A Constitutional Amendment Addressing Technology?

The Second Amendment is the only article in the Bill of Rights that specifically addresses a rapidly changing technology. What if our forefathers wrote the Constitution today? Would the Second Amendment be the right to a car, computer, or Internet access instead of the right to bear arms?

Unlike the 18th century, technologies and issues now become outdated or irrelevant faster than ever. One needn't look past the Third Amendment to see an outdated issue in the Bill of Rights. The Third Amendment has never been the primary basis of a Supreme Court decision. And it may never be given that the United States has transitioned from a militia, to a standing army, to what now seems like a permanent war. A permanent war not against a state or government, but rather an idea: drugs, terrorism, etc. How do wars like this end? Who surrenders and signs the peace treaty leading to the release of the prisoners held in Gitmo? It seems to me that ending all terrorism in the world would be the equivalent of ending worldwide crime. A noble, yet impractical goal we should still strive for with the understanding that it cannot be fully achieved.

The key purpose of the Second Amendment was to give American citizens a daily tool while keeping the government in check. The balance of arms between the people and local communities, compared to the federal government, used to be even. Today, a rebellion by Americans against the federal government would be a disproportionate fight. Private citizens do not own or control weapons of mass destruction (nor should they). Two hundred and fifty years ago, people could not arm and stash a flintlock pistol in their pocket. Also the firearms of that time, from pistols to cannons, were single shot. Percussion cap weapons, the predecessor to bullets, weren't introduced until the 1820s.

I'm not suggesting that we add a Constitutional amendment banning firearms. Nor do I have a solution to ending gun violence. Part of my argument is that having the Constitution address a specific technology may have been a bad idea. More importantly, the Constitution is about giving rights to citizens, not restricting them. There's no place in it for banning alcohol, barring gay marriage, or restricting suffrage.

Simply because the Framers wrote the Constitution doesn't mean it's an absolute human right. Unless you think minorities shouldn't vote and alcohol should be banned. Bearing arms is a right, driving is a privilege – which is more practical in today's America? So, I leave you with no answers, only questions.

Principles of Apple

This is one of the best Tim Cook interviews about Apple explaining the differences between Apple and other tech companies. In a nutshell, it's about Apple's culture, philosophy, and principles, not stock price, market share, or profitability.

What was Steve Jobs's greatest invention? Was it the Apple 2, the Mac, iPod, iPhone, etc? Nope, Steve Jobs's greatest invention was Apple, the company, or more precisely the culture he created within the company.

Apple focuses on principles. Principles are fundamental ideas that don't change. This is why they do what they do. We (people and companies) implement principles in the form of values. Our values can change depending on the situation, but the underlying principles never change. A good example of the difference between values and principles is the difference between a map and the lay of the land. A consumer, surveyor, and pilot may all use maps, but each requires a different type of map such as Google Maps for roads, surveyor maps for contour lines, or an aeronautical chart for mountains, towers and airports. As long as your values represent the underlying principles, then you have harmony; wrong map for the wrong land and you've got a problem.

Companies focus on metrics to attain goals. (It's important to note that Apple, like many other companies, has no mission statement.) The key metric for success is profitability. Obviously, Apple has that one nailed. However it's not their ultimate goal. But, Microsoft is profitable too. The key difference is in how a company attains their goals. There are different ways to do that. Microsoft does it by going after market share. In order to maintain market share Microsoft is reluctant to walk away from legacy products. Other companies may sacrifice future earnings for a good showing in the latest quarter. Apple chooses to focus on making the best products and that's measured, holistically, by customer experience, from when you walk into an Apple retail store, to buying, unboxing, using and calling for support. Steve's focus was not on quarter to quarter profits or Apple's stock price. Instead, his priority was maintaining a responsibility to the long-term. Sure, it's important for the price of Apple's stock to go up otherwise the executives lose their jobs, but that's a pleasant byproduct of making the best products in the world.

And, keep in mind, that not every one of Apple's products is a home run. Don't forget about the Apple G3 Cube (sexy, but too expensive), iPod Socks (too generic), iPod Hi-Fi (expensive and poorly designed). Make the best possible products that are simple to use and recognize the bad ones as soon as possible. In other words, do not reinforce failure; do not throw good money after bad.

Principles of the U.S. Constitution

What makes the United States unique isn't who's president or which party is in control of Congress. Rather, it's the principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution focusing on individual rights. There is no place in this document for restricting the rights of American citizens, whether it's slavery, gay marriage, or prohibition. And, it's too easy for a large organization, such as the government or a person in power, to abuse our constitutional rights.

I cringe when I hear American leaders, especially flag officers in uniform, say that their primary duty is to protect the United States. Protecting America is part of their job. But that's not their primary responsibility as laid out in their oath of office: "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." A federal law enforcement officer may think it's okay to monitor a phone call of a suspected terrorist, who is an American citizen, for the greater good. But, without following the proper legal procedures, this is, by definition, a violation of the Constitution.

Principles vs. Values

In life we have principles and values. Principles are fundamental ideas that don't change. We manifest principles in the form of values. Our values can change depending on the situation, but the underlying principles do not change.

A good example of the difference between values and principles is the difference between a map and the lay of the land. A consumer, surveyor, and pilot may all use maps, but each requires a different type of map such as Google Maps for roads, surveyor maps for contour lines, or an aeronautical chart for mountains, towers and airports. As long as your values represent the underlying principles, you have harmony. Wrong map for the wrong place and you've got a problem.

A more abstract, yet practical, example of principles vs. values is marriage. Most every culture in the world has a principle concept of marriage. But, how that's implemented, in the form of values is different. Some marriages are strictly between one man and one woman, some are between one man and several women, simultaneously, and some marriages are between people of the same gender. Same principle, different values.

The U.S. Constitution spells out our principles and our laws codify them as our values.  It is never acceptable to protect our country while harming our Constitution.

To Support and Defend Heartbleed

I've seen flag officers testify about intelligence gathering techniques that involved spying on Americans. They've defended their possible Fourth Amendment violations by stating that they acted in the interest of national security and protecting the country.

My sticking point with these arguments is military officers take an oath of office that's similar to the Presidential Oath. These oaths make no mention of protecting the country. Rather, it's about protecting the Constitution. I have no doubt that Edward Snowden would argue that he acted in the spirt of this oath, more so than the NSA.

Here are some questions to consider:

1. If a criminal notices a security vulnerability at a bank, would you expect him/her to notify the bank? No.

2. If a security company, charged with protecting the bank, noticed the same vulnerability, would you expect them to notify the bank? Of course.

3. If the NSA had discovered the OpenSSL Heartbleed bug would you expect them to notify the U.S. in the interest of national security? Would you?

At what point should an agency or organization stop defending America in the interest of attacking or spying on others?

Perhaps a government agency did leak the details of this OpenSSL bug. Then again, perhaps they've been exploiting it in the interest of national security. But, I seriously doubt either is the case.

Author: Joe Moreno

Jerry York's Ethics

The late, great, Jerry York has received some attention this past week.

When I worked at Apple, I had the opportunity to have one-on-one phone calls and exchange e-mails with Mr. York regarding non-Apple business. During our first phone call, he was adamant that I review Apple's ethics policy's to ensure that our conversations wouldn't jeopardize my job at Apple (it was a non-issue, since there was no conflict of interest, and he agreed).

Service Academy Networking
Jerry York graduated from West Point (USMA '60) and he would always make the time to take a business call from another Service Academy graduate. An Annapolis classmate of mine pointed me towards Mr. York after the two had spoken about a year earlier.

My first phone call with Mr. York was scheduled for half an hour, but it lasted about 45 minutes. I called him at his home in Michigan and, during our conversation, his wife came home. He very politely excused himself for a minute or two to talk to her and I was struck by how pleasant he seemed as I could hear the beginning of his conversation with his wife.

Off the Record
So, why would Mr. York go off the record with Doron Levin? Part of the reason may have simply been privacy. How much privacy does someone deserve? Every life threatening disease is a very personal issue. Some people don't want a soul to know about it while others broadcast it over the Internet. Mr. York may have realized, as soon as he mentioned Steve Jobs' undisclosed trip to Switzerland, that it wasn't for public consumption.

Additionally, I think that Mr. York felt conflicted (to put it lightly) about Steve Jobs' lack of transparency regarding his illness since he had considered resigning from Apple's board over the disclosure of this information. While Apple's shareholders may want to be aware of these facts, regardless of Steve Jobs' privacy concerns, it would certainly give a competitive advantage to Apple's competitors. I'm sure one could argue that the shareholders also want to know what future products Apple has in its pipeline since that, too, will affect Apple's stock price.

AAPL Competitive Advantage
While competitive advantage concerns may seem like a stretch, the ideal outcome, from Apple's point of view, would have been if no information regarding Steve Jobs' health leaked out. This is exactly what happened in 2004, when Steve Jobs was first diagnosed and treated for cancer which wasn't disclosed until immediately after his surgery; and, at the end of 2004, Apple's stock price took off on its current rocket ride through its all time high, previously set in 2000.

As an Apple shareholder, I, too, want to know just how sick Steve Jobs currently is. However, I have to pause, for a moment, and wonder: Had the news of Steve Jobs' cancer been revealed in early 2004, as soon as it was discovered, would the stock price had begun its climb to where it is now?

But, perhaps this type of thinking is too Machiavellian.

Is it illegal to use someone's open WiFi?

If the WiFi network is open (no password required to join the network) then it should be legal to use it. If you have to break encryption to get connectivity then that should be illegal.

Here's my reasoning via analogies.

Unlocked Front Door (Bad Analogy)
Even if someone leaves the front door to their house unlocked it is still illegal for strangers to enter because they would have to trespass without the owner's permission. This is why we lock our doors.

Bedroom Window Viewable From Public Street (Great Analogy)
If someone can see into your bedroom or bathroom window with the naked eye (pardon the pun) you would draw the shade for privacy since, like WiFi, it is something that can be accessed from a public street.

Think of adding a password to your WiFi network and drawing the window shades both as privacy/security.

Ethics in Journalism (Lack Thereof)

I was amazed to read Sascha Segan's unethical suggestions in this PC Magazine article about how to unlock your cell phone:

"Tell your carrier's customer service representative that you're traveling abroad and want to use a foreign carrier's SIM card."

"... say you've just bought a phone off of eBay and it turns out to be locked, or you want to use a phone locked to a foreign carrier, or you want to make a prepaid phone into postpaid – you have a bunch of different options."

Basically, their advice is to make up any story in order to get your cell phone unlocked.

Is PC Magazine really encouraging its readers to lie or is this just a stunt? Pretexting "is just lying" which lead to HP's problems in the boardroom. These comments by Sascha Segan are clearly stated with the intention to deceive.

I've laid out my views on unethical behavior here.