Blacknell.net

Happy Canada Day!

Today’s the day that Canada officially marks as its birthday, when it joined the east and west coast provinces with a rail line or something typically socialist like that.  And remember, Queen Elizabeth is still in charge, so it’s not a Canadian independence day celebration or anything.

But, since their dollar is still worth more than ours, I ought not mock too loudy.  In fact, I’ll repost Cory Doctorow’s link to this most excellent song about the War of 1812.  Not only do you get a little bit of that rarity - Canadian Aggressiveness - but I think I even hear some pride in there.  If you’re still not convinced, check the lyrics:

In 1812 Madison was mad,
He was the president you know.
Well he thought he’d tell the British where they ought to go.
He thought he’d invade Canada,
He thought that he was tough.
Instead we went to Washington,
And burned down all his stuff.

And the White House burned, burned, burned.
And we’re the ones that did it,

Enjoy.

Friday Notes: Double Stack Edition

Missed this last Friday, so you get double the helping of trivial matters:

First up - I’m big in China!  Yes, if you use the Chinese Google to search for “false statement“, I’m right there on the first page of results.   Ahead of Bush, Cheney, and the “Criminal Tax Manual”, no less. I couldn’t have done it without Mark Ellmore.

(Oh, okay, Mark Ellmore and oppressive governmental control.)

(Update: Sigh. Being big in China is such a fleeting thing.  Already, I’m on the second page.  Maybe I’ll have to settle for being big in Belgium.)

~

If you haven’t been reading Pro Publica, you should be.  Start with this story about the half a billion dollars the US has spent on a failed propaganda station.  Looks like the US worked very hard to ensure that no one in the Middle East ever takes anything that comes from the US government seriously.

~

Atrios noted what I thought was a pretty sobering reality check, yesterday - GM’s market cap is (take your pick): the same as H&R Block’s, half that of Avon’s, and one fifth of Ebay’s.  I know things have been rough for them for a while now, but . . . wow.

~

Speaking of Google - Nicholas Carr asks whether it’s “making us stupid?” It’s a long article, but well worth your time if you’ve ever wondered about the real effects on your thinking of having Google at your finger tips for years.

~

You know how the rightwingers are always going on about the coming Islamic invasion and subjugation of America?  Well, in case you missed it, one of their cultural heroes - the mercenary company Blackwater - is trying to avoid responsiblity for the deaths of three American passengers on one of its charter flights by arguing that Shari’a (Islamic law) should apply, since the crash occurred in Afghanistan.

~

The Burn Rate as performance art.  Good thing he’s in Ethiopia.

~

Neal Stephenson’s new book is coming out on September 9th.  I cannot possibly finish the Baroque Cycle by then.

~

The FCC wants to auction off a slice of the airwaves so you can get free wireless Internet!*

*And by Internet, they mean access to pre-approved content, excluding anything that isn’t “family-friendly”, in order to “protect children and families.”

I wish I could tell you that it’s the tidal wave of mockery and laughter that’s going to kill this proposal, but it’ll be the telecoms that prefer to charge you a hefty monthly fee to access your porn.

Creigh Deeds’ Mailing Lists - Where Are They Coming From?

I received an email today from the Deeds campaign (the Mary Margaret Whipple endorsement).  Actually, I received two.  Getting multiple copies of the same message from politicians is nothing new for me, but since I’ve never signed up for any Deeds info (or contributed to him), I was curious to see what address they’d used.  Well, it seems they’ve gotten ahold of a unique email address I’ve only used once in my life - on a contribution to the Commonwealth Coalition (a now - as best I can tell - defunct organization that tried to fight the anti-gay marriage amendment in Virginia two years ago).

Now, as a matter of principle and email management, every time I ever give an email address to anyone, I opt-out of any sharing.  So I’m sure I did that with the Commonwealth Coalition.  Further, the Commonwealth Coalition - by the nature of its advocacy issues - would surely have had some appreciation of the confidential nature of its contributor lists.   And yet here we are, with Creigh Deeds magically ending up with that email address (those who are familiar with Deeds’ “support” of the Commonwealth Coalition’s position will enjoy the irony, here).   But what really makes me wonder, here, is the fact that this is the *second* time a unique email address specific to an organization with a similar agenda has been used by the Deeds campaign.  When contacted about this, the director of that second organization assured me that they do not ever share email lists.

So.  Where’s Deeds getting his email lists from?

Update: Apparently this needs to be said - I’m not posting this as a personal criticism of Creigh Deeds.  I *am* posting it because I’m interested in an actual answer here.  In case anyone missed it, Virginia is a state in which discrimination has been enshrined in its constitution.  And that discrimination is against exactly the people who are likely to be active supporters of the Commonwealth Coalition (but not necessarily public supporters, for reasons I hope are obvious).   Whoever is responsible for sharing these lists appears not to get the importance of the promise of privacy (among other things).  I’d like to make sure that they do.

Update II: Representatives from all three organizations - the Commonwealth Coalition, Equality Virginia, and the Deeds campaign, have all told me that they have never shared or exchanged lists.  Which means that we’ve got a bit of a mystery going, as the information was (at some point) in the custody of someone who did share the information.  I’m looking forward to finding out who that was, and I’m sure that - given their clear understanding of the importance of the confidentiality of this information - each organization will continue to be helpful in sorting this out.

You Have An Individual Right to Bear Arms in the United States

So says the U.S. Supreme Court, 5-4.

Brace yourselves.

Majority opinion and dissent here. (PDF)

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause.

[ . . . ]

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

And there go the triggerlock laws:

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional.

Mayor Fenty says his office “has a Plan B.”  Umkay.  It’ll be interesting.

CIA Intelligence Sources & Methods

Among the most effective tools the US has (had?) are the assumptions about its capabilities and reach in military and intelligence matters.   And the gap between the assumption and the reality is often the asset that’s being protected when the public is told that something can’t be revealed to them, so that sources and methods aren’t jeopardized.

Well, over in Italy, they’re trying (in absentia) 26 Americans involved in kidnapping (and then lying about it) a suspected terrorist in Milan (all without the Italian gov’ts approval, natch).  Seems like the Italians got ahold of the laptop of the CIA station chief.   And what super stealth secret means did they use to position their people and do recon on the best path between the abduction point and dropping the kidnapped guy at a US air base? Expedia. Oh, and they know this because it seems there was a plethora of unsecured info on the laptop.

Mind the gap, please.

The Importance of Democrats Criticizing Democrats

One of the few good things I’d expected to come of the Bush years was a clear understanding by Democrats that vesting their political trust and faith in a person - instead of a set of principles - was a very unwise thing to do.  Perhaps this was a bit naive of me.

The pushback against those who are willing to call Obama (and other Democrats) to account for the pending FISA bill is strong, with otherwise sensible Democrats tripping over themselves to provide excuse after excuse for these electeds selling out our basic Constitutional rights.  And the justification, time after time, is “I trust Obama and I want to win!” (and it is often, but not always, followed with the vaugely aggressive - “What, are you going to vote for McCain?”).  Glenn Greenwald calls this out for what it is:

The excuse that Obama’s support for this bill is politically shrewd is — even if accurate — neither a defense of what he did nor a reason to refrain from loudly criticizing him for it. Actually, it’s the opposite. It’s precisely because Obama is calculating that he can — without real consequence — trample upon the political values of those who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law that it’s necessary to do what one can to change that calculus. Telling Obama that you’ll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you’ll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.

Beyond that, this attitude that we should uncritically support Obama in everything he does and refrain from criticizing him is unhealthy in the extreme. No political leader merits uncritical devotion — neither when they are running for office nor when they occupy it — and there are few things more dangerous than announcing that you so deeply believe in the Core Goodness of a political leader, or that we face such extreme political crises that you trust and support whatever your Leader does, even when you don’t understand it or think that it’s wrong. That’s precisely the warped authoritarian mindset that defined the Bush Movement and led to the insanity of the post-9/11 Era, and that uncritical reverence is no more attractive or healthy when it’s shifted to a new Leader.

And if Greenwald’s not enough of a thinker for you on that, let’s try some quotes by some guys who had a bit more experience in these matters (quotes suggested by commenters at Salon):

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” - John Adams [1772].

In 1799, Thomas Jefferson echoed that: “Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence . . . . Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitutions.”

I believe strongly in the rule of law, and not man.  One of the most important things Obama can do as President is restore the rule of law and bring an end to the almost unchecked lawbreaking of the Bush Administration.  Yet in supporting this FISA bill - the telecom immunity and the Constitution violating expanded surveillance powers - Obama is signaling that when it comes time to stand up for it, the rule of law isn’t really all that important to him.  The time to put an end to any such idea is now.  I’ll let Greenwald explain why:

The excuse that we must sit by quietly and allow him to do these things with no opposition so that he can win is itself a corrupted and self-destructive mentality. That mindset has no end. Once he’s elected, it will transform into: “It’s vital that Obama keeps his majority in Congress so you have to keep quiet until after the 2010 midterms,” after which it will be: “It’s vital that Obama is re-elected so you have to keep quiet until after 2012,” at which point the process will repeat itself from the first step. Quite plainly, those are excuses to justify mindless devotion, not genuine political strategies.

Now.

Take Back the Tour

I know I’m a sucker, given that VS. was a part of covering up the doping scandals, but I can’t help but enjoy a good promo.  Le Tour is coming.  July 5th.

401: Please Swipe Your Online ID Card Again for Access

If you ever sit down with me and we talk about why I’m in communications law and why tech fascinates me, you’ll probably hear about my theories on communications infrastructure and how greatly they influence the type of society in which we live. You’ll also hear that I am fairly certain that we are living in a time during which all the tools that are needed to strictly control access to (and thus things learned from) that communications infrastructure are being built. Not as part of any particular grand conspiracy, but in the service of separate self-interested industries and institutions. Once those tools are in place, however, I think it won’t be too long before a lightbulb goes off somewhere, and it will become almost irresistible to use them as a whole for commercial and political ends.

Here’s an example:

SAN FRANCISCO — Microsoft, Google and PayPal, a unit of eBay, are among the founders of an industry organization that hopes to solve the problem of password overload among computer users.

[ . . . ]

The idea is to bring the concept of an identity card, like a driver’s license, to the online world. Rather than logging on to sites with user IDs and passwords, people will gain access to sites using a secure digital identity that is overseen by a third party. The user controls the information in a secure place and transmits only the data that is necessary to access a Web site.

So here’s a seemingly innocuous (at first glance) solution to the practical annoyance of multiple user IDs and passwords. Cool, have at it. But note that it is also, by definition, a proposal to tie everything you view online to your physical body, and pass that information through a single database (which also has the capacity to control what you view in the first place). What could possibly go wrong?

I mean, it’s not like the government would ever have any use for a centralized data repository. Or that a presumably-private “third party” in control of this database would ever cede access to the government for anything illegal.

Watch this. Whenever you hear about the development of tools - or adoption of laws - that make it easier to identify and control access to online content, ignore the stated purpose (it’s all piracy and terrorists, these days) and imagine how those mechanisms might be used to control the flow of information in general. And I hope that after 7 years of the Bush Administration, and about as many of lawsuits by the Recording Industry Association of America, there’s no question that there are very motivated entities - private and public - that would like to control exactly what you can see.

Terrorists Don’t Shop at Costco

I know that for some, the constant highlighting of security theater that I do here can get old.  Hell, it gets old for me.  But this one is just so far past ridiculous that I’ve got to post it.  Recall that the TSA recently adopted rules that permits someone who “forgets” her ID to fly, but bars anyone who refuses to show ID (the practical difference between the two is an exercise for another time).  So, it was under these new rules that a Consumerist reader found himself having forgotten his drivers license at home, and needing to make a flight.  I hope you”ll read the whole thing, but let’s join the story at the point where the traveller has pointed out that he has no ID, and a supervisor has been called:

After about 15 minutes, the main supervisor, Laurie, arrived. Again, Laurie was exceedingly nice and professional, but seemed a little more concerned than Brenda. She asked if I was sure I didn’t have photo ID, like a credit card with my picture on it, or even a CostCo card. I wound up going through my wallet in front of her to show that I didn’t, and she pointed to various cards and receipts in it to ask if they were IDs. I wound up showing her everything to prove I was telling the truth.

That’s right, you can get through with a Costco club card.  What does this achieve?  Your guess is as good as mine.  The only thing that seems clear from this is that a Costco card could have avoided what the traveller was next required to do:

Finally satisfied that I didn’t have ID, Laurie took my boarding pass and went away. She came back a few minutes later having photocopied it, and also had an affidavit that she requested I sign. It asked for my name and address, and stated in small print at the bottom that I did not have to fill it out, but if I didn’t I couldn’t fly. It also said that if I choose to fill it out and then provided false info, I would be in violation of federal law.

After filling out the affidavit, Laurie called a service to verify my address. The service needed me to then correctly answer three questions about myself, which Laurie relayed to me. The first was my date of birth, the second was a previous address (which I only got right on my second try), and the third was “You are registered to vote. Which political party have you registered with?” [emphasis supplied] I got all three right, and only then did Laurie clear me to go through security.

Ponder that.

The More Things Change: The Ronnie and Nancy Show

Got sucked into YouTube this evening.  There are a billion Spitting Image clips I’d like to post, but I’ll try to keep it to a minimum, given that it was a mostly Brit show and this is a mostly US audience.  We’ll start with the Ronnie and Nancy Show!