Saturday, November 23, 2002

Evil Powers. I think when the government uses certain powers and capabilities in investigations, they should lose the ability to prosecute some crimes. I don't know about you, but I get a little scared when the guvment decides that the list of powers they need to fight terrorism is really quite extensive.  History is littered with examples of countries that decided to just hand power over to the government...wasn't this country founded on the notion that it's a bad idea?  The constitution is really supposed to mean something.  The "just trust us" mentality of the people in power is highly inappropriate.  At some point the governing authorities in this country need to be subject to laws and limits themselves.  Being able to jail someone for the rest of their life simply by calling them an "enemy combatant" is an act that belongs in a dictatorship, not in the seat of democracy. What the government is asking for now is the ability to use intelligence assets to aid domestic investigations of terrorists.  The problem is that the threshold for defining terrorism is completely arbitrary.  The products of these investigations can be used by the government in many ways, against its own citizens.  This is not an area where we should simply trust the powers that be. Back to my point -- what should the government lose?  Each technique of investigation has an associated cost to privacy and dignity for citizens.  If the government orders a wiretap in the course of a "terrorism" investigation, I think they should lose the ability to prosecute any evidence gained of minor crimes.  By invoking their ability to wiretap, they automatically grant a measure of immunity to the target.  As successively more invasive and questionable tactics are used by the government, they give up more and more of their ability to prosecute for offences based on what's found -- with the most invasive techniques only the most serious of crimes would be prosecuted. This rule should not be subject to limitations -- if you, as a government agent, invoke an extra-constitutional mechanism or use information derived from military assets, the government permanently forgoes the right to prosecute that citizen of any minor crime commited prior to the date of the surveillance. That will at least give us a chance of keeping our law enforcement out of temptation's way. It's not that I have a poor opinion of law enforcement; I don't.  But a recent run-in with local police (and I have never had anything but a completely professional interaction with police officers) has convinced me that, well, there's a good reason for the constitution and the case law to say what they do. I hope you think so too.  Otherwise... 7:21:15 PM

Saturday Morning. Let the arguments begin!  The only time the senior folks in the company can get together and have a proper product discussion is this morning.  Tedious but necessary... 11:06:43 AM

Crosscutting Knowledge. When you're building an ontology you tend to get lots of multiple inheritance.  You'll have an object that is one of those, plus one of those, and still yet one of those.  It's irritating.  When dealing with rule systems, you need to be able to use inheritance quite a bit -- there are large swaths of logic you want to apply to all similar objects, but in this case, well...similar doesn't just adhere to extends. I am producing aspects, where I declare entities, then link aspects to them.  The problem is that I get around one part of it (I can attach any aspects I like to anything I like), but hit smack into another: I really want to use inheritance on my aspects.  As in, some aspects are extensions of other aspects.  And then, of course, I found that I wanted to use multiple inheritance on my aspects.  Does it ever end?  You are in a twisty maze. 1:28:46 AM

Warm Hum. I just pulled out Pat Metheny's Road to You.  It's a connection back to my university days -- so beautiful to listen to, so calming.  It's been a stormy week. Connections are mostly what I'm thinking about right now.  When we know one thing has to have a connection to something else, we usually know more than that.  We can characterize the connection with constraints, and when something else comes along that looks right, we can begin to make the connection real.  We can start out with low levels of confidence, and increase them slowly.  There's a lot about the world around us that responds to simple pattern matching.  Like when you find your stride in your life, or your career.  Things that give you pleasure to think about.  It's about figuring out your own constraints on the connections you need to make in your life, with those around you, and to the work you need to do.  You'll never make a mark if you are firmly connected, constrained...needing to do it. 12:02:24 AM