SCOTUS 8 could lead to Constitutional Catch-22

Without weighing in on any of the specific candidates for nomination (by the POTUS), and trying my best to avoid any partisan arguments here, I'd just like to point out a very serious potential ramification of the US Senate GOP's attempts to block the consideration (and hence the appointment) of any nominee to the SCOTUS, sight unseen--no matter who they are. If this plan succeeds, the SCOTUS would be left with 8 members, whom most would agree are evenly divided (4-4) between Conservative and Liberal viewpoints, during the presidential election.

I know many young voters may be too young to remember, but the first presidential election in which I could legally vote will always stick out in my mind (and not only because I was taking a course on the Supreme Court at the time), and that was the Bush v. Gore election of 2000. Let's recall what happened:

• The election came down to FL's electoral votes (contested, triggering machine recounts because of the margin).
• Gore requested hand recounts in four counties (likely favorable to him), which would take longer to complete than the deadline for election certification.
• Katherine Harris considered, and denied, extensions for the four counties, and certified the election for Bush.
• Litigation ensued, and it worked it's way up the courts system.
• The SCOTUS issued a stay on the recount, voting 5-4, and the case was argued before them.
• Eventually the SCOTUS decided 7-2 for the standing issue (Equal Protection Clause) and 5-4 in favor of Harris' enforcement of the deadline, and hence decided the presidential election for Bush.

So let's recap: the SCOTUS decided 5-4 to take the case and resolve the election (by issuing a stay on the recount), and they ultimately decided the case 5-4 as well. So if the current GOP leadership in the Senate has it's way, going into a presidential election with a 4-4 divided SCOTUS, and the election becomes contested in some battleground state in a legal battle which works it's way up to the SCOTUS, we could be looking at the metaphorical snake eating it's own tail--the SCOTUS awaiting a new president to nominate the 9th justice, while the presidential race cannot be constitutionally decided until the SCOTUS makes a 4-4 ruling. Constitutional mayhem--something which I would think we would ALL want to avoid.

Because even if the lower court ruling simply stands, and it resolves the election expediently, there will always be a question of "Yes, but what if the SCOTUS had been able to take the case?" To hobble the SCOTUS from participating in their responsibilities--should the worst happen (small chance that it is) and the election be contested in federal court--is to deny such a contested election any legitimacy to whichever party ends up losing. And in the case of the 2000 election, if the SCOTUS had been hobbled at 8 justices and unable to take the case, it would have been Gore who won (the right to a longer recount) since the lower court's holding was for him.

Look--arguably any very liberal nomination from the POTUS might have exactly the same effect as well--so I'm not *just* laying this at the feet of the Senate GOP entirely. But, so far, they are the only ones who have publicly stated they will block this process--no matter who the candidate is, or when they are nominated--as long as the POTUS is still serving his last year. Hence, they are the only ones implying they are willing to risk the legitimacy of the next presidential election on their fundamental opposition to the current President (and/or his party).

Whatever you think of Obama, this kind of political gambling is not respectful of our Constitution, the SCOTUS, nor the nature and constancy of our federal government entirely. It is the desperate act of a terribly near-sighted ideology, and I sincerely hope the GOP refuses to let it take hold... Please, do your Constitutional duty, and duly consider the POTUS's nominee. Hold hearings. Take votes. That's all we ask, as Americans...

S Korea, Internet Powerhouse of the World!

Not just the World of Warcraft... the WORLD! That's right, for those who were unaware (including myself, until I heard a recent BBC World story highlighting broadband statistics) South Korea leads the world in average broadband speed at a whopping 15 Mbps!!! That is 10x the world average of 1.5 Mbps, around 2x the second place finisher Japan, and more than 3x the pitiful 3.9 Mbps average in the US which ranks 17th in terms of speed... (source)
Not surprisingly, they also lead the world in internet traffic per capita. At an average volume of 30 GB per person per month, South Korea's internet traffic dwarfs that of the lowly 7.0 GB average in the United States, let alone the 5.0 GB of Japan or Western Europe (source)! Of course this is expected... I mean if you had a faster connection wouldn't you download more information?!?

But South Korea also boasts an excellent record of making internet access available to much of their citizenry. Perhaps not first thought of by most as one of the best examples of Democracies around the world (though certainly in Asia!), many South Koreans feel that they have an inherent right to obtain internet access; and with over 94% of households having some form access to the net, it appears they are right!!! (source)

Of course I shouldn't complain... Living in the Netherlands where we are in 4th place with 74% of households online (compared with ~51% in the U.S.!), and an average speed of 4.9 Mbps (coming in 7th place!). We actually lead the world in the number of broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants: 38.1 compared with ~33 in Korea and ~27 in the U.S. This of course must mean our broadband providers are doing relatively poorly in terms of speed, since our average traffic is so dwarfed by S. Korea... (source)

But what do all these statistics have to do with the price of tea in China? Well I'm glad you asked, because it's just countries like China (and Iran, Sudan, Cuba, etc.) that represent very different attitudes towards internet connectivity than our friends to the south of the 38th parallel! In fact, reporters without borders have labelled such countries the "Internet's Black Holes", as their governments routinely restrict the content their citizenry is able to access on the internet (source). The US has made some news on Monday, in an effort to give voice to those residents of countries which would limit or filter their access to the world wide web. As the Secretary of State puts it:
"In the 21st century, expression and assembly are carried out on the Internet so we are going to continue to support those people who wish to circumvent and be able to communicate without being blocked by their own government"
Basically what they've done is lifted the restrictions on the export of internet communications software to these countries, which should make it easier for social networking sites such as Twitter, Buzz, and Facebook to make inroads into these otherwise closed societies. This is all in the wake of the Iranian demonstrations on their Independence Day a few weeks ago, when the government shut down internet communication out of the country yet a few digital videos of the tamping-down of demonstrators made it out days later in hard copy, and were posted on the internet; and after Cuba got some bad press when a political prisoner died from pneumonia related to the conditions of his imprisonment...
The bottom-line is that information and communication has rapidly become a new vital life resource because of the ways the internet is able to deliver it to everyone and anyone's front doorstep at the click of a button. Countries that wish to compete in a global marketplace require a citizenry which is highly connected, to be able to develop in a rapidly changing world and to innovate and grow ahead of their competitors (for education, news, social movements, etc.). But perhaps even more so, countries that wish to SURVIVE are going to have to be able to brook dissent and criticism from their citizenry, and respond accordingly (i.e., as do most Democracies, for example). Because 200+ years ago, Paul Revere rode 15 miles spreading the news of revolution to 40+ riders who went on to deliver his message. Whereas today, one post on Twitter has the potential to reach millions of followers, all across the globe, in less than a minute (depending on how many Mbps you can get!)...

Related news updates:
US to upgrade fiber-optic networks...
Google to spearhead their own upgrade plans...

Gmail Security Settings

A (potentially major) security issue has been demonstrated several months ago at DefCon, but not being a security professional I've only just heard about it. This issue is a vulnerability in many websites which utilize cookies to maintain active logins, such as gmail and I would guess facebook and myspace as well... The hacker can pick your cookies out of the air (when you're using wireless) and "slide" into your logged in account to do their damage. Of course they won't learn your password (though once logged in they can obviously change it!), but the potential damage is nonetheless limitless...

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/gmail-https-doe.html

Why hasn't Google dealt with this yet? Maybe because they're too busy worrying about the anti-trust suit shaping up against them...  Is Google really too big already?  No! (But the deal with Yahoo would afford them 80% of web advertising...)

My solution is like Biden's partition solution: Spin-off a smaller company (or companies) which focuses only on one type of advertising (e.g.,  fastclick-style) to keep the competition up in the advertising arena.  I'd really hate to see Google get busted up over something so stupid as the Yahoo buyout, which in my (optimistic) opinion was more about shutting down Yahoo than gaining a bigger market share...

Google Chrome, and Privacy Issues...

So, apparently I'm not the only one who reads Terms & Services Agreements or Privacy Statements. And perhaps even more notably, apparently I'm not crazy or anal-retentive to do so; since contraversy was  recently stirred up regarding the T&S agreement of Google's new browser: Google Chrome. Apparently their agreement included sufficiently broad language to retain for Google any copyright or other reserved intellectual property rights to property created using their browser (unless such material has been previously protected by you).

Here is the language in question: "By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, and distribute any Content which you submit, post, or display on or through, the Services."

Now based on my prior experiences with Google, I did not see this as an intentional dash for picking up the IP of all users ignorant enough to skip over reading the Terms & Services agreement. Instead, I understood it to be a mistake in rushing the software to market; they probably copied and pasted text from other T&S agreements and their lawyers did a quick/dirty editing job...  Nonetheless, the presence of such broad and overarching language still needed to be addressed before I start doing anything remotely creative in Google chrome.

True to form, Google responded almost instantaneously with not only an immediate remedy but an apology (which really isn't necessary, and to be honest is quite rare from a software company). Thanks Google! Keep up the good work!

And a BIG thanks to all the whistleblowers out there who keep the big companies honest!!! Long live Net Neutrality and the Internet Whistleblower!!!