Fixing weak cellular coverage

Bloomberg reports that Sprint is giving away "femtocell towers" to a small number of customers who have weak reception in their homes. These towers act as local cellular stations inside your home; they transmit your calls over your internet connection back to Sprint. They therefore depend on your internet speed; if you have a slow or spotty connection, your calls will not sound very good.

If you can't get one for free, these towers seem to cost around $100 retail, with a $5 monthly charge. You can apparently set it up to route multiple numbers over your connection for an additional charge.

Remember: your data are all public

By now everyone's heard this from me multiple times: be careful what you send in email or post to the Internet, on your blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Buzz, etc. Everything you upload in any fashion can potentially be saved forever, and at some point, redistributed.

As this article about an untrustworthy insider at Google illustrates all too clearly, your data are only protected by the goodwill and diligence of the companies you are trusting. Some companies may not have any policies or procedures in place to try to restrict access to your accounts and posts; some may have these but may not aggressively enforce them; and as the Google case shows, even if you have policies and enforcement, it won't be perfect. For example, it's likely that Facebook employees can impersonate you; there are legitimate reasons why that capacity is built in, but remember it can also be abused. Trusted insiders at these companies will have access to large pools of your information, and inevitably some of them may not be worthy of that trust. So far the stakes have apparently not been high enough for affected users to contemplate any lawsuits for breaches, collectively or individually, even when they apparently happen in violation of the representations these web sites make to you in their Terms of Service and Privacy policies.

The bottom line should be: treat absolutely everything you type into a web site or publishing program (blogger, messaging program, texts on your phone!) as though your boss (or your grandmother?) were going to read it tomorrow - because there's always a chance they might.

Building a Muslim community center in NYC

The Park51 project, sometimes described as the "Ground Zero mosque", is a Muslim community center and prayer space located a few blocks away from the former site of the World Trade Center. The location is zoned to allow religious organizations to build there; as such, the Religious Land Use (and Institutionalized Persons) Act protects the group's right to build there. This is the same statute that protects the right of a Christian mega-church to expand, or a a small church to use a downtown space to hold services. This law was passed by Congress to protect the right to free exercise of religion, a right recognized by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In an interview on National Public Radio (NPR) on September 11, New York's Mayor Bloomberg discussed the recent controversy around the Park51 project. I was impressed by his analysis of the issues:

NPR: There've been so many controversies leading up to today, between the proposed Islamic Center there in lower Manhattan, the threatened burning of Qurans in Florida. Have 9/11 commemorations become politicized?

Mayor BLOOMBERG: I think that a lot of it has become politicized. The whole issue of the Islamic center, which was proposed a while ago and nobody seemed to have any problems with it, all of a sudden in the middle of an election campaign became something that the candidates can't stop talking about. It's pretty hard to argue that they aren't trying to make something out of this for their own political gain. And that will go away after the November election.

The real issue here is history will look back and say, did we have the courage to stand up for the Constitution and keep us free going forward? The government shouldn't be involved in telling people who to pray to, where to pray, how to pray, who's going to fund their praying.

And I think that hopefully we'll be able to look back and say that, you know, a few people were a little bit of hotheads, a few people tried to take advantage of it, but in the end America understood that the Constitution has protected us for a long time and if we don't protect other people's rights, we're not going to have our rights.

NPR: Your support of the right of the Islamic center to open being noted, if the people who run the Islamic center on their own decided to move it, would you be relieved?

Mayor BLOOMBERG: The government should not be relieved or whatever - concerned, I guess, that they have a right to build a place of worship any place that's zoned for that kind of activity. This place is. And it's totally up to them. And if the government starts expressing a view of concern or relief, that's just the government trying to influence a decision which it should not.

Compare that expression to the pressure brought to bear by the Obama Administration (and others) on the church threatening to burn copies of the Quran - an attempt to affect a different right (free speech) under the First Amendment.

Burning the Quran

A congregation led by a Pastor Jones is planning to burn copies of the Quran on September 11, 2010 - the same day as the feast of Eid ul-Fitr, which marks the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. I find it surprising that the plans of a 50-person congregation from somewhere in Florida are being reported around the world. Why would the actions of such a small group cause so much commotion?

1. This is not news.

   It should come as no surprise to anyone that there exists somewhere in the world a small group of people who are prejudiced against one or more other groups. If the media were to report on every such collection of people, they'd run out of room in every broadcast and in every newspaper. Had the news media not made a "story" out of these plans, no one would likely have even noticed it happened; as an event, it's especially uninteresting because there's no threat to anyone's safety or welfare. Sadly, by shining a spotlight on this insignificant group, and by making its leader famous enough to appear on television, the news, and in print, the media inspires them and others to even more outrageous acts in the future.
   

   This is a great example of where the phrase "nothing to see here, move along" is applicable.
   

2. They have the right to burn copies of the Quran.

   Speech of all sorts is protected in the United States under the First Amendment to the Constitution. There are some types of speech which can be controlled or punished, but for the most part, the tension between (1) protecting others and their reputations, and (2) encouraging discourse about the government, officials, and important issues generally ends up protecting most types of speech. In particular, as long as you're not causing a danger to anyone (arson) you're generally allowed to burn anything you want. That goes for flags, books, pop albums, etc.
   

3. Anyone who responds to this is responsible for their own actions.

   A number of U.S. officials have attempted to warn the group that their planned event will end up endangering the lives of U.S. citizens and troops around the world. I don't think this is a reasonable or relevant observation.
   

   To begin with, any response by a member of the Muslim faithful to the burning of a copy of the Quran is their own responsibility, not the fault of the members of this congregation. No one has the right to respond with violence to what amounts, at most, an insult. It's useful to keep this in perspective: the books this Florida church plans to destroy are mere copies of the text; burning these books will not make it impossible for others to continue to teach or worship as they did before. This is not an impediment to anyone else's free exercise of their religion. And no one's health or welfare will be directly harmed by the book burning.
   

   That said, people will respond in various fashions, and some will be incited to violence. Some of the violence may happen where U.S. troops are currently stationed. Frankly, the best way to prevent violence against the troops is to move them to somewhere safe, especially home. By referring to the potential danger to U.S. troops, General Petraeus and President Obama seem to be trying to use guilt to stop the book burning; the implicit suggestion is that any subsequent violence around the world will amount to "blood on [this congregation's] hands." These statements come across as nothing more than an indirect way to pressure this group to cancel their plans.
   

   Sadly, there are also likely to be responses from those who support the views of Pastor Jones and his church. If the event goes forward, it might instigate copy cat burnings in other communities, or may inspire other groups to grab media attention with even more outrageous activities. If the burning is called off, sympathizers may act out against those whom they believe worked to shut down the event. Again, anyone who responds violently on either side should be held responsible for their actions, in accord with the law.
   

4. What this group is doing is insensitive and an inappropriate response to 9/11.

   Of course, the purpose of the protection of speech in America is to encourage reasoned discussion and debate in our community. To that end, it's welcome to have public officials, ecumenical leaders, and generally everyone else point out that burning copies of the holy book of any group is simply a manifestation of hatred toward the members of that group. Such an event adds nothing to our understanding of the causes and/or effects of the events of 9/11; instead, it acts to rend the ties in their community (and in any others which respond).
   

   I understand and defend their right to express their ideas in this fashion, but I can't say I appreciate or support it. While the government and elected officials have no right to tell them not to go ahead with their plans, I wish they would choose on their own to cancel their event, and I really wish I'd never heard of them at all in the first place.