Political High-Tech

Let’s take a look at how technology and politics play together. To do this, we must ask “Is technology right-wing or left-wing? Using data from two websites (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php and http://government.zdnet.com/?p=8836&tag=nl.e620) we can look at how high-tech companies have bought politicians in each political party by the amount of their campaign contributions. Of course we have to keep in mind that these contributions are made in the name of “Political Action Committees” (PAC) and “individuals” since it is illegal for corporations to contribute directly. Let’s tell it like it is.

According to ZDNET.com, the high-tech community contributed more to the Obama campaign than to McCain. That correlates to the overall campaign expenditures in that Obama spent nearly $700 million, where McCain spent around $350 million.

Some of the big, high-tech, spenders were AT&T, Microsoft, Google, IBM, Verizon, BellSouth, and MCI. During the 2007-2008 election Obama’s technology contributors were: Microsoft Corp at $833,617, Google at $803,436, and IBM at $528,822.  In the same 2007-2008 election, John McCain’s gained support from AT&T at $201,438. It is plain to see that most support from these companies went to the Democrat candidate, but it is not always that way. ZDNET states that the Republicans outweighed contributions to Democrats by a small percentage during the waning years of the Clinton presidency. Contributions to the Democrats outweighed contributions to the Republicans by a small percentage during the Bush presidency. Let’s take a look at a much broader look by averaging political contributions of a few of these companies. The following figures breakdown the total contributions between Democrat and Republican party tickets.

AT&T:    Total contributions in the last 10 years: $44,361,209.

Democrats: 45% at $19,778,890 and Republicans: 55% at $24,496,932.

Total contributions in the 2008 election: $4,514,205

Democrats: 49% at $2,222,982 and Republicans: 51% at $2,282,623

Microsoft: Total contributions in the last 10 years: $20,221,604

Democrats: 53% at $10,748,115 and Rep: 47% at $9,408,095

Total contributions in the 2008 election: $3,302,491

Democrats: 73% at $2,396,960 and Republicans: 27% at $899,981

Verizon:  Total Contributions in the last 10 years: $18,868,752

Democrats: 41% at $7,695,922 and Republicans: 59% at $11,093,373

Total contributions in 2008: $2,507,019

Democrats: 50% at $1,259,585 and Republicans: 49% at $1,234,909

BellSouth:  Total contributions in the last 10 years: $12,993,782

Democrats:  46% at $5,915,983 and Republicans: 54% at $7,063,676

MCI:  Total contributions in the last 10 years: $8,093,472

Democrats: 47% at $3,772,425 and Republicans: 53% at $4,317,826

ENRON:  TOTAL contributions in the last 10 years:  $6,546,585

Democrats: 29% at $1,902,165  and Republicans: 71% at $4,642,420

Total contributions in the 2008 election: $3,050

Democrats: 75% at $2,300 and Republicans: 25% at $750

Ok, I had to throw Enron in for laughs. However, this is what happens when political purchasing doesn’t pay off. As for the totals in the examples I used, there has been more high-tech contributions to the Republican party over the past 10 years. This is probably due to the normal Republican support of big business. However, the big shift in Microsoft is very interesting. Their contributions over the past 10 years ran almost equal; but, the 2008 election shows them shifting ¾ of their contributions to the Democratic party. Without having research it in length, I think it had to do with Obama’s foreign policy in that he was supposed to open up and improve relationships with other countries which would allow Microsoft to expand into more countries. Just a thought. What really amazes me is how big business contributions tend to shift from one party to the other throughout different elections. I’m convinced that it goes like this: The party they contributed to failed to keep promises. Next election they support the opposing party. The party they contributed to failed to keep promises. Next election they support the opposing party. Sound like a broken record? Well, it is.

Government in the Cloud

There is a push for the Federal Government to venture into the “cloud”. That’s cloud computing. The Government has a massive IT infrastructure requiring a large amount of personnel to operate and maintain it. The cost is astronomical and the procurement process is lengthy, complicated, and many times, wasteful. I was a former Government Contracting Officer. I spent many September 30’s purchasing millions of dollars worth of IT equipment. “Spend it or lose it” was our motto, unfortunately. Money left over at the end of each fiscal year (September 30th for the Federal Government) would be dumped into fast purchases due to the “obligation by 12:00 midnight” rule. The fastest purchases were usually related to IT systems. I have purchased hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of computers which afterward, sit in a warehouse only to be outdated by the time resources were allocated to install them. Now, the General Services Administration (GSA) is venturing into a solution to this problem; Cloud Computing.

As briefly mentioned above, the Federal Government has an extensive infrastructure, a broad user base, a variety of missions, and complex applications. To address these challenges, the Federal CIO Council has ordered the government to take a look into cloud computing services. Some of the benefits include a reduction in data centers and server farms. This will decrease oversight and energy requirements involved in housing and cooling the servers.  According to the GSA, the Federal Government has hundreds of these centers around the country that often perform similar tasks, such as providing email or web hosting and are generally used at a fraction of their capability. They typically have large carbon footprints due to their enormous energy consumption, and have to comply with strict environmental controls. GSA feels that cloud computing can be viewed as the green computing option, as it promotes sustainability and has a much smaller carbon footprint by limiting duplicated efforts and utilizing computing power more efficiently. Cloud computing also offers scalability, meaning you can scale capacity and processing power on-demand.

Although cloud computing is evolving within the government, it is not yet an immediate solution for all government computing needs. Security is the main problem the government faces in the “cloud”.  As a solution, Jeremiah Grossman, founder and chief technology officer of White Hat Security, in Santa Clara, CA, says that a security audit should be part of the approval process, and government agencies should pay attention to what types of data are being handled by each cloud service. Grossman notes that it’s a good idea to check any Web application against common attacks used on the Internet, such as cross-site scripting. With that in mind, Grossman says, “From just general business and competition dynamics, I think cloud computing can advance Web security like nothing else before.” When one customer demands certain security features of a cloud service, those features are automatically delivered to other customers of the same service, he says. (http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/23501/)

Having transmitted secret data during wartime, I would have felt less comfortable knowing it went through the “cloud”. I think the process is far too new in the development phase. I’m not very smart when it comes to IT but I’m pretty sure that secret data floating around in centralized, civilian data bases would pose a security threat. I also think that routine unclassified data on these data bases would create a vulnerability. Compiled data is like putting a puzzle together; once together, the picture is clear. In other words, putting bits and pieces of data together could create a classified situation.  I’m not totally against the cloud, but I think more innovations need to evolve before classified information is transferred over it. For now, we should let CNN keep handling our secret data and keep the politicians in the “cloud”.

Smart Phone Technology

Sarin and VX are nerve agent chemicals that were developed for war. Both come in liquid form and are dispersed in explosive warheads. Generally, the warhead is programmed to explode a thousand feet, more or less, over a targeted area to allow the chemical to “rain down”  on the area. Of course, the chemicals could be dispersed by simply using a typical garden sprayer. VX has a consistency of diesel fuel; thick and evaporates slowly making it a contact hazard. Sarin, on the other hand, has a consistency of gasoline and evaporates fast making it more of a vapor hazard. A 100 milligram drop (size of a pin head) on the skin will kill a human in less than three minutes. Vapors from each are also as deadly. The military has several methods to detect the chemicals. The most basic method is to use a young Airman or Private. You may think I’m joking but this is in the manuals as a last alternative. However, the primary methods are M8 paper, Chemical Agent Monitor (CAM), and the M22 chemical detection instrument. M8 paper is a chemically treated paper that changes certain colors when it is dabbed into the nerve agent. The CAM and M22 both have vacuum systems that basically “sniff” the air and sounds an alarm when the chemical is detected. These instruments costs thousands of dollars and contain radioactive materials. M8 paper has a short shelf life. Therefore, neither are practical for private ownership.

With the increased terror threats within the United States, it’s probably a matter of time until a chemical such as Sarin or VX is released on American citizens. Since it is not practical for civil agencies to purchase and maintain sophisticated equipment like the military, there is going to be a possible solution in a couple years; maybe sooner.

According to Smartplanent (http://www.smartplanet.com), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is in the process of developing a smartphone application that could one day protect us from a deadly chemical attack. With a cost of $1 per sensor, the “Cell-All” would equip a cell phone with a sensor meant to detect hazardous substances. Like the CAM and M22, the Cell-All sensor “sniffs” the air for certain volatile chemical compounds. If a personal safety threat is detected — for example, a chlorine gas leak — the user would receive a warning via noise, vibration, text message or phone call. But if the threat detected is more serious with broader safety implications – such as a sarin gas attack — the time, location and compound name would be sent to an emergency operations center within 60 seconds. The automatic system would minimize human error and get emergency responders to the scene fast. To comply with privacy concerns, the department said the sensor would only operate on an opt-in basis and that data would be transmitted anonymously. Stephen Dennis, Cell-All Program Manager said, “Privacy is as important as technology. After all, for Cell-All to succeed, people must be comfortable enough to turn it on in the first place.”

The availability of this technology is still several years out but the department is currently pursuing agreements with four cell phone manufacturers; Qualcomm, LG, Apple, and Samsung. 40 prototypes could be developed within the next year, including some that sense carbon monoxide and fire.

Given all the concerns many of us have with the Patriot Act, this may be one positive outcome. I have seen the effects of both Sarin and VX. I have actually handled it, of course I was wearing the military chemical ensemble and gas mask. Never the less, it was still “nerve” wrecking to have those droplets placed within two feet of my face with the chemical alarms sounding all around me. I would feel comfortable with people around me having this Cell-All technology. Unfortunate for them, by the time their phone alarms, they will be dead. But, that may give me time to run like hell.

Insurance Companies Access Facebook

In 1977, my grandfather gave me my first car. I was 14 years old. One year later, I came home from school one afternoon and found him sitting at the kitchen table wanting me to join him for a conversation. I could tell it wasn’t going to be good by the expression on his face. Reluctantly, I sit to hear what he had to say. He started the conversation by telling me the financial trouble we were in. I already knew we were broke; but, as for any 15-year-old, it was of little concern to me.

My grandparents raised me from age 2 and they always made sure we had the basic essentials. Up until now, I never knew some of the things he had done in the past to keep us fed and clothed. Well, I found out that day. He looked at me with a serious expression and said, “Son, I need you to go burn your car”. My heart sunk because I knew he wasn’t joking, and I knew there was no talking him out of it. He told me to clean out my most important belongings but leave things that could be replaced, such as the stereo, 8-track tapes, baseball glove, etc. He said that the investigator would find traces of these items, convincing him that the fire was an accident because people normally clean every thing out of the car before burning it. Next, he gave me step by step instructions in how to do it, where to do it, and exactly when to do it. I did it exactly as he instructed.

As I walked away from the towering flames, the horn started blowing as though it was screaming out in agony. I still have flashbacks every time someone blows their horn at me in traffic. I walked the dirt road to my uncle’s house and, with a fake panic, told him my car was on fire. He immediately broke into laughter and said, “Aw hell, old Jess is burning another one”. His reaction took me by surprise but I never said a word, one way or the other. Later on, others told me that my grandfather had done this many times before; and, for the real shocker, he had paid someone to burn one of our houses 9 years earlier. Of course, his goal in all these incidents was to defraud the insurance company to get cash.

I’m only telling this now because he is dead, I was a minor, the statute of limitations is well past, and it directly relates to the subject of this blog.

According to a TFTS Technology, Gadgets, Curiosities article (http://nexus404.com/Blog/), insurance companies are now trying to use people’s electronic media, such as Facebook accounts, to gather evidence to discredit claims for damages. The example they give is a Canadian woman who had been on extended sick leave for depression. The insurance company that was paying her sick leave salary found pictures on her Facebook account of her partying at local bars and enjoying tropical vacations. Although she argued that doctors encouraged her to partake in these activities to help her depression, the insurance company still terminated her coverage. In another Canadian case, an insurance company tried to subpoena a claimant’s private Facebook account to prove the person’s claim for long-term disabilities was a fraud. The judge in this case denied the request but that’s not always the case. I read some of the comments on these articles and found mixed opinions. Some people compared this to illegal entry into their homes by insurance companies. Others stated that if they had nothing to hide, then why should it matter (must have been an insurance lawyer).

I feel strongly against insurance companies accessing people’s electronic media for legal purposes  because electronic pictures, and even blog entries, can be altered and misleading. Notice I threw in “blog entries” as an attempted disclaimer for the first paragraph above. I think the best thing for me to do is cancel my Facebook and Twitter accounts as soon as this class is over. Having such a colorful upbringing, I’m always looking over both shoulders. It’s my luck that an insurance company will use this blog someday to discredit me on a legitimate claim.

As for my scenario above, one might ask if I would have put pictures of my car, in its finest hour, on Facebook; if Facebook had been available in 1978. The answer is NO. I would have, however, shown off a couple Polaroids of a good marshmallow toast that night while describing how they tasted like gas and burnt rubber.

Virtual Receptionist

    I despise calling the bank, drugstore, VA, or any business/agency with an endless web of an answering service. I really dislike the one’s that prompt me to speak the commands. Maybe it’s my fading Alabama accent, but I usually have to repeat the command several times before the Virtual Nazi either moves on to the next stage of the voice web or hangs up on me.

   It seems that most companies are replacing real people with phone forwarding and answering technology. Live receptionists are becoming a thing of the past.  Furthermore, if you happen to be the lucky one to finally speak to a “real person”, they are usually sitting in a cubical in India or the Philippians and barely speak English; that’s another story.

   Although many of us are very annoyed at this technology, John Dodge of SmartPlanet (http://www.smartplanet.com) identifies some benefits for having virtual receptionists. In his article, “Virtual Receptionists Replacing the Real Thing”, he points out that, unlike human receptionists, virtual receptionists have the capability of working 24/7 for a fraction of the cost and no benefits. For the business person, they can screen and forward calls no matter where you are. In line with his view, I think this technology is cost beneficial for companies. Onebox Receptionists Service costs $50 to $100 per month depending on the number of extensions. Not only can their virtual service screen and forward calls to your cell phone, they can also forward calls to your email. Another service provider, Voiceshot, allows you to manage your account on the web. The premier service provider I found is Davinci Virtual Receptionist. Their features include personal appointment scheduling, order processing, customer service, and live outbound and sales calling. Companies can hardly pass up these high-tech cost savings; especially in today’s economy.

   Overall, I can see the benefits of a virtual receptionist for any company or agency; however, I would like to see a study on how much business is lost because of this. There have been a couple times I have moved on to a competitor because of a non user-friendly voice web. One occasion, I was on hold for so long with a government agency, I sent them a fax (while remaining on hold) stating how long I had been on hold and the nature of the call. A real person called me back within minutes on my other line. I placed them on hold to disconnect from their virtual receptionist who I think was sleeping. Therefore, as a customer, I would rather talk to Big Bertha on a Friday evening who’s rude, crude, in complete relapse and late for an AA meeting in which she is the chairperson. I don’t like the Virtual Nazi.

Internet Crime

   Modern technology is a treasure vault for modern criminals and people with malicious intent. I just read on MSNBC’s website that a woman in Wyo. was raped because her ex-boyfriend posed as her on Craigslist claiming to have a “rape fantasy” and wanted to be assaulted. Even though she immediately reported the web post to law enforcement (who immediately had it taken off), it was too late. According to the article, a stranger showed up at her front door and raped her at knife-point in her living room. He claimed that he thought it was invited due to the false web ad. This is just one example of how modern technology has its dark side. It seems that the web is full of con-artists and criminals. I stress to all my kids not to believe ANYTHING they read from people they don’t know; and, be cautious even when they think they know who they are communicating with.

   I tried to sell a car on Auto Trader once and had an idiot from Spain try to con me out of $15k. Of course I knew the scam (the old Western Union trick), so I played him along for two weeks. Eventually, I got his phone number because he started calling me; especially after he sent the fake check. His phone number showed on my caller ID once and that gave me his approximate location in Madrid. He was probably Nigerian (he had the accent) according to my Secret Service contact. The Secret Service investigates international crimes.

   After two weeks, I put together a string of emails between us, the fake check he sent me, and his phone number; and, forwarded it to the Secret Service. Never heard the outcome, but I had my fun. In my last email back to him, I told him that HE had been scammed. I attached a video clip of actual footage of one of our snipers in Afghanistan blowing people apart. I told him I would be seeing him soon…..from a distance.  No reply.

   These are just two examples of how criminals use technology. Their tactics keep improving every day. If anyone ever offers a deal that sounds too good to be true; it IS too good to be true. I live by that rule and the fact that absolutely nothing in life is free. It’s too bad for the woman in Wyo. that the rapist didn’t think that way.

Obama’s FY 2011 Budget

President Obama’s $3.8 trillion proposed budget for 2011 includes a great deal of technological improvements and upgrades in several Federal Departments. The following summary is a compilation that was published by ZDNet, posted by Larry Dignan, http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=30283&tag=nl.e539:

Department of Defense will receive $548.9 billion,  3.4% higher than 2010, to improve their health IT infrastructure.

Department of Commerce budget, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is proposed to get $712 million for a variety of new technologies, ranging from nanotechnology and computer security advances to energy conservation systems.

National Science Foundation is getting an 8 percent funding increase with efforts to push along sustainability research and science education. Overall, the National Science Foundation is projected to have a $7.4 billion budget for fiscal 2011, up 8 percent from 2010

The Department of Energy’s proposed $28.4 billion fiscal 2011 budget includes $300 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy “to accelerate game-changing energy technologies in need of rapid and flexible experimentation or engineering.

Department of Health and Human Services is proposed to receive $81.3 billion; including $110 million for health IT coordination and research.

The Department of Homeland Security got a proposed $44 billion and there’s a $734 million chunk designed to deploy about 1,000 new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) screening machines at airport checkpoints and new explosive detection equipment for baggage screening.

The Department of Transportation is proposed to receive $1.14 billion, more than a 30 percent increase from 2010 for the Next Generation Air Transportation System.

The total Department of Treasury funding for fiscal 2011 is $13.94 billion, up from $13.5 billion in 2010, for customer service and data base improvements, and a better system implementation for collecting debts.

NASA’s budget is going up: $19 billion compared to $18.7 billion in 2010. However, the space operations budget is cut to $4.88 billion proposed for fiscal 2011, down from $6.15 billion in 2010.

Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel that was secretly organized during a “duck hunting” trip by a select group at Jekyll Island off the coast of Savannah, Georgia in November 1910. This Island had recently been purchased by J.P. Morgan. The seven men who attended this “hunting” trip represented approximately one-fourth of the total wealth of the entire world. They were

1. Nelson W. Aldrich, Republican “whip” in the Senate, Chairman of the National Monetary Commission AND father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

 2. Henry P. Davidson, Sr. Partner of JP Morgan Company

 3. Charles D. Norton, Pres. of 1st National Bank of New York

 4. A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury

 5. Frank A. Vanderlip, Pres. of the National City Bank of New York, representing William Rockefeller

 6. Benjamin Strong, head of J.P. Morgan’s Bankers Trust Company, later to become head of the System

 7. Paul M. Warburg, a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Company, representing the Rothschilds and Warburgs in Europe

The Fed is not controlled by the Federal Government, yet they control and print our currency. Independent stockholders, who look out for their personal interests, own the Fed. These wealthy bankers and certain special interest groups own the politicians (Democrats and Republicans).  Open your eyes! They have ruined our economy. We can’t afford the programs that are proposed by the politicians. We can’t afford to be the world’s police. We can’t afford world charity. Yet, they keep printing money and driving the economy into the ground. Our grandkids are going to have our country crash around them. Poor leadership, controlled by the wealthiest greed, was one of the major causes of the fall of the Holy Roman Empire. Their next step is to take guns away. They are going to have too because they are already taking our homes. People with guns are harder to evict. Do you realize that the big banks loose NOTHING when they foreclose on you? They gave you fake money to buy the house to begin with. The Fed prints it. They give it to the big banks. They loan it to you. You give it back to them with interest. Therefore, the interest is free money for them. They pocket it. The value of your life just decreased (inflation) and theirs increased. The cycle continues. It’s common arithmetic. 

VOTE THEM OUT!!! Vote Constitution Party. Vote Libertarian. Vote Independent. Vote for the politician that stands up and pisses us all off by cutting the programs we can’t afford. Vote for the one who pisses the world off by telling them we are not their protectors and charity givers. Vote for the one who will let the rich bankers go bankrupt when they make bad investments with money they don’t have anyway. Vote for the one who can’t afford a half billion dollars for a campaign budget. Vote for the one who doesn’t have to convince you that he or she is a patriot.

Unfortunately, we are going to hit bottom before we rise again so let’s get it over with before we become slaves in Colonial China of America.