In part 1 I developed 4 insights.  Insight 1 alone tells governments to stay dedicated to the good of the citizens, as they see it. I question the thinking of anyone who would choose terrorism as their means of communicating their ideas. After all, it would surely be much easier for them to just start a blog and write to their elected officials periodically. For the record, most of my elected officials (or one of their staff) write back. Those I have written to seem decent. I got a fair listen to my views. After all who would commit terror, for political reasons, when there are better, easier more effective non-violent ways to express political ideas?

Insight 2 alone tells us that, out of people born in this country, with any potential and competence are not getting involved in terrorism. They are finding better, non-violent ways to make a living and express their political thoughts and desires.

Insight 1and 2 together tell us where we can concentrate resources to maximum advantage: (1) we should try to catch terrorists coming in at the borders. It potentially bags all the guys who want to come here to settle a score. It is easier, cheaper and less invasive than surveilling millions of law abiding Americans. Right away we should stop spying on civil libertarians, peace protesters and minority rights activists… They plainly want to be part of the lawful, peaceful political process.

Insight 2 raises a good question: how do we redirect people who might consider joining these  terrorists to something more positive and more persuasive? One way would be to teach about the accomplishments of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Another would be to relate the story of the Irish Republican Army who gave up violence, because, after decades of attacks, violence was ineffective at creating political change. Doesn’t our government spend a lot of money here on schools and abroad on the Voice of America radio, etc. Why can’t they teach a little history lesson from time to time?

If we want to fight terrorism, we have to reach out to the morons, losers and dregs in our country, and show them a better way. We have to support democracy and liberty, both here and abroad, so that open free discussion will always be a better means of persuasion than violence. While fighting the terrorists of today, we must prevent the terrorists of tomorrow from starting down that path.

I believe there is also a more effective way to thwart those people who choose to commit terrorism for its own sake i.e. not for political persuasion. It sure seems like Insight 1 tells who they are… It seems like certain items such as guns or certain chemicals would be needed to commit a terrorist plot… Why don’t we put more effort into watching the tools of terrorism? Think about it:  some unarmed / unequipped man might want to commit terrorism, but what is he going to be able to do, so long as he is unable to acquire the items he needs to act? I am not saying we need more gun control, and I am not arguing that big brother should watch people more than ever. I am arguing that we should be smart about how we prevent terrorism, so that we can nab all the bad guys with out bothering everyone else. A good place to start would be to account for the 14,000 guns that went missing in Iraq.

Insight 3, alone, tells us that we can reduce the desire of these guys to attack America, by giving less support to foreign corrupt / brutal / repressive regimes.

This isn’t just code for taking a more neutral stance in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It is also meant to say that we need to choose our friends more carefully. We need to weigh the probability of engendering hatred when we support dictators. There will be some times that we need a key country (think of Saudi Arabia and its oil) to be stable. I think that in most of these other countries, like Somalia, or Afghanistan, that we don’t really need to prop up any certain government. Whatever government the people in those countries choose, should be good enough for us. It would certainly be cheaper and easier. It would respect our Democratic traditions. It might even be that these governments could do a goood job if we didn’t fund covert operations and coups there (think of our involvement in Latin America, especially in the 1970s and 80s)

Insight 4, alone tells us, that we can reduce the desire of these guys to come attack us, by not dropping bombs on them in their countries. It’s like telling your kid to not go poke a bee hive.

Whenever we go into a country, the military tells us about surgical strikes, high technology and precision-targeted munitions. They make it sound like this is easier than cooking breakfast. Afterwards, we hear that something like 1 of every 4 of the precision weapons missed and some of those misses killed civilians.

The way to eliminate certain violent people is to arrest. Their government can arrest them in their country, under their laws, if their government is friendly. We can arrest them if/when they try to enter our country. We can hold them for a few days while we verify their identities, bring criminal charges, etc. Its much more exact than dropping bombs from 5,000 feet up. And if you are occasionally wrong, you can let the guy go – which is much better than accidentally dropping bombs on somebody’s wedding party.

PART 1

Now that all the blathering about the failed bombing in Times Square has cooled down, I would like to ask a practical question: ‘what is terrorism good for?’

Lets do a quick thought exercise. Lets put ourselves in the shoes of some person with extremist views, such as radical Islam. Also think of the domestic far right or far left such as Hutaree or the Earth Liberation Front… What would such a person stand to gain from committing an act of terrorism?

PROS AND CONS

Pro: Gets much attention                                                                                     Con: its negative attention

Pro: Makes people scared                                                                                    Con:makes people angry at you and your idea(s)

Pro: May be the only way to express yourself in a repressive country Con:Western countries such as USA have many better ways to get positive attention for ideas

Unless I missed something, I don’t see anything that terrorism is good for in this country… Terrorism turns off open-minded people like me, who might have given those peoples’ political ideas a fair listen if they hadn’t started trying to blow things up. Are terrorists really interested in creating political change, or are they just interested in causing death and destruction for its own sake, or for the sake of vengeance?

If certain people really want to cause political, religious, or other change in this country, wouldn’t it make sense for them to pick ways to communicate their ideas that are more likely to win hearts and minds?

Insight 1: Terrorists must not be very interested in creating change – just destruction.

As I look back on terrorist incidents in this country, excepting the original September 11 2001 attacks, they have all been farcically inept. I think of the plot of pot-heads a few years ago against the Sears Tower in Chicago. I think of the idiot truck driver who allegedly tried to blow up a shopping mall in Columbus Oh.  I think of some fool on an airplane trying to set his shoes on fire, or another who tried to blow up his underwear in-flight.  Most recently, some guy tried to set an SUV with some incorrect and unmixed ingredients of a fertilizer bomb on fire in Times Square. There have been a few dozen of these attempts in the last decade.  What morons, losers and dregs these people have been. This is how the Three Stooges would attempt to commit an act of terrorism.

The difference is that the Three Stooges would be a parody made for television. They would have been cute and funny, if they had incorporated a terrorist plot into one of their TV skits. They would have hit each other and maybe blasted themselves. When the police showed up, the Three Stooges, covered in debris from their prematurely-exploded bomb, would have pulled on the cops’ noses and ears and whacked themselves on the head, and the television audience would have roared with laughter.

Insight 2: In this country, no one with any intelligence or ability of any kind wants to get mixed up in terrorism – they have better ways to make a living and express themselves.

I can imagine some man out in the deserts or mountains of some repressive country. I can imagine that brutal living conditions, poverty, corruption, political repression, violence by his government and/or maybe a stray American bomb we accidentally dropped on a member of his family, could cause a man to have a heart full of hatred and a desire to commit acts of violence against people he doesn’t know. I can imagine such a place is like a big angry hive full of wasps that want to sting whoever they can get to first. What I don’t see, is why that man would choose to come to our country to commit violence, when he could instead launch a political revolution in his own country. Surely taking action in his own country would potentially address more of the causes of his hatred.

INSIGHT 3. These guys want to attack America, because they see us supporting corrupt / brutal / repressive regimes in their country.

INSIGHT 4. These guys want to come attack us when we get involved in the violence in their countries. A lot of these countries have a tribal / retaliatory tradition. To them, it makes sense to go blow up people here, because we dropped bombs there.

It seems like the only thing terrorism is good for is being an excuse for reducing liberty and privacy. Since the September 11 attacks, the War on Terror was used as the excuse for many invasions of liberty and Privacy in this country. Many broad and scary laws such as the PATRIOT Act were passed and existing laws such as FISA were rewritten for the sole purpose of going after terrorists.  These laws were then abused and/or misused.

Is there a better way to completely eliminate terrorism, without eliminating liberty and privacy?

Find out in Part 2

But sometimes, greed goes too far. The events of recent years show us the need for reforms:

(1) Too much greed, in the form of corruption, takes money from taxpayers and from worthy projects that could have been funded instead – such as reducing the national debt.  Some greed is just inexcuseable.

(2) Too much greed can hurt our political process, by spending donations on personal treats instead of their intended political campaigns, or by buying decisions that are bad for everyone else except the bribe-payer.

(3) Too much greed, hurts our businesses in the form of excessive pay packages, excessive and incompetent risk-taking, and sometimes, outright fraud.  Such greed and fraud can also hurt our investors, which are anyone with a retirement account too:

(4) Too much greed, results in deaths when safety regulations are ignored.

(5) Too much greed, can result in major problems for many, as when banks engage in widespread evil business practices – something that individual consumers don’t have the time, legal skill, or bargaining power to fight.

How do we harness greed to create value for society, without so many negative side-effects? Economic theory tells us that society should create an incentive to do good without also doing bad. This suggests several reforms, most of which are already in place, and doing good, in many, but not all, areas:

1. Immediately investigate any alleged fraud. Convictions in corruption, bribery and fraud cases should result in the immediate cancellation of any contract obtained by bribe or fraud, the immediate removal of all convicted persons from their posts in the public and private sector, and a ban on all convicted persons from serving in any future position of fiduciary or public responsibility. This, together with reform 2 would resolve problems 1 and 2.
2. Money paid for work performed should be reasonable and customary for the work performed. All work should be bid for in a process open to all. This, together with reform 1 would resolve problems 1 and 2.  Notice that reforms 1 and 2 are already, in place, to some extent, in most areas.  They just need to be made consistent and universal.
3. Enact the reforms listed in my blog entry On Corporate Strategy: tie pay to current and future performance, and reduce the executive workload, by better defining the function and sharing the burdens (coming soon!)
4. Increase the severity of existing mandatory OSHA fines for injuries and deaths that occurs in a workplace or as a result of something that happens in a workplace – such as prolonged exposure to toxins.  The fines should be increased annually, so they keep pace with inflation. Also, people who can be shown to have directly contributed to the deaths or injury should still be subject to existing criminal and civil procedures. This would resolve problem 4.
5. Make changes to the contract law to prevent certain businesses from taking unfair advantage over consumers. Create and empower the proposed Consumer Protection Agency to oversee things.  This would resolve problem 5.

In the last decade, the music and similar industries have worked furiously to strengthen the position of intellectual property in the law. They have forced many changes to the copyright law (especially the Copyright Acts of 1976, and 1998) to prevent anyone from stealing ‘their property’. While the Music Industry isn’t treating the music artists and consumers, quite nearly as badly as slaves, bold action is needed to restore justice in the land.

In my previous post in this series, I documented that both creators and consumers raise fair and good points, so that a reasonable compromise between the 2 groups is needed. I also documented that pirates and intermediaries (recording labels, RIAA, etc.) are both part of the problem. The problem of piracy is obvious: it keeps creators from being able to make a living by creating. I then documented 4 equally-bad problems caused by the intermediaries:

• DRM, and other restrictive technologies reduce the value of the content to the consumer

• Present retail technologies do not permit anonymity in purchasing music online (but illegal downloads do)

• The intermediaries have so entrenched their special-interest needs into the copyright law that it is egregiously out-of-balance and must be reformed

• The cost of music is unnecessarily high, at the same time as the new music released has become extremely poor. (I believe I could run a very profitable record label charging $13.30/CD and $.38/MP3.

Given these many problems, it is no surprise to me that record labels’ sales are down. Even if there were zero piracy, their sales should be down given of all these problems. When auto makers want to increase their sales revenue, they wow and woo the consumers with pricing-incentives, more stylish, more powerful, more reliable, more fuel efficient vehicles, and sometimes even go so far as to pay consumers just to test drive the cars. They continuously improve. The music industry does not do this. Instead, it clings to unreasonably high prices.  I see the Federal government has since sued, alleging price fixing.   Moreover, the industry does not improve the product, and sues consumers who attempt to download songs, (even though research shows that downloaders purchase more music than non-downloaders). The music labels invite piracy by taking such a backwards and arrogant position.

In my previous post, I showed that the music labels are the root cause of all the problems for themselves and consumers, including piracy, and, as such, should not be allowed a role in any solution to these problems. They are like the aggressive and ill-tempered dinosaur that resfuses to die gracefully – witness the Sony Rootkit.  

nd the lawsuits against pirates . Notice  the ridiculous damage awards, and that many of the accused are likely innocent.   The industry even accused a Hewlett Packard printer of illegally downloading songs . The meteor of electronic formats and distribution has struck their industry. Rather than evolve into a smarter, better business model, they bully anyone who opposes them with lawsuits and gnashing of their dinosaur teeth. Like the slave-owners before the civil war, the music industry clings to an outdated and outclassed business model. In my opinion, they should be allowed to be abolished by the merciless market they find themselves in.

So let’s have the reforms:

1. The copyright law should be restored to a balance. Fair use should be defined reasonably and clearly. Piracy should not be allowed, but beyond that, there should be no restriction on what customers can do with the music they purchase or how they do it. (properly done this would take care of piracy, DRM, the copyright law etc.)

2. There is already a strong and growing internet-based market of independent artists. The government should explicitly allow this to out-compete the big record labels by shielding it from their litigation, and by setting up a market for insurance that new artists could buy into to pool risk of making a low-selling CD amongst themselves.

3. Privacy concerns could be easily addressed too. The brick-and-mortar music stores could buy any MP3, CD, etc. and burn the image to a portable external hardrive that you bring in to the store. You could pay cash, and your anonymity would be assured.

Taken together, the above three reforms would result in lower prices for consumers, and both higher sales and higher profit per unit for creators. A 6 week experiment on Real Networks’ Rhapsody site showed achieved a tripling of sales by reducing price by half. I see independent artists have gotten the cost down to as low as $5/CD on CDBaby and Tunevault offers MP3 downloads: some free; others paid.   DefectiveByDesign lists vendors without DRM.  Now all we need is a private (preferrably anonymous) way to shop online.  Done properly,  reform would also result in the death of the record labels, so that everyone else could live happily ever after.

The problem is not confined to the music industry alone. Time allowing I will explore similar problems in the movie and software industries – and propose solutions.

In a civil society with Rule of Law and freedom of speech and from arbitrary seizure and all those things that we are supposedly fighting so hard against terrorists to protect, why do we allow the police to act so aggressively towards citizens? Why are police not bound by, at least, the same laws and codes of conduct as the common man? In fact, why are they not bound by a higher standard?

Photography is a vital tool for exposing official corruption and abuse. We should collectively celebrate every time a citizen exposes such official malpractice.

It is ethically wrong: Privacy is necessary for a strong political debate. I would not write this blog under my real name (my industry is extremely conservative and I would have problems in my career). The Iranian protests would not have happened without anonymous tweets (for a while, Twistter changed everyone’s location to Tehran to help provide that anonymity). It is extremely difficult to maintain privacy. Privacy has already been reduced to unacceptable levels, and it is time to regain privacy.

I disagree with the author’s quote of the iconic ‘no one knows you’re a dog online’ cartoon. Things have changed since that was written in 1994. Now, not only do they know you are a dog, but they have a purchase history of your specialty chew toys, know you wear an XXL collar, are taking medication for parasites, and send frequent fan mail to your hero, ‘Snoopy’. Anonymity is difficult, and without anonymity, privacy too is nearly impossible. Don’t take your freedom for granted, not even in the democracies of North America and Europe.

It is expensive and ineffective: The article’s author mentioned the expense would be massive – and I will agree with him on this point. The author notes there are many problems around secure and certain authentication, and I will agree with him on this as well.

The net result would be: that law abiding internet users would be stripped of whatever last shreds of privacy we have. Criminals would find new ways to swindle and steal online almost immediately. Foreign governments who wish to conduct internet-based attacks would not be inhibited. And finally, someone would have to pay for all of this – let me guess an internet-drivers-license fee, to pay for things that work against our own best interest.

I propose a better way:

(1) Individual users can read and apply my Internet Privacy and Security Best Practices

(2) Make an insurance scheme that people can elect to use or not and have banks, merchants and consumers, etc also pay into it. Coverage rates could be based on history and large discounts could be given for using best practice, to the extent that those users have less problems than others. Instead of having a credit report about the consumer, there could be a business report that buyers could check before making transactions. Such a business report could report if a business is reputable, link to the Better Business Bureau to show any complaints against that business. For a small fee to cover cost, they could certify that the business uses privacy and security best practices and so on. Sarbanes-Oxley legislation implicitly requires much of this certification already, so the impact on business would not be very much at all. This would be just as effective way to protect commerce online – and requires users to give up no privacy.

(3) Empower police and companies to effectively investigate, and prosecute crimes that have already occurred. This doesn’t require any new laws (we have a huge amount of racketeering and other anti-mafia laws that already effectively punish exactly these crimes in the offline world). This also doesn’t require any new technology (we have already have a mind-boggling array of technologies that, together, are beginning to remind me of the movie ‘Minority Report’). What is needed is for national police forces, such as the FBI, etc., to hire some trained IT professionals, to investigate crimes so those responsible can be successfully prosecuted. I realize some of the criminals are in other countries, but that is why we have extradition treaties.

Setting the Record Straight

Had Thomas Jefferson not bought Louisiana from France, effectively doubling the size of the country, would America have become a great power? Of course not. If James Madison had not fathered the Bill of Rights, would America have become a great place to live? Of course not. If George W Bush had never been president, would America be better? ABSOLUTELY!

Some times it’s a good thought exercise to sit and ask questions, and learn the lessons of History. You can learn a lot comparing the actions of various historical leaders. The first 2 questions were easy.

Let’s try some more that are tougher yet… Now that Iraq has recovered under our watch, should we lionize the troops and General Petraeus for turning it around? Should the political leadership get praise for appointing him, or rebuke for not appointing him in 2003? Should it go to our former fearless leader George W Bush, who at least deserves credit for staying the course, who wanted to be the Harry Truman of his time?

(1) Could he lead?

In 1991, George S Bush assembled a vast and mighty coalition including France, Italy, Germany, … almost ½ the countries of the world to take back Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. In 2003, George W Bush could not get ½ of the countries of the world, let alone half of our NATO allies to give blessing to our invasion of Iraq, let alone their assistance. No George W. Bush could not lead.

(2) Did he have a clue?

When the Iranians took hundreds of Americans hostage, Jimmy Carter didn’t seem to have a clue how to get them out. We were the laughing stock of the world. Ronald Reagan was elected – and the Iranians backed down and released them before Reagan took office. During the Hurricane Katrina disaster, Bush didn’t seem to have a clue how to respond, and many Americans died – after the storm had passed. No George W. Bush did not have a clue.

(3) Was he fiscally responsible?

Regarding Reagan, Bush campaigned as a fiscal conservative. Bush has since raised the Federal Deficit to record levels. And he blamed the opposition for undisciplined spending – even when its clear that staying in Iraq for $10 billion/ month + those tax cuts are adding $400Billion annually to our Federal deficit. Oh, and by the way, despite these tax cuts, the economy never did well in his 8 years, and businesses continued to move overseas, because reform of corporate rates and regulations were ignored in favor of lowering rich peoples’ rates. So, let’s recall President Truman and ask, “where does the buck stop now”? No George W. Bush was not fiscally responsible.

(4) Did he protect our values and liberties?

In 1789, Congress gave us a strong government in the constitution and strong liberties in the Bill of Rights that have been the foundation of American law and culture ever since. Since 2001, Bush signed the Patriot Act that curtailed many of those, and has detained people for years on end, and spied on every American’s internet use, and tracked people’s positions through their cell phones’ location. Contrast that with the War of 1812:  Even after the British occupied and burned Washington DC, President Madison did not reduce civil liberties – even though there was a grave danger from the many British sympathizers left over from the Revolutionary war.  In fact, George W. Bush was the biggest threat to our freedom in the history of our country.

(5) Was he pure in heart?

Bush presents himself as a good person, a man of Christian ideals, who means well, and is looking out for the best interest of all… So let me ask you: Would Jesus Christ condone torture? Without even a declaration of war we detain indefinitely hundreds of people at Guantanamo and elsewhere, without trial, as if they are prisoners of war. Furthermore, we have tortured some, in violation of POW’s rights under the Geneva Convention, if they are POWs, otherwise in violation of our own Bill of Rights if they are not POWs. No George W. Bush is not a good Christian.

Was he fit to lead?

After the Tea Pot Dome oil scandal shook apart the cabinet of Warren Harding, he admitted “I am not fit for this office and never should have been here”. Fast forward to 2008. President Bush’s cabinet has been rocked by multiple scandals. Recall the resignations of its first 2 US Attorney’s General: Ashcroft, when he would not authorize carte blanche torture of detainees, and Alberto Gonzalez to avoid being impeached by the Congress… The vice president’s to aid Scooter Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice – and only a presidential pardon spared him from 2 decades in jail. Secrectary of Defense Rumsfeld was forced out for the then-failure of the war in Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell resigned 2 years after knowingly lying to the UN about Iraq’s alleged pursuit of Uranium in Niger. Administration officials at all levels repeatedly lied and did not inform the Congress of the basic workings of the government… What can Bush say of his presidency?

What should we have done?

Lets start by comparing George W. Bush to other recent presidents:

In 1997, after dismantling most of the controversial entitlement system and vastly reforming the remainder, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about his sex life. He was made to answer to the Congress for his conduct during an impeachment proceeding… and rightly so. When Nixon violated the laws and Constitution by spying and abuse of power (especially in the Watergate scandal), he ultimately complied with the impeachment proceedings, and resigned rather than be removed.

If 1 severe scandal was enough to blow up Warren Harding’s administration, and Clinton was impeached for lying about some skirt chasing, and Nixon was removed for doing many of the same things Bush did, how should we have handled Mr. Bush?

Bush should have be impeached and removed. This would have helped his successor to roll back the worst of his policies. It would remind his successors that there are consequences to illegal and unethical policies made in office. We should have fired Bush and to restore our liberties, our Constitution and the rule of law.

What should we do now?

Now that Mr. Bush is no longer in office, he should be left alone to enjoy a peaceful retirement. Those who are now in office should in future should take actions to prevent such a destructive administration from serving again, and limit the scope of damage that it could do.

• The worst infringements of our liberties such as PATRIOT Act, etc., should be rolled back.
• The civil liberties board that has not been staffed for 1 day since its creation in 2006 should be staffed and allowed to hold our nation’s leaders accountable.
• Clear procedures should be spelled out for impeachment. Currently, the congress is allowed to impeach and remove if it finds high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed. The law should be strengthened to require removal for such acts.

(1) The only possible use of a congressional seat to a company is to further its own financial interests, which results in a conflict of interest between what is best for the corporation and what is best for the country.   This is why many public servants divest their assets, or put them into a blind trust before assuming office.

(2) If the company does not use its congressional seat to influence policy in its own favor (either by divesting or abstaining on certain votes), then the it is not servicing its fiduciary responsibility to provide the shareholders a good return on their investment.

(3) The reach of special interests, including large abusive corporations is unprecedentedly large and needs to be rolled back, most especially due to how much legal protection they have already obtained for their egregious customer service (think of banks and record labels).

How can this be stopped?

I am writing an open letter to you today, to ask you to renew your focus on those things that inspired the nation to elect you.

I was inspired when I read your book ‘The Audacity of Hope’ and when I heard you speak. I was so inspired that I voted for you in 2008.

When I voted for you, I had the idea that you meant to do things that were pragmatic, effective and uphold our constitution and liberty. I had the idea that you had 4 main goals, which were also some of the things that I consider to be some of the biggest problems facing our country:

(1) Restore trust, civility and cooperation to the political process so things could get done.

(2) Restore prosperity for all citizens and help our businesses become more competitive.

(3) Restore the democracy / make government work for all citizens – not just corporate/special interests.

(4) Restore those liberties and processes of law that were dismantled by the previous President – while also keeping this country safe and strong.

You started strong with the stimulus Since then, I feel that you have gradually lost your way. Lately, I feel like you have forgotten why the people elected you. I am worried by some of the things you have chosen to work on, such as cap-and-trade, and also by some of the things you have not yet started working on, such as restoring the democracy and liberties. I am worried by the lack of progress on key items you already began such as healthcare, job creation, and consumer protection.

I am very worried by how certain people in Congress have been allowed to stall many reforms – despite popular support for reform and the suggestion of many good reform ideas on both the left and the right. Look around: there are many good ideas all across the political spectrum.

I know your job is difficult and demanding. I know your predecessor left you with an incredible set of problems. I also know that you have talents equal to your task. I can tell from reading your book that you have more raw talent, and more pragmatism, than most of the other presidents in my lifetime – that is, since President Carter. I wish you all possible luck and all possible success in doing your work. I know you can succeed.

I ask you to please take a few days off, and re-read your book. Watch tapes of some of your campaign speeches. Get back in touch with the things that inspired us to vote for you – and then drive forward those things that are going to most improve our country.

I.B.

Submitted to whitehouse.gov/contact on 2010-02-17

Presently, the threats to your internet privacy and security include the following in order of severity: various governments, organized criminals, marketers and websites who you do not want to collect your information and/or are careless with your information. Commercial tools, such as antivirus and firewalls, do not begin to protect you from all these threats.

You will be able to greatly increase your protection from all threats by following my recommendations. This paper makes the case for internet privacy, and internet security. It then lays out a procedure, in plain language, containing the practical methods that you, as a private citizen, can take to maintain maximum privacy and security online.

This paper is organized as follows:

• Overview – page 1
• The case for general privacy – page 2
• The case for internet privacy – page 4
• The case for internet security – page 5
• Case study – the present state of internet privacy: Google – page 6
• Procedure to help maintain internet privacy – page 7
• Procedure to help maintain internet security – page 22
• Hope for the future – page 64
• Appendix: other useful windows installation settings – page 65

Internet Privacy and Security Best Practices 2010-05-18