Aerowolf's Domain

> recent entries
> calendar
> friends
> profile
> previous 50 entries

Wednesday, June 11th, 2014
7:54 pm - On cancer, on hope (re Rebecca Meyer)
To theferrett and zoethe, and Kathryn and Eric Meyer, and everyone who knew and loved Rebecca Meyer,

I find myself at a loss to figure out how to put what I want to say.  You do not know me, and I don't know you... "I'm sorry for your loss, for the loss of Rebecca" is woefully inadequate, but it's the best I can offer.

Cancer is evil.  It is a blight, it is so much more than a disease -- it strikes the one who must try to survive it, but by striking them it also blights their families and their friends.  There exists no means to discuss such a hopeless topic with the members of the Prozac-zombie culture we are part of, no means to shake the desire to avoid pain.  (I don't mean that everyone is literally on Prozac, of course -- I mean this as a statement that everyone is looking for positives, and any dips below the cloud floor are 'supposed to be' shaken off and ignored, and never discussed, because it's impossible to get anyone else to pay attention to how bad things can truly get, because nobody wants to acknowledge the pain and darkness.)  There exists no means to discuss hope, and the only thing that cancer patients and their families have to look forward to are incredibly high prices for specialty, designer drugs that address one small piece or other of the cancer gestalt.

And I do call it a 'gestalt', because it's much more than it appears to be, and even the forms of the constituent pieces don't give anyone who hears its name a true idea of the magnitude of its horror.  Even understanding the shapes and forms of its constituent parts doesn't honestly express how much bigger and grander in scale it truly is than its shapes would suggest.

I read theferrett's post "One last writing on cancer", and I read "The Thief of Light" by Rebecca's father, and I read zoethe's "Death stalks these halls; we fight back"... and words can't express just how unfair it truly is.  I am sorry, more sorry than I can express.  Your words have done more to shed light on the blight than my words ever could have.  Rebecca sounds like an amazing girl, and you have my deepest condolences.

And yet, reading your words, I'm stuck thinking about something entirely different.  I'm stuck thinking about a former boyfriend of mine, whose father was diagnosed with (and eventually died from) stomach cancer.  I count myself fortunate for being able to meet him... but more importantly, I count myself lucky for being able to see something that improved his quality of life so dramatically that the only concept I can use is "literally transfigured".

While we were visiting my ex's parents, Joe was too weak to get up off the chair much, had no appetite, had no way to really keep incredibly interested in life.  He looked -awful-.  It was incredibly painful for me to even reach out to him, or to try to talk with him, and I honestly can't imagine how bad it was for those who had loved him for their whole lives.  I couldn't imagine then, and I can't imagine now.

Finally, his wife decided that she was going to do something that I honestly cannot in the least find fault with her for, even if it technically was a felony in that state: she decided to get him some marijuana.  He smoked not even a fifth of a joint, then went to bed.  (He even offered me some -- but I knew that cannabis was medicine for him, and I refused and still refuse to take medication from someone who needs it.)

The next day, he looked and seemed *better*.  He had energy.  He ate a healthy breakfast.  He was talkative.  He was even doing some chores.  His quality of life went up from about a 3 of 10 to about a 7 of 10, literally overnight.  All because of cannabis.

Years later, I would learn that CBD (one of the cannabinoid compounds, 'cannabidol') shrinks some kinds of tumors.  I would find out that there are some 13 cannabinoids, only one of which is apparently psychoactive, all of which appear to help the body regulate itself.  I would learn that we have an entire system (the 'endocannabinoid system') that appears to exist for a purpose, but with no actual stimulation without the existence of the cannabinoid compounds.  And I have to wonder... could that system exist to stave off metabolic disorders like cancer?  Could cannabis be a true source for a cure for cancer?

Right now, US government bans it ("cannabis has no valid or recognized medical use in United States"), but some 21 states (and District of Columbia) recognize medical use for it.  The entire West Coast recognizes it, and except for Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah the entire Western US recognizes it.  So does the entire Northeast except New York and Pennsylvania.  Michigan and Illinois round out the list.

I want to not give children pot... but even less do I want children to die from cancer.  There is a lot of research to be done, but Office of National Drug Control Policy is relying on rules set in 1971 (44 years ago, now) to insist that there must be no research into cannabis as the source of a cancer treatment.  In light of the already-existing studies on the topic, I honestly feel that our government has doomed us to suffer despair of ever having an effective treatment for cancer.

I want cancer to be eradicated, if it can be.  I don't know if you're a believer, but I do believe that God created cannabis to make up for our bodies not being able to balance themselves properly.  It's time to end the scourge, time to end the blight, time to end the damage done to our society by this (so-much-more-than-a) disease.  I don't know how to establish anything to champion the cause, and I don't dare give money to organizations which will only research high-cost medications that won't get the body to fight for itself.  That's not fair to the patients, that's not fair to their families, and that's not fair to anyone.

I am sorry about Rebecca, and I cannot suggest that I have anything more than the barest glimmerings of empathy for never having had to lose someone quite so dear to me.  I cannot truly understand your pain, and after all that you've gone through I feel that that is the worst disservice I could do for you right now.  I'm sorry for turning this into a pro-medical-marijuana rant.  I'm sorry if it's unwelcome.  I'm sorry that it's the only thing that gives me hope for a cancer-free future.  I hope that it might help you have a direction you can focus your energy to gain some measure of hope -- or not, it's up to you.

Please be well.

current mood: sympathetic

(2 comments | comment on this)

Monday, March 31st, 2014
9:02 pm - Mozilla, and its choice of public face (Brendan Eich)
Here's how I've always been told the upper management of a company is structured.

Chief Financial Officer: Interacts with the banks and the books and the regulators.
Chief Operations Officer: Interacts with the rest of the company.
Chief Executive Officer: Interacts with the rest of the world.

So, whether anyone wants to like it or not, the CEO is the public face of the company.

Why is this an important thing, so important that it dragged me out of my multi-year apathy to post?

OKCupid, an online dating website, has just come out with a landing page for Mozilla Firefox browser users. It says, basically, that Mozilla's newly-appointed Brendan Eich gave money to the Proposition 8 campaign (the California constitutional amendment to define "marriage" as only between a man and a woman), and that Mr Eich has not even said that he's sorry, or that he understands why supporting anything so divisive and discriminatory is antisocial and wrong. Therefore, professionally, the company would lose around 8% of its user base if gay relationships were outlawed, and in order to oppose the financial success of anyone who believes that such a regime would be good, desirable, and right it requests that any Mozilla Firefox user consider ditching Firefox for another browser.

You'll have to forgive me for trying to work through my feelings as I write this.  I understand Mozilla's position, and I also understand the frustration that many others feel.  I'll try to avoid touching on individual pains, and focus instead on the political process, the political climate, my understanding of corporations and how they're run, and how I interpret what's going on.

Let me be clear at the outset: I believe that OKCupid is firmly in the right with using its own website and platform to make this political speech.  I believe that it would be firmly in the right with doing so even if other, more direct methods to alter the political climate (available due to the Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission (Wikipedia link) US Supreme Court decision) weren't available.

So, the narrative that nobody disputes is that Brendan Eich co-founded Mozilla, a company which has a corporate culture and charter of non-discrimination.  In 2008, Mr Eich donated $1000 (one thousand dollars) to the Proposition 8 organization.  Mozilla knew of the donation when it happened.  Fast-forward to 2014: Mozilla appoints Brendan Eich as CEO.

Cue backlash.

Mozilla asserts that its corporate philosophy is a culture of inclusiveness and nondiscrimination.  Its public face (its 'head of state' or CEO), however, has been chosen to be at odds with this philosophy.  (Mozilla also complains, here among other places, that people who speak out about it don't bother to check with it to provide fair play notice of intention, or to check facts -- but all the facts are on the table: the only statements that Mozilla will offer are related to Mozilla's corporate charter and not at all about how Mr Eich could influence it, and Mr Eich hasn't expressed remorse or understanding of why supporting hateful and discriminatory constitutional language is wrong.  My beliefs are that he probably doesn't even understand why or how anyone could call that language hateful, and the public relations department at Mozilla has been ordered to not approach the topic of Mr Eich's personal beliefs.)

Mr Eich specifically named himself, along with Mozilla, on the donations page to back Proposition 8.  That alone would be enough to get him blacklisted from most organizations which attempt to maintain policies of inclusiveness.  I must applaud Mozilla for bucking the trend.

But the reason why it gets people blacklisted is because it generates this kind of backlash.  It generates boycotts.  It generates people who actively attempt to create and expand boycotts.  It causes people to ask how seriously the company takes their values and missions -- and more importantly, how many of those values they're willing to throw under the bus because of convenience.

Mozilla is not a publicly-traded company.  That means that it doesn't have to answer to shareholders, really.  However, it is something else, something that must answer not to shareholders but to everyone: a charitable organization.  It must know how much of its money comes from banner ads and referral fees from people using its browser.  Likewise, it must also know how much of its money comes from charitable donations.  People are typically unused to donating to a company with such values dissonance, and this alone would (in my mind) have been a red flag for a charity appointing a new Chief Executive.  However, when people using that charity's product can (based on the product's originated User-Agent string) be presented with things that make their personal use of the web more of a pain in the ass, that would be a second red flag.

In other words: What are the members of the Board of Directors even thinking?

Realistically, the single name Mozilla refers to two separate organizations.  One is the Mozilla Foundation, which is the charitable foundation.  The other is Mozilla Corporation, which is the corporation with the newly-appointed CEO.  This is owned primarily (if not exclusively) by Mozilla Foundation.

Mozilla has never taken the actual needs of its individual users into account, and has always tried to dumb down its interface for the least-intelligent users it could find (aka its "user acceptance testing" process).  Perhaps it thought that the developer clients who developed their own sites using their software were similarly unintelligent; now, they're being "blindsided" by the sheer rancor of people who have been hurt over many years as they had to wait for the damage done to their lives by Proposition 8 and its attempt to legislate noninclusive and discriminatory policies into place for everyone to be invalidated by the judiciary.

So, I ask both Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation (though I expect that representatives from neither will read my LiveJournal -- so I must ask you, gentle reader, to ask them yourself): If Mr Eich were to attempt to promote discriminatory and noninclusive policies for either MoFo or MoCo, would you tolerate it?  Or would you tell him to get the hell out of Dodge?  That's the question underlying most of the inquiries directed to your offices, and the question you are trying to sidestep.

It is a fact that under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, health insurance benefits for the "domestic partners" enabled by California's law during the time that Prop 8 was active were taxable at the Federal level, but not the state level.

It is a fact that "domestic partners" enabled by California law could not sponsor foreign spouses for immigration or naturalization.

It is a fact that "domestic partners" enabled by California law were denied spousal benefits and treated like segregation-era second-class citizens at the Federal level.

So, if I were Mozilla, I'd demand that Mr Eich write a statement of his personal beliefs and how he would act if his personal beliefs were to conflict with Mozilla's principles, with a notarized jurat swearing under penalty of perjury that he wrote it himself, that it was accurate, and he expected to be bound by it. And then make it public.  And then decide whether he could seriously be permitted to continue as CEO.

It's not just Mozilla's user base that is impacted here.  It is Mozilla's developer base -- the people who create websites for Mozilla Firefox specifically because they believe that there is value in supporting it that exceeds their own personal or corporate frustrations with the platform or its principles.

But even more importantly, it's also Mozilla's employees.  Because if Mozilla goes out of business, its employees lose their livelihoods.

Now, as for OKCupid's action:

I actually think that this is okay, such that I have no actual problem with it -- even though it acts to threaten the livelihood of all of Mozilla's employees, not just Mr Eich.  The reason why is because OKCupid pays for its own platform, and has developed a sizeable user base.  If it didn't try to hold its fellow corporations responsible for their speech and actions (and more importantly, *endorsement* of their figureheads' speech and actions), it would be a poor corporate citizen.  If it didn't act to defend its own userbase from seriously "what-the-fuck?" boneheaded moves, it wouldn't actually be defending its own interests in the sphere.

I really wish that there were no such thing as ideological warfare, or the use of economic pressures to attempt to change how others believe and behave.  But, as long as there exist some people who believe that something is okay and other people who believe that it's not okay, it's going to keep happening.  What's happening between OKCupid and Mozilla is just a miniature instance of what is happening right now between every nation on Earth.  After all, corporations are just miniature states which build up exactly the same way that sovereign states build up.

My personal view: you have the right to your own beliefs only as long and as far as they don't prevent me from living as you do, with my own choices of speech or religion or press or association and other constitutionally-protected rights.  The instant that you attempt to deprive me of any of these rights is the instant that I have the right to show you what happens when you don't have your constitutionally-protected rights either.

Also: I'm not a lawyer, but I've been spending a long time thinking about this.  I'd like to hear any actual lawyers chime in, but I'm not holding my breath -- after all, I'm not paying for their opinions.  The reason why US Federal constitution trumps state constitution is because of a fundamental concept of "People are citizens of United States and of the state where they reside."  That is, US citizens first, and then citizens of their resident states.  This permits the protections of federal law to trump state attempts to deprive them.  However, states themselves have the right to dictate acceptable behavior within their borders when it's not protected by the Federal constitution.  This means that Federal procedures or mandates which are not borne directly of US Federal constitution can be limited or prevented by the action of a particular state's constitution, and the actions of particular Federal actors can be limited or criminalized by state law.

(2 comments | comment on this)

Tuesday, February 12th, 2013
9:31 pm - California is one step away from Auschwitz.
The Los Angeles Police Department just demonstrated their willingness to commit arson.

On the way, they demonstrated their unwillingness to follow basic gun safety requirements and shot at least 6 uninvolved people.  (And imposed a complete communications blackout to boot.)

They did this specifically to incinerate the man they *believed*, not *knew*, to be their suspect.

California's law enforcement has just shown that it is willing to incinerate anyone who speaks or acts against it.  Qualified immunity has gone too far in this state, so that suspects are not even given their day in court, and officers are allowed to commit felonies -- commit arson, censorship, and murder -- and walk free.

Now, all we need is concentration camps for people who the government thinks are "too dangerous" to be let free.

Wait, don't we have those?  They're called "prisons".  [edited to add] But they're full of methamphetamine victims, so full in fact that California had to suffer the only mandated prison population cap the US Federal Government has ever imposed on a sovereign state.  They're certainly too full for cops, and anyway, the cops didn't know they were committing felonies, right?  It was just "accidental" that the sergeant didn't even act to save the structure, it was so important to him that the person simply die.

It was just accidental that they used a Rocket Propelled Grenade launcher (you know, a missile launcher), with flashbang grenades which (even if the fuel in the rockets were spent in the air, a highly doubtful proposition) create problems seeing because they just happen to create a burst of flame which flashes at somewhere north of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit.

Against and inside a wooden structure.

And nobody here even cares.

(2 comments | comment on this)

9:14 pm - In my ideal world
I'm reading cryptolaw.org, it's interesting. And before I dive into Mr Koops's PhD thesis on the topic, I want to write down the world that I'd like to see. I want to see how different my ideas and viewpoints are after I read his work.

In my ideal world, every person would have the absolute right to privacy of their cryptographically-stored thoughts. They would lose it through crime. It would be implemented by giving everyone a basic tool with which they could communicate and store their thoughts, and there would be absolutely no violation of it. Instead, it would be implemented via the owner him/herself installing the appropriately-ordered law-enforcement recovery key as an alternative to jail or prison, and it would only apply to information which the person himself accessed during the imposition of no privacy -- as a part of the access procedure, the device would re-encrypt every unencrypted symmetric key it came in contact with to the law-enforcement recovery key, thus causing the loss of privacy which is (should be) the primary goal of prisons today.

Ultimately, what I'd like to see is every felon's affairs be exposed to the world, as a means of shaming them onto the straight and narrow. If convicts have no privacy in prison (an institution of the state), then the state and all of its citizens should have equal access to that lack of privacy.

Of course, this relies on "entitlement to device". Which is never going to happen.

(3 comments | comment on this)

Saturday, February 9th, 2013
4:27 pm - Update (not a hugely great one, but good nonetheless)
So, I've found that there are Santa Clara County parks which offer campgrounds.

$12/night.
$30/night if I want electrical hookup.

There are 6 such campgrounds here in the county; it is not legal to stay at any one of them more than 14 days in any 45-day period.  This means that there must be at least 5, to be !harassed at 2am for a period of 5 1/2 months from now.

I can do this.  I still view it as an impermissible assignment for the benefit of this county's tax base, but it's not quite as bad as it was.

In other news, Coyote Lake Campground has a new handicap-accessible RV campsite (#1), to add to its #69.  Or at least, it's got a blue handicap placard requirement sign.  The campsite itself is a paved asphalt stretch some 30 feet long, surrounded on 3 sides by grass, without any paved sidewalks (a necessity for handicap accessibility purposes) next to the site.  The sign was installed by one of the park rangers on February 7, 2013, after several attempts that I made to use the site and being harassed by said park ranger who insisted that it was an accessible spot, without a sign or decal on the pavement, and even without accessibility features.  And even without it being published on the park's flyer, the way #69 is.

I'm going to point and laugh when someone with a handicap comes in, tries to use the space, and sues the county for inadequate accessibility.

You read it here first.

(comment on this)

Sunday, December 30th, 2012
6:58 am - ...and I read on Twitter that people in Los Angeles are selling their guns back, too. *headdesk*
Kyle Andreas Hamilton
imustnotletmyterrorsilenceme@kyanha.net

December 30, 2012

To: US Department of Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, US House of Representatives, US Senate

Greetings.  My name is Kyle Hamilton.  I am a 36 year old “obviously deeply disturbed” male, a recipient of Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, gay, a felon with a strike under California law, and homeless due to abusive State of California action.

I am married to (oops, pardon me, “domestically partnered with”) a man who is currently a prisoner of the State of California, due to his acceptance of a plea bargain while in the midst of physician-caused, state-inflicted benzodiazepene adaptation syndrome psychotic despair (after trying to detox at home with catastrophic results), and the judge's finding that he made a “sane, voluntary and rational” decision.  His appeals attorney won't try to fight that finding, won't even take calls from me because California law states that I am in a position of conflict with my husband.  My husband literally shot me in the back while in benzodiazepene adaptation syndrome psychosis with a Glock 9mm handgun, and it is truly only by the Grace of God that I am alive.  But as you shall surely understand by the end of this letter, I believe that it's necessary for every individual (especially felons) to be and stay armed, and not to let the State disarm them.  I abhor violence, but I despise tyranny without surcease even more.

I am homeless because I am on probation, inflicted by the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara in the person of one elected judge Jerome Nadler.  California law requires that any jurisdiction to which I attempt to move give permission.  I have no capacity to pay for a home in California, I have no desire to subject myself to legitimate liability for its debt by using state-funded services, I have no desire to be here, and I certainly have no desire to expose myself to ongoing contract liability which would prevent me from leaving at the instant my probation ends.  I have a home available in Las Vegas, Nevada, with (among other benefits) friends and a support structure including a B.S. in psychology.  But, the officers of Clark County, Nevada have denied me court-recommended permission to move there, citing “the defendant doesn't have a job”.

That reason (“the defendant doesn't have a job”) was also used by Judge Nadler to deny me Probation Office-recommended release on my own recognizance.  This necessitated my spending $3500 from my marriage (er, domestic partnership) common funds – AFTER being shot in the back by my husband – so that I wouldn't be left defenseless in the hands of a set of cops which had shown that it had no desire to vindicate my rights.  And also despite Judge Nadler's certain knowledge of abuse, obvious as it was at my arraignment.

The United States provides Social Security benefits specifically so I don't have to try to find work, given my history of assaults by managers and my “obviously deep[...] disturb”ance.  I have no doubt that abuse by any authority over me is going to be repeated (as it was with a warrantless and undocumented search of my van by one of the officers of Butano State Park on November 17 2012), and sending this causes me great anxiety.  I believe that State authority shall be wielded against me in retaliation for this missive, as it has already been wielded against me in retaliation for my 'crime'.

I had the temerity to expect that my Sheriff's officers (at the county jail, which had been transferred to the Sheriff's control a month and a half prior to this incident) have a duty to be civil when a citizen is confused about various aspects of the law and wishes to comprehend the limits, attempting to ask questions about status inflictions such as “if you ever set foot on jail property again, you will be arrested for felony trespass”.  Evidently, according to the Sheriff's procedures, trying to question anyone in authority in this State who's angry is worthy of being batteried as “reasonable”.

Evidently, it is also “reasonable” for the State of California's law enforcement officers to discharge a tear gas weapon at point blank range, miss the intended target, and hit an innocent passerby full in the face, with no fear of accountability.  California law declares a class of weapon called “pepper spray” to be “a tear gas weapon”, and so I use this term in these statements of fact.  California also provides “qualified immunity” for anyone who has an excuse that they might not have known about the felony involved in seizing the right of Quiet Enjoyment from a passerby, and jail guards aren't hired with the same set of background requirements as police.  So, there's been no prosecution.

Evidently, it is “reasonable” for another cop to (instead of trying to implement or institute the arrest which he claims he made, “get off of her”) break his hand by repeatedly pummeling the face of an instantly-despised enemy, specifically to cause himself great bodily injury to cause a harsher sentence, applying blunt force trauma in a manner which would have forced my head to slam into his partner's had I not kept my neck rock-steady.  I believe that the discharge of a weapon is NEVER acceptable, and tried to save the people passing behind me from the weapon's discharge by simply stopping it.  But, “he was trying to save the other guard's life!”, in the words of the prosecutor who signed the felony charge against me.  I dispute this.  If he had been trying to save the other guard's life, he would have done something other than try to force my head to cause blunt force trauma to his partner guard's head.  Willingness to cause great bodily injury to oneself and coworkers?  That's covered under “danger to self and others”, I thought, under this state's penal code 5150 and 5250.  But, the state allows these people have weapons and badges.  And they present it as reasonable, as though there is nothing at all wrong with the officer in question, so no prosecution.

Evidently, it is “reasonable” for law enforcement officers to act in concert, knowingly and willfully having conspired to crowd a prisoner movement and block the view of the camera with their backs during the time that the prisoner's head was “accidentally” smacked against the wall.  (Which was the one time I heard none of the officer's voices – which lack of sound is conveniently unrecorded.)  Quite obvious conspiracy to deprive a prisoner of the right of legitimate documentation for “substantive due process”, but no prosecution.

Evidently, it is “reasonable” for law enforcement officers to prevent any medical treatment or pain relief for six hours after reaching the emergency room (which visit was necessitated due to a thumbnail cut in my cornea), using the power of their office to deprive me of the benefit of the state's Patient's Rights law.  But no prosecution.

Evidently, it is “reasonable” for a prisoner that has done something that the other guards despise to be held without any kind of out-of-cell time for 3 solid days, when every other prisoner in the same ward and floor is given such “program time” at least twice a day.  This, despite the stark violation of state law which states that any denial of rights by state officers simply due to the officer's dislike of the crime or accused is a felony in office.  But, no prosecution.

Evidently, it is “reasonable” for a state-paid physician to alter medical records after the fact to erase the evidence of skull bowing from the beating simply because he's pissed off that I have the temerity to ask and press for an answer on a simple question designed to assure myself that the physician was in fact actually a physician, and he not only failed to answer correctly, but he refused to answer at all, and baldly stated the alteration in front of 2 officers.  Again, no prosecution.  (He kept saying "I see nothing," like some automaton.  I don't believe I was treated by a medical professional, I believe that I was treated by a county-paid clown in a white lab coat with no nametag or visible diplomas.)

Evidently, it is also “substantive due process” for any complaint about the treatment by the officers to be signed in both the “facility supervisor” and “facility supervisor designee” lines by the same person (one “Lt Connor”), and all hearings about it to occur in a court which relies upon the elected operator of that facility (the Sheriff) to provide its security.  (The California Judiciary's Office of Administrative Services contracts with the county sheriffs to provide bailiff services for each county.  However, if a Sheriff wakes up one morning and says “hey, this is a violation of due process” and orders her officers not to provide security for the court, it would be the use of an elected office's discretion in the advancement of a Constitutionally-protected right, and thus the elected Sheriff would be completely immune from prosecution under state law.)  The Sheriff has the legal capacity to throw the Court into chaos, with no way to be held accountable.

Evidently, inflicting homelessness on the disabled when he doesn't have a home available in the state, while imposing custody on the same person at the time he did have a home in the state, simply because he has no job, all while the Court is fully aware of actual income that they have and its source (since it was part of the Probation Office's recommendation for release on own recognizance) is “lawful”, not a violation of the Equal Rights Act, and not an attempt to force a Social Security recipient to spend his own funds with a bondsman who pays taxes to the State to defend himself against abuse by the state.

Evidently, accepting plea bargains when the judge knows full well that the defendant is in state-inflicted benzodiazepene adaptation syndrome despair is “lawful”.

Even if there has been prosecution of the state officers who abused me, I have not been notified of any action.  If the law is shielding the disclosure of law enforcement officers' trials or dispositions from the victim, it is in stark violation of its victim's rights law.  This would be the use of authority of the state to deprive the victim of an explicit right under state law, to protect the privacy of officers of the state more than individual citizens.  (I don't recall having had any hearing to determine if a conservator is necessary, and if I had been so judged such I certainly wouldn't be receiving Social Security benefits directly to my own bank account.)

If it were only me, I'd feel like a singled-out victim.  But the problem is much, much worse than this.  The problem has been established into the laws and procedures of this state, so that that the infliction of homelessness on the disabled is mandatory, and the judges appear to have no conscience, discretion, or fear of accountability.  My husband writes of an incident where one of the guards in the psych unit of the Santa Clara County Main Jail attempted to rile other prisoners to murder him, and at one point the guard actually smacked a nurse who was administering life-sustaining medication to him.  I have no reason to discount this story – in fact, I think it's probably the reason that the jail was moved to the Sheriff's operation.  But, my husband has had to endure benzodiazepene adaptation syndrome to a degree much worse than I ever have, I've not been informed of all the things that my husband had and has going on, and in any case it's beyond the 1-year statute of limitations (even though benzo adaptation syndrome takes between 2 and 5 years to recover from).

I have other friends, as well, who have been abused by California's finest.  One, in the city of Milpitas – he was told that the house he and his housemates were living in would never, ever receive any police, fire, medical, or any other tax-funded service, because someone at the address did something that the local cops felt was abhorrent.  No hearing, no pretense of due process, just unilateral denial of service by the city executive.  (He moved fewer than 2 months later, to Washington state.  He prefers his privacy and anonymity, so he didn't come forward.  It's been 15 years since.  He's also an honorable dischargee of the Navy, and a sales engineer for a large network storage corporation.)

The effect of the probation law and its application in this case is to force me to have to spend my Social Security benefits for the benefit of this state's tax base.  As you know, Social Security benefits are not taxable by the State except through commerce.  As far as I can see, this amounts to an impermissible assignment of my Social Security benefit, made worse by the fact that the assignment also inflicts a lack of home and shelter on the disabled.  The ones who cannot fight.  The ones who don't have the money for lawyers to fight, and whose court-appointed attorneys claim to be so busy that they simply don't have the time to do anything beyond managing a simple plea bargain, and don't view it as worth fighting as unconscionable or cruel.  I believe that the assignment of and infliction of state coercion to deprive of Social Security benefit has never been lawful in any court of this land, as it's plainly felonized by the Social Security statute itself.  But, Judge Nadler wasn't thinking about that, he felt that it was part of his legitimate authority, so he's given immunity – regardless of his certain knowledge of my income, its source, and the effect of his order.  Nobody may be required to perform any action which is unlawful (under this state's constitution), but he's somehow given immunity for not realizing that his order and conduct in his office mandates that officers of the executive commit Federal felonies.

And now, I'm being harassed by state officers because I refuse to commit a felony to register my van.  California has blocked my VIN's registration, citing three parking tickets from Mountain View which I have no capacity right now to pay (since I have to spend $800+ every month in fuel to keep moving, avoiding confrontation with the law).  If I were to obtain a registration via my intended home state of Nevada, I would be committing a felony under both California and Nevada law.  Driving without registration is at most an infraction, but now I'm threatened with imminent state impoundment of my van, because I am terrified of what happens if I commit a felony and have my probation revoked.  They're threatening to deprive me of personal property purchased with Social Security funds – the abuse of state authority to coerce a Social Security recipient into paying state-mandated, state-imposed, state-generated, and ultimately abusive fines and fees.  But they can't conceive that they're committing felonies, so they're never, ever going to be held accountable to them..

If this were only limited to the county jails and sheriffs, it would be bad enough.  But the problem is even worse in the state penitentiaries.  There are precisely two prisons in the entirety of the history of the United States which are legendary for their horrors.  It should come as no surprise that they are both from the State of California.  They are Alcatraz and San Quentin.

The Court became involved in the prison overcrowding case due to citizen knee-jerk reaction to a news blitz about felony inmates being released on the day they arrived at prison due to overcrowding problems that had to that point been effectively managed (by releasing lower-risk offenders early).  This caused a wave of demands to the State to mandate minimum times in custody, without funding or building new prisons.

The State of California has a fully-privatized for-profit prison system.  This means that there is not only a lack of incentive to provide adequate prisoner care, but there is active disincentive to do so – as it would reduce the bottom line.  There is active disincentive to prevent recidivism, as it reduces the bottom line.  The state pays approximately $40,000 per year, each, to house its prisoners.

US Congress passed the law which permitted the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals to order a prisoner release only because CBS brought national attention to its smuggled footage of prisoners in San Quentin having to do their laundry in their toilets.  This has not changed, even in the face of the judicial order (which continues to permit this overcrowding in Reception, as it doesn't prevent overcrowding of any given part of the system as long as the entire system is brought below its threshold).  Thus, the remedy that the Court brought is insufficient to deal with the original reason for the law's passage by Congress – the representatives of the peers of the sovereign state – in the first place.  Individually litigating all of the failures is simply taking far too long – the prisoners who have standing to bring suit to address them will be dead from medical neglect or suicide, or their cases mooted by release, by the time the Court hears them.  My husband had to wait more than 60 hours for his life-sustaining medications to be administered when he was transferred to Reception from the county jail, but as far as I can tell his case is already moot because there is no way to impose liability on the sovereign state.

Is this really the kind of country that you want the United States to be?  I'm ashamed of it.

The State of California's original constitutional convention was a botched, rushed job by land-rushers (not statesmen) who needed the strong arm of the US Federal Government to enforce their land claims, but who had run west so as to avoid having to deal with US Federal laws.  As a result, the state has cancer: unchecked resource flow of “tyranny of the minority” (there's a law which says that legislators must listen to their represented people, which in practice causes the “watching the government like hawks, swooping in on the first sign of foul play” reactionary crowd who aren't spending any time improving or living their own lives to get the most representation), without legislators even thinking that there's a problem.  Without the Executive saying there's a problem.  (After all, why would he?  He's the Executive, he loves the excessive authority without fear of reprisal.)  Without the Court being permitted to solve the problem, because the legislators listen to their voters' knee-jerk reactions without thinking about what's best for the State as a whole and shackle the final check on the abuse of state authority into uselessness, both by imposing ridiculously harsh mandatory sentences and by making them completely dependent on the Executive.  Without thinking about the rights that citizens have, such as the Federally-guaranteed prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment”, as incorporated against the state of California within this last involvement of the Court and its prisoner headcount reduction order.

This is the result of California's essential anti-federal stance.  They don't want the Feds involved because they're afraid that their citizens are going to be prosecuted for drug crimes due to their State's inconsistency with federal law.  At this point in the Bay Area's history, it's a cultural given that everybody believes everybody else is high on something at all times, and that doctors are in business as drug pushers.  As a result, there's as much done to protect the officers of the state from federal prosecution as possible, and absolutely no institution of Federally compliant laws or procedures.  There's not even lip-service given to Federal laws, except as grudging concessions to 9th Circuit court rulings.  They tie their citizens' rights up for years due to the lengthy Federal appeals process, and if they could have mooted the CDCR cases which reached the Supreme Court by releasing the plaintiffs they would have.

Evidently, California views the “cruel and unusual” requirement literally – that both cruelty and unusuality must be found for the punishment to be unconstitutional.  (It also interpreted the 2nd Amendment as “the right to self-defense is a collective state's right,” which was only kicked over in 2005.)  I assert that 'cruelty' is enshrined and established in California's punitive system (they hold prisoners in the same or worse conditions as they mandate for livestock poultry).  I also assert that California's prison system is “unusual” in light of the treatment that prisoners get (which is harsh, but nowhere near hellish despair) in 45 other states of the Union, 4 commonwealths of the Union, and in US Federal penitentiaries.

And never mind that it won't even allow me to create a phone account to let my husband call me, because I'm homeless and have no tie to a particular piece of land.  State coercion to rent a place so that I can talk to my family, no matter that I can't afford to.  No matter that my disabling issues require that I live alone in a state where every person and entity believes that it has the right to do absolutely anything to anyone else, based on a might-makes-right model which causes me to react defensively when my rights are assaulted or seized.  I grew up in Washington State, where it's legal to murder anyone who's committing or about to commit a felony.  I've had felonies committed against me by many people in positions of public authority here.  Why should I not take up arms against the tyrannical state?  Oh yeah, because it would be “terrorism” (threatening or committing violence to effect political change), not “a legitimate attempt to enforce rights under the law which have been unjustly seized and denied by people in public offices”.

Politically, California provides some large percentage of revenue for the entire nation, and thus its Federal felonies against its own citizens are ignored.  This is precisely the situation that RICO (the Racketeering-Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act) was designed to address.  Even the elected chief executives of states, which have sovereignty to permit their executives to commit felonies under executive privilege, have been held accountable for its violation (c.f. former Illinois Governor Blogojevich).

The entirety of the State of California's criminal justice system is a racket, and it meets the very definition of RICO.  But, because US Congress is so reliant on its income to address the federal budget deficit, California's institution of Federal felonies against US citizens is overlooked by the overseers.

Please.  Audit California and all of its administrative subdivisions and municipalities.  US Congress, if you must, please for the love of God and the Union void California's constitution, and send Federal troops into the Territory of California to establish Constitutional order for the first time in its US history.  We, its victims, have no voice, we have no vote, we have no way to participate in the public debate, we have no education on how to participate, nobody wants us to participate, and we have apparently no rights at all to be vindicated by the State.

I have no representatives in Congress who will bring my issues to light, both because I have no right to vote and because the representatives from this state see absolutely nothing wrong with the treatment.  My husband and other prisoners of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (what a crock of a name) have no representatives in Congress or even the state legislature, as they have no right to vote, and they have even been kept incommunicado from the press.  It took CBS committing a crime 20 years ago against the State to get any kind of Federally-legislated improvement, and now US has a Chief Justice who doesn't think that a sovereign state needs to have oversight -- which is legitimately in-scope under Federal constitutional law, designed to protect the most defenseless of us under its equal protection and prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.

If you do not believe it is as bad as I characterize, I challenge you, the reader of this missive, to experience the hell that is a felony charge without indictment (which SCotUS has held, in a case against California amusingly enough, to not be part of the 14th Amendment's incorporation of all Federally-Constituted rights against the State).  I challenge you to place yourself in the shoes of an “unwilling participant” in the State of California's criminal justice system.  Get a guarantee from the Chief Executive (of either the state or nation) that he shall pardon you at some specific date in the future for whatever you end up doing to be sent to the California state prison named “San Quentin”.  Be sent there, knowing that you're there until the date that pardon occurs.

6 months should be sufficient to comprehend the hell that it is, to thoroughly understand that there is *nothing* you can do, you're given 1 hour of yard time a day and the rest of the time you are in your cell.  There's no convenience moves, no moves for fear of our cellmate until after an attack.  You must do your laundry in your toilet, no matter that you've got open wounds and scabbing on your crotch because you don't have hot water to wash your clothes in.  Nothing is done to lessen the desire of people to suicide.  They ask if you want to, quite often.  But if you say yes, they put you in even worse conditions to simply remove their liability, to make it slightly more difficult.  (So say the letters from my husband, who was only eventually transferred out of there due to a Herculean effort which involved an ombudsman driving from Sacramento to San Quentin to make it happen.)

There is a despair there that is almost as bad as benzodiazepene adaptation syndrome – with the single ray of hope that you know there's an eventual end to your misery.  Then realize that this is a location which was designed to house prisoners for between 1 to 2 weeks, and there are prisoners there who have been there for more than 3 years.  There is a fundamental hopelessness that the US Federal Government will defend its most vulnerable and most voiceless citizens' federally-Constituted rights, despair that the Rich And Powerful Club will do anything to change the cycle of prison-release-violation-prison that is used solely as a moneymaking machine made from the tortured souls who are never given enough voice or media access to stop it – because nobody in California can conceive that a problem exists.

There is nothing at all implemented to prepare this State's prison system's victims to be productive members of society when they are released.  There's no place to actually practice resolutions for better behavior, no place to practice desired habit changes.  There's no counseling on how to think about the law.  There's no discussion of the law that they're going to be held to when they get out.  The prisoners are only going to commit felonies again upon release, because they are never taught how to live so that they won't, forced to endure huge bankruptcy-nondischargable debts imposed by the court that they're never going to ever be able to earn enough to pay, encouraging worse behavior to have a chance to pay it off before they die.  This makes more money for the prisons, which can then count another $40,000 per year (plus profit from sales of prisoner product goods to the US military[2]) slave in the bank.

Furthermore, the “three-strikes” law enshrines an even worse situation in the prisons: there are so many people there who don't believe that there's any hope of being part of civil society ever again that they create a more vicious, more hopeless, more violent environment that only reinforces the poor, sub-civilized behaviors that are necessary to survive in it.

How can the US have an incarceration rate between 2 and 13 times the rest of the developed world[1], with 5% of the world's population but 25% of the world's prisoners[2], enabling prison labor (a.k.a. slavery) to be used to create 100% of our military's helmets and ammunition belts and much of our military's other gear[2], while still espousing that it is a 'free country'?  We can't import this kind of product.  Why is it legitimate to produce it and have our free nation's military consume it?

If the justices of the Supreme Court honestly believe that it's “a state's decision” how to manage its prison system, and that state systems deserve no oversight, I believe they should experience the hell here in California.  Given that Chief Justice Roberts (and two others, of the nine) did in fact try to rule that health care is not important enough to warrant “cruel and unusual” treatment by its deprivation, he (and those two others) did in fact actually violate the law of California which states that any attempt by any appointed or elected official to deprive a citizen of his legitimate rights is a felony in office, and is remedied by (in addition to prison time) removing and disqualifying said officer from all positions of public trust.

In other words, if Justice Roberts and his two cronies don't recuse themselves from everything appealed under California law for the rest of their tenures, they are in actual violation of the felony code which they claim to be bound by in all other respects.  But... they're immune from felonies they commit under the states' laws in judging their cases, somehow.  Oh!  That's right, it's because of “federal supremacy” – their offices at the Federal level seem to protect them from the consequences of behavior which could legitimately be interpreted under the state's felony statute.  They have every incentive to pick and choose the laws they're bound by.  I wish I didn't think that it's appropriate to show them that the Constitution in fact grants only one office the authority to act without fear of the law's reprisal (the Chief Executive), and only one pair of official bodies the authority to delay any arrest or charges against their members during the sessions of their bodies (Congress).  There's nothing in the Constitution which protects judges, Supreme Court justices, or any employees of the Judiciary from abuses of their discretion.

I'm on probation because I took a plea bargain, after I told my lawyer that I wasn't okay due to my own benzodiazepene withdrawal.  She insisted that I was of sound mind simply because I tried to raise the objection.  If I'd known it was going to be this hell, I'd have begged for US federal intervention long before this.  If I'd known that this was even possible in the United States, I'd have begged for UN intervention.  I've been in benzodiazepene withdrawal syndrome's psychotic despair (a despair which is absolutely guaranteed to happen when the body's anxiety feedback attenuation system has adapted to the drugs) for the past two and a half years. It quite simply didn't occur to me to ask for help.

I have emailed my lawyer that I believe the state is imposing criminal coercion to spend my Social Security money for its own benefit, by preventing someone in an unconscionable situation from leaving.  She has never responded.  That has managed to achieve precisely { }, or “the null set” of potential investigations or prosecutions.  The Alternate Defender's Office doesn't care, it says it's too overworked to provide attorneys who stand up for their victims' actual rights under federal law.

I feel that the only way to address this is to substantively void the concept of “qualified immunity” as “protecting officers of the state much more than citizens”, from its inception, and start the statutes of limitations on those unprosecuted felonies from that date.  Here's why: State officers can commit felonies without knowing the laws they're breaking and walk Scott-free.  Individual citizens can commit felonies without knowing the laws they're breaking, perhaps even honestly believing that what they were doing was legal, and be held accountable[3].  It's a violation of equal protection in favor of employees of the State, and is also a fundamental abrogation of the right of substantive due process for the People.  Persons who commit felonies in office, who “didn't know they were committing felonies”, are still in positions of authority, endangering every one of the People who they committed those felonies against.  There is no fear that they'll be held accountable to that law disqualifying them from ever holding offices of public trust again, even though it hasn't been repealed.   This endangers the citizens far more than appropriate – those in power who haven't been prosecuted have shown that they're willing to commit felonies by not doing their research, by not being educated on the felonies they're committing.  It's an active disincentive to know them, because if they have the slightest excuse that they weren't trained on it, they can commit (and continue to commit) crimes and felonies in their offices without ever being held accountable.  It also denies the People the equal protection of the law, because the checks to prevent abuse by their public officials are wedged shut.

Why are we the People being forced to trust in-office felons who are immune from prosecution if they have the slightest claim that they were ignorant of the law?   This forces us to rely on the state's records to be accurate in what they were trained on, and forces us to deal with incredible abuses by people who are committing felonies against the Union.  Why must we keep them on the payroll?  It is part of the job descriptions of officers hired by The People to enforce their laws to actually know the laws that The People have paid them to enforce!  The People have in fact constitutionally granted only one office the authority to commit felonies without prosecution, and that's the Chief Executive.  The Legislature should never have had the constitutional right to extend immunity from criminal prosecution to its own state agents, and the fact that it did so could not have been a lawful exercise of elected authority.  The institution of this was a direct slap in the face to the US Constitution, and in fact I believe would qualify as treason against it, attempting to undermine the guarantees at the very foundation of our Union.

All this, while there is no citizen education on what laws they shall be held to without knowing them.  While there is even (for a lot of people who still have no power or Internet in the forests and hinterlands here) no opportunity to know them.  Police even get training paid by the People, but they still get privilege granted constitutionally only to the Chief Executives of states and nation to break the Peoples' laws if they don't know them?  Active disincentive to know the law?  We have people in positions of authority without fear of accountability, and with every reason to avoid researching their crimes for themselves.  This is the institution of evil, the Tyrannical state, not the Free state.

But people here in California are so used to going along with every abuse of power I honestly don't believe that they realize that there's any way of life better than “obedient to abuse”.  There are so many victims of methamphetamine and benzodiazepenes here that I don't think they can comprehend that anything better exists.  There exists here a public health epidemic in the abuse of controlled substances, and applying criminal drug laws simply cannot sort out the actual issues that exist in this culture.

I hope that the combination of instituted Social Security coercion and RICO is enough to be able to get federal eyes looking at the institutionalization of these felonious processes and procedures.  I also hope that the Court accepts the equal-protection and due-process argument to mobilize federal jurisprudence and eminent domain of its citizens' rights.  Given its track record, though, I despair that this missive is going to cause any kind of investigation or action that is left unquashed by the Court– but it's the last, final gasp of someone who has been so disarmed by the tyrannical State as to be unable to fight against its abuses.  I know that I cannot command, but I have the right (under the United States Consitution) to peaceably petition, so I can only beg and plead in my destitution for a thorough investigation of every federal felony, every RICO violation that The State of California's governance has enshrined, established, and swept under the rug.

We have the right to Trial By Jury Of Our Peers, in this nation.  I believe it would be wholly appropriate to place California on trial, with the elected judiciaries and representatives of its peer states of the Union empaneled as its jury.

With anxiety, sorrow, anguish, terror, and certain dread of State reprisal, I do hereby swear, avow, and affirm that the foregoing is true and correct.  I never thought I'd have to do anything of the sort for any text like this, written to so damn any of the United States of America.

Sincerely,



Kyle Andreas Hamilton
P.S.  Please.  I can't even legally shelter from the elements in my van, because of this State's and its counties' laws.  I have no prayer for relief available to me, save begging on my knees to the lawmakers of the Union for mercy and pity in the puddles of rain the law mandates I endure to avoid becoming an asset of the prison complex.

I expect that as soon as any probe happens, the State is going to use my “obvious deep disturbance” to incarcerate me under its Penal Code 5150/5250, claiming it's a “public safety” measure – or charge me with some crime and revoke my probation and send me into the hell that is San Quentin, or even decide simply to impound my van, simply for using my right to peaceably petition to beg for help.  Having read my husband's letters to me, I'd honestly rather die than suffer those experiences, after everything else I've suffered at the hands of this State.

They think that I'm insane for believing that fundamental non-violence is the root cause for civilization, and they think that I'm insane for loving my husband despite what he did to me.  Frankly, I've suffered more at the hands of the State of California (in its well-meaning but harmful and misguided “WE'RE GOING TO FORCE YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT HE'S GOING TO DO IT AGAIN” impositions) than I have ever suffered from him, and he was also insane at the time of his crime.  There are certainly issues to be addressed, but they're created by a mental illness which existed prior to the physician-caused benzo adaptation syndrome, and which continues to exist after.  My husband cannot get therapy to cure it in prison, and it is just not possible to address them via written communication. But they won't let me let him talk to me – even with a court order permitting peaceable contact.)

They seem to think that they have every right to keep me from feeling like I have any right to fight against them.  They have disarmed me.  They have shackled me here.  They are holding me incommunicado from my husband.  They have done absolutely everything they can to get me to follow their ways like a lamb to the slaughter. They have done absolutely everything they can to grind me down – but I cannot permit myself to break.

Perhaps instead of viewing the “mentally ill” as being unworthy of having weapons, it might be better to look around each individual tragedy and determine what oppression and wrongs the aggressors felt that they couldn't right with any means short of violence.  I am at the point where I would willingly – nay, eagerly – take up arms against the State of California, if it wouldn't be ruled “suicide by cop” by someone who was “obviously deeply disturbed”.

I thus petition the United States Federal Government for political asylum from the State of California and all of its law enforcement officers (from state to county to municipality).  I thus petition for an investigation into California's legal system as a huge institutionalized RICO violation.  I thus petition the Federal government of which I am a patriot for defense from state-level abuse.

And I thus petition that the secretariat of the United Nations Council on Human Rights be notified.

References:

[1] Prison population statistics, United Kingdom Library of the House of Commons, SN/SG/4334, last updated 24 May 2012.

[2] BBC, “QI”, at Youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPZed8af9RI

[3] Nolo Press, “Criminal Law Handbook”

current mood: despair
Sunday, May 27th, 2012
1:17 pm
[ Regarding http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/2012/SXSW2012.html ]

Radical Transparency is the notion that people are more accountable if they don't hide behind pseudonyms and privacy settings, and so there is never any legitimate reason to keep anything hidden.  The meme further alleges that there is no way to have this accountability without this transparency.

I agree with the notion that people are more accountable if they don't hide behind pseudonyms and privacy settings.  That's about all I agree with.

I disagree with the precept that there is thus no legitimate reason to keep anything hidden.  I also disagree with the notion that there is no other way to achieve the goal of accountability than mandating transparency.  Overall, the entire idea enforces that there shall be parallel networks: one where everything is open and one where everything is cloaked, thus violating the purpose of the open network in the first place.
Cut for friend page sanityCollapse )

(comment on this)

Tuesday, April 17th, 2012
4:23 pm
To my younger half?sister: happy 33rd birthday.

(1 comment | comment on this)

Wednesday, January 18th, 2012
5:25 pm - Well, this is an adventure...
Depression sucks, at the best of times.  The chemical imbalances which cause listlessness and lack of interest in anything are some of the most devastating things I'm aware of.  If you suffer from it, get help, you will feel a HELL of a lot better.

Depression caused by your life getting fucked over multiple ways, though, sucks more.

Sorry I've been away.

(4 comments | comment on this)

Sunday, April 17th, 2011
12:17 am
Happy birthday, Nichole Renee'.  I always remember, but I never say anything.
Monday, April 11th, 2011
10:54 pm
I have come up with a simple solution to the Internet's identity crisis (which I'm defining as "nobody has or asserts any trustworthy, verifiable identity unless they're inside large corporations where the Internet standards don't really apply"). It uses PKIX as its basis. It resolves every privacy complaint with e.g. TLS's non-DHE ciphers, which utilize the PKIX-specified data formats.

The upsides:
- permits the application of the Time Stamp Protocol and Online Certificate Status Protocol for their appropriate usage.
- citizen can take control of protecting his own identity at the credential level
- citizen can leverage existing copyright law to provide a solid foundation from which to protect his privacy
- citizen doesn't have to worry about Eve -or- Mallory listening to what comes out of his terminal endpoint
- business can request and rely upon multiple credentials (things such as "signed credit report" or "OCSP responses for every certificate in the chain") provided by consumer, as well as state identity
- cryptographic protection is pervasive and designed-in
- permits reliance upon more than one complete signature chain
- utilizes unique, throwaway keys per-transaction to prevent Alice and Bob and Carol and Dave's identities hidden, as well as

The downside:
- It involves self-signed certificates

The upside to the downside:
- any consumer of PKIX certificates will automatically fail validation of certificates utilizing this method, making this safely backward-compatible

I present the method (that I'm calling "secure evidence bundle assertion protocol"):

Alice has:
- a privacy policy
- a throwaway keypair
- one or more certificate chains, asserting identity and/or authority and/or validity
- all of the private keys to those chains
- one or more other things (invoices, scans/PDFs of signed contracts, etc) that she wants to asserting whatever else she wants to assert (the stuff that Judy, the Judge, is going to want in case of dispute)

Bob has:
- identity certificate

1. Alice obtains Bob's certificate (current WWW-server practices).
2. Alice creates a set containing her privacy policy, Bob's certificate, the public key to the nonce keypair, all of the certificate chains (and text and/or certificate signing requests) that she wishes to assert, current OCSP responses for those certificate chains, and all of the other things she wants to include.  (This is "Alice's Stuff".)
3. Alice creates another set containing #2, and signatures over the previous set by every private key that she is claiming that she holds.  This includes the nonce private key.
4. Alice encrypts #3 to Bob's public key.
5. Alice creates a new set containing #4, and her privacy policy.
6. Alice encrypts #5 to Bob's public key.
7. Alice creates a TBSCertificate structure with SubjectPublicKeyInfo of the nonce keypair, and #6 as an extension therein.
8. Alice signs #7 with the nonce private key.

On receipt of Alice's #8, Bob:
1. Verifies the self-signature.
2. Decrypts (with his private key) Alice's #6 to obtain Alice's #5
3. Is presented with Alice's privacy policy (i.e., copyright license), which he must choose whether he wants to comply with.
4. Iff he accepts, he decrypts Alice's #4, obtaining Alice's #3 and Alice's #2.
5. Scans through Alice's #2, to compare the nonce public key with the SubjectPublicKeyInfo in the outer certificate.
6. Verifies the signature of that public key over Alice's #2, to prove that this is not a replay attack.
7. Analyzes Alice's #2, and determines every certificate that he needs a signature to prove.
8. Verifies Alice's #3 against the public keys contained in Alice's #2.

Eve and Mallory see:
- nonce public key
- Alice's doubly-encrypted information

Important Notes:
- current path validation rules stay precisely the same, for the verifications of Alice's certificate chains.
- Every identity (key and/or certificate) which Alice proves to Bob (signature verified) is ultimately proven
- The initial certificate is self-signed and breaks verification on implementations that have extreme prejudice against untrusted signatures
- the identity asserted by the CA for Alice's key is protected under 2 layers against Eve and Mallory
- the identity asserted by the CA for Alice's key is protected under 1 layer against Bob
- the copyright license presentment makes this a click-wrap license, with enforceable penalties for violating it
- the identities that Alice wishes to assert belong to her, and she can choose whether to proffer them to Bob or not
- Alice is not the authority for any specific aspect of her identity or reputation, only the set of all of them
- Alice proves that the nonce private key is her own (a self-signed certificate).
- Alice proves that the holder of that private key knew and approved what was going into the bundle (signature over plaintext)
- Alice proves that the holders of every certificate she asserts as hers knew what was going into the bundle
- The protection against Bob is also Bob's only evidence that she did in fact let him use her information, and under what terms
- The things that Alice wants to provide can include certificate signing requests, permitting secure key enrollment
- The things that Alice wants to assert can include other information which she used to decide to transact with Bob, encrypted so that he can't figure out what she used, but which Alice can decrypt for Judy the Judge (supports "third-party reputation information which cannot be shared with the subject")
- This allows Alice to assert not only her state identity, but also context-specific identities and reputations
- This utilizes the most ubiquitous and most thoroughly-vetted cryptographic protocols currently deployed

Why PKIX should take this up:
- PKIX created Internet standards for the Certificate and OCSP, but never tied them together
- PKIX has never created anything other than SCEP for enrollment
- TLS is the wrong place to solve OCSP stapling
- The Consumer is the authority over who to show his driver's license or his club membership card to
- Other protocols fail to permit the private and secure assertion of multiple certificates/credentials
- PKIX never created a way for Alice to protect her own identity
- PKIX standards haven't been really examined under post-Wassennar Arrangement rules, which don't require transmitting the certified identity in the clear to tag encrypted streams with their owners' information
- PKIX faces a set of challenges which have not been simply or neatly addressed
- PKIX is the only body with a chance of preventing any single private organization from having ownership of any individual's identity (like Facebook).

Why I'm not writing this up as an I-D:
- I can't guarantee that as "the author" I'll continue to be available
- PKIX is a much more collectively intelligent body than I could ever hope to be
- PKIX is full of people who have much experience in deployment in different scenarios
- PKIX is full of people who understand the standards better than I do
- PKIX is full of people who write standards better than I ever could
- I've already made my good-faith attempt to garner PKIX's attention.

(comment on this)

Sunday, March 20th, 2011
3:17 am
XEN VM hosting service that's offering free beta VM hosting: http://www.chunkhost.com

I'm looking at their terms of service, and I'm not seeing any limitations on what they can do with your VM or its contents.  I wouldn't dream of putting anything sensitive on it -- that would be more like a nightmare.

It's interesting, perhaps as a means of getting redundancy for my current VPS.  (Just as they suggest having your nameservers on different networks, you should also have your VPS instances on different clouds.)

(comment on this)

Friday, March 18th, 2011
10:12 pm
Our actors:

Alice - party A
Bob   - party B
Chuck - party C
Diane - party D
CArol - CA
Trent - Trusted third party (also a CA)
Sam   - State CA (issues for state purposes, not necessarily useful to anyone else)
Judy  - Judge (state authority)

Our props:

Passport case (allegory for "container for a bunch of credentials")
Passport      (one of several credentials)
Driver's Card (another of several credentials)
Credit Letter ('')
Check         ('')
Credit Score  ('')
Cred evidence (signatures made by all submitter-asserted claims)
Lock box      (hybrid: encrypted to a recipient)
Pen           (hybrid: signature)
Tamper Tape   (License: terms that must be accepted before their lock box is opened)

(1 comment | comment on this)

Monday, March 7th, 2011
12:10 am - Clarifications
The "throwaway key" can be seen as a serial number, to ensure that the serial number inside the package matches the serial number on the box. (Otherwise, it's a replay attack.)

It might help to view this as a physical good, created from information (like software on a CD):

Information part:

Alice creates a bunch of files, containing all of her stuff that she wants to share with Bob. She assigns a serial number (asymmetric key) to it, then proves that the information belongs to her by signing the unique combination with every key in her stuff that she claims belongs to her.

Physical part:

She puts that information on a CD-ROM.

Alice puts the CD in an envelope, and sticks her policy for use of her information on that envelope.

Alice puts that envelope into a box, and then writes the serial number she assigned to the information she's sharing in this transaction on that box -- to ensure that nothing got swapped in-transit. (It just wouldn't do if the box could be opened and altered en route.)

When Bob receives the box, he opens it and pulls out the envelope; he sees Alice's information usage license. If he agrees to it, he opens the envelope and gets the CD out.

He puts it into his computer, and analyzes the information on it -- authenticating the pieces he needs to verify, verifying the signatures made by keys that encompass the information he needs to have, and deciding whether it's sufficient.

Only after analysis does he believe Alice's claims and transaction, and whether he trusts it enough to do whatever she wants him to do.

This is what Microsoft does with its physical software, except that when it releases the code to manufacturing, it makes thousands of discs, stuffs them all into envelopes, and boxes them without a particular recipient in mind . It only addresses its code to classes of recipients (retail, OEM, education, MSDN).

(comment on this)

Sunday, March 6th, 2011
10:59 pm - Alice's Stuff
Now, Alice's identity is whatever she says it is (she is the master of the set of all of her identities, both state and context-driven). She is not, however, authoritative for the particular identity -- that is, she is untrustworthy as an identity signer.

The solution? Have many different identities, each one relating to the reputation which has been built up by the owner in whatever context it's associated with and useful to.

The identity asserted by a bare public key is "the holder of the private key which this key can verify and decrypt". On its own, that's usually not very useful -- but combined with other credentials, it can be used to create the privacy-maintaining system that is necessary.

For each transaction, Alice has a throwaway keypair. She wants to assert that she owns it, so that the package and box which the credentials come in is securely bound to the credentials themselves. She puts the public key of that pair both into the credentials and onto the box's waybill.

She also puts whatever else she wants -- the identity certificate (or context certificate) of the intended recipient, her notes on the transaction, whatever -- into that bundle of her stuff.

See, she's not merely asserting to Bob. She is also asserting to Justice (i.e., the State). The bundle of information is going to have to be useful to Alice everywhere, because otherwise it's a wasted opportunity. She might as well let Bob have custody of the information if it's useful to her for later use. As long as she evidences that she holds the private keys needed for Bob to trust her claims to the extent that he requires, he doesn't need to care about what else is in the bundle of credentials (as long as nothing is in there which causes his unilateral contract to Alice to be violated).

So, she puts whatever she might need in later action in it. Bob's bound to her information-disclosure policy, so he's just along for the ride.

(comment on this)

7:41 pm - As simple as I can make the protocol overview
Alice creates "her stuff". (credentials)

Alice proves that "her stuff" belongs to her. (evidence)

Alice encrypts "her stuff" and "her proof" (as a single unit) to Bob. (envelope)

Alice takes that envelope (think 'software package'), adds her license to copy her information out of that package, and then encrypts the package to Bob. (box)

Bob receives the box, opens it. He sees the envelope and the license agreement. (Think DMCA click-wrap license.)

If he accepts the license, he opens the envelope, obtaining 'credentials' and 'evidence'.

He performs the following tasks, in any order that makes sense to him:
1) He verifies the legitimacy of the credentials that he needs to rely upon. (authenticity)
2) He verifies that every credential he needs is in the evidence. (policy)
3) He verifies the signatures from the 'evidence' of the keys in the credentials he needs to rely on that Alice needs to prove. (proof)

If all 3 of authenticity, policy, and proof are there, Bob proceeds with the contemplated transaction.

Any questions so far?

[edited to change 'package' to 'envelope', to reduce the number of metaphors I'm juggling.]

(1 comment | comment on this)

5:14 am
Alice creates a set of information she wants to assert for and about the transaction.

This set includes the public key of a throwaway key pair, the identity certificate of the intended recipient, any metadata about the particular transaction that she wants for whatever reason to recall (this could include a copy of her invoice, among other things), and the entity/privilege certificates that she wishes to assert.

She signs that set with every private key that she asserts that she owns, including the private key of the throwaway key pair. (It should be signed by every private key which she asserts as evidence that Bob requires, as well as some number (n >= 0) of keys that Alice wishes to additionally sign it with, for whatever reason.)

She takes the assertions + proof = Evidence, and encrypts it to the public key of the identity certificate which she intended to receive it (plus some number >= 0 of keys which she specifies -- this should not be restricted either) = BlindEvidence, BlindEvidenceKeys.

She creates a set of the encrypted(Evidence) = BlindEvidence, the asymmetrically-encrypted(BlindEvidenceKeys), and her personal information license (all) = Package, then encrypts Package to the intended recipient (plus additional recipients as Alice chooses) = Shell, ShellKeys.

Then, she creates a new certificate structure containing the public key of the throwaway key pair, Shell, and ShellKeys; she then signs that certificate with the private key of the throwaway key pair.

That certificate is what she transmits to her intended recipient, Bob.


Alterations from last post:

The reason for including Bob's identity certificate in the set of data is so that if the Evidence signatures can't be shown, it's evidence of illegal copying and unauthorized possession of personal data. If someone is found to have stolen data that's unstripped, it non-forgeably shows where the leak was.

The reason for including additional data is for her own convenience when she's presented with a transaction.

The reason for the additional recipients is so that Alice can encrypt to her recovery keys as well as to her attorney, her accountant, her spouse, her wedding planner, her parole officer, or whoever else she wants to see it.

(2 comments | comment on this)

Tuesday, February 1st, 2011
6:31 pm - High-level overview of prior post
1) Alice gathers all evidence that Bob needs and encrypts it to Bob.
2) Alice takes the blob from #1, adds her personal-data license, and encrypts that to Bob.
3) Alice creates a new self-signed certificate containing the output of #2. [eta: as extensions]

Eve only sees the output of #3. She doesn't have Bob's private key, so she can't decrypt things which were encrypted to it.

Mallory can't alter the credential because the self-signature makes that immediately apparent.

Bob can receive it and decrypt it -- but he's presented with Alice's info usage license before he can obtain the plain-text input to #1, so he either agrees to it or he's in violation of the DMCA.

Carol doesn't have Bob's private key, so she's in the same boat as Eve.

Trent doesn't get to learn who Alice is asserting her identity to. He learns when she requested proof of her credential's current validity, but he'd learn that if Bob looked up the OCSP response himself. This way, Alice doesn't force Trent to deal with someone he doesn't have a pre-existing relationship with, and Trent doesn't know that it's Bob who's verifying the credential.

The multiple keys in Alice's evidence come from multiple providers, all of which have a record of what entity enrolled that key with them. Thus, the state's need for an audit trail is served.

Any questions?

(3 comments | comment on this)

Sunday, January 30th, 2011
1:58 am - Now that I have it, what do I do with it?
I have developed appropriate semantics, as well as a protocol, to leverage the huge installed base of PKIX parsers and validators for the Consumer market. It's not ITU X.509, but is very near it. It is provably backward-compatible in a fail-safe manner with the large installed base of X.509 parsers.

The protocol is enabled only and solely by removing the restriction against self-signed certificates in PKIX validators.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Self-Signed CertificateCollapse )

(comment on this)

Monday, November 29th, 2010
9:12 pm - 2nd Amendment-based musings
I think that 2nd Amendment supporters have allowed their opponents to steer the debate for far too long.

In the media, we see stories of terror inflicted by guns. We even see stories of acceptable usage of firearms -- but the context is always of building fear against firearms. The idea is that if enough people fear firearms enough they'll support the overwhelmingly idiotic notion of legislating away the 2nd Amendment.

I think it's time to start asking the people who want to legislate our rights away from us one simple question: Why would you want to take one of my fundamental rights away from me?
Cut for sake of your scrollbarCollapse )

(5 comments | comment on this)

Friday, November 19th, 2010
9:59 pm
Today, November 19 2010, my husband Eric Uratchko (hybridk9) was sentenced to 9 years in prison. He accepted a plea offer, pleading no contest to one count of assault with a firearm enhanced by great bodily injury and by occurrence in a domestic violence situation. He was sentenced to 3 years for each of the crime and the enhancements to run consecutively, without possibility for parole for at least 85% of the term.

I do not feel that this is the appropriate sentence; the court disagrees.

I'm depressed. I'm also exhausted. This entire ordeal has had me running my my last dregs... but there's a curious kind of relief. The legal ordeal is over, and I now have the answer as to how long it's going to be before he is released.

I just wish said answer were different, but c'est la vie.

current mood: listless

(10 comments | comment on this)

Thursday, November 18th, 2010
5:28 pm - Writer's Block: Cover me

Which songs have been covered better by artists who didn't originally sing them?

View 1373 Answers


"Common People", done better than the original by (of all people) William Shatner with Ben Folds producing.

(comment on this)

Monday, October 11th, 2010
1:20 pm
I actually just had a total "hey, I need to go get my smartcard" moment. (one of my user authentication keys to get into my favorite CA is stored on a smart card, and since I wanted to get a certificate for a system that I hadn't already put user auth tokens on, it seemed obvious. They're handy, when you have a reader.)

I don't mind the idea of having a card reader attached to (or included as part of) my system. It's actually convenient to have my keys separate from the computer I'm plugged into, but accessible in my pocket. It beats the hell out of a floppy disk, and it's more secure. (and, Windows Server 2008 and Windows Vista allow you to store your EFS keys on a smart card, and put the EFS Recovery Agent on a smart card as well. It takes some digging to figure out how to do it, but you can do it.)

What I mind is the probability approaching 1 of nefarious software trying to abuse the smart card or otherwise insecure credential. (The problem has been, "how do you guarantee that the window isn't being spoofed?" and "how do you know that the user's input isn't being snooped?" Up until now, having a single computer was the only thing that we could have counted on, but now, we all have multiple computers -- even in our pockets.)
I have an idea in mind...Collapse )

(2 comments | comment on this)

Sunday, October 10th, 2010
2:52 am

I just had a total deja-then moment. I just realized that I had experienced something in the past which I had experienced prior to then as well.



current mood: listless

(6 comments | comment on this)

Tuesday, September 28th, 2010
8:29 pm - It's the other shoe.
US Tries to Make It Easier To Wiretap the Internet

Ah ha, the meaning of the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace becomes clear.

(comment on this)

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010
5:50 pm
At the doctor today, I weighed in at 144 pounds.

It seems to be most noticeable around my kidneys.

(5 comments | comment on this)

Saturday, September 4th, 2010
2:48 am
Hints on how to set up Apache sites...Collapse )

(comment on this)

2:44 am - Why Apache httpd's 'SSLVerifyClient optional_no_ca' is unfairly maligned...
Deep TLS PKI client authentication discussion aheadCollapse )

(comment on this)

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010
8:17 pm - The second-best 10 minutes I've spent in a long while...

(1 comment | comment on this)

7:55 pm - ITU, oh ITU...
...you have created such a wonderful set of building blocks, much like Lego and Duplo blocks. You have created every building block I've ever dreamed was possible, and even more and differently-shaped building blocks than I need for the task ahead of me.

And there are even organizations that understood the building blocks your former incarnation, the CCITT, created, and figured out how to stack and weave them all together to meet their own needs.

It's too bad that commercial CAs never read section 13 of your ITU-T Rec. X.509 (08/2005), the text of the first paragraph I quote here:

"The Attribute Authority (AA) and Certification Authority (CA) are logically (and, in many cases, physically)
completely independent. The creation and maintenance of "identity" can (and often should) be separated from the PMI [Privilege Management Infrastructure]. Thus the entire PKI, including CAs, may be existing and operational prior to the establishment of the PMI. The CA, although it is the source of authority for identity within its domain, is not automatically the source of authority for privilege. The CA, therefore, will not necessarily itself be an AA and, by logical implication, will not necessarily be responsible for the decision as to what other entities will be able to function as AAs (e.g., by including such a designation in their identity certificates)."

It's also too bad that the IETF never read that. There's an entire defense of the rationale for allowing what are (in the IETF world) known as "proxy certificates" (profiled in RFC 3820), when there never should have needed to be one. Your specification itself says it more eloquently than the authors of that RFC ever did. So, judiciously cutting words and punctuation out of the paragraph:

"The CA is the source of authority for identity within its domain [and] is not automatically the source of authority for privilege. The CA will not necessarily itself be an Attribute Authority, and will [thus] not necessarily be responsible for what other entities will be able to function as such, by including an such a designation in their identity certificates."

So why do CAs include extendedKeyUsage?

Oh, right, because the IETF conflated identity and attributes. Identity and Permissions, Identity and Privileges, Identity and information held by third parties about that identity...

(comment on this)

Friday, May 7th, 2010
4:36 am - Musings on the 2nd Amendment... and why I support it (even now)
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence form any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, 1790

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - US Constitution, Second Amendment

With the right to be armed comes the duty to be disciplined. California's still reeling from Heller, and I was recently shot. What do these things have in common?

I believe that the two concepts above, in the two quotes, are related, and they need to be viewed as such. In order to effectively use a firearm, be it a pistol or a bolt-action rifle, you have to learn how to use it "safely" (i.e., not shoot yourself in the foot or accidentally discharge it into the air, among other things), you have to practice with it, you have to use it, you have to clean and maintain it, and you have to do it all in a responsible fashion.

I was recently shot, in the back, from a direction I couldn't see or defend myself from. I couldn't tell you how many people were around, or if there were any people around. If there were, I might have not suffered the wound that I did.
cut for lengthCollapse )

current mood: mellow

(3 comments | comment on this)

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010
2:37 pm
On April 13, 2010, I received a gunshot wound to the back. Entry through L scapula, exit under L clavicle, clean in-out with no shrapnel left. Fractured scapula, lacerated lung, hemothorax, pneumothorax, fractured ribs, and a surgical scar from a chest tube. I was up and walking much more quickly than they thought I *could* be, much less *should* be. Discharged 7 days after admission. I am going to have the scars from this for the rest of my life, and when I got a look at the ballistics calculationsI realized just how amazingly lucky I was. *any* deviation, however slight, from the trajectory it had would have shattered my shoulder, hit my heart, caused the bullet to ricochet off my clavicle and cause much more damage, or bounced off one of my ribs and cause more internal damage. I cannot discuss the circumstances surrounding it at this time.

I am healing fine -- in fact, I'd say I'm around 90% to 95%. I still have a little pain when I breathe deeply, or put my arm in the wrong position (usually when I forget and use my left hand for something it's not quite got the support to do yet).

Thanks to my_pet_rhino, and lumin_esc for coming and visiting, and to Keepiru and Mitra for visiting and helping keep my world running.

(Also, a belated thank you to drewkitty. Someone who has been through something rather like a part of what I'm going through, and lived to share the lesson he learned from it.)

current mood: headache

(17 comments | comment on this)

Monday, December 7th, 2009
6:23 pm - Huh. Amazon doesn't seem to care that their new 'profile' feature is a spam heaven.
...or at least, they don't seem to check the abuse-admins email address very often.
The offending message...Collapse )

(comment on this)

Friday, November 20th, 2009
10:42 am - Finally, *part* of the relay service is getting criminally audited...
November 19, 2009, Washington DC. Indictments against twenty-six people and seven companies were unsealed today, charging them with engaging in a scheme to steal millions of dollars from the FCC's Video Relay Service (VRS) program. Arrests were made in nine states (NY, NJ, FL, TX, PN, AZ, NV, OR, MD) by FBI agents and Postal Inspectors; collectively, charges include "conspiracy to defraud the US government and submit false claims", "submitting false claims", "conspiracy to commit mail fraud", "mail fraud", "conspiracy to commit wire fraud", and "wire fraud".

The VRS program is a no-cost program for people who are hard of hearing, funded by fees collected from every telephone subscriber in the US. It is designed to allow them to communicate, via telephone, with people who can hear and use voice. This is done with a video feed between the hard-of-hearing person and a relay operator, who acts as a (completely, due to law and regulation) confidential translator between the two.

The indictments allege that the companies and people indicted either generated or caused others to generate calls to the VRS, thus generating minutes which would then be billed to the FCC.

References:
Department of Justice Statement (pdf)
Federal Communications Commission Statement (pdf)

(6 comments | comment on this)

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009
10:54 am - State of the Wolf, 2009
It's a few days before my birthday, a few days after hybridk9's, and the day of kensaro's (happy birthday, by the way, zoomspots!). A lot has happened in the last year... and I'm still kind of reeling from it all.

Last year, I was in Las Vegas. I got to spend time with duelistca and dachwuff, as well as a couple folk who don't have LJs. We were trying to set up a poker night, but that rather fell through. But... my birthday, and its standard depression, came and went.

Notable events of the year:

1) getting Rock Band 2 *and* Guitar Hero: World Tour, as well as a keyboard for my 360 controller, for Christmas.
2) Thinking about getting dachwuff something for his birthday, I was considering the Wii Fit. duelistca talked me out of it: "so, think about the message that you're sending with that -- that he needs to get in shape, that he needs more exercise, that he needs to lose weight, that he needs to feel bad enough about himself that he needs to get off his ass and do something about it." (Maybe this one happened before mine... I'm horrible with dates, but I remember this between Thanksgiving and Christmas.)
3) Enjoying an *AMAZING* Thanksgiving dinner with the aforementioneds. I don't know how they did it... but the first bite was succulent, and everything else that I tried was better than the last. They are excellent chefs.
4) I got back in touch with hybridk9, as a direct result of his driving his Audi S5 across the country to visit his mother, who was to have a cardiac ablation. He changed his status message to wherever he was that night, and I kept noticing that it kept going east. So I messaged him: "Why are you driving east?" And that led to...
4.5) Meeting up with footpad and mut, when they visited the D's. Taking Footpad to the Lake Mead National Recreation Area in the dead of night.
5) January, the weekend of Further Confusion. I didn't really feel like trying to go to the con, and didn't want to have to try to scrape the cash together. However, I'd already purchased a flight to San Jose, for that weekend. I was going to take the credit on it and apply it to another trip, later... but since my Husky lived in San Jose, I decided to ask if I could visit for that weekend. Permission was obtained, and I did. And I didn't want to head back at the end of it, but I did.
6) Furp visited me, and showed me Aegis Wing... and showed me the gear he'd purchased for his motorcycle. He was so proud of it... and the design on the helmet was beautiful. Not three weeks later, I heard -- from the IT director of his employer -- that he had died in a collision. (and I'm still tearing up over this.)
7) Tycho and koyote1 visited during February. (I had other people in my apartment for three weeks. I didn't know if I'd be able to deal with it. I did, and rather well... but not perfectly.)
8) Spontaneous flight at end of February to San Jose -- I mean, book-ticket-and-on-plane-that-day spontaneous. Husky and I were spending a LOT of time talking to the wee hours of the morning, when he couldn't afford to. He sleep-deprived himself, talking with me...
9) ...and the trip lasted a week longer than it should have, simply because I didn't want to go, and Husky didn't want me to go, and there was a problem that needed to be cleared up. So I ended up going back to Vegas for... maybe 3 weeks... and then I came back to San Jose. I paid rent on my place in Vegas for 3 months in case things didn't work out... but they did.
10) Moving. BikerCheetah and Husky came out from SJ to help. Others, who I helped move and didn't have anywhere NEAR as far to go, did not.
11) Marriage. Or as close to it as the fuckwits in California who amended their constitution to prevent me from getting it will let me get. August 11, 2009, hybridk9 and I were registered with the California Secretary of State as a Domestic Partnership.
12) I got a medical marijuana card, because for a while my anxiety was making me nauseated every time I took a bite of food, and I could barely choke it down. The instant anti-emetic properties of THC help a LOT. (It still flares up, and I've had anxiety for years, so Dr Thakur gave me a year of authorization.)
13) Playing and beating Assassin's Creed.
14) Playing Guitar Hero 5, bass, expert. I can only do up to 3 pips for bass difficulty on that level, but I can do almost everything on Hard.
15) Getting a couple reality checks in the process.
16) Being completely clumsy and splitting my forehead open on the wall, requiring staples. And then having my regular doctor ask me, "So why did you go to the emergency room since I last saw you?" Basically, I was nude, and the house was FUCKING COLD, and I was trying to let Saku out and raise the flap we installed in the insulation over the front window so he can see the traffic outside. Then I was going to run back to the bedroom. Well... there was something in the way to the right, so I moved left, and was moving too quickly and was too cold and clumsy to keep myself from going too far to the side.

So. I look forward to my Husky's return, and I don't want to wake up without him next to my side. He's beautiful and wonderful and... well, peculiar in a few ways. But then again, so am I.

(edited to change 'two weeks' to 'three weeks', after going back and looking at journal entries from back then.)

current mood: introspective

(2 comments | comment on this)

Saturday, September 5th, 2009
7:32 pm - Okay, I don't normally pimp any of my friends' music...
I don't normally pimp any of my friends' music, but if you're at all into downtempo ambient, you should really check out ORBIT by electricdog. Even if you don't think you are, you should. It's really good.

(comment on this)

Friday, June 26th, 2009
9:56 pm - How long it takes to generate a 16k RSA keypair... on a core 2 duo 2.16GHz.
Generating RSA private key, 16384 bit long modulus
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................++
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................++
e is 65537 (0x10001)

real 344m28.311s
user 138m43.094s
sys 0m28.042s

(8 comments | comment on this)

Friday, May 15th, 2009
4:49 pm - ...whiskey tango foxtrot?
A Proposal of TLS Implementation for Cross Certification Model

Wonderful concept. Too bad it's useless... nobody's going to buy a copy of it.

(comment on this)

11:18 am
"That's how the old psychic whammy works," I said quietly. "Once you start thinking, 'Gee, maybe that isn't me thinking about suicide,' it kind of falls apart." -- Harry Dresden, White Night by Jim Butcher

(comment on this)

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009
1:59 pm - Dammit, Microsoft, you were so close...
You were so close, Microsoft. You almost had the PowerShell script signing working properly.

Except for one flaw, the one fatal flaw that most PKI software makes: just because a certificate is signed by a trusted CA does not mean that I necessarily trust all entities who are granted certificates by that CA.

Put another way: I trust a CA to identify who someone is. I don't trust a CA to make a policy decision about whether to run a script by a particular person.

The PowerShell 'Signed' and 'RemoteSigned' execution policies make this mistake.

And then they compound it by requiring a lengthy setup of a self-signed certificate for code signing. Not to mention having to read through five help topics before even finding any information on execution policies in the first place.

Really, what crack were you smoking, MS?

(4 comments | comment on this)

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009
4:44 am - For those who are at all interested...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 OpenSSL version 1.0.0 Beta 1 ============================ OpenSSL - The Open Source toolkit for SSL/TLS http://www.openssl.org/ OpenSSL is currently in a release cycle. The first beta is now released. The beta release is available for download via HTTP and FTP from the following master locations (the various FTP mirrors you can find under http://www.openssl.org/source/mirror.html): o http://www.openssl.org/source/ o ftp://ftp.openssl.org/source/ The file names of the beta are: o openssl-1.0.0-beta1.tar.gz MD5 checksum: 49f265d9dd8dc011788b34768f63313e SHA1 checksum: 89b4490b6091b496042b5fe9a2c8a9015326e446 The checksums were calculated using the following command: openssl md5 < openssl-1.0.0-beta1.tar.gz openssl sha1 < openssl-1.0.0-beta1.tar.gz Please download and test them as soon as possible. This new OpenSSL version incorporates 107 documented changes and bugfixes to the toolkit (for a complete list see http://www.openssl.org/source/exp/CHANGES). Reports and patches should be sent to openssl-bugs@openssl.org. Discussions around the development of OpenSSL should be sent to openssl-dev@openssl.org. Anything else should go to openssl-users@openssl.org. The best way, at least on Unix, to create a report is to do the following after configuration: make report That will do a few basic checks of the compiler and bc, then build and run the tests. The result will appear on screen and in the file "testlog". Please read the report before sending it to us. There may be problems that we can't solve for you, like missing programs. Oh and to those who have noticed the date... the joke is that it isn't a joke. Yours, The OpenSSL Project Team... Mark J. Cox Ben Laurie Andy Polyakov Ralf S. Engelschall Richard Levitte Geoff Thorpe Dr. Stephen Henson Bodo Möller Ulf Möller Lutz Jänicke Nils Larsch -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBSdNEV6LSm3vylcdZAQIc4gf+Ki9AQzfwES4Up5QRKJCONzIvgIzHpajQ laGz0L6QQXcMrSrLxubSMfYnnXqX/BfY67C28dLaefEK9xygZMxvbS5d56hm3+3m SWLWXqHsCrxp4LWm3Kr7senmhBl06LCTYX1AC2VP0ph/UfouQPu15UkuMCt6eDV7 SEUkYDk6TA8Wr7C0nMHnTOQdqx6r/N7OnPEaCCWkMzsMC5KxTkCP9/SGrDam29dt xV6P5+AntSgNbr9tXYAiQHgMvut9o1O8pTaGdlv2TJ/Ua2ynvmd8hsaO7Ptl3Tpt Bkaghk+rV3qZgLzWAiHjeebEWyXTSGvMPKM6r5mi8vrqjfbSF4zUKA== =qESg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majordomo@openssl.org

current mood: ponderous

(comment on this)

1:44 am - ...is this an April Fool's joke?
http://explore.toshiba.com/petbook

current mood: ponderous

(3 comments | comment on this)

Monday, March 23rd, 2009
7:10 pm - going through my away messages...
Going through my away messages, I had one labelled "fuckit". The text of it was "If you message me, I'm liable to either rip your head off or tear your throat out."

I'd forgotten how angry I can get when I've had to take pseudoephedrine.

Someone messaged me the other day, when I had it up, with, "Hey, change your away message. It's not fair to you, and it's not fair to your friends." He was right, and I changed it then. but I'd left it saved in case I wanted to use it again.

So I went through them today, and I found it, and decided that I don't ever want to use it again.

current mood: dispirited

(2 comments | comment on this)

Friday, March 20th, 2009
4:00 am
Good day, to whoever you are watching this video or reading this transcript. I am the Reverend Kyle Hamilton of the Church of Universal Life, and I am in favor of medical marijuana.

I have not come to this decision lightly. As a minister, I have seen the kind of changes -- both good and bad -- that it has wrought among those of my flock. I have seen how it can turn people of action into people of apathy. I have seen how it can numb the emotional responses of those who use it and abuse it, and allow them to tolerate intolerable situations.

But, this is not the reason why I am in favor of medical marijuana. I actually have two reasons. The first appeals to your sense of decency. The second appeals to your sense of accountability.

Several years ago, I had a very close friend whose father was diagnosed with stomach cancer, stage 3 metastasized. This meant that he had less than six months to live. Up until that point, I had only seen photos of his family; I got the opportunity to go with him to visit them.

The difference between the photos that I had seen, and my friend's description of his father, contrasted sharply with the bald, feeble man who greeted me at the door. He was very tired -- he said that the chemotherapy and the pain patches he was on made him unable to eat without severe nausea, and that the pain he was in (even wearing the pain patches) made him unable to sleep. This continued for several days, until finally his wife, my friend's mother, could stand it no more. She decided to buy a couple of joints -- on the black market, in an area where it was a felony to do so -- specifically to help her husband cope. He smoked a third of one -- he even offered me a hit, though I declined -- and after a few minutes he decided to go to bed.

The next day, the difference was incredible. To express this, I have to ask you to try to imagine a beloved grandmother, ill and frail, in a nursing home, so weak and tired that she cannot even get up to go to the cafeteria, and must have her meals brought to her. She can't eat well, so she ends up eating about only one fifth of the food on her plate, and she only eats twice a day, and it breaks your heart to go visit her because she used to be lively and wondrous and a joy to be around. She hasn't been sleeping well, so her eyes have dark circles under them. She's wasting away, before your eyes, and all you can do is weep that she used to be so much more.

Imagine, then, the next morning, she wakes up, gets out of bed, goes to breakfast, eats two full portions (she's not been eating for a while, so she's actually hungry), then goes on a fairly brisk walk with you around the nursing home grounds, then goes to lunch and eats a full meal, interacts with the other folks in the Home, and then eats dinner AND dessert. And then she sleeps, truly sleeps, and wakes up and does it again. She's not *quite* back to the level she was before she went into the Home, but she's so much more like it that you treasure the miracle which made it possible.

My friends, I pledge to you: that miracle is marijuana. Cannabis sativa, or Cannabis indica. The US Food and Drug Administration (and Drug Enforcement Administration) believe that these plants have no valid medical use in the US, and are in fact to be destroyed on-sight, and the owners of the land where they found prosecuted, their property civilly seized with no recourse, and thrown in jail for 20 years.

This doesn't jive with various state laws. 13 states, including California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Alaska, Hawai'i, Colorado, Montana, Michigan, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Maryland currently have laws on the books which allow for physicians to recommend the use of marijuana to their patients. Arizona also has a law that allows physicians to prescribe marijuana, but it's unenforceable due to the US DEA rules on prescriptions -- no physician may prescribe any Schedule I substance.

Now, as you may know, California has medical marijuana cards available to anyone possessing a valid physician's recommendation. This has not stopped the US Drug Enforcement Administration from raiding the offices of dispensaries across the state, thus depriving their operators of liberty and property, but also denying patients their medication.

I believe that this is precisely the wrong tack to take. And this leads to my second point: Because they ban it, everyone involved is very careful to keep no records which could be subpoenaed by a federal court. This prevents the DEA and FDA from having direct knowledge of how many people have been recommended it by their physicians.

Instead, if they moved it out of Schedule I, they would be able to track -- through their already-extensive pharmaceutical tracking mechanisms -- how many people have prescriptions. They would be able to subpoena the records of doctors who they think are overprescribing it (much as they subpoenaed the records of Rush Limbaugh, uncovering and publicizing the fact that he was doctor-shopping in order to get much more Oxycontin than he ever should have gotten). They would be able to identify the off-label uses for which marijuana is recommended or prescribed, and thus have ideas for what diseases or disorders it actually works or at least should be studied.

My friends, I firmly believe that denying the people who are truly ill access to medication which allows them to increase their quality of life is condemning them -- and their loved ones, who have to support them and care for them as they see their health declining -- to long, slow, painful, humiliating, and cruel punishment. I believe that denying access to adequate and effective medication is a violation of our nation's Patient's Bill of Rights, and I beg anyone and everyone who has ever faced a loved one wasting away from cancer or advanced HIV disease or multiple sclerosis, or facing the potential of losing their eyesight from glaucoma, please record your experiences and what you saw -- and post them here, sending copies to your senators and representatives at both the state and federal levels.

Perhaps then there will be hope that fewer lives will be devastated by these horrible diseases.

Thank you, and I bid you peace, no matter what deity or deities you may or may not believe in.

(6 comments | comment on this)

Sunday, March 15th, 2009
2:10 pm - What's Your Personality Type?
*blinks*

You Are An ISTP
The Mechanic

You are calm and collected, even in the most difficult of situations.
A person of action and self-direction, you love being independent.
You seem impulsive, surprising, and unpredictable to outsiders.
You are good at understanding how all things work, except for people.

In love, you tend to be very easy going and flexible.
The only thing you can't stand for is someone trying to change you or your life.

At work, you can stay completely calm under pressure. You handle stress well.
You would make an excellent pilot, forensic pathologist, or athlete.

How you see yourself: Logical, flexible, and unconventional

When other people don't get you, they see you as: Indecisive, flippant, and disrespectful

(comment on this)

Thursday, March 12th, 2009
8:07 am
yay, insomnia.

no, I don't know why I'm insomniac. I've been drinking water, no sugar, no soda, just water.

but there's a piece of metal around my neck. Maybe I should try taking it off. but I don't really want to.

wow, gig-E is slow. At least for what I'm doing with it. Are there any ExpressCard fibrechannel cards?

(edit: not PCI Express, I'm looking for the card that will slide into my MacBook Pro.)

current mood: tired

(5 comments | comment on this)

Friday, February 27th, 2009
12:32 am - I hope I got the syntax right...
In the beginning, the world was without form and void.

()

and God said, let there be light.

((defun light ())
(light))

And it was, and God saw that it was good.

[of course, it didn't do anything. yet.]

(6 comments | comment on this)

Thursday, February 26th, 2009
5:37 pm - Advice from a friend...
What matters in relationships, above all else, is that they take you for what and who you are. Never, ever let anybody take you for what or who they want you to be.

(9 comments | comment on this)

7:30 am - In response to electricdog...
As relates to electricdog's post on karma...
spirituality discussion aheadCollapse )

(3 comments | comment on this)

2:25 am - I have decided I want a Kindle.


And I would need a bumper sticker saying "Don't Panic!" in large, friendly letters to put on the cover.

(3 comments | comment on this)


> previous 50 entries
> top of page
LiveJournal.com