The FBI is circulating a set of flyers purported to identify suspicious behaviors that indicates possible terrorist activities that therefore should be reported to the FBI by all good citizens. The flyers are headlined “Communities Against Terrorism” and there are at least 25 versions.
The version for Internet Cafes is particularly disturbing in that is essentially says that anyone protecting their privacy online is quite possibly a terrorist. Among the “suspicious” activities listed on the flyer are:
Always pay cash
Evidence of a residential based internet provider (signs on to Comcast, AOL, etc.)
Use of anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address
Encryption or use of software to hide encrypted data in digital photos, etc.
Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game
Gather information about vulnerable infrastructure or obtain photos, maps or diagrams of transportation, sporting venues, or populated locations
So people who want to protect their privacy online, or who wish to pay for things with money, or who look up a sports stadium (maybe to find their seat for an event, say) ought to be reported to the FBI?
Microsoft has come out in support of a bill pending in Washington state to allow same-sex marriage. Why have they taken this position? Because is simply fair and, in addition, it is good business.
As other states recognize marriage equality, Washington’s employers are at a disadvantage if we cannot offer a similar, inclusive environment to our talented employees, our top recruits and their families. Employers in the technology sector face an unprecedented national and global competition for top talent. Despite progress made in recent years with domestic partnership rights, same-sex couples in Washington still hold a different status from their neighbors. Marriage equality in Washington would put employers here on an equal footing with employers in the six other states that already recognize the committed relationships of same-sex couples – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. This in turn will help us continue to compete for talent.
Perhaps someone can inform me of official statements from any of the major Hollywood movie studios, record companies, their unions or any copyright enforcers (other than tech companies) to the same effect? I may have missed them. Or maybe I have missed the copyright industries’ coordinated efforts to push Congress to repeal the federal “Defense” of Marriage Act?
Declan McCullagh has all the details. Well worth a full read.
Update: More info from Wiredhere. And, if you are interested in a cogent explanation of the security risks of SOPA, read this article by Stewart Baker, formerly Policy Director for the Department of Homeland Security, referenced in the Wired article.
A group of 83 technology inventors and engineers, who collectively built the technology for the Internet, have warned that SOPA/ProtectIP are threats to the Internet’s continued operation. The number one signatory is Vint Cert, the co-inventor of TCP/IP, the underlying networking technology that is at the base of the Internet.
If enacted, either of these bills will create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure. Regardless of recent amendments to SOPA, both bills will risk fragmenting the Internet’s global domain name system (DNS) and have other capricious technical consequences. In exchange for this, such legislation would engender censorship that will simultaneously be circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties’ right and ability to communicate and express themselves online.
As long as there have been new technologies, the entertainment industry has been trying to get them shut down as filthy, thieving pirates. Video cassettes? Will anyone tune into TV again? MP3 players? Why even bother making a record? Digital video recorder that lets you skip ads? That’s a form of theft!
But SOPA is threatening to touch something far more precious than that — the glorious sprawl of the Internet.
SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, is a bill that, in the name of preventing online piracy of copyrighted work, creates a horrifyingly large censorship authority for the Internet. Among other things, it requires service providers (which have come out opposing the bill) to block access to entire sites if a user on the site is accused of copyright infringement.
There are dozens of reasons this is wrong. The biggest and most pressing is that not only does the bill not do what it sets out to do, it also creates a horrifyingly blunt instrument to censor the Internet.
An 85-year-old woman said Saturday that she was injured and humiliated when she was strip searched at an airport after she asked to be patted down instead of going through a body scanner, allegations that transportation security officials denied.
Lenore Zimmerman said she was taken to a private room and made to take off her pants and other clothes after she asked to forgo the screening because she worried it would interfere with her defibrillator. She missed her flight and had to take one 2 1/2 hours later, she said.
“I’m hunched over. I’m in a wheelchair. I weigh under 110 pounds (50 kilograms),” she said from her winter home at a seniors community in Coconut Creek, Florida. “Do I look like a terrorist?”
And here is the serious threat herself in a photo by The New York Daily News.
Cloud computing is growing rapidly and it is already a big business. But, it turns out, US-based cloud computing companies are facing a grave threat from the Patriot Act. Foreign governments and cloud competitors are claiming that data stored on US clouds is subject to being turned over to the US government. Quelle suprise.
While no foreign governments have moved to block U.S. tech companies, authorities in the Netherlands as recently as September floated the idea of banning U.S.-based cloud firms from competing for government contracts. And Verveer said on a trip to Germany in October that technology firms based in that country were openly using the PATRIOT Act as a “marketing proposition” to raise questions about U.S. cloud firms.
It has created a high-stakes trade issue that’s become a top agenda item for U.S. firms already profiting in the cloud and for those eyeing the technology for the future. It also registers high on the list of international tech priorities for the White House because of the potential negative impact such fears could have on the U.S. cloud market.
What would you say about a police officer calmly walking down a line of seated, non-violent protestors pepper spraying each? None of the protestors are a threat to the officer in any way.
And here is another view (click for a bigger version):
Well this happened yesterday afternoon at UC-Davis. This is an example of the police acting as judge, jury and executioner. This is a form of unnecessary on-site extrajudicial punishment. Police brutality pure and simple. All in the person of UC Davis Police Lt. John Pike ((530-752-3989 japikeiii@ucdavis.edu).
Here is a video of the outrage. It runs 8 minutes, but it is worth watching for the reaction of the crowd.
Update: The police now claim that they were afraid for their lives. Look at the pictures, and watch the video, and tell me that there was any reasonable fear on the part of the police for their own safety, at least prior to the chemical spraying. Does John Pike look scared as the sprays the protestors?
And here is a variety of contact info you may be interested in using to offer your views:
Update 2:The New York Timesreports on reactions from Katehi on Saturday:
“The use of pepper spray as shown on the video is chilling to us all and raises many questions about how best to handle situations like this,” Ms. Katehi wrote. Her statement said that she was forming a task force and asking university officials to review existing policies about encampments like the one that was erected on the campus this week.
“While the university is trying to ensure the safety and health of all members of our community, we must ensure our strategies to gain compliance are fair and reasonable and do not lead to mistreatment,” Ms. Katehi wrote.
Asked about the demands by some faculty members for her resignation, Ms. Katehi said at a news conference on Saturday afternoon that she did not deem it appropriate to resign “at this point.”
At what “point” does she acknowledge that the buck stops on her desk and it is time to go. The casual, methodical, and heartless use of pepper spray by her police on non-threatening protestors is a disgrace.
Here is an open letter to Katehi from a board member of the Davis Faculty Association. Excerpt:
On Wednesday November 16, you issued a letter by email to the campus community. In this letter, you discussed a hate crime which occurred at UC Davis on Sunday November 13. In this letter, you express concern about the safety of our students. You write, “it is particularly disturbing that such an act of intolerance should occur at a time when the campus community is working to create a safe and inviting space for all our students.” You write, “while these are turbulent economic times, as a campus community, we must all be committed to a safe, welcoming environment that advances our efforts to diversity and excellence at UC Davis.”
I will leave it to my colleagues and every reader of this letter to decide what poses a greater threat to “a safe and inviting space for all our students” or “a safe, welcoming environment” at UC Davis: 1) Setting up tents on the quad in solidarity with faculty and students brutalized by police at UC Berkeley? or 2) Sending in riot police to disperse students with batons, pepper-spray, and tear-gas guns, while those students sit peacefully on the ground with their arms linked? Is this what you have in mind when you refer to creating “a safe and inviting space?” Is this what you have in mind when you express commitment to “a safe, welcoming environment?”
A US District Court Judge in Texas has ruled that obtaining cellphone records without a warrant is unconstitutional. In her ruling, Judge Lynn N. Hughes states:
The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made. These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion.
Hasan M. Elahi has a fascinating op-ed in today’s New York Times. He describes how in 2002, despite being an American citizen, he was stopped in Detroit upon entering the country and grilled for hours by Federal agents who believed he might be involved in terrorist activity. The Feds followed up with lie detector tests, numerous interviews and other activities.
In response Elahi, decided to log virtually all his activities, travel, and small details of his life, and then continuiusly forward the information to the FBI. He also posted all the information, in an unorganized fashion to his website. He suggests that this might be the best response to government spying. He just might be right.
Excerpt:
On my Web site, I compiled various databases that show the airports I’ve been in, food I’ve eaten at home, food I’ve eaten on the road, random hotel beds I’ve slept in, various parking lots off Interstate 80 that I parked in, empty train stations I saw, as well as very specific information like photos of the tacos I ate in Mexico City between July 5 and 7, and the toilets I used.
These images seem empty, and could be anywhere, but they’re not; they are extremely specific records of my exact travels to particular places. There are 46,000 images on my site. I trust that the F.B.I. has seen all of them. Agents know where I’ve bought my duck-flavored paste, or kimchi, laundry detergent and chitlins; because I told them everything….
PEOPLE who visit my site — and my server logs indicate repeat visits from the Department of Homeland Security, the C.I.A., the National Reconnaissance Office and the Executive Office of the President — don’t find my information organized clearly. In fact, the interface I use is deliberately user-unfriendly. A lot of work is required to thread together the thousands of available points of information. By putting everything about me out there, I am simultaneously telling everything and nothing about my life. Despite the barrage of information about me that is publicly available, I live a surprisingly private and anonymous life.
You ought to take a look at Red State, directed by Kevin Smith. Fantastic. It focuses on a group of fundamentalist christians somewhat along the lines of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church, but in this case they are heavily armed. The ATF gets involved in an echo of Waco, Waco after 9/11. The film depicts a literal cultural war, complete with weapons, dogma and stupidity. And John Goodman delivers yet another fabulous performance. If you liked Dogma, you will love this one.
Laws in the United States should not be secret. Laws should be subject to judicial review. Operational details of military actions need not be disclosed but the law and rules governing the military, the Department of Justice or any other part of the government should be publicly open.
The Obama administration’s secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Muslim cleric hiding in Yemen, found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive, according to people who have read the document.
The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis.
It is important to note that, not only is this memorandum kept secret, it wasn’t even completed until months after Obama had ordered al-Awlaki killed.
The U.S. government has obtained a controversial type of secret court order to force Google Inc. and small Internet provider Sonic.net Inc. to turn over information from the email accounts of WikiLeaks volunteer Jacob Appelbaum, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Sonic said it fought the government’s order and lost, and was forced to turn over information. Challenging the order was “rather expensive, but we felt it was the right thing to do,” said Sonic’s chief executive, Dane Jasper. The government’s request included the email addresses of people Mr. Appelbaum corresponded with the past two years, but not the full emails.
Both Google and Sonic pressed for the right to inform Mr. Appelbaum of the secret court orders, according to people familiar with the investigation. Google declined to comment. Mr. Appelbaum, 28 years old, hasn’t been charged with wrongdoing.
The court clashes in the WikiLeaks case provide a rare public window into the growing debate over a federal law that lets the government secretly obtain information from people’s email and cellphones without a search warrant. Several court decisions have questioned whether the law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
And note, that the government was seeking to forbid the ISP and Google from even telling the individual that the government was seeking his information. This is like something from the Soviet Union, not our “democracy.” More the second story from Boing Boing.
Tell me this isn’t un-American and unconstitutional:
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
***
The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.
A constitutional challenge to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) has survived an en banc rehearing in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The challenge was brought by human rights groups, lawyers and journalists who claim to have been wiretapped or believe they will be wiretapped under FISA without probable cause and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The hearing was focused on whether such claimants have standing to bring the challenge. A three judge panel initially ruled that the plaintiffs had standing, and the the defendants (the government) sought an en banc rehearing. The en banc appellate panel evenly split 6-6 denying the request for such rehearing. As a result, the initial Second Circuit ruling affirming standing remains in effect and, unless the decision is appealed to the Supreme Court, the constitutionality of FISA will be, at least initially, be determined by the lower court.
