A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, Feb. 22, on Chinese cyber-espionage:
For a decade, the Chinese government’s cyber-espionage activities have been an open secret in Washington.
The hacking and theft of intellectual property were widely known but not publicly discussed by either the companies being victimized or the federal government.
However, with the recent public release of a detailed report by cyber-security firm Mandiant, which draws a clear line between the Chinese military and extensive hacking activity, the behind-the-scenes drama has taken center stage.
We hope the public discussion, and the president’s strategy to mitigate trade-secret theft, are just the beginning of a broad and multilateral effort to pressure the Chinese, as well as other nations that have been snooping around in corporate systems.
It is unfair for U.S. companies to spend the money and intellectual capital in developing ideas, business plans and sales strategies only to have that information stolen and used by competitors.
In this case, the suspicion is the secrets the Chinese military steals are funneled to state-sponsored companies that compete with U.S. companies in the global marketplace.
Of course, the Chinese government denies having engaged in such activities, but the Mandiant report is well-documented. There would have to be a stunning number of coincidences in play for the Chinese to have been accused in error.
The Obama administration responded to the report with a strategy white paper outlining approaches to the problem. It includes putting offending countries on “watch lists” and urging other countries to join in pressuring bad actors to stop their hacking activities. It also, as one critic quoted in The Washington Post noted, refers to strategies already in play. It includes the word “continue” more than 20 times.
The question, then, is what more can be done to combat such activity. We hope the administration is privately pressuring China to cease and desist. But there are other ways, including denial of visas to officials from companies that benefit from the theft, or students and researchers from universities connected to hacking activities. There also is room for more aggressive prosecution of cyber-espionage cases against perpetrators, regardless of who they may be.
It’s a delicate matter, since there are many issues upon which the U.S. and China need to cooperate to serve mutual interests (North Korea comes to mind). But this country must defend its economic interests and find a way to stop aggressive Chinese hackers bent on appropriating some of America’s greatest assets—the creativity and innovation of its people.
Editorial:
———
The Longmont Times-Call, Feb. 27, on the size of congressional districts:
The U.S. Constitution sets the minimum size for a congressional district at 30,000 and guarantees that every state has at least one representative.
Since the Constitution was written, the size of districts has continued to increase, even as the number of seats in Congress has increased, from 105 members to the current 435, the maximum number allowed since 1911.
Some now say that the 435-member House of Representatives is out of date and that the body is too small for the nation’s population, now about 315 million.
But a larger Congress is not necessarily a body more capable of handling the nation’s business. Districts of 700,000 members are indeed large, but their size is not a problem so much as the way they are drawn, sliced in a political process intended to benefit one party or the other. A nonpartisan process is preferable.
As to size, a Congress that keeps up with population is one that, ultimately, could become (even more) unruly. A representation of one for every 500,000 — which would not significantly reduce the problem of sprawling districts — would bump the size of Congress to about 600 members. Those 165 new members alone would not bring an end to bitter partisanship or gridlock.
Having one representative for every 300,000 residents, something that might reduce the need to sprawl districts across vast expanses, would leave the U.S. with a 1,000-member House.
Members of Congress are elected to represent their districts, and that includes diverse populations even within those districts. Efforts to pare down those sizes will not produce better representation.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Gazette, Feb. 26, on a pending bill to amend the Colorado Open Records Act:
A woman in Colorado Springs needs to examine the permits issued to a contractor who moved here from the Western Slopes. She’s considering hiring him but wants to know the nature of work he has done. She calls a clerk at the county who says the man’s file is open for inspection and can be copied for a fee. Just come on down and look at the file.
“But I’m in Colorado Springs,” the woman says. “I’m five hours away. Can you just fax me records of three permits, or drop them in the mail?”
“No can do. Sorry,” says the clerk. “Our records are open to the public, but you have to come inspect them in person.”
It happens every day in Colorado. Some records custodians working for cities, townships, counties and other political entities refuse to mail, fax or email public records that, by law, should be available to anyone anywhere in the world. For someone who cannot afford the time and/or money to make a trip, the record isn’t open and accessible.
It’s just one of a litany of problems that have emerged in recent years to make a joke of the Colorado Open Records Act, which is supposed to protect the public’s access to almost all government records.
A bill making its way through the Legislature this week would, at the very least, eliminate the problem of governments that require in-person inspection. The bill, sponsored by Sen. John Kefalas, D-Fort Collins, passed on a voice vote Monday. It requires one more vote before returning to the House, which approved a slightly different version of it.
High fees for the retrieval and copying of government records poses another giant obstacle that makes mockery of open records laws. Governments in Colorado are limited to charging 25 cents for each copy, but a growing number of public entities—including Colorado Springs city government—have started charging hefty hourly fees when a request requires any substantial amount of work on the part of a public employee.
A Republican amendment to the Kefalas bill would have limited the fees governments can charge for “research” and other tasks involved with providing records to the public, but Democrats didn’t allow it.
“We have to not let agencies themselves go and interpret what they deem reasonable,” said Sen. Vicki Marble, R-Fort Collins, in arguing for the amendment.
It’s a shame that she didn’t prevail. A fee of $75 an hour, or even more, means a lot of people simply don’t have access to records they need. We know of at least one Colorado sheriff’s department that tried to impose a fee of $3 million for records of a case that were, by law, open to the public.
This is not a left vs. right, Republican vs. Democrat dilemma. It’s a problem that pits Colorado governments against the people they are supposed to serve—the people who created governments and pay for them.
Yes, pass the Kefalas bill but go a lot farther toward making Colorado governments transparent. A government that creates obstacles for the public is not a government of, by and for the people.
We long for the day when all public documents are readily accessible for free on the Internet, with the exception of those we ask government to seal for appropriate reasons such as public safety and legitimate issues of privacy. The politician who can make that happen—eliminating fees and trips and all variety of bureaucratic burdens—will be seen as a genuine hero who is selflessly devoted to the collective good.
Editorial:
———
The Boulder Daily Camera, Feb. 27, on sidewalks and snowstorms:
It would be nice if after a snowstorm, all residents would shovel their sidewalks. Most do, because they want to be neighborly, because it’s the right thing to do, or because they care about general pedestrian safety. Some may do it just to avoid getting a ticket, which is just fine with us.
Some don’t shovel their sidewalks following a storm, possibly because they’re out of town or injured and didn’t make other arrangements to have their sidewalk shoveled.
And some don’t because they don’t want to shovel snow. It’s heavy and it’s cold. They don’t believe in being neighborly, and they are willing to break the law.
This last group are exactly the kind of scofflaws the City of Boulder’s snow-removal ordinance was designed for. By setting up a guideline — Boulder gives residents 24 hours from the time the last snow falls to shovel their sidewalks — everyone is held to the same, fair standard. By setting up a punishment, and it can cost homeowners $50 to $300 if the city gets rid of the snow for them, they can dissuade the bad actors and keep the sidewalks clear.
It’s not unlike parking laws — they apply the same, to everyone, the routine lawbreakers are most likely to be ticketed. Sometimes, a meter will run out on a diligent rule-follower, and she’ll get a ticket anyway. And sometimes, it may run out but the driver beats parking enforcement: No ticket.
The threat of punishment — evenly applied — is appropriate. But it doesn’t mean the city should be playing “gotcha” with its residents either.
Code enforcement is done Monday-Friday. This poses a problem with a late-week snow that might not be shoveled over the weekend — and a sunny or dry Monday may provide a “quick getaway” for the scene of the crime. This has led to some city leaders pondering whether Boulder is doing enough to enforce the law.
The most stubborn (or lazy) locals who don’t shovel are usually well-known by the neighbors — because they are just as likely to not shovel on a Tuesday night as they are to not shovel on a Saturday morning. They are the people the ordinance is rightly designed for.
As far as hiring more officers: If Boulder’s code enforcement needs in general need to be addressed, restructure how it is done. Adding more officers simply to nab weekend layabouts — or play “gotcha” with the rare good neighbor caught unprepared — seems like a needlessly acrimonious way to apply this law.
The Boulder Police Department has been responsible for certain aspect of code enforcement since October 2011. If there is a particularly dangerous sidewalk or a whole string of them all day Friday, Saturday and into Sunday, why not just have an on-duty officer empowered to enforce the law? They don’t need to be driving around looking for a slick walkway, but if enough complaints come in and it’s truly impacting public safety, just follow the law as it is written.
Editorial:
