The New York Times has a pretty disturbing review of how bad tempers have become in San Francisco. They point out that parking attendants are now under constant threat of being attacked by angry car owners roaming the streets:

People in the field say abuse is common, often frightening and, occasionally, humiliating. In November, an officer was spat on, another was punched through the window of his Geo Metro, and an irate illegal parker smashed the windshield of another officer’s golf-cart-like vehicle.

“Just driving down the street, you get yelled at,� said Lawanna Preston, staff director for Local 790 of the Service Employees International Union, which represents parking control officers.

The officers are city employees but not in the Police Department.

“They can’t even eat lunch with that uniform on, because people approach them and curse at them,” Ms. Preston said.

About 75 officers demonstrated on Friday at the Hall of Justice asking for more protection.

More protection…meanwhile, a parking crisis looms. One person, apparently an expert on the subject, says cheap parking meters and expensive lots are to blame for the crisis:

“Whenever someone from San Francisco calls to whine about the fact there’s no parking,” he said, “I always say, ‘Well, you have to choose, do you want to be more like San Francisco or more like L.A.’ And that usually ends the conversation.”?

That said, Professor Shoup noted that San Francisco had some questionable parking policies, namely cheap on-street parking and expensive garages and lots, a dynamic that encourages drivers to look endlessly for meters rather than pay for the privilege of parking off the street.

But that doesn’t explain the violence. Do San Franciscans think that they should be able to fight meter officers to get cheap parking? Is the city of free love becoming a city of hate? Fighting with parking enforcement should have some clear disincentives, no? It appears there may be something more sinister going on here, highlighted in events like the recent attack on a singing group from Yale visiting the city:

The incident, [Tina D’Elia of Community United Against Violence] said, shows “a level of targeted rage and hatred that is really scary and to me just screams that it is a problem that’s not going away. … If that’s not addressed, then what do we have? We have dead bodies.”

Indeed. While it may be hard to pin down the motives, the consequences of violent acts like those mentioned above are fairly clear and should not be tolerated or treated lightly by American cities.

One day this past summer I was walking along a mountain trail when I ran into a pair of hikers. We talked a little and before I knew it they were telling me about their church in a wealthy neighborhood of Connecticut where the priest had been caught embezzling millions of dollars to support his boyfriend’s lavish lifestyle.

I guess I kind of filed away the story in the back of my mind until I read a New York Times story the other day titled “Embezzlement Is Found in Many Catholic Dioceses“:

A survey by researchers at Villanova University has found that 85 percent of Roman Catholic dioceses that responded had discovered embezzlement of church money in the last five years, with 11 percent reporting that more than $500,000 had been stolen.

I am tempted to think about these stories in the same way that I used to think about Enron. Will the people demand reform? Will there be new accounting guidelines, including data processing controls, perhaps like applying SOX to churches? (Perhaps I should also ask whether the people who benefited from the fraud will become President of the US?)

Then I read quotes in the Times such as this:

“We think if you work for a church — you’re a volunteer or a priest — the last thing on your mind is to do something dishonest,� Mr. Zech said. “But people are people, and there’s a lot of temptation there, and with the cash-based aspect of how churches operate, it’s pretty easy.�

Is that really true? I thought the church was to help people who needed help, and to avoid assumptions about people being naturally inclined to make the right decisions on their own when faced with temptation. Perhaps financial sins and commandment violations are now regarded as less significant than topics like marrying someone of the same sex.

Hmmm, wonder what would happen if a church discovered that its priest was embezzling money from gay couples. The money would be tainted, but if it helped support the church’s mission…unless of course the priest was also gay and supporting his secret lover….

Back to the story, I think this quote makes a great deal more sense as to why so much fraud has been found:

“Churches have a tendency to be in denial about the potential for this conduct in their midst,� Mr. Knapp [director of the Southern Institute for Business and Professional Ethics, at Georgia State University in Atlanta] said. “When ethics seminars or ethics codes are proposed in churches, they are often met with resistance from people who say, ‘Why in the world would we need this? After all, this is the church.’ Whereas in business, people readily recognize that this sort of thing can happen.�

Indeed, although I have to say my experience has been that good people do bad things more than bad people lurk around waiting for the right moment to flex their unethical behavior. In other words, people seem to go off the rails when they self-rationalize actions under duress of externalities or environmental changes, or any number of odd motives. So it is probably not so much about universal ethics and dissuading people from the evils of temptation as it is figuring out who believes that they have justifiable “need” or can become righteous in seeking “salvation”. And from that perspective, it might be even easier to see why Churches would be in denial about it being a problem.

Newsfactor reports that the modern space race has led us to a one-terabyte drive for $399. They also point out some other interesting data points on modern reliability, performance and energy-consumption requirements:

…Hitachi’s new drives beat older models in more than just space. The Deskstar offers increased shock protection and three “idle” modes designed to help the drive consume less power. In turn, the CinemaStar boasts Smooth Stream Technology designed to maximize the performance of audio and video applications.

The “big” question (pun not intended) might also become how to secure huge repositories of data.

A traditional file system is hardly trustworthy enough to do a truly secure delete/move, for example. If we really are on the road to consumer product farms for data (e.g. 1-TB mirrored shared network storage systems at home), then I bet the next question will become how to use the space for database repositories with superior indexing, journaling and cleaning capabilities.

I mean it’s great to have a massive storage space to cram all your stuff into, but only if you can trust that it will not be lost, stolen and/or damaged.

The New York Times had an interesting article a few days ago about the ongoing prevalence of botnets. It suggests they are still growing in sophistication and size. The article is worth a read partly because of the amusing quotes like this one:

“It’s a huge scientific, policy, and ultimately social crisis, and no one is taking any responsibility for addressing it,� said K. C. Claffy , a veteran Internet researcher at the San Diego Supercomputer Center.

Sound familiar? We don’t need a military solution, we need a political one…and then there is this quote about how the security industry has been reacting to botnet risks:

“This is a little bit like airlines advertising how infrequently they crash into mountains,� said Mr. Dagon, the Georgia Tech researcher.

Eh? Is that supposed to be a good thing? Some people like security/safety record data, while some just care about legroom and/or price. For example:

Serry Winkler, a sales representative in Denver, said that she had turned off the network-security software provided by her Internet service provider because it slowed performance to a crawl on her PC, which was running Windows 98. A few months ago four sheriff’s deputies pounded on her apartment door to confiscate the PC, which they said was being used to order goods from Sears with a stolen credit card. The computer, it turned out, had been commandeered by an intruder who was using it remotely.

“I’m a middle-aged single woman living here for six years,� she said. “Do I sound like a terrorist?�

She is now planning to buy a more up-to-date PC, she said.

Clearly a price-sensitive customer, who perhaps does not appreciate being told she has to purchase a new computer to be safe from the botnets. On the other hand, do the botnets open up the possibility again of the ultimate alibi? They are often nearly impossible for the average user to detect, so will the increase in sophistication and size result in a corresponding rise in claims of plausible deniability?