Is"privacy" a right?

Some 40 years ago I wrote a book having to do with the right to privacy. I did not at the time think it important to define what it was that I was talking about. Everyone knew what privacy was. It had long ago been declared a "right", memorably by a pair of Boston law partners, Samuel D. Warren and Louis Brandeis when, in the Harvard Law Review of December 15, 1890, they declared that:

Recent inventions and business methods call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection of the person, and for securing to the individual what Judge Cooley calls the right "to be let alone" Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life; and numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that "what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops." For years there has been a feeling that the law must afford some remedy. .

So matters stood at the time my book appeared. I felt no need for a close definition of a right as elusive as privacy. After all, as the sainted Augustine of Hippo pointed out that while everyday language about time may be inaccurate, people still manage to understand each other. Justice Potter Stewart could just as well have been talking about the concept of privacy as well as he did pornography when he wrote the famous words, in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."

No more. As Esther Dyson reflects:

Privacy is a public Rorschach test: Say the word aloud, and you can start any number of passionate discussions. One person worries about governmental abuse of power; another blushes about his drug use and sexual history; a third vents outrage about how corporations collect private data to target their ads or how insurance companies dig through personal medical records to deny coverage to certain people. Some fear a world of pervasive commercialization, in which data are used to sort everyone into one or another "market segment"-the better to cater to people's deepest desires or to exploit their most frivolous whims. Others fret over state intrusion and social strictures.

The question now is whether any use is served by carrying on a discussion of a subject as if it were an umbrella covering, for example, a woman's right to choose, "identity theft", industrial espionage, Googling. . .Why trouble our deliberations, and invite mischief, by making of a "right", no less, anything as unspecifiable as the concept of "privacy"? The Stanford Encyclopedia notes that:

There are several skeptical and critical accounts of privacy. According to one well known argument there is no right to privacy and there is nothing special about privacy, because any interest protected as private can be equally well explained and protected by other interests or rights, most notably rights to property and bodily security

The "one well known argument" was made by Judith Jarvis Thomson who has written:

Perhaps the most striking thing about the right to privacy is that nobody seems to have any very clear idea what it is. Consider, for example, the familiar proposal that the right to privacy is the right ''to be let alone." On the one hand, this doesn't seem to take in enough. The police might say, "We grant we used a special X-ray device on Smith, so as to be able to watch him through the walls of his house; we grant we trained an amplifying device on him so as to be able to hear everything he said; but we let him strictly alone: we didn't touch him, we didn't even go near him-our devices operate at a distance." Anyone who believes there is a right to privacy would presumably believe that it has been violated in Smith's case; yet he would be hard put to explain precisely how, if the right to privacy is the right to be let alone. And on the other hand, this account of the right to privacy lets in far too much. If I hit Jones on the head with a brick I have not let him alone. Yet, while hitting Jones on the head with a brick is surely violating some right of Jones', doing it should surely not turn out to violate his right to privacy. Else, where is this to end? Is every violation of a right a violation of the right to privacy?

Good question.

One is reminded of line from Kenneth Koch's One Train May Hide Another:

In a poem, one line may hide another line,
As at a crossing, one train may hide another train.
That is, if you are waiting to cross
The tracks, wait to do it for one moment at
Least after the first train is gone. And so when you read
Wait until you have read the next line--
Then it is safe to go on reading. . .

On the track beyond the one marked "privacy" is the train that may better carry us to where we wish to go, namely the one marked "fourth amendment." It asserts that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The operative phrase is "secure in their persons." Considering the Moebius strip made of the Second Amendment in order to create today's National Rifle Association, the extrapolation needed to make the Fourth Amendment into a place where all of the interests in Esther Dyson's list would be protected should cause no sweat. The rule book is already filled with arguments and annotation on the matter. To wit, this from Find Law:

The premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize has been discredited. . . . We have recognized that the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of privacy rather than property, and have increasingly discarded fictional and procedural barriers rested on property concepts."

It will take a lot of negotiation yet to formulate what it takes to be secure in one's own person in today's environment. We might begin by asking ourselves what it would take to achieve that equality of conditions of which Tocqueville spoke.









.

The Legacy

Lest we forget all of the things that Bush brought to the presidency.

Some notes on terrorism

    1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).
    "If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in Fr. National Convention, 1794]
    General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by terror" first recorded 1823. Terrorist in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine -- earlier it was used of extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. terroriste. The tendency of one party's terrorist to be another's guerilla or freedom fighter was noted in ref. to the British action in Cyprus (1956) and the war in Rhodesia (1973). The word terrorist has been applied, at least retroactively, to the Maquis resistance in occupied France in World War II (e.g. in the "Spectator," Oct. 20, 1979).
    Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
    - ter·ror·less  /-l&s/ adjective
    “Terrorism”
    01/01/2003 GMT
    Terrorism is the unconventional use of violence for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare.
    "Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard" for human life. The term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified. According to definition of terrorism typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts, and non-governmental organizations, "terrorists" are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces and who don't adhere to their rules, and who are therefore regarded as "rogue actors".
    Etymology
      Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
      1 : a state of intense fear
      2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
      4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
      The term "terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme, which is based on the Latin language verbs terrere (to frighten) and deterrere (to frighten from). It dates to 1795 when it was used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club in their rule of Revolutionary France, during the so-called "Reign of Terror". Jacobins are rumored to have coined the term "terrorists" to refer to themselves. Acts described as Jacobin Club "terrorisme" were mostly cases of arrest and execution of opponents as a mean of frightening the "enemies of the Revolution
      synonym see FEAR
      3 : REIGN OF TERROR
      Although the term is often used imprecisely, there have been many attempts by various law enforcement agencies and public organizations to develop more precise working definitions of terrorism
      The United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention has proposed a short legal definition —that "[an act of "terrorism"is] the peacetime equivalent of a war crime." A U.S. court found that "the malice associated with "terrorist attacks" transcends even that of premeditated murder."
      Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
      1 : a state of intense fear
      2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
      3 : REIGN OF TERROR
      4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
      synonym see FEAR
    Official definitions of "terrorism" tend to be relativist, because views toward particular acts of political violence are often only subjective, and rarely aim to objectivity. For example, according to the United States Department of Defense, "terrorism"is:
    "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
    This definition is vague because it relies on unclear terms which are left to interpretation —terms such as "unlawful violence," "intended to coerce or intimidate," "the pursuit of goals..." all can easily be applied to violent actions by state actors, though the above definition suggests such can be "lawful."
    Like all political ideas, the meaning of the term "terrorism" has evolved in response to circumstances. The words "terrorism" and "terror" originally referred to methods employed by regimes to control their own populations through fear, a tactic seen in totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. As well at it was used by those regimes to qualify resistance movements.
    In response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, political leaders from Europe, North America, Asia, and the Middle East have placed the phenomenon of "terrorism" within the context of a global struggle against systems of government perceived by those accused of using "terrorist" tactics as harmful to their interests. The European Union includes in its 2004 definition of "terrorism" the aim of "destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country."
    Causes
    Theories on the causes of terrorism include:
    Sociological explanations, which focus on the position of the perpetrators in society
    Conflict theory which examines their relationship to those in power
    Ideological explanations, which focus on the differences in ideology, and the different goals of the ideologies
    Media theory explanations, which treat "terror" acts as a form of communication.
    Separatism
    During much of the 20th century, the term "terrorism" was primarily applied to nationalist movements of various types. Most of them were separatist movements, seeking to create a new independent nation-state on the territory of a larger, existing state. There were also some cases of non-state irredentist violence, seeking to annex territory. Classic counter-terrorist operations were a feature of the decolonization in Africa and the Middle East.
    Perpetrators
    Acts of "terrorism" can be carried out by individuals or groups. According to some definitions, clandestine or semi-clandestine state actors may also carry out attacks outside the framework of a state of war. The most common image of "terrorism" is that it is carried out by small and secretive cells, highly motivated to serve a particular cause. However, some acts have been committed by individuals acting alone, while others are alleged to have had the backing of established states. Over the years, many people have attempted to come up with a "terrorist" profile to attempt to explain these individuals' actions through their psychology and social circumstances.
    Responses to terrorism
    Responses to "terrorism" are broad in scope. They can include re-alignments of the political spectrum and reassessments of fundamental values. The term counter-"terrorism" has a narrower connotation, implying that it is directed at terrorist actors.
    Military intervention
    "Terrorism" has often been used to justify military intervention in countries where suspects could be found. That was the false justification used for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and one reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was also a stated justification for the second Russian invasion of Chechnya.
    Source: wikipedia.org
    First rate source: http://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/conferences/covar/Program/novotny.pdf
 

Infernal Optimism

Optimism has gotten a bad press lately. This is because optimism -- the belief that the architect of the future, the God of your choice, takes sides and that it is your side that it’s on -- has gotten us into a lot of trouble, including the Iraq war and a history-making banking crisis. In truth, optimism has, except among True Believers, long been something of a hard sell. There was a time when an American audience would ingest without a big rock of salt Ralph Waldo Emerson's claim, in an 1844 speech before The Mercantile Library Association, that "America is the country of the future. It is a country of beginnings, of projects, of vast designs and expectations." Today's politicians strum a similar tune, but only because it is expected of them, not because the airs they whistle offer as much comfort as they once did.

Not that optimism has ever been an easy sell, not even in Emerson's time. The word itself started out under a cloud. It made ts first appearance, as "optimisme", in the February, 1737 number of a French Jesuit journal, Mémoires de Trévoux. Its author coined the word as a means to have some fun at the expense of the German polymath Gottfried Leibniz. Leibniz had proposed that God had -- I hope that I get this straight -- created the "best (i.e. the optimum) of all possible worlds" given what He had to work with, among components of good and evil. (This seems to me to raise more questions than it answers, but I must, perforce, leave that to the philosophers.)

Voltaire soon picked up the baton with his creation of the buffoonish stand-in for Leibniz, Dr. Pangloss, in Candide, or Optimism. I can't improve on the Wikipedia summary:

The novella begins with a young man, Candide, who is living a sheltered life in an Edenic paradise and being indoctrinated with Leibnizian optimism (or simply optimism) by his tutor, Pangloss. The work describes the abrupt cessation of this existence, followed by Candide's slow, painful disillusionment as he witnesses and experiences great hardships in the world. Voltaire concludes with Candide, if not outright rejecting optimism, advocating an enigmatic precept, "we must cultivate our garden", in lieu of the Leibnizian mantra of Pangloss, "all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.”

With the great international success of Candide, optimism suffered an important setback.

Back even in Herman Melville’s time, Americans were of (at the least) two minds about optimism. One of Melville's most celebrated creations, Bartleby the Scrivener, took as his mantra "I would prefer not to." The critic Richard Chase remarks that Melville

learned to say 'no' to the boundlessly optimistic commercialized creed of most Americans, with its superficial and mean conception of the possibilities of human life, its denial of all the genuinely creative or heroic capacities of man, and his fear and dislike of any but the mildest truths. Melville's 'no' finds expression in the tragic-comic tale of Bartleby the Scrivener. . "

Even so, taking one thing with another, Americans remained, on the whole, optimistic despite disasters, financial and otherwise, right up until the Great Depression. Belief in the inevitability of progress was oxygen to a damn-the-consequences surge of innovation. Take as emblematic the creations of the mechanical engineer turned chemist Thomas Midgley (His years were 1889-1944.) The historian J.R. McNeil remarked that Midgley "had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth history."

Midgley's story was told compellingly by Mark Bernstein in the Spring 2002 issue of American Heritage [The article can be found in the archives at americanheritage.com] Bernstein writes that:

When the Arizona Diamondbacks won the World Series last fall, team officials rushed to thank everyone who had contributed, from the players to the owner to government officials and fans. No one mentioned the name of Thomas Midgley, yet without him, there might well be no Diamondbacks, for his two great discoveries made today ’ s Southwest possible. Only the hardiest souls braved Arizona ’ s desert heat until Midgley ’ s development of Freon made air conditioning commonplace. Similarly, his leaded gasoline allowed the high - performance engines that the region’s long distances and tall mountains demand. Before him, air conditioning was reserved for a few large public buildings and wealthy homeowners; owning a refrigerator required a mass of bulky and dangerous machinery in the basement; and cars couldn't climb hills or hit top speed without sputtering dangerously. Decades after he died, a new generation of scientists would learn that both of Midgley’s great discoveries had come with great costs attached. The gasoline that had revved up America’s cars was also dumping lead into the atmosphere, and the chlorofluorocarbons that had cooled the nation and chilled its food were also destroying the earth’s protection against the sun’s rays.

(Midgley's life ended in a manner few would wish on anyone. In 1940 he contracted polio, and for a period was trapped in an iron lung. Then, in 1944 “he met a sudden and shocking end. He disliked being lifted out of bed to his wheelchair, so he had used his training as a mechanical engineer to design a harness and a system of pulleys that allowed him to move about unaided. On the morning of November 2, 1944, his wife found him hanging from his contrivance, strangled to death. “)

As optimism began its long decline into its present sicklied condition, it attracted more and more modifiers -- cautious, reckless, overheated, tip-toed, heedless, relentless, guarded. . . A while back, I began a catalogue of adjectives but soon gave it up as the list began to creep toward the size of my old Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. This trail of modifiers would tempt us to believe that perhaps we aren't as reckless about things as we used to be, when maybe we're just reckless about different things. Like climbing aboard a winged machine confident against all intuition that 20 tons of flesh, metal and baggage will take to the air as if to be a bird, rise to an unbirdly altitude, and deposit us and our laptop safely at a place miles, thousands of miles even, from where we began. There are people about who will tell you that the Hadron collider is an act of the most distressingly reckless form of optimism and that we shall all disappear into a black hole as a result.

Occasionally, one might find a Jesuit among one's fellow passengers aboard an airliner. I feel as if I ought to find occasion to ask one of them what their 18th century forebears had against optimism. Did they, perhaps, know something we didn’t? At this distance it’s hard to tell. Perhaps they mocked Leibniz only because, as Voltaire points out in the Preface to his Poem on Natural Law (written in 1751/1752) that the theologians very correctly saw through the optimists' argument, that this is the best world possible, and that it relegated the Fall, redemption and salvation to a strictly subordinate role in men's lives. Whatever.

Perhaps it is an "appropriate" optimism that we hanker for. The objection seems obvious: how are we to know in advance what is appropriate? We try, certainly, with our fretful planning and environmental impact reports only to find, as if we needed reminding, that things are a lot more complicated, more inter-hooked, than we realized, and so we let ourselves in for another set of unforeseen consequences. Entire literatures have sprung into foliage around such questions as “Is recycling self-defeating?”Thus we spend time, increasingly precious time, wondering how we got ourselves into this pickle, and how might we get out of it?

Perhaps the ancient Greeks and their predecessors had no need for the lexical equivalent of optimisme because they knew their gods intimately, and which of them ruled over what and how, if possible, to stay on good terms with them. It is only recently, as these things are reckoned, that we have come to have faith that whomever, or whatever, is in charge of the future will tilt the great pinball machine of life in our favor. I suppose that what Melville had in mind is what I think of as "infernal optimism". This is the form of optimism, regnant during the early days and adolescence of the Industrial Revolution, which tended to ignore the Law of Unintended Consequences and that the creator would insure Progress. Fat chance.

candide

Sure enough

"If money isn't loosened up," said
President Bush of the U.S. economy, "this sucker could go down."

Norwegian Guide

Catherine

Kristin

Culinary delight in the making.

Cousins

Chessie and Juliet

The delights of summer.

Ol' Rockin Chair

Looking good

Look who is here.

The Slough

Walkway

Francesca and friend

What would Solon say?

Solon

Juliet

Some friends

McCain assesses his chances

The relentless vetting he'll get shows him standing by the curb on Pennsylvania Avenue weighed down with the baggage from the Bush years.

The Back of the Napkin.

Works for me. Get a stack of napkins and a few (preferably colored) pencils and give it a try. There are several You Tube clips that Roan has made (The one for a Google group that runs for about an hour is the most helpful.) to illustrate his methods.

The rule of fifty

Nancy Pearl, a former librarian of the enviable Seattle Public Library library, and onetime regular contributor to N.P.R., once suggested that one is obligated to read fifty pages into a book before deciding whether it is worth further effort; until, that is, one reaches the age of fifty. After that, one may deduct one page per birthday, so that at age 75, for instance, one is obligated to read only 25 pages, and so forth. By inference from her salubrious formula, if we live long enough we are truly entitled to judge a book by its cover. Long live Nancy Pearl!

Noah Webster turns 250

As we celebrate 250 years since Noah Webster's birth, here are a few remarks by Professor Jill Lepore (Harvard):

"Webster at 65 was a failed schoolmaster, a passable flutist, a lousy lawyer, an intriguing essayist, an inexhaustible lobbyist, a shrill editor, a pompous lecturer, and a man once dubbed "critick and coxcomb general of the United States. But he was undoubtedly also a prominent American citizen and to many Americans an eminent and admirable man of letters."

Coincidence? You decide.

Every high school class, or so it seems, harbors a class brain, an "Einstein", to go along with the class clown. In my senior class the post was held by a young man, I'll call him Albert, who did not at all fit the stereotypical nerd: Coke bottle glasses, shirt pocket protectors, pimpled face' except that he seemed constantly distracted by something he saw or heard out in the middle distance. That plus the fact that his socks only occasionally matched. One would come across Albert tall, pale and as if in need of a good breakfast, between classes and be rewarded with his latest speculation on "Why is there something rather than nothing? " or some news of the quirks of quarks, and then, abruptly, "Which direction did I come from?" and, on being told, might say, "Oh good. Then I've already eaten lunch."

Albert and I became good friends but confine our conversations these days mostly to e-mail. On December 6 he sent me the following posting:

Only 222 shopping days until St. Swithin's Day. Moreover, 2(2+2+2) =the number of the current month, while 2+2+2 = the day of the month. Coincidence? You decide.

Albert helpfully adds this, from the online Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Very little is known of this saint's life, for his biographers constructed their "Lives" long after his death and there is hardly any mention of him in contemporary documents. Swithin was one of the two trusted counsellors of Egbert, King of the West Saxons (d. 839), helping him in ecclesiastical matters, while Ealstan of Sherborne was his chief advisor He probably entrusted Swithin with the education of his son Ethelwulf and caused the saint to be elected to the Bishopric of Winchester in succession to Helmstan. His consecration by Ceolnoth, Archbishop of Canterbury, seems to have taken place on 30 October, 852. On his deathbed Swithin begged that he should be buried outside the north wall of his cathedral where passers-by should pass over his grave and raindrops from the eaves drop upon it."

Surely, you recall the girls of our deep youth skipping rope to:

St. Swithin's day if thou dost rain
For forty days it will remain
St. Swithin's day if thou be fair
For forty days 'twill rain nae mair

Albert's spoof is at those "for whom life is too uncertain to live with, and so they have to make things up." Religions are high on Albert's list of made-up things ("Some other time.") but what bothers him particularly are what he calls "folk voodoo" like the "coincidences" that clog up the internet these days. The mathematicians Edward B. Burger and Michael Starbird in their dandy Coincidences, Chaos and All That Math Jazz: Making Light of Weighty Ideas offer a particularly vivid example.

It's just too eerie to be true, and yet .. :

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860. John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960.

Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy. Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808. Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839. Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland.

A week before Kennedy was shot, he was in . . . well, you get the idea.

Unbelievable! What are the chances? What's going on?

The authors elaborate instructively on the familiar fact that in any group of 45 people, there is a 95 per cent chance that two of them will have the same birthday. They go on to demonstrate that the more data you accumulate on two human subjects, the more is the likelihood of discovering coincident points in their lives. In the case of Presidents, nearly everything they say or do or that happens to them in the course of their lives is duly recorded and amassed somewhere or other. What's more, the computer makes possible more data density than ever, together with the means to manipulate it, with the result that discovery of coincidences abound.

Much of this coincidence mining is for the amusement of those who have too much time on their hands. Too much of it, though, in Albert's view, serves as a way to feed either a popular paranoia or a hunger for a faith among the susceptible or, in the hands of unscrupulous puppeteers, both. "Are these coincidences what is meant by intelligent design'?" Albert snarls, with, one imagines, Thomas Hobbes whispering in his ear and egging him on. Perhaps you can't fool all of the people all of the time; but what are the odds?

One year at a time.

Nancy Pearl, a former librarian of the enviable Seattle Public Library library, and formerly a regular contributor to National Public Radio, once suggested that one is obligated to read fifty pages into a book before deciding whether it is worth further effort; until, that is, one reaches the age of fifty. After that, one may deduct one page per birthday, so that at age 75, for instance, one is obligated to read only 25 pages, and so forth. By inference from her salubrious formula, if we live long enough we are truly entitled to judge a book by its cover. Long live Ms.Pearl!

A chilling frost

"The (subpoena's) chilling effect on expressive e-commerce would frost keyboards across America. Well-founded or not, rumors of an Orwellian federal criminal investigation into the reading habits of Amazon's customers could frighten countless potential customers into canceling planned online book purchases. ... The subpoena is troubling because it permits the government to peek into the reading habits of specific individuals without their knowledge or permission. It is an unsettling and un-American scenario to envision federal agents nosing through the reading lists of law-abiding citizens while hunting for evidence against somebody else."

-- U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker, in a recently unsealed ruling that led federal prosecutors to withdraw their subpoena, made in the course of a fraud investigation, for the identities of 24,000 people who bought used books on Amazon

Beats shock and awe

APPENDIX IV Twenty-Seven Articles* by T. E. Lawrence, August 1917 The following notes have been expressed in commandment form for greater clarity and to save words. They are, however, only my personal conclusions, arrived at gradually while I worked in the Hejaz and now put on paper as stalking horses for beginners in the Arab armies. They are meant to apply only to Bedu: townspeople or Syrians require totally different treatment. They are of course not suitable to any other person's need, or applicable unchanged in any particular situation. Handling Hejaz Arabs is an art, not a science, with exceptions and no obvious rules. At the same time we have a great chanceeast there: the Sherif trusts us, and has given us the position (towards his Government) which the Germans wanted to win in Turkey. If we are tactful we can at once retain his good will. and carry out our job - but to succeed we have got to put into it all the interest and energy and skill we possess. 1. Go easy just for the first few weeks. A bad start is difficult to atone for, and the Arabs form their judgements on externals that we ignore. When you have reached the inner circle in a tribe you can do as you please with yourself and them. 2. Learn all you can about your Ashraf and Bedu. Get to know their families, clans and tribes, friends and enemies, wells, hills and roads. Do all this by listening and by indirect enquiry. Do not ask questions. Get to speak their dialect of Arabic, not yours. Until you can understand their allusions avoid getting deep into conversation, or you will drop bricks. Be a little stiff at first. 3. In matters of business deal only with the commander of the army, column or party in which you serve. Never give orders to anyone at all, and reserve your directions or advice for the C.O., however great the temptation (for efficiency's sake) of dealing direct with his underlings. Your place is advisory, and your advice is due to the commander alone. Let him see that this is your conception of your duty, and that his is to be the sole executive of your joint plans. 4. Win and keep the confidence of your leader. Strengthen his prestige at your expense before others when you can. Never refuse or quash schemes he may put forward: but ensure that they are put forward in the first instance privately to you. Always approve them, and after praise modify them insensibly, causing the suggestions to come from him, until they are in accord with your own opinion. When you attain this point, hold him to it, keep a tight grip of his ideas, and push him forward as firmly as possible, but secretly so that no one but himself (and he not too clearly) is aware of your pressure. 5. Remain in touch with your leader as constantly and unobtrusively as you can. Live with him, that at mealtimes and at audiences you may be naturally with him in his tent. Formal visits to give advice are not so good as the constant dropping of ideas in casual talk. When stranger sheikhs come in for the first time to swear allegiance and offer service, clear out of the tent. If their first impression is of foreigners in the confidence of the Sherif, it will do the Arab cause much harm. 6. Be shy of too close relations with the subordinates of the expedition. Continued intercourse with them will make it impossible for you to avoid going behind or beyond the instructions that the Arab C.O. has given them on your advice: and in so disclosing the weakness of his position you altogether destroy your own. 7. Treat the sub chiefs of your force quite easily and lightly. In this way you hold yourself above their level. Treat the leader, if a Sherif, with respect. He will return your manner, and you and he will then be alike, and above the rest. Precedence is a serious matter among the Arabs, and you must attain it. 8. Your ideal position is when you are present and not noticed. Do not be too intimate, too prominent, or too earnest. Avoid being identified too long or too often with any tribal sheikh, even if C.O. of the expedition. To do your work you must be above jealousies, and you lose prestige if you are associated with a tribe or clan, and its inevitable feuds. Sherifs are above all blood-feuds and local rivalries, and form the only principle of unity among the Arabs. Let your name therefore be coupled always with a Sherif's, and share his attitude towards the tribes. When the moment comes for action put yourself publicly under his orders. The Bedu will then follow suit. 9. Magnify and develop the growing conception of the Sherifs as the natural aristocracy of the Arabs. Inter-tribal jealousies make it impossible for any sheikh to attain a commanding position, and the only hope of union in nomad Arabia is that the Ashraf be universally acknowledged as the ruling class. Sherifs are half-townsmen, half-nomad, in manner and life, and have the instinct of command. Mere merit and money would be insufficient to obtain such recognition: but the Arab reverence for pedigree and the prophet gives hope for the ultimate success of the Ashraf. 10. Call your Sherif 'Sidi' in public and in private. Call other people by their ordinary names, without title. In intimate conversation call a Sheikh 'Abu Annad', 'Akhu Alia' or some similar by-name. 11. The foreigner and Christian is not a popular person in Arabia. However friendly and informal the treatment of yourself may be, remember always that your foundations are very sandy ones. Wave a Sherif in front of you like a banner, and hide your own mind and person. If you succeed you will have hundreds of miles of country and thousands of men under your orders, and for this it is worth bartering the outward show. 12. Cling tight to your sense of humour. You will need it every day. A dry irony is the most useful type, and repartees of a personal and not too broad character will double your influence with the chiefs. Reproof if wrapped up in some smiling form will carry further and last longer than the most violent speech. The power of mimicry or parody is valuable but use it sparingly for wit is more dignified than humour. Do not cause a laugh at a Sherif except amongst Sherifs. 13. Never lay hands on an Arab: you degrade yourself. You may think the resultant obvious increase of outward respect a gain to you: but what you have really done is to build a wall between you and their inner selves. It is difficult to keep quiet when everything is being done wrong, but the less you lose your temper the greater your advantage. Also then you will not go mad yourself. 14. While very difficult to drive, the Bedu are easy to lead, if you have the patience to bear with them. The less apparent your interferences the more your influence. They are willing to follow your advice and do what you wish, but they do not mean you or anyone else to be aware of that. It is only after the end of all annoyances that you find at bottom their real fund of good will. 15. Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them. Actually also, under the very odd conditions of Arabia, your practical work will not be as good as perhaps you think it is. 16. If you can, without being too lavish forestall presents to yourself. A well placed gift is often most effective in winning over a suspicious sheikh. Never receive a present without giving a liberal return, but you may delay this return (while letting its ultimate certainty be known) if you require a particular service from the giver. Do not let them ask you for things, since their greed will then make them look upon you only as a cow to milk. 17. Wear an Arab headcloth when with a tribe. Bedu have a malignant prejudice st the hat, and believe that our persistence in wearing it (due probably itish obstinacy of dictation) is founded on some immoral or irreligious iple. A thick headcloth forms a good protection against the sun, and if you wear a hat your best Arab friends will be ashamed of you in public. 18. Dlisguise is not advisable. Except in special areas let it be clearly known that you are a British officer and a Christian. At the same time if you can wear Arab kit when with the tribes you will acquire their trust and intimacy to a degree impossible in uniform. It is however dangerous and difficult. They make no allowances for you when you dress like them. Breaches of etiquette not charged against a foreigner are not condoned to you in Arab clothes. You will be like an actor in a foreign theatre, playing a part day and night for months, without rest, and for an anxious stake. Complete success, which is when the Arabs forget your strangeness and speak naturally before you, counting you one of themselves, is perhaps only attainable in character: while half success (all that most of us will strive for - the other costs too much) is easier to win in British :things; and you yourself will last longer, physically and mentally, in the comfort :they mean. Also then the Turks will not hang you when you're caught. 19. If you wear Arab things, wear the best. Clothes are significant among the tribes, and you must wear the appropriate, and appear at ease in them. Dress like a Sherif - if they agree to it. 20. If you wear Arab things at all, go the whole way. Leave your English friends and customs on the coast, and fall back on Arab habits entirely. It is possible, starting thus level with them, for the European to beat the Arabs at their own game, for we have stronger motives for our action, and put more heart into it than they. If you can surpass them, you have taken an immense stride toward complete success, but the strain of living and thinking in a foreign and half­:-understood language, the savage food, strange clothes, and still stranger ways, with the complete loss of privacy and quiet, and the impossibility of ever relaxing your.watchful imitation of the others for months on end, provide such an added stress to the ordinary difficulties of dealing with the Bedu, the climate, and the Turkss, that this road should not be chosen without serious thought. 21. Religious discussions will be fairly frequent. Say what you like about your own side, and avoid criticism of theirs, unless you know that the point is external, when you may score heavily by proving it so. With the Bedu Islam is so all pervading an element that there is a little religiosity, little fervour, and no regard for externals. Do not think, from their conduct, that they are careless. their conviction of the truth of their faith, and its share in every act and thought and principle of their daily life is so intimate and intense as to be unconscious, unless roused by opposition. Their religion is as much a part of nature to them as is sleep, or food. 22. Do not try to trade on what you know of fighting. The Hejaz confounds ordinary tactics. Learn the Bedu principles of war as thoroughly and as quickly as you can, for till you know them your advice will be no good to the Sherif. Unnumbered generations of tribal raids have taught them more about some parts of the business than we will ever know. In familiar conditions they fight well, but strange events cause panic. Keep your unit small. Their raiding parties are usually from one hundred to two hundred men, and if you take a crowd they only get confused. Also their sheikhs, while admirable company commanders, are too set to learn to handle the equivalents of battalions or regiments. Don't attempt unusual things, unless they appeal to the sporting instinct Bedu have so strongly, or unless success is obvious. If the objective is a good one (booty) they will attack like fiends: they are splendid scouts, their mobility gives you the advantage that will win this local war, they make proper use of their knowledge of the country (don't take tribesmen to places they do not know), and the gazelle-hunters, who form a proportion of the better men, are great shots at visible targets. A sheikh from one tribe cannot give orders to men from another: a sherif is necessary to command a mixed tribal force. If there is plunder in prospect, and the odds are at all equal, you will win. Do not waste Bedu attacking trenches (they will not stand casualties) or in trying to defend a position, for they cannot sit still without slacking. The more unorthodox and Arab your proceedings the more likely you are to have the Turks cold, for they lack initiative and expect you to. Don't play for safety. 23. The open reason that Bedu give you for action or inaction may be true, but always there will be better reasons left for you to divine. You must find these inner reasons (they will be denied, but are none the less in operation) before shaping your arguments for one course or other. Allusion is more effective than logical exposition: they dislike concise expression. Their minds work just as ours do, but on different premises. There is nothing unreasonable, incomprehensible, or inscrutable, in the Arab. Experience of them, and knowledge of their prejudices will enable you to foresee their attitude and possible cause of action in nearly every case. 24. Do not mix Bedu and Syrians, or trained men and tribesmen. You will get work out of neither, for they hate each other. I have never seen a successful combined operation, but many failures. In particular, ex-officers of the Turkish army, however Arab in feelings and blood and language, are hopeless with Bedu. They are narrow-minded in tactics, unable to adjust themselves to irregular warfare, clumsy in Arab etiquette, swollen-headed to the extent of being incapable of politeness to a tribesman for more than a few minutes, impatient, and, usually, helpless on the road and in action. Your orders (if you were unwise enough to give any) would be more readily obeyed by Beduins than those of any Mohammedan Syrian officer. Arab townsmen and Arab tribesmen regard each other mutually as poor relations - and poor relations are much more objectionable than poor strangers. 25. In spite .of ordinary Arab example avoid too free talk about women. It is as difficult a subject as religion, and their standards are so unlike our own, that a remark harmless in English may appear as unrestrained to them, as some of their statements would look to us, if translated literally. 26 Be as careful of your servants as of yourself. If you want a sophisticated one you will probably have to take an Egyptian, or a Sudani, and unless you are very lucky he will undo on trek much of the good you so laboriously effect. Arabs will cook rice and make coffee for you, and leave you if required to do unmanly work like cleaning boots or washing. They are only really possible if you are in Arab kit. A slave brought up in the Hejaz is the best servant, but there are rules against British subjects owning them, so they have to be lent to you. In any case take with you an Ageyli or two when you go up country. They are the most efficient couriers in Arabia, and understand camels. 27. The beginning and ending of the secret of handling Arabs is unremitting study of them. Keep always on your guard; never say an inconsidered thing, or an unnecessary thing: watch yourself and your companions all the time: hear all that passes, search out what is going on beneath the surface, read their characters, discover their tastes and their weaknesses, and keep everything you find out to yourself. Bury yourself in Arab circles, have no interests and no ideas except the work in hand, so that your brain shall be saturated with one thing only, and you realise your part deeply enough to avoid the little slips that would undo e work of weeks. Your success will be just proportional to the amount of mental effort you devote to it. * First published in the Arab Bulletin, a spin-off from daily Military Intelligence Bulletins. A Lawrence biographer, Jeremy Wilson (from whose work this is reproduced), writes of it: “They provide a remarkable insight into the methods he used to direct operations without being seen to do so, and they have since been used in the training of Western advisers for many other theatres of war.”

I forget the source

A man in his nineties, dashingly attired, ascot in place, flower in lapel, subtle aftershave scent, sees seated at the bar a woman about in her eighties and equally well turned out. The man walks over to the bar, settles himself on the barstool next to the woman, and says: "Excuse me. Do I come here often?"

Too much information

"A book ought to have some excuse for being written," Joe Palmer began in a book he never finished. "Often this is left for the reader to discover, and all too frequently it is hidden too cleverly for him. . ."

Red Smith
Foreword to This Was Racing, by Joe H. Palmer

A Picture from an Institution

This earth carries aboard it many ordinary passengers; and it carries, also,a few very important ones. It is hard to know which people are, or were, or will be which. Great men may come to the door in carpet slippers, their faces like those of kindly more fretful old dogs, and not even know that they are better than you; a friend meets you after 15 years and the Nobel Prize, and he is sadder and fatter and all the flesh of his face has slumped an inch nearer the grave, but otherwise he is as of old They are not very important people. On the other hand, the president of your bank, the Vice Chancellor of the - no, not of the Reich, but of the School of Agriculture of the University of Wyoming : these, and many Princes and Powers and Dominions, are very important people; the quality of their voices has changed, and they speak more distinctly from the mounds upon which they stand, making sure that their voices come down to you.
Pictures from an Institution
Randall Jarrell

Of eavesdropping, torture and beyond

This is from Mr. Justice Frankfurter's dissent of more than half a century ago in a case of government eavesdropping.

"The law of this Court ought not to be open to the just charge of having been dictated by the 'odious doctrine', as Mr. Justice Brandeis called it, that the end justifies reprehensible means. To approve legally what we disapprove morally, on the ground of practical inconvenience, is to yield to a short-sighted view of practicality. It derives from a preoccupation with what is episodic and a disregard of long-run consequences. The method by which the state chiefly exerts an influence upon the conduct of its citizens, it was wisely said by Archbishop William Temple, is 'the moral qualities, which it exhibits in its own conduct'."