most military experts seem to agree with Wesley Clark, who was quoted as stating, “We’ve never had enough troops in Iraq. In Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of 2 million. That ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops in Iraq; adding 20,000 now seems too little, too late. Further, U.S. troops so far have lacked the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to ensure that areas ‘cleared’ can be ‘held.’. So if we are going to increase troop strength in Iraq - then it should be increased enough to have a chance to do the job. Now one never knows what the future holds, and it could be that the surge of 20 - 30,000 will succeed. But this is a matter of playing the odds with lives literally on the line, so one would hope that the leadership would make the odds on bet. Unfortunately, politics seems to be controlling the situation. Classical, but unfortunate politics. When Bush became president with a minority of the popular vote, he immediately launched the time honored technique of starting a war to unite the country behind him. Though it is easy to forget, the plan worked and his popularity soared. Now it increasingly looks like we are in for an instant replay - this time in Iran. Actually, Iran makes for a more carefully selected enemy as there is its threat of becoming nuclear power which is really scary. But the American people seem to have signaled and be signaling that they do not want to be in a war in that part of the world. And to get to the troop strength required would probably require a draft reinstatement - and that is definitely not politically feasible. Therein lies an interesting bit of political philosophy. During the presidency of Bill Clinton, he was frequently criticized for changing his position when it was unpopular. This blogger always rather like that. After all, the president is elected by the people who are in a sense his boss. His role should be to do what they want done. Sometimes it’s not easy to know what the people want, and sometimes the people clearly want something wrong - a crazy gang mentality can take over. But generally, in a democratic country, it’s not a bad idea to try to please the people one represents. So now it is generally conceded that the last election was an example of the people not liking the president’s Iraq policy. That seems borne out by virtually every poll. But the administration has stated that this war will not be run “by committee”. The bipartisan committee’s suggestions have been digested and rejected. The position of the newly elected Democratic congress is being ignored. In G. W. Bush we have “the decider” who will decide and do it his way. I really hope his decision works. The world will definitely be better off with a peaceful democratic Iraq as a power in the Middle East. Yet, as a matter of political philosophy, I’d like to see our elected leader have more faith the people who elected him. Today at lunch I dined with a very wise fellow, who pointed out that several of the key Bush colleagues, Cheney and Rumsfeld among them, worked in the Ford administration and regretted what they perceived as a weakening of the presidency - a weakening that needed correction. Be that as it may, there is little doubt that establishing a VERY strong presidency has been a keystone of the current administration. This blogger believes it has gone much too far.

	[comments?]

Slipping Democracy 01/13/2007 04:17:24 pm by Dan Krohn

	We are all familiar with the lesson of the frog in a bowl of water being slowly heated. A frog placed in a bowl of hot water jumps out. When the water is slowly heated, the frog does not notice and ends up cooked. Well, we are at the point where lovers of democracy in the United States need to notice that the bowl is being slowly heated. Anyone not noticing is simply not paying attention. But to help, here is a list of just a few of the notches on the range we have passed through during the last few years as the water bowl of American democracy has been heated: The executive branch has suspects picked up and flown to foreign countries to be tortured. The executive branch orders wiretapping of Americans without search warrants (guaranteed in the Bill of Rights), though such warrants are easily obtained through the specialist “spy” court. The executive branch claims the right to name people as “enemy combatants” who can be held indefinitely in prison with no right to communicate with legal counsel, family or anyone else. The writ of habeas corpus (guaranteed in the Bill of Rights) has been suspended without calling it such. The Supreme Court disagrees but gets largely ignored. The executive branch created a prison in Cuba so as to claim prisoners there are not subject to the rights of those held in the United States. Congress openly or tacitly approves all the above activities. Within the last two weeks, the president claims the power to order American’s postal mail reviewed without a warrant (again, contrary to the Bill of Rights and though such warrants are easily obtained via the “spy” court). Within the last two days, a Defense Department official expresses hope that large corporate clients will dump the law firms defending those Cuban prisoners or force the firms to stop providing such defenses. (Is anyone wondering if corporate clients with important government contracts or needing government licenses got the message?) No, there can be little doubt that democracy in the United States is slipping away. Even if there is a change in administrations, the precedents set by the Bush presidency are there and will carry weight at some future time unless very clearly and firmly rejected. And no such rejection is on the horizon. So what does this mean? Well, we ought to perhaps relax a bit remembering that for most of human history our species has survived under governments that were not democratic at all. Inherited monarchy is the historical rule with everything else as exceptions - especially democracy. Maybe security in a time of terrorism is more important than freedom. And it’s all a sliding scale and we can each say “I’ve got nothing to hide or worry about.” Freedom is relative, not absolute: we can decide just what rights we want and which we will give up for safety - right? Intelligent people have argued to this blogger that they would rather be alive than dead (easy argument) and that they are quite willing to give up democratic rights to avoid death (easy but not quite as easy argument). The argument essentially goes: after death, there is nothing. So everything short of death is to be preferred to it. So, golly, gee whiz. You fallen heroes of the United States, we feel kind of bad letting stuff go. We’ve read that a lot of you suffered for us from Valley Forge to Iwo Jima. And that was nice, and we appreciate it. But times have changed. We’re fat and happy and rather cowardly. Life is too good to take a chance on terrorists ending it, even if we need to give up your democratic ideas in the trade. And our pleasure can be simulated; we have our freedom online in a virtual world even if we don’t have it in “real” life. So keep warming up the water. We’ll stay in the bowl, and we’ll cook.

	[1 comments]

Iraq Mid-January 2007 01/11/2007 07:57:16 pm by Dan Krohn

	Previously this blogger has been hesitant to write about the U.S. policy in Iraq, and for good reason. The topic is really much more complicated than most people want to admit, and certainly far, far more complicated than most people want to consider. So here are a few things to ponder, perhaps without offering a true conclusion. What can be concluded safely is that the Iraq situation is a mess. What to do about it is tougher. For a Christmas present, I received the complete bipartisan committee’s report on Iraq. And I’ve read the whole thing. Anyone doing so will be impressed with the complexity of the situation, and even more the difficulty. Initially once the decision was made to study a military invasion of Iraq, there was controversy among the decision making powers. It seems pretty clear that many of the professional military leaders advocated going in with a much greater force than was actually used. Somehow, perhaps based on faulty intelligence and extraordinary ignorance of Iraqi culture and history, it was decided that the Iraqis left without any native political institutions would rise up in agreement and quickly cooperate in the establishment of an operating democracy. Amazing. Has that ever happened anywhere? Now President Bush has decided that we will add another 20 - 30,000 troops to the Iraq effort and that this will be enough to stabilize the Iraqi government while it disarms the various militias and gets the democracy functioning. This is far fewer troops than most military advised before the invasion. So the question arises, is this number sufficient now that Saddam’s military machine has been defeated, but now that multiple militias and terrorist organizations have established their operations - undoubtedly some with foreign government backing? That’s a tough one and frankly the result is doubtful. President Bush has made it clear that the U.S. military effort in Iraq will not continue long if the government does not proceed aggressively to disarm the various militias threatening to divide the country into pieces ruled by rival warlords. But is that a reasonable expectation? Seems doubtful. But there is a reasonable argument that the U.S. having contributed to the existing mess has to make one last great effort to clean it up. That’s the U.S. credibility argument the Secretary of Defense is putting forth. On the other side of the argument, what is the continuing cost of this effort in terms of dollars and lives destroyed - both U.S. and Iraqi? Would U.S. departure at this point invite greater loss of life within Iraq? That’s not an easy call. Yet, there is certainly some need for the Iraqi people to find a way to cease their internal fighting if their lives are to be regained. This entry will not attempt to get into the discussions of oil interests of the various parties. Nor will it get into religious positions in any depth. There is clearly room for much difference of opinion. The bipartisan report suggested that the U.S. initiate discussions with Syria and Iran. It appears that President Bush has decided to threaten them instead. And to what extent will events in Iraq ultimately be tied to other struggles throughout the Mideast and perhaps Africa? Tough and complex. Palestinian question, nuclear Iran, remaining struggles in Afghanistan, Somalia - there's a lot going on. So here’s a last question, one we might ponder next time. What would have been the effect on the U.S. if instead of an effort like Iraq, the same resources in terms of material and effort were put into helping nations destroyed by the great tsunami? What’s religion’s answer to that one?

	[2 comments]

Noncompetes Revisited 01/11/2007 07:23:50 pm by Dan Krohn

	Sometime back in this blog, an update was promised on the Sheshunoff case and how it has changed the law concerning noncompete agreements in Texas. That case does represent a great shift in one specific area. As stated earlier, it is now theoretically possible for an employer to have an enforceable noncompete agreement in an employment at will situation. But employers, don’t celebrate too quickly. Possible does not mean probable. THIS ENTRY IS NOT INTENDED TO GIVE ADVICE TO ANYONE CONCERNING A SPECIFIC NONCOMPETE SITUATION - EXCEPT TO ADVISE SEEKING THE ASSISTANCE OF COMPETENT COUNSEL. Most writers commenting on the Sheshunoff opinion have concluded that the case refocuses a court’s consideration as to the enforceability of a noncompete agreement back on fundamental fairness - where it belongs, and where the legislature intended focus to be. Alas, if only all were that simple in application. In fairness, any consideration of noncompete agreements in Texas ought to be seen in the recent historical context. That history is that the Texas legislature has liked noncompete agreements and the courts have not. So we have a history of legislation followed by court opinions mucking that legislation up. Sheshunoff does clearly signal a shift by the Texas Supreme Court recognizing and respecting legislative intent in this arena. However, the actual work in the noncompete area seems to be exceedingly entangled with intellectual property law. That is stating the point more bluntly than most writers have, but the fact is there. And when there are multiple laws trying to accomplish the same thing, there is confusion. One clear necessity if one seeks to enforce a noncompete agreement is the requirement that the employer give the employee something in return for the agreement not to compete. That’s sensible so far as it goes. But traditionally what most people give to others in return for something is money - and that won’t do. Or at least a clear majority of writers have opined that an employer’s giving an employee money in return for an agreement not to compete may or may not be adequate depending. (I wonder how a federal preemption argument based on “legal tender” would fair.) It seems that there are only certain things which suffice when given in return for a noncompete agreement. (And note the word “given” as “promised but not delivered” is another animal altogether.) What must be given to the employee is access to confidential information, specialized training, or the infinitely ambiguous customer goodwill. This last choice, customer goodwill, probably matters where we have a clear introduction of an employee to a particular customer, but it’s rather blurry when applied to general geographic areas. Room for fun litigation there. So how about the confidential information or specialized training. Here’s the duplication. Is it really adequate confidential information or specialized training if it does not come up to the standards for protection as a trade secret or other form of protected intellectual property anyway? If an employee, and/or his new employer, obtains and improperly uses trade secrets, there is a body of law in place. If the information is less than that traditionally protected as a trade secret, is it enough to prevent someone’s being employed from a fairness standpoint? The specialized training runs into the same problem. I’d not want to argue in court that my restaurant employer could enforce a noncompete against a line cook because we gave her specialized training that on our grills rare steaks are three minutes on each side. How about specialized training on how to format a Microsoft Word document? Not likely. How about specialized training on using proprietary software for customer relations management that was developed and used only by the employer seeking to enforce the noncompete? Now there’s something to think about. But is that software and its use subject to other forms of intellectual property protection? Quite possibly. The lesson is that this continues to be a very complex and unpredictable area of law in Texas. Each situation demands individual consideration from both legal and economic analysis perspectives. Seek good counsel.

	[comments?]