Welcome Back, Victoria

This is Victoria Day weekend. I'm not sure how to explain this to non-Canadians. Obviously, it's a day celebrating Queen Victoria, who was the British monarch at the time of Confederation. As a few modern Canadians have pointed out, Nineteenth-Century Canadians had an unhealthy obsession with her, as you can see from the sheer number of places in Canada that have a Victoria Park. Or, just look at this inscription on a statue of her in a Victoria park near my home.

Suddenly the adoration of Elizabeth II seems tame by comparison. So it's not too surprising that those folks wanted to celebrate her with a major holiday. 

But now, Victoriamania has worn off, so we're left with a holiday with no meaning behind it. It's kind of appropriate that we often refer to it as the Two Four weekend as a wink to the amount of beer that each person consumes, and which has become the true focus of the weekend. 

Anyway, aside from beer and lapsed monarchism, the weekend is also known for fireworks. And it's a chance for me to reflect on the changing place of fireworks in our society. 

When I was a child, there were official, professional fireworks displays for major holidays, but personal fireworks were banned. Of course, that changed, and pop-up fireworks stores became a feature of summer long weekends. But now many cities are banning personal fireworks within the city limits. So I've now seen an entire cycle of changing legislative attitude. It goes like this:

• Start with a ban that seemed a little pedantic
• Ban is lifted, is a seemingly sensible move
• There's a brief interlude of reasonable use of fireworks
• One group of people realizes that there's nothing stopping them from going overboard, and another group of people realizes there's a lot of money to be made selling to that first group of people. 
• People get tired of hearing fireworks each night of the week leading up to a holiday
• Cities start banning fireworks.

Presumably this will be followed by a slow shift to enforce the ban. And then it's right back to square one. I'm kind of curious how long it will take to forget the reason for the ban and legalize fireworks again. I suddenly have sympathy for the banned and legalized things over the years. Next time you’re wondering what the Prohibitionists were thinking, just remember fireworks.

Why She Had To Go, I Don’t Know

Today I saw odd news of a lawsuit over the movie Yesterday. The problem is that there was a trailer for the film that included a scene with Ana de Armas, but she wasn’t in the movie at all, and now a couple of viewers are suing.

First, take this with a grain of salt: although some outlets are reporting it as the studio “losing” the lawsuit, what actually happened is that the studio tried to get the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that movie trailers are themselves an art form and thus protected by freedom of speech. But the judge ruled that the trailers are just commercials, and thus subject to false-advertising laws, so the trial can begin. But that trial itself has not been decided.

This is one of those case where I don’t know who to cheer for. On the one hand, this is a classic case of America’s litigation culture. Two people rented a movie for $3.99 and are now suing for $5 million. That’s both excessive and super creepy that they think watching Ana de Armas in a supporting role is worth $5 million. But on the other hand, I am — along with many others — really sick of misleading trailers. To be fair, this wasn’t a case of a pre-planned bait-and-switch; de Armas was supposed to be in the movie, but test audiences really hated the subplot she was a part of, so the final cut axed it entirely. But the movie studios have really strained people’s trust for years, and it would be nice if something curtailed that.

It’s just unfortunate how these things so often become all-or-nothing. Yes, it would be nice if studios paid the price for false advertising, but not one studio paying the price for an incident which wasn’t the most egregious example. And it would be nice for movie watchers to get justice, but not a reward for an excessive lawsuit that looks like a disturbing celebrity fixation. The ideal would be some sort of treaty between moviegoers and studios: you start making more honest trailers, and we won’t unleash the Stan army and their lawyers on you.

Before Accessing This Blog, Please Read And Agree To The Following

Those user license agreements they make you agree to when you install software have become a bit of a joke. It's sort of assumed that you won't really read it, even though you usually have to click the button swearing you have read it.  And the companies don't seem to care that you don't read them.  They do urge you to carefully read it, but it's not like they give you a quiz to prove you've read it.  A few times I've seen agreements where it won't let you click the "I Agree" button until you've scrolled to the bottom of the agreement.  But that's a pretty half-hearted way of encouraging us to read it.

I don't read the agreements, but I do make a case of skimming over it.  I do this for a couple of reasons:

• It allows me to feel morally superior to people who don't read it at all
• I can at least ensure that they haven't snuck in something crazy like adware.

And that's actually saved me from installing something I didn't want a few times.

Today I had one of those agreements: I scanned through the first few paragraphs, but then something came up, and I had to leave the computer for a bit.  I didn't get back to it until about an hour later.  Of course, even in our heavily-surveilled society, I doubt anyone was tracking my actions.  But if they were, they would be left wondering why it took me over an hour to click the "I Agree" button. And the only two explanations would be:

• I'm the first person ever to read the entire agreement, or
• The agreement is so boring, I actually fell asleep while reading it.

Assessing Threats

Last week, Wilfrid Laurier University here in KW was locked down after someone online posted a threat of a shooting in the science building. Of course, locals were shocked: who knew Laurier has a science building?

Okay, that's just my UW heritage talking, sorry Laurier folks.  Anyway, the person who made that posting was in London (England.) He got arrested, and just spent nearly three days in jail before posting bail. He was interviewed upon release, and it came out that:

• He didn't think this would happen, or that it would be taken seriously
• He doesn't know anything about Laurier, and was only copying it's name from another post.
• He assumed that freedom of speech covered this sort of thing

That last part jumped out at me. It's a concept that a lot of people online seem to think: that freedom of speech is absolute and allows any sort of speech in any circumstance. Most people - both inside and outside the legal profession - will know that there are practical limits on free speech. The classic (i.e., quoted on Law & Order) example is that you don't have the right to shout, “fire” in a crowded theatre.

But now we have a couple of problems: in the Internet age, you can yell “fire” from the other side of the planet, and there's a lot of people who think freedom of speech means freedom from consequences.  Actually, three problems: there’s also our increasingly fuzzy definition of irony.  Afterall, our perpetrator said he didn’t think his threat would be taken seriously, since it was on 4chan, a site known for pranks.  I can see how a person might assume that, since many things of questionable taste happen there without affecting the real world. But the flipside is that if a person were to plan a shooting rampage, an untraceable discussion board is exactly where they would talk about it.

We’re left with a big overlap between what people think is acceptable online, and what raises red flags for law enforcement.  So we’re going to have to create some new understandings about what is legal, and someone is going to be very disappointed.

Corrupted File

The world's media has been buzzing about the FIFA officials arrested for corruption. And apparently a lot of the legal work was done by the Americans, even though they are hardly FIFA's most important market. Of course, that could be because they have some objectivity and distance from the problem, sort of like how hockey agent Alan Eagleson's crimes were exposed and charged in the U.S. rather than Canada. Perhaps the Americans could rent themselves out going after corruption in sports they don't care about. I'm hoping they'll tackle Formula One next, and I hear Cricket has some problems too. 

And now the story gets stranger. Well, it was stage to begin with that everyone in the organization is on the take and President Sepp Blatter was supposedly not involved, and didn't even know anything bad was going on. But now it's time for the next election for the organization's president. Blatter is not only still running, he's still likely to win.

Each country's national soccer association gets a vote for President. The media is trying desperately to explain how much of the world (largely the non-Western world) will be giving another term to this guy. The reason is usually given that he's been good to the developing world. After all, he did oversee the World Cup coming to Africa.

But quick look at a map of corruption problems shows a disturbing correlation between areas that support Blatter and areas that have corrupt governments. A better way to explain his continued support is this: the sort of person who somehow got a cushy, high-paying job from a corrupt government is the sort of person who supports Sepp Blatter.

Hold That Tiger (Still For A Second)

Tiger selfies have been declared illegal in the state of New York. See, there's supposedly a trend for men to take pictures of themselves with dangerous animals as an eye-catching profile picture on dating sites.  I don't know; I don't browse men's dating site profiles, so I can't confirm the existence of this trend.  I can only hear about it, and say, yep, that sounds like humanity.  But it's no longer legal in New York.

I don't think the law was a good move. Sure, I like to protect vulnerable animal populations as much as anyone. But a tiger is hardly threatened by a dudebro with a phone. It makes sense to protect animals when they can't protect themselves, such as against poachers or pollution. But when animals can protect themselves, the law doesn't need to get involved.

But what's particularly great about tiger selfies is the circumstances. Like many others, I've often cynically wished that people doing stupid things would just remove themselves from the gene pool. But the problem with that idea is that many people risking their own lives have already reproduced.  Thus their offspring will ensure that stupidity survives for another generation. But tiger selfies are being used to get an impressive picture for dating sites. That works out perfectly! People are risking their lives in the attempt to procreate. Now we just need to encourage the women to have risky dating photos too. What animal would be stereotypically feminine but still dangerous? Perhaps cuddle up, teddy bear style, with an actual bear?

Political Fantasy

State legislators in Louisiana have voted to uphold a law that ban "Crimes Against Nature."  That is, sexual crimes against nature, which this law from 1805 defines as homosexual sex, as well as heterosexual oral and anal sex. It's lead to a new level of head shaking.

First of all, don't worry, the law is purely symbolic - the U.S. supreme Court has already struck down laws restricting consensual sex as unconstitutional - so there's no need to cancel your Mardis Gras trip next year.

Of course that brings up point number one: should the state with New Orleans in it really be taking such a prudish stance? Yes, I know there's more to the state than the Big Easy, and rural areas are so often culturally different than the metropolises they abut. But still, it's hard to believe this won't lead to secession.

Judging by people's reaction to this vote, there seems to be a feeling that we've entered a new level of political hypocrisy beyond anything we've seen before. We're used to the idea of big symbolic gestures: Republicans in the house have voted to repeal Obamacare forty times, always knowing the Democrat-majority senate would overrule. So passing a law that's already struck down isn't that big of a surprise.

And we've seen plenty of examples of politicians making a show of swimming against culture's tide. So it's also not surprising that they'd like to ban homosexuality while other states are allowing gay marriage. Sometimes, politicians are so intent on defining a clear public image that they'll become more extreme than their own supporters, as when they opposed gun-purchase background-checks even when most gun owners supported them.

But keeping a ban on non-standard hetero sex? Now we're talking about politicians banning something most of the public has done, and most of them have done. So now legality has reached a new level of irrelevance. We're passing laws that don't apply in the real world, that no one believes in, and no one follows.

I'm Not Making Any Guarantees

The Heartbleed bug continues to yield fallout. Earlier I expressed surprised at how few people seemed to know what a bug is. So I'm assuming that there are a lot of people confused as to where this widely used software came from. Many reports have mentioned that it's in something called OpenSSL. But many are surely wondering why there is no company name attached to it. You'd expect Mt. Gox-like story of incompetence, or a GM-like story of profit over responsibility. Geez, give us something to get angry at. Give us someone to sure.

The answer to all this is that there is no company behind it, it's open source.  That is, it's written primarily with volunteer work, given away for free, and not owned by anyone. In retrospect, yes, it's pretty weird that we have this widely-used product that no-one has figured out how to make money off of.

Perhaps this incident an important lesson in humanity. Normally there is an expectation that a misfortune this big must be someone's fault, that someone must have sleepy motives. But no, apparently it can just be an honest mistake. To err is still human.

As for suing, that theoretically won't happen. Everyone familiar with Open Source software is familiar with readme files that make it clear - usually in capitals - that the program comes WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY.  Hopefully no lawyer will try some legal black magic to get around that disclaimer. If lawsuits were to start flying, it would have a chilling effect on open source software, which - as we've just learned - is behind the scenes of a lot of today's technology.

A Sudden Serious Turn

Honestly, I was all set to write a post about Sharknado, when the not-guilty verdict in he George Zimmerman trial came out and that all seemed quite meaningless.

I posted a link on Twitter explaining the verdict.  That page was actually written before the verdict, but predicted that Zimmerman would walk.  Basically, the argument is this: the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and it's hard to prove guilt when there are no witnesses.

In general, I can buy that concept.  I'd rather know that some guilty people go free, than know that some innocent people are going to jail.  Really, the problem I have is in the thought experiment in which a black vigilante confronts and shots an unarmed white teenager.  There's no way the black Zimmerman goes free, and I doubt he'd even avoid the death penalty.

One comment I saw on Twitter was that regardless of anything shown in the trial, the fact is that had Zimmerman just stayed in his car instead of confronting Trayvon Martin, none of this would have happened and Martin would still be alive.  That's the particularly sad part of this case.  Even if we don't know the details, we do know that the incident was produced out of nothing: Zimmerman approached Martin thinking him to be a criminal; whatever Martin did to Zimmerman was in response to that, and possibly shaped by his anticipation of what Zimmerman's intentions were.  So essentially it was a crime produced by the expectation of crime.  

That produces quite a danger going forward: regardless of whether Zimmerman was a perpetrator, a victim, or a bit of both, the fact is he made a very bad decision, and that decision has been exonerated by the courts.  We can only hope that this verdict is not taken as an endorsement of aggressive, proactive self-defence.  Innocent or guilty, that strategy didn't work for Zimmerman; hopefully others will realize that.