Category Archives: politics

Don’t go out with a pressure cooker

Posted on by at 11:50 am
1

Apparently, the FBI has decided that they should interview people seen in public with a pressure cooker. At a minimum, they have decided that if you are a Saudi with a pressure cooker, you deserve an interrogation.

What brings the FBI and the Saudi rice dish Kabsa together? The answer is: a pressure cooker.

Talal Al-Rouqi, a Saudi student in Michigan, claims he was questioned by the FBI after neighbours reported seeing him walking with a pressure cooker similar to those used in the recent Boston bombing. Speaking last week to the Saudi Gazette, Al-Rouqi said he was transporting the cooker filled with rice and meat to a friend’s apartment for dinner. The next day, he was reportedly interrogated by FBI officials.

“When they found nothing unusual, they cautioned me not to venture out again with the pressure cooker,” Al-Roqui said.

Oh, there is also this:

In what can only be described as a posthumous victory for raging asshole Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Williams-Sonoma, the (absolutely amazing) kitchen-stuff company, has pulled pressure cookers–which the Tsarnaevs built into bombs–from shelves in Massachusetts.

This type of response is crazy.

More here.

Related articles

Privacy quote of the day

Posted on by at 7:36 am
Reply

There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the news gathering activities undertaken by The A.P. during a two-month period, provide a road map to A.P.’s news gathering operations, and disclose information about A.P.’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.

– Gary Pruitt, President and CEO of the Associated Press, outraged by the seizure by the Federal government of the records for more than 20 telephone lines of its offices and journalists, including their home phones and cellphones. It said the records were seized without notice sometime this year. The ability and willingness of the government to seize data and records without notification must stop. Particularly, in the case of journalists, seizures adversely affect free speech and freedom of the press.

Secret laws continue to propagate in the US

Posted on by at 11:19 am
Reply
Seal of the United States Department of Justice

Seal of the United States Department of Justice (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Department of Justice is seeking to keep secret a memo written by the Office of Legal Counsel which claims that the FBI can request records from telecommunications companies without issuing national security letters or warrants in advance. In other words, the DOJ claims a right to side-step both the warrant and NSL process based on a memo which is not public. In effect, the DOJ is relying on secret law, which is among the techniques of repressive, totalitarian regimes. It is simply wrong to continue to create such secret laws in a democratic country supposedly governed by the rule of law.

They do this notwithstanding a redacted a DOJ Office of Inspector General report questioning the legality of such information requests. Check out page two of the text of the report. You can read chapter and verse of this action which is being challenged by the EFF.

In a brief filed on [in March] (PDF), EFF continued its fight against secret surveillance law, asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to order the release of a secret opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).

The opinion was generated as part of a lengthy Inspector General investigation (PDF) into the FBI’s use of unconstitutional National Security Letters, so-called “exigent letters,” and other illegal methods of obtaining customer records. The OLC’s opinion provides the federal government with the authority to obtain private call-detail records in “certain circumstances,” without any legal process or a qualifying emergency, and despite federal laws to the contrary. So far, the DOJ has refused to disclose what those circumstances are, and has even refused to disclose the statute on which the government bases its purported authority.

EFF has long argued that, when the government interprets a law in a way that shapes or affects the rights of the public, the public is entitled to know what that interpretation is. Hiding the government’s interpretations of public laws – especially when those interpretations are unlikely to be tested in court – constitutes the perpetuation of “secret law.” But secret law has no place in a democracy; on Friday, we asked the D.C. Circuit to affirm that simple principle and to order the government to disclose the OLC’s legal interpretation.

The formal opinions of the OLC are among the the most obvious, and pernicious, examples of government secret law. OLC has the authority, delegated by the Attorney General, to issue legal opinions and interpretations that are binding on other Executive branch agencies. Over the past decade, OLC opinions have provided the legal authority for some of the federal government’s most controversial (and, ultimately, illegal) practices: torture, warrantless wiretapping, and – more recently – the targeted killing of American citizens have all found legal “justifications” in OLC opinions. The Executive branch has also shrouded these opinions in secrecy.

Related articles

Past time to amend the DMCA

Posted on by at 8:00 am
Reply

English: BBC DRM protest imageThe Digital Millenium Copyright Act, enacted on October 12, 1998, made it a crime to bypass digital rights management (DRM) applied to copyrighted works, among other things. Thus, as an example, if you purchased a commercial DVD, it would be a crime to rip the disc as you can an audio CD. Recently, as a result of a decision by the Library of Congress, the DMCA made it illegal to unlock a cellphone to move it to another carrier, even after the full term of the contract with the original carrier expired. Ridiculous.

Many have argued that when a customer purchases a product the customer should be entitled to service it, copy it, and manage it, even if doing so would break DRM. And now, finally, this might well change:

New legislation sponsored by Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), and Jared Polis (D-CO) takes a broader approach to the issue. In addition to explicitly legalizing cell phone unlocking, the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013 also modifies the DMCA to make clear that unlocking copy-protected content is only illegal if it’s done in order to “facilitate the infringement of a copyright.” If a circumvention technology is “primarily designed or produced for the purpose of facilitating noninfringing uses,” that would not be a violation of copyright.

For example, Lofgren’s bill would likely make it legal for consumers to rip DVDs for personal use in much the same way they’ve long ripped CDs. It would remove legal impediments to making versions of copyrighted works that are accessible to blind users. And it would ensure that car owners have the freedom to service their vehicles without running afoul of copyright law.

More info, and a way to take action, here.

Related articles

Political quote of the day

Posted on by at 8:57 am
Reply

So far, the voters — and God — have awarded [Mark] Sanford at least five or six do-overs, what with the adultery, his decision to go to Argentina for an assignation without leaving his gubernatorial staff a phone number where he could be reached, that inclination to discuss embarrassing details of his sex life during press conferences, the ethics fine, the trespassing accusation, and so on. But talk about the availability of eight chances seems to suggest the newly elected congressman is leaving daylight for additional forgiveness opportunities in the future.

– Gail Collins

Rhode Island makes it 10

Posted on by at 11:55 am
1

On thursday, Rhode Island became the 10th State to recognize the legality of same-sex marriage. Good news, right?

Well, not so fast.

Rhode Island’s Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Tobin immediately penned a “pastoral letter” to all Catholics in the state in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage. And what a touching, warm-hearted letter it is. In part, it reads as follows:

As I have emphasized consistently in the past, the Catholic Church has respect, love and pastoral concern for our brothers and sisters who have same-sex attraction. I sincerely pray for God’s blessings upon them, that they will enjoy much health, happiness and peace. We also offer our prayerful support to families, especially parents, who often struggle with this issue when it occurs in their own homes.

Our respect and pastoral care, however, does not mean that we are free to endorse or ignore immoral or destructive behavior, whenever or however it occurs. Indeed, as St. Paul urges us, we are required to “speak the truth in love.” (Eph 4:15)

At this moment of cultural change, it is important to affirm the teaching of the Church, based on God’s word, that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357) and always sinful. And because “same-sex marriages” are clearly contrary to God’s plan for the human family, and therefore objectively sinful, Catholics should examine their consciences very carefully before deciding whether or not to endorse same-sex relationships or attend same-sex ceremonies, realizing that to do so might harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others.

So let me get this straight (to coin a phrase), the Catholic Church has “respect, love and pastoral concern” for gay people. But gay people are “intrinsically disordered” and acting on their feelings is “always sinful.” Further, all good Catholics should refuse to recognize members of their own family and friends who choose to participate in or endorse same-sex unions. This is hate, pure and simple. It is also an attempt at intrusion by a religion on the secular, civil recognition of marriage. In this country, no religion can impose its views on the state.

Related articles

Is the US recording all domestic digital communications

Posted on by at 11:11 am
Reply
Logo of the FBI Counterterrorism Division

Logo of the FBI Counterterrorism Division (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Based on the remarks made by a former FBI counterterrorism agent, it appears so…

Over the past couple days, cable news tabloid shows such as CNN’s Out Front with Erin Burnett have been excitingly focused on the possible involvement in the Boston Marathon attack of Katherine Russell, the 24-year-old American widow of the deceased suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. As part of their relentless stream of leaks uncritically disseminated by our Adversarial Press Corps, anonymous government officials are claiming that they are now focused on telephone calls between Russell and Tsarnaev that took place both before and after the attack to determine if she had prior knowledge of the plot or participated in any way.

On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could:

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It’s not a voice mail. It’s just a conversation. There’s no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: “No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It’s not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: “So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: “No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.“

Full details at The Guardian.

Related articles

Who has your back?

Posted on by at 10:17 am
Reply

EFF_logo_notype_white

Who has your back when it comes to protecting your private data from an increasingly prying government? It is not easy to tell which companies seriously protect your privacy when the government comes calling with or more likely without a warrant.

But now the EFF has prepared a report detailing the privacy protection policies (or lack of policies) among the largest data gathering companies. The bottom line: Trust Twitter to protect your privacy, but don’t expect Apple and Verizon to do the same.

When you use the Internet, you entrust your conversations, thoughts, experiences, locations, photos, and more to companies like Google, AT&T and Facebook. But what do these companies do when the government demands your private information? Do they stand with you? Do they let you know what’s going on?

In this annual report, the Electronic Frontier Foundation examined the policies of major Internet companies — including ISPs, email providers, cloud storage providers, location-based services, blogging platforms, and social networking sites — to assess whether they publicly commit to standing with users when the government seeks access to user data. The purpose of this report is to incentivize companies to be transparent about how data flows to the government and encourage them to take a stand for user privacy whenever it is possible to do so.

Related articles

Austerity quote of the day

Posted on by at 6:56 am
Reply

And here I think of the difficulties that, in various countries, today afflict the world of work and businesses.

I think of how many, and not just young people, are unemployed, many times due to a purely economic conception of society, which seeks selfish profit, beyond the parameters of social justice. I wish to extend an invitation to solidarity to everyone, and I would like to encourage those in public office to make every effort to give new impetus to employment.

– Pope Francis. When he is right, he is right.

“False flag” fiction

Posted on by at 8:29 am
Reply

There is a conspiracy-promoting outfit called Infowars headed up by Alex Jones. It is now pushing the wacko theory that that Boston bombing was actually executed by the Federal government.

Yesterday, a reporter for Infowars showed up at a press briefing, and an unnamed Boston citizen gave the reporter a real verbal lashing. The language is certainly not safe for work, but this citizen is a hero to me.

More info here.

Political quote of the day 2

Posted on by at 11:26 am
Reply

Congress can’t pass a budget or control guns or confirm judges on time, but this week members of both parties found something they could agree on, and in a big hurry: avoiding blame for inconveniencing air travelers. The Senate and House rushed through a bill that would avert furloughs to air traffic controllers, which were mandated by Congress’s own sequester but proved embarrassing when flights began to back up around the country.

Then lawmakers scurried out of town, taking a week’s vacation while ignoring the low-income victims of the mandatory budget cuts, who have few representatives in Washington to protest their lost aid for housing, nutrition and education. Though they are suffering actual pain, not just inconvenience, no one rushed to give them a break from the sequester, and it is clear that no one will.

Catering to the needs of people with money, such as business travelers, is the kind of thing the country has come to expect in recent years from Congressional Republicans. But Democrats share full responsibility for this moment of cowardice. The Senate version of the bill passed by unanimous consent. That means not a single Democrat opposed bailing out travelers while poor kids are getting kicked out of Head Start or nutrition programs.

– New York Times editorial

Second thoughts

Posted on by at 11:20 am
Reply

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor now regrets the Bush v. Gore decision, which she voted for.

Looking back, O’Connor said, she isn’t sure the high court should have taken the case.

“It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue,” O’Connor said during a talk Friday with the Tribune editorial board. “Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’”

The case, she said, “stirred up the public” and “gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation.”

“Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision,” she said. “It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day.”

Voters upset about failure of background checks for gun purchases

Posted on by at 11:16 am
Reply

According to Public Policy Polling:

New PPP polls in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio find serious backlash against the 5 Senators who voted against background checks in those states. Each of them has seen their approval numbers decline, and voters say they’re less likely to support them the next time they’re up for reelection. That’s no surprise given that we continue to find overwhelming, bipartisan support for background checks in these states.

Full details here. And Gallup sees similar effects.