There’s an excellent column in the old liberal tradition of celebrating liberty in this week’s New Yorker. It’s Memorials by Adam Goptnick, and includes a quote from John Stuart Mill at his rhetorical peak.
Several weeks back, I was listening to the Technometria podcast on “Personal Data Ecosystems,” and they talked a lot about putting the consumer in the center of various markets. I wrote this post then, and held off posting it in light of the tragic events in Japan.
One element of this is the “VRM” or “vendor relationship management” space, where we let people proxy for ads to us.
As I was listening, I realized, I’m in the market for another nice camera. And rather than doing more research, I would like to sell the right to advertise to me. There’s a huge ($59B?) advertising market. I am ready to buy, and if Fuji had shipped their #$^&%^ X100, I was about ready to buy it. But even before the earthquake, they were behind in production, and I’m ready to buy. So I could go do research, or the advertisers could advertise to me. But before they do, I want a piece of that $59B action.
I don’t want to start a blog. (Sorry, Nick!). I don’t want to sell personal information about me. I want another nice camera. How do I go about accepting ads into this market?
I’m willing, by the way, to share additional information about my criteria, but I figure that those have value to advertisers. Please send in your bids for the answers to specific questions. Please specify if your bids are for exclusive, private, or public answers. (Public answers prevent others from gathering exclusive market intelligence, and are thus a great strategic investment.)
So, dear readers, how do I get a piece of the action? How do I cash in on this micro-market?
If I get a highly actionable answer, I’ll share 25% of the proceeds of the advertising with whomever points me the right way.
“Maine Town Declares Food Sovereignty, Nullifies Conflicting Laws.” So reads the headline at the 10th Amendment center blog:
The Maine town of Sedgwick took an interesting step that brings a new dynamic to the movement to maintain sovereignty: Town-level nullification. Last Friday, the town passed a proposed ordinance that would empower the local level to grow and sell food amongst themselves without interference from unconstitutional State or Federal regulations. Beyond that, the passed ordinance would make it unlawful for agents of either the State or Federal government to execute laws that interfere with the ordinance.
Under the new ordinance, producers and processors are protected from licensure or inspection in sales that are sold for home consumption between them and a patron, at farmer’s market, or at a roadside stand. The ordinance specifically notes the right of the people to food freedom, as well as citing the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Maine Constitution in defending the rights of the people.
Andy Ellis pointed out on Twitter that Wickard v. Filburn disagrees, but it’s fascinating to watch the frustration with the political system. Think of it as a Tea Party for foodies, with hand-harvested
Last month, I wrote:
But after 50 years of meddling in the market, reducing the support for housing is going to be exceptionally complex and chaotic. And the chaos isn’t going to be evenly distributed. It’s going to be a matter of long, complex laws whose outcomes are carefully and secretly influenced. Groups who aren’t photogenic or sympathetic will lose out. (I’m thinking “DINKs” in gentrified urban areas.) Groups who aren’t already well-organized with good lobbyists will lose out. (See previous parenthetical.) Those who believed that the government housing subsidy would go on forever will lose. (“Unmeddling Housing,” January )
Now, the New York Times reports on the administration’s plan, calling it “audacious:”
The Obama administration’s much-anticipated report on redesigning the government’s role in housing finance, published Friday, is not solely a proposal to dissolve the unpopular finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is also a more audacious call for the federal government to cut back its broadly popular, long-running campaign to help Americans own homes. The three ideas that the report outlines for replacing Fannie and Freddie all would raise the cost of mortgage loans and push homeownership beyond the reach of some families. (“Administration Calls for Cutting Aid to Home Buyers,” New York Times)
Audacious would be to put the mortgage interest deductions on the table. This is a move in the right direction, but it’s not going to let people express their real preferences in a market. It will continue to distort the market, reducing people’s flexibility to move, and encouraging them to make their major asset a non-liquid one which is likely to decrease in value as the US population ages.
I got this in email and wanted to amplify it:
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition prides itself on the willingness of our members to stand up and take action against drug prohibition. Last fall, LEAP member Joe Miller did exactly that. A California police officer for eight years before taking a position as a deputy probation officer in Arizona, Joe signed a letter in support of Proposition 19, California’s marijuana legalization initiative. He was fired for it. Now he needs your help, and so does LEAP.
Former deputy probation officer
As a retired police officer of 33 years who myself spoke out against drug prohibition as a private citizen while employed as a police officer, I am extremely disheartened by Joe’s termination and the bigger issue it represents. Firing law enforcement professionals for speaking out against policies they know are wrong is not only an unfair intimidation tactic but also a violation of First Amendment rights. I urge you to support their right to speak out by signing this petition now. Joe is not the first officer to face unfair termination for expressing his personal opinion. Former US border patrol agent Bryan Gonzalez’s case recently made headlines when he was fired after expressing his views on drug legalization to a fellow officer.
LEAP is always there to provide support to those ethical and courageous law enforcers who come forward and say that drug prohibition is a failed policy. Our speakers are law enforcement professionals who are as dedicated as they are distinguished. In the past month, our speakers have made 101 presentations and appeared in such prestigious publications as the Wall Street Journal, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Hartford Courant, the Village Voice and the Miami Herald. We even got President Obama’s attention. Our speakers have become the go-to source for the law enforcement perspective on drug policy reform, and in the past week alone, we have provided expert testimony for drug policy related bills in four states. [You should give LEAP some money to help – Adam]
The ability of law enforcers to criticize the policies they are responsible for upholding serves a vital public interest. It lays the groundwork for much-needed reform, supports harm reduction efforts and provides tangible evidence that these laws simply are not working.
Law enforcement officers have a unique position to comment on the efficacy of our laws. We need them to be able to speak freely as individuals about their experiences. Even if they’re being foolish and telling me to “Just Shut Up and Be a Good Little Socialist,” I support their right to speak their minds, and not be fired for it. (Even if, as in Officer Pomper’s case, I believe he would have been well advised to shut up.)
In “TSA shuts door on private airport screening program,” CNN reports that “TSA chief John Pistole said Friday he has decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports, saying he does not see any advantage to it.”
The advantage, of course, is that it generates pressure on his agency to do better. I hope that he’ll be forced to answer to John Mica, who encouraged airports to do this, and is the chairman of the committee on transportation and infrastructure.
I believe Hosni Mubarak made similar comments about not needing regime change.
It’s MLK Day.
Here’s a pdf of the speech.
Or watch it online:
Get this 2-page Passenger’s Rights Sheet: http://saizai.com/tsa_rights.pdf
- “Gaping Holes in Airline Security: Loaded Gun Slips Past TSA Screeners” (Matthew Mosk, Angela Hill and Timothy Fleming, ABC News)
- “TSA + Police + JetBlue Conspire Against Peaceful Individual at JFK” (George Donnelly, WeWontFly.org)
- “TSA Lies Again Over Capture, Storage Of Body Scanner Images” (Steve Watson, Prison Planet.com)
- “IATA unveils plan for airport security tunnels” Involves permission to travel, controlled by local police.
Doses of sanity:
- “Nadine Hays beats the TSA agent she beat”
- “Chaffetz to get oversight of TSA” (Matt Canham, Thomas Burr, Salt Lake Tribune) “The Transportation Security Administration’s biggest congressional critic will soon take charge of the House panel that oversees the agency”
- “AOL Investigation: No Proof TSA Scanners Are Safe” (Andrew Schneider, AOLNews) “AOL News has found that those organizations say they have no responsibility for the continuing safety of the alternative to TSA’s grope.”
- “Grandma Got Molested At The Airport” (Video)
- “‘Strip-or-Grope’ vs. Risk Management” Jim Harper, Cato@Liberty blog. Really solid thinking, although I usually don’t like asset-centric approaches, I think that for the physical world they make more sense than they do in software threat modeling.
- TSA more likely to kill you than a terrorist. thread at Flyertalk (thanks Doug!)
- “Has Airport Security Gone Too Far?” (Noah Shachtman, Wall St Journal)
- U.S. Travel Association Empowers Air Travelers with New Website to Share Opinions on TSA Screening Process and YourTravelVoice.org
Introducing the American Traveler Dignity Act (Congressman Ron Paul)
- TSA plans modest changes (Declan McCullagh, CNET)
- Orlando Sanford International Airport to opt out of TSA screening I’d be going to DisneyWorld, but they fingerprint people. And apparently, SFO has already opted out, but has nudatrons anyway.
- Congressman Ron Paul
- San Mateo DA Steve Wagstaffe Promises to Prosecute Overly Touchy Pat Downs
- TSA Enhanced Screening Procedures Explained
- Transcript: Senate hearing on TSA, full-body scanners (yesterday, not one Senator cared.) Today’s hearing: http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN3.aspx
- TSA Success Story (You can win in line.)
- If someone had done that to me at a nightclub I’d call the cops.
- Traveling with scars
- Search this one for “pump” to learn about a diabetic’s experience.
- What would the TSA do if they found a menstrual cup inside you during a body scan? (TSA still hasn’t answered)
PravdaUSA Today article which claims “Napolitano ‘open’ to fliers’ gripes over screening” is over 1000 comments, and none of the “most recommended” have anything nice to say about TSA. Come on, guys, you have 67,000 employees, can’t you astroturf?
Analysis and Data:
- Full Frontal Nudity Doesn’t Make Us Safer: Abolish the TSA (Forbes blogger Art Carden)
- Opting out from naked scanning – Canadian edition
News flash: Deadly terrorism existed before 9/11 “We’ve been dealing with the same threats for decades. But we used to be a lot calmer about it, less self-defeating” (Sing it, brother!)
- Don’t miss the suggestion to wear a kilt if you’re flying on National opt-out day
- New Jersey and Idaho legislators have introduced bills to stop nudatrons. Petition “will send you updates on this and other important campaigns by email.” Another petition, privacy re: your email, unclear. And another.
- Minneapolis airport considering private screeners instead of TSA
- Rep. John Mica, the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is reminding airports that they have a choice.
- See Me, Feel me
- Fmr Assistant TSA Admin – checkpoints violate 4th amendment (unprompted comment!)
- TSA’s enhanced security spurs US ‘airport rage’
On a personal note, I sent email to a social mail list at work, and I’ve never gotten so much positive response. People care deeply, and haven’t known where to go to complain or how.