Find My iPhone Vigilante Justice

After a Wednesday night out at the USC-classic 901 Bar and Grill, I unfortunately ended the carefree night by forgetting my iPhone in the back of my Uber ride home. Without the drivers phone number, my first instinct was to call my phone and turn on “Find My iPhone” – a popular GPS service from Apple that can locate your iPhone as long as it is switched on. Well, it was just my luck that my phone went “offline” somewhere in West Hollywood. Uber headquarters got back to me that night with the driver’s phone number, and no surprise when Salah failed to answer any of my calls. This guy was stealing my phone.

After pathetically finishing my McChicken through tears I made it to bed for a short night’s sleep. My anxiety did not fail to wake me up the next morning at 8am, and first thing I did was call Salah again. He shockingly answered, but told me that he did not find any iPhone in his car. When I told him that according to Find My iPhone my phone was switched off somewhere in West Hollywood, he said he had taken two passengers after me in West Hollywood. “Typical Hollywood guys,” he described to me, “maybe early 30s, British accents, they must have swiped it.” I asked Salah if could send me any further information about them – their name, number, address, whatever I could use to track them down. He had to go to work, but he was happy to send me anything he had. He actually seemed pretty nice.

Twice that morning, Find My iPhone notified me that my phone had been quickly switched on and off in two locations: the first near UCLA campus, the second at an address in Culver City.  Plugging the Culver City address into Google Maps, I saw that it was residential.  Meanwhile I had been talking to Salah all day. He sent me screenshots of the maps of his Uber rides after me, which gave me a residential address in West Hollywood. Salah said this was where the British men lived. So I had two addresses to investigate: one in Culver City (where the iPhone was last switched on) and one in West Hollywood (where these supposed “typical Hollywood guys” lived). That’s when I decided to go on the manhunt.

Frantically explaining my story to my best friends on iMessage on my Macbook and iPad, I wanted to see if anyone could drive me to check out these addresses. Some warned against the safety of showing up at random peoples' doorsteps. Obviously it seemed like a wild-goose chase and an overall dumb idea. More than likely the addresses weren’t going to lead me anywhere, and even if they did I could easily be putting myself in danger. Finally I found a friend on the same potentially naive wavelength as me: “Let’s go on an adventure and hunt these Hollywood club douches down,” she texted me.

We went to Culver City first, reluctantly got out of the car and knocked on some doors, armed with an iPad in hand with Find My iPhone evidence of an address that lead us to their door. Obviously no one had any idea what we were talking about. Defeated we got back into the car, but took notice of a car pulling up to a driveway nearby. For some reason, we both instinctively felt like we should wait a few minutes in the turned-off car. Then we spotted a man approaching us. “Jordan?!” the wide-eyed man was shocked to see us there. It was Salah – my Uber driver from the night before. So much for these British “Hollywood-type guys” I was looking for.

Find my iPhone had lead us to his home. I warned him of how suspicious this looked. After immediately denying it, he knew it was game over. “Don’t make a scene, my wife is right over there. I have your phone, I’ll go get it,” he conceded. Shaken up, my friend urged me to get back in the car. I rolled down my window, he gave me my phone in one piece, and we drove off.

Some real modern day Sherlock Holmes shit.

Technology has caused the nature of petty crime to change tremendously. People are not as easily able to hide behind anonymity, and frankly opportunists, like Salah, who don’t know what they are doing, are idiots. I would be surprised if anyone born before 1965 completely understands all the technology steps identified – from Find my iPhone, to screenshots of his Uber maps, to iMessaging on my Macbook and iPad. Yet to anyone born after 1985 this is all extremely basic. This technology at my disposal is exactly why I was tempted to take this mission into my own hands.

Despite my personal success, the New York Times cites similar examples to mine, and warns of this Find my iPhone vigilante justice:

"With smartphone theft rampant, apps like Find My iPhone offer a new option for those desperate to recover their devices, allowing victims like Ms. Maguire to act when the police will not. But the emergence of this kind of do-it-yourself justice -- an unintended result of the proliferation of GPS tracking apps -- has stirred worries among law enforcement officials that people are putting themselves in danger, taking disproportionate risks for the sake of an easily replaced item."

Although law enforcement deplores citizens taking these unnecessary risks, LAPD’s ambivalent response to my problem deterred me from pursuing their help as a first-step. Earlier in the day I had called LAPD and despite my evidence, the woman who answered wondered if I had just lost my phone at the bar. She said they receive many reports of missing iPhones, but I could come in and file a report if I wanted. I suspected LAPD would do absolutely nothing. To be fair, with countless more serious crimes to investigate in the area, I wouldn’t blame them. I mean, it was my fault for leaving my phone in the backseat to begin with. But to me, personally, this was a $700 item at stake and it was time-sensitive.

I’ve had a number of people tell me how lucky I was – both for actually succeeding at getting my iPhone back, and also at not putting myself in a more dangerous situation. But would I do this again? Absolutely. Perhaps foolish, but without a more efficient method for law enforcement to pursue iPhone theft, it may be the only solution. Technology is miles smarter than our average criminals, so perhaps advancing technology and efficiency capabilities among law enforcement can help put them one step ahead and save risks taken by average citizens, like myself.

People Who Hate Valentine’s Day More Than You

Valentine’s Day came and went this year as it does, everyone embracing their clichés: couples enjoying their gift exchanges and obligatory Instagrams, and singles throwing self-pitying anti-Valentine’s Day parties. It’s easy to get wrapped up in our own lives and social circles on v-day, as we compare our romantic lives to those of our friends and acquaintances. But Valentine’s Day, like many other Western-established holidays, has become very much a global holiday. Intuition tells us that love is universal, so Valentine’s Day is a harmless, even beneficial, product of globalization. However this is not entirely so, and many countries this year, particularly in Asia, have seen major pushbacks against the holiday.

In some countries the resistance to Valentine’s Day was primarily against Western consumerism and indulgence. In Japan, protesters part of a group called Kakuhido protest “passion-based capitalism” – the chairman of the group says, “Society is addicted to capitalism. People are profiting from it and we are here today to demonstrate our resistance to the love capitalists.” In Uzbekistan, university students were even required to sign declarations promising not to celebrate Valentine’s Day, against what is described as “European mass culture.” The government has increased police security in parks, and officials insist young people and couples should spend the holiday appreciating the 16^th Century poetry of Uzbek conqueror, Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur.

Other countries see traditional and religious values at risk on Valentine’s Day, associating the holiday with moral corruption and promiscuous behavior. In Malaysia, a Muslim majority country, a sermon by the Malaysian Islamic Development Department was distributed to mosques all over the country saying that, “social ceremonies such as this are a stepping-stone to greater social ills … that can invite disaster and moral decay among youths.” Ring-wing Hindu volunteers in India scanned the nation’s public parks and spaces on Valentine’s Day, offering counsel and a free marriage ceremony to couples caught hugging or kissing in public. The Cambodian government urged its youth to “please behave” and teachers were instructed to advise their students against inappropriate behavior. The Ministry of Education spokesman said that young Cambodians may be confused about the imported holiday and could interpret it as a license to have sex.

Indian women protest Valentine's Day as cultural invasion on Hindu way of life
Source:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

It is easy to look down on these cultural pushbacks against Valentine’s Day, writing each off as another example in a series of socially repressive actions in conservative countries. But we need to understand the products we are exporting on Valentine’s Day. Although it stands true, I don’t just mean the consumerist products of red roses, chocolate, candlelight dinners and romantic greeting cards. I mean the type of love we are exporting. Our culture has idealized a type of love relationship built upon attraction, emotion, connection, and affection. In the U.S. we are an individualistic culture and we do what is best for ourselves, including who we choose as our significant other. This is something we are taught from a young age. Disney princesses almost always defy their families’ wishes and what is in the societal norm in the pursuit of true love. Yet widespread in many Asian cultures is collectivism, where love is expressed through happiness of the family and community and doing what is best for the prosperity of the group. 

This Valentine’s Day individualistic-love we export knows no cultural boundaries and societies are forced to confront changing traditional views of love among youth. It is no surprise that foreign societies may perceive Valentine’s Day as a microcosm of Western values, posing a threat to tradition. Valentine’s Day, like many other Western exports and globalization generally, is impossible to reverse. However, it is important that we refrain from perceiving reactions like this as backward, and respect resistance to Western values as only natural in traditional cultures.

Arming Ukraine: Raise Your Hand If You Like Proxy War!

The ongoing war in Ukraine has really been out of the minds of the American people for the last few months. But things aren’t getting better, and in fact, estimates say that 5000 people have been killed since the fighting began. While the Obama administration has already committed $118 million in training and nonlethal equipment for the Ukrainian Defense Ministry, State Border Guard Service, and National Guard, the President has repeatedly rejected the idea of equipping the Ukrainian army with lethal arms. But the Russian-backed separatists seem to be winning.

A rare collaboration of eight former national security practitioners and top thinkers on Russia has reignited discussion on the scale of U.S. response and assistance to Ukraine, in the face of what looks like a losing battle. A united response from respected public intellectuals coming from the Atlantic Council, Brookings Institute, and Chicago Council on Global Affairs, including Strobe Talbott (see previous blog post), Charles F. Wald, Jan M. Lodal, John Herbst, and Steve Pifer is a big deal. The publication of their piece, "Preserving Ukraine’s Independence, Resisting Russian Aggression:What the United States and NATO Much Do," proposes arming the Ukrainian army with lethal weapons and escalating U.S. assistance to Ukraine. Their solution contains three main components: committing $1 billion this year to Ukraine’s defense, providing their defense with lethal arms, and pressuring other NATO member states to provide lethal weapons and assistance to Ukraine. They make a clear plea to the Obama administration:

"Assisting Ukraine to deter attack and defend itself is not inconsistent with the search for a peaceful, political solution—it is essential to achieving it. Only if the Kremlin knows that the risks and costs of further military action are high will it seek to find an acceptable political solution. Russia’s actions in and against Ukraine pose the gravest threat to European security in more than 30 years. The West has the capacity to stop Russia. The question is whether it has the will."

The entire report relies on the assumption that Vladimir Putin will back down to escalating violence. But what – besides us “trusting” these experts – indicates with any certainty that he would back down?

Much of Putin’s domestic popularity has been a result of his strong-armed foreign policy – securing regional authority, and resistance against against American and Western hegemony. It seems counterintuitive that he would capitulate under pressure. He certainly hasn’t despite the great economic blow Russia has suffered as a result of sanctions, and he won’t to military escalation. Like a grade-school bully, the last thing Putin wants to look like is weak. Our belligerence would provoke him, not defeat him.

Furthermore, Putin has a much greater strategic interest in Ukraine than we do. And he knows that. The commitment that the U.S. is prepared to make is limited – we will not get involved in a war, and we would certainly never send boots on the ground. Putin would be willing to escalate violence to a level that we would realistically never match.

While I don’t claim to have the solution, the U.S. and its European allies must create a new, concerted diplomatic plan. Ukraine is a country with a complex history and diverse ethnic makeup. Forcing them in a tug of war between Western institutions such as the EU and NATO, and Russia, ignores the national history and demography and thus we are also to blame for aggravating Ukraine’s internal conflict. Russia must recognize that Ukraine has the democratic right to elect leaders and join the European Union. But we, too, must respect minority rights in Ukraine the same way we do in so many other nations. While Talbott and others are correct in making this threat to European security a foreign policy priority, the solution does not lie in provoking Putin. Our only solution is to make the bully feel like he is winning. This lies in constructing a unified Euro-Atlantic, all-hands-on-deck diplomatic effort, guided by strategy and reason. Let’s put our minds to work.

The Public Intellectual: Strobe Talbott

Strobe Talbott epitomizes the clichéd intelligentsia that one’s mind might jump to when thinking of revered academics. Born into a charmed life, Talbott attended the prestigious Hotchkiss School, and then went on to pursue a B.A. in Russian Studies at Yale. Talbott’s connections to past U.S. presidents also haven’t hurt. Not only is he a distant relative of the Bushes, but he attributes much of his career path to his friendship with Bill Clinton, who he befriended during his time as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford. Talbott’s Russia expertise must have made an impression on Clinton, because Clinton later named Talbott his Russia hand and deputy secretary of state. That being said, Talbott’s patrician background is not to diminish his expertise and wealth of experiences. Talbott spent the majority of his career – 21 years – as a journalist for Time Magazine, mainly covering international affairs. Talbott then served at the State Department from 1993-2001, first as ambassador-at-large and special adviser to the secretary of state for the new independent states of the former Soviet Union, and then as deputy secretary of state. During that time he oversaw negotiations concerning the NATO bombing campaign of the former Yugoslavia, and India and Pakistan’s nuclear confrontation, two events that have stayed with him. Talbott is now president of the Brookings Institute, one of the most prestigious think-tanks in Washington.

Strobe Talbott is not a public intellectual however, solely on the basis of his rich resume and background. As Stephen Mack explains in his piece on “The Supposed Decline of the Public Intellectual,” our focus when looking at public intellectuals must be less on the “qualifications for getting and keeping the title” as a public intellectual and rather on the work and quality of ideas they present. While Strobe Talbott is a highly respected public intellectual and has extremely intelligent points to make on foreign policy issues such as Russian affairs and global governance, Talbott sometimes falls short in his tendency to oversimplify complex realities.

What Talbott is known best for, and is frequently welcomed as a guest on major network news shows for his opinions on, is Russia. Studying Russia closely for decades, including its language, history, and dealing first hand with many the nation’s leaders, Talbott may understand the complexities of Russia better than most leaders in Washington. In his recent popular article for Politico Magazine entitled “The Making of Vladimir Putin” Talbott breaks down Putinism and the psyche of the Russian president. He explains that Putin’s leadership thrives on Russian ethnic nationalism and Soviet-era power nostalgia, but that Putinism modeling the previously-failed Soviet system makes its failure inevitable too. Also because Putin won’t be around forever. Where Talbott really gets it right is in his recognition of Russian society as more than it’s antagonistic leadership:

"But in designing new strategies for dealing with the Kremlin in the months and years ahead, we should remember, too, that Russia today is not the Soviet Union. It’s not stuck in the mid-20^th century, to say nothing of the 19^th.  It’s nowhere near as monolithic and isolated as it was in the bad old days. Its people have had more than a taste of what it’s like to live in a normal, modern country. Russia is bigger and more resilient than Putinism; it will outlive the Putinist system just as it survived the one he is trying to resurrect."

It is easy for the American public to mistake Russian society as how it is often portrayed in the media: a backward society of drunks and aristocrats, both of which champion Russia’s aggression as strength. Talbott knows to make the distinction clear between the leadership and society, and that is it not in Russian nature yesterday, today, and tomorrow to be the “bad guys.” In a January 2015 Brookings podcast, Talbott recommends that the U.S. pursue channels to engage with Russian society, Russian private sector, and even parts of Russian power elite who are invested in the policies of Gorbachev and Yeltsin which were more open to engagement with the West. This, he claims, is the way to the Russian heart and essentially the way to push Putin out.

Strobe Talbott, however, falls short on critiquing U.S. policies that may have contributed to Russia’s insecurity and fueled Putin’s popularity. Perhaps it is a result of a commitment to defending U.S. policies that he played a role in making, but Talbott fails to look back at history and question what the U.S. could have done better. The story he tells is one where the U.S. is the ultimate champion of democracy and human rights, and while Russia was on a positive path after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it quickly reversed after Putin built up his cult of personality and clutched onto power. Although Vladimir Putin’s leadership and operational code explain a great deal, the U.S. could have handled its post-Cold War unipolar moment with much more care. Instead of making the recently collapsed Soviet Union feel engaged and important in the international stage, we basked the glory of being the most powerful nation on earth and minimized the new Russia. We threatened Russian security by extending NATO, a security organization perceived as anti-Russian, eastward up to Russia’s borders and to former Russian territories. Putin’s resentment of the U.S. has been a sentiment shared by many, and asserting Russian power against a system essentially dictated by the U.S. should not come as a surprise. In no way does this history justify Putin’s aggression towards its former territories including Georgia and more recently Ukraine, but Talbott’s story on Russia is incomplete without looking critically at U.S. foreign policy mistakes.

Aside from his expertise on Russia, Strobe Talbott also has a vision and passion for global governance. In a 1992 Time Magazine article “America Abroad: The Birth of the Global Nation” Talbott asserts, “In fact, I’ll bet within the next hundred years, nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single global authority.” This hippie-esque statement sings the same tune as John Lennon: “Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.” His parents likely had a great deal to do with his almost radical vision; his parents were internationalist republicans and United World Federalists, which advocated that in order to avoid another world war, we needed if not a global government, a strengthened system of global governance.

Talbott has let go of some of his idealism since then, particularly during his time at the State Department, realizing in practice that nations would not wholly commit to an international system of governance during his lifetime. Nationalism is too strong, and the international system currently too weak. Yet Talbott still sees a stronger, more enforceable system of global governance as the only answer to solving some of our world’s greatest issues; the two greatest threats, he believes, are nuclear proliferation and climate change, which absolutely require complete global cooperation. In 2008, Talbott released a book entitled “The Great Experiment: The Story of Ancient Empires, Modern States, and the Quest for a Global Nation” where he lays out the need for, not an all-powerful government out of a dystopian novel, but an extensive network of organizations and structures that support each other and create agreements that are better enforced. He believes that this new order is coming, and that the role of the nation-state will diminish.

While it is easy to get behind Talbott’s utopian vision in theory, his argument for a global government has major gaps. Strobe Talbott’s aspiration for a globally governed world is visionary, but his idealism ignores the complex realities and lacks pragmatism. He leaves behind a number of unanswered questions, including how this system of global governance would function, who would “run” it, how it would be organized, and really anything about its operation in practice. Instead of assessing some of the dangers of a global government, Talbott oversimplifies the wisdom of a global government to resulting in increased peace. The greatest hole in his argument is the assumption that the world would complacently agree to operate under Western standards of human rights and values. By this logic, global government begins to sound more like an extension of Western power. Talbott does make a strong case, however, on the U.S.’s responsibility to leadership on global commons issues such as climate change, and to let go of our obstinate commitment to maintaining our sovereignty on critical global issues.

There is no question that Strobe Talbott has incredible knowledge and experience, and he has ideas that policymakers in Washington would benefit from listening to. However, as a journalist at heart, Talbott may be tempted to oversimplify complex people and events so as to tell a compelling story or make a compelling point. Still, Talbott’s ideas are fuel for discussion and as Mack puts it, “keep the pot boiling.”