The Left’s New Obsession: Bump Stocks

Nov26
by Sam Grocery's on November 26, 2017 at 3:36 pm
Posted In: Liberalism

By Sam Bocetta

Take a look at the “mainstream” media after each mass shooting, and you’ll see a depressing pattern emerge. The left tends to seize on one aspect of these incidents, and exclude all of the others; the recent tragedy in Las Vegas is no exception.

In recent weeks we’ve seen the formation of a crusade against bump stocks. Though the incident was a complex one, raising questions about mental health provision and hotel security, the left cannot to see the woods for the trees: to hear the NY Times tell it, bump stocks were almost entirely to blame, and should now be banned entirely.

There is certainly a debate to be had. However, what is so infuriating about campaigns like this is that many of those now claiming that bump stocks are dangerous had not even heard of them one week ago; this, too, is a repeated pattern.

The ongoing debate about suppressors, items which some on the left continue to wilfully misrepresent as “silencers”, is a case in point. Without everyday experience of owning and using guns, many on the left are susceptible to powerful myths about them. It is a sad fact that those charged with making firearms policy are often the people with the least experience of guns.

With regard to bump stocks, three pieces of legislation have so far been filed in the House. The most recent is bi-partisan, a rare achievement for a gun control measure. A ban on bump stocks is certainly popular with the public. The NRA opposes new legislation in this area, but is open to a review of bump stocks to see if they comply with federal law.

While this might sound surprising, it is only so until you remember that the NRA’s primary concern is to represent responsible gun owners. In truth, a ban on bump stocks will make little difference to hunters or competitive shooters, because they don’t use them. The problem is that it won’t prevent mass shootings either.

“Until now, bump stocks have been a non-issue in firearm homicide (mass or not),” April Zeoli, an associate professor at the Michigan State University School of Criminal Justice, told the NY Times.

And so we find ourselves in a familiar situation: the left has rushed to politicize one incredibly narrow aspect of a mass shooting – bump stocks – despite expert advice to the contrary. Of all the insults which have been slung at conservatives over the years, this is not one; we do not lurch from one issue to the next after every incident, but have instead stayed remarkably consistent in our position.

Indeed, any dispassionate observer would have to conclude that when it comes to firearm legislation, one side is consistently better informed, and more willing to listen to expert advice, than the other. That side is the conservative right.

Ultimately, sensible gun legislation can only be implemented by those willing to take the broadest possible view, and by those with everyday experience of guns themselves. So by all means let’s have a discussion about what led to the atrocity in Las Vegas, and that includes bump stocks, but let us do it in a way that takes into account more than the left’s current obsession.

Sam Bocetta is a retired engineer who worked for over 35 years as an engineer specializing in electronic warfare and advanced computer systems. Past projects include development of EWTR systems, Antifragile EW project and development of Chaff countermeasures. Sam now writes for Gun News Daily as an independent correspondent, and teaches at Algonquin Community College in Ottawa, Canada as a part time engineering professor.

└ Tags: , , , ,
 Comment 

Ukraine’s anti-corruption effort fails

Mar10
by admin on March 10, 2016 at 12:36 pm
Posted In: Corruption

In America we have great sympathy for the Ukrainian people, and, in turn, we provide a significant amount of foreign aid to their government, yet we know very little about how that money is spent.

In past years, stories of the corruption in the government of Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych caused many in this country to question if the money was just being spent to line the pockets of the Ukrainian elite. The U.S. government applauded the installation of a new government in 2014 when Petro Poroshenko came to power in Ukraine, with hopes that the corruption was a thing of the past; sadly that appears not to be the case.

One man stood to take the corruption head-on. Former Minister for the Economy Minister Aivaras Abromavicius brought accusations against then First Deputy from the Petro Poroshenko regime, Igor Kononenko, claiming that he interfered with oversight of the most profitable state-owned companies.

As the new government was installed, ministers assured the people of Ukraine that they would look into schemes used at state-owned companies during Yanukovych’s presidency. Representatives from the Ministry for Economy during Aivaras Abromavicius’ term in office said that the heads of 42 key state-owned companies had been replaced. A controversy between Abromavicius and Ihor Kononenko, a lawmaker and partner of Petro Poroshenko, identified other state-run companies, including Naftogaz, Ukrhimtransammiak and Powder Metallurgy Factory as still practicing the corrupt methods of the prior administration. The head of Powder Metallurgy Factory remained in charge until only a few months ago.

Some of the heads of corrupt companies remain in power, such as the CEO of Ukrhimtransammiak (UHTA). Abromavicius pursued the former member of the Party of Regions, Viktor Bondyk, for more than six months. Bondyk has served as the head of Ukrhimtransammiak for nearly a decade, during some of the darkest days of corruption in Ukraine’s history.

Yet Mr. Bondyk does not appear to be concerned about the focus on his activities and continues working while maintaining a close relationship with the Yanukovych family. Several criminal cases are pending against Bondyk.

Bondyk rose to lead UHTA in 2007 surviving seven relevant ministers. Bondyk’s questionable tactics are legendary. Bondyk’s spending habits are widely questioned, including the acquisition of pumps and lifts for liquids with a price tag of 55.4 million hryvnia in 2013. That, in itself, might not raise eyebrows, but when you dig a little deeper you find that identical equipment cost the company 15.2 million hryvnia in 2010. Where did the 40 plus million hryvnia go? In a time of economic hardship equipment doesn’t triple in cost. Perhaps the most infamous scheme which has drawn scrutiny was the company’s move to secure two loans totaling $42 million from Amsterdam Trade Bank NV and Alfa-Bank, and considered to be the most high-profile scandal of his tenure.

According to People’s Front deputy, Tatiana Chernovol, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine opened an investigation for abuse of power and inappropriate use of credit funds procured by Bondyk. Tatiana Chernovol said that the Office of the Prosecutor General filed the cases against Bondyk only after she made personal pleas.

“Moreover, it was only after a personal conversation that Arseniy Yatsenyuk had with Abromavicius, when the Ministry for Economic Development raised the tariff for the transit of ammonia via Ukraine by nearly 30 percent in September 2015. See for yourself: in 2010, pumping one ton of ammonia was  $2/100 km, while during Bondyk’s stay in office the price was $0.5/100 km.  Bondyk had lobbied such tariffs at the Economic Development Ministry for taking bribes from the Russian co-owner of JSC Togliattiazot, Sergei Makhlai, who transits his ammonia via Ukraine,” according to sources at the Cabinet.

Sergei Makhlai, a known player of questionable repute, was born in Russia, but obtained several U.S. passports for Serge Makligh and George Mack. In the U.S., where tough penalties exist for tax evaders, fraudsters and corrupt individuals, Makhlai is seen as a respectable businessman. Makhlai conducts his business in his homeland, Russia, though he moved to the United States in 1994. It wasn’t until recently that Russian law enforcement agencies showed any interest in the dubious schemes Makhlai used to withdraw $1.5 billion in cash and assets from the Russian chemical company Togliattiazot.

In December 2012, a criminal case was filed under Article 159.4 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation, identified as large scale fraud. A decision of the Russian court stated that Makhlai and several of his associates be arrested in absentia and added to Interpol’s most wanted list. Yet, Togliattiazot continues to operate, albeit in a diminished capacity. Its only export channel, the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline, is controlled by Ukrhimtransammiak and explains why Makhlai expends large amounts of money to bribe Bondyk.

Non-governmental organization Maidan Anti-Corruption Committee took steps to see that Bondyk meets justice at some point; while at about the same time an attempt was made on the life of the vice chairman of the organization, Ruslan Kalashnikov. Kalashnikov survived but the criminal case was swept under the carpet.

Minister Abromavicius tried to terminate Bondyk, but Bondyk kept himself hidden, claiming to be away on vacation or on medical leave. Abromavichus decided to move ahead to change the head of UHTA, at least officially, in early September, when he  posted on Facebook: “Ukrhimtransammiak CEO has outlived seven ministers.  And there is a plethora of questions to him. More than a month ago, I asked him to write a resignation letter (i.e, it was July – Ed.). He’s gone on  vacation.”

According to sources with the Petro Poroshenko administration, Victor Bondyk was repeatedly seen at the presidential headquarters, although it remains unclear what he was actually there for. One of the ways that Bondyk may be able to operate in the shadows is that he is conveniently close friends with the sitting head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Vasily Gritsak.

Sadly Aivaras Abromavicius has now left Ukraine and returned to homeland of Lithuania, having done his best to set Ukraine on a path of honesty and fairness; but his efforts were impeded by continued corruption.

As long as the heads of Ukrainian state-owned companies serve as accessories to international corruption schemes, led by criminals such as Makhlai, any attempts to expose these companies are doomed to failure and so are the efforts to hold fair and transparent privatization. The U.S. government is an enabler of this corruption, funding a government that not only allows, but participates in the lawlessness. The American people want to help the Ukrainian people move towards fair and just privatization, but unless U.S. lawmakers threaten to withhold tax dollars to Ukraine until they take documented and provable steps to clean up their act, we are effectively funding a criminal enterprise.

└ Tags: , , , ,
 Comment 

Apple refuses to assist FBI terrorism investigation

Feb18
by admin on February 18, 2016 at 3:30 pm
Posted In: terrorism

Despite the ongoing presidential nominating fracas going on in South Carolina and Nevada, the untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia, there was a bit of news that touched both the tech world and the political world: Apple’s refusal to assist the FBI in accessing data on one of the iPhones of the two terrorists that attacked San Bernardino California.

Federal judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple Computer to assist the FBI by disabling the feature that wipes the data on the phone after 10 incorrect tries at entering a password. The judge didn’t ask Apple to disable this function across its product line, or even on any other phone other than the phone of Syed Farook, who with his wife Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, California on December 2. The FBI wishes to crack the password of the terrorist using “brute force,” a method of attempting tens of millions of combinations without risking the deletion of the data.

Here are some key points from the judge order:

Apple’s reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled; (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT DEVICE and (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.

Apple’s reasonable technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File (“SIF”) that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device’s flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade (“DFU”) mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis.

If Apple determines that it can achieve the three functions stated above in paragraph 2, as well as the functionality set forth in paragraph 3, using an alternate technological means from that recommended by the government, and the government concurs, Apple may comply with this Order in that way.

Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, responded to the media that Apple would not comply with the judge’s order, saying doing so would create a “back door,” allowing the access to encrypted personal data, violating the privacy rights of its users. The response by Cook is a bit confusing, since repeatedly the order references the “subject device.”

One might wonder if Apple’s attorneys have offered Cook an incorrect interpretation of the judge’s order. Nothing in the order demands that Apple remove this functionality across its product line, or provide any access to data on any device other than the specific iPhone 5c of Syed Farook.

There must be some reason for Cook’s resistance to help the FBI access the data that could potentially identify other radicalized individuals or trace the “mastermind” behind the San Bernardino attack. Why would Apple want to hinder the actions of the FBI in what could save lives?

Some have suggested that Cook’s reticence is an attempt to avoid a “slippery slope,” where the government uses this single situation as precedence to future attempts to access personal data. It could be opined that Apple is standing with its customers to protect them against a prying government. This is why we have a court system. The FBI had to argue to a federal judge that, in this specific instance, the data of a known criminal was not protected by privacy rights. It’s no different than a search warrant. The judge concurred, hence taking the matter out of the civil arena into the criminal investigation domain.

Will Apple’s refusal to aid the FBI have an effect on their product sales? Probably not. However it does pose some interesting questions about whether a private company should or can refuse to assist the government in its investigations into criminal activity. Some will undoubtedly look at Apple’s approach to this very limited and device specific request as a stand where personal privacy trumps the welfare of the public. Others will view this as Apple seeing itself as above the law.

This could be Apple’s way of demonstrating just how secure data is on its iPhone. If the government’s most technologically equipped investigative agency cannot access your data on their products most Apple customers would feel their data is very secure. Is it just a play for attention, sales or an egomaniacal thumb in the eye of the feds?

In all likelihood Apple will be forced to comply; but not until they’ve made their point. How this will alter the public’s view of Apple the company is a story yet to unfold.

└ Tags: , , ,
 Comment