Sermo – Sermo Civilis

Robert Moses: The Unelected Master Planner

Robert Moses is a figure that’s relatively obscure to the general public. However his influence has had a lasting impact throughout the United States. He would be paramount in engineering how cities in the States were structured, effectively influencing how and where Americans would spend their money.

Who was Robert Moses? Well, to start, he was unelected public official who held about 12 positions in the Greater New York city area. His stints in public office span from 1924-66. The positions he held had tremendous influence over urban planning. Urban planners aren’t often thought of as being political behemoths but Robert Moses’s tenure in these positions forces us to reconsider the influence unelected politicians may have over society.

Mr. Moses was a relentless, effective, and a calculated worker. His ability to start and finish public projects is arguably unmatched within the scope of American history. Furthermore, his ability to manipulate power goes far beyond the scope of anything Machiavelli could have imagined within a democratic republic. Robert Moses wasn’t fully understood or recognized outside of New York until the publication of Rob Caro’s Pulitzer winning book The Power Broker. The book gives us a grandiose look into the Moses. Robert Caro spent years researching for his book which spans roughly 1,300 pages. His scholarship, alongside with years of historical developments since the initial publication, are what guide my analysis on Robert Moses. Through our investigation of Robert Moses we will come to understand how a lot of cities in the United States mirror each other in terms of structure and societal development. And, albeit indirectly, an analysis of Moses forces us to consider a few philosophical questions when it comes to ideal local governance in the United States. But before we attempt to get understand why these two inquires are relevant , we have to investigate the rise of Robert Moses.

Robert Moses assent spanned various societal backgrounds. His tenure in public office spans three major historical events in the United States. Moses held positions during the economic boom of the 1920s, a crippling Depression in the 1930’s, World War II, and the subsequent post war economic boom.

The 1920’s: The Rise to Power

After finishing up his PhD at Columbia University, Moses decides to enter New York politics as a political idealist motivated to make change. A story familiar to many young professionals who aim to change the “old guard” within political systems. Moses had plenty of issues he wanted to grapple over. The society he was living in was corrupt, had little to no consumer protection, and certain industries were dominated by monopolies. He briefly worked for the Bureau of Municipal Research and with the U.S. Food Commission. But soon he realized that philosophical theories and logic, no matter how beneficial, wouldn’t take you far when it came to political advancement. His initial propositions were brushed under the rug by the seasoned veterans of government. Though his theoretical understanding of politics would come in handy from time to time, his practical education of political power would be where he was able to hone the craft of political power.

After a series of fortunate events Moses found himself appointed as the chief of staff to a woman named Belle Moskowitz. She was the leader of a commission tasked with organizing New Yorks administrative structure. A responsibility which came with significant power. It’s worthy to note Belle Moskowitz wasn’t elected by anyone. Rather, Moskowitz was appointed by Alfred Smith the Governor of New York. Smith was of course elected. I include these details not to be redundantly informative but rather to highlight the opaque nature of local government when it comes to transparency. People who you may assume are in control are passing that responsibility to an “advisor”, meaning there are various puppeteers pulling the strings. Moses’s time with Moskowitz is where he would learn the “tricks of the trade” in terms local governance. After managing to impress Alfred Smith through the early 1920’s, Moses found himself appointed to his first positions of power. The appointments would lead him to a notorious political squabble with an eventual US president, Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The Appointed One & The Fight with Roosevelt.

In 1924 Moses was appointed as the leader of both the Long Island State Park Commission and State Council of Parks. Moses actually drafted the legislation that created the power of these commission earlier in his career. Personally, when I read the names of these positions I didn’t immediately think POWER. But let’s remember that Moses was calculated. He strategically used the power that he did have to gain even more power. Being head of these political bodies allowed him unprecedented control over land-use and highway construction. Behind the scenes he usurped control over certain political entities from elected officials. Moses would lobby constituents, politicians, and special interest groups into allowing him to have independent control over land-use and highway development commissions. Overtime he began to resemble a mini dictator. However, his power wouldn’t go unchallenged.

Franklin Roosevelt, at the time leader of the Taconic State Parkway Commission, had a political spat with Moses. It all started when Roosevelt had a plan to build a parkway through a region of New York City called the Hudson Valley. Moses had different plans. He managed to funnel all the funds from Roosevelt’s project to his own project. Moses was able to keep the funding to Roosevelt’s project so low that it could barely even maintain operations. Roosevelt complained to the governor that Moses was “skinning” Smith’s administration alive. But nothing happened. Eventually, Roosevelt became governor and eventually his parkway project was completed. Roosevelt had another goal in mind, and that was to remove Moses from power. But the removal of Moses was almost impossible by the time Roosevelt became governor. Robert Moses had set up a powerful base of political independence by using legislation, public funding, the press, and young political reformers to support his positions. He would later spearhead a commission which aimed to consolidate 187 separate agencies into eighteen departments. In just 10 year’s Moses was able to absorb power from potential opponents and build a powerful network to get his projects done. But this was just the start there was much more to come from Robert Moses.

The Depression & Beyond

During the 1930’s the United States suffered an economic depression. During this economic catastrophe Robert Moses would blossom. Ironically, his former rival actually enabled this via New Deal legislation lead by President Roosevelt. Moses was granted even more executive and monetary incentive to solidify his power by the Federal Government. Roosevelt, not forgetting his political tenure in New York, attempted to get Moses ousted by making federal funds available only if Moses was removed from office. Moses wasn’t threatened. He told the press of Roosevelts demands. Subsequently, the Federal Government had to stop after increasing public pressure. But as World War II was being waged, Robert Moses’s influence on New York City began to take shape. The Master Builder started to work on his vision. One unnamed federal official commented on Moses during this era saying:

“Because Robert Moses was so far ahead of anyone else in the country, he had greater influence on urban renewal in the United States – on how the program developed and on how it was received by the public – than any other single person.”

That quote gives us an insight on the magnitude of power Moses had. He was responsible for many projects ranging from the United Nations Headquarters, Shea Stadium, and the Pratt Institute. But he also led initiatives to spur more highway developments, suburban housing developments, strip malls, and other public amenities. Moses got even better at getting projects done. A common strategy involved starting projects knowing that financially they couldn’t be accomplished , but he would leverage political clout in order to manipulate political officials to complete his projects anyway. While in the depression his projects employed a largely jobless populous during the Great Depression. During this era, he held numerous public positions at the same time. None of the positions required him to be publicly elected.

WWII & The New America

The world dramatically changed after World War II. The United States emerged as an economic and political powerhouse within the International community. Moses understood this and he wanted to further influence the new world around him. His goal for NYC was one that attempted to integrate an urban center to suburban areas which would all be interconnected via parkways. The bureaucrat’s vision would influence America for the years to come.

After World War II America’s social community began to change. Women entered the work force in droves, the nation was in better economic shape than a lot of nations in the world, and the ideal of “Americanness” began to solidify. What do I mean by Americanness? I mean white picket fences, increased home & automobile ownership, and the development of mass consumerism. After WWII plenty of soldiers came home to start anew. They were incentivized to start “nuclear” families, to buy homes, develop their market skills, and most importantly to spend money in order to expand the American economy. Robert Moses was fully aware of this societal shift. He saw the traditional layout of American cities as archaic and counter intuitive to the world’s economic demands. Small retail owners were dismissed in favor of shopping behemoths

download (1) — Robert Moses and NYC Mayor Jimmy Walker.

such as Macy’s, Sears, and the advent of the shopping mall. Local restaurants were forgotten as Dairy Queen and McDonalds slowly became staples in the American diet. Automobiles slowly eliminated the reliance on public transport, allowing people to buy suburban properties further away from NYC. Moses preferred a sprawl model over concentrated urban communities. And he developed plenty of projects to incentivize the sprawl model. New Yorkers, such as Robert Caro, criticize Moses for destroying New York neighborhoods in favor of vast highways that connected the suburbs to the City. When developing these projects Moses displaced hundreds of thousands of people, destroyed economic centers, and arguably community identity. This led critics to surmise that Moses perhaps preferred automobiles and shopping centers over people. Furthermore, Moses played a part in depleting New York’s resources to develop his projects. But despite that, the Moses model was in demand in post war America. Plenty of public officials from around the country demanded Robert Moses’s expertise in developing their city plans. This may explain why many American cities, especially in the Midwest, mirror each other in a plethora of ways.

In hindsight Moses’s city planning was a perfect model for a globalized economy. It was predictable; generally people would work a similar hourly schedule, consistently consume products from publicly traded corporations, and, by driving, consumers would

support the gas, oil, and automobile industry. This model has its merits. It’s predicable, safe, and allows people to consume their preferred products. However, a community too reliant on the Moses model is more susceptible to global economic crises. This isn’t just a theoretical proposition, practical examples are evident when we look at Detroit and Las Vegas during the 2008 financial crisis. But it’d be remiss to not mention how many new and innovative developments Moses was responsible for. He was able to engineer and execute massive urban plans that did help a considerable amount of people. But at the expense of displacing many people out of their communities. But one of the most disturbing things about Robert Moses is his ability to become an immensely influential political figure without having to get elected into political office.

Moses’s story forces us to think about the type of local (& perhaps national) governments people would prefer. Do we prefer governments that can be taken over by “Mosesesque” figures in order to get long term, and perhaps beneficial, projects done? Or do we want a system that is a bit more decentralized which doesn’t allow any one sole “political will” to dominate? Whatever you prefer, each has its positive and negative implication.

Which begs a peripheral question: How much do YOU know about the unelected officials in your local government? A question to consider.

Sources:

Power Broker by Robert Caro

ROBERT MOSES AND THE RISE OF NEW YORK THE POWER BROKER IN PERSPECTIVE by KENNETH T. JACKSON

A Consumer’s Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America by Lizabeth Cohen

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/environment/the-legacy-of-robert-moses/16018/

http://fordhampoliticalreview.org/the-legacy-of-robert-moses/

Thales & Heraclitus: What Russell Got Wrong.

Often Bertrand Russell is revered in the mainstream philosophical community. And rightly so, the work he’s done in the fields of logic, linguistics, and mathematics have had a profound impact on the world. His influence has led him to be credited as the founder of analytic philosophy. But people often forget that Russell was also interested in history, so much so that he penned a lengthy history of Western Philosophy, which he called A History of Western Philosophy. This article will discuss Bertrand Russell’s account of Heraclitus and Thales. Two philosophers who came before Plato and Aristotle. The reason such a discussion is necessary is due to the fact that Russell may not be giving an accurate portrayal of either philosopher in his book. The reason being is that Russel relies on problematic sources to back his claims. This piece will attempt to outline the thoughts Russell had on these thinkers, and then we will criticize certain elements of his arguments. But in order to conduct a proper analysis we must understand the overal goal of Russel book.

In the History of Western Philosophy Bertrand Russell attempts to provide a coherent timeline for western philosophical thought. He claims that in order to successfully attempt such a project a specific method of analysis must be used. A method which is “philosophical”. By “philosophical” Russell means that he’ll attempt to synthesize the historical development of two different styles of inquiry, those being scientific and theological traditions (Russell Xiii). Both have different functions, but yet throughout history they’ve reinforced one another in various ways. For Russel, theology is useful because it allows us to make “speculation on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable.”(Russell Xiii). In other words, theology allows human reason to explore the unknowable. Now on the other hand, science allows human reason to explore the knowable (Russell Xiv). According to Russell, both have limitations; theology induces dogmatic belief (which he disapproves of), while science tells us what we can in fact know but “what we can know is little” (Russell xiv). Having acknowledged their flaws, Russell proceeds to argue that the development of human intellectual history has been shaped by those two methods of inquiry interacting with one another over time. Theology picks up the methodological flaw inherent in science, and vice versa. It’s this symmetric relationship which allows Russell to put various thinkers in dialogue with one another. Giving readers a coherent narrative to follow in terms of the development of western philosophical thought. But Russell’s methods have drawn scrutiny amongst critics. Frederick Copleston, a contemporary of Russel, acknowledged that “[Russell] treatment of a number of important philosophers is both inadequate and misleading.”. The inadequacy and misleading nature of Russell’s work is evident in his description of two philosophers who came before Socrates, Thales and Heraclitus.

Bertrand’s Thales

Image result for thales — Thales the “scientist”

In order to understand and identify the “inadequate and misleading” elements of Russel’s work we must analyze his descriptions of certain philosophers. Some of the problematic elements of his descriptions can be found when he describes Thales, a thinker who was active in the 6th century BCE. To be frank, little is known about Thales specific work, as none of his writing survived. But despite that fact, society can get a general idea about Thales by reading some second hand accounts about his teachings. Russell provides an introduction to Thales, writing:

“There is…ample reason to feel respect for Thales, though perhaps rather as a man of science than as a philosopher in the modern sense of the word.” (Russell 24)

This sentence should warrant our attention because we can analyze and infer a few things from Russell’s statement. One, that Bertrand holds Thales in high regard compared to the other philosopher of that particular era. And secondly, we should hold a favorable opinion on him because compared to these philosophers Thales is a “man of science”. Why does Russell feel this way? Well, it all stems from a theory attributed to Thales which professes that everything is made of water. A problematic theory to credit onto Thales in the first place, but the reason for that will be addressed in a different section in this paper. Russell explains that Thales’s theory of water shouldn’t be taken as some “foolish” hypothesis but rather as a scientific hypothesis (Russell 26).

Now the reason he feels like Thales warrants such high praise is due to some scientific discoveries made while he wrote his book. While Russell was writing his book in the 20th century, the scientific consensus seemed to match well with Thales water theory. The consensus was largely contingent on the fact that the theoretical work done by the scientist Willaim Prout on atoms was true. Prout hypothesized that the hydrogen atom was the only fundamental element of the universe. Furthermore, he said that the atoms of other elements were actually just collection of different hydrogen atoms (Rosenfeld). This is similar to Thales’s theory since hydrogen is a pretty important component when it comes to water, but is different since Prout specifies the element hydrogen. So this background information helps explain why Russell felt so confident in Thales. And explains assertions such as this:

“ The statement that everything is made of water is to be regarded as a scientific hypothesis… Twenty years ago, the received view was that everything is made of hydrogen, which is two thirds water…. His [Thales] science and his philosophy were both crude, but they were such as to stimulate both thought and observation.” (Russell 26)

Now the last part of that sentence describes how his science and philosophy were “crude” but are acceptable since they aimed to stimulate both thought and observation. So, one can infer that theoretical frameworks which stimulate thought and observation, are ones which Russell approves of. But Russell also lets readers know what kind of frameworks he doesn’t appreciate. That leads us to Russell’s description of Heraclitus.

Bertrand’s Heraclitus

The way Heraclitus is portrayed in Russell’s book plays on the theme of science and theology interacting with each other overtime. Russell generally views Heraclitus in a negative light, but acknowledges the difficulty science has had in refuting Heraclitus’s theory of perpetual flux. Additionally, Heraclitus is strangely categorized as “mystical” rather than “scientific”. Russell describes the nature of Heraclitus thought as such:

“Heraclitus, though an Ionian, was not in the scientific tradition of the Milesians. He was a mystic, but of a peculiar kind. He regarded fire as the fundamental substance, everything… is born by the death of something else “ (Russell 41)

Russell doesn’t give us a clear reason why Heraclitus shouldn’t be considered scientific, but we can imply that it’s due to his heavy reliance on intuition and speculation. Heraclitus brand of mysticism is categorized as reforming the religion of his day (Russell 42). Additionally, elements of Heraclitus doctrine are criticized by Russell. Specifically he attacks Heraclitus views on war, contempt for mankind, and his disapproval of democracy.

Now having outlined what Russell says about these thinkers. It’s time to shift focus on what Russell may have gotten wrong when discussing these philosophers. For instance we can use the reasoning Bertrand used to praise Thales to talk about Heraclitus as a “scientific thinker”. Additionally, we can also conceive as Thales as a “mystic”. Furthermore, we can learn to understand how Russell came to these conceptions when investigating the sources he decided to use.

Analysis of Russell’s claims

Our criticism of Russell should begin with looking at what kind of information Russell based his critiques on. He’s pretty transparent in letting the readers know where he got his information from, writing:

“According to Aristotle, he thought that water is the original substance out of which all others are formed; and he maintained that the earth rests on water”(Russell 26)

But there’s an issue with Russell’s apparent transparency. In the next paragraph he goes on to take Aristotle’s account as pure fact, and basis his entire scientific description of Thales on it. Never once does the problematic nature of Aristotle’s account of Thales get mentioned. But thankfully, recent scholarship done by Frede tells us why Aristotle’s writings on Thales aren’t to be taken as absolute fact. Frede explains that:

“ it is not Aristotle’s aim to provide an account of his origin of philosophy and its evolution for its own sake, to satisfy his and his readers own historical interests “(Frede 503)

Basically, Frede notes that Aristotle wasn’t entirely fair when it came down to providing accurate descriptions of certain thinkers, but rather was using their doctrines to validate his work (Frede). Now having considered that fact Thales can be seen as a mystic because not a lot of his doctrine was written down, and getting an accurate description of his work is difficult. But the school of thought he was a part of (the Milesian school) had mystical tendencies that Bertrand speaks of. Additionally, Aryeh Finkelberg notes that:

“Heraclitus, and other early Greek thinkers, did not set out to found philosophy and science, or pave the way for Aristotle—who has long been criticized “for reading his philosophical concerns into the early thinkers (Finkelberg, Heraclitus and Thales’ Conceptual Scheme). “So the method Bertrand uses to put them in dialogue together is problematic since none of these thinkers thought of themselves as either scientists, philosophers or mystics.

Now having mentioned the problematic nature of the sources, I will provide sources which allow us to think of Thales as a “mystic” and Heraclitus as a “scientist”. To begin I will refer to a source used by Russell himself- Aristotle. As noted previously Russell relies on Aristotle’s account of Thales to prove that the thinker was indeed scientific. But he conveniently leaves out an account that could hint at him being less “scientific”. In Aristotle’s work On the Soul Thales is framed as a thinker who’s influenced by “mysticism” and attempts to explain the world via religious terms. The account goes as such:

“Thales too (as far as we can judge from people’s memoirs) apparently took the soul to be a principle of movement…Some say that the universe is shot through with soul, which is perhaps why Thales too though that all things were full of Gods”( Aristotle, On the Soul 405a)

There’s a lot to unpack from this phrase. Firstly, Aristotle is relying on testimonials from various people to get Thales’s account on souls. So we can infer that Thales Soul/Movement Theory was one that was known and discussed among contemporaries that were familiar with Thales. Secondly, we can see that Thales theory is based on metaphysical concepts (soul), and that these concepts have at least some effect on our material world (movement). And lastly, we can surmise that Thales’s world view largely consists of things having Gods within them. Arguably, this is a pretty “mystical” way to perceive reality. But from this phrase it’s unclear if Gods and Soul are in the same realm in terms of metaphysics. From the quote, soul is something metaphysical since it’s “principal of movement” and not movement itself. But Gods can be seen as both physical and metaphysical, since the universe being “shot with Soul” would have impact if whether things were filled with Gods or not. But it’s unclear from this reading if Gods are physical, metaphysical, or both. What we can clearly analyze is that Thales does have some mystical element in his analysis. Rendering Russell’s description as inadequate and a bit misleading.

Furthermore, Thales theory of water as the fundamental source of everything isn’t necessarily true. He may have never postulated that. Aristotle explains that he did indeed say that water is the fundamental source, but he also claims that he may not have seen it that way after all. Explaining that the earth and water could be reinforcing each other as elements ( Aristotle,On the Heavens, 292-294b). Thales could’ve easily believed that there didn’t need to be one principal element that’s responsible for everything. For all we know Thales could’ve theorized that several elements contributed to the forces of the world. But because Aristotle is using Thales to justify his own theories, conceptualizing him as a philosopher who believes that one fundamental source is responsible for everything is necessary in order to legitimize Aristotle’s views .

Let’s transition over to Heraclitus, aka the “mystical” thinker. Firstly, I’d like to mention that Russell dismissal of the claim that “everything is fire” and approval of “everything is water” is absurd. The way he justifies his reasoning, though understandable, is equally as silly. He uses Prout’s work on atoms to back up that claim but you could do the same for Heraclitus. After all everything in the universe emits heat, and if we understand fire to mean “element that emits heat”, then (considering 21st century physics) Heraclitus theory shouldn’t be taken as foolish either. Further, he can been seen as scientific due to observations such as these:

“Sea: water most pure and most tainted, drinkable and wholesome for fish, but undrinkable and poisonous for people”( Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies,)

“Corpses should be disposed of more readily than dung” (Strabo, Geography).

The first quote is an empirical observation on how one element can nourish one animal but yet be dangerous to another. While the second can be interpreted as a public service announcement that corpses are as unsanitary as dung. Though not completely “scientific” in our modern use of the term, these statements are observations on the general nature of the world, and are valid. Thales allegedly made similar observations but Russell holds him in higher esteem compared to Heraclitus.

In all we can see that Bertrand Russell’s claims in the History of Western Philosophy are problematic. Mainly because the notion that these thinkers were either scientific or mystical are inaccurate conceptions in the first place,since the thinkers didn’t even see themselves as such. And since we can conceptualize each thinker as both a “mystic” and “scientist” Russel’s analysis is misleading. Furthermore, the evidence used by Russell isn’t the best since the source itself, Aristotle, is biased.

Source(s):

Frede, Michael. “Aristotle’s Account of the Origins of Philosophy – Oxford Handbooks.” Oxford Handbooks – Scholarly Research Reviews, 27 Apr. 2018, http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195146875.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195146875-e-20.

“Heraclitus and Thales’ Conceptual Scheme.” Heraclitus and Thales’ Conceptual Scheme | Reading Religion, 31 May 2017, readingreligion.org/books/heraclitus-and-thales-conceptual-scheme.

Rosenfeld, Louis. “William Prout: Early 19th Century Physician-Chemist.” Clinical Chemistry, Clinical Chemistry, 1 Apr. 2003, clinchem.aaccjnls.org/content/49/4/699.

Russell, Bertrand. History of Western Philosophy. Routledge, 2015.

Aristotle: On the Soul and On the Heavens

Hippolytus: Refutation of All Heresies,

Strabo: Geography

A Brief Critique of Locke: Deconstruction and Reconstruction

“words in their primary or immediate signification stand for nothing but the ideas in the mind of him that uses them (p. 146).”

The quote above is taken out of the work called An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke. Specifically, the quote is from Book III which talks about how humans come to understand words and communicate ideas to one another. From the quote above the reader can get a general idea of John Locke’s theory on words. We can reason that Locke thinks words are equal to ideas when he says “Words in the their primary…. signification stand for nothing BUT ideas in the mind…”. Additionally, he goes on to explain that humans are endowed with various thoughts that are supposed to benefit other people. But there’s a catch, these thoughts are all locked up within the individual. Despite this dilemma, words allow these ideas to become unlocked from the individual. According to Locke the unlocking process is what allows society to flourish (Chapter ii sec1. Pg 146 Locke). From that readers are compelled to conceptualize language as a phenomenon which instructs and provides knowledge in order for society to flourish. Furthermore, sharing ideas would be living in accordance with human nature, since he also believes that humans are inherently designed to be sociable (Chap I sec 1 pg 145). Since for Locke ideas are used to be sociable, that means words have utility as well. He argues there are two use values when it comes to recording words: 1. it aids memory 2. It brings ideas out in the open where others can see them (Chapter ii sec 2 pg 146). But words would become too idiosyncratic if people conceived of their own “markings” to translate their ideas. So words that flourish are a “mark” which are universally recognized. Locke explains this notion by saying:

“nobody can apply a word, as a mark, immediately to anything else. For that would involve making the word be a sign of his own conceptions, …applying the word as a mark of a thing involves applying it intending it to stand for that thing, which means applying it with an accompanying thought about the word’s significance.”

So if you want an idea to universally stand for a certain mark that means one must find a mark within the world which can generally signify the idea you are trying to convey. This process is what facilitates proper communication with others. So, for example, if “x” signified the idea “car” in a certain society, then another mark such as “y” (y= not car) would be inappropriate to use for car since “y” isn’t generally understood to mean car. Though Locke has interesting reasons to justify his views on words and ideas, that doesn’t exempt his arguments from criticism.

One objection to Locke’s reasoning would be one that challenges the claim that recording words aid personal memory. While yes, generally this may seem true, readers should analyze the full extent of this claim. Let’s consider a brief example. Imagine an individual who has trouble with long term memory but is proficient at remembering locations. Now let’s say this person is attending a speech and wants to remember the way the orator was talking, and so writes down “Remember the address”. Later on in the week the person finds the paper and reads what he had written. According to Locke the words written down on the paper should aid our forgetful person in remembering the infliction of the orator. But problems arise considering the fact the person is proficient at remembering locations. So he reads it and thinks “Right, it was 5^th street”. On the surface this seems like it aided his memory but his initial intention was to remember the infliction of the orators voice, and not the location. After all the person is already good at remembering locations and didn’t necessarily need the words to remind him where the speech was. This could be mitigated by recording his voice (since address (location) and address (speech style) can have different pronunciations). But this would be problematic if the person voice recorded words like “councilor/counselor” or “bank”. Because these words sound the same, the forgetful individual might still find trouble in remembering what they meant.

Another detail we must pay attention to in Locke’s reasoning is the concept that when we write symbols to denote ideas we are doing this to share ideas with others. This once again is generally true. And we get a qualifier on why sometimes it may not be true, since popular symbols must be used to signify ideas (“x”= car example above). So Locke successfully explains why sometimes people don’t understand words that explain ideas. The symbols are too idiosyncratic. But he fails to go deeper on what makes these symbols generally understood in the first place. It’s not as if when human’s with linguistic capacity look at objects they immediately have word impressions of that object. Quite plainly, when you look at a dog in the real world, the brains initial impression doesn’t initially stimulate the cognitive impression of “dog!”. And if you were to pan over to a chair your brain doesn’t exclaim “chair!”. It just understands these objects as such. The word and the object here don’t seem to be directly linked to one another in terms of recognizing objects in our consciousness. But nonetheless these names exist and we have formulated them, so in that sense Locke is correct in saying words are ideas. But it’s wrong to say the inverse, that ideas are words. Mainly because objects in themselves don’t contain the property “word”. But rather, this cognitive property assignment comes from humans. He acknowledges the arbitrary nature of word denotation but still believes that the impressions of objects warrant an automatic denotation. But this isn’t an accurate conceptions of human cognitive thinking. We don’t get impressions from objects in the world and immediately think “this object is that”, rather the brain seems to conduct a process of pattern recognition. The brain’s process seems to fall under reasoning like this “this object is this object, which generally falls under this set of symbols/sound in the world”. This distinction, though small, opens up the scope of Locke’s inquiry into the human mind. Here, we can begin to understand the creatures we are. We aren’t creatures who cognitively just process objects and translate them to ideas, but rather we do that and then inquire about its relationship in the world. This process happens quickly, and most humans master this skill by around the age of 3. That’s how we are able to come closer to understanding each others intentions. Animals are generally good at understanding intentions. Humans obviously fall in that category too, but we are different in that we are able to connect patterns with certain sounds and symbols. Let’s imagine, I invite you over for dinner but I don’t speak your language. Now, I could be standing at a table with some spaghetti on a plate and I can point to it and say “fleeblah” and then have another family member come to it and say “fleeblah”, and a person who has never even heard “fleeblah” uttered can reason the sound “fleeblah” has something to do with that spaghetti. Now if I go even further and open up my phone and google many pictures of spaghetti. And then point and say “fleeblah” that person is inclined to understand that when I utter “fleeblah” I am intending to put the idea spaghetti into their head. This recognition of intention should warrant our attention when we speak about human cognition and language. It seems as if when humans utter/ write words we are intending to put ideas into other people’s cognition. This turns Locke’s assertion that words are used to bring ideas out in the social world, into a question of “what do humans intend with words when they try to bring ideas out in the social world?”. A question which may be tackled in a future post.

The Development of Cyber Law: Past and Future

The Development of Cyber Law: Past and Future

Cyber law is often seen as a developing field in terms of international law. And rightly so, considering that the internet is a relatively new development in human history. However, that’s not to say that there isn’t development within the field of cyber law. The field encompasses a broad range of topics such as Intellectual property, data privacy, censorship etc, and some laws regarding cyber law are clearly defined. But despite that, this paper will narrow the scope in terms of where cyber law is the least developed, arguably that is within the context of data privacy and unauthorized access. These laws are often the least developed because they used to be enforced by legislation that covered traditional communication networks, such as mail and phone networks. But since data and unauthorized access is the least developed that means they are often the most abused by agents committing cybercrimes. Feasibly, this is mainly due to the fact that these sectors lack enforcement and detection methods. However, in regions where cyber law is most enforceable have decided to back enforcement and detection mechanisms that allow their cyber law to be practically enforced. But in order to understand how that’s possible a bit of background information on cybercrime and cyber law is necessary.

Background

Cybercrime has existed since the 1970’s in the form of network attacks on phone companies. Hackers would infiltrate telephone networks enabling them to create connection, reroute calls, and use payphones for free (The History of Phone Phreaking). This early era of hacking was a problem due to the lack of legislation that could act as a guide for law enforcement to accurately charge criminals. Arguably, it was the lack of legislation on hacking which allowed computer hackers to hone their techniques of network infiltration and data theft. The reason why that’s so can be observed in the late 1980s, where the intensity of large system attacks became more abundant and destructive. One of these major system hacks was perpetuated by a group known as 414. It may come as a surprise that this group wasn’t a group of hardened criminals, but rather 6 teenagers from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. These teenagers managed to hack high profile systems ranging from a nuclear power to banks (Stor). The intentions of the hackers didn’t seem maligned, since they didn’t steal any info from these systems. But the 414 hacks weren’t harmless either since they cost a research company $1,500 after the hackers deleted some billing records. But other major hacks weren’t as harmless. The notorious Morris worm is a prime example of the harmful effects of unwarranted network infiltration. The reason that’s the case is that it the Morris Worm was one of the first hacks that was distributed to the public internet (Sack). The worm was created by Robert Morris a Graduate student at Cornell in order to showcase the security problems of the internet, the worm would go on to cause in-between $100,000- $10,000,000 in damage by infiltrating networks and causing them to become non-operational (Newman). Clifford Stoll, one of the people responsible for purging the worm, described the Morris worm as such:

“I surveyed the network, and found that two thousand computers were infected within fifteen hours. These machines were dead in the water—useless until disinfected. And removing the virus often took two days.” (Sack)

Additionally, one of Stoll’s colleagues says that 6,000 computers were infected, which may not seem like much but only 60,000 computers were connected to the internet at that time. Meaning 10% of the internet was infected (Sack). Such attacks would force legislators to address the problems of cybercrime, specifically network infiltration. One of the first pieces of comprehensive cyber law to address these issues was the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act enacted by the United States congress.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

After a lieu of cyber-attacks plagued the world, the U.S Congress decided to specifically address cybercrime. Prior to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) cybercrime was prosecuted under mail and fraud, however that proved uncomprehensive. The CFAA’s framework defined what cybercrime entailed. One of the pioneering things the legislation did was define what kinds of computers were off limits to data infiltration. According United States code, In Title 18, Section 1030 of CFAA a computer is unlawful to hack if that computer is:

“(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or

(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States.” -18 U.S. Code § 1030 – Fraud and related activity in connection with computers (Cornell)

Basically, stealing information from a computer that effects the United States via interstate or foreign commerce/communication is forbidden. These specifications were enough to convict various individuals who committed cybercrimes in the late 1980s. Interestingly enough, Robert Morris was the first person to be convicted for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Specifically, because he intended to infiltrate several computers without authorization which negatively affected economics and communication within the US (Newman). Arguably, the enforcement power of the CPAA may have been the essential precedent needed for the international community in terms of creating sufficient cyber laws.

Budapest Convention on Cybercrime

In November 2001, the first international convention on cybercrime took place. The scope of the Budapest Convention on Cyber Crime (BCC), unlike the CPA, had a wide range because it addressed: IP law, fraud, and child pornography. However, the convention also found it important to address what unlawful access to a computer constituted, defining it as:

“..A Party may require that the offence be committed by infringing security measures, with the intent of obtaining computer data or other dishonest intent, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to another computer system.” -Article 2 of BCC (Council Of Europe)

Here, arguably, the BCC is more specific then the CPAA in terms of defining unlawful access. The reason being is that it ignores the economic/ social effects and directly addresses what unlawful access is which would be:

“..the intent of obtaining computer data or other dishonest intent…to a computer system that is connected to another computer system”.

The BCC ignores the economic/ social effects because some hacks may not influence the economy or society, by keeping the CPAA definition, the scope of data infiltration would’ve been limited to social and economic consequences on specific nations. Furthermore, the BCC’s unlawful access clause has been a topic of discussion for legal entities and private corporations.

Modern Developments

EU v Facebook

The precedent set by the BCC on data infiltration remains relevant in contemporary times. Especially when considering the role private corporations have in data security. This is evident when taking Facebook’s recent big data breach into consideration. In order to understand why Facebook could potentially be an important catalyst to cybercrime we need to understand Facebook’s role on the internet. Simply put, Facebook is a social media website which connects private users via a public platform, but despite it being a public platform users’ can share data privately. However, controversy emerged after users’ data was allegedly being misdirected and sold to third parties without user’s complete consent(Guzenko). This is a clear violation of the BCC’s definition of unlawful system infiltration. The reason that could be so is that since Facebook is in charge of maintaining data security for their users, that would mean Facebook selling data without user’s consent would constitute unlawful data infiltration according to article 2 of the BCC. Additionally, Facebook was hacked by a third party and millions of users’ data was exposed without user consent. After this particular hack the European Union decided to step in and reprimand Facebook via a 1 billion euro fine (Schnechner). The EU argues Facebook didn’t do enough to protect users’ data from infiltration, but such accusations do little for cyberlaw. The reason for that is that the EU could always argue that an entity “didn’t do enough” to protect user data, and supplement that reasoning with a fine. Rather, since cyberlaw is a relatively new field, legal entities ought to cooperate with influential players within the cyber world in order to create viable solutions to cybercrimes. The EU accusations assume that Facebook is the entity which allows 3^rd parties to access user’s data, but actually it’s the users themselves who allow it. Restricting one’s data is an option if a user changes their privacy settings. Additionally, It’s unrealistic to expect Facebook to curtail the behavior of its one billion users, some users may be more susceptible to data hackers due to their ignorance on data security. The reasoning the EU expels on to Facebook would be similar to this: If an EU citizen were to steal property from another citizen then the EU itself would be held accountable for allowing that to occur, and thus deserves to be fined. This is so because Facebook is similar to the EU, in that it’s a microcosm of different sets of people behaving in ways they can’t totally predict. So instead of focusing on how specific internet services operate, focus should be shifted to network self-enforcement. A prime example of that shift of focus would be China’s comprehensive self-regulating internet network.

China’s Internet Network

Modern cybercrime has evolved in terms of the magnitude of attacks. However, in the 21^st century cyber attacks, particularly on infrastructure, are not only possible but prevalent (Schmitt). An example of such an attack is explained by Tomas Ball, a contributor to the Computer Business Review

“in December 2015 a massive power outage hit the Ukraine, and it was found to be the result of a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) cyber-attack. This instance left around 230,000 people in the West of the country without power for hours…chaos was sewn using spear phishing emails, a low tech approach to launch such an attack; this trend is relevant today, with phishing still being used against critical infrastructure.” (Ball).

That’s only one case, but hacks on critical infrastructure can range from manipulating data which changes the chemical composition of drugs being manufactured, or to infiltrating a dam and redirecting electricity (Schmitt). Countries have implemented measures to mitigate and respond to this risk on critical infrastructure. A notable response to this problem has been from the Chinese government. China has been able to mitigate the risk of data infiltration by regulating its domestic network via legislation and technology. This may seem like a normal approach, but China is unique in the sense that it’s network is reinforced by technology which actively implements its cyber legislation. It’s difficult to understand the full scope of how China is able to do this (since the government isn’t transparent on how the network fully operates) but there are things that are clearly observable in terms of how data transfer is controlled. Firstly, data transfer in China is purposefully slowed. This is important because it allows the Chinese network to detect potential disturbances before they fully manifest, so infiltration could be detected much easier (Chew). Secondly, as mentioned before, the system self regulates. The Chinese government implements its own filters by creating comprehensive state tech that enforces Chinese law. However, China also puts heavy pressure on Chinese firms to self-regulate content, meaning that a firm that deals within the cyber world must follow the cyber laws or face a shutdown of business or a hefty fine. This is similar to how the EU went about dealing with Facebook, the only key difference being that the EU lacks its own data enforcement technology (Chew). And lastly, China’s network will respond to infringements of their cyber law by quickly “poisoning” unlawful data connections. An example of this would be if a hacker wanted to infiltrate some data network the connection would immediately be detected as a “poisonous connection” and thereby the hacker would be cut off from that connection (Chew). Arguably this is what sets China’s cyber network apart from everyone else, the ability to actively regulate data under their legal framework. Though it’s worthy to note that China’s network indeed does well in terms of enforcing its cyber law by regulating data, but that doesn’t mean the network is exempt from criticism.

China’s cyber network is rather effective in terms of enforcing its cyber law, however it has been used to disenfranchise its own civilian population. Qiang Xiao an internet researcher at UC Berkeley describes China’s internet network as such

“…it has consistently and tirelessly worked to improve and expand its ability to control online speech and to silence voices that are considered too provocative or challenging to the status quo.”(Xiao). But such things, unfortunately, should be expected. After all it makes sense for illiberal governments to manifest illiberal computer networks. But such realities shouldn’t deter liberal government from trying to conceptualize and develop internet networks which enforce cyber law. This is a lot easier said than done because it’s easier to enforce authoritarian cyber law than more liberal law (Schmitt).”

Mainly, due to the fact that the amount of computing power needed to create a liberal network would be immense. In conjunction with it being so massive, economic factors come into play when determining how effective cyber law is enforced in a region, leaving poorer liberal nations behind. Despite that, developments in quantum computing can allow for massive amounts of data to be processed and it’s getting cheaper as it develops (IBM). Not only that but quantum computing opens up the door for the network to self-learn, enabling better self-enforcement (IBM). Such features may intrigue governments who want to enforce a Common Law internet network since it can self-learn off of old legal precedents. So in the future enforceable cyber for liberal governments is definitely a possibility, and perhaps a necessity if strong cyber law is to be properly enforced.

In conclusion, since there are problems with enforcement and efficiency of cyber law, internet networks which actively enforce cyber law using the internet network itself are necessary to achieve practical cyber data enforcement. Different legal jurisdictions would naturally have different laws concerning their respective internet networks, therefore various network legal structures would need to exist to facilitate their cyber laws. Developments in quantum computing may pave the way for networks to regulate themselves.

Works Cited

“18 U.S. Code § 1030 – Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers.” LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030.

Ball, Tom. “Top 5 Critical Infrastructure Cyber Attacks.” Computer Business Review, Computer Business Review, 18 Jan. 2018, http://www.cbronline.com/cybersecurity/top-5-infrastructure-hacks/.

“Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.” Council of Europe, Council of Europe, http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680081561.

Chew, Wei Chun. “How It Works: Great Firewall of China – Wei Chun Chew – Medium.” Medium.com, Medium, 1 May 2018, medium.com/@chewweichun/how-it-works-great-firewall-of-china-c0ef16454475.

Guzenko, Ivan. “The Third-Party Data Crisis: How the Facebook Data Breach Affects the Ad Tech.” MarTechSeries, 5 July 2018, martechseries.com/mts-insights/guest-authors/the-third-party-data-crisis-how-the-facebook-data-breach-affects-the-ad-tech/.

“The History Of Phone Phreaking.” The History of Phone Phreaking — FAQ, http://www.historyofphonephreaking.org/faq.php.

Newman, Jon O. “UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Tappan MORRIS, Defendant–Appellant.” Stanford Law, stanford.edu/~jmayer/law696/week1/Unites%20States%20v.%20Morris.pdf.

Sack, Harald. “The Story of the Morris Worm – First Malware Hits the Internet.” SciHi Blog, 3 Nov. 2018, scihi.org/internet-morris-worm/.

Schechner, Sam. “Facebook Faces Potential $1.63 Billion Fine in Europe Over Data Breach.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 30 Sept. 2018, http://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-faces-potential-1-63-billion-fine-in-europe-over-data-breach-1538330906.

Schmitt , Michael N. “Cyberspace and International Law: The Penumbral Mist of Uncertainty.” Harvard Law Review, harvardlawreview.org/2013/04/cyberspace-and-international-law-the-penumbral-mist-of-uncertainty/.

Stor, Will. “The Kid Hackers Who Starred in a Real-Life WarGames.” The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 16 Sept. 2015, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/the-414s/hackers-wargames-true-story/.

“What Is Quantum Computing?” What Is Quantum Computing? , IBM, http://www.research.ibm.com/ibm-q/learn/what-is-quantum-computing/.

Xiao, Qiang. “Recent Mechanisms of State Control over the Chinese Internet – Xiao Qiang.” China Digital Times CDT, chinadigitaltimes.net/2007/07/recent-mechanisms-of-state-control-over-the-chinese-internet-xiao-qiang/.

The JFK Files: The Main Takeaways

Recently, The National Archives released thousands of classified government records on the John F. Kennedy assassination on October 23rd and November 3rd of 2017. Giving way for thousands of academics, journalists, & conspiracy theorists to sort through the ample amounts data. Though a great deal of the material is riddled with bureaucratic jargon, code names, and of course redacted info, the releases give an in depth and transparent look on these intelligence agencies at the time.

However, it’s worthy to note that thousands of other pages are being withheld for atleast 6 months. This coming after some slight pressure from the American intelligence community. Nonetheless, the recent releases have proved promising. The files cover a broad range of topics from detailing how intelligence was gathered from a stripper named “Kitty”, a 20 page “analysis” on Dr Martin Luther King, and even some creative ideas on how Cuban leader Fidel Castro should be assassinated. But the main focus of this article will be on the intelligence gathered by the FBI and CIA in the midst of the JFK assassination. Here are 4 things the public should know about the recent releases.

1. The Anonymous Call

An intelligence cable from a CIA station in London received intel gathered by MI-5 (Britain’s Security Service) about a strange call a local news reporter received. On November 22, 1963 a senior reporter from the Cambridge News received a call from an anonymous caller who said “(The Reporter) should call the American Embassy in London for some big news” the caller promptly hung up. About 25 minutes later president John F Kennedy was assassinated.

The senior reporter said he’d never received a call like that ever in his life and the MI-5 went so far as to say he was ” (A) sound and loyal person with no security record”. The MI-5 found it worthy to also note that this call was similar to other calls received by various other journalist involving the Dr Ward Case ( a case which dealt with a sexual scandal & espionage that could’ve crippled the British government in 1963)

2. Oswald’s Visa Talk: Phone Call Intercepts from the Soviet & Cuban embassies

In the weeks prior to the murder of JFK Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to secure visas from Cuba and the Soviet Union while in Mexico City. Both embassies seemed to try to help him get these long term visa’s despite his “terrible, hardly recognizable Russian” and poor Spanish. Silvia Duran (Cuban Consulate worker) was the first to be engaged in discussion with Oswald over a long term visa possibilities in Cuba. She tries to assist him in obtaining a Russian visa in order to make getting a Cuban Visa easier. She phones the Russian embassy and tries to see if they can come to some agreement over Oswald’s visa dilemma. Oswald claimed to be a part of a “pro-Cuban group”, but Silvia couldn’t get a visa for him initially because” he (knew) no one in Cuba” . Furthermore, obtaining a Russian Visa would take a long time, and evidently Oswald wasn’t worthy enough of a Russian recommendation. That didn’t stop his efforts. Oswald would then go through a series of phone calls with Russian officials about his visa status (one being Kostikov a KGB Agent specialized in assassination). However a man called Obyedkov abruptly hangs up on him in the middle of a conversation about a telegram.

Now why is this whole visa situation important? Well, clearly it shows us that Oswald was trying to relocate to either Cuba or Russia. But that raises more questions. Specifically, what were his motivations for obtaining these visas? Was he trying to obtain them as an escape plan for him to use after his assassination plot? Or was he trying to defect to these countries for other purposes?

Moreover, “Obyedkov” hanging up on Oswald should be a cause for further questioning. Was “Obyedkov” simply frustrated with Oswald, did he finally find out about Oswald’s self caused hospitalization back when he visited the USSR, or was he aware of something else?

3. November 24, 1963: Tell ’em It was Oswald.

This document is the least legible of the documents covered in this article and was written around 45 minutes after Oswald died. Oddly, it has no title, the author of this document isn’t named (But it can be assumed the words came from Hoover) , and it’s prefaced with “Mr J. Edgar Hoover said as follows”.

Th Document starts off in a rather blunt tone the first sentence says ” There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead.” It goes on to talk about Jack Ruby as Oswald’s murder, and briefly mentions his background. In addition, it seems as if Hoover was worried that Dallas Police officials were revealing too much information on Oswald and Ruby. Hoover feared it could potentially compromise the legal process.

In the third to last paragraph Hoover seems to be concerned about “…having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”. The paragraph goes on to talk about how the FBI could persuade the Attorney General that Oswald was the guy by using “pictures, laboratory work etc”. That would then lead the public to believe Oswald did it.

4. The Watson and Hoover Soviet MEMO

A couple sources working covertly in high Soviet and KGB positions offered some insight on how the Soviet government reacted to the Kennedy assassination.

The Soviets believed that the assassination wasn’t orchestrated by one man, but rather a highly organized “ultraright” group wishing to initiate a coup. In conjunction, they were fearful that some irresponsible general from the USA would launch a missile at the USSR. This coupled with other concerns instantly put the Soviet Union in a state of national alert.

The Soviets knew that Oswald was in the USSR for a period of time but they described him as “a neurotic maniac who was disloyal to his own country and everything else”. Additionally, they noted that he wasn’t involved in any organization in the Soviet Union and never received citizenship.

Also, the agents were able to infiltrate a high level KGB meeting, headed by Boris Ivanov (head of KGB) in New York City. Ivanov felt that the recent assassination was a problem for the KGB. And that this problem needed to be brought to every KGB agents attention until it was solved. The KGB also felt that the assassination couldn’t have been conducted by a sole perpetrator. The agency then put forth a plan to gather as much data possible about any possible group that could’ve executed the assassination plot.

Furthermore, Ivanov emphasized collecting as much intel about Lyndon B Johnson as possible. Quite frankly the Soviets knew nothing about him. They wanted an in depth search on “his background, his past working experience and records in congress..”.

2 years later the KGB met again in NYC after gathering intelligence about President Johnson. The source states that (per the instructions from Moscow) the KGB was in possession of data that would prove LBJ was responsible for the JFK assassination.

The document concludes with notes on several critical reports about the Warren Commission by Soviet media outlets.

Despite these main points, there is still plenty more to be uncovered by the recent data release. And the files that have revealed valuable information have in effect raised even more questions.

Feel free to indulge in the first hand declassified sources below.

The Anonymous Call: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32389606.pdf

VISA TALK: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10010-10249.pdf

TELL ‘EM IT WAS OSWALD: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32263509.pdf

WATSON and HOOVER MEMO: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32204484.pdf