Short answer: It's possible, but not common.
Utah is a very gun-friendly state, and many residents of Utah have some familiarity with guns. In addition to that, people tend to assume that the calm, confident actions of a normal-looking person must be legal and most people are, frankly, oblivious to most of what goes on around them.
These factors combine to mean that open carriers find that the vast majority of people simply don't notice the gun, especially if it's not large or ostentatious, the majority of people who do notice the gun don't react to it and most of those who react ask questions or make comments rather than calling the police. People who open carry regularly report that the most common interactions are very positive ones, where the carrier has an opportunity to explain the issues to the curious or just engage in “gun talk”, chatting about shooting, firearms and lawful self-defense.
That said, negative interactions do ocasionally occur. Most often these take the form of store or restaurant employees asking the open carrier to leave. Sometimes these requests are provoked by questions from other customers but most often they are initiated by employees. The appropriate response of the open carrier to such a request is not to argue or debate the point, but simply to comply, ideally without completing a purchase and with a followup letter or e-mail to explain the carrier's point of view and to request clarification of the store policy.
In rare cases the police are called and become involved. In some areas, 911 operators are being trained to question “person with a gun” reports, asking what the person is doing, if he or she is threatening anyone, etc. In those areas, police are unlikely to be dispatched. If police do arrive, interactions are generally peaceful, though not all police officers are fully informed on the law so some may make false statements regarding the legality of open carry. If you are the recipient of police attention due to open carry, please stay calm, stay polite and if the officer is making incorrect statements, just say “I'm sorry officer, but I don't think that's correct. Can you please ask your supervisor to verify it?”.
If you are a person who has an unusual style of dress, hairstyle or appearance, especially if your appearance is one that might be associated with gang or criminal activity by many people, or if you appear or act intimidating or frightening even without a firearm, you are much more likely to have negative interactions and police interactions as a result of open carrying. This may not be fair or right, but it is reality. Also, young people and those who engage in body modification (piercings, tattoos) are more likely to have negative experiences with open carry. In contrast, well-dressed, well-groomed, responsible-appearing people tend to have no issues.
Monday, December 20, 2010
I don't have a concealed carry permit, can I carry a gun?
It is legal to carry a firearm in Utah without a permit, but there are some things to watch out for if you leave your own property or vehicle. Specifically, if you're carrying in public your firearm must be unloaded and unconcealed, and you must avoid school zones and buses or trains.
It might seem that carrying an unloaded gun is useless, but Utah's law has a peculiar definition of the word “loaded”. Specifically, the law says that gun is loaded if either:
In contrast to this odd definition of “loaded”, Utah's definition of “concealed” is very straightforward. A gun, or any other dangerous weapon, is concealed if it is hidden so that people aren't aware of it but it is readily accessible. In practice, the best way to open carry is to use a normal outside-the-waistband belt holster. I recommend using a holster that has some “retention” features, which are devices that lock the gun into place so it can't easily be removed by someone who isn't familiar with the holster, and I recommend practicing techniques to stop a gun grab attempt. Such attempts are extremely rare, but your gun is your responsibility so it makes sense to be prepared.
The final issue to watch out for is locations where it's illegal for you to carry. The most frequently-encountered issue is school zones, but carry is also banned on UTA buses and trains and in bus and train stations. There are other areas that are off-limits even for permit holders, including courthouses, jails, secure areas of airports, etc.
Without a permit, it is illegal for you to carry within 1000 feet of any school property, where “school” means any pre-school, day-care, elementary, secondary, or post-secondary institution. Since day care facilities are often ordinary homes with no distinguishing marks, and post-secondary schools like cosmetology schools and massage therapy schools are found in many strip malls and may not look like schools at all, this means there are a lot of places that carry without a permit is illegal. The area within 1000 feet of a school-sponsored activity is also considered a school zone.
If it weren't for some exceptions in the law, school zones would make lawful unlicensed carry almost impossible, and would pose serious problems for owners of homes and businesses near schools. First, it is legal to possess a firearm on private property located within a school zone, with the owner's permission. Second, it is legal to possess a firearm in a vehicle located within a school zone, with the driver's permission -- as long as federal law enforcement isn't involved. The federal school zone law allows firearms in vehicles, but only if the gun is completely unloaded and in a locked container. This law has never been enforced since it was passed in 1995, but it is on the books.
Relevant laws:
It might seem that carrying an unloaded gun is useless, but Utah's law has a peculiar definition of the word “loaded”. Specifically, the law says that gun is loaded if either:
- There is a round in firing position; or
- A single mechanical action will cause the gun to fire.
In contrast to this odd definition of “loaded”, Utah's definition of “concealed” is very straightforward. A gun, or any other dangerous weapon, is concealed if it is hidden so that people aren't aware of it but it is readily accessible. In practice, the best way to open carry is to use a normal outside-the-waistband belt holster. I recommend using a holster that has some “retention” features, which are devices that lock the gun into place so it can't easily be removed by someone who isn't familiar with the holster, and I recommend practicing techniques to stop a gun grab attempt. Such attempts are extremely rare, but your gun is your responsibility so it makes sense to be prepared.
The final issue to watch out for is locations where it's illegal for you to carry. The most frequently-encountered issue is school zones, but carry is also banned on UTA buses and trains and in bus and train stations. There are other areas that are off-limits even for permit holders, including courthouses, jails, secure areas of airports, etc.
Without a permit, it is illegal for you to carry within 1000 feet of any school property, where “school” means any pre-school, day-care, elementary, secondary, or post-secondary institution. Since day care facilities are often ordinary homes with no distinguishing marks, and post-secondary schools like cosmetology schools and massage therapy schools are found in many strip malls and may not look like schools at all, this means there are a lot of places that carry without a permit is illegal. The area within 1000 feet of a school-sponsored activity is also considered a school zone.
If it weren't for some exceptions in the law, school zones would make lawful unlicensed carry almost impossible, and would pose serious problems for owners of homes and businesses near schools. First, it is legal to possess a firearm on private property located within a school zone, with the owner's permission. Second, it is legal to possess a firearm in a vehicle located within a school zone, with the driver's permission -- as long as federal law enforcement isn't involved. The federal school zone law allows firearms in vehicles, but only if the gun is completely unloaded and in a locked container. This law has never been enforced since it was passed in 1995, but it is on the books.
Relevant laws:
- UCA 76-10-505 bans carrying a loaded weapon on a public street. Note that the law does not define “public street”, so to be safe I recommend interpreting it as “anywhere but private property with the permission of the owner”.
- UCA 76-10-502 defines when a weapon is deemed loaded.
- UCA 76-10-504 bans carrying a concealed dangerous weapon.
- UCA 76-10-501 defines “dangerous weapon” in paragraph (6), “concealed” in paragraph (3) and “readily accessible for immediate use” in paragraph (15).
- UCA 76-10-505.5 is the state law that bans carrying a dangerous weapon (including firearms, per 76-10-501(6)) in a school zone.
- 18 USC 922(q) is the federal law that bans carrying a firearm in a school zone.
- UCA 76-10-1504 and UCA 76-10-1507 ban carrying a firearm on a bus or in a bus terminal.
- UCA 76-10-1503 defines “bus” to include any transit vehicle, including trains like TRAX and FrontRunner.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
There's going to be an increase of activity here
I need to get my utahlegalcarry.com site up and running soon, but in the meantime I've decided to start posting here some of the content that I ultimately want to put there. Eventually I want to build a fairly comprehensive FAQ list for people who want to understand legal carry of firearms and other dangerous weapons in Utah. To begin with, I'm going to start posting essays on various topics here, with the intent that they'll eventually get incorporated into my FAQ list, and so that in the meantime I can easily refer people to them.
I'm going to shoot for adding one or two articles per day here, so expect to see some activity.
Here's a partial list of issues/questions I'm going to address:
I'm going to shoot for adding one or two articles per day here, so expect to see some activity.
Here's a partial list of issues/questions I'm going to address:
- Politics/opinion (note: I'll give my opinions, but try to present all sides)
- Shouldn't only police officers have guns?
- Isn't it a bad idea to allow anyone who wants to carry a deadly weapon?
- Doesn't allowing people to carry guns at our schools endanger the children?
- Doesn't owning, possessing or carrying a gun make you more likely to get shot?
- Why would anyone want to carry a gun?
- Why would anyone want to carry a gun openly, if they can conceal it?
- Legalities of carrying a firearm or dangerous weapon
- I don't have a concealed carry permit, can I carry a gun?
- I have a concealed carry permit, where can I carry?
- How come Utah courtrooms don't provide firearm storage lockers, like the law says they should?
- I have a concealed carry permit, does my gun have to be hidden?
- Can my city or county ban dangerous weapons?
- I'm a student or staff member at a Utah university, can I carry there?
- My employer has a policy against carrying weapons at work. Do I have to obey that policy? What might happen if I don't?
- What kinds of weapons does a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit allow me to carry? How many can I carry?
- What should I do if I see a "No Firearms" sign somewhere?
- Can I carry in other states? If so, which ones and what are the rules?
- Can I take my gun on a plane? A train? A bus?
- Practical issues around daily carry
- What kind of gun should I get?
- What caliber is best?
- Are revolvers better than semi-automatics?
- What brand of gun is the best?
- Are big guns better than small guns?
- Is it important to use a holster?
- What kind of holster should I use?
- Should I use a lot of different holsters?
- What should I do with my gun when I go to the bathroom?
- If I'm pulled over by the police and I have a gun, do I have to tell the officer, and if so how should I do it?
- Firearm safety
- What's the difference between an accidental discharge and a negligent discharge?
- How can I make sure that my guns don't hurt anyone?
- How can I make sure that my guns aren't a danger to my children?
- Are there any special safety precautions I should take while carrying?
- Is it safe to carry a gun with a round in the chamber?
- Securing firearms
- Am I responsible for keeping my guns secure?
- How can I secure them in my home?
- How can I secure them in my car?
- How can I secure them when I travel on airplanes or trains?
- Training
- How much training do I really need? Isn't the Concealed Firearm Permit course enough?
- What kinds of training are available for free?
- What kinds of training are available for fee?
- Legality of self-defense
- Who am I allowed to defend?
- When is it legal to shoot someone?
- On the street
- At home
- In my car
- On my property
- Do I have to try to escape before I can defend myself?
- When should I shoot someone?
- When should I NOT shoot someone?
- Should I threaten someone with my gun? Should I draw if I'm not planning to shoot?
- Is it necessary to carry a non-lethal defensive tool, like pepper spray?
- If I get in some sort of altercation that doesn't involve my gun, should I call the police?
- If I get in some sort of altercation that does involve my gun, but I don't shoot anyone, should I call the police?
- If I shoot someone, what should I do next?
- What should I do before I call 911?
- What should I say to the 911 operator?
- What should I do while waiting for the police to arrive?
- What should I do when the police arrive?
- What should I say to the police?
- Will I be arrested? If I am, what should I do?
- Can I be sued even if the police decide I didn't commit a crime?
- Utah's Concealed Firearm Permit
- Who is eligible to get a permit?
- What records does the state examine to determine eligibility?
- What's the process for getting a permit?
- How much does it cost?
- How long does it take?
- What are the steps?
- Can I get a temporary permit quickly if I'm in danger?
- How long is the permit good for?
- What is the process for renewing a permit?
- What kinds of things might cause my permit to be suspended or revoked?
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Awesome new voting system used in Maryland
I'm something of an election geek. I deeply believe that although democracy sucks (including the slightly-less-sucky Republican variant we use), it sucks less than any other system of government. But to make any Democratic system work there must be a good way to determine the will of the people, and that turns out to be very hard to do.
There are two main parts to the hardness. First supposing you can collect everyone's opinions, how do you put them together to make decisions? We generally use the "plurality rules" system; whichever option gets the largest number of votes wins. That system is full of problems, but that's not the subject of this post.
The other problem is collecting everyone's opinions and doing it accurately. Someone who can manipulate the elections has tremendous power, and there are a LOT of ways of manipulating elections. Stalin famously (and apocryphally) said "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything," and historically that is the BEST way to manipulate an election. Let the people vote as they will and then either just report whatever result you want or, if you're more subtle, just tweak the counts enough to give the desired outcome.
In the US we've recently gone through a somewhat mind-boggling electoral change by deploying electronic voting machines. I say mind-boggling, because these machines are the PERFECT tool to facilitate large scale, undetectable election fraud, and supposedly we're a country that takes its elections very seriously.
If the idea that electronic voting machines are a bad idea strikes you as surprising, or the view of a Luddite, let me point out that I'm a professional software engineer with a career focus on building extremely high security systems. If you wanted to build a very secure electronic voting system, I'm the kind of person you'd hire to do it -- and I would tell you that it is a TERRIBLE idea. And not just me. A few years ago, as the debate was just starting to heat up, several hundred of the world's top computer security experts collaborated on and signed a paper which basically said the same thing. They explained in detail why computer security technology at present and for the foreseeable future was simply not up to the task. The very best in the world said, in effect, "Not only don't we know how to make such a system secure, we really doubt that it's even possible."
By the way, the system that Utah uses is the worst of the worst.
This debate, however, did provoke a bunch of top-flight cryptographers, mathematicians and computer scientists to start thinking hard about how to design an election system that is secure against fraud. They wanted to build something that cannot be manipulated by the people in power without the populace being able to detect it, and which also preserved the anonymity of voters. It's very easy to build a secure voting scheme if you don't mind revealing who everyone voted for, but that enables vote-buying and coercion.
Some very cool ideas were developed, notably originating from Ron Rivest (who is the "R" in "RSA", for those who know what RSA is) and David Chaum (the creator of some very cool untraceable digital cash schemes). It's probably unfair to mention only their names, because there were many contributors, but they were the main "well-known" researchers involved. The first versions of these ideas were theoretically very cool, but completely impractical. Lots and lots of academic security ideas start out exactly that way.
A few years ago, some of the disparate ideas started to come together, along with some refinements that made them more practical. The result was a system called "Punchscan", which was used to carry out some real-world elections for university student body leadership. It was a good test environment because the stakes were relatively low, but the scale was big enough to make the test realistic. A system that works for a few hundred people is a lot different from one that works for tens of thousands, and once you get to that level it's really not that different to scale it up to millions.
The third-generation successor of Punchscan, called Scantegrity II, was used on Tuesday to carry out the municipal elections in Takoma Park, Maryland. This marks the first time these new ideas in election integrity and verification have been applied to a real government election. And it worked well. The security experts said that electronic voting machines were a bad idea, and now their recommended alternative was used for the first time.
The basic goal of the system is to ensure that it is impossible for ballots to be lost or modified undetectably, and to do it in the context of a practical election that is cost-effective, easy to run and easy for voters to use.
It uses optical-scan ballots, with a small twist. The "bubbles" on the ballot are pre-filled with invisible ink. The voter has a marker that contains the chemical that activates the ink, so swiping the marker across the bubble causes it to be visibly filled -- mostly. When the ink is activated, not only is the bubble-filling ink revealed, but a three-letter code is also revealed. The code is "printed" by the absence of the ink.
A voter who wishes to make sure that his ballot is counted correctly takes a moment while in the voting booth and copies down that three-letter code, as well as the ballot serial number. After election results have been posted, he then goes to the election web site, types in his ballot serial number (which isn't associated anywhere with his identity), and make sure that the codes he copied down are among a small list of codes presented to him. If they are, then he knows his ballot was submitted and tallied as part of the final count.
Now, HOW that code's presence on the web site verifies that the ballot was counted correctly is a little bit complicated, and I'm not even going to try to explain it here. If you want to know, a good starting point is this paper. Also, that code-verification is far from the only thing that has to be done to verify the integrity of the election. Ballots have to be audited before and during the election (audited ballots are not used to cast actual votes), there's a pre-election "code commitment" process that the election officials use, and a post-election "randomized partial checking" system that verifies that the ballots submitted and tallied were actually tallied correctly.
The system allows all of these various integrity verification processes to be carried out by ANY interested parties. It's presumed that the candidates and political parties will take part in them, and that democracy watchdog groups will as well, but any interested person can do it. In fact, the system is designed so that anyone who wants to can easily conduct a personal recount of the entire election, just by downloading the data over the Internet and then running some software on it. The software has to do some complex things, including a lot of fancy math, but the detailed specification for what the software must do is available, along with mathematical proofs demonstrating how it assures integrity, so that anyone with the relevant skills can write their own software to do the verification. Those who don't have the skills to write the software just need to get a program from an organization they trust, and use that.
All of this makes it possible to prove to an arbitrary mathematical probability that the election results were accurate. By "arbitrary mathematical probability" I mean that there is always a possibility that the election was fraudulent and that the fraud was undetected, but for any given margin of error you can decide how much auditing needs to be done to make the probability of fraud as small as you want it to be. The smaller you want to make it, the more auditing is required, but you can achieve any desired level of certainty.
In addition, the Scantegrity system allows for manual recounts of the paper ballots. Manual recounts are actually less reliable than the statistical verification the system uses, but they're an option, unlike with electronic voting systems (including Utah's; no one has ever managed to successfuly recount an election from those paper rolls the machines produce).
This is very cool stuff. Of course it doesn't address issues with registration fairness, fraud, etc., or issues with whether or not plurality voting makes sense, and certainly does nothing to address voter apathy, lying politicians, media influence or any of the many other problems with the political process, but it DOES allow us to have confidence that our votes are counted as cast, which is something that has never been very certain, and which the current generation of voting machines has made very, very questionable.
There are two main parts to the hardness. First supposing you can collect everyone's opinions, how do you put them together to make decisions? We generally use the "plurality rules" system; whichever option gets the largest number of votes wins. That system is full of problems, but that's not the subject of this post.
The other problem is collecting everyone's opinions and doing it accurately. Someone who can manipulate the elections has tremendous power, and there are a LOT of ways of manipulating elections. Stalin famously (and apocryphally) said "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything," and historically that is the BEST way to manipulate an election. Let the people vote as they will and then either just report whatever result you want or, if you're more subtle, just tweak the counts enough to give the desired outcome.
In the US we've recently gone through a somewhat mind-boggling electoral change by deploying electronic voting machines. I say mind-boggling, because these machines are the PERFECT tool to facilitate large scale, undetectable election fraud, and supposedly we're a country that takes its elections very seriously.
If the idea that electronic voting machines are a bad idea strikes you as surprising, or the view of a Luddite, let me point out that I'm a professional software engineer with a career focus on building extremely high security systems. If you wanted to build a very secure electronic voting system, I'm the kind of person you'd hire to do it -- and I would tell you that it is a TERRIBLE idea. And not just me. A few years ago, as the debate was just starting to heat up, several hundred of the world's top computer security experts collaborated on and signed a paper which basically said the same thing. They explained in detail why computer security technology at present and for the foreseeable future was simply not up to the task. The very best in the world said, in effect, "Not only don't we know how to make such a system secure, we really doubt that it's even possible."
By the way, the system that Utah uses is the worst of the worst.
This debate, however, did provoke a bunch of top-flight cryptographers, mathematicians and computer scientists to start thinking hard about how to design an election system that is secure against fraud. They wanted to build something that cannot be manipulated by the people in power without the populace being able to detect it, and which also preserved the anonymity of voters. It's very easy to build a secure voting scheme if you don't mind revealing who everyone voted for, but that enables vote-buying and coercion.
Some very cool ideas were developed, notably originating from Ron Rivest (who is the "R" in "RSA", for those who know what RSA is) and David Chaum (the creator of some very cool untraceable digital cash schemes). It's probably unfair to mention only their names, because there were many contributors, but they were the main "well-known" researchers involved. The first versions of these ideas were theoretically very cool, but completely impractical. Lots and lots of academic security ideas start out exactly that way.
A few years ago, some of the disparate ideas started to come together, along with some refinements that made them more practical. The result was a system called "Punchscan", which was used to carry out some real-world elections for university student body leadership. It was a good test environment because the stakes were relatively low, but the scale was big enough to make the test realistic. A system that works for a few hundred people is a lot different from one that works for tens of thousands, and once you get to that level it's really not that different to scale it up to millions.
The third-generation successor of Punchscan, called Scantegrity II, was used on Tuesday to carry out the municipal elections in Takoma Park, Maryland. This marks the first time these new ideas in election integrity and verification have been applied to a real government election. And it worked well. The security experts said that electronic voting machines were a bad idea, and now their recommended alternative was used for the first time.
The basic goal of the system is to ensure that it is impossible for ballots to be lost or modified undetectably, and to do it in the context of a practical election that is cost-effective, easy to run and easy for voters to use.
It uses optical-scan ballots, with a small twist. The "bubbles" on the ballot are pre-filled with invisible ink. The voter has a marker that contains the chemical that activates the ink, so swiping the marker across the bubble causes it to be visibly filled -- mostly. When the ink is activated, not only is the bubble-filling ink revealed, but a three-letter code is also revealed. The code is "printed" by the absence of the ink.
A voter who wishes to make sure that his ballot is counted correctly takes a moment while in the voting booth and copies down that three-letter code, as well as the ballot serial number. After election results have been posted, he then goes to the election web site, types in his ballot serial number (which isn't associated anywhere with his identity), and make sure that the codes he copied down are among a small list of codes presented to him. If they are, then he knows his ballot was submitted and tallied as part of the final count.
Now, HOW that code's presence on the web site verifies that the ballot was counted correctly is a little bit complicated, and I'm not even going to try to explain it here. If you want to know, a good starting point is this paper. Also, that code-verification is far from the only thing that has to be done to verify the integrity of the election. Ballots have to be audited before and during the election (audited ballots are not used to cast actual votes), there's a pre-election "code commitment" process that the election officials use, and a post-election "randomized partial checking" system that verifies that the ballots submitted and tallied were actually tallied correctly.
The system allows all of these various integrity verification processes to be carried out by ANY interested parties. It's presumed that the candidates and political parties will take part in them, and that democracy watchdog groups will as well, but any interested person can do it. In fact, the system is designed so that anyone who wants to can easily conduct a personal recount of the entire election, just by downloading the data over the Internet and then running some software on it. The software has to do some complex things, including a lot of fancy math, but the detailed specification for what the software must do is available, along with mathematical proofs demonstrating how it assures integrity, so that anyone with the relevant skills can write their own software to do the verification. Those who don't have the skills to write the software just need to get a program from an organization they trust, and use that.
All of this makes it possible to prove to an arbitrary mathematical probability that the election results were accurate. By "arbitrary mathematical probability" I mean that there is always a possibility that the election was fraudulent and that the fraud was undetected, but for any given margin of error you can decide how much auditing needs to be done to make the probability of fraud as small as you want it to be. The smaller you want to make it, the more auditing is required, but you can achieve any desired level of certainty.
In addition, the Scantegrity system allows for manual recounts of the paper ballots. Manual recounts are actually less reliable than the statistical verification the system uses, but they're an option, unlike with electronic voting systems (including Utah's; no one has ever managed to successfuly recount an election from those paper rolls the machines produce).
This is very cool stuff. Of course it doesn't address issues with registration fairness, fraud, etc., or issues with whether or not plurality voting makes sense, and certainly does nothing to address voter apathy, lying politicians, media influence or any of the many other problems with the political process, but it DOES allow us to have confidence that our votes are counted as cast, which is something that has never been very certain, and which the current generation of voting machines has made very, very questionable.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Software Copyrights
I've written about this various places before, but I thought I'd put it here, mostly so I can link to it from other places rather than retyping the arguments.
I'm a big fan of copyright law. In the abstract, at least -- there are a lot of problems with our current law. And computer software is a huge part of my life. It's not only my job, it's one of my major passions and lately my biggest hobby. So it's natural that I should be interested in how copyright applies to software, and I think that the way we use copyright for software is very, very broken.
To explain why, first I have to give a little background on copyright.
The idea of modern copyright is a pretty simple one: Society grants creators of all sorts of useful and artistic intellectual works control for a limited period of time over who is allowed to produce copies of their work. There's a little more to it, and lots of corner cases and caveats, but that's the basic idea. Other than the "limited period" part of it, pretty much everybody understands that if an author writes a book, you can't make copies of it and sell them on the street without permission.
But, why not? Why do we do this? Thomas Jefferson argued that copyright made no sense. He said that ideas are naturally infinite, that as they're passed from person to person, everyone is enriched. He compared it to candle flame and pointed out that a man who lights his candle from mine has obtained light, and I have lost nothing.
So why should society invest large amounts of money and time in enforcing copyright laws, which restrict the natural freedom and urge to share?
There's a really good reason, and it's the one described in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". Copyright law was created as a means to convince creators of intellectual works to publish them, to make them available to the world. The way it works is that society removes the freedom of everyone but the creator to make copies, for a time, so that the creator can benefit from his or her work. But any benefit to the creator of the work is just a pleasant side effect, because the real goal is to get that work published, into the hands of as many people as possible where it can spark new ideas and inspire new creativity. In other words, where it can Promote Progress.
Oh, it also promotes progress by motivating people to write, sing, etc. But the real goal of copyright was to promote publication and dissemination, because that's where the real progress is made, when ideas build on other ideas.
So, how does this relate to software?
Well, copyright law is the primary legal tool used to control the distribution of software, both by individuals and corporations who are trying to make money, and even by the Free Software movement, who have other goals. But Congress never really sat down and thought hard about how copyright should apply to software. Congress did change the law in order to balance out the short-term and long-term advantages to society when other technological changes came about, but they didn't do it fast enough for software, so the courts ended up deciding for them.
The courts basically decided that software is sufficiently expressive and creative to qualify for copyright protection. I completely agree. I have seen some truly beautiful code in my life, and even written a little. I hope someday to take a photo that's as beautiful as the best of the code I've written.
But what the courts failed to do, in a crucial oversight, is that they failed to distinguish between "source code" and "compiled binaries".
Source code is what programmers write. Reading or writing it requires some training, but it's designed to be human-readable, and computers can't make any direct use of it. Instead, the source code must first be processed by another program called a "compiler" (which itself was written in source code and processed by a compiler). The compiler turns the source code into "machine code", the actual pile of computer instructions that the computer reads and follows, like a very sophisticated cake recipe.
Source code is also what programmers read. Just as authors of poetry and novels hone their craft by reading the writing of other authors, the best way for a programmer to learn new ideas and new techniques is to read the code written by other programmers. The progress of software is promoted by making sure that programmers can read what other programmers have written, not so they can copy their programs directly, just as authors don't make word-for-word copies of the works of other authors, but so they can pick up ideas. Structure, phrasing, word choice, dialogue, character development plot arcs... all of these are things that authors learn from other authors, and there are analogous concepts to all of them in software.
The difference between a book and a software program, though, thanks to those first court rulings that decided that copyright applies to software, is that it's impossible for an author to publish a book to the world and simultaneously keep secret from the world the words that he used to write it. In order for an author to reap the benefits of publication, he also has to allow other authors to read his words and learn from them. How could it be otherwise.
With software, it is otherwise. Programmers can read and learn from source code, but once that source code has been fed through the grinding maw of the compiler, turning it into an opaque mass of machine instructions, it is extremely difficult to examine the result and determine how it does what it does. Not impossible, but very difficult. It's perhaps akin to taking a book and running it through a paper shredder, then piecing it laboriously back together in order to read it.
But copyright law, as currently applied, protects that ground-up version just as much as the readable version. And with software, the ground-up version is the one that has value to non-programmers. So, individuals and companies can produce software, publish the opaque binaries on CDs, in boxes on the shelf in the local computer store, and never have to reveal the ideas they used to create it. And yet they get the full weight of the legal system standing behind their copyrights, even though they have sidestepped the whole purpose of copyright law, to promote progress by disseminating ideas.
Moreover, although copyright is supposed to last for a limited time, after which copyrighted material falls into the public domain and becomes available for anyone to use for any purpose they wish, the source code of software published in binary-only form will never see the light of day. The binaries will fall into the public domain, but the source code was never published and will be lost.
It's not a total loss, of course. Other programmers can often infer interesting things about the structure of software from the behavior of binary copies. And some 'reverse engineering' (figuring out how it works by poking through the binary) does take place. But progress is hugely slowed by the predominance of 'closed' software, software for which no source code is available.
The Free Software movement is really a reaction to that limitation on progress. And it's a significant testament to the progress that is enabled by openness that Free Software constructed by ad-hoc groups of volunteers around the world often not only compares with, but bests, similar "closed" software constructed by large, well-paid and focused corporate teams.
I think the solution to this problem is very simple, though politically challenging: Software makers should be required to publish source code in order to receive copyright protection. It would still be illegal for programmers to copy this copyrighted source code, and illegal to copy the ground-up binaries as well, but other programmers could read the code and learn from the ideas, satisfying the progress-promoting goal of copyright law.
There would be practical benefits as well. As a purchaser of a software package, you would have some assurances that you do not now have. For example, should the company that sold you the package collapse, you could still hire a programmer to fix any defects you find in the software (the legalities of that would have to be worked out, but at least the ability is present). Even before you buy it, you would probably have the ability to ask others who've purchased it what they thought of the program -- and not only it's outward behavior, but also its inward structure. A good programmer can tell a lot about the quality and reliability of a software package by examining its source code. This is similar to a mechanic taking a look under the hood to see if an automobile is sound. But with closed-source software, the hood is welded shut.
A non-obvious benefit that I'm convinced we would see is a reduction in the amount of code copied illegally between programs. How can that be? Doesn't only publishing code in binary form completely prevent illegal copying? Not really. There are still people who see the source code, and they can still copy it. Lots of programmers (illegally) take a copy of their work with them when they change employers. I personally have witnessed a couple of cases of stolen code incorporated into closed-source software (not while at IBM; IBM is exceptionally cautious about this).
So illegally copying of source code happens now, but how would making source code more widely available reduce it? Simple, because it would be easier to find. Right now, companies that illegally copy source code usually get away with it, because they distribute only opaque binaries and it's difficult for anyone to recognize their act. But if everyone published source code, finding illegally-copied code would in most cases be a simple matter of scanning. There are tools right now that can scan a body of source code to see if it contains any code taken from the thousands and thousands of open source programs in the world. Companies use these tools to verify that their programmers haven't lifted some open source and dropped it into the company's software as a time-saver. It's easy to see that if most commercial source code were available, that this approach would be easily extended to cover that as well.
There might still be some companies who have such important and novel ideas in their source code that they dare not publish it. They would also have an option to protect their assets, through another facet of intellectual property law: Trade Secrets. They could classify their source as a trade secret, and sell their software only to customers who are willing to sign a contract committing them not to make copies. The contract would protect the binaries from being freely redistributed, and the source code would stay a secret. Any employee or other person who knowingly divulged the secret source code would be guilty of a crime.
I'm convinced that if obtaining copyright protection for software required publishing the source code, we would see an explosion in software progress. The quality and capability of the software packages we all use every day would grow by leaps and bounds. Software technology researchers would have access to a huge body of code to analyze and learn from, to help cull the best techniques and processes to help all programmers be able to do a better job. Tools would improve. Quality and reliability would improve. Security would improve. There would still be lots of problems, of course, because software is inherently, fundamentally hard. But applying copyright law in accordance with its underlying principles would better serve society's interests as a whole.
I'm a big fan of copyright law. In the abstract, at least -- there are a lot of problems with our current law. And computer software is a huge part of my life. It's not only my job, it's one of my major passions and lately my biggest hobby. So it's natural that I should be interested in how copyright applies to software, and I think that the way we use copyright for software is very, very broken.
To explain why, first I have to give a little background on copyright.
The idea of modern copyright is a pretty simple one: Society grants creators of all sorts of useful and artistic intellectual works control for a limited period of time over who is allowed to produce copies of their work. There's a little more to it, and lots of corner cases and caveats, but that's the basic idea. Other than the "limited period" part of it, pretty much everybody understands that if an author writes a book, you can't make copies of it and sell them on the street without permission.
But, why not? Why do we do this? Thomas Jefferson argued that copyright made no sense. He said that ideas are naturally infinite, that as they're passed from person to person, everyone is enriched. He compared it to candle flame and pointed out that a man who lights his candle from mine has obtained light, and I have lost nothing.
So why should society invest large amounts of money and time in enforcing copyright laws, which restrict the natural freedom and urge to share?
There's a really good reason, and it's the one described in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". Copyright law was created as a means to convince creators of intellectual works to publish them, to make them available to the world. The way it works is that society removes the freedom of everyone but the creator to make copies, for a time, so that the creator can benefit from his or her work. But any benefit to the creator of the work is just a pleasant side effect, because the real goal is to get that work published, into the hands of as many people as possible where it can spark new ideas and inspire new creativity. In other words, where it can Promote Progress.
Oh, it also promotes progress by motivating people to write, sing, etc. But the real goal of copyright was to promote publication and dissemination, because that's where the real progress is made, when ideas build on other ideas.
So, how does this relate to software?
Well, copyright law is the primary legal tool used to control the distribution of software, both by individuals and corporations who are trying to make money, and even by the Free Software movement, who have other goals. But Congress never really sat down and thought hard about how copyright should apply to software. Congress did change the law in order to balance out the short-term and long-term advantages to society when other technological changes came about, but they didn't do it fast enough for software, so the courts ended up deciding for them.
The courts basically decided that software is sufficiently expressive and creative to qualify for copyright protection. I completely agree. I have seen some truly beautiful code in my life, and even written a little. I hope someday to take a photo that's as beautiful as the best of the code I've written.
But what the courts failed to do, in a crucial oversight, is that they failed to distinguish between "source code" and "compiled binaries".
Source code is what programmers write. Reading or writing it requires some training, but it's designed to be human-readable, and computers can't make any direct use of it. Instead, the source code must first be processed by another program called a "compiler" (which itself was written in source code and processed by a compiler). The compiler turns the source code into "machine code", the actual pile of computer instructions that the computer reads and follows, like a very sophisticated cake recipe.
Source code is also what programmers read. Just as authors of poetry and novels hone their craft by reading the writing of other authors, the best way for a programmer to learn new ideas and new techniques is to read the code written by other programmers. The progress of software is promoted by making sure that programmers can read what other programmers have written, not so they can copy their programs directly, just as authors don't make word-for-word copies of the works of other authors, but so they can pick up ideas. Structure, phrasing, word choice, dialogue, character development plot arcs... all of these are things that authors learn from other authors, and there are analogous concepts to all of them in software.
The difference between a book and a software program, though, thanks to those first court rulings that decided that copyright applies to software, is that it's impossible for an author to publish a book to the world and simultaneously keep secret from the world the words that he used to write it. In order for an author to reap the benefits of publication, he also has to allow other authors to read his words and learn from them. How could it be otherwise.
With software, it is otherwise. Programmers can read and learn from source code, but once that source code has been fed through the grinding maw of the compiler, turning it into an opaque mass of machine instructions, it is extremely difficult to examine the result and determine how it does what it does. Not impossible, but very difficult. It's perhaps akin to taking a book and running it through a paper shredder, then piecing it laboriously back together in order to read it.
But copyright law, as currently applied, protects that ground-up version just as much as the readable version. And with software, the ground-up version is the one that has value to non-programmers. So, individuals and companies can produce software, publish the opaque binaries on CDs, in boxes on the shelf in the local computer store, and never have to reveal the ideas they used to create it. And yet they get the full weight of the legal system standing behind their copyrights, even though they have sidestepped the whole purpose of copyright law, to promote progress by disseminating ideas.
Moreover, although copyright is supposed to last for a limited time, after which copyrighted material falls into the public domain and becomes available for anyone to use for any purpose they wish, the source code of software published in binary-only form will never see the light of day. The binaries will fall into the public domain, but the source code was never published and will be lost.
It's not a total loss, of course. Other programmers can often infer interesting things about the structure of software from the behavior of binary copies. And some 'reverse engineering' (figuring out how it works by poking through the binary) does take place. But progress is hugely slowed by the predominance of 'closed' software, software for which no source code is available.
The Free Software movement is really a reaction to that limitation on progress. And it's a significant testament to the progress that is enabled by openness that Free Software constructed by ad-hoc groups of volunteers around the world often not only compares with, but bests, similar "closed" software constructed by large, well-paid and focused corporate teams.
I think the solution to this problem is very simple, though politically challenging: Software makers should be required to publish source code in order to receive copyright protection. It would still be illegal for programmers to copy this copyrighted source code, and illegal to copy the ground-up binaries as well, but other programmers could read the code and learn from the ideas, satisfying the progress-promoting goal of copyright law.
There would be practical benefits as well. As a purchaser of a software package, you would have some assurances that you do not now have. For example, should the company that sold you the package collapse, you could still hire a programmer to fix any defects you find in the software (the legalities of that would have to be worked out, but at least the ability is present). Even before you buy it, you would probably have the ability to ask others who've purchased it what they thought of the program -- and not only it's outward behavior, but also its inward structure. A good programmer can tell a lot about the quality and reliability of a software package by examining its source code. This is similar to a mechanic taking a look under the hood to see if an automobile is sound. But with closed-source software, the hood is welded shut.
A non-obvious benefit that I'm convinced we would see is a reduction in the amount of code copied illegally between programs. How can that be? Doesn't only publishing code in binary form completely prevent illegal copying? Not really. There are still people who see the source code, and they can still copy it. Lots of programmers (illegally) take a copy of their work with them when they change employers. I personally have witnessed a couple of cases of stolen code incorporated into closed-source software (not while at IBM; IBM is exceptionally cautious about this).
So illegally copying of source code happens now, but how would making source code more widely available reduce it? Simple, because it would be easier to find. Right now, companies that illegally copy source code usually get away with it, because they distribute only opaque binaries and it's difficult for anyone to recognize their act. But if everyone published source code, finding illegally-copied code would in most cases be a simple matter of scanning. There are tools right now that can scan a body of source code to see if it contains any code taken from the thousands and thousands of open source programs in the world. Companies use these tools to verify that their programmers haven't lifted some open source and dropped it into the company's software as a time-saver. It's easy to see that if most commercial source code were available, that this approach would be easily extended to cover that as well.
There might still be some companies who have such important and novel ideas in their source code that they dare not publish it. They would also have an option to protect their assets, through another facet of intellectual property law: Trade Secrets. They could classify their source as a trade secret, and sell their software only to customers who are willing to sign a contract committing them not to make copies. The contract would protect the binaries from being freely redistributed, and the source code would stay a secret. Any employee or other person who knowingly divulged the secret source code would be guilty of a crime.
I'm convinced that if obtaining copyright protection for software required publishing the source code, we would see an explosion in software progress. The quality and capability of the software packages we all use every day would grow by leaps and bounds. Software technology researchers would have access to a huge body of code to analyze and learn from, to help cull the best techniques and processes to help all programmers be able to do a better job. Tools would improve. Quality and reliability would improve. Security would improve. There would still be lots of problems, of course, because software is inherently, fundamentally hard. But applying copyright law in accordance with its underlying principles would better serve society's interests as a whole.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
GridBackup Re-architecture
GridBackup still isn't fully functional, but I think I'm going to change directions already. So far, it does scanning and backups pretty well, and has a basic backup verifier so you can check that your files really are safely backed up to the grid. It doesn't have a restore tool yet, but I could slap a simple one together in a few hours if it were needed.
However, there are some problems with the way it works now.
First, it doesn't address laptop users well at all. I have set it up for my brother Dirk, but because his backup server is just a machine sitting in the corner, there's really nothing for it to back up. All of his important files are on laptops. I set up a folder on the server, accessible via Samba (Windows file sharing) so that he can drop important files in a place where they can get backed up, but, predictably, having an extra step like that means that backups don't get done.
Second, there are problems with the implementation. The sqlite database used by the GridBackup, GridUpload and GridVerify scripts doesn't handle concurrent access well, so you can generally only run one of them at a time. But you have to be a little careful (in ways that I only know from experience, and am not sure I could explain) or you can corrupt the sqlite database when stopping one program to start another. The uploader really needs to be a daemon ('service' in Windows terminology), just running in the background all of the time. Ideally, it should really be integrated into Tahoe, so it starts and stops with Tahoe. I don't think I want to do it in Tahoe, at least just yet, because I want more freedom to work. However, given the Twisted application plugin system, I may be able to write it as a plugin that can be added to Tahoe.
In the new architecture, the "uploader" becomes the "backup server". It's purpose is to accept backup jobs delivered to it by a backup client (i.e. the "scanner"). The client should be run wherever the files are (i.e. on your laptop), and would deliver any changed files to the server as fast as it can. The intention is for the server to store those files itself until it can get them safely uploaded into the grid. From the client's point of view, once it delivers the files to the backup server, they are backed up, though it may take some time for the files to actually be delivered to grid storage.
One issue this approach raises is that it requires the backup server to have room to temporarily store all of the files sent to it. This shouldn't be a huge problem in most cases, because the assumption is the backup server is the same machine as the Tahoe node, and it has to have a lot of storage available -- usually 2-3 times as much as what the clients that use that server wish to back up.
However, in some cases users may not be using their Tahoe node for storage, and so may not have a lot of storage available. In that case, they'll want to run the backup client and server on one computer, and configure the server to restrict the amount of storage it uses, and to attempt to get files from their "original" locations, rather than its own storage when it doesn't have enough to hold everything. There's still value in having it store recently-modified files, on the grounds that if they've changed recently, they'll probably change again soon and the backup server doesn't store its own copies they may change before it gets around to uploading them to the grid.
However, there are some problems with the way it works now.
First, it doesn't address laptop users well at all. I have set it up for my brother Dirk, but because his backup server is just a machine sitting in the corner, there's really nothing for it to back up. All of his important files are on laptops. I set up a folder on the server, accessible via Samba (Windows file sharing) so that he can drop important files in a place where they can get backed up, but, predictably, having an extra step like that means that backups don't get done.
Second, there are problems with the implementation. The sqlite database used by the GridBackup, GridUpload and GridVerify scripts doesn't handle concurrent access well, so you can generally only run one of them at a time. But you have to be a little careful (in ways that I only know from experience, and am not sure I could explain) or you can corrupt the sqlite database when stopping one program to start another. The uploader really needs to be a daemon ('service' in Windows terminology), just running in the background all of the time. Ideally, it should really be integrated into Tahoe, so it starts and stops with Tahoe. I don't think I want to do it in Tahoe, at least just yet, because I want more freedom to work. However, given the Twisted application plugin system, I may be able to write it as a plugin that can be added to Tahoe.
In the new architecture, the "uploader" becomes the "backup server". It's purpose is to accept backup jobs delivered to it by a backup client (i.e. the "scanner"). The client should be run wherever the files are (i.e. on your laptop), and would deliver any changed files to the server as fast as it can. The intention is for the server to store those files itself until it can get them safely uploaded into the grid. From the client's point of view, once it delivers the files to the backup server, they are backed up, though it may take some time for the files to actually be delivered to grid storage.
One issue this approach raises is that it requires the backup server to have room to temporarily store all of the files sent to it. This shouldn't be a huge problem in most cases, because the assumption is the backup server is the same machine as the Tahoe node, and it has to have a lot of storage available -- usually 2-3 times as much as what the clients that use that server wish to back up.
However, in some cases users may not be using their Tahoe node for storage, and so may not have a lot of storage available. In that case, they'll want to run the backup client and server on one computer, and configure the server to restrict the amount of storage it uses, and to attempt to get files from their "original" locations, rather than its own storage when it doesn't have enough to hold everything. There's still value in having it store recently-modified files, on the grounds that if they've changed recently, they'll probably change again soon and the backup server doesn't store its own copies they may change before it gets around to uploading them to the grid.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Orson Scott Card's "Empire"
I just finished reading (actually, listening to) a 2006 novel by Orson Scott Card called "Empire". It was a good story, as his always are, and thought-provoking, as his usually are.
I highly recommend reading it, so I won't spoil it by giving away too much of the story here, but it's set in the present, and is a story about potential civil war in the United States, more or less between the radical left and the radical right (exactly who starts it and why is something of a mystery through most of the book, so I won't spoil it by being more specific). Card also includes an after word where he discusses his reasons for writing the book, and that's what I wanted to post about.
Card points out the inanity of the liberal/conservative dichotomy in our current political structure. There are many issues facing the nation, and the conservative and liberal ideologies are bundles of ideas about each, bundles that don't really have any kind of internal consistency or reason. For some reason you can't be in favor of the Iraq war and believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, or pro-gun and in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants, or... you get the idea. Abortion, gay rights, foreign relations, drug policy, fiscal policy, taxation, gun rights, environment, welfare, intellectual property... there are a lot of different issues, and many of them are completely unrelated. Yet if you espouse, say, the "conservative" position on one issue, you're automatically assumed to buy into the rest of the conservative bundle. And if you really want to fit in, politically, you'd better not stray too far from one party line or the other.
Even worse, as Card points out, is the vitriol that the two major parties direct against one another and against anyone who doesn't agree with every point in their position bundle. From my perspective Card overstates the problem, but I understand why. He's a fairly public figure who writes a lot of political opinion pieces, but his beliefs don't clearly fit into one camp or the other, so he gets railed at and even despised and ridiculed by both.
I see this all the time on slashdot. Whenever the topic of Orson Scott Card comes up, and it comes up often given that he's one of the great science fiction authors and slashdot is loaded with scifi-loving nerds, there are always dozens of posts slamming and ridiculing him for opposing gay marriage and calling him a conservative extremist. These posts, just like the pundits we see on TV, boil his statements on the topic down to single-sentence summaries and even one-word labels, neither of which do any justice to the nuances of his real opinions. They're so oversimplified as to be simply wrong.
Meanwhile, if his name comes up on the pro-gun forums I also frequent, he's equally reviled and despised there as a hated liberal, because he supports gun control and is critical of free-market capitalism.
The real crux of his complaint, though, isn't so much the bundling of issues but the level of fear, anger and distrust that we direct against anyone who chooses a different bundle than we do. And the thrust of the book is that those extreme emotions are so powerful in the radical wings of the two parties that it's not inconceivable that it could lead one side or the other, or both, to decide that they must take up arms against the other. He addresses the question of whether or not it's possible for a civil war to occur when the sides are so intermixed, without clear geographical boundaries, by pointing out the examples of Rwanda and Yugoslavia, where exactly that happened.
I don't know if I fully agree with his conclusion about the feasibility of a right/left civil war in the United States. In his examples the sides were divided by religion and/or ethnicity which are more powerful than political ideology. But after reading the book I have to grant that it's possible. I know for a fact that radicals on both sides of the divide do believe that those on the other are actually evil, and it's not inconceivable that some of those extremists might take up arms in sufficient numbers and with sufficient organization to create a war.
And once the shooting starts, if it's big enough, then all the rest of the people may well be forced to choose sides, because if they don't then both sides will consider them the enemy.
War aside, though, I also agree with Card that the approach that both of the parties are taking is destructive. They're so divisive and so vitriolic that real discussion of the issues is nearly impossible. The media doesn't help any, either, since their idea of a "balanced" discussion is two partisans angrily talking over one another.
From my perspective, the whole thing would be amusing if it weren't so sad. I simply don't care about most of the issues they get so up in arms about, and where I do care my positions don't align at all well with either of the bundles. What I do care about, deeply, is the centralization of government power and the importance of the rule of law and the Republican style of government. But neither side really talks about that. And given the current system there is simply no place for voices that don't align with one side or the other. If you're not a Democrat or a Republican your opinions may as well not exist for all of the public discussion they'll get.
I highly recommend reading it, so I won't spoil it by giving away too much of the story here, but it's set in the present, and is a story about potential civil war in the United States, more or less between the radical left and the radical right (exactly who starts it and why is something of a mystery through most of the book, so I won't spoil it by being more specific). Card also includes an after word where he discusses his reasons for writing the book, and that's what I wanted to post about.
Card points out the inanity of the liberal/conservative dichotomy in our current political structure. There are many issues facing the nation, and the conservative and liberal ideologies are bundles of ideas about each, bundles that don't really have any kind of internal consistency or reason. For some reason you can't be in favor of the Iraq war and believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, or pro-gun and in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants, or... you get the idea. Abortion, gay rights, foreign relations, drug policy, fiscal policy, taxation, gun rights, environment, welfare, intellectual property... there are a lot of different issues, and many of them are completely unrelated. Yet if you espouse, say, the "conservative" position on one issue, you're automatically assumed to buy into the rest of the conservative bundle. And if you really want to fit in, politically, you'd better not stray too far from one party line or the other.
Even worse, as Card points out, is the vitriol that the two major parties direct against one another and against anyone who doesn't agree with every point in their position bundle. From my perspective Card overstates the problem, but I understand why. He's a fairly public figure who writes a lot of political opinion pieces, but his beliefs don't clearly fit into one camp or the other, so he gets railed at and even despised and ridiculed by both.
I see this all the time on slashdot. Whenever the topic of Orson Scott Card comes up, and it comes up often given that he's one of the great science fiction authors and slashdot is loaded with scifi-loving nerds, there are always dozens of posts slamming and ridiculing him for opposing gay marriage and calling him a conservative extremist. These posts, just like the pundits we see on TV, boil his statements on the topic down to single-sentence summaries and even one-word labels, neither of which do any justice to the nuances of his real opinions. They're so oversimplified as to be simply wrong.
Meanwhile, if his name comes up on the pro-gun forums I also frequent, he's equally reviled and despised there as a hated liberal, because he supports gun control and is critical of free-market capitalism.
The real crux of his complaint, though, isn't so much the bundling of issues but the level of fear, anger and distrust that we direct against anyone who chooses a different bundle than we do. And the thrust of the book is that those extreme emotions are so powerful in the radical wings of the two parties that it's not inconceivable that it could lead one side or the other, or both, to decide that they must take up arms against the other. He addresses the question of whether or not it's possible for a civil war to occur when the sides are so intermixed, without clear geographical boundaries, by pointing out the examples of Rwanda and Yugoslavia, where exactly that happened.
I don't know if I fully agree with his conclusion about the feasibility of a right/left civil war in the United States. In his examples the sides were divided by religion and/or ethnicity which are more powerful than political ideology. But after reading the book I have to grant that it's possible. I know for a fact that radicals on both sides of the divide do believe that those on the other are actually evil, and it's not inconceivable that some of those extremists might take up arms in sufficient numbers and with sufficient organization to create a war.
And once the shooting starts, if it's big enough, then all the rest of the people may well be forced to choose sides, because if they don't then both sides will consider them the enemy.
War aside, though, I also agree with Card that the approach that both of the parties are taking is destructive. They're so divisive and so vitriolic that real discussion of the issues is nearly impossible. The media doesn't help any, either, since their idea of a "balanced" discussion is two partisans angrily talking over one another.
From my perspective, the whole thing would be amusing if it weren't so sad. I simply don't care about most of the issues they get so up in arms about, and where I do care my positions don't align at all well with either of the bundles. What I do care about, deeply, is the centralization of government power and the importance of the rule of law and the Republican style of government. But neither side really talks about that. And given the current system there is simply no place for voices that don't align with one side or the other. If you're not a Democrat or a Republican your opinions may as well not exist for all of the public discussion they'll get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My collection is complete(ish)!
I drive an electric car, a Tesla Model S. Generally, I never worry about how or where to charge it. It has a large battery and a long range,...
-
I drive an electric car, a Tesla Model S. Generally, I never worry about how or where to charge it. It has a large battery and a long range,... -
Since I just finished it yesterday, I thought I'd post some photos of my first woodworking project intended to be good enough to go insi... -
In 2011 Microsoft posted an updated copy of their "Ten Immutable Laws of Security". It's interesting to look at these laws in...