Blacknell.net

US Support of Chinese Democracy

Well, I should point out now that this almost certainly isn’t what you were expecting.  See, this is a highlighting of the fact that your taxpayer dollars are being spent to protect Chinese Democracy, and not democracy in China:

Last week, the Internet was rocked when California blogger Kevin Skwerl posted nine newly leaked Chinese Democracy tracks, including three previously unheard songs allegedly from Guns n’ Roses long-awaited album. [ . . . ]

Yesterday Skwerl was surprised to find himself face to face with two FBI agents who paid a visit to his day job.

I’ve never really seen a compelling case for putting public dollars into protecting the private rights of copyright owners.  That isn’t to say that there couldn’t be a case - it’s just that I can think of a 100 other things that are more important to society than that, and I think we should have seen and debated that case before we committed the resources.

Kucinich on “Four more years”

Seems like the editors’ pens kept what would have been the best line of the DNC thus far away from us:

The campaign struck this line, addressing Republicans, from Kucinich’s speech:

“They’re asking for another four years — in a just world, they’d get 10 to 20.”

Friday Notes: Be Careful What You Ask For Edition

Here are a few that may turn out a little differently than its proponents had hoped for:

Scott Cleland over at the PrecursorBlog has an interesting analysis of what the FCC’s recent Report & Order regarding Comcast’s hidden traffic management activities means to the future of Net Neutrality.  While NN proponent Larry Lessig seems to think it a big success, Scott Cleland sees the order as having “reined in the net neutrality movement much more than it advanced their agenda.”  I haven’t had a chance to full parse the R&O, but I suspect that Scott is right.

~

Heard this NPR story on the radio about the Bush Administration’s latest attempt to shoehorn more government regulation into private lives.  This time, it wants to use the power of the government to give special rights to certain minorities bar private employers from taking any disciplinary action against an employee who claims that he doesn’t want to perform his duties because of his religious beliefs.  Can we safely presume, now, that Republicans will be consistent and recognize that it’s legitimate to balance some public interest concerns against the private freedom of contract?  Yes?  No?

Heh.

~

There appear to be a number of people (including lots of Democrats) who support a return of the Fairness Doctrine.  The short description of the Fairness Doctrine is that when a controversial subject of public importance is discussed on broadcast television, a balanced presentation is made. Now, try and clearly nail down a definition of every word in that last sentence after “when”.  Kinda tough, eh?  So who does it?  Why, the FCC, of course!  Do you see the problem?  Well, lots of Dems don’t - which sort of boggles me, considering the lesson in ideological manipulation of the levers of government we’ve gotten in the past 8 years.  Why would you want the government to get involved in even more censorship than it does already?

The original argument was that since they were using the public airwaves, there was a public interest obligation that justified this intervention.   Now, as a legal theory, I find that acceptable (in fact, it’s a theory that underlies a lot of regulation).  But as a practical matter, it’s a really bad idea.  And, apparently, it’s an idea that almost 30% of people in a recent poll would like to see extended to the Internet (and blogs, in general).  Think about that.

~

Update: I figure that this is as good a place as any to put myself on the careful what you ask for hook, wrt the Obama VP selection.  My own worst to first: Clinton (for many many reasons, none of which involve the question of her ability to be President).  Bayh would be an awful choice (primarily for the reason noted here).  Kaine doesn’t inspire me, but would be acceptable (and a good campaigner).  I am surprised to find myself coming around on Biden (but still shudder at the thought of him actually being President).  But I’d still like to see Brian Schweitzer (Governor of Montana) top the list.

*I know, I left off Sebelius, but I still haven’t managed to form an opinion of her.

It *Does* Happen Here

So many times in the course of conversations about privacy and politics, people are otherwise share my same general socio-political moorings express great doubt that the US government would ever spy on people for any reason other than crime prevention.   While I’m never at a loss for counter examples, I’ll have to say that the best documented examples are often a generation or two old, and probably carry a little less currency, as a result.  Well, governments - state and federal - have been obliging me lately.  First we had Maryland police closely tracking the activities of dangerous people like anti-death penalty activists, and now we’ve got a straight admission from the FBI that it spied on reporters from the Washington Post and New York Times.

It not only can happen here, it *does* happen here.

Friday Notes: 08-08-08 Edition

The end of another week.  So much to write about, so little time.  Here’s what I wish I’d talked more about, this week:

Steve Clemons takes Obama to task for abandoning his Muslim-American outreach chief over an absolutely ridiculous issue (brief concurrent corporate board service with a questionable fellow):

I think that this is outrageous — and those on the left who appreciate Obama and what he may mean for this country must become as tenaciously committed to what is right and what is good — and fighting for that — because those on the other side of these debates are trying to compel Obama to dilute himself.

[ . . . ]

Obama should say it. Convince the American public that he’s not setting up a zero sum game between Muslims on one side and Christians and Jews on the other.

Obama is a Christian. I get that. I’m a secularist hard core — but I won’t stand by to watch more good people be flushed down the political drain because they are Muslims trying to work for a balanced and level playing field in America.

The rest is well worth reading.

~

The Lori Drew case is a case full of disgusting facts - appalling adult behavior (on all sides) contributed to circumstances that drove a young girl to suicide.  One of those adults is now being prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for violating the MySpace.com terms of use agreement.  That’s right, Federal prosecutors are trying to treat not complying with those ridiculous click-through agreements on nearly every web site you use a crime.  Thankfully not everyone is losing their mind over this (horrible) situation, and the EFF, Public Citizen, and others have stepped in with an amicus brief demonstrating just what a bad idea this is.

~

There is an art to writing interesting reviews, and John Brownlee demonstrates it in this review of Monkeylectric . . . uh, bike lights.

~

The more I read about the Bruce Ivins/anthrax story, the less I know.  Serious coverup vibes coming from that.

~

Here’s a test - which one of these are jokes? Bike Commuter Banned for EPO or Race Walker Banned for EPO?

You Did *What*? Searching “Criminal” Records Online

This NYTimes is carrying an interesting essay about a new site called CriminalSearches.com (you’re welcome to cut and paste it to see it - I’m just not giving it the benefit of a link).   The author explains:

Last month, PeopleFinders, a 20-year-old company based in Sacramento, introduced CriminalSearches.com, a free service to satisfy those common impulses. The site, which is supported by ads, lets people search by name through criminal archives of all 50 states and 3,500 counties in the United States. In the process, it just might upset a sensitive social balance once preserved by the difficulty of obtaining public documents like criminal records.

Go ahead, you can search me.  You’ll find both an incomplete (I must admit that I have received more than two speeding tickets in my lifetime) and an incorrect result.  As much as I do regret getting those two tickets, I’m not particularly embarrassed by them.  But I am bothered by the incorrect component - one lists me as “guilty in absentia”  (for a ticket I got in Front Royal, doing 44 in a 30, I believe).  Now *this* bothers me greatly.  I may be morally corrupt enough to drive 44 in a 30, but I certainly do understand and meet my obligations to answer any resulting traffic summons.  And yet we’ve now got a publicly accessible resource which certainly makes it look as if I didn’t.  The NYT essay notes this problem of accuracy (and context):

A quick check of the database confirms that it is indeed imperfect. Some records are incomplete, and there is often no way to distinguish between people with the same names if you don’t know their birthdays (and even that date is often missing).

To further test the site, I vetted some of my colleagues at The New York Times. One, who shall remain nameless, had a recent tangle with the law that the site labeled a “criminal offense,” while adding no other information. Curious, I called my colleague with the date and city of the now very public ignominy. The person was stunned to know that the infraction — a speeding ticket — was easily accessible and described as criminal.

“I went to traffic school so this wouldn’t appear on my record. I’m in shock. This blows me away,” my colleague said, demanding that I ask PeopleFinders how to have the record removed. “I don’t necessarily want you all knowing that I’m a fast driver.”

The site’s owners remain unfazed:

PeopleFinders’ response: take it up with the authorities. When they update their records, the change will automatically appear on CriminalSearches.com.

So maybe the source of my particular problem is with the Virginia records themselves, and not CriminalSearches.  But it’s CriminalSearches that made it matter, because *anyone* can now pop my (rather uncommon) name in and see what comes up, without any contact with me.   The implications - legal, political, social - are worth considering.   Some of these concerns *were* considered, fairly recently:

In the past, Congress carefully considered how the public should use criminal records. Amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act in 1997 required that employers who hire investigators to obtain criminal records from consumer reporting agencies advise prospective employees of the search in advance, and disregard some types of convictions that are older than seven years.

“I don’t think Congress stuck that in there randomly,” says Daniel J. Solove, a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School and author of “Understanding Privacy.” “Congress made the judgment that after a certain period of time, people shouldn’t be harmed by having convictions stick with them forever and ever.”

So, legally, some of the information you can find on individuals via CriminalSearches.com is off the table for certain uses.  But with such easy access, observance of these restrictions is doubtful:

Jurors can and almost certainly will be tempted to look up criminal pasts of defendants in their cases. And employers can conduct searches themselves without hiring investigators. Mr. Lane of PeopleFinders says that employers cannot legally use the database in making hiring decisions — but there is nothing to stop them.

And speaking of hiring decisions, let’s remember that even the Department of Justice - which we should expect to be as scrupulous an observer of the law as ever there was - used information it wasn’t legally entitled to use:

A recent investigation at the Justice Department demonstrates how once-obscure, now easily accessible public information can be abused in egregious ways. The investigative report by the department’s inspector general and internal ethics office said government lawyers mined sites like Tray.com and OpenSecrets.org, which report on individual political contributions, to discover political affiliations of job candidates.

The traditional walls that have kept information like political contributions, traffic offensive, and long-past criminal convictions from the casually curious have all but crumbled.  Maybe we should talk about privacy while we still remember it.

DHS: We’ll Be Keeping Your Laptop, Thanks

It’s been well-understood for some time (in the legal community, at least) that the border is some sort of no-man’s land, where Constitutional protections really don’t apply.  In practice, however, it hasn’t really been an issue, and the public is generally unaware of just how much power border agents can exercise over them when crossing.  Well, I think that’s been changing, especially in light of the ridiculous practices of the Department of Homeland Security.  The Congressional hearings earlier this month finally wrangled the DHS policy guidelines out of DHS, and, well, look what we have here:

Federal agents may take a traveler’s laptop or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Also, officials may share copies of the laptop’s contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Anything, anytime, for as long as they feel like it.

You trust them, don’t you?

Bigots Hate It When You Call Them That

Atrios directs us over to Pandagon, who does a great job of illustrating the penchant of the “family values” crowd to go nuts when someone clearly describes what they’re trying to do. In this case, CA Attorney General Jerry Brown has revised the Proposition 8 ballot question to read (in part):

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Well, okay. That’s exactly what it proposes to do. The CA Supreme Court recognized a state constitutional right to marriage (regardless of sex) and this proposal seeks to eliminate that right. What’s to be mad about?:

This completely obliterates the conservative framing of the issue (”protecting marriage”, “preserving the traditional family,” etc.) and shows that supporters of the ballot initiative want to repeal a civil right that is now in place. And the fundies are hopping mad. [ . . . ]

Jennifer Kerns of the Protect Marriage coalition told the Los Angeles Times the revised wording is “inherently argumentative.” Kerns said the wording had the potential to ”prejudice voters against the initiative.”

I saw this over and over again in the time leading up to the vote where Virginia showed the world what a backwards place it really is, in many respects. The proponents of the anti-same sex marriage provision would spit out some of the most vile and obscene things - the usual stuff - and then go nuts when you called them bigots (and I’ll note that more than a few Dems were complicit, as they didn’t like hearing the bigotry of their parents (or themselves) called out for what it is). My response?

If you don’t like being called a bigot, don’t act like one.

J. Edgar Google: Threatening Your Privacy

Here’s an interesting analysis of Google’s approach to privacy.  The author, Scott Cleland, summarizes his testimony before Congress thusly:

Why Google’s the single biggest threat to Americans’ privacy today.

Case Study: How Google Systematically Threatens Americans’ Privacy:
1. Google’s radical “publicacy” mission is antithetical to privacy.
2. Privacy is not a priority in Google’s culture.
3. Google gives privacy “lip service.”
4. Google threatens the privacy of more people than most any other
entity.
5. Google collects/stores the most potential “blackmail-able”
information.
6. Google’s track record does not inspire trust.

Information is power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Google’s market power over private information is corrupting
Google, just like former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was corrupted by
his power and mastery of personally-sensitive information. Google’s
unprecedented arbitrage of privacy law combined with its exceptional
lack of accountability is fast creating this era’s privacy-invading,
unaccountable equivalent: “J. Edgar Google.”

More on this from me later, but I wanted to pass it on lest it get lost in the ever growing Draft Posts folder . . .

Friday Notes: Remember That? Edition

Yesterday was the first day you could register a handgun in DC.  How many people were in line, clamoring to exercise this new right?  Two.  And one forgot his gun.

~

I was never a fan of comics as a kid, but after being introduced to a few really impressive “graphic novels” as an adult (i.e., Maus, Blankets, and Palestine), I’m a little more open to the artform.   So I found myself sucked into the webcomic Yehuda Moon the other day.  Not as serious as those graphic novels, but a bit of light - if occasionally pointed - fun.  If you’re a cyclist, check it out.

~

Perhaps the most entertaining session I attended at the first YearlyKos convention was the one where Dave “Mudcat” Saunders threatened to punch Whistling Past Dixie author Tom Schaller for speaking frankly about some of the uglier sides of the South.   As I’ve previously noted, Tom’s probably not the best messenger, but he’s got an important message.  Vivian Paige just started posting a multi-part review of the book, and I’m looking forward to her take on it.

~

And that post about pettiness, earlier this week?  The Washington Post decided to prove that they can be just as petty as the rest of us.