Dark Rantings

Gee, what a SURPRISE! They LIED to us. Ya think? And for their own self interests yet! Amazing. NOT! WASHINGTON (AP) - The Transportation Security Administration misled the public about its role in obtaining personal information about 12 million airline passengers to test a new computerized system that screens for terrorists, according to a government investigation. The report, released Friday by Homeland Security Department Acting Inspector General Richard Skinner, said the agency deceived individuals, the press and Congress in 2003 and 2004. It stopped short of saying TSA lied. 'TSA officials made inaccurate statements regarding these transfers that undermined public trust in the agency,' the report said. These misstatements were apparently not meant to mischaracterize known facts. Instead, they were premised on an incomplete understanding of the underlying facts." Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said the agency took months to disclose its role in getting the data. "The American public must know their personal information is well protected, or they will distrust the new systems we need to keep our nation safe," Lieberman said in a statement. The report comes at a sensitive time for the TSA, which is using airline passenger data - which can include credit card information, phone number and address - to test a computerized system for screening passengers, called Secure Flight. Congress has said that TSA can't proceed with Secure Flight unless the Government Accountability Office reports that the technology ensures privacy and that the data is protected. That report is due Monday. The report concluded that the TSA was inconsistent in protecting passengers' privacy as it developed a passenger prescreening system. It did acknowledge that the agency's environment for privacy has improved substantially. TSA spokesman Mark Hatfield said the agency is committed to privacy of personal information. "The core of our mission is preserving our freedoms, and that means doing the utmost to protect every American's privacy," Hatfield said. The report cites several occasions where TSA officials made inaccurate statements about passenger data: -In September 2003, the agency's Freedom of Information Act staff received hundreds of requests from Jet Blue Airways Corp. passengers asking if the TSA had their records. After a cursory search, the FOIA staff posted a notice on the TSA Web site that it had no JetBlue passenger data. Though the FOIA staff found JetBlue passenger records in TSA's possession in May, the notice stayed on the Web site for more than a year. -In November 2003, TSA chief James Loy incorrectly told the Governmental Affairs Committee that certain kinds of passenger data were not being used to test passenger prescreening. - In September 2003, a technology magazine reporter asked a TSA spokesman whether real data were used to test the passenger prescreening system. The spokesman said only fake data were used; the responses "were not accurate," the report said. The report also disclosed that the TSA had a much broader role in getting and using passenger data than had been previously disclosed. Between February 2002 and June 2003, TSA had a role in 14 transfers of data involving at least 12 million records obtained without passengers' knowledge or permission from America West Holdings Corp., AMR Corp.'s American Airlines, Continental Airlines Inc., Delta Air Lines Inc., Frontier Airlines Inc. and JetBlue. However, the report concluded, in only one case was a passenger's data inappropriately revealed to the public.

Posted by mikki at 08:26 PM | Permalink

Flaming DUH. You keep rewarding these imbeciles and guess what, they are going to continue to SPAM you. If you're stupid enough to click on their offerings, don't you DARE complain about getting the junk in your mailbox.

Bad e-mail habits sustains spam

The 'bad behaviour' of e-mail users is helping to sustain the spam industry, a new study has found.

According to a survey conducted by security firm Mirapoint and market research company the Radicati Group, nearly a third of e-mail users have clicked on links in spam messages.

One in ten users have bought products advertised in junk mail.

Clicking on a link in a spam message can expose people to viruses and alert spammers to live e-mail accounts.

More from the BBC

Posted by mikki at 08:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When are these imbeciles going to learn?

Utah Governor Signs Censorship Law: "On Monday, Utah Governor John Huntsman signed into law a bill creating broad new restrictions over certain adult content online. Most critically, the new law contains ISP blocking requirements similar to those successfully challenged by CDT in Pennsylvania last year. CDT believes that the Utah law raises similar constitutional and policy problems, and is likely to face a court challenge."

(Via Center for Democracy and Technology.)

Posted by mikki at 01:45 PM | Permalink

Talk about a Chilling Effect. As an ex journalist, yes it's true that the media's "ethics" are not so good. However, to say that written notes are not discoverable, but emails ARE? And your ISP MUST turn them over? Gee, thanks for nothing, Apple

One of the gathering storms over Internet speech has broken. On Friday a Santa Clara County Court judge ruled [PDF] that in Apple v. Does, Apple Computer's trade secret claims trump both California's reporter's shield laws and the reporter's privilege under the First Amendment. Specifically, the judge ruled that a journalist's Internet service provider (ISP) can be compelled to reveal the identities of the reporter's confidential sources and other unpublished information when trade secret is claimed. And it's not only "bloggers," or online journalists, who are affected by this ruling. The judge was very clear that this would apply to any journalist's private email records.

The opinion [PDF] is an interesting read in terms of rhetorical structure. The judge defines the law surrounding free speech as "rife with complexities and restrictions" and the law surrounding the "right to protect intellectual property" in California civil and criminal law as "undisputed." From there it's only a hop, skip, and a jump to calling the reporters "fences" in stolen goods. It's not hard to imagine how badly the Diebold case might have turned out with a slightly different set of facts and a judge with a similar take on our vague, messy, ragged, complexity-ridden speech-protection laws vs. clean, pure, solid, "undisputed" property-protection rights.

I pointed to it earlier, but Ernie Miller and Susan Crawford have an exchange that's well worth the read for exploring the question of how we identify speech that merits protection under the First Amendment and reporter's shield laws. Professor Crawford argues for distinguishing and protecting speech that's important to the democratic process; Miller, meanwhile, argues that the First Amendment ought to protect a democratic culture, which "incorporates a wider view of what is protected, such as popular culture and non-political speech."

Before I sign off, let me explain what that little "Blogshine Sunday" icon is doing at the top of this post. Not long ago, I blogged about the OPEN Government Act [PDF], newly proposed legislation that would help clarify that online journalists are entitled to the same rights as traditional print journalists. Specifically, it would provide access to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) fee reduction/waivers for people regardless of institutional association.

Texas Senator John Cornyn is a co-sponsor; here's what he had to say when it was introduced (emphasis, mine):

The news media, of course, is the main way that people get information about government. The media pushes government entities and elected officials, beaurocrats, and agencies to release information the people have a right to know, occasionally exposing waste, fraud, and abuse.... But we've also seen in recent years the expansion of other outlets for sharing information outside the mainstream media, to online communities, discussion groups, and blogs.

I believe all these outlets are -- can and do -- contribute to the health of cour political democracy. But let me make this clear, Mr. President, this is not just a bill for the media, lest anybody be confused. This is a bill that will benefit every man, woman, and child in the United States who cares about the federal government, cares about how the federal government operates, and ultimately cares about the success of this great democracy.

That's what important about the debate over online speech: the battle to ensure that we have a truly healthy, functioning democracy. As I wrote before, I can't imagine that we've ever needed this kind of legislation more than we do right now. If you agree, join me by grabbing a button at Blogshine Sunday and writing a few words about it.

Post script: As I was writing this post, Aaron Swartz published his contribution to the cause: "Blogshine Sunday: US Greenlights, Funds Genocide." Highly recommended.

[Copyfight]

Posted by mikki at 09:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So what's wrong with this picture? You BUY a CD. You OWN the CD. It is YOURS. You can set fire to it. You can smash it. You can give it to a friend. You can make mobiles out of it. But you can't rip MP3s with it? I don't see anything I signed saying I can't do with my own property what I feel like. I've bought a license to listen to that music when I paid the outrageous prices for the thing in the first place! But I can't listen to it on a machine the Cartel hasn't approved? Screw THAT

Frank Field has details on the felony conviction of an 18-year-old kid under Arizona's Internet piracy law counterfeiting law.

Update: Ernie Miller on same: "If you have ripped songs from CDs you own to MP3, you have made 'unauthorized reproductions.' If you make fair use of a copyrighted work, you have made 'unauthorized reproductions.' And, if you have 1,000 copies of your fair use, you are guilty of class 5 felony. Joy.

There is no defense. You are guilty in Arizona for exercising fair use rights under federal law. This would seem to have just a little bit of conflict with the First Amendement. "

[Copyfight]

Posted by mikki at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ISPs get "safe harbor" from contributory charges at least in copyright cases, why shouldn't those who link ALSO have protection? Is it possibly because they're too small to make too many waves when the thugs from the cartel come after them? The RIAA thought so, but the publicity they've generated hasn't been too good. The blogging and linking world has far fewer grandmas and 12 year olds to sue, so their plight might not be quite as compelling. But we shall see....

Remember last month I mentioned that merely linking to something illegal could itself be illegal? The law of the land is uncertain in the US and now it appears it will be tested in Germany.

Word out of Munich is that a German judge has sided with the Cartel in blocking heise.de, a popular German-language news site from linking to a site discussed in one of heise's stories. As you might guess, the story was on the ease and popularity of distributing content the Cartel would rather lock up. There was, apparently, a link to a site that was, allegedly, involved in such distribution.

If you're wondering why I'm hedging my language so much it's because the original story is in German, a language I'm not fluent in. Babelfish isn't much help, so I'm relying on blog reporting here on toytownmunich.com and here on Constitutionalcode blog.

If someone who is fluent could post an English version of the story that'd be great.

[Copyfight]

Posted by mikki at 01:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So why are people surprised by this? WIPO is simply following the ICANN model. If a group that claims it is "open and transparent" can be allowed to have meetings in places where they KNOW that public interest people can't afford to go, and although a few people make noise about it, the organization it supposedly reports to (NTIA) does nothing, why can't WIPO follow suit? After all, WIPO has never claimed to be open and transparent, and has ALWAYS been up front about its mandate to protect intellectual property interests.

...and nobody is allowed to show up?

Or, in another clever variation of the theme, you're told to meet in separate groups somewhere far away, where it's too expensive for those who support your position to join you?

Yesterday I provided the fleetest of updates on the first scenario. Cory did a better job of it over at BoingBoing, capturing in a few typically vivid sentences where we are in the struggle to introduce public-interest considerations to WIPO decsionmaking:

When I first got involved [in WIPO], I wasn't sure that we could make a different against this monolithic, enormous institution, but these days, I'm less worried: WIPO has been fighting the participation of public interest groups with the kinds of dirty tricks that indicate that they're running scared, which means that we're doing something right.

Now David Tannenbaum has written an excellent LawMeme post providing details on the second. In short, WIPO is engaging in a "divide and conquer" strategy with regard to the "Substantive Patent Law Treaty," and a group of Development Agenda supporters is formally protesting:

Regional consultations are generally held in far-flung corners of the world, unreachable by civil society NGOs [non-government organizations] on a low budget and less likely to covered by the press. There are generally no formal requirements to invite any single country, and some countries have argued that the Casablanca meeting excluded countries that expressed vocal opposition to the wealthy nations' proposals.

Shades of the struggle over the EU software patents directive? But of course. It's an old bag of tricks, but if they keep working, no one's going to stop using them.

As I've written before, it's very important that we shine as bright a light as possible on what's happening here.

It's tough to write about WIPO; you spend half your time unraveling acronyms, the other sending off flares to convey the urgency of the situation. But your voice here is very important. Most "big media" outlets aren't covering this story, and that's a huge advantage for the powers-that-be. If you're reading this post, please take a few minutes to write about how important it is that WIPO abandons these tricks and begins the real discussion about pursuing IP law and policy that serves the world majority rather than only a tiny minority of powerful entertainment companies.

[Copyfight]

Posted by mikki at 01:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Don't link to meeeeeee. Wrong again, bucko. The idea that one must have permission before linking to something happily available on the Internet is ridiculous! If they don't want people READING it, don't PUT it on the INTERNET. Is it ok for me to spam 10 million people with the link, but NOT ok to put it on my website? Try again.

From Larry Lessig:

So there's a blog first created by the volunteers who watched Fox to create the data necessary to produced OutFoxed. They posted an item about a Bill O'Reilly column, which itself was posted on the web. The company syndicating O'Reilly's column wrote them a nasty letter, telling them to take the column down. They did, and replaced it with a link. The same company wrote again, insisting that the blog was guilty of "unauthorized linking."

Dear syndicators of Bill: Me thinks there's no such concept as illegal linking (outside of China, at least, and please, don't pester me with misreadings of the 2600 case). Indeed, I think that I, like anyone else, am perfectly free to link to the column, as this link does. And indeed, I'd invite anyone else out there who thinks that we still live in a FREE LINKING world to link to the same. Got to find some way to keep those lawyers busy.

[Lessig Blog]

Posted by mikki at 01:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wil, Wil, Wil... although I really like your blog, and love reading your stuff, I have to tell you that I bet you aren't going to win in this case. You MUST separate yourself from the "annoying Wesley Crusher" and admit that he WAS the most annoying character, followed closely by Lwaxanna Troi, Alexander Rozhenko and Quark. Get over it, man. Keep writing and appearing on CSI. You'll be fine.

Oh dear.

It appears that TV Guide is holding an online poll about Star Trek, and our dear, sweet young Ensign Crusher is currently leading in the "Most Annoying Character" category.

I know, it's hard to believe it, especially when we consider that Wesley was given lines such as, "We're from Starfleet! We don't lie!" and "I feel strange, but also good!" and the ever-popular "Course laid in, sir." But it's true. And so very, very sad.

Not that I care about this sort of thing . . . but actually, I do. I'm really tired of wearing that "Annoying Character" albatross around my neck, and if Wesley is voted most annoying in TV Guide's big old Farewell to Star Trek issue, I don't think I'll ever hear the end of it.

I'm not suggesting that thousands of WWdN readers go take the poll and stuff the ballot box. I mean, that would just be wrong, right?

Normally, I'd stuff this ballot box entirely on my own, but if some of you WWdN readers want to legitimately and honestly vote for another character, like The Computer Voice for instance — I mean, come on! How many times did the stupid Ship's Computer actually save the crew? Yeah! That's what I thought. She's got nothing on Wesley Crusher — I would be ever so grateful.

Provided, of course, that you truly believe there is a different, more annoying character than Wesley — I'd never suggest taking actions which could call into question the legitimacy of an online Star Trek poll. Oh no, not me.

Never.

Perish the thought.

I'm serious! Start perishing (right after you vote, that is.)

Thank you.

[Wil Wheaton]

Posted by mikki at 01:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well flaming DUH... of course we're going to lose privacy in every single way this bunch of lamers running the government can THINK of. And with our lovely friends in the Content Cartel, can anyone with a brain even THINK that they haven't been whispering in ears at NTIA and our wonderfully impartial Congress Critters?

So why are we losing privacy? Why is it SO important to find who owns a domain name? The most overwhelming reason is so that the Intellectual Property Cartel can serve them with cease and desist orders and try to take away their domain names. If a crime is committed, such as fraud using a website, it's a simple matter for prosecutors to subpoena the information from an ISP. However, for civil suits, the government has stepped in to make it much easier for the "big guys" and more difficult for the domain name holders, who now continue to be... [PsychoSensei's Pontifications]

Posted by mikki at 01:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ok, who set up these silly search engine "rules" that cause everything to explode if you don't stand on your head, turn towards Salt Lake City, while chanting "supercalafragalisticexpialadocious?" I have been going totally nuts trying to get my beauteous site Enchanted Works to the top of the lists and have FAILED! FAILED I tell you.

RANT RANT RANT

Posted by mikki at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)