Privacy and People in Policy: encryption and its connection to human trafficking

[originally written and put up as a hasty series of posts here during peak wave 1 COVID-19 madness: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10113002978189293&id=2256689 ]

PART I

Two National Privacy-related (one youth human trafficking/exploitation centered) legislative bills worth noting:

1) EARN IT act -- end-to-end encryption vulnerability

I read about 55/65 pages of the EARN IT act which is centered on youth human trafficking/sexual exploitation and has a provision some privacy advocates are concerned would give power to halt end-to-end encryption.

Further analysis found in Part II.

In short, a committee of bipartisan appointees would make best practice recommendations which then become a bill + the Attorney General would be able to take some pretty bold actions to enforce.

More likely than not, the Attorney General or committee and bill would bw inclined to "shoot the messenger" (ban/take over end-to-end encrypted apps like whatsapp, signal etc.) rather than solve root issues like housing/functional foster care, employment, addiction/counseling, not penalizing the sex workers/holding the traffickers accountable, etc.

2) USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020 -- renews part of the Patriot Act

USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020 would renew section 215 of the Patriot Act and reauthorizes Section 215 powers Congress established under the USA Patriot Act in 2001.

Section 215 is the provision national-security agencies have cited to support their unwarranted collection of phone records of hundreds of millions of people in the United States. If I recall correctly, the method most people took public alarm to was a technically legal collection (metadata + triangulation) of data, rather than the individual's actual--so it's like stalking someone's life through their trash rather than going into their house to find out what they're doing.

See comments for a more detailed analysis.

[1] https://www.eff.org/document/earn-it-act

original introduced bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3398

[2] https://www.freepress.net/news/press-releases/congress-tries-sneak-through-dangerous-spying-bill-under-cover-coronavirus

Have not yet read the USA FRA bill. Definitely haven't read the Stimulus Package and probably won't.

PART II
Privacy/freedom of speech advocacy notes in federal policy:

Congress is looking to renew the Patriot Act for data collection:

"If approved, the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020 would reauthorize Section 215 powers Congress established under the USA Patriot Act in 2001. Section 215 is the provision national-security agencies have cited to support their unwarranted collection of phone records of hundreds of millions of people in the United States."

https://www.freepress.net/news/press-releases/congress-tries-sneak-through-dangerous-spying-bill-under-cover-coronavirus

And in what you'd think was entirely unrelated--youth exploitation/sex trafficking legislation--other folks are concerned that it's a push to cripple end-to-end encryption.

This was framed as a privacy rights/free speech issue by the EFF but I see there's a lot more to it after reading most of the bill--the bill is 65 pages long and in sentiment is decent: Why not get a committee to develop best practices around preventing the sexual exploitation and trafficking of youth?

Summing up the prevailing problem in one line:

The policy's still attacking the messengers, not the folks with the message.

Three things I see as issues with non-expert and possibly haunch-like skepticism:

1. Root Causes Remain Unsolved
Root causes like a functional foster care system, viable domestic abuse shelters and recovery (including mobility and basic housing for those who are trying to leave an abusive family and have a healthy place to live; counseling and therapy or addiction recovery support), victim protections* are probably not addressed.

Or if so, definitely not adequately--our country is terrible at addressing this and we still struggle to make the necessary changes last.

At best, there will be a report and legislation with best practices that might unify a few agencies depending on the administrative leadership that's been around. But how would the best practices compiled by committee differ from those identified by NGOs like Polaris which are still working on the same issues?

i.e. many trafficked sex workers wind up getting penalized more than the people that exploited them--Cytonia Brown (a child at the time of her sentencing) and another teenager (whose name I unfortunately forget but is still facing prison time despite being the victim) being very recent visible examples of this--and must bear more stigma while not getting support for their own needs much like how low level drug dealers wind up with the brunt of issues ranging from hard to cut gang ties and sometimes addiction

2. Shooting the Messenger, but Not the SourceAs EFF points out, this bill makes whatever the committee recommend turn into legislation, and while I couldn't find the specific sections in the bill (pretty sure it'll be somewhere toward the end of the first ⅓ of the bill in the 20-30 page range), the AG allegedly would have power to basically force encrypted web services like WhatsApp and signal to (presumably broadly) disclose private user information or just shut them down -- those are Messengers, not necessarily the source of the messages and it becomes a violation of privacy much like the Patriot Act

3. Does your elected official know how to use "the google" or how the internet works?Most elected officials don't really know how basic technology really works -- the committee would be made of lots of majority and minority appointees.

I.e. Mark Zuckerberg's congressional hearing is an unfortunate example in how incompetent the average representative and their likely chosen advisors tend to be.

Sophos security summary article

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2020/03/13/earn-it-act-threatens-end-to-end-encryption/

Senate Bill

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3398/text

EFF advocacy

https://act.eff.org/action/protect-our-speech-and-security-online-reject-the-graham-blumenthal-bill

Jose, Maria, y Jesus

"A word on perspective: for this image, I chose very, very wide vanishing points. The result is what I occasionally call “middle-class white people perspective.” Rather than feeling immersed in the scene, the viewer is looking at it as if from across the street or from the warmth and safety of his or her passing car. I have a small hope that this Christmas image will come to mind when we see other “down and out” people huddling outside of gas stations, reminding us that our Savior’s parents (and indeed, Jesus himself) were at one time similarly troubled."

-Everett Patterson, illustrator of Jose y Maria

Worth considering again: would Jose and mother Maria find a place to stay for baby Jesus (pronounced here as Hey-Zeus for those who prefer to "speak American" only) this past Christmas Eve/Day?

Or would the town offer thoughts and prayers (and maybe send profits) to build a wall to keep them out so shop owners and employees can go home for the night without troubling themselves with someone else's problems?

Some people insist on celebrating Christmas while pushing to turn away refugees who seek a safe place to find a home for their children who are getting separated from them when they arrive at the border--despite the fact that coming to the U.S. border is a necessary step for seeking political asylum.

While there's relatively little most of us can do when a nation's population suffers from war, understanding the causes and developing ways for aiding the displaced with dignified hospitality is among the most visceral ways to take responsibility as someone who's part of the bigger world that more of us would like to create. A place where people do the right thing and can take confidence in finding shelter, knowing there are places that care for their children, a place where they safely find work and contribute to a society that once carried a reputation for bringing together cultures from around the world.

Domestically, a liquor store clerk or owner isn't in business to tell people where to find a place to stay, and probably isn't interested in letting a tired couple from out of town stay in the store for the night even if it's open 24/7. But one's job isn't the same as one's responsibility to others in the world. Profit isn't the same as prosperity, and true wealth can be found in our collective health.

We now have the benefit of lots of perspective to learn from: from retrospective allegory to lived and learned history -- all on our side in a way that at least gives us an opportunity to make better choices when national policy works against us.

As a son of South Vietnamese refugees from the Vietnam War, we would be wise to heed refugee stories and understand how delicate calling a nation the place of one's home can be. Knowing and witnessing refugees firsthand from Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, many of the unfolding stories in current and recent events echo the experiences I hear in my parents circles too.

Witnessing firsthand how gaps in payments from government shut downs or employer shortcomings can lead to missed payments, foreclosures, and evictions, the line between homelessness and someone who suddenly seeks help from people with different privileges becomes just as delicate and thin.

Having lived amid domestic abuse during the holidays, we also would benefit from knowing why people would choose to stay out of the house rather than come home to their family -- it's often the same reason a family would try to leave their neighborhood or country when gang violence gets so bad and look for help from others who seem to be doing okay. It's the same reason families will try to flee or--if they can afford it--fight when corruption and war sets upon their homeland and country.

People tend to shy away from issues like homelessness because the causes for the problem normally carry a bundle of nuanced root causes that are bigger than what one person or organization can carry and solve. It calls us to create and steward a cohesive community that's more committed to care than the stigmas that are associated with the problems.

It takes empathetic moral and ethical imagination to consider what the right thing to do and follow through. It takes courage for people who are insecure about trying to address more than what they're accustomed to dealing with to find assurance in learning how to navigate the consequences of their action or inaction.

But I imagine that when we don't learn from those consequences as individuals, as a community--or if we're really fortunate as a culture, there's a good chance others will meet an unnecessary suffering that one decision could have spared.

Or maybe we can just ask "what is the courageous choice?" before doing our best with whatever answer we may find along with our responsibility to the consequences that arise.

I'm not providing all the answers here, for most of us, this week is an opportunity to celebrate and reflect with loving moments away from our usual work pattern and that's important too. Heck, maybe it'll take a few people who actually read this the whole week to get through all this text I've written.

Yet the meaningful work and opportunities for change will continue exist beyond Christmas day just like any other incident that's notable enough to stir up "thoughts and prayers" for some group of people and merit sustained action.

But if the business you work for doesn't account for ways to care for the community it operates in beyond a bottom line and its usual budgeted priorities, it may be time to envision what the difference between profit and prosperity means and take steps to demonstrate it.

Meanwhile, there are many people and causes worthy of effort in Detroit and certainly around the world. You can help Dior Gabrielle and others with Operation Care Kit Detroit--which will continue to operate long after the holiday season closes and into the most critical winter months for survival that a homeless person will often face without sufficient aid.

You can read more about the picture used in this post and what went into the illustrator's story behind creating it here:

http://www.everettpatterson.com/?p=1835

Co-opting common words

Clarifying an ambiguous concept; co-opting a common word

There's a video floating on the internet from a woman who contends she doesn't need feminism and thoughtfully explains why:

What she really highlights is a problem about how nuanced academic concepts get lost in public advocacy--her arguments apply more to feminist advocates and organizations.

To many, she still qualifies as a feminist. Specifically because she's pointing out injustices which men experience that people don't hear. I'll explain:

Feminism (in academia) at the core is about power inequality (doesn't matter for what gender or group of people), and by questioning the way we tend to look at power dynamics [1]. Feminism focuses on prevailing oppression and the injustice that an oppressed/minority group tends to suffer in situations that could be resolved ethically.

Unfortunately, the way the language is used, feminism sounds like it dismisses all the other realities that men face.

It's a lot like how #BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter hashtag users run into dispute, or when scholars/social justice practitioners talk about "blackness/whiteness" without giving appropriate context and room for the public to take ownership of a word that seems like it had a common definition.

It sounds divisive because the labels seem to focus on the issues on face (black people and white people--similar to the way feminism comes across as 100% a divide between females and males), rather than the dynamics of the relationship that makes one group dominant or oppressive.

Lauren (the woman in the video) brings great perspective from the practical/advocacy side of things--all the stats and her arguments work, she takes ownership of the word "feminism" from a different (valid) perspective.

I'm willing to guess the core group of people who really drive the "movement" for feminism (or even the racial justice movements) have yet to recognize or acknowledge how the name "feminism" can lead to confusion to someone new to the idea don't realize it can cover more than just the genders implied by the name.

It's a severe flaw in the way we use "fuzzy" language, or when a group of people take ownership of ideas that seemed to have common appeal and understanding.

After this becomes public understanding, developing guidelines with peoples' "rights and responsibilities" for common language seems like the next step for people to take.

The fundamental ethical (and practical) question revolves around asking:
"how much right do individuals, or a significant population of people have for taking ownership of a common word or phrase's meaning?"

Today, conservatism and progressivism exemplify very specific political ideologies and histories in the U.S. Conservatism rarely if ever means including land conservation to a politician unless they want to appeal to the "outdoor sportsman" (AKA Hunting/Fishing) community. Progressive now gets stigmatized with government-sponsored care programs, rather than government policy that breaks out of political gridlock and actually functions to serve the people it's supposed to serve. It's frighteningly easy to associate

It's a subtle but classic example of a "tragedy of the commons" problem in our current events. And yes, we can beat the tragedy of the commons. It requires we trust, then verify to communicate and collaborate.

[1] Feminism, see it in action here! Julie Nelson's critique about how most economists avoid ethics in their considerations, what it means for making "objective" interpretations, and how feminism applies to it. http://scholarworks.umb.edu/econ_faculty_pubs/32/

Fuzzy concepts, wikipedia has a satisfying enough description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_concept

Tragedy of the Commons:
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/07/17/psychology-professors-tricky-extra-credit-question-goes-viral/

Real-life Tragedy of The Commons examples:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/ten-reallife-examples-of-the-tragedy-of-the-common.html

Beating the Tragedy of the Commons:
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/8104/Elinor_How%20Communities%20Beat%20the%20Tragedy%20of%20the%20Commons%20(Slides).pdf?sequence=1

Proactivity & Humanitas as Ethos

To enact sustainability and viability, I hold an ethos of proactivity and humanitas in high esteem: Creative, solutions-oriented initiative with clear outcomes envisioned for the near and long term. The notion of empowerment and the idea that everyone can humanely make a difference in the world create the core of my understanding of "humanitas".

I find my bearings in that process of difference making through a spiraling cycle of humane education, empowerment, and engagement which I attempt to integrate into my presence at every event I attend or create. More specifically, I seek to inform, educate, empower myself and others to take relevant and significant action in the world and repeat with evaluation (which enters the next level of the spiral by informing and educating myself and others about what I've learned from the most recent action).

"In the end we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught." -Baba Dioum

Our personal values and worldviews are fostered by what we learn. These values ultimately inform the kinds of information, problems, and solutions we tend to consider and pursue. In this regard, respecting and cultivating the dignity of others to learn and act through compassion make them crucial habits for social sustainability.

Social sustainability ultimately shapes our capacity to understand and act toward comprehensive sustainability. Social sustainability concerns everything from how we communicate with art, non-violence, education, compassion, love, peace, just governance, and democracy with a backbone in living the humane ethics we aspire to understand and share as individuals and collectively. In essence, when focusing on social sustainability, one strives to cultivate lasting and fulfilling relationships.

Trust, security, confidence in other people, in the land we live with, and any other beings we share the planet with are necessary for taking prudent action. To me, prudent action is the essence of economics.

For resolving complex socio-economic challenges and wicked processes like "the tragedy of the commons", people require trust before they can manifest quality collaboration across a diversity of stakeholders. I'll share the Russian phrase "doveryai, no proveryai", "Trust, but verify." I'll also add that love, even in a fairly definitive non-romantic sense, has its role in conservation (conservation in the environmental and economic sense toward sustainability).


To ensure tangible change, we must look to how our environment--social, economic, and physical changes in a result of our heartfully intended actions.

Characterizing Sustainability

Some concepts cannot be defined in absolute terms, they can however be characterized: Sustainability is one of them, ethics too. Much of my academic, co-curricular, and career endeavors are/were vested in understanding, exploring, and enacting concepts of sustainability. My senior capstone project focused on sustainability as a "fuzzy concept" and "wicked problem" (more accurately to me, a wicked process since satisfying solutions beyond prevention don't always exist) and how we can influence higher education institutions to lead the notion of sustainability to tangible and significant outcomes as individuals and organizations. Beyond understanding its implications from academic literature, theoretical and applied science for sustainability, I interpret sustainability as an existential ethos of three characteristics:

1. Continuity
Realize, create, and maintain conditions under which humans and everything we live with can exist in productive harmony.

2. Comprehensiveness
Strive to comprehensively fulfill needs with consideration for social, economic, and environmental dimensions of life.

3. Creativity
Life, our choices for living it, and the legacy of their consequences are dynamic; foster the integrity, stability, and beauty of the human, biotic, and abiotic community.



The above synthesizes articulations between the US EPA , 1987 WCED Brundtland Commission definitions, the "Sustainability Triad"/"Three Pillars"/"Triple Bottom Line", the "Quadruple Bottom Line", Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic [also read the full essay], and life.

Please know that there's an element of discovery and dialogue to understanding a fuzzy concept like sustainability [1]. Also note that theoretical research suggests that the "triple bottom line" concept is misleading in its label and use for Corporate Sustainability Reporting, but has valid and useful origins in what several scholars call "the sustainability triad"--the interconnecting domains of environment, society, and economy remain important and useful nonetheless. The sources I've listed are a good place to start, but you're welcome to reach me too!

[1] scholars/anyone with access to academic journals, read: Ratner, B. 2004. “’Sustainability’ as a Dialogue of Values: Challenges to the Sociology of Development” Sociological Inquiry, vol. 74, No. 1 50-69


The first and last characteristics of sustainability (Comprehensive, Creative) brought me to suspect that when most people say "we want a more sustainable future" with hope in their voice, they actually seek a different word: Viability.

Vietnam 1975 today

Today I played music outside of the Mardigian Library.   I was approached by a girl who said she was unfamiliar with a lot of music, though she shared wonderful insight into the ways verses of the Q'uran can be sung (according to her, 10 melodic guidelines can be applied to every verse when reading).  She asked me if the music I played had any meaning or symbolism.

.    .    .

{according to my mother 20:28 28 IV 2013}

American FM radio was a source for interesting music and news in Vietnam, but during these days, all they could hear was "I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas"--that's what my mother and grandfather heard as they stayed in their Saigon home under a curfew that began on the 27th of April in 1975.  Instead, my mother listened to her music on reel to reel audio tapes or tape players.  Around April  26th and the 27th of 1975, a few skirmishes broke out and airplanes trying to leave the country crashed. Some of the planes were too overloaded with people, others were piloted by mechanics who didn't know how to fly.  The music persisted throughout the 28th and 29th, and at night the skies were pink from combat.  From the windows of her home, my mother could see a lot of bloodied uniforms, jeans, and guns strewn on the street behind her house.  The uniforms belonged to the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam fighters, while the jeans were almost certainly of the Viet Cong.  Meanwhile, my mother and grandfather listened to the radio.  They didn't know what it meant at the time, but for the U.S. nationals in Saigon, the ongoing broadcast of "I'm Dreaming..." signaled evacuation.

At noon on April 30th, a famous Vietnamese singer-songwriter [Trịnh Công Sơn?] was in the palace to receive the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong.  The Communist flag was raised (yellow star in the center, red field), and no matter where one looked, the South Vietnamese flag with three red stripes on a yellow field could not be found.  With the change of regime, the curfew no longer remained in effect and people were in the streets to see soviet supplied T-54 tanks roll in bearing with many skinny young men (approximately 16 years old).  At this time, my mother chose to wear her scout uniform over her Red Cross uniform since the Red Cross was restricted to certain areas, whereas the scout uniform, especially that of a young Scout Master, was recognized and respected by the North and South Vietnamese alike.  She spoke with two of the youth who appeared to be soldiers, still wearing fresh jungle vegetation on their helmets.  They turned out to be students--North Vietnamese honor students promised to see and liberate the people in South Vietnam.

Drawing parallels to what we hear about malnourished and impoverished people in North Korea today, the North Vietnamese Soldiers and Viet Cong were all skinny, and the students wanted to know why the South needed liberation when the South seemed so opulent:  everyone in the South seemed rich, or fat.  Ladies were well dressed, and you could smell their perfume in the breeze.  The city still had a modernized mark from the presence of U.S., French, and other international forces.  After days of curfew, florists had their finest flowers on display in the streets--and they were exotic to those from the North, where the selection of flowers weren't as diverse and tended to be mixed with edible crops in the city.

My mother and grandfather took a taxi cab rather than their own vehicle to save gas.  With all of the people in the streets, travel was slow.  They had a boat prepared and tried to leave on the Saigon River to the ocean, but since the draw bridge had no operator were unable to pass.

They went to see my grandfather's brother and their 85 year old mother, a suburb where high-ranking officers lived.  Though they couldn't leave the country, my grandfather said he'd continue to try to leave and my great grandmother sadly agreed.  It was a sad affirmation for everyone as they knew it was likely the last time they'd see each other.

On the return, they stopped by warehouses and food stores to purchase non-perishible foods (canned goods, dried foods, etc.) the warehouse which had nouc mam (the Vietnamese fish sauce), rice, and sugar was looted and ransacked--my mother could see people carrying goods away as if they owned them.

Grandfather and my mum got home while it was still light outside, likely around at 6:30 p.m. they ate very little and began pulling photos, documents, and books to burn.  They heard a noise in the street and overheard someone in the street offering a bounty to neighbors.  The description was for my grandfather.  Since it was too soon for outsiders to know who was who in the neighborhood, especially for the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong to know anyone there, my grandfather and mother realized one of their neighbors must have been supporters and informants to the communists.  My mother and grandfather tore up any books that were translated so that they could burn them throughout the night.  My mother got exhausted and was told to sleep as my grandfather continued burning books throughout the night and next morning until 05:00-06:00.

On May 1st, my mother went to a friend's house.  Her friend was a schoolmate and fellow scout.  her friend's family, where she overheard their plans to leave.  Mum asked if she could leave with them, and her friend said yes--but the fishing boat leaves at 10:17 (or possibly at 10:47--my mother now forgets).  Mum left for home to tell her father.

On the way, she saw South Vietnamese Soldiers on the street calling out each other's names at their homes and asking neighbors if they were planning to leave the country or go to the jungle to continue fighting.  They gathered weapons that littered the street and planned to rendezvous.  In retrospect, my mother says when people refer to the jungle, it's a jungle that's in the mountains where the Hmong people lived.  The Hmong are respected for continuing the fight long after the U.S. had left, and she suspects it's likely the South Vietnamese resistance soldiers had joined them.

### (recollected from a previous conversation in early May of 2010) ###

My mother and grandfather left for the boat by automobile and she watched as her dogs disappeared behind the car as it drove away from the house.  As the boat departed from the dock, she saw her dogs swim after them.  As she told this to me, she wept.

#01:49 2 V 2013

Throughout the week, and especially as I re-wrote the frantic notes from Monday's phone call into sentences, everything in the present seems to relate to these events.  I suppose that's a good sign--I hope it means I'm living life eventfully and well enough to relate so much to someone else's life and consequences of history that still shake the ground I move upon with its echoes here on the other side of the world:  yesterday a Vietnam War veteran called my father to express his thanks for an e-mail my dad sent in observance of the fall of Saigon and in respect to those who were part of the armed services.  As I've said last year to several people, I can attribute much of the circumstance of my existence to military conflict and aid.    While I believe there's something important about writing all of this down, I'm also detached from the events enough to feel neutral and ramble my writings like a fool in hopes of finding something that resonates with greater coherency.

I spent much of my evening yesterday reading and working in a library writing about organizations that promote literacy, higher education, public service, and peaceable conflict resolution.  I imagined the smell of chemical smoke from burning your own books and family photos in your house at the base of a grand staircase.  I can also imagine my grandfather's heart pump through arteries that stiffened from being persecuted for his involvement with a government that lost its legitimacy again (Vietnam was susceptible to coups and regime changes).

As I wrote my mother's account of the past few days, I also wondered what would I do were I there and what I would represent.

Isaac Asimov was quoted from one of his novels that "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

Despite my belief and interest in non-violence, the fires of youth and bonds of loyalty compel me to imagine myself joining the South Vietnamese even after the capitol and government had fallen if I were part of the armed forces.  Yet last year alone I've seen people get brutally beaten over notions of loyalty and an ethos of escalation.  I also know some people who are in prison for similar reasons.  Myself a musician, I could also see why the musician who greeted the North Vietnamese at the palace might have thought it was appropriate and meaningful to welcome the re-unification of Vietnam.  If it is the person I suspect, he certainly advocated for peaceable action and probably had the imagination to envision a co-creative outcome between both regimes.  To move people toward a peaceable path in the midst of a major event requires so much work that I can hardly imagine it working--the resilience of a peaceable infrustructure must be established in advance, and the sustained opportunity to authentically engage all stakeholders involved must happen as well.

I'd probably do as my mother did to engage the youth riding in the tanks in a curious conversation, and calculate possible ways to escape the country too.

I explained to the girl who asked me about music that it can bear intrinsic meaning as well as carry extrinsic meanings--history on personal and collective levels can imbue new meanings onto a tune or song.  White was once a color of truce, but also a color of surrender under the Hague Convention.  In some Buddhist countries, it's seen as a color of mourning.  Is it odd or fitting that someone chose a song which wistfully celebrates the birth of a Christian icon as the signal for evacuation?  In this case, there's too much life to meaningfully unpack.  People died, many in terrible ways, over notions and an ethos of escalation, nationhood, manipulations of our appeal for humanity, and aggression.  Others, including members of my own family, would suffer from a legacy of oppression in "reeducation camps" and strife once released.

There's a lot of truth to this article:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/how-memoirists-mold-the-truth/?ref=opinion
Within the first few lines of my mum's account, I found myself trying to articulate it with narrative devices as a story that fills the gaps and highlights the salient points.  While I certainly see pockets to further explore and flesh out, I understand how my fellow memoirists of the Immigrant Memoir project can find it so challenging to write down their own family histories, and I now also know how the awkward gaps in a possible narrative can occur.  This is the first memoir I've completed (relatively) about my parents' past.

I'm still inclined to write some kind of satisfying resolve to the events described above.  The best I can offer follows: many of the people I know are alive today or have passed on for reasons other than the war, I remain privileged to write about this and partake in the telling the story of other people's misfortune.  While this might not solve a lot of problems in the big picture, we can at least continue to live with gratitude for memorable stories that continue to be made today and our ability to share them.

Buzzword or Fuzzy Concept?

I think people (especially the author of this "article") confuse buzzwords with "fuzzy concepts"--ideas or words that can mean a lot of things depending on who you are and what you know. But here's the good news: when you hold the people slinging these "buzzwords"--which may actually represent something transformative and invigorating or simply reflect superficial frenzied hype in our communication--accountable through intentional dialogue (yes, another "buzzword"), eventually you'll find common ground. That's the whole issue with sustainability: people say "we want a sustainable future" and don't actually want things to continue as they do. They want something better. I champion (another buzzword?) for comprehensive sustainability--which means it coheres social well-being along with prudent economic action and environmental integrity. Many people might assume sustainability means installing twirly CFL light bulbs to end anthropocentric climate change and recycling to solve all our other environmental challenges. It's a "wicked problem" or "wicked process".

For full link to above mentioned "article": http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/4564/jason_lorimer_addresses_meme_without_actually_addressing_it

People seem take issue with not seeing the words he uses in the way that the community of foundations and community investment institutions do, but I suspect that's why he talks about dialogue and participation--so that everyone can find common ground and language to move together with. Pardon the contrary opinion, but I think Jason's statement is probably the most respectful approach to action: to explicitly declare actions beyond seeking participation and dialogue would be arrogant--he'd have to impose initiatives and look like he's doing so on behalf of Detroit. If people's participation and involvement are there, it's a bit simpler, but looking at his work, I think he recognizes that lasting change requires an inclusive co-creative approach. At this point figuring out sound actions probably matter more than imposing grand statements and agendae. For those whom the statements and agendae do matter, he's opened the door to discuss it and establish some degree of trust with them. That makes a lot of sense for the wicked problem/risk governance/democratic/restorative practice processes I've come across.

I've never met the guy in person, nor do I know his tendencies beyond the few items of information I've seen so far. That said, I don't think anyone's in a position to judge an individual in such a context. Have we had the opportunity to meet and maintain some degree of meaningful dialogue with the guy? Very few of us can say so. In sustaining our relationship with the person, is it possible and can we know whether our interactions have shifted their character and ideas over the course of a few years? People can change. Can you help highlight better paths for them to engage?

Yes, and for the sake of where and how we all live, I hope you'll strive to do so. Let's dialogue?

(buzzword?  I think not, link goes to a thoughtful definition posed by the Public Conversations Project.)

Ian Tran's Guide to Embracing Wicked Problems and Complex Systems

I wanted to quickly explain the basics to a bunch of people trying to solve wicked problem/complex system types of challenges amid 4 days of very little sleep and intensive projects.  I cleaned it up some and posted it for anyone interested to check out.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6ZWASyBqmHHcGFyVkxWNTEyYTA/view?usp=sharing

Or for those on academia:
http://www.academia.edu/2776740/Ian_Trans_guide_to_embracing_wicked_problems_and_complex_systems

You'll need to download it and/or zoom in (it's a large document which shows up at 47% of its actual size on my screen--printed to actual size, it's 2 feet wide!) to read the content comfortably.  Despite my inclination for freely sharing information, I put up a copyright because the "infographic"(?) needs some cleanup in its design.  Given its hacked-together inception, it's not completely satisfying.  I hope to finish a cleaner version later for the creative commons.  However, if you substitute "wicked problems and complex systems" with "life", the theoretical stuff makes a profound guide for approaching any issue.

Discipline is [the path to] freedom

"Discipline is [the path to] freedom."
-See:
http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/self-discipline/
http://www.mindperk.com/articles/discipline-the-path-to-freedom/
http://www.coachcharrise.com/discipline-is-freedom/
http://www.randygage.com/blog/discipline-creates-freedom/

By this maxim, we may better examine the second amendment's assertion that we have the right to bear arms under purview of a "well-regulated militia".  But what constitutes a militia?  What happens when much of the civilian population is armed?

Perhaps we could pursue detailed legal answers to those questions, but the point I'm raising has everything to do with recognizing responsibility, discipline, and regulation as analogous requisites for our freedoms.

Being "completely wrong about GMOs": Scaling responsibility with technological escalation

In reply to this blog post by Torie Bosch of Slate about an advocate's change of heart toward Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) for meeting world hunger: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html

Bosch's post was irresponsibly framed.  It misleads the public into thinking the challenges behind GMO practices are settled.  Maybe* (I'm very, very skeptical but will remain open minded.) there's a case for GMO methods in genetic/medical research and such in very controlled spaces, but when it comes to claiming they're necessary for world hunger, it's like trying to justify nuclear energy for meeting global energy demand when we have yet to guarantee a safe legacy of fuel extraction and waste disposal that doesn't compromise the health of others.  Alternative strategies and technologies exist that have fewer negative legacies.  Granted, a lot of it can be harmless, but we're operating on a level that's so profound that it can cheat the defenses of our evolutionary protections in ways that we're incapable of knowing until we've met its consequences.  It transcends our known responsibility to a point that we don't know how we're ethically accountable.

As acknowledged in the article, a fair share of anti-GMO advocates don't appreciate the monopolization of large chemical companies and their strategic business models.

Consider common approaches to Monsanto's GMO business:

1) Develop pesticide/herbicide/fungicide resistant crops so that farmers can use a lot of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides on their plots--as a chemical company that pioneers GMO techniques and patents cultivars/dna for pesticide/herbicide/fungicide resistant crops, it wins in two ways: people buy their seeds, and people use more of their chemicals.

2) Patent genetic sequences, allow the DNA to spread into the wild/neighboring non-GMO crop farmer land (this is a kind of negligence that the every day person has yet to find legal redress for),  let the crop cross-pollinate with untainted crops/wild plants, sue any cross-contaminated farmers.

3) Develop self-terminating "suicide" gene that creates infertile crops like corn,  allow the DNA to spread into the wild/neighboring non-GMO crop farmer land, once it's cross-pollinated, hybridized GMO plants (including those tainted in the wild or owned by non GMO using farmers) self-terminate after a season, create absolute dependency on the supplying GMO seed company in the region.

A prevailing concern with GMO work that isn't addressed is the uncertainty of outcomes when integrated back into the environment and living systems like a person's body.  If there are people willing to take the risk, fine, but it never ought to be done at the expense of those who cannot voice or choose to opt out.  GMO in food gambles with our evolutionary abilities.

Other things people might want to note about this "confession":

1)  An activist, while many are worthy of respect in their own right, isn't necessarily a scientist (which Mark Lymas acknowledged).

Just because an outspoken person changes stance on a complicated issue (this one's the kind that gets a technical classification as a wicked problem from complex system scientists), it doesn't mean the problems of the issue are no longer valid.  In stating he was "completely wrong" about GMOs denies many ethical problems that have yet to be understood and resolved.

I don't fear genetically modified food, I worry about its unintended consequences in other living things and the rest of the world.  Living things are relatively resilient, but we I don't appreciate a gamble that goes against what my evolutionary background prepared me for.  Most people don't even know about the things that I'd be concerned about.  Unless you've had vigorous scientific environmental and biological exposure and training, the things I would add as important arguments probably aren't heard and appreciated by the lay person on a regular basis.

2)  Science is different from engineering and industrialization.  It's also not the same as advocacy.  

Science is the process of discerning truth.  Advocacy is a change-oriented political act that summons the perceived truths ("facts") found by science to champion a hypothesis/claim (i.e. GMOs are good or bad).  Engineering and industrialization strive to maximize functions--productivity, efficiency.  Aside from science, none of these acts that people try to champion (i.e. we need more free enterprise so that small businesses can compete with the giants)--more doesn't always mean better.  What difference does it make if the majority of the small-scale GMO competitors also maintain unethical practices?  Quantity does not speak to quality.  Furthermore, none of these "civil virtues" (engineering and industry) are wholly accountable to comprehensive reasoning and justification for the sake of humanity.  While they behoove profit for those privileged to leverage them, they don't guarantee that people will respect the dignity of other beings as ends rather a means to their end.  Even people who truly adhere to Ayn Rand's notion of objectivism would find concern in that argument (there's a paradox to her definition of objectivism that I've found, so I see something bigger that's missing to her framework of objectivism).

3)  The world already produces enough food to feed everybody.  

I don't even need to dive into academic peer review literature to back this claim, see here (worldhunger.org), here (oxfam Canada), and here (The UN Chronicle).

If anything, the world's people need to learn how to live better within their means in ways that don't necessitate intensive land use.  Look up your estimated ecological footprint, if everyone lived the way I did, it would need about 4 and a half times the arable (farmable) land that our planet earth currently has to offer.  For an American living in the Metro-Detroit area, this is a fairly efficient footprint considering how much we tend to rely on automobiles and imported foods.  The average American's (footprint stands at 5), and it's really challenging to minimize further unless big changes in housing and infrastructure (i.e. transportation, substantive renewable energy as a primary source) are involved.

The world's people might not be good at figuring out how to innovate or discipline itself in living with, maintaining, and cultivating sustainable environments, but food shortage is best articulated as a local challenge.  I'll dare say food sustainability is inappropriate to reduce into a singular global problem to be solved with a large international monetary fund (even the IMF/Worldbank eventually tries to consider problems at a local scale) and technological wonder crops from exotic places or chemical companies that pioneer GMO methodology.  I might be lacking direct sources at the moment, but read to the bottom and you'll find a few things that give you leads into how I've come to this opinion (hint, college courses in sustainable ecology and agriculture).

4)  Also, let's have the death of environmentalism now.  

We don't defer all of our ethical behavior to ethicists, we let them inform us about better ways of living, but the responsibility remains our own.  Environmental issues don't affect environmentalists only, they matter to everyone, and everyone needs to find ways to exercise ethical actions that contribute to making the world a better place.  Nordhaus and Shellenberger have a better articulation about this in their essay called "The Death of Environmentalism", feel free to read that too.  The world doesn't need to be saved.  People need to save themselves in ways that don't necessitate the compromise of other living things' fundamental well-being.

So what should we do?

I'm short on time to spell out answers, but in the context of this post, I'd recommend getting vigorously acquainted with the principles of sustainable agriculture, ecology, and ethics.

Ask Dr. David Susko at The University of Michigan-Dearborn for his thoughts. teaches an excellent course on plant ecology.  His thesis work found ways for farmers to successfully (environmentally and economically) transition from conventional agriculture to organic practices.  The rest comes down to dialog.

Here's a place to start, though I'm not sure what their contents will cover yet, University of Florida's teaching it online for free:
https://www.coursera.org/course/sustainableag

Transcending known responsibility

What happens when the solution which the world looks to science for really tells us we must be more responsible than ever imagined?

We tend to seek a quick fix through facts yielded by science.  Perhaps someone in history asked: "What happens when we exploit a heavy element like Uranium?"  With intent to answer a perceived need: "we need something to make us more powerful in this war".

The short term answer they sought was yes, atomic reactions can afford a user tremendous power.  But the fundamental truth derived from it was an answer that asks the inquirer "are we responsible enough to consistently meet the challenges that emerge from consequences of this never-before imagined scale of magnitude?"  Whenever we discover a new level of complexity, the responsible answer immediately resets to a decisive "no."  Until everyone is capable of understanding complexity and the ethical implications of the system, it is irresponsible to engage such a system, especially when much of the world potentially has access to it or its potential impacts.


I gave a parallel example to a problem I've been thinking about spurred by a domestic (well, domestic in a national sense) human rights advocacy issue.  It isn't nearly as destructive, but the implications in the science are tremendous and unsettling.  It's not information that you can broadcast to the world unless an established and thoughtful community dialogue of substantial reach is already in place to handle any unrest that may arise.

That said, the issue itself merits action, and countless people are already working on it out of ethical drive even without having all the "hard" empirical data at hand.  This is the uncertainty of courage.  Even if you have few or any reason for an optimistic outcome, it's better to act so that you least put forth the effort.  It's an odd balance of ebb and flow:  there comes a point when one may be the best acquainted and prepared to bring forth challenging and discomforting issues--you become the smartest person in the crowd simply because you know enough about the problem and its possible solution to manifest the transformation of reality.  Therefore, you are responsible for bringing it to light.


Understanding this status incites dramatic shifts in the default attitudes enforced by most of society--we're used to delegating responsibility and may even draw from a sense of entitlement in attempt to justify doing so.  It's ingrained into our elections, in our governmental agencies, and at almost any workplace.  Any time you hear the phrase "it's not my job" in response to another person's problems, I challenge you to carefully reconsider the statement.  What matters fundamentally is not the individual's job, it's their responsibility.  Usually, a "job" is the prescribed objectification of an identity and its associated responsibilities.  This beguiles many in becoming an excuse for them to deny their ability to discern and act on their own behalf.  There exists privilege in being a dedicated audience:  knowing what you do now from hearing--which may place you among a select few--you have the ability to focus your discernment and learn on a different level than others who create.  In doing so, you may cultivate wisdom and act upon it from a different perspective.  Yet bringing wisdom forward with persuasive authenticity requires a degree of courage that almost necessitates one to act beyond measured reasoning.  You anticipate no favorable response from the people you interact with, but you reserve hope your assertions will find constructive reception.

I'll add a slew of paraphrased quotes that reinforced several of my convictions in late February (the 20th) of this year:  The Honorable Representative Shanelle Jackson of Detroit came to the University of Michigan-Dearborn to share her experience as a grassroots elected representative.  She urged everyone to "be an ambassador... [despite knowing a lot of people who love their city], they don't have that Detroit fire-hunger... The people here now need to vest and be an example, ultimately that will draw the new Detroiters".

She also reaffirmed my belief that apathy and complacency only serve to perpetuate injustice.  In response to a question regarding disenchantment with elected officials and Detroit's municipal government:  "When people get apathetic and step away, aren't you endorsing that corruption?  By doing that, you take away your positive energy--the only checks and balance for the desired status quo."

Jackson followed up by saying:  "local safety, clean neighborhoods, some problems are too big for government to solve--that's one on one, hand to hand community work that must be done." [I have 80% confidence in retention of original words in this last one as I wrote them down in shorthand at the event.]

I'm convinced I need to act swiftly.  I cannot un-learn what I've discovered in the research, and it would be irresponsible to leave the issue of concern as is.  Yet without proper educational and community context, I'm definitely concerned about disclosing all of the details to people whom I cannot maintain a face-to-face dialogue with at this time.

Lament of the Virtues

How frequently do we contemplate what we find sacred among each other? Does the notion of "sacred" need to be reserved to a religious deity? At what point do we treat events in our lives and gatherings with one another as sacred encounters?

Considering life as an ongoing process, I imagine the life and death of an individual or community alike are sacred. One can find sublime mystery in the reality of our existence, if we look or perhaps listen carefully enough. In this photo, I played a then-incomplete tune of mine called "Lament of the Virtues" for the 2007 Virginia Tech Vigil (photo credit to the Dearborn Press and Guide). I used this photo as my profile picture on September 11th too because to me, they categorically reflect the same kind of problem: Some of the perpetrators who caused harm did so with fervor probably because they believed they had good reason to do so and a sense of greater purpose. But by acting in isolation or with people of similarly narrow interests, did they really know what they were doing?

Lament of The Virtues is a sacred piece. It's a call for sustained ethical action that starts and ends in the silence beyond the music:

Traumatic and tragic events can consume our reality, but if you're fortunate to survive, there's more to life than crisis—as far as I can tell, do your best to mindfully acknowledge their significance and keep moving.
There comes a point when one grapples with conflicting virtues. Strive to be good and righteous, but what happens when all your choices for ethical action compromise other ethical values of equal significance—which value inflicts the least harm? We’re forced to triage. These proximal problems yield no completely satisfying resolve. Complex as they are, hot-button political issues in the media like war, abortion, euthanasia, and almost anything else I can think of that leads to vehement entrenchment are proximal problems on a societal scale. Murders and massacres perpetrated by individuals reflect proximal problems on an individual level.

I believe these problems are a symptom of something bigger. Complex systems scientists might refer to them as part of a “wicked problem”—they’re integral to a system that’s challenging to define, and the system changes in ways that escape definition and perception as you interact with it.

The best solution to them emerges through prevention. At the least, reliable crisis prevention necessitates thoughtfully informed, authentically understood, creative, compassionate, and constructive vision and action. I suspect glimpses of love and joy emerge from an environment of this sort--it's a fleeting visionary ideal for living in a way that embraces the spectre of death and defies terrorism. In any event, to make that happen with some measurable impact, you must bring your best to every day and act upon the opportunities that matter. Somewhere between your individual actions and those of other people through community cognizance, making that vision a more tangible reality is possible. That's the quiet pause between each pulse: it's the silence between the music.

[Edit August 2013: I've linked to a guide I created for embracing/navigating complex systems and wicked problems based on my research on complex systems and risk governance between 2012 to early 2013.]

Lessons learned in performance and the "entertainment industry"

Lessons learned from an interview and performance on international television/radio; some of these are actually reminders, but they were very clear themes from my most recent performance:

- Even if you’re not ready, be prepared: Opportunities, and life itself, are a one shot operation - When the point lead isn’t there to represent the team's interests, the organizational structure is unclear, and you're part of the team, don’t hesitate to purposefully step up, take the reins, and do what matters
- Sometimes, whispers are more important to listen for than the rest of the din
- I’ve entered an arena where small talk, superficial relationships, and aimless banter are prevalent if not the norm. Even if someone has lots of experience as a TV show host, if they're asking questions to fill time, bring up what I need to say when my gut tells me I’ve got something far better to convey.

I played with Elemental Meaning at the Middle East American cultural festival in Warren, Michigan. Our band was scheduled to perform for a talent show sometime around 5:00/5:30, but (unbeknownst to us) due to changes in the broadcast schedule we were asked to play on stage sometime after 6:00pm instead. We requested to play later in the lineup in hopes that our drummer, David Watson could make it from work. As we waited, we went about separate ways to rest and pre-game.

Fifteen minutes before we were needed on stage one of the people coordinating it asked me "are you ready to be on international television?" Even though I saw a few cameras and some kind of banner that said "MEAtv" earlier in the day, I didn't realize it was going to be on television--according to him, to 40 states and 160 countries.  That scale of broadcasting still doesn't really register in my mind.  I've been to a big conference where 11,000 people attended.  I've been to "The Big House" AKA Michigan Stadium where 100,000 people attended to see the President.  I could see real people there.  This however, was a glaring disjoint.  There were few people in the physical audience nearby (people sat at peripheral picnic tables), just a single camera on the lawn in front of the stage.

To add to the surrealness of the event, the event was sponsored by the CIA. Even though it makes sense [someone's got to update the world factbook about what's happening elsewhere in the world], it still amazes me.

1. I had no idea there were federal agencies that can afford to sponsor events nowadays!

2. I commend whoever it was that came up with the idea of asking them, and actually followed through with asking them, for sponsorship.

3. It was so strange to perform rock music in front of a giant screen displaying a federal agency's seal.

Meanwhile, they asked where our band leader, Markita went (and so did Phelan and I). Markita was straightening out logistics with David as she was told our performance time would be later than it turned out to be as one of the other talent show contestants did not appear, and we were bumped up and asked to get on stage right away. To fill time, one of the hosts interviewed Phelan and I with what I like to refer to as the "superficial small-talk tone". She actually asked fair questions, but if you're not on your game because your mind is elsewhere, rising up to represent something simple like what the band name "Elemental Meaning" stands for and taking the opportunity to do your thing (in this case, make a brief speech) can be a challenge when you're not sure what's going on around you. Taking care of the semi-mundane (I try to believe that they should be treated as very eventful actually) things like sleeping, eating, and exercising properly so that there's no room to wonder what else could have happened comes to mind, and not taking care of oneself runs far from any reasonable explanation of events.

Life as a one-shot operation

Industry does not behoove humanity in matters of personal care. In retrospect, I should have prefaced the "unveiling" of my website with an "under construction" or "work in progress" disclaimer.

I was thrilled to bring together many disparate facets of what I do together, enough that I figured I'd share it with some friends, and post it elsewhere online.  I thought there'd be a small handful of people who'd check it out and did not anticipate so many page views within four days, some of which come from countries where I don't personally know anyone (i.e. the Netherlands and Austria).  Thank you for your curiosity!

I missed a tremendous opportunity to introduce some ideas I really care about and live for to a lot of people with a bang. Lesson learned. For anyone interested, I updated the about section with my take on sustainability as an ethos and substantiating the claims in my tagline (ongoing work in progress but I assure you there's reason for their presence), it's in live-first draft form right now.

Among other topics, I researched the concept of "wicked problems" this winter (you can see the powerpoint I made for a presentation on Leading Sustainability in Higher Education which briefly touches on "wicked problems").

The best description for a "wicked problem" I've found recently is this:

A wicked problem is one for which each attempt to create a solution changes the understanding of the problem. Wicked problems cannot be solved in a traditional linear fashion, because the problem definition evolves as new possible solutions are considered and/or implemented. The term was originally coined byHorst Rittel.
Wicked problems always occur in a social context -- the wickedness of the problem reflects the diversity among the stakeholders in the problem. ( source and other interesting stuff here: http://www.cognexus.org/id42.htm )

I wrote a bit about them and used some of Rittel's papers in my capstone research paper too:

“Wicked problems” are a special kind of problem that is dynamic (always changing and continuously happening) and unusually complicated, though they can be common and pervasive. Wicked problems frequently relate to real-life/death issues that have so many moving parts to them that even defining the problem is a serious challenge. The “wicked problems” concept was originally introduced in organizational behavior theory and characterized with ten conditions by Rittel and Weber of MIT (1967), and refined by Rittel in 1973:

1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem (defining wicked problems is itself a wicked problem).
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.
6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution.
10. The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).

Rittel sums up wicked problems as a "class of social system problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing." 

Life is a lot like this too. So long as we live, the things that constitute and define our presence don't really stop, and the consequences of our actions continue to influence others even after we're gone.  The challenge is to recognize your intentions, actions, consequences, and how consequences from other events and peoples' actions might shape your own intentions.  This is a fundamental process of design ( see Ben Eli's semi-powerpoint/paper thing on design at the Buckminster Fuller Institute, I use terms garnered from an ethics class, but the concepts are fundamentally alike).

In this case, the site was originally intended to serve as a comprehensive portfolio (which is a barebones portal to existing social media sites that keep things I made).  I threw it together in haste (over the weekend following example from facebook's hack-together for prompt delivery development story) so that the Ann Arbor Artisan's market would have something better to link to.

I realized I ought to present the pithier and more distinctive bits about my life and want to make it worth other peoples' time.  I hope and believe that many of the things I appreciate, create, learn, and do can help and inspire others to do good things in the world.  If you visit or already have, I hope there's something useful or inspiring for you there now or sometime soon.

Additional Resources:

Wikipedia actually helped me a lot when I was trying to grasp what a "wicked problem was".  The source papers, one is about design theory from the MIT press, are cited in the wikipedia description too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem

You can read a book about wicked problems online for free:
https://www.wickedproblems.com/