tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857274358849991262024-03-05T18:26:22.206-05:00Politics & P2PPolitics, statistics, and musings from a Pirate PoliticianK`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.comBlogger229125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-30005229110032392002013-03-25T17:03:00.005-04:002013-03-25T17:03:42.789-04:00All New KTETCH.CO.UKOk, after 3 years here on Blogger, it's going bye-bye.<br />
<br />
The terrible interface that Google has given the blogger back-end is the straw that broke the camels back.<br />
<br />
Over the years, it's lost functionality, and become difficult to work with. it's slow, and sucks resources. And if I take more than an hour or two, it will consume VAST quantities of ram, and an entire cpu core.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
That's just BAD coding.<br />
<br />
So, I decided it was time to bite the bullet, and switch to wordpress, and move off blogger.<br />
<br />
If you're reading this, then you're on the old site still. The new site is at <a href="http://ktetch.co.uk/" target="_blank">ktetch.co.uk</a> but this one will still be available for a while, but at <a href="http://blogger.ktetch.co.uk/">http://blogger.ktetch.co.uk</a> just so that things are still available.<br />
<br />
I hope you'll stick with me though in having the best in politics (pirate and otherwise) P2P, and other tech stuff as well as my ramblings.<br />
<br />
Yours,<br />
Andrew "K`Tetch" Norton.<br />
March 2013<br />
<br />K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-1974074423860117212013-03-13T16:43:00.000-04:002013-03-13T16:47:15.696-04:00Governance by Powerpoint<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj399_tGUiLVP9gD-sQd8ppuZlbUIjPF1USUJ60k2XtyGz89ZZdD3dmc1WC9SH1-KOeD5JXN6IHph-z5R-fh4QXsJ07E3hCpx5QE5u52Z73ulnQ5wDcyPux0_lNy49yG1frtErcVGpwLDg/s1600/political-pictures-death-powerpoint.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: justify;"><img border="0" height="128" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj399_tGUiLVP9gD-sQd8ppuZlbUIjPF1USUJ60k2XtyGz89ZZdD3dmc1WC9SH1-KOeD5JXN6IHph-z5R-fh4QXsJ07E3hCpx5QE5u52Z73ulnQ5wDcyPux0_lNy49yG1frtErcVGpwLDg/s200/political-pictures-death-powerpoint.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It wasn’t until I was perusing some videos online, which mentioned the death of Hugo Chavez, that I was made aware of his weekly program, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al%C3%B3_Presidente" target="_blank">Aló Presidente</a>. While no comments on the content of the show, the idea is certainly one that needs to be embraced.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The problem is one that we have nowadays worldwide. Political leaders are treated like kings. While that might seem amusingly obvious, the underlying point is that political leaders often consider themselves so much better htan ‘the people’ that they’re in a constant bubble, afraid to interact regularly with the outside world. We end up with a political class that can’t think on its feet, and is ignorant to the realities facing those they represent and/or govern.</div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What we have, is processed politics. Every action, deed, policy is researched, strategized, planned, scripted and rehearsed, before it ever sees the light of day. We end up then with governance that isn’t based on reality, but on what was perceived to be the best response in a managed outlook.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sure, this makes for great PR script, and the news loves it, but what we don’t have are politicians knowing issues. For all the <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-18/politics/35278710_1_teleprompter-campaign-trail-presidential-candidates" target="_blank">outcry</a> about Obama reading from autocues, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4848259-503544.html" target="_blank">the same was true</a> for Bush as well. They can’t speak without the autocue, because it’s not ‘their’ words they’re speaking, it’s those of their staff, of the manderins infesting the halls of office.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is where Aló Presidente came in. It was a mostly unscripted show, where policy was sometimes made in public, and responses were made by Chavez on the spot, based on his own knowledge, experiences and judgement. Can you imagine any western politician doing that? Obama or Bush, Merkel or Hollande? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The nearest analogue is the British Prime Minister’s Questions (<a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/parliament-government-and-politics/parliament/prime-ministers-questions/" target="_blank">PMQ</a>), which happens Wednesday lunchtimes, and where MP’s get to ask questions of the PM. While this has been dominated in recent times by the party leaders, and an increasing boorishness, it’s still an important aspect where a politician is put ‘on the spot’ and required to give some kind of answer without consultation. There are also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_time" target="_blank">Question Times</a> in various other countries, but they don’t have the spotlight of the PMQ.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In short, it’s a test of competence and confidence in the role.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Instead we now have a professional class of politician that is largely immune from being asked difficult questions, and the higher the office, the more insular they are. It’s to the point that even at times when questions are (supposedly unscripted) and politicians have to ‘go it alone’ (such as the US Presidential debates) politicians are inclined to not answer the question they were asked, but instead to recite the talking points closest to the question. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4JiUee0N-jhvrEC4ePZwkcuTXrk0gnTzPswvlAt50ZW6bGVqiIU77gOgMxF_HImqJza3v_phUwnpViXmDdfa6jkbfONL3Zy71OM5QLIl3Yn0SASdVIn0v7GI8mXCMmclaqrhhRt_xogg/s1600/no-specifics-ryan.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4JiUee0N-jhvrEC4ePZwkcuTXrk0gnTzPswvlAt50ZW6bGVqiIU77gOgMxF_HImqJza3v_phUwnpViXmDdfa6jkbfONL3Zy71OM5QLIl3Yn0SASdVIn0v7GI8mXCMmclaqrhhRt_xogg/s400/no-specifics-ryan.png" width="166" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This led to a memorable Vice Presidential Debate in October 2012 when Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan was asked for specifics on a tax plan. After spending 60 seconds repeating talking point, he was cut cold by a comment ‘no specifics then’ from the moderator. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s the aura of invincibility and power that leads to this. Senior politicians are left insolated from the mood of the electorate, protected behind a cordon of power. Most of all though, they feel afraid to act independently and with rapidity for fear of consequences and loss of their positions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Politics has stopped being about doing what’s best for the country, and is instead an easy job as a mouthpiece for ideologies. It is no longer about the cut and thrust of debate, but the slow ponderous strategic moves of chess. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And this isolation carries on long after leaving office. Baroness Thatcher, and Sir John Major are rarely engaging in public discourse, while Tony Blair is more known for his high-profile (and high cost) speaking engagements and consultancy with 'movers and shakers'. Over in the US, the same is true of the Bush’s, who are rarely interacting publicly with the regular electorate, or pursuing significant actions (except for 'cutting brush')</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, the same cannot be said of the living Democrat ex-Presidents. Bill Clinton is well known and makes many appearances and undertakes significant political and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/bill-clinton-visits-impoverished-haiti-to-promote-agriculture-investment-in-2nd-trip-this-year/2013/03/10/5e81b7c4-89b8-11e2-a88e-461ffa2e34e4_story.html" target="_blank">humanitarian missions</a>, although he’s probably not the most approachable. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, <a href="http://www.habitat.org/how/default_jcwp.aspx" target="_blank">builds houses</a> for the poor, despite being 88. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's a topic I touched on for a bit back in my 2012 talk on how the internet defeated SOPA/PIPA, where the subject came up. Here's the end segment</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<iframe frameborder="no" height="166" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F83103404&color=1dff00&auto_play=false&show_artwork=false" width="100%"></iframe><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s an exercise in humility in many ways, demonstrated incredibly clearly last year during the UK’s ‘pasty crises. Then you had senior UK politicians rushing to bakeries, to buy savoury baked goods, and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/9171338/Labour-dine-out-on-pasty-tax-at-Greggs.html" target="_blank">looking very uncomfortable</a> as they attempt to do so.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s also one thing that’s made London Mayor Boris Johnson a well-regarded figure in British politics. He clearly doesn’t speak from a well-rehearsed script, and admits to inhabiting the same world as most people (even to the point of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/03/boris-johnson-attack-camden-london1" target="_blank">chasing off a gang of attackers</a> on his bicycle, even if he shouted “oiks” at them), and yet despite his <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3749548.stm" target="_blank">gaffs</a>, blunders and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8082995.stm" target="_blank">accidents</a>, he is on an upward trajectory, politically.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet the fact remains that, as a whole, politicians are increasingly isolated from their constituents, appearing ever more in staged, and managed events, with topics pre-cleared and no requirement to actually answer the questions they’re given, or any pushback on falsehoods.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s a lot like the powerpoint presentation you get from some mis-level corporate drone. They can only answer the questions by referring to the pre-planned presentation, can’t do anything or say anything without approval from others, and they’re going to say what they came to say no matter what.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We now have governance by Powerpoint.</div>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-11861267169840747282013-03-07T18:44:00.000-05:002013-03-07T19:41:27.522-05:00Libel Reform, And Why It Matters To Britain<div style="text-align: justify;">
The risk of libel reform failing is not one that any Briton should find acceptable. The damage our libel laws have caused over the decades is immeasurable, and has only increased since the advent of the internet.<br />
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/soumya_p/8463251783/" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" title="Mouth wide shut by Soumyadeep Paul, on Flickr"><img alt="Mouth wide shut" height="135" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8232/8463251783_b01d980eee_m.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">CC-BY <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/soumya_p/8463251783/">Soumyadeep Paul</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now the vastly overdue libel measures that would bring the UK out of the 19th Century, and into at least the 20th Century, are on hold and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/mar/05/defamation-bill-leveson-clause">may falter</a>, due to the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/editorial-lord-puttnams-libel-folly-8522851.html">intervention</a> of Lord Puttnam, and his inclusion of statutory regulation of the press in the bill.</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sure, there could now be a list of examples of Libel tourism, and how stupid it makes Britain look bad, internationally, but instead how about a real-life libel law situation, and how it restricted and hampered an attempt to participate in government?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Almost a year ago, a submission was made by me to a Consultation run by the UK Intellectual Property Office. One of the topics was Compulsory licensing using performing rights societies. Naturally I – as a keen observer of the situation, and a vocal supporter of the truth – decided to point out the many flaws with such agencies. In doing so, it began a headache-inducing debate about libel, and secrecy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At heart were reports of misdeeds by collecting societies around Europe, and how they’ve been perceived over the past few years. Yet these never made it to the officially published version of the response. They <a href="http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/07/uk-ipo-redacts-responses-critical-of.html" target="_blank">were censored</a> because of libel fears.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let’s put this in perspective. Submissions to a UK Government agency were censored because of fears by that agency of libel action against them. This was disclosed through emails and phonecalls with the IPO in July and August 2012. However, the original, uncensored version was available on the net, and had been <a href="http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/03/consultation-response-to-uk-ipo.html" target="_blank">since March 2012</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What was censored? Some opinions, but mostly it was a lot of links to news stories, but also at least one reference to a ruling by the European Court of Justice. For those that don’t know UK Libel law, something that’s <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/31/schedule/1" target="_blank">immune</a> from libel prosecutions are reporting on actions in court.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To put it another way, the IPO was so afraid of libel, they censored everything that they thought MIGHT be possibly libellous, even stuff that’s legally exempted. They’re also a 3rd party, distributing a user-generated submission, and that in itself should garner some sort of protection, but doesn't. I can be sued for disseminating his words, and the IPO can be sued for disseminating his words.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is the problem with libel law as it is now in the UK. People are so afraid of it that they’ll go to extreme lengths to avoid even potentially running afoul of it. As it stands, it’s two weeks shy of a year since it was first published. The statute of limitations for libel in the UK is a year. Despite the fears of the IPO, there’s been no comment, no lawsuits and no adverse reactions in that year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In many cases, it’s not the libel case itself, it’s the chilling effects of having to defend against one. Rather than take that risk, we have (self-)censorship. That’s not good for democracy, or for the UK.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is just one example, but it shows the corrosive effect the antiquated British libel laws have on society. It’s up to the Government to get it sorted, and soon, because this is a problem that’s already long overdue for a fix.</div>
</div>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-85843445620606219202013-03-05T18:20:00.000-05:002013-03-05T18:47:10.988-05:00Scalia Hints at End for USA PATRIOT Act<div style="text-align: justify;">
During oral arguments over the Voting Rights Act, Justice Scalia indicated that there might be a justification for getting rid of the USA Patriot Act. During Oral arguments at the Supreme Court over the much lauded Voting Rights Act, hints were dropped as to how the wildly unpopular and overreaching anti-terrorist act could be dropped in a face-saving manner.</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) is one of those odd laws that everyone supports, likes to see continued, but really doesn't want to admit that it exists. Mostly it’s because its existence is due to two things no-one likes to admit exists – Racism and Corruption.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But first let’s address the VRA. Scalia doesn't like it, and thinks that it’s a ‘racial entitlement’. Others also questioned if it’s a legitimate issue – Chief Justice Roberts asking if the South is ‘more racist’, to which the answer is yes. Living here in Georgia and having spent a lot of time in places like California has shown me that.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In addition, Justice Alito made an incredibly important point too</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But when Congress decided to reauthorize it in 2006, why wasn't it incumbent on Congress under the congruence and proportionality standard to make a new determination of coverage? Maybe the whole country should be covered. Or maybe certain parts of the country should be covered based on a formula that is grounded in up-to-date statistics.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is very true. In Florida, several Republicans <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/jim-greer-florida-voting-laws_n_2192802.html" target="_blank">have admitted</a> that voting regulations for the 2012 election were designed to curb democrat and black voters. Florida is NOT a state covered by Section5 of the VRA, although 5 counties (Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, Monroe) are.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3-zS-LLdfi-0IsVkizzNqa-O_7pMNxbjBPo3gLIxGwe4xEuzudeGbVQ5U16eCDJO8T_rQmv1B916EKmCSJf-3LJXS0a4FMCU4Gq1pT60l_5b8mvI_jrlMrYLiXzdQdZeIv8iI2cTfXI0/s1600/Us_s5_cvr08.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3-zS-LLdfi-0IsVkizzNqa-O_7pMNxbjBPo3gLIxGwe4xEuzudeGbVQ5U16eCDJO8T_rQmv1B916EKmCSJf-3LJXS0a4FMCU4Gq1pT60l_5b8mvI_jrlMrYLiXzdQdZeIv8iI2cTfXI0/s400/Us_s5_cvr08.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The abuse of voting regulations has become more widespread over the past 3 years, often disguised as <a href="http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/11/the-no-photoid-solution-to-voter-fraud.html" target="_blank">“voter fraud” initiatives</a>. And it does need to start being applies to more states, or indeed nationwide. When an impartial outsider gets to look at the propositions of a state and see if it’s discriminatory (to tip the balance one way or another) then such partisan measures are less likely to happen - although not eliminated entirely, as seen with <a href="http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/mar/01/trey-martinez-fischer/trey-martinez-fischer-says-texas-legislature-has-n/" target="_blank">Texas redistricting</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is why the Voting Rights Act is very important. After all, it was only a few months ago that there were states saying they’d <a href="http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/05/iowa-ohio-and-texas-take-stand-against-transparent-elections/" target="_blank">kick out, or arrest</a>, independent international election monitors, even if it meant violating their state laws to do so, because scrutiny makes it hard to rig elections.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet the biggest question about the VRA, comes from Justice Scalia. When discussing the passage of the VRA renewal in 2006, and it’s 98-0 passage in the Senate, he said: (<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-96.pdf" target="_blank">page 16 line 14</a>)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
JUSTICE SCALIA: Indeed, Congress must have found that the situation was even clearer and the violations even more evident than originally, because originally, the vote in the Senate, for example, was something like 79 to 18, and in the 2006 extension, it was 98 to nothing. It must have been even clearer in 2006 that these States were violating the Constitution. Do you think that's true?<br />
JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, that sounds like a good argument to me, Justice Scalia. It was clear to 98 Senators, including every Senator from a covered State, who decided that there was a continuing need for this piece of legislation.<br />
JUSTICE SCALIA: Or decided that perhaps they'd better not vote against it, that there's nothing, that there's no -- none of their interests in voting against it.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He followed it later with the following statement (<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-96.pdf" target="_blank">page 46 line 13</a>)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation in a -- in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was -- in the Senate, there -- it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term.<br />
Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it.<br />
And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don't think that's attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.<br />
I don't think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless -- unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there's a good reason for it.<br />
That's the -- that's the concern that those of us who -- who have some questions about this statute have. It's -- it's a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And this is a problem. It’s the problem of POPULIST Legislation over that of GOOD Legislation. While the VRA is an example of Good legislation that is also popular, and makes sense and is relevant and proportional, there are others that aren’t, like the USA PATRIOT Act, an example of Populist legislation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are many similarities between the two pieces of Legislation, despite the 37 years between them. They both give the Federal Government powers over areas they previously hadn’t, and do so in an attempt to solve a perceived problem. They also have people that don’t like them, who are mainly those who feel it to be overreaching or who are subject to the act.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
They also have their differences. There are ways to get off the preclearance list or “Bail-out” as it’s known; the requirement is a 10 year “clean record”. By contrast, there’s no way to get out from under the Patriot act, and it’s continued surveillance and rules. There’s also been little public evidence that the act has been effective, or proportionate.<br />
<br />
They also have very different aims, the VRA aims to promote a positive act – a citizen’s right to vote – in the face of actions that intend to deprive that; the Patriot Act was designed to prevent any more of the rare terrorist attacks on the US.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet the biggest similarity to them is how the statements by Scalia about the Voting Rights Act can be applied to the Patriot Act as well.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yes, no-one’s going to argue against a “voting rights act”, just like no-one’s going to vote against a USA PATRIOT Act. Members of Congress aren’t going to vote no one something with that kind of name (which is mainly the reason they have that sort of name). Indeed, both have passed with huge majorities. As note already, the 06 reauthorization of the VRA passed the Senate 98-0, but it also passed the House 390-33. Likewise, the USA PATRIOT Act passed the House 357-66 and the Senate 98-1.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And likewise, how are we going to get Congress to vote against a bill with such noble aims as ‘protecting people’? Well, we can look at effectiveness. The plaintiff in the VRA case, Shelby County, was described by Justice Sotomayor as (<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-96.pdf" target="_blank">page 4 line 11)</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"…a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with” and which is unable to bailout of the preclearance because of its actions."</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The same is not true of the USA PATRIOT Act. Of the 50+ cases of ‘terrorism’ we’ve had since the enacting of the Patriot Act, the vast majority have been <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515" target="_blank">infiltrated, sponsored, coerced, and heavily watched by the FBI</a>. All using powers they had BEFORE the act. Instead what we’ve got from the act is more domestic spying, less oversight, and the type of law that is actually now <a href="http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/02/26/supreme-court-rules-warrantless-wiretapping-law-cannot-be-challenged-without-proof-of-secret-surveillance/" target="_blank">impossible to challenge in court</a>, according to this SAME Supreme Court.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There could be tens of thousands of words here pointing out the many flaws, and ineffectiveness’ of the Patriot act. Most tellingly though, we can talk of the provisions that are constantly renewed, and never used. In fact, during the last renewal back in December, our own Senator, Saxby Chambliss, said it wasn’t that important, no debated needed, and to just pass it, something we <a href="http://www.piratepartyofgeorgia.org/2012/12/open-letter-to-sen-chambliss-on-fisa.html" target="_blank">disagreed with</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If that doesn’t speak to a law that has no application to today, and which members of Congress are unable to vote against because of the perception of the law, rather than if it’s a good, proportional, or even necessary law, then nothing will.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By contrast, as noted by Justice Sotomayor, the VRA has shown itself to be good, proportional, and necessary. It has oversight, its use is one for the public good, through a limited set of actions that have a definitively proved benefit, and there are ways to escape and show reformation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what we’re left with is a Supreme Court that might invalidate a good law, based on its claimed ineffectiveness and lack of relevance today (<a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/05/john-roberts/was-chief-justice-john-roberts-right-about-voting-/" target="_blank">supposedly</a>) and yet we have a law that is of dubious legality, is strongly against the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/07/do-we-still-need-the-patriot-act/the-patriot-act-gives-the-us-a-bad-reputation" target="_blank">public good</a> in act and deed, has had no real debate, is ineffective for the job, and the court has no problems with it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If that doesn’t show how broken, how utterly out of touch with reality some members of the Supreme Court of the United States are, I don’t know what does.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Robert’s court is already going to go down in history as one of the worst courts in memory, thanks to rulings like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission" target="_blank">Citizens United</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins" target="_blank">Berghuis</a>, <a href="http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/the-corporate-court/compucredit-v-greenwood.html" target="_blank">Compucredit</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_v._Holder" target="_blank">Golan</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heller_vs._DC" target="_blank">Heller</a> and others. Striking down the VRA? That shows they’re going for the top spot. If only they could use that ambition to be the BEST, maybe the US might be a better country to live in.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><b><u>This piece was <a href="http://www.piratepartyofgeorgia.org/2013/03/scalia-hints-at-end-for-usa-patriot-act.html" target="_blank">cross-posted</a> with the Pirate Party of Georgia</u></b></span></div>
</div>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-71001092428730966842013-02-26T16:52:00.001-05:002013-02-26T18:15:57.752-05:006 Strikes - Because the DMCA Wasn't One-Sided Enough<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy5NnB7tcaAd-V6jUJR9uUvvYHu2HWVPgyRept8spcH6G-V818heHSo_ukc3VM50mWV7aYtrsN7W-AonkB2KEp8oN90oA_aTDpVdEFmMPPgjKK51qm0_Pb2tTSE0gYw27oqrAG787Phks/s1600/copyright_theft.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy5NnB7tcaAd-V6jUJR9uUvvYHu2HWVPgyRept8spcH6G-V818heHSo_ukc3VM50mWV7aYtrsN7W-AonkB2KEp8oN90oA_aTDpVdEFmMPPgjKK51qm0_Pb2tTSE0gYw27oqrAG787Phks/s1600/copyright_theft.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The debut of the 6-strikes system is now on us, and yet we have to wonder why it’s here in the first place. The US already has a robust court system for dealing with alleged infringers (and tens of thousands that have been targeted by it over the last few years can attest to that) as well as a notice-and-takedown system in the DMCA. So why do we need another system, this graduated response setup?</div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In a nutshell, those other two systems are not effective at doing what the people behind it want it to do. They would like copyright elevated to a minor deity, where infringement is dealt with as the ‘blasphemy’ some think it should be. Only if you accept the copyright as the inviolable and unsullied holy of holies can you get into heaven. To that end, anything that’s remotely copyrightable must be protected at all costs from use by the lesser people (anyone that’s not a major entertainment corporation or a politician).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Something like that anyway. Let’s call it <i>COPYRighteousness</i>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So why the new system, what’s with the existing laws? Simply put, they’re not as effective as the COPYRighteous want them to be. From their perspective, both the court system and the DMCA have major flaws, which hamper their effectiveness. So let’s look at these flaws.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">DMCA</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca" target="_blank">DMCA</a> has a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice_and_take_down" target="_blank">notice-and-takedown</a> system in it. This means that if you send a host or other person a DMCA notice, they’re supposed to take it down, or be liable for it in court. While it’s a US law, it’s been effectively applied around the world.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
How it works</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Someone who feels their work is being infringed can send a notice to the host requesting it be taken down. The work should be taken down immediately, for the intermediary to preserve safe harbour (immunity from liability because they’re just a conduit). Then if so desired, the alleged infringer can file a counter-notice to have the work restored. At that point the accuser then has to file a lawsuit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Why it’s used</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s often used to take down large swathes of content. A single notice can contain multiple links – one DMCA notice I recall seeing sent to Mininova many years ago contained a 1000 line spreadsheet of infringing content to be removed. It’s also cheap, and quick to do. There are <a href="http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/09/dmca-notice-of-copyright-infringement.html" target="_blank">form letters</a> that can be filled out, and it’s just a simple email to send. Did I also mention you don’t have to have any real proof, not proof that you are the rights holder, but also that the link is even infringing! How great is that!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As an added bonus, there’s no real consequences for filing false, misleading, inaccurate or flat out lying notices. What consequences are in the act, have never been enforced, and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp." target="_blank">one case</a> that has gone to court over heretical “fair use” has taken more than 5 years, and may result in damages of less than $2000 – chickenfeed. And there was one case of a <a href="https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2004/10/15" target="_blank">plain false claim</a> being called out, but thats one from millions. Really good odds.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Critisisms</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The main issue of DMCA notices is that they’re overused. The quick and simple nature, and the lack of any real checks and balances in filing a notice, has meant that they’re significantly abused. The website <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org/" target="_blank">Chilling Effects</a> has significant numbers of DMCA notices, and over at TorrentFreak they’ve covered lots of cases of <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/dmca-horrors-of-a-broad-and-automated-censorship-tool-120304/" target="_blank">false DMCA notice</a> claims. This means their impact has been diminished in many cases, reducing their effectiveness, so file more and threaten to sue to put them in place!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's also easy to have a counter-notice filed (and there are <a href="http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html" target="_blank">form letters</a> for that too) which undermines their use as a tool to effectively control media consumption by the masses. Once a counter-notice has been filed, you have to resort to a lawsuit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, some sites (like the <a href="http://thepiratebay.se/legal" target="_blank">heathen TPB</a>) just don’t care about US laws, since they’re not in the US. This means companies have to resort to the courts, and file a lawsuit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Lawsuits</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is the heavyweight method of enforcement. You’re going to get a resolution one way or the other, and you’re not going to be subtle about it. Instead you’ll use the full weight of the law to get what you want, and get it sorted. And there’s also the benefit that you can get damages!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
How it works</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You take your evidence to a lawyer, and ask them to file a lawsuit. The lawsuit is filed with the court and then it proceeds. It’s pretty obvious how it works. <i><b>DUH</b></i>!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Why it’s used</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s a court! While you can file a DMCA counter-notice (rightly or wrongly) you can’t act as arbitrarily as you can with a DMCA notice. Your actions and activities are on record and did I mention the damages? They can range from $250 to $150,000 per infringement, and if you just threaten this, you can often get them to roll over and take it down, and maybe settle with you out of court. Nice eh? You can sometimes also get other restrictions or beneficial decisions, and during discovery, you get to have a good root around for whatever you need.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It also costs money to defend against you, so if you price things right, you can make it cheaper to have them accept guilt, say sorry, and pay up; than to fight it, and risk massive damages on top of legal costs. Freetard parasitical thieves call this "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll" target="_blank">copyright trolling</a>" and don't seem to like it - heathens.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Critisisms</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Cost! It’s <u><b>f^&*ing EXPENSIVE</b></u> to file a lawsuit against a person. You have to hire a lawyer, collect the evidence, then file the case, all of which costs money. And even then you’re often filing against a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_subpoena" target="_blank">John Doe</a> (that is an as-yet unidentified person). Once they get notified, they can get involved, and thus we have the SECOND problem – time. These cases can drag on for years. All while racking up expensive legal costs you may never recover!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then there’s the evidence problem. A growing number of courts have cottoned on to the fact that the level of evidence in most infringement cases is <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-lawyers-knew-they-targeted-innocent-victims-101118/" target="_blank">not great</a>, bordering on non-existent, and have <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/judge-stops-bittorrent-trolls-from-harassing-isp-account-holders-121113/" target="_blank">started</a> <a href="http://ia701503.us.archive.org/23/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.536407/gov.uscourts.cacd.536407.9.0.pdf" target="_blank">throwing</a> <a href="http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/05/02/new-york-judge-blasts-trolls-practices-recommends-banning-mass-bittorent-lawsuits-in-the-district/" target="_blank">out</a> <a href="http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2013/02/18/california-judge-moskowitz-finds-that-an-ip-address-alone-is-insufficient-evidence-to-support-a-copyright-infringement-complaint/" target="_blank">cases</a>. Meanwhile, the cases has dragged on for years, and cost you a lot and you’ve got little to show for it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then there’s also the massive problem of consequences for inaccurate, or false claims, which precludes a lot of copyright enforcement actions. Holding copyright enforcers to account for their errors, <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-lawyers-found-guilty-of-professional-misconduct-110610/" target="_blank">inaccuracies</a> or <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/lawyer-fined-for-defying-judge-and-sending-subpoenas-to-isps-110912/" target="_blank">over-enthusiastic activities</a> goes against the divine right of the CopyRighteous, and is not pleasant at all. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Alternatives</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what we need are some alternatives. Ideally, we need something that has some kind of teeth to it, but without the judicial oversight that has been destroying so many promising enforcement actions. It needs to have the near-zero evidence requirements, the burden of proof on the defendant, and the lack of consequences for false/inaccurate/mistaken claims from DMCA notices. It also needs some means of enforcement, a cost to defend (<a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/six-strikes-system-goes-live-this-fall-appeals-to-cost-35/" target="_blank">$35</a>), and a sense of legal inevitability from court proceedings.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thankfully the 6 strikes process manages all of this. And it adds in some additional benefits, such as getting rid of that pesky independent judge, in favour of a private arbitration company, who really honestly promises they won’t just <a href="http://www.citizen.org/documents/Final_wcover.pdf" target="_blank">rule in favour of the group that hired them</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
BONUS! In another master stroke, the ISP’s (who have <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/verizon-determined-to-expose-bittorrent-copyright-trolls-121211/" target="_blank">often</a> <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/verizon-sued-for-defending-alleged-bittorrent-pirates121126/" target="_blank">resisted</a> <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-wins-protest-against-shake-down-of-alleged-bittorrent-pirates-120622/" target="_blank">efforts</a> to use the courts) are on the OTHER side here, and <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/isp-six-strikes-anti-piracy-scheme-120803/" target="_blank">are active partners</a> in the program, and that pesky hurdle has been turned to an advantage.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Summ<span style="font-size: x-large;">a</span>ry</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All in all, the 6 strikes program is one that really benefits the COPYRighteous by taking the benefits of the DMCA and the court systems enforcement and combining them into a new whole, where the flaws of each, ruthlessly exploited by those blaspheming filesharers are neutralised.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The <i>REAL</i> Summ<span style="font-size: x-large;">a</span>ry</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unless you're a media company, this stuff <i><b><u>really</u></b></i> sucks for you. Basically, it’s a DMCA notice system, where the easy counter-notice is instead replaced with a pay-to-arbitrate system. Instead of judges which have started to throw out the farcical “evidence”, you have an arbitration company paid by one side (hint: NOT YOUR SIDE) and while you have sanctioned for being accused 6 times, there are absolutely ZERO penalties for filing 1 million false notices.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Oh, and the independent audit of the system, they <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-failed-to-disclose-experts-lobbying-history-to-six-strikes-partners-121026/" target="_blank">lied about it</a>, <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/six-strikes-independent-expert-is-riaas-former-lobbying-firm-121022/" target="_blank">were caught</a>, said they'd <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/six-strikes-evidence-re-reviewed-to-fix-riaa-lobbying-controversy-121031/" target="_blank">re-review it</a> (<i>yeah, because I'm sure they'll find they're jobs are totally not needed</i>) and found everything ok (<i>see, what a surprise</i>!). Despite the 'evidence' provider flagging it's clients <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/hbo-wants-google-to-censor-hbo-com-130203/" target="_blank">OWN SITES</a> as infringing.... What an encouraging situation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The bottom line – we got screwed by the COPYRighteous AGAIN. </div>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-39431063430538576982013-02-25T19:48:00.000-05:002013-02-25T19:48:48.164-05:00Cory Doctorow in Atlanta (full!)Last week, blogger, activist, author and all-around nice guy stopped by in Atlanta on his tour to promote Homeland, his new book. I dragged my wife and eldest over to the talk, held at the surprisingly nice auditorium at the Decatur public library. Even arriving 15 minutes early, seats were hard to find, and so I was near the back.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
I posted a clip of <a href="http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2013/02/cory-doctorow-in-decatur.html" target="_blank">this last week</a> from the warm-up where we talked about liquid democracy (more on that later) and No Safe Harbor, but here’s the full talk. I did miss the first few minutes of the talk, because I dropped the camera (my wife’s phone) and the battery popped out. The missing bit though is just a recap of a battle over the privacy of school-issued laptops and the anti-theft software used on them. You can find Cory’s own recap on this <a href="http://boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html" target="_blank">over at Boing Boing</a>.<br />
<br />
It was a great talk, and if you get to catch one of the <a href="http://us.macmillan.com/Tour.aspx?id=1238" target="_blank">stops on the tour</a>, I recommend it. <br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/l5KhGJcEkFA" width="560"></iframe><iframe bordercolor="#000000" class="whdvwjugvlwppmghwdyo" frameborder="0" height="250" hspace="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/N7433.148119.BLOGGEREN/B6676092.3952;sz=300x250;ord=[timestamp]?;lid=41000613802463762;pid=UBM9780765319852;usg=AFHzDLv34VZ5QxPgln9GfT3oCTu8lXA_bw;adurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.cdsbooksdvds.com%252Fproduct.jhtm%253Fsku%253DUBM9780765319852;pubid=623749;price=%2417.77;title=Little+Brother+by+Doctorow%2C+Cory+%5BHardcover%5D;merc=CDS+Books+and+DVDS;imgsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fc383731.r31.cf1.rackcdn.com%2F9780765319852.jpg;width=89;height=135" vspace="0" width="300"></iframe></center>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-7375676550959372322013-02-20T15:43:00.001-05:002013-02-25T19:51:08.779-05:00Tesla Motors – Supercharged Supersnooping<div style="text-align: justify;">
The on-going feud the last week or two between New York Times columnist John Broder and Tesla Motors Elon Musk has highlighted at least one issue. Modern cars are going to be hell for privacy activists. In fact, the car you sit in could end up invalidating <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)" target="_blank">United States v Jones</a> – the case requiring long-term GPS tracking have a warrant.<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To recap the case, Broder borrowed a car from Tesla, to do a review of the newly installed Supercharger stations in New England. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&" target="_blank">His review</a> was less than flattering, but the merits (or veracity) of that are not at issue here. What is of concern is how Elon Musk, head of Tesla Motors, <a href="http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive" target="_blank">responded</a>. He released the car’s data. Yes, while Broder was driving it around, the car was recording all his actions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNQ3sUcNT9zHzzOptOVAnZX2LcB_rIpfYkqo3R-nXpx-52mL0-sicfHXmcZDZ_zmYFwMTY3Sbu9hKFFFAxy_wg3e8FddCM9agUEvGMMGCCLdn5FfbLkoTWMhFFaBuoWAkmuAE1vEEJX24/s1600/tesla-speeddistance0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNQ3sUcNT9zHzzOptOVAnZX2LcB_rIpfYkqo3R-nXpx-52mL0-sicfHXmcZDZ_zmYFwMTY3Sbu9hKFFFAxy_wg3e8FddCM9agUEvGMMGCCLdn5FfbLkoTWMhFFaBuoWAkmuAE1vEEJX24/s200/tesla-speeddistance0.jpg" height="150" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTQuh50njZxLureqIjqvLQpU_O4kYnvjAAOcNB4kQFfgptPuFeHOwY6lg3tDZb6BL4hFcnpAw1imlRh5CjYdjvwKQA-GKN8teeH2Z6qTRqXTsyg_Vd-vEjFiljpD48o1DUADS7UUmt9Lo/s1600/tesla-socdistance0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTQuh50njZxLureqIjqvLQpU_O4kYnvjAAOcNB4kQFfgptPuFeHOwY6lg3tDZb6BL4hFcnpAw1imlRh5CjYdjvwKQA-GKN8teeH2Z6qTRqXTsyg_Vd-vEjFiljpD48o1DUADS7UUmt9Lo/s200/tesla-socdistance0.jpg" height="147" width="200" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwhQA7TKBZF6xcBvYwp2ohcT-tzXhlat6l1-NtPfH3HNm5MUwtKpxPALbfKPFQ7rhEvuOrjvh6AnQiPGs1hSZbO7npzvNKd9QTYAWctgQTvDaucmGg9dcKKn6Vrlx8JJ3wArIC29uLhB0/s1600/tesla-ratedrangeremaining0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwhQA7TKBZF6xcBvYwp2ohcT-tzXhlat6l1-NtPfH3HNm5MUwtKpxPALbfKPFQ7rhEvuOrjvh6AnQiPGs1hSZbO7npzvNKd9QTYAWctgQTvDaucmGg9dcKKn6Vrlx8JJ3wArIC29uLhB0/s200/tesla-ratedrangeremaining0.jpg" height="148" width="200" /></a></div>
<center>
</center>
<div style="text-align: center;">
All graphs ©Tesla Motors</div>
<br />
The issues are many, but simply it’s one of privacy. Why is my car recording this information? Of what benefit is it to me that it does this? And more importantly, “How can this data be misused”.<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Vehicle datalogging isn’t that unusual in a lot of the world. Commercial drivers often log their actions. In the US, HGV (meaning 18-wheeler) drivers have to keep a log of their driving hours and distances. Some companies are moving from paper logs, to electronic logs tied in to the <a href="http://transportation.qualcomm.com/applications-and-products/platforms" target="_blank">satellite dispatch and tracking system</a>. In Europe, drivers are required to have a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachograph" target="_blank">tachograph</a> fitted, to record their speed and distance, and hours of operation. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These are commercial vehicles, where the route and vehicle are pre-selected by the company, and are operated as part of an industry for pay. Thus the provisions there are acceptable for the purpose. This is <b><i>not</i></b> the same as with the Tesla incident.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For a start, the Tesla is a <a href="http://www.teslamotors.com/models" target="_blank">passenger car</a>. It is not a commercial vehicle that has been hired to move a load from one location to another. Secondly, the type and quantity of information is substantially greater than that of a tachograph. In his attempts to derail the review, he not only provided graphs of speed and distance, but also more questionable data, in an attempt to show errors in the reporter’s statements; data such as the cabin heater setting.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvHP_2uH21PkyTE3KGT5jm5yw-ZVD_k4Ml0zNmhsWoydY2Ibx-Yk2sxLVklKUqtpURuC-GoXZQkuY5TYbu07GrIRJNoHkDNCesUVGbgpHEX72Z8zwKXDh0y1PkifAAvU4tsYNKNQCLJ_Q/s1600/tesla-cabintemp0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvHP_2uH21PkyTE3KGT5jm5yw-ZVD_k4Ml0zNmhsWoydY2Ibx-Yk2sxLVklKUqtpURuC-GoXZQkuY5TYbu07GrIRJNoHkDNCesUVGbgpHEX72Z8zwKXDh0y1PkifAAvU4tsYNKNQCLJ_Q/s320/tesla-cabintemp0.jpg" height="237" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Are you worried <i><b>yet</b></i>?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The records are actually surprisingly detailed. In one instance, he reveals the following graph, where the datapoints are between 1-3 seconds apart.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7wsv6uYucXc8V_jpuuz6uHDRsVFCrYuKC-vNbROob1hgxDsKxz8gzsYaiGttnORELsdkiBwPhgqTcCGB3a3Gvs6fENCzYh2yqk7H8y6Ex5gh0vLfwJiUxfVxzLfFINjr77oRuRdqsBQY/s1600/tesla-speedmph0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7wsv6uYucXc8V_jpuuz6uHDRsVFCrYuKC-vNbROob1hgxDsKxz8gzsYaiGttnORELsdkiBwPhgqTcCGB3a3Gvs6fENCzYh2yqk7H8y6Ex5gh0vLfwJiUxfVxzLfFINjr77oRuRdqsBQY/s320/tesla-speedmph0.jpg" height="241" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Are you worried <b><i><u>now</u></i></b>?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The one other aspect that could have made or broken the case was the GPS. Apparently, it wasn’t turned on. Now, call me old fashioned, but I’m a little dubious about that. The cabin temperature logger was on, but the GPS was turned off? So he didn’t use the GPS navigation system once? I would have had it on myself, if only to see how well it reacted to the cold, and give me some more information (but maybe I’ve been spoilt by the Google navigation of the android handset, with the traffic info included)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The question is, how much more monitoring will there be. Some cars already have black boxes in them, which can provide info at crashes – just ask Massachusetts Lt. Gov Tim Murray, who was ticketed after his <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/massachusetts-lieutenant-governor-was-going-over-100-mph-and-may-have-been-sleeping-before-crash-2012-1" target="_blank">car black box</a> said he was going 108mph before a crash in a government vehicle. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now the federal government wants such data recorders in every car. While I can appreciate some of the sentiments, there needs to be a limit for privacy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is an easy way to handle it that does what the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/feds-black-boxes-cars-tracking/story?id=17918850" target="_blank">NHTSA wants</a>, but doesn’t compromise privacy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A rolling 30second log.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even at 80mph, that is less than a mile of data, and would help with accident investigations. Yet it wouldn’t tell you anything except the actions leading up to the accident. Heck, I’ll even go further. A rolling 30second recording, BUT when an accident trigger (say the airbags or pre-tensioners) is set off, it continues recording for another 90 seconds. This will show who did what after the incident. Did he try and drive off? Were the seatbelts fastened before or after? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’ll handle the information the NHTSA wants, and keep drivers honest in their accident reports, while respecting their privacy, and not allowing yet another back door for privacy abuse and tracking.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And no matter what Elon Musk was trying to prove, all he's proved to me was that he doesn't care about privacy, and that I won't EVER buy a car from his company. Not when all a government agency has to do is plug into my car, or call up the car company, and get all the info they want or need from it.<br />
<br />
That's not smart, and I hope it's not the future.</div>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-73406392722044957682013-02-18T17:43:00.000-05:002013-02-18T17:56:44.610-05:00Cory Doctorow in DecaturFor those that didn't know, Cory Doctorow was doing a tour to promote his new book "Homeland", the sequel to Little Brother. On Feb 17th, he stopped by the <a href="http://www.dekalblibrary.org/branches/decatur.html" target="_blank">Decatur Library</a>, to give a little talk.<br />
<br />
In the warm up before the main talk, he took some questions and answers, and I thought it would be a good idea to ask him his thoughts on the Pirate Party. While I managed to record most of the response, I missed the initial bit.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I also apologize that because I was paying attention to Cory, I wasn't paying attention to how I was holding the camera, so it's being held the wrong way around.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ6xYG0N49gF9EjcZcc9IOiPrIIBnd4f8K-WhQdmbMGaU3FlGYLMiq1Y6s_bbVBWPjLNf3sOMXX9itk3Dcnjyw8bPwmtiSwrfmwrqYu3AOjh-xatA_63fUPAhFq47IhqIQG8wMaSjjEeE/s1600/20130217_204100.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ6xYG0N49gF9EjcZcc9IOiPrIIBnd4f8K-WhQdmbMGaU3FlGYLMiq1Y6s_bbVBWPjLNf3sOMXX9itk3Dcnjyw8bPwmtiSwrfmwrqYu3AOjh-xatA_63fUPAhFq47IhqIQG8wMaSjjEeE/s400/20130217_204100.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Me, No Safe Harbor, and Cory</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The longer video with all the talk and Q+A after the talk will be coming later, but for now, I'll give you this brief clip where he also mentioned <a href="http://nosafeharbor.com/" target="_blank">No Safe Harbor</a>, the book I helped edit (and the sequel to it is <a href="http://www.nosafeharbor.com/2013/01/no-safe-harbor-1-year-on.html" target="_blank">coming soon</a>)<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ru-wZYc0Sao?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-52378039557377504712013-02-14T20:34:00.000-05:002013-02-14T22:21:39.854-05:00The Absurd (Unconstitutional) Photo Manipulation Bill<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><b><i>This post by K`Tetch first appeared at the <a href="http://www.piratepartyofgeorgia.org/2013/02/the-absurd-unconstitutional-photo.html">Pirate Party of Georgia</a> Site</i></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you are following us on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/295323693889963/">Facebook</a> or <a href="https://twitter.com/PiratePartyGa">Twitter</a> (and if not, why not?), you’ll notice we posted two news stories about the Georgia state Government this past week. One was on a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/295323693889963/permalink/413499898739008/">broadband limitation bill</a>, and the other relates to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/295323693889963/permalink/413499772072354/">online photo manipulation</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Our response to the broadband bill was published <a href="http://www.piratepartyofgeorgia.org/2013/02/pr-ppga-opposes-internet-investment.html" target="_blank">yesterday</a>, but the response to the <a href="http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20132014/HB/39" target="_blank">photo-manipulation bill</a> requires more detail than a simple press release can convey.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As you can probably guess, we’re obviously in opposition to this. It’s a clear example of tantrum-based legislation ("<i>I don't like this, so it needs to be dealt with</i>"), driven by a deep ignorance of the fundamental laws of the United States, and the principles of which the country stands.</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Supporting this bill, State Rep Earnest Smith (D-125) of Augusta said ‘They are vulgar. This is about being vulgar. We’re becoming a nation of vulgar people” when <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/13/georgia-lawmaker-wants-to-make-photoshopping-picture-crime/printprintprint" target="_blank">interviewed by Fox News</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He also added that it’s not about the First Amendment, Everyone has a right to privacy,” he told FoxNews.com. “No one has a right to make fun of anyone. It’s not a First Amendment right”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Unfortunately for him, it <b><u>IS</u></b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He wants to try and outlaw a form of characterization that is valid speech and often contains a political message. Rep Smith has in fact <a href="http://georgiaunfiltered.blogspot.com/2013/02/we-may-have-winner-in-earnest-smith.html" target="_blank">been targeted</a> by some of the very creations he seeks to outlaw, as a means of protest to his bill – a very clear use for political speech, an activity protected by the First Amendment, and a use that undermines the very bill and its intent.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are further blows to his plans, as it’s unlikely if passed to stand judicial review, thanks to cases like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell" target="_blank">Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)</a> which definitively protected parody under the 1st Amendment.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That said, the intent behind the bill is a lot nobler than many have made out. The bill was first authored by Rep. Dickerson of Conyers, who created it in response to online attacks against a teen-aged girl in her district, according to <a href="http://onlineathens.com/breaking-news/2013-02-11/state-lawmaker-victim-photo-manipulation" target="_blank">reports earlier this week</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That’s fair enough in many ways, and you can see the thought process there a bit better, however there are other alternatives, including harassment laws that would work better, and have fewer secondary consequences, and not even touch on First Amendment protected speech at all.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s the difference between a girl, and an elected government official, and that’s a rather major one.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Instead of trying to outlaw and criminalize the actions, the specific activities, there should be a focus instead of the intent behind the actions. Was the actions against the girl a bad thing? Probably, we have no details of the case in question there, but the actions against Rep Smith are clear political protest, which are protected. If his skin is so thin that he can’t stand it, then perhaps he should get out of public office. If he feels the actions significantly harm him in a significantly detrimental way outside political discourse, then there are already libel laws he could use.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Likewise, there are significant vulgarity laws in place as well, cementing America's position as puritan-era prudes, at least in public.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While many politicians hate to be seen in any sort of bad light (because it harms their chances of keeping their jobs at election time) trying to outlaw things based on ‘morality’ or ‘vulgarity’ is actually quite offensive to many people, as it imposes someone else's value-system on them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Nevertheless, this is a BAD bill, and has already raised a significant amount of attention worldwide, mostly focusing on the ridicule of Rep. Smith and the law, and as a side-note, creating a wider audience for those pictures he doesn't like.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You can also bet that even if this law went through, it wouldn’t stop people just over the Savannah river from his Augusta district, in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Augusta,_South_Carolina" target="_blank">North Augusta, South Carolina</a>, from creating and distributing those images of him. So as well as failing the Constitutionality test, and the Appropriateness test, it also fails the effectiveness test.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Quite honestly, the best thing Reps. <a href="http://www.house.ga.gov/representatives/en-US/Member.aspx?Member=731&Session=23" target="_blank">Smith</a>, <a href="http://www.house.ga.gov/representatives/en-US/Member.aspx?Member=771&Session=23" target="_blank">Dickerson</a>, <a href="http://www.house.ga.gov/representatives/en-US/Member.aspx?Member=133&Session=23" target="_blank">Hughley</a>, <a href="http://www.house.ga.gov/representatives/en-US/Member.aspx?Member=220&Session=23" target="_blank">Stephenson</a>, <a href="http://www.house.ga.gov/representatives/en-US/Member.aspx?Member=236&Session=23" target="_blank">Dawkins-Haigler</a> and <a href="http://www.house.ga.gov/representatives/en-US/Member.aspx?Member=96&Session=23" target="_blank">Dukes </a>can do is drop the bill, and apologize for the idiocy of introducing it, and once more holding Georgia up for <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/georgia-bill-would-ban-photoshopping-legislators-head-on-porn-stars-body/" target="_blank">international ridicule</a>. And of course, if they really want to learn about how this should be dealt with, they’re more than welcome to <a href="http://www.piratepartyofgeorgia.org/p/blog-page.html" target="_blank">contact the Pirate Party of Georgia</a>, where we can explain to them the way things work.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the meantime, they should probably go and take a civics class at their local elementary or middle school, to learn all about things like the Constitution, and how you can’t abridge speech like this; or superseed the Constitution when they want to with a lazy one-line section 2.</div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
31 SECTION 2.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
32 All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you don't know what laws you might be in conflict with, you either have too many laws, or you've not thought though your proposed bill enough. Either way, you've not thought before acting.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><b>This post by K`Tetch first appeared at the <a href="http://www.piratepartyofgeorgia.org/2013/02/the-absurd-unconstitutional-photo.html" target="_blank">Pirate Party of Georgia</a> Site</b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/125563257/Georgia-HB39-2013-Offenses-against-public-order-defamation-provisions" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View Georgia HB39(2013) Offenses against public order; defamation; provisions on Scribd">Georgia HB39(2013) Offenses against public order; defamation; provisions</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_99859" scrolling="no" src="http://www.scribd.com/embeds/125563257/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll" width="100%"></iframe>K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-45098585018529357852013-02-10T17:33:00.000-05:002013-02-10T17:33:18.403-05:00Star Wars OnlineNo, this isn't the MMORPG (I prefer Star Trek Online) Instead, this is about an amazing use of technology to entertain.<br />
<br />
As recounted in his <a href="http://rwerber.tumblr.com/post/42707829171/star-wars-traceroute" target="_blank">tumblr</a>, Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCIE_Certification" target="_blank">CCIE</a>) Ryan Weber was bored when stuck in the snow in Boston this weekend. So he created the following cool traceroute.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
If you run a traceroute script on your commandline of choice (<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">tracert</span> on windows) on 216.81.59.173 you'll get <a href="http://beaglenetworks.net/" target="_blank">an interesting surprise.</a><br />
<br />
<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_QevOSlLTFw?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center><br />
<i>Music: <a href="http://www.jamendo.com/en/track/703946/zero-project-04-benedictus" target="_blank">Benedictus by zero-project</a> released under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0" target="_blank">CC-BY</a> license</i><br />
<br />
While it's not the most elegant solution (in his own words) but it's certainly a novel way.<br />
<br />
I wonder what other amazing things people can come up with when <a href="http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/02/08/patrick-declares-state-of-emergency-announces-travel-ban-in-mass/" target="_blank">car travel is banned</a>. I'd probably spend it all on IRC....K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-39273366007565681262013-02-08T11:38:00.003-05:002013-02-08T12:13:58.796-05:00TPB AFK is Now Out<br />
The film about the Pirate Bay, TPB_AFK is now out.<br />
<br />
The film is premiering at the Berlin international film festival right now, but you can watch it just as if you were there, thanks to the power of the internet.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The film, a 82 minute look at the Pirate Bay, has been a bit contentious. One of the 4 ‘stars’ of the documentary, Peter Sunde (aka ‘Brokep’) has been <a href="http://blog.brokep.com/2013/02/07/tpb-afk-my-review/">a bit critical</a> over some of the editing decisions casting a different light on things.<br />
<br />
However, we’ll probably find it an intriguing look at the behind-the-scenes lives of the site known mainly for its influence in world laws. It’ll be interesting to reconcile how the film portrays those people I’ve known for many years (I’ve known and worked with Anakata, Brokep, and Tiamo a number of times over the past 6-7 years) with how I’ve come to know them.<br />
<br />
The film is available via torrent, from (obviously) the Pirate Bay in 3 flavours 480p (<a href="https://torrents.thepiratebay.se/8118461/TPB.AFK.2013.480p.h264-SimonKlose.8118461.TPB.torrent" target="_blank">torrent</a> <a href="magnet:?xt=urn:btih:99feae0a05c6a5dd9af939ffce5ca9b0d16f31b0&dn=TPB.AFK.2013.480p.h264-SimonKlose&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80" target="_blank">magnet</a>) , 720p (<a href="https://torrents.thepiratebay.se/8118458/TPB.AFK.2013.720p.h264-SimonKlose.8118458.TPB.torrent" target="_blank">torrent</a> <a href="magnet:?xt=urn:btih:79816060ea56d56f2a2148cd45705511079f9bca&dn=TPB.AFK.2013.720p.h264-SimonKlose&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80" target="_blank">magnet</a>), and 1080p (<a href="https://torrents.thepiratebay.se/8118457/TPB.AFK.2013.1080p.h264-SimonKlose.8118457.TPB.torrent" target="_blank">torrent</a> <a href="magnet:?xt=urn:btih:411a7a164505636ab1a8276395b375a3a30bff32&dn=TPB.AFK.2013.1080p.h264-SimonKlose&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80" target="_blank">magnet</a>). It’s also watchable on YouTube, which I’ve embedded below.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">I’m not saying it’s popular either, but in the 25 minutes since its release, the torrents have skyrocketed in popularity, and over $20,000 has <a href="http://watch.tpbafk.tv/" target="_blank">been pledged</a>. This is, let me remind you, a film that can be seen for free, without any delays or reduction in quality.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHrJaZeGJ60RTxSm79CCe8Mm01BqBi8HeTGC4WhBtHKsdVASUyp3EsWBjWqkPS12javwtSh9jfQxGu9ib3-0Vnw2dCbRVvpBmhxSp131NdKBTeL3tK9hQUtllSy9gj5Jn1HgYAJM55yPo/s1600/tpb_afk_25mins.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHrJaZeGJ60RTxSm79CCe8Mm01BqBi8HeTGC4WhBtHKsdVASUyp3EsWBjWqkPS12javwtSh9jfQxGu9ib3-0Vnw2dCbRVvpBmhxSp131NdKBTeL3tK9hQUtllSy9gj5Jn1HgYAJM55yPo/s320/tpb_afk_25mins.png" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><br />
It proves once again how you compete with free – you compete with quality.<br />
<div><br />
</div><center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eTOKXCEwo_8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-21804431184449812652013-01-23T10:31:00.000-05:002013-01-23T10:31:54.294-05:00Abandon Integrity, All Ye that Gain Power?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZMriBc43ec4zf1znMrXcANDpU3IyzknObnZfCFVxHfczuPwQ5LKq4KIKZTt47SQ4SO3LnlWW4N2E13BOWBXZtmmALdA7v43U2WHbIGhy3Co22Py0BfnTzT_B8j8M_y7UwEUHSYUo5QGo/s1600/Accountability.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZMriBc43ec4zf1znMrXcANDpU3IyzknObnZfCFVxHfczuPwQ5LKq4KIKZTt47SQ4SO3LnlWW4N2E13BOWBXZtmmALdA7v43U2WHbIGhy3Co22Py0BfnTzT_B8j8M_y7UwEUHSYUo5QGo/s320/Accountability.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span id="goog_1424310784"></span><span id="goog_1424310785"></span>If we had any doubt of the reason we need to be extra vigilant in our work, this month has provided them in spades. But there is one thing that ties everything together, and that is the matter of integrity, and accountability. Through all the issues, those that take the lead are never held to account. Often, ironically, they do these acts while trying to hold others to account, in some sort of twisted egotistical irony powertrip.</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I could have posted this Friday, but I didn’t. Saturday was an option too, but I wanted to wait. Above all I felt a need to slowly think about things, before acting, or saying. Many have let their emotions speak, but while they’re good for the short-term, we need a long term look.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The past week or two has been a turbulent one for many like me. The success of the one-year anniversary since SOPA/PIPA was overshadowed by the tragic (and preventable) suicide of Aaron Swartz, and the launch of Mega on the one-year anniversary of the raid (pretty much to the minute)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then, through it all the irony of the Martin Luther King speech about freedom, being locked down. To cap it, the one man going to be imprisoned for the waterboarding, is the one who alerted the public, and not one who conducted it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s a conflicting and emotional time in many ways, as many of the issues we pirates are passionate about are hitting landmark points all in a week. And overshadowing it all is Aaron, and his tragic final decision.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was invited on a <a href="http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/one-year-since-sopa/50f99be42b8c2a21820005bd" target="_blank">Huffington Post Live panel</a> Friday night to discuss some of these issues. With me was <a href="http://timothyblee.com/about-me/" target="_blank">Tim Lee</a> (ArsTechnica), <a href="https://www.eff.org/about/staff/trevor-timm" target="_blank">Trevor Timm</a> (EFF), and Holmes Wilson (<a href="http://fightforthefuture.org/" target="_blank">Fight for the Future</a>). I don’t think I did that well, but judge for yourself.</div>
<br />
<center>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="270" scrollable="no" src="http://embed.live.huffingtonpost.com/HPLEmbedPlayer/?segmentId=50f99be42b8c2a21820005bd" width="480"></iframe></center>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It was actually quite an interesting spread too, you had the tech press, legal, activist, and me with the political aspects. I doubt they could have got a better spread if they’d wanted.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But from the talk there, and the pre-show banter, I took away one thing. We all care about this, and we all want the situation to improve. Sure we’re all young men, but we’ve looked at the situation out there, and see massive problems. We’re all intelligent and hardworking (well, those three are, I wouldn’t say that about myself, because I know it’s not true) and could easily making a shedload of money in any private concern of our choosing. Instead we choose to do this.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We’re also all worried. What happened to Aaron could have happened to any one of us. It could have happened to my kids. It was the actions of people who have become unaccountable , and who point to the system and say ‘just following it’ instead of using their brains, and integrity.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But then half a world away, you have the Dotcom saga. A year to the minute (just about) from the raid, he launched Mega. I gave the service a basic look <a href="http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2013/01/early-hands-on-with-dotcoms-new-mega.html" target="_blank">a few days ago</a> (luckily, before the launch, as demand has made it mostly unusable since) and while it’s not great, it’s not bad. But the launch underscored the legal battle that had gone on for a year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s a very similar case to Swartz, in that there’s an excess of prosecutorial zeal, with those behind it trying to hide behind the letter of the law when under scrutiny, but openly milking things for as much publicity, to sell their side of the story otherwise. I never had the chance to know, or talk to Aaron, but I've a feeling we were on the same page a lot of the time, and a lot of people I know and think highly of, thought highly of him too. While this is not an adequate eulogy on his life, little will be except the kind of change he believed in. Words are just words, the real measure of someone's life is how they changed the world. Aaron, he changed it hugely in his works, and will still continue to do so. He was a larger-than-life person, with larger than life ideals, and ones we're going to be scrambling to aspire to.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, I’m not the biggest fan of Dotcom, and to be honest I can take him or leave him really. I have a number of German friends, and there was some distaste for him from them. His actions and attitudes in general had the same sort of nouveau-riche tasteless tackiness you’d expect from a Premiership footballer or a Real Housewives target.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To have taken a man that’s hard to be unsympathetic about, and give him the chance to completely turn around his public image takes a special lot of work, but the US Gov. managed it. From the overblown military assault<a href="http://torrentfreak.com/elite-anti-terror-police-went-after-megauploads-kim-dotcom-120207/" target="_blank"></a>, to the more recent revelations that the evidence the DoJ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121121/06442521110/megaupload-helped-doj-ninjavideo-prosecution-doj-uses-that-against-megaupload.shtml" target="_blank">used to justify</a> the raid was there because of… <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130116/17015821706/megaupload-to-doj-misleading-semantics-aside-you-told-us-you-were-investigating-infringing-files-so-we-preserved-them.shtml&sa=U&ei=dV3_UNbGLNCO0QHD5YDYDw&ved=0CAoQFjAB&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNG5pNIFuAcCC8SBwVeulPBOlbwRyQ" target="_blank">the DoJ</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Again a bunch of people working for special interests, and not for the public good, who are quick for boasting of how hard they’re working and that they’re responsible for these prosecutions when it goes well, only <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/megauploads-planted-evidence-allegations-are-baseless-u-s-says-130113/" target="_blank">to retreat</a> behind the minutiae of communications and the wording of the laws.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then we come to SOPA/PIPA one year on. I can’t explain in words here adequately what the <a href="http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2011/11/sopa-supporter-is-just-wimp.html" target="_blank">causes</a> and solutions are (it’d take WAY too long). If you want that, then maybe listen to a panel on the topic I gave back in September (<a href="http://archive.efforums.net/images/stories/audio/mp3/2012/TacticalSOPA.mp3" target="_blank">mp3</a>, <a href="http://archive.efforums.net/images/stories/audio/ogg/2012/TacticleSOPA.ogg" target="_blank">ogg</a>).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One thing is certain and that is the contempt we were treated with. We had to pass these laws, we were told, or ‘else’. You know, piracy run rampage, and unchecked, companies go bankrupt because no-one buys anything, seas boil dry, the Rapture, another <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_(Rebecca_Black_song)" target="_blank">Rebecca Black video</a>, and so on.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, the laws didn’t pass. And things didn’t go as claimed - it turned out none of the bad things happened. In fact, the movie studios had (yet another) <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-hollywood-sets-10-billion-box-office-record-121231/" target="_blank">record breaking year</a>. Music sales were still good. Also it seemed we didn’t need those new laws to do the things in them either. It just made existing things a bit easier, with a little less accountability and a lower burden of proof.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After 15 years of passing every sordid little whim of industries that want power, but no responsibility, people finally said ‘<strong>enough</strong>’ and warned that accountability would start.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Want an example? How about Martin Luther King Jr.’s “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream" target="_blank">I have a Dream</a>” speech. It was made 50 years ago. He died 45 years ago. It’s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.,_Inc._v._CBS,_Inc." target="_blank">still under copyright</a>. No matter how much protection the speech gets, he’s not going to write any more. Yet it’s been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/11244621727/martin-luther-kings-i-have-dream-video-taken-down-internet-freedom-day.shtml" target="_blank">taken down</a> repeatedly over the past weekend.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Or the Bradley Manning trial. His military trial <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/09/judge-rules-bradley-manning-pre-trial-de" target="_blank">found this month</a> that his pre-trial detention broke the rules. As such he’ll get 112 days off any sentence (which assumes he’ll be convicted) but those responsible will get nothing. Nada, Zip, Zilch; for actions which a criminal judge has found to be illegal, no punishment. Did they somehow forget their jobs and go too far on a whim, or is it part of an institutionalized attempt to punish those accused before being convicted? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Or we could mention the CIA and its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques" target="_blank">waterboarding of detainees</a> over the past ten years. Despite the practice being ruled illegal by US courts for centuries (and sometimes recently) it was Okayed. Despite it being against international law and treaty, and against the greater will of the people, and having no substantive value at all, it was approved and performed. And from all these lawbreakers who’s the only one to even be taken to court much less convicted? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou" target="_blank">John Kiriakou</a>, who didn’t perform the acts at all, but confirmed they were used. His crime was bringing some accountability to the government. His sentencing will take place on January 25.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile, the man that authorised it (bush) and said it was ok, sits on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Chapel_Ranch" target="_blank">a ranch in Crawford, Texas</a>. Although his overseas trips and visibility have waned since a group vowed to have him charged with War Crimes, just before a trip to Switzerland in Feb 2011. He <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-cancels-swiss-trip-rights-activists-vow/story?id=12857195" target="_blank">cancelled his trip</a> and has had a low profile since. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Tellingly though, is the passing of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Invasion_Act" target="_blank">American Service-Members Protection Act</a>, which actually prohibits the US, and any US servicemen from assisting the International Criminal Court, to the extent it permits armed action against it (without needing Congressional approval). Thus it gives rise to the informal name of The Hague Invasion Act.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And here we come again to the issue. It’s <a href="http://falkvinge.net/2011/08/10/the-consequence-of-no-consequences/" target="_blank" title="The Consequence of No Consequences">accountability</a> every time. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u><strong>EVERY SINGLE TIME</strong></u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Every time, people act in a selfish or self-serving way. These are people who have a <a href="http://falkvinge.net/2013/01/08/how-the-police-and-politicians-can-regain-the-public-trust/" target="_blank" title="How the Police and Politicians Can Regain the Public Trust">public trust</a>. Legislators, prosecutors, law enforcement, the civil services; they’re <a href="http://falkvinge.net/2012/10/29/is-it-time-to-police-the-police/" title="Is it Time to Police the Police?">the cause</a> of the problem we have today. Every time they’re caught out, they claim they’re ‘just doing their job’.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
“Just doing your job” is no excuse to act like vile reprehensible <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/vogon.shtml" target="_blank">vogons</a>. When you take your job serving the public, you don’t discard your humanity. You’re not stripped of any sense of perspective. You most certainly are not given a right to pursue any action you want just because you can. There is no sign over the door saying <strong>“abandon all decency ye who enter here”</strong>. The more power and influence you have, the less accountable you are.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNTIZzx8ODWPb6gdo7_3WFgqW62-gHl07nPf5vxR-HmfbDI28xsn_Ng1FmIOj3oOPYFhOFzC4eOqTWg2CTmOKBSmAJZIVgVYOkbmUWPK-_CiLqGKqMvafxtnm3sm0-Vwg4XGhbh0n28WY/s1600/accountability-graph1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNTIZzx8ODWPb6gdo7_3WFgqW62-gHl07nPf5vxR-HmfbDI28xsn_Ng1FmIOj3oOPYFhOFzC4eOqTWg2CTmOKBSmAJZIVgVYOkbmUWPK-_CiLqGKqMvafxtnm3sm0-Vwg4XGhbh0n28WY/s400/accountability-graph1.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Accountability as a function of Power or influence<br />
By K`Tetch CC-0</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And yet, that’s what we now have. All these cases have one thing in common. They put the good to society – the cost of the actions as a whole – and any sense of proportion to one side, because it may help further their careers or goals.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Berman, Smith and the other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_Congresspersons_who_support_or_oppose_SOPA/PIPA#Supporters_of_SOPA.2FPIPA" target="_blank">SOPA/PIPA sponsors</a> were after more campaign funds from a media industry that could be shown ‘they were on your side’. Ortiz was looking for easy headlines, so that a run for the Governor’s office might be attainable, and headlines and a reputation regardless. The DOJ wanted to have a strong don’t mess with us’, and support the media industries (where many of the top cadre of lawyers had come from, and where they presumably will return) for the Dotcom raid.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Only now are we seeing any sort of accountability, and even then there’s resistance. Ortiz has said <a href="http://0v.org/carmen-ortiz-has-released-a-statement/" target="_blank">she has done nothing wrong</a> (<a href="http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/01/ortiz_says_suicide_will_not_change_handling_cases" target="_blank">TWICE</a>). The DOJ is hiding behind technicalities in the Megaupload case, and despite being comprehensively panned by the citizens, the same sorts of things are still suggested and hinted at.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now we have the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_alert_system" target="_blank">6 strikes scheme</a>, which again has no sort of accountability for false claims, but acts purely on accusation. Again, no recourse for false claims, but penalties if someone makes a claim against you.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s absurd.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And it is all because no-one is held to task for their actions and their motives.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s sickening, and it’s time we put a stop to it, once and for all.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Things are now starting to change, but slowly. We all need to get behind it and work hard to make the changes that happen; to push for what is right, not just for us, or for our employer, but for our society, and our future. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Start telling the truth. Tell people when they’re wrong, correct them and point them towards resources so they don’t make the same mistakes again. Hound your lawmakers, and let them know that governance without accountability is tyranny. Most importantly, ask questions and DEMAND answers, <strong>REAL</strong> answers, based on evidence, citing sources.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s only when we as people can start embracing truth, and accepting responsibility, can we move on once again as a civilization. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">This piece was also published at <a href="http://falkvinge.net/?p=15054">Falkvinge on Infopolicy</a> and is released under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/" target="_blank">CC0</a> license</span></i></div>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-88546831418665105252013-01-18T17:03:00.000-05:002013-01-18T21:35:15.829-05:00Early Hands-on with Dotcom's new MEGATonight, the tech world news will contain Mega coverage of Kim Dotcom, as his much-publicised service launches in New Zealand. The launch comes exactly 1 year after the US-led <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-shut-down-120119/" target="_blank">armed raid</a> of Dotcom’s mansion.<br />
<br />
I was lucky to get an early invite, and eagerly tested it to see if it has been worth the hype. Is it the new big thing or is it just another file locker?<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The answer to that depends entirely on what you want from it. Place to store files, sure it works. As a place to share them, to other people (irrespective of the why) it’s not so suitable.<br />
<br />
Through my tests, one thing that did come up, was the insistence of using Chrome (even if it’s a bit heavy on the alerts) although both Firefox and Opera seemed to have few issues – the main one being that downloads don’t work at all. The reasons are explained in the <a href="https://mega.co.nz/#blog_2" target="_blank">Mega Blog</a>, but indicate some severe restrictions in the usage of Mega. Mostly it centers on the ability to write files from javascript (which some see as a security/safety feature)<br />
<br />
Otherwise, the usage is fairly decent, and has a decent feature set, including shared folders between contacts. It’s good, but not special.<br />
<br />
What is intended to make it special is the encryption. The file encryption is supposedly so that you, and only you, can access the files. Access to the file and its key, are available from the file manager, where the file address, address with key, and its name and size are selectable options.<br />
<br />
It seems to work. BUT, as a caveat, only if you have Chrome. Will it overtake other file hosts and storage services? Well, I don’t think Dropbox or even bayfiles will be overly worried. I mean, sure I’ve only got 11Gb on dropbox, not 50, but I don’t have to worry about using the right browser either.<br />
<br />
My verdict – wait until some of the long list of things still to be done are finished.<br />
<br />
<b>Screenshots</b> <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9vz8l06ODW-689j_v140iCNdA_mAM4TEpY1nhR2ZxQRg5t2ILEyYdko8f1o4RmdvRrwsDeMmN-3GG4rN1NPy-E-bTYeoUZJqWWGGS_dn2M-c860zO8Oe11tSx9oEM-67mnNfbjOrPTD8/s1600/Mega1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9vz8l06ODW-689j_v140iCNdA_mAM4TEpY1nhR2ZxQRg5t2ILEyYdko8f1o4RmdvRrwsDeMmN-3GG4rN1NPy-E-bTYeoUZJqWWGGS_dn2M-c860zO8Oe11tSx9oEM-67mnNfbjOrPTD8/s1600/Mega1.png" height="253" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Encryption key being generated</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpORLmAq_SvP5QbE-Qre3Wiua-qKERKBjpjLNFqdUMR6tk_7at9ailWpCn-8IcKaavDxueB-tQwtGKxI-DjlZYI5dqKre2FWxGHr5Peuz_O_awuAdJ06RyhqYCTQsOT4pg9_EZF4l0aGo/s1600/Mega2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpORLmAq_SvP5QbE-Qre3Wiua-qKERKBjpjLNFqdUMR6tk_7at9ailWpCn-8IcKaavDxueB-tQwtGKxI-DjlZYI5dqKre2FWxGHr5Peuz_O_awuAdJ06RyhqYCTQsOT4pg9_EZF4l0aGo/s1600/Mega2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpORLmAq_SvP5QbE-Qre3Wiua-qKERKBjpjLNFqdUMR6tk_7at9ailWpCn-8IcKaavDxueB-tQwtGKxI-DjlZYI5dqKre2FWxGHr5Peuz_O_awuAdJ06RyhqYCTQsOT4pg9_EZF4l0aGo/s1600/Mega2.png" height="253" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Don't dare use Firefox (or opera, or anything but Chrome)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbTNMHweYzGOpGY_zUo4VJEn4EnsG6o7bJbJzOp_6S-I-r-5SuaBLW547eTi8vXtvGUtyEzQiDT1r5JsmGtY9PMEbSd8KcCefVUqUKxJ_1De0yHxz8q6ZTl6Y93GX0lw-nfkA7V14NcoY/s1600/Mega3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbTNMHweYzGOpGY_zUo4VJEn4EnsG6o7bJbJzOp_6S-I-r-5SuaBLW547eTi8vXtvGUtyEzQiDT1r5JsmGtY9PMEbSd8KcCefVUqUKxJ_1De0yHxz8q6ZTl6Y93GX0lw-nfkA7V14NcoY/s1600/Mega3.png" height="253" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Download options if you've got the key. download direct, or transfer to your storage area</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-UNv8TlWx6oQoKJ-76tPVI4tR_W1VrJKPphIZeZBknB2cYmQ7GROI6PUPrVyyAWVMdR8Gw37Nhon2PB7keHi3YRkOyvF2BFv2pRVr8zWD-97vsi798jXohZjxDP76Vugse_RxhlGdyfg/s1600/Mega4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-UNv8TlWx6oQoKJ-76tPVI4tR_W1VrJKPphIZeZBknB2cYmQ7GROI6PUPrVyyAWVMdR8Gw37Nhon2PB7keHi3YRkOyvF2BFv2pRVr8zWD-97vsi798jXohZjxDP76Vugse_RxhlGdyfg/s1600/Mega4.png" height="266" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bulk uploading is enabled, but no options to manage the uploads</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6-Q_NUOVVYd9cLsAlYMJZjjopwZuML2KJA57t2Xf6ZB8MGoO5Vuo80Y7w52GgtP9BBnYdNCYV8khj4FB4X_rVXzVJREFpfXtwCJZY29KWw8-6dJ85Ajw0KXNOGWWzQgFA3TbM8LetBNs/s1600/Mega5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6-Q_NUOVVYd9cLsAlYMJZjjopwZuML2KJA57t2Xf6ZB8MGoO5Vuo80Y7w52GgtP9BBnYdNCYV8khj4FB4X_rVXzVJREFpfXtwCJZY29KWw8-6dJ85Ajw0KXNOGWWzQgFA3TbM8LetBNs/s1600/Mega5.png" height="400" width="340" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The options window</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5R0FepWqDBKmP-ghiCO3q7bk6g6t7P3idBHTCMsuxpfi9Lrm2Cw_llHgoPShzjN2_i8n4QMRM0JHYtvZFztszzx4VWdPCtjB9LKslXB6KNWUhAwzZlWKlDInuBKkcfFJ_cckTO_Wfkas/s1600/MEGA6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5R0FepWqDBKmP-ghiCO3q7bk6g6t7P3idBHTCMsuxpfi9Lrm2Cw_llHgoPShzjN2_i8n4QMRM0JHYtvZFztszzx4VWdPCtjB9LKslXB6KNWUhAwzZlWKlDInuBKkcfFJ_cckTO_Wfkas/s1600/MEGA6.png" height="400" width="366" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The links window (by clicking the icon on the right of the file list<br />
Each option is colour-coded.</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-81892644947427226132013-01-16T11:09:00.000-05:002013-01-16T11:09:00.943-05:00IPO Rejects Censorship Transparency Request<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/header_logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: justify;"><img border="0" height="36" src="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/header_logo.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Colour me <b><u>UN</u></b>surprised. The <a href="http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/discussions_on_redactions_in_col#incoming-350520" target="_blank">final decision</a> of the Freedom of Information Request filed after the long, ongoing saga of censorship finally responded. The response of the internal review was to, surprise surprise, keep the sordid details to themselves, and in doing so, they’ve produced what might be one of the most inadvertently funny lines I’ve ever seen in a FOI case.</div>
<a name='more'></a><o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Pretty much as predicted a <a href="http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/12/ipo-and-censorship-recapupdate.html" target="_blank">month ago</a>, the ‘Internal Review’ at the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has rejected any kind of release of information. The response, from the <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/director/director-csd.htm" target="_blank">head of IT</a> (<i>seriously? We’re not talking a database migration here</i>) upheld the original decision to only partly answer one of the four groups of information asked for.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The denial is pretty amusing, even if the justifications strain incredulity, for this one sentence alone:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">“I have decided that the names of junior officials which include Hamza Elahi and Nadia Vally will continue to be redacted from the information released.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Except for it not being... and you just naming them again...<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPguqPfQcKCTU2uzcRS2UmMNqB2Bu8OQXhf8hF9F14rBQmMOR3Uov74UIW9Zu4NDdhqmRs6ec_1lAhqM7ifKgZcAwH0YEXAmYyp9p4LkZrpp708rOXzd7XVR8ORrzElt9FJexrvDVnQqQ/s1600/series-of-fails.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPguqPfQcKCTU2uzcRS2UmMNqB2Bu8OQXhf8hF9F14rBQmMOR3Uov74UIW9Zu4NDdhqmRs6ec_1lAhqM7ifKgZcAwH0YEXAmYyp9p4LkZrpp708rOXzd7XVR8ORrzElt9FJexrvDVnQqQ/s200/series-of-fails.jpg" width="138" /></a><br />
<br />
We know their names, you <a href="http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/discussions_on_redactions_in_col#incoming-332796" target="_blank">ALREADY RELEASED THEM</a>. Some of the names they released include:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Antoinette Graves; Ben Hawes; Daphne Hyman; Jennifer Jones; Nicholas Munn; Matthew Cope; Nadia Vally; Robin Stout; Steve Rowan; Christos Tsikolis; Antonio De Gregorio; Gillian Langman; Taffy Yiu; Laurence Pawley; Andrew J. Smith; Sarah Hughes; Katherine Evans; Oneydes Staggemeier<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a result, I’m filing a complaint with the <a href="http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints.aspx" target="_blank">Information Commissioner</a>, especially as the whole process has taken 4 months, double what it should take. Perhaps they’d also be interested to know that while claiming <a href="http://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/index.php/FOIA_Section_40_Exemption" target="_blank">Section40</a>(2) they had violated it as well.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As always, I’ll keep you informed.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<center>
<div class="dipity_embed" style="width: 600px;">
<iframe height="400" src="http://www.dipity.com/ktetch/IPO-Redaction/?mode=embed&z=0&bgcolor=%23134363&bgimg=/images/white_grad_up.png#tl" style="border: 1px solid #CCC;" width="600"></iframe><br />
<div style="font-family: Arial,sans; font-size: 13px; margin: 0; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.dipity.com/ktetch/IPO-Redaction/">IPO Redaction</a> on <a href="http://www.dipity.com/">Dipity</a>.</div>
</div>
</center>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-78243589393416081632013-01-14T15:17:00.001-05:002013-01-14T15:20:47.867-05:00Alpha Geeks (and Pirates) Explained<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyt4cox2yQFvnaz-b9FI1rgiJ5LpqEeBe4YiLshkYKiO8M9CfIEjJaeF7JBpYDSWr5y9-zu5zshPv_d3T7XhJj0LUZRtyCTrm6DQhGP6oRTk6dLz4cwR_kWwP1y7eK6cTruSZGnmu2zyk/s1600/CERN-ATLAS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyt4cox2yQFvnaz-b9FI1rgiJ5LpqEeBe4YiLshkYKiO8M9CfIEjJaeF7JBpYDSWr5y9-zu5zshPv_d3T7XhJj0LUZRtyCTrm6DQhGP6oRTk6dLz4cwR_kWwP1y7eK6cTruSZGnmu2zyk/s200/CERN-ATLAS.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">LHC's ATLAS detector, with Alpha Geek<br />
Copyright Maximilien Brice, CERN</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For some time, there has been a misunderstanding of how to deal with Pirates, or even just getting their viewpoint. They’re seen as arrogant, hard-headed, brash, and full of wacky ideas. More interestingly, they find it hard to work together smoothly, to find a common consensus. Why is that? Ladies and Gentlemen, the answer is simple, it is ‘Alpha Geek’.</div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
So what is an Alpha Geek?</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Throughout the natural world, the existence of the ‘<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_male" target="_blank">Alpha Male</a>’ is well documented. This is the biggest, the strongest, and therefore generally the leader of the group or community. The establishment is simple, the dominant male, and the challenger fight. The winner becomes the Alpha. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sometimes, the Alpha stays the alpha for a long time, and will pass it on to his children, but generally the position is obtained through physical dominance. One of the best known visual representations of this is the “Dawn of Man” section from Kubrick’s film 2001. The alpha comprehensively establishes his dominance by shattering opposition.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet the simplistic way of the typical ‘Alpha Male’ no longer translates into human society. Instead there are societal positions that will give the dominance, such as Mayors, and Kings. The right of conquest was superseded by the right of law, which diminished the role of the Alpha male just as the dependence on purely physical power as a requirement for survival was diminished.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile, the geek in the community carried on, being the one people went to. Often they’d become the doctor, the scientist, or some other ‘learned position’. It’s so well known that it’s one of the most recognisable tropes in fiction out there, from boy genius through smart guy, to absentminded professor.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet as a society becomes more technological, tools grow in both ubiquity and power; they can offset the physical presence that is often under-developed. Now good science and technological skills are more important and can effect a greater result than being ‘big and strong’.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus we’ve had the rise of the geek, especially in adult life. While the captains of the football or cheerleading teams were popular in school, as a general rule they <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JadedWashout" target="_blank">won’t be</a> a major shaker. They may become an insurance salesman, or car dealer. Meanwhile the geek will be earning significantly more at a tech venture, or as a lawyer or doctor.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Throughout it all, they are aware of the other smart people, and sort themselves into a hierarchy. Everyone knows the ‘smartness’ of their friends, and it’s no different in the wider circle of the community. The pecking order is established through knowledge and intellectual sparring, rather than bashing hands and heads together. Places are known, and all is happy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thus the Alpha Geek is established.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
The Alpha Geeks and Pirates</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So we have alpha-geeks. For centuries they’ve puttered around, doing what they do, which is generally advancing society. However, in recent years, their work has been more and more regulated and controlled by governments, while their work has expanded from local projects to ones of a larger scale.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most of this is because of the explosion of communication technology over the last 30 years. Back then, you used the postal service to talk to people overseas, cellphones were almost non-existent as a consumer good, and computers were small, hooked to the TV and could maybe manage 9 colours. All the while with less ram than than would take to hold this webpage.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, it’s as easy for me to keep in touch with people 100, 1000 or even 10000 miles away, as it is the person next door. And I can manipulate data at home, with an ease not even purpose-made commercial setups could have managed 15 years ago (You want me to stabilize 30 minutes of shaky video, match it to a presentation, split screen it, clean up the audio, and present it all in 720P? <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GLk5ph4uBk" target="_blank">took an afternoon</a> - took longer to upload it in fact. On the editing desks Comedy Central used when I worked on one of their shows, would have taken a few days)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Along the way, this tinkering has upset many established players in the business world. Technology and innovation have undermined traditional businesses, and business models (from Saddlers to CD sales). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We’re sorry. We’re trying a new thing, <strong>that’s what we do</strong>. We experiment, we tinker, if it works great, if not, oh well. That’s how civilization has worked for tens of thousands of years, in countless societies. Only in the last few hundred, have we started saying ‘no, I don’t like your progress’ and worked against it with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_laws" target="_blank">laws</a> and <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/amazon-autorip-how-the-labels-held-back-progress-for-14-years/" target="_blank">litigation</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Traditionally, that was an activity <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/famous-persecuted-scientists/" target="_blank">usually reserved</a> for the religious institutions, but the government is another issue altogether. Smart people are to the point where the action of trying to influence is not working, and as geeks do, when something doesn’t work, change your approach. Since influencing those that run for office hasn’t worked, it’s time to try it themselves. They’re running for election, and calling ourselves Pirates.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Pirates and Politics</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At present, politics is mostly about words. It’s about the lie most easily swallowed. The problem is that by focusing on lies, we end up with a leadership that has to perpetuate lies, to keep in power. One that creates new messes in an attempt to fix the messes caused by their last lies.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"You use words, and I'm told you it well, but words are soft and can be pummeled into different meanings by a skilled tongue. Numbers are hard. Oh, you can cheat with them but you cannot change their nature. Three is three. You cannot persuade it to be four, even it you give it a great big kiss" - <em>Marvolo Bent in Pratchett's "Making Money"</em> </div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pirates are different. We’re fact (or 'numbers' according to Mr Bent) based . We may not have the ‘skilled tongue’, but we have the skills for the job instead. Or, to put it another way:</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Traditional politicians have to skills to GET the job but are typically terrible at it</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Pirates have the skills to DO the job, but are typically terrible at getting the job.</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why is that? Well, people think they’re arrogant, or condescending, that they <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BasementDweller" target="_blank">don’t connect with regular people</a>, and they have some sort of elitism, or they’re going to do something ‘<a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MadScientist" target="_blank">evil scientisty</a>’.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first two are fairly understandable, and are reflective of how different brains think. My wife thinks I’m condescending when she’s struggling with algebra, or calculus, but the problem is, I see the problem, I see the answer. I can’t explain it, it’s just ‘<em>obvious</em>’, but what’s obvious to me, is arrogant or condescending to those who can’t follow it. It’s like trying to explain ‘blue’ to someone who has always been blind.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This can make them hard for people to connect to.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Elitism is a <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/07/barack_obama_and_mitt_romney_represent_two_different_types_of_elitism_in_american_politics_.html" target="_blank">problem</a> too. We don’t have enough of it. We’re talking about leadership positions in society, the ability to regulate and pass laws affecting everyone. Isn’t it <em>maybe</em> a good idea to put the best people in those positions? If you do feel that the ‘common man’ might be a better idea, then let’s go back to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition">Sortition</a>, and have our lawmakers selected by random lottery; Plenty of ‘common man’ thinking then.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
“Evil scientist” things is much in the same vein, and like the first, is an appeal to emotions (generally <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning" target="_blank">personal insecurity and inferiority</a>). In reality, these are ploys that are pandering to stereotypes, but they’re acceptable stereotypes to the general populace. However, point out that your existing lawmaker is a liar, or that they just plain can’t be trusted (even/<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sanford_disappearance_and_extramarital_affair" target="_blank">especially</a> by their wives) and people will go ‘yeah, so what’. </div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
So…?</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So now the next thing Alpha-Geeks are working on, are the nuances of political communication. Like all other subjects, they're generally approaching it from an empirical standpoint. Trial and error, observe, and re-test. There may be - no, will be - failures of what is said and done. That can come across, again, as condescending, or arrogant (funnily enough, that was how the early draft of this piece was described).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yes, they could copy the old way of doing things, and be done with it too, but that's not the way to progress. If the 'current' was enough, we'd still be in the stone age. It's only by trying new things that we move on. DaVinci was a great inventor and designed flying (and everything else) machines a-plenty. They didn't work, but they didn't stop him trying, and finally, the Wright brothers succeeded. Nor did we stop there. New and different designs were constantly tried. Some worked, some didn't and some were a disaster, but it's dealing with failure, and moving on that's important.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That's where pirates are at now. Trying new things, because the old just don't seem to work that well, and because there must be a way to make it better. Again, look at the rapid progress in any number of areas. Compare the 1600 to 1800 and you'll find little difference; from Shakespeare to Washington. there were minor differences, as experimentation was made, but no radical change. Even 40 years ago, television in colour was a new thing, now we have High-definition sets 2cm thick, with 3D and internet capabilities, and ultra-high resolution ones <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/01/whatever-happened-to-4k-the-rise-of-ultra-hd-tv/" target="_blank">just announced</a>. But not everything succeeds, even in the TV market - Prestel, teletext, laserdiscs, Betamax were all successful (as in they worked) products, that failed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So yes, Alpha Geeks (and Pirates) will make some mistakes, and it will take time, and there will be some failures. But the failures tend not to matter too much in comparison to the end product. When we think of Edison, we don't remember the barn arson, or the train fire, or the near poisoning of his friend <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=F_Xr4CGZWPQC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=thomas+edison+oates&source=bl&ots=H4Ja3nUHL9&sig=J6XMqjzvl0g4sf6D8UjIQ_weHXI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=21P0UPTWL5C88wTUu4HoBQ&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=thomas%20edison%20oates&f=false">Michael Oats</a>; it's the electric light.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But if that won't satisfy you, I can but suggest that you follow the advice of Shakespeare, in the form of Puck. </div>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
"If we shadows have offended,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Think but this, and all is mended,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
That you have but slumber'd here</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
While these visions did appear.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
And this weak and idle theme,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
No more yielding but a dream,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Gentles, do not reprehend:</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
if you pardon, we will mend:</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
And, as I am an honest Puck,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
If we have unearned luck</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Now to 'scape the serpent's tongue</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
, We will make amends ere long;</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Else the Puck a liar call;</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
So, good night unto you all.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Give me your hands, if we be friends,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
And Robin shall restore amends."</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">This piece was also published at <a href="http://falkvinge.net/2013/01/14/alpha-geeks-and-pirates-explained/">Falkvinge.net</a> and is released under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/" target="_blank">CC0</a> license</span></i></div>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-29699308799940659412013-01-08T06:12:00.000-05:002013-01-08T17:15:05.059-05:00How the Police and Politicians Can Regain the Public Trust.<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTZl16kM4HVvPeodzee9PWMEKxfCPqkzqUdZtb59aNOFtUCFZv-DbF7vU0aZFLx-PP7j7iGzDXjMrbAINEl2MGdDn6slAOTTDlWWR8SIWELFgLq-ISFE8mI00JYB6q161AwtSnveSHHp4/s1600/370417541_90ddfc2267_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTZl16kM4HVvPeodzee9PWMEKxfCPqkzqUdZtb59aNOFtUCFZv-DbF7vU0aZFLx-PP7j7iGzDXjMrbAINEl2MGdDn6slAOTTDlWWR8SIWELFgLq-ISFE8mI00JYB6q161AwtSnveSHHp4/s320/370417541_90ddfc2267_o.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">CC-BY <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/thunderchild5/370417541/sizes/m/in/photostream/" target="_blank">Thunderchild7</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A few months ago, I asked what we should do about law enforcement officials that broke the law in a piece called <a href="http://falkvinge.net/2012/10/29/is-it-time-to-police-the-police/" title="Is it Time to Police the Police?">"Is it time to police the police?"</a>. It’s taken me some time, but now I've compiled the responses and got some suggestions to float to the <a href="http://falkvinge.net/2013/01/03/traffic-numbers-for-2012-for-falkvinge-co-on-infopolicy/" title="Traffic Numbers For 2012 For Falkvinge & Co. On Infopolicy">global hive-mind</a> that peruses FoI (and my <a href="http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/10/is-it-time-to-police-police.html" target="_blank">own site</a>)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First, let’s be clear. Not all cops are ‘dirty’, but at the same time, not all citizens are criminals. Yet since it’s considered acceptable that in many western countries, you have to prove you’ve done no wrong to a police officer, rather than they have to prove a criminal act has been committed, it’s only fair to consider them the same way.</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So let’s start with some processes. In many police jurisdictions, when a police officer is suspected of a crime, or malfeasance they are generally suspended on full pay, or put on ‘desk work’. A criminal act would be investigated, an arrest made, and most jobs won’t pay you if you’re sitting in a cell. In the UCDavis pepper-spraying, we saw Lt. Pike do it. In the Tomlinson case, there was video evidence that he was attacked by an officer unprovoked. Both officers were kept at full pay during the investigations.</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>CHANGE </strong>– Where there is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie" target="_blank">prima facie</a> evidence that a crime has been committed, he should be suspended from his job, and treated like any other criminal. No working as an officer (or security guard), no badge, no gun, no perks, no pension, and no pay. </div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While some will say it’s harsh, it’s no more than the rest of us face. And it may return a measure of ‘think first’ to those on the job, who won’t be assured of a lengthy paid vacation if they’re caught doing what they shouldn’t. Additionally, police officers are often not keen on their actions being documented. Many officers in the US have tried to apply wiretapping statutes to recordings of officers performing their duties (yet again, they can record you and be exempt from the same laws). Also, some states have forces that are less than 'open' with their recordings. In Oklahoma, for instance, police dashcam recordings are classed as records for the purpose of the open records law, with one exception, <a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/okla-keeps-trooper-dash-cam-videos-under-wraps" target="_blank">state troopers</a>, and now judges in that state <a href="http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110831_12_A11_CUTLIN213770" target="_blank">have been expanding</a> on it.</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>CHANGE </strong>– Any attempts by officials to prevent, halt or damage recordings without good reason (such as it actually impeding the arrest) to be charged with the relevant evidence tampering or investigation impeding laws. All officer camera footage (be it mounted in a room, on the officer or a piece of equipment) is to be considered an open record for the purpose of all relevant laws, while still being mindful of data protection and privacy statutes.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Next, let’s talk about malfeasance. Officers are known to commit criminal acts, knowing that their profession lets them get away with it. When things come to trial, often the ‘good conduct’ of an officer is cited as a mitigating factor. However, in a job, that allows powers beyond those available to the citizenry, the fact you’ve done it for years without a problem isn’t a factor. What is a factor is the extreme breach of the public trust placed in you when you took your place in that job. To quote Spiderman, “With great power, comes great responsibility”.</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>CHANGE</strong> – Where an officer of the law (which includes prison guards, and judges) commit a crime on duty, or use their position to influence things or ‘get out’ of punishments (such as an off-duty <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer" target="_blank">LEO</a> flashing a badge to get out of a speeding ticket), then the crime is modified to be one committed ‘<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_authority" target="_blank">under colour of authority</a>'. A modification of minimum and maximum sentencing guidelines to take into account the breach of public trust, by abusing their position for crimes committed “under colour of authority”. I would suggest a 50% increase in both.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Weapons are the main difference between law enforcement and civilians. In countries like the UK, they’re the only ones armed legally. But on top of firearms, you have other weapons that are prohibited from civilian use/possession or are under extremely strict regulation. That’s everything from Pepper/CS/PAVA spray, through batons (side-handle, extendable/ASP and traditional truncheons/billyclubs) electro-stun (including tazer), less lethal rounds, and vehicles. Then there’s the radio, which can call another dozen or more officers, also similarly armed, all amped up and ready to go because of what they’ve been told.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Often these are used to threaten, or otherwise in accordance with their legal, intended use. Of course the textbook is again, Lt. Pike with the pepper spray, there was also the Oakland occupy incident shortly before that, where a protester was targeted and struck in the head with a beanbag round; the punishment? A year later, <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Oakland-to-punish-cops-in-Occupy-clashes-3943773.php" target="_blank">he might lose his job</a>. No criminal charges, no loss of pay, just the job, a year later. Meanwhile a similar attack on a police officer is considered so serious, a Congressional Bill has <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr180?utm_campaign=govtrack_email_update&utm_source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email" target="_blank">just been submitted</a> concerning 'Blue Alerts' when an officer is seriously injured or killed. It's hypocrisy of the highest order.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are amazing numbers of cases each year of excessive force, and the growing trend now is to use Tasers to bring events to a swift conclusion with the officer in control. In one 2005 incident, a man was tasered over 30 times, according to <a href="http://educate-yourself.org/pnt/gormanburningquestions16nov05.shtml" target="_blank">news reports</a>. No disciplinary action was taken, and it took months to even get his effects.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2005, when they were still being introduced to law enforcement at large, was a bad year for taser-victims, but not cops. In a California case, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_v._MacPherson" target="_blank">Bryan v. McPhearson</a>, the court decided the officer’s actions qualified under the doctrine of qualified immunity (cops will only be responsible for excessive force if they act in a way that is so unreasonable any cop would have known such conduct was against the law – basically acting criminally) Since ‘the law on taser police brutality’ was still evolving when the incident happened in 2005 the cop should get a break from liability. You read that right, because no-one had told the cop, he didn't have any notion of right and wrong. Ignorance is an excuse, if you wear the badge.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s this that characterizes many police brutality and excessive force cases. On one hand the police officers are professionals dedicated to knowing and enforcing the law, when they’re on the prosecuting side, their word is solid and their testimony is unquestionable. However if they’re a defendant, they’re amateurs who don’t know the law, can’t tell right from wrong, and whose training and instincts are so poor, that they can’t be held responsible for decisions made when doing their job because they have to do them quickly.</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>CHANGE </strong>– Convictions of violence/brutality/excessive force under colour of authority are to be treated as the serious violent criminal acts they are. If the act was not reactive, and especially if prolonged, or needlessly escalated (When you use a weapon before a less confrontational method for instance, or a weapon deliberately misused) then it should be considered a murder/attempted murder case (depending on the status of their victim). Likewise any deaths in custody are to be considered suspicious at all times.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Next, investigations into acts called into question are often done informally, and internally. There are ‘nod-and-wink’ investigations where a semblance of scrutiny is given, but in reality it’s a smokescreen. Meanwhile colleagues tend to close ranks, resorting to the omerta typified by the Mafia, better known as “no snitching”. This is an attempt to subvert the law, by denying evidence. The intent is often portrayed as one of ‘trust’ (as in ‘I trust he has my back by covering up’) with the result that evidence is suppressed, or made contested.</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>CHANGE </strong>– All investigations are to be meticulously detailed, such that another investigator, even from across the country, can follow-up on the investigation if needed. Failure to do so would leave the investigator likewise subject to investigation for their actions. Officers attempting to lie, cover up, or obstruct the investigation to be charged as co-conspirators in the crime, in addition to the relevant charges for obstruction/perverting of justice, and dealt with as above.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Once under investigation and where it looks to succeed, many officers elect to retire, or resign, to avoid, or reduce punishment. While the decision to resign is certainly their prerogative, it should not be construed as an alternative to investigation and punishment. At no other area do you get to walk away from crimes by quitting. If you work at a regular company, and get caught stealing, you don’t say ‘<em>well, you don’t need to charge me, I’ll quit</em>’ (unless you’re the CEO, but that’s a whole other topic) yet in both the justice field, and politics, it’s considered acceptable, and sometimes 'noble'.</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>CHANGE </strong>– No retirements permitted while under investigation; would have to wait until exonerated. Resignations are acceptable, but it in no way affects the course of the investigation. No investigation is to stop because the person or persons investigated have left their position. If the investigation is substantiated, then the penalties are the same as if they were still employed, because the later state of (non)employment has no bearing on the actions while employed.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, some people get in trouble, get out of the job, and then come back. This has happened with police officers (the officer in the Tomlinson case was involved in a violent incident in the 90s, quit, joined a different police force years later and then transferred back to London) but is also common with politicians (See <a href="http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/former-italian-prime-minister-berlusconi-hopes-to-come-back-12480.html" target="_blank">Silvio Berlusconi</a>). Diseased limbs aren’t given back to patients or left in the open. Once they’re removed they are then destroyed. That way reinfection is minimised. At the same way, a stigma must be placed on these actions, and people MUST be aware of their level of untrustworthiness, and that they have abuse a public position.</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>CHANGE </strong>– Investigations and their documentation (see above) are to be recorded. Any person with a ‘colour of authority’ conviction is disqualified from any position of public authority.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><em>OPTION</em></strong>: A register of, let’s just say ‘Corruption’ (<em>while the term isn’t accurate, neither is the term ‘<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender_registration" target="_blank">sex offender register</a>’ when a significant number of actions that get people on it are not sexual in nature</em>) which are public record.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What we have here are a number of measures that basically enhance the requirements to investigate criminal acts by those in a position of responsibility; politicians as well as law enforcement and the judiciary. The problem of corruption, not just financial corruption but moral and authoritarian corruption is becoming endemic.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These solutions are not overly radical; they amount to treating abuse of public office as being serious crimes in themselves, on top of the crimes committed. Some might say it’ll lead to officers and politicians second-guessing themselves, but they’re not being asked to follow new laws, just the same as everyone else. No police officer will let someone off a crime because ‘they were under pressure’. “<em>I’m sorry I beat him with a big stick but I was under pressure and it was a split second decision</em>” will get you off only if you’re a police officer.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If it makes people stop and consider their actions first, that’s all to the good. In exchange for the power they’ve been given, they also have to accept the consequences, and enhanced punishments when they’re caught doing wrong is one of them. You can hand out punishments, but don’t want them imposed on you? Tough, find a different career.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The intent is <u><strong>deterrence</strong></u>. When you can get away with a crime, knowing that any investigation won’t do much, you’ll be getting full pay for it, and that your buddies will back your version; there’s no incentive to behave within the law. When those tasked to implement or uphold the law have contempt for it, what chance do ordinary people have?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is time to make it clear that corruption, malfeasance, bullying and swaggering arrogance is <strong>no longer acceptable.</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While many officers (and politicians) won’t like these kinds of rules and claim it hampers their ability to work because they’re afraid of the consequences, that’s exactly what it’s like for ordinary people, day in, day out. And we’ve now seen the kind of behaviour not having these rules has engendered. There’s a lack of respect for police officers now, and for politicians, and it’s because the rules don’t seem to apply to them anymore. It’s time to change that. If you’re good, and honourable, and follow the law, you’ve nothing to fear. After all, you willingly took on the added abilities, now you get the added punishments if you abuse them. That’s only fair.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile, this won't magically restore the public trust in politicians and law enforcement, but it will address one of the biggest problems that has eroded it. Decades (centuries in some places) of abuse can't be ignored overnight, but by taking responsibility and 'cleaning house', it can happen.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">This piece was also published at <a href="http://falkvinge.net/?p=14809">Falkvinge.net</a> and is released under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/" target="_blank">CC0</a> license</span></i></div>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-32865348423648263992012-12-24T03:10:00.000-05:002012-12-24T03:10:44.694-05:00Bad Parent's Anti-Porn Campaign to Block Championing Newspaper?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbEJkPzlHopCVcJtVyKklDGklbJcIPrF7L6oe9RIqSWwhrzcdP3T7NZKlGuyGiggG_WCjoPLJTGbpZ9WL3-BPy_nXvaAB_J-gTbF7Vk2O-BpcDxRPw0NeVrqNjSSooj4gki7RSckOTRec/s1600/reality+check+small.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbEJkPzlHopCVcJtVyKklDGklbJcIPrF7L6oe9RIqSWwhrzcdP3T7NZKlGuyGiggG_WCjoPLJTGbpZ9WL3-BPy_nXvaAB_J-gTbF7Vk2O-BpcDxRPw0NeVrqNjSSooj4gki7RSckOTRec/s1600/reality+check+small.png" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Daily Mail, nominally a newspaper, but in reality a printed testament to "things were better in the past'. In recent months it's had a campaign against porn (especially online porn), because 'we never had it in our day' (if you exclude the 'free love' of the 60s, and the fact the 70's are all but synonymous with porn). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's just one problem with the Daily Mail - while it's print edition might be a bastion of 'right wing 'blame' culture, the newspapers website only thinks of the children when they're in a sexy outfit, or with a bikini-clad mother.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Daily Mail's website, is in short, very sexually oriented.</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's an amusing dichotomy for many. The newspaper, nicknamed by many the Daily Wail (for the continued bleating about the latest thing destroying Britain) or the Daily Fail (for how often these rants are baseless or factually wrong) likes to think of itself as a paper keeping the best of british, and being dignified as it does it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It fails. <b>Badly</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While there are references in the story to headlines like "<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132342/How-internet-porn-turned-beautiful-boy-hollow-self-hating-shell.html" target="_blank">How Internet porn turned my beautiful boy into a hollow self-hating shell</a>", what it's missed out on mentioning is that in those cases, the parents have failed in their basic job of supervising their kids. In fact the very first thing the article under that headline is the phrase "<i>Mother tells how her 11-year-old boy's 'entire character' changed when he began watching porn <u><b>on his laptop in his own bedroom</b></u></i>" (emphasis mine)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We all pay, for the inability of Daily Mail readers, to exercise their parental responsibilities.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have three children, aged 8-16. How do I know they're not 'getting addicted to porn'? Because I'm a conscientious parent, and take care of my children. I don't buy and then essentially abandon them, leaving them to do their own thing. My kids have access to tablets, ipod touches, and laptops, and I don't need to put any sort of 'block' on the internet. They know I can pop up at any time, and see what they're doing, and that I will.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I parent. The parents of 'Charlie', the 11yo who apparantly became adicted to porn, did not. The porn wasn't the problem, it was a symptom of the problem. The problem is the same as it always is in those cases, the mother and father.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But the typical Daily Fail (and here it's certainly appropriate) reader isn't likely to accept any type of responsibility, and neither is the newspaper itself. However, if you take a look at the article, you might see something amusing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For a teenage boy, 'porn' is everywhere. And the Daily Mail is a 'legitimate' source of porn (as is page 3 of most UK tabloids). In fact there's over 30 stories on that one page, that are overtly, or primarily sexual in nature, or sexualise children. They range from gratuitous stories of various Z-list "celebs" in bikinis, to C-list celeb gets crochless underwear. Or the latest development in the story of a runner who was also an escort (which is an excuse to re-print the escort photos). And you don't have to take my word for it, <a href="http://db.tt/hrre3Diq" target="_blank">here's a screenshot</a> of the story from a few hours ago, with over 30 'sexual' stories (with no actual journalistic content) highlighted <i>[WARNING - LARGE FILE]</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Such a high level of sexual content can only mean one thing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Daily Mail website needs to be on the porn blocklist. Blocked by the success of their own campaign, anything else doesn't make sense.</div>
<br />
Of course, there's one other thing anyone will tell you about this list.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>IT WILL <u>NOT</u> WORK</b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's a parenting issue, not a technical one. Aside from the difficulty of identifying and classifying things (which is EXTREMELY subjective) the fact is any parent that needs to rely on this is probably going to have the kids in question set it up (and then one of the parents will need their help in getting around it)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's been an internet blocklist provided by the Internet Watch Foundation to UK ISP's under the name '<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system)" target="_blank">Cleanfeed'</a> for many years. How well has that worked at stopping Child Pornography? Well, according tot he self-same Daily Mail, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169090/160-000-clicks-day-view-child-pornography.html" target="_blank">over 160,000 clicks a day</a> were made in 2009 for child porn, even with the ISP-based block enabled.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The other issue, is that once we start with blocklists for one thing, it's not long before they start to 'creep'. It's a case of "<i>you do it for X, why not for Y which is just like X</i>". then it turns into "<i>How about Z, since you're already doing it for X and Y</i>" and ends up with "<i>A, 9 and š, need to be added too</i>".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Before you know it, anything potentially objectionable (to certain people in control anyway) are banned, and only 'approved' things are allowed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Not the path you want to go down. It's the slipperyest of slopes. And one the UK, or at least David Cameron, is getting a good run-up for, all at the behest of the worst parents in England. Meanwhile, we'll wait and see if the Mail website will manage to escape censorship, or if it'll change its tune when the real impact of it's campaign sinks in.</div>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-17580452169074909562012-12-12T15:57:00.001-05:002012-12-12T16:06:16.421-05:00[HoM] Foil-hatted IRCop's Inferiority Tantrum<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPguqPfQcKCTU2uzcRS2UmMNqB2Bu8OQXhf8hF9F14rBQmMOR3Uov74UIW9Zu4NDdhqmRs6ec_1lAhqM7ifKgZcAwH0YEXAmYyp9p4LkZrpp708rOXzd7XVR8ORrzElt9FJexrvDVnQqQ/s1600/series-of-fails.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPguqPfQcKCTU2uzcRS2UmMNqB2Bu8OQXhf8hF9F14rBQmMOR3Uov74UIW9Zu4NDdhqmRs6ec_1lAhqM7ifKgZcAwH0YEXAmYyp9p4LkZrpp708rOXzd7XVR8ORrzElt9FJexrvDVnQqQ/s1600/series-of-fails.jpg" width="221" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some great amusement with the newest “Hall of Morons” entry. This is someone that should really know better, but clearly has trouble differentiating reality from wild-assed claims with no evidence. Alas, Seethe42 has a particularly strong Reality Distortion Field around him.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s no surprise then that <a href="http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/crowdgraphpng.php?Seethe42=3.9%2C-0.9&Dandrummerman=-1.9%2C-2.2&Acme64=-7.3%2C-4.6&K%60Tetch=-2.5%2C-5.9&Icedman|2=-3.4%2C-3.9&Loki=2.0%2C-2.0&Maj0r=5.4%2C-3.6&Catbox360=-4.8%2C-4.1&Jetuser=-5.1%2C-4.7&Nate=-5.9%2C-4.5&Travalla=-6.6%2C-5.5&Feeling=-3.6%2C2.8&firedragon=-7.5%2C-5.6%3Cdiv%20style=" target="_blank">when the channel</a> took the political compass test a month ago, he was the only less right-wing than a Canadian drug-addict. There’s some message about believing crap and being right wing somewhere, but I’m not going to bother with it. </div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway, to put this log in context, this is <a href="irc://irc.p2p-network.net/p2p-net" target="_blank">#p2p-Net</a> – it’s the channel for the IRC network of the same name, and is the place to find the major players on the network, such as IRCops; people just like seethe42 in fact.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Log recorded Tuesday December 11 2012 in the Eastern Standard Time zone (GMT-5)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">22:52:32 «~Loki» why the hell is utorrent telling me a file I downloaded is potentially harmful<br />22:52:40 «~Loki» I don't need my programs getting uppity<br />22:52:44 «~Loki» YOU HAVE ONE JOB<br />22:52:46 «~Loki» DOWNLOAD MY SHIT<br />22:52:51 «_____» lol it does that to me sometimes<br />22:52:55 «~Loki» DON'T TELL ME WHAT THE FUCK YOU THINK IT IS<br />22:52:57 «_____» not often, but sometimes<br />22:53:19 «_____» it also sometimes tells me that utorrent is free, and if i paid for it, to demand my money back<br />22:53:26 «_____» when i start it<br />22:53:33 «~Loki» lol<br />22:53:43 «~Loki» unless you have the pay version<br />22:53:57 «_____» well yeah, but i'm still on 2.0.4<br />22:54:10 «~Loki» I'm on 3.1.3<br />22:54:53 «+Killjoy» any older version is better than the newest<br />22:55:24 «+Killjoy» its got more ads and shit now</span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is more for context than anything. Sometimes the 'this is free' popup comes back, and the 'potentially harmful' warning is in newer versions, to prod less clued-in users into thinking about what they're opening. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then the debate about 2.x against 3.x is one that's been ongoing for a while, but is mainly based on personal choice, rather than facts. The next line is the one that has absolutely nothing to do with facts though.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">22:55:55 «~seethe42» not to mention it forwarding DMCA info to the MPAA<br />22:56:15 «_____» really?<br />22:56:42 «~seethe42» no, they stopped that, but it was<br />22:56:51 «maj0r_pawnage» u believe chince42<br />22:57:02 «+Killjoy» Firon fix the world<br />22:57:32 «_____» got a link for that seethe42?<br />22:59:02 «~seethe42» it was last year<br />22:59:48 «~seethe42» bittorrent/utorrent made an agreement with the mpaa and riaa and some isp's to collect data<br />23:00:00 «~seethe42» they backed down<br />23:00:16 «~Loki» that sounds stupid<br />23:00:29 «~Loki» ok, let me screw my user base<br />23:03:58 «~seethe42» the fact of the matter is that online piracy predates the world wide web and will always exist no matter what they do<br />23:04:09 «~Loki» yep<br />23:05:03 «+K`Tetch» 22:55:55 «~seethe42» not to mention it forwarding DMCA info to the MPAA <-- lol, nope, sorry, fell for a hoax<br />23:05:04 «~seethe42» people have been pirating code since code was invented<br />23:05:35 «~seethe42» !mute K`Tetch<br />23:05:36 —› mode » ‹P2P-NET› sets ‹-v K`Tetch›<br />23:05:36 —› mode » ‹P2P-NET› sets ‹+b ~q:*!*@p2p.researcher›<br />23:06:48 «_____» i want a link<br />23:08:19 «~seethe42» I can't remember the version number, it didn't last long<br />23:08:56 «~seethe42» it sent a call home telling BT your download history<br />23:09:18 «~seethe42» it was banned by all trackers almost immediately<br />23:10:01 «_____» utorrent or bittorrent<br />23:10:20 «~seethe42» BT and uT denied the call home was for data tracking, but then removed it shortly after<br />23:10:30 «~seethe42» it was after BT bought uT<br />23:10:34 «~Loki» why'd you mute K`Tetch?<br />23:10:44 «~seethe42» because he's an ass<br />23:10:49 «~Loki» lol<br />23:10:59 «_____» i'm trying to find a link for it, was it a bittorrent build or utorrent build, or both/<br />23:11:28 «~seethe42» it was a utorrent build after bittorrent took over<br />23:11:41 «_____» 1.7.*?<br />23:11:48 «~Loki» thats what google is saying<br />23:11:55 «~Loki» but that was like 07 or 08<br />23:12:18 «~seethe42» they tried it again in 11<br />23:12:44 «~seethe42» but it never went past the beta build<br />23:12:56 «_____» cant find a link. i see lots of suggestions that 1.7.* does it but seems to be debunked<br />23:13:13 «~seethe42» 1.7 did<br />23:13:29 «~seethe42» sniffer picked it up<br />23:13:36 «~Loki» (23:13:23) (K`Tetch) he's refering to <a href="http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/threads/52332-uTorrent-and-MPAA">http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/threads/52332-uTorrent-and-MPAA</a><br />23:13:37 «~Loki» (23:13:28) (K`Tetch) which was all a crock of shit<br />23:13:37 «~Loki» (23:13:58) (K`Tetch) and I'ma beta tester, I wireshark all versions, been a beta tester since 1.1, never happened<br />23:14:31 «~seethe42» he's an expert on everything<br />23:14:43 «~seethe42» he's about as reliable as wiki<br />23:15:07 «~seethe42» he claims to know everything and have a degree in everything and work in every field<br />23:17:54 «~seethe42» if it's politics, he's been a campaign manager for national candidates... if it's science he's a nuclear physicist... no matter the subject, he claims to be the preeminent expert on it<br />23:18:52 —› *seethe42* sounds like you're feeling a little thraetened (so much you're channelling maj0r!) Didn't realise you were so against people having multiple jobs?<br />23:19:49 «~Loki» I'm an expert on IRC<br />23:20:01 «~Loki» I think you are getting upset over nothing<br />23:20:03 «~Loki» :P<br />23:20:09 «nate» my only issue with uTorrent is after 2.2 it seemed like they rigged it so you only got high speeds if you got the 'plus' version<br />23:20:18 «nate» so I've never upgraded beyond it<br />23:20:37 «~jetuser» i havent had any speed issues with a non-plus version<br />23:20:40 «~jetuser» so idk what crack you're on<br />23:24:07 «~Firon» seethe42: ut never sent data to the MPAA<br />23:25:20 «+Killjoy» youre wrong Firon!<br />23:25:26 «+Killjoy» the internet says it did<br />23:25:39 «~seethe42» no they didn't directly<br />23:25:52 «nate» jetuser: The crack that I tested on several boxes, and every time 2.2 would get my max internet speed, and 3 would not<br />23:26:01 «nate» so either they screwed something up or there's one hell of a weird coincidence<br />23:26:58 «~Firon» nate: there's no plus/non-plus speedup<br />23:27:06 «~Firon» plus is just a set of extra functionality<br />23:27:19 «~Firon» I can max out 100mbit fiber no problem with hdbits lol<br />23:30:40 «K`Tetch» one reason you shoulud know it's crap, seethe42, is that what you claim is actually illegal. But That's bluetack for you (what do you expect from a group that makes their money trying to sell a snake-oil protection product). But at least dwknight will be happy - got a new HoM entry!<br />23:31:03 «~seethe42» !mute K`Tetch<br />23:31:03 —› mode » ‹P2P-NET› sets ‹+b ~q:*!*@p2p.researcher›<br />23:33:23 «_____» ...</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So let’s recap here. He’s made a claim that a client sent info to a lobby group. The problem is, that would be problematic under California law. That’s why it never happened. However, there have been groups who have claimed µTorrent to be working for the MPAA etc. for years, groups like bluetack who <a href="http://neuron2neuron.blogspot.com/2006/03/pg2-blocks-utorrentcom.html" target="_blank">have fabricated stories</a> for years to sell their <a href="http://www.slyck.com/story1593.html" target="_blank">scareware</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
During my time at TorrentFreak, we’ve had reports come in over the last 5 years or so about clients spying. Every time I’ve gone to examine them, I’ve found nothing. Mostly it’s well-meaning misunderstandings (such as the communication to the <a href="https://github.com/jech/dht-bootstrap" target="_blank">DHT bootstrap node</a> being ‘sending all your torrent info’) because people saw something and jumped to a conclusion. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Other times it’s more insidious. I’ve gone to investigate some reports, which lead to ‘<i>private</i>’ trackers, and admins there have said “<i>yes, we’ve evidence of it, and no you can’t see it, because it’s secret and they might figure out how we found out</i>” (I kid you not)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But at the end of the day, the underlying claim is false; there has never been any ‘sending data to the MPAA’. Anyone with a brain would know that. Couple it with what seems to be an inferiority complex (my political experience is well known, <a href="http://muon1.blogspot,com/" target="_blank">my work</a> with the Muon1 project is also not hard to verify, nor is my work with TorrentFreak) and you have a definitive, <u><b>class-A Moron</b></u> for the hall.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s why he had to mute, because the only way to delay the smackdown, was to shut those up he could. Alas, Loki (another IRCop) has heard me speak on politics, and P2P topics, Firon, also an IRCop works for Bittorrent Inc. and knows of my knowledge in the field, as does ______, a moderator for the Demonoid channel. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If there’s one takeaway, it’s that if you’re going to be a douche and try and bully, don’t squander any credibility you had left by picking a fight on an issue where EVERYONE ELSE ALSO KNOWS you’re wrong. </div>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-66108271220892656812012-12-09T21:04:00.000-05:002012-12-09T21:04:02.529-05:00IPO and Censorship, a Recap/Update<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/header_logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/header_logo.png" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For those that don’t know, I’ve had a running issue with the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) over their use of censorship in consultations. I thought I’d give a quick recap, and an overview of the issues.</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First, the major issue is censorship. We have a government body, that’s asked for information in a pubic consultation, which then censors comments it’s received. Funny thing, all comments censored are negative, showing a negative picture of the consultation’s directed goal (which was clear from the questions)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To suppress comment critical of your plans, as was done here, makes a mockery of the consultation process. Then again, it’s not exactly new when it comes to this field. In 2009, Lord Mandelson effectively made a public consultation into the Digital Economy Act irrelevant, when he supported the bill and would hear no criticism of it, after a private meeting with a record label head.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, it’s not ALL criticism that’s been redacted from the public view. Through the magic of a (<a href="http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/discussions_on_redactions_in_col" target="_blank">badly complied with</a>) Freedom of Information Request (FOI) we now know what was the criteria for censorship.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You had to be either</div>
<ol type="A">
<li>A small company/body or an individual, or</li>
<li>Providing 3rd party information (also known as ‘Evidence’)</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However,if you are a big company or a frequent submitter, or a lawyer; you can say <span style="color: #990000;"><b><u>any old crap</u></b></span> you want.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Further to my email last week, PSA a list of those submissions (marked with an "n") Nick and I think won't need reading for defamatory comments or third party material, because the stakeholder making the submission will very likely have employed legal resource/is legal resource/is a larger organisation/is an experienced enough public operator, for the submission to very likely not contain defamatory comments or third party material.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That was an email from Hamza Elahi sent 29 June 2012 concerning redactions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you want to put that in perspective, then read this document that came out with the consultation. It’s called “open and transparent Evidence guidance” and boiled down to its basics, it says “if you make a claim, back it up!”, That generally means 3rd party sources. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It’s basically the death of independent citizen-based objections to policy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Yet it gets worse. Despite including evidence, as requested, I was censored because of ‘possibly defamatory statements’. Whoever gave them legal advice is utterly ignorant of the law. Some of the <a href="http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/07/uk-ipo-redacts-responses-critical-of.html" target="_blank">redacted comments</a> were actually references to court filings and rulings. Under UK law, this is protected from defamation by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Qualified_privilege" target="_blank">Qualified Privilege</a>. It’s as textbook as things go for the law relating to libel and yet they still messed it up.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a result, one of the things requested <span id="goog_1839594500"></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/">during the FOI<span id="goog_1839594501"></span></a> was for a copy of the legal advice given by the IPO lawyers regarding this area. It was denied under s42 of the FOI act, which relates to legal privilege. Basically enabling lawyers’ protection in giving advice. However, it’s not absolute. There has to be a strong public interest to show it, and likewise a strong reason to otherwise reveal it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When you have legal advice that blatantly ignores the basics of the law as written, and does so repeatedly, then there is a strong interest to find out what instructions were given, and by whom.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When the public consultation process is subverted by actions blamed on legal advice that has NO BEARING to the law in question, the public has a strong interest to see that advice. Especially when <a href="http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/09/ipo-admits-censorship-overreach-in.html" target="_blank">they've admitted</a> they've redacted stuff when they should not have.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Good luck, however. It’s FULL ‘Cover your arse’ mode at the IPO.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A FOI request should take 20 working days. Thus my request submitted September 21 should have been responded to by October 19. It took until November 16. I submitted a request for an internal review that day, which again has a 20-day timetable. However, instead of being done by December 14, it’ll now be done by January 16. In case you missed it, what should have taken 8 weeks so far, is looking like 17 weeks (although I’ll concede a week of that for Christmas/New Year.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But through this all, two things are being overlooked. </div>
<ol>
<li>My submission was made publicly available, unredacted, in <a href="http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/03/consultation-response-to-uk-ipo.html" target="_blank">March of 2012</a>, the day after submission. It’s also had the specific redacted (aka ‘potentially libellous’) comments repeated on my own site, and sites like Techdirt. Were there a case for libel, we would have heard by now (the statute of limitations is one year)</li>
<li>In the <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-policy/consult/consult-closed/consult-closed-2011/consult-2011-copyright/consult-copyright-response.htm" target="_blank">covering note</a>, they note that they were delayed in publishing, because “a small number of respondents had advanced criticisms or inappropriately criticised the activities of others in the sector.” Thus anyone seeing a redacted comment draws the inference that they were inappropriate criticisms, when it seems they were just ‘sourced criticisms’. It’s skirting the line of defamation itself.</li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We will see, though, what the next twist will be, and if the legal beagles at the IPO are man enough to admit they screwed up, and publish their advice.I wouldn't hold my breath though, as that would require integrity, which the last 6 months has shown to be severely lacking at the IPO.</div>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-24985013639349485972012-11-30T16:23:00.000-05:002012-11-30T16:23:32.758-05:00IPO Office – Only Censoring the Small Guys<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/header_logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: justify;"><img border="0" height="36" src="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/header_logo.png" width="200" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I finally got a response back from the IPO regarding the redactions they made in their consultations. You can see them in the PDF below. There were some quite interesting revelations in there, that show a serious problem in the redactions made and applied in this whole case.</div><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Indeed the whole aspect of a FOI was thought about, as the first email in the list shows, they were looking with an eye to FOI requests. However, their compliance with the FOI leaves something to be desired.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Almost 2 months ago, <a href="http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/discussions_on_redactions_in_col#outgoing-224523" target="_blank">I asked for</a>:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><ul><li style="text-align: justify;">A copy of the criteria for redactions</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Any internal documents/emails concerning the redactions</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">The names and positions of those involved in the redaction actions</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Minutes of any meetings with involved/covered the redactions</li>
</ul><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">From that <a href="http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/discussions_on_redactions_in_col#incoming-332796" target="_blank">I got</a> a grand total of SIX emails. The weird thing is that I already had NINE emails from Hamza Elahi at the IPO office, and the contents of them were strongly indicative of more emails and contacts. For instance, the last email given was dated July 13 2012. The first contact from Hamza to me was July 24th. From there I know there were other emails, meetings, etc. How? Because he SAID SO.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">There are references to half a dozen other communications that were not seen fit to be included. In total, they ignored point1, gave a half-hearted attempt at point 2, flat out denied point 3 and ignored point 4. Not exactly a good response.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Their justifications can be seen in the emailed response, but it bails down to ‘most people involved are too junior to be named’ and “we won’t reveal what legal advice we got”, even if it was a load of crap.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Additionally, these 6 emails (<a href="http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/130694/response/332796/attach/2/Andrew%20Norton%20request%20redacted%20emails.pdf" target="_blank">PDF</a> / <a href="http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/130694/response/332796/attach/html/2/Andrew%20Norton%20request%20redacted%20emails.pdf.html" target="_blank">web version</a>) are ‘redacted’, or at least supposed to be. Changing the text background to black doesn’t redact the text though. Indeed the only name supposed to be revealed is that of <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/director/director-ced.htm" target="_blank">Edmund Quilty</a>, the Copyright and IP Enforcement Director. But the other names are not exactly THAT junior. Nadia Vally, who I spoke to on the phone, wrote the <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-ia-bis1054.pdf" target="_blank">impact assessment for Extended Collective Licensing</a> (the topic all my redaction issues fell under). The assessment <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-policy/consult/consult-closed/consult-closed-2011/consult-2011-copyright/consult-2011-copyright-ia.htm" target="_blank">was published with</a> the consultation documents. Her participation, and email address are hardly a secret then.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But even the few emails they have provided have shown an amazing thing about the whole redaction/libel situation. Mostly, that’s it’s not really about libel at all.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here’s the thing. If you’re worried about libelous statements, you’re going to be careful about things. You’re going to cross the t’s and dot the i’s to make sure you only do what you need to, and you don’t <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights" target="_blank">violate laws </a>by censoring needlessly. By the same token, you’re going to examine everything to make sure nothing slips through. That’s not the case here, illustrated by two sections</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">Having invited comments on collecting societies, it seems we will not be able to publish a lot of them. Many of the specific comments on collecting societies I had identified, but the ones on collecting societies as a group I had not. Charles suggestion on contacting senders seems the best one: if comments on specific submissions are redacted, there is FOI to think about. If whole submissions are removed, there is potential for loss of lots of evidence (not least if that evidence has been used in IAs - although this danger might also exist for some redactions). </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Grateful for any views.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">That’s by Hamza, and is the first email released.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The reply sent 15 minutes later by Edmund Quilty indicates the mind-set behind the redactions</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">It might be (moderately) amusing to have whole swathes of responses blacked out on the basis that they were defamatory.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Amusing to you, but a criminal use of censorship to many.And note that defamation is given as a BASIS, but not because they are (a court has to prove that). It's a justification, not a reason. But at least it’s even-handed, right? No.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">On June 29th Hamza says in an email</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">Further to my email last week, PSA a list of those submissions (marked with an "n") Nick and I think won't need reading for defamatory comments or third party material, because the stakeholder making the submission will very likely have employed legal resource/is legal resource/is a larger organisation/is an experienced enough public operator, for the submission to very likely not contain defamatory comments or third party material. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">In marking up these submissions we've erred on the side of caution. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">If you've any additions or deletions please let me know by close Monday</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So, if you’re a big company, defame away, they’re not going to bother to check. But if you’re a small company, or individual, don’t criticise anyone, because it’ll be gone.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Also, notice the ‘third party material’ line. It’s rather an odd comment to make, since the evidence guidelines for the consultation said that claims should be backed up with evidence. Generally, that evidence will be from a third party.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So, what have we learnt about the consultation? We have learnt that it was a sham. In fact, it may be criminally inept.</div><ul><li style="text-align: justify;">Third party evidence was more likely to be removed, than taken into consideration, exactly contrary to the guidelines of the consultation, and the recommendations of the Hargreaves review.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">It’s also a two-tier system. If you’re a big company, likely to have the services of a lawyer, then your submission will be accepted at face value. However, if you’re a small company, an individual, or challenge the underlying assumptions then your submissions are likely to be censored.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Finally, the last thing we know is that the legal counsel for the IPO is utterly clueless. This is why they’re trying to hide behind <a href="http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/guidance_index/~/media/documents/library/Freedom_of_Information/Detailed_specialist_guides/legal_professional_privilege_exemption_s42.ashx" target="_blank">section 42</a> of the Freedom of Information Act. I’d LOVE to see the advice justifying censoring public comment on the grounds of potential libel, when sections of it are about as clear a case of speech <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Qualified_privilege" target="_blank">protected from libel</a> possible.</li>
</ul><div style="text-align: justify;">In fact, when the legal advice is this bad, and leads to a distortion of comment on proposed public policy, then it’s very much in the public interest to examine this advice, and understand and evaluate its validity. So, it’s a good thing that section42 has a public interest qualification, where it is only permissible to hide the legal advice if it’s not in the public interest.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It’s <b><u>clearly</u> </b>in the public interest.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">And just to think, To get me these 6 emails, and (ineffectively) redact them, they needed a lot more than the 20 working days (which would have been October 19 2012) but sent an email October 18th saying they need ANOTHER 20 working days on top of things, to answer. In the end, 40 working days (September 21 – November 16) were needed.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It smells like some people were busy doing a whole lot of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_your_ass" target="_blank">CYA</a> at the IPO office.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In return, it took me less than a few hours to reply back, requesting an internal review. So they’ve promised to get back to me, within 20 working days (although 14 December seems like 21 to me) so I’m expecting a response around mid-January.</div><br><br><br />
<center><div class="dipity_embed" style="width: 600px;"><iframe height="400" src="http://www.dipity.com/ktetch/IPO-Redaction/?mode=embed&z=0&bgcolor=%23134363&bgimg=/images/white_grad_up.png#tl" style="border: 1px solid #CCC;" width="600"></iframe><br />
<div style="font-family: Arial,sans; font-size: 13px; margin: 0; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.dipity.com/ktetch/IPO-Redaction/">IPO Redaction</a> on <a href="http://www.dipity.com/">Dipity</a>.</div></div></center>K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-57028968456134966752012-11-14T16:49:00.001-05:002012-11-14T16:50:22.996-05:00The “No PhotoID” solution to Voter Fraud<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The election’s been over for just over a week, and we’re
already getting the claims that “if only there’d been VoterID laws, the result
might have been different”. The latest is the Co-Chair of the Wisconsin Romney
campaign, Alberta Darling, who <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/romney_wisconsin_voter_id.php?ref=fpnewsfeed" target="_blank">claims</a> things might have been different, if one
judge hadn’t struck it down (and the supreme court hadn’t ignored the appeal)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It’s become a contentious issue, and one that is accord with
the <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-id-laws-charts-maps" target="_blank">methods to disenfranchise</a> voters in the US, often going hand in hand with
election machines (and their uncertainty), the restricting of monitoring ,and
curtailment of voting hours.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/vote-law-map-mojo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/vote-law-map-mojo.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Copyright <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-id-laws-charts-maps" target="_blank">Mother Jones</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Thus it’s become the new cry in the US, especially this past
week, to cry about ‘voter fraud’ and ‘stuffed ballot boxes’. In Wisconsin, state
Sen. Alberta Darling (R) said the results might have been different (and since
there was a 200,000 vote margin, that’s some serious fraud).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile, down in Florida, Tea Party darling, Alan West is
<a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/267881-allen-wests-campaign-blasts-rival-for-attending-new-member-events-in-dc" target="_blank">fighting on a recount</a> to keep his congressional seat. Since it first emerged he
might lose, a week ago, he’s been
relentless about claims that there are vote-rigging activities on-going to
ensure he loses. In the past week there’s been no less than two emails sent out
by the Breitbart blog soliciting donations for his ‘fight’ (and being somewhat ‘free’
with the truth as they do so, not that those they’re targeting are that <a href="http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/10/breitbard-targeting-innumerate.html" target="_blank">good at facts and figures</a>).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
VOTER ID they all scream. ‘We need voter ID!’ There’s just
one problem. Having an ID is not mandatory in the US. It’s not mandatory in the
UK either, or many other countries for that matter. If you live in one of those
countries where ID is mandatory, this probably isn’t for you. If you live in a
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_document" target="_blank">voluntary ID nation</a>, though, read on, because there’s an easy solution to weed
out in-person voter fraud, and doesn’t require IDs. Intrigued? Read on<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
First, a simple test, do you WANT to show ID? If you do,
fine, go ahead and do so, if you have no problems doing so, then knock yourself
out. I have no problems with people voluntarily doing so. My problem is with
people being denied the ability to vote because they don’t <b><i>have</i></b> ID.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/voter-id-map-mojo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/voter-id-map-mojo.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Copyright<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-id-laws-charts-maps" target="_blank"> Mother Jones</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-align: justify;">My thoughts worked on the problem backwards. People that don’t
have ID can’t vote, because they can’t prove their identity. The reasoning is
that without being able to biometrically prove yourself, you could be posing as
someone to cast their vote. So, if the problem is people voting multiple times
(In-person, voterID fraud, or IPVF), then the easy solution is to attack the
problem. If people “voting multiple times” is a problem, then you need to
identify the people voting multiple times.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So, the solution would be to use a photo system. It’s
actually rather similar to the mug-shot system used by police forces. If you
don’t have ‘photo ID’, then what identification you DO have is collected, and
noted, and a voter ID number (at very least, the Social security number, or
similar) is issued. You then have a digital photo taken with the voter ID
number in shot.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Now you have a positive visual identification of the person
wishing to cast a vote. What happens now is an ideal situation, but potentially
possible. The state election system could run facial recognition against these
VoterID photos, to look for similar faces. Any that look the same to the
computer, are brought up for the poll worker to compare. If they pass, then
they’re issued a ballot. Simple.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The real benefit comes in following years. Then there may be
previous year’s photos to compare as well. Makes it easier to be sure the same
person is voting each time.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
While it’s in some ways an impractical solution (the US has
problems with a simple touchscreen voting machine working properly, let alone
photo databases and facial recognition), as well as a slow one (although doing
the photo first, and giving it processing time while info is collected might
help) it is a way to ensure people can vote, even without ID. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I don’t necessarily condone this system, mind you. IPVF is
typically a very small problem when it comes to electoral irregularities.
Instead, I present this system as a method to deal with the alleged problem in
a way that deals with the claims, working from the starting point of ‘everyone
should be able to vote’. I realise there are problems of identity privacy,
where there is now a photo with an ID number (essentially a mug-shot) in
government hands. However, my criteria was allowing people who do not have
photoID (either because they’re unable, or unwilling to get one) to vote while reducing
IPVF. One thing that could be done, is that the information provided in this
manner, is considered legally privileged material, with a VERY high bar for
judicial disclosure.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, this is only one issue that’s been brought up
about election irregularities. Others include <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/11/06/pa-voting-machine-taken-offline-after-this-video-showed-obama-vote-going-to-romney/" target="_blank">weird voting machine</a>, and of
course, <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/citing-voter-fraud-petition-at-white-house-web-site-demands-recount-of-election" target="_blank">ballot box stuffing</a>. But there are ways to deal with that, which I’ll
share another time. And with all this going on, aren't you glad that Iowa and Texas <a href="http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/05/iowa-ohio-and-texas-take-stand-against-transparent-elections/" target="_blank">threatened international observers</a>, because there are clearly NO problems with the <a href="http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/11/breaking-2-party-two-step-2012-edition.html" target="_blank">2 party system</a> we have right now... Right?<o:p></o:p></div>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-9441291326948419212012-11-06T12:31:00.000-05:002012-11-06T12:35:01.462-05:00Breaking the 2-Party Two-step (2012 edition)<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><b>The Following is from the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1468033999/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1468033999&linkCode=as2&tag=polandp2p-20" target="_blank">No Safe Harbor</a>, and is an updated version of the piece that was published <a href="http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2010/11/breaking-2-party-two-step.html" target="_blank">here</a> two years ago, on election day 2010.</b></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEvestAsxTa4zfnvQvFD4F5vWINcAuB9IBPt4xdwEDNJkQ6fOZ65QOdztvXMdfzpHaLVDcO5GIFGJERVxobErYhVTvFjR9ReZADvY-6v_oiFKDXKkM-ZcwnTT2oYGVEHcBSU3UnLowC1U/s1600/DSCF3709.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEvestAsxTa4zfnvQvFD4F5vWINcAuB9IBPt4xdwEDNJkQ6fOZ65QOdztvXMdfzpHaLVDcO5GIFGJERVxobErYhVTvFjR9ReZADvY-6v_oiFKDXKkM-ZcwnTT2oYGVEHcBSU3UnLowC1U/s1600/DSCF3709.jpg" width="152" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first Tuesday in November is election day. It is a day when people all over the country go out, and exercise democracy. In some countries, the very act of voting is seen as a triumph, something worthwhile to be attained. The US sees it as so important, that several countries have been invaded in the past century for the purposes of restoring democracy, yet the US does not have a functioning democracy itself, instead there is a pseudo-democracy, where only two parties are allowed to participate, much like in the most restrictive countries; China, Algeria, North Korea.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
There are several myths about elections and voting, and I'm going to try and dispel them, or at least explain why what seems like such a good theory, doesn't work out in practice. I'm going to focus on US politics, but much of this holds true for other countries using a first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, such as the UK. In addition, I'll use the term “Major Parties” or “Major Party” to collectively describe the Republicans and Democrats. It's not an ideal choice of term, but it is one in common use in state laws across the country when talking about ballot access, to refer to those parties.<br />
<br />
<b> “If you vote for a third party, you're wasting your vote.”</b><br />
<br />
There is a never ending stream of partisan rhetoric when it comes to third parties. One of the most common claims is that voting for a 3rd party candidate is 'a wasted vote'. It has led to the rise of tactical voting in the US, where instead of voting for the person they want (if they are not one of the big two parties) we have people voting for the 'big 2' representative they dislike least. This was best exemplified in the 2004 US Presidential elections, when people who hated Bush voted for Kerry, and those that hated Kerry voted for Bush. What went completely unnoticed was the third choice in almost every state - that of the Libertarian Party and Michael Badnarik (he was not on the ballot in New Hampshire, or Oklahoma), or for that matter, the Green Party, who were on the ballot in about half the states.<br />
<br />
This 'tactical voting' is the waste of a vote. Instead of voting for the person you wish to represent you, you are voting to try and deny someone else from doing so, by supporting the opponent who is believed to be the greatest challenge. This then leads to the two major parties producing candidates who are at odds with each other, to get this dichotomy, and play people into an 'us or them' situation. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is another cost. The elected representatives in Congress are <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance" target="_blank">universally distrusted</a>, and often thought of as corrupt. <br />
<br />
Why? <br />
<br />
Well, they don't actually represent the views of their constituents. What they represent is the views of the political party of the candidate that was not as disliked as the other. The other result is the rise in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning" target="_blank">negative campaign</a> adverts. Why spend money saying “vote for me, I'm better,” when you can spend the money pointing out <a href="http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/2010/10/20/campaign-ads/" target="_blank">how bad</a> your major opponent is, and get the tactical vote as a response. The additional bonus from this method is if you lose, you've got your adverts to say “I told you so,” and if you win you've got very few promises to be held accountable for.All this from tactical voting. What a sham!<br />
<br />
<b>“Third parties are a waste of time. They will never win.”</b><br />
<br />
There is no reason why they are a waste of time. The main reason they won't win is not because people don't support them, but due to tactical voting (see above) people are too afraid to be on the losing side. In addition, there are other elements to supporting the party that matches your views most closely, even if it's a 3rd party. Aside from winning the election, there are other goals that can be achieved, such as federal funding if the party reached 5% in the previous election. This can be a substantial benefit to many candidates. <br />
<br />
Major parties are also scared of third parties. In 2004, when the Libertarian party sued the Commission for Presidential Debates (the organization that runs the presidential campaign debates), the Republican party, and the Democratic Party, over being unfairly excluded from the debates (they had a nationally available candidate, and the debate was paid for using state funds, and held in a state venue (Arizona State university for the 3rd debate), the debate could have gone ahead if the two candidates had agreed to allow Badnarik to participate. Both refused. The Presidential Debates are a substantial piece of advertising, rather than actual debate when it excludes significant candidates. Ninety minutes of prime time television and radio is expensive, and when you add in the news coverage and analysis of it, it's a major chunk.<br />
<br />
One estimate is that the debates work out to be worth at least $40 million in advertising. That's a substantial sum, and would be more than the total campaign budgets of the minor parties, much less the independents. Of course, $40 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the spending nationally on Major Party candidates, but the desire to control is one that tends to override any mere cost. And costs aresomething the 2010 election has in spades. In 2008, $2.5 billion was spent. For 2010, a mid-term election (which is traditionally less costly than a presidential election year), it's <a href="http://fcir.org/2010/11/01/2010-election-4-billion-of-ad-candy/" target="_blank">estimated</a> that between $3 billion and $4 billion was spent on campaign advertising, almost certainly focused on<br />
the two main parties. On the other side of the fence, minor party candidates are often asked why they even bother. Again, in 2004, at the Libertarian Party Conference, Michael Badnarik addressed this very issue, <a href="http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_08/bradford-dark_horse.html" target="_blank">saying</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“As a Libertarian candidate, I frequently face the 'wasted vote' syndrome. People tell me that I'm a good candidate. They believe in what I stand for, but they can't bring themselves to vote for me because they don't want to waste their vote. If you were in prison, and you had a 50% chance of lethal injection, a 45% chance of going to the electric chair, and only a 5% chance of escape, are you likely to vote for lethal injection because that is your most likely outcome? Your survival depends on voting for escape even if that's only a 5% chance.”</blockquote>
Escape is, of course, voting for what you believe in, rather than the death of voting against yourself, voting “tactically.”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Again, it's down to tactical voting. The perception that 3rd parties won't win, because voting for them is a wasted vote. Because it's a wasted vote, people don't vote for them. Thus they don't win. This validates people's view that they were right not to vote for them. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's one that must be broken, in order to bring some actual democracy to the government.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"></span></span>“Voting the party ticket”</b><br />
<br />
A lot of times, people will vote a straight ticket. That means that people will vote for every Democrat, or every Republican on the ballot. The theory is that the party represents the voters point of view, and so voting a straight ticket is the best, easiest way to vote their view. It's not that simple though. If it were simply a measure of the party position, then why do we need candidates? Just assign a block vote to the party's national committee chairman. It also completely negates the need for primaries. If the party affiliation is all that's needed, why is a publicly funded primary needed? All the candidates on the primary ballot represent the party, so they should all stand for the same thing.<br />
<br />
We all know that candidates differ widely on what they represent, which is why the whole concept of a “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-ticket_voting" target="_blank">straight ticket vote</a>” is so horrific. That people vote for a candidate, for their representation, without looking at the candidates and what they stand for relying instead on a small letter placed next to their name, is insulting to the concepts of democracy, and insulting to the candidates. It trivializes them and means they're nothing more than a mouthpiece. Of course, if candidates wish to just be a mouthpiece for a national chairman, then they're not a good choice as a candidate anyway. The idea of a candidate is to represent their constituents in the government, with a party providing support and guidance and a basic direction. These days, candidates are representing the major parties to the constituents.<br />
<br />
There is nothing wrong with voting for candidates of different parties. If the candidate's position matches your views, then you should vote for them irrespective of their party affiliation. The 1992 Eddie Murphy film <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Distinguished_Gentleman" target="_blank">The Distinguished Gentleman</a> played on this premise, the “dumb voter” syndrome. Instead of a party though, he went for a name, but it's the same principle. Voters went in without knowledge (or care) and just looked for something vaguely familiar, beit a surname, or a party affiliation.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>*sigh*</b></div>
<br />
Taken altogether, it's a sad situation, producing terrible results. It's why we need electoral reform, in order to restore a government that focuses on policies, rather than attacking others because of party identification, and trying to prevent new parties entering and participating on an even keel – that would be too democratic, and upset the status quo.<br />
<br />
Before you vote, do your homework, check who your candidates are, and what they stand for, and above all else, please, <b>VOTE BASED ON THE CANDIDATES AND WHAT YOU STAND FOR. </b>This is your government you are electing, it's not American Idol, or some other pointless, inconsequential TV show. It's as real, and as serious as it gets. For all that people go on about illegal immigrants, those who were lucky enough to be born citizens, act as a complete disgrace when they abuse the privilege of citizenship.<br />
<br />
The real solution would be to adopt proportional representation in some form. It's considered “too complex” for Americans to understand, yet countries like France and Mexico seem to have no problem with it.<br />
<br />
And above all else, don't complain about the government you get, if you voted tactically, dismissed candidates because of their party, chose not to vote, or just voted a straight ticket. It's your fault, and the fault of those that acted like you, and has been since this country was founded. Next time, use your brain instead - your country will thank you.<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's your vote, make it count!</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">No Safe Harbor is available in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1468033999/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1468033999&linkCode=as2&tag=polandp2p-20" target="_blank">paperback from Amazon</a>, or as a free eBook from <a href="http://nosafeharbor.com/">Nosafeharbor.com</a></span></b></div>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-8404029691858802582012-11-05T13:18:00.000-05:002012-11-05T13:41:43.235-05:00Iowa, Ohio and Texas Take Stand Against Transparent Elections<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8FEjaa_OoRPCse3VT8xoWT_QEiYlPuyhBcmeG7B_LOZuFql-q7A5Zc07j2q_DFYlZvjnxfLq81-1f6KA3UMjRDhHNrr0VyOaXARpgxcS0LfATn9Xsbee70UyprFIkBCOTYZbOy38-5E8/s1600/afghan-election.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8FEjaa_OoRPCse3VT8xoWT_QEiYlPuyhBcmeG7B_LOZuFql-q7A5Zc07j2q_DFYlZvjnxfLq81-1f6KA3UMjRDhHNrr0VyOaXARpgxcS0LfATn9Xsbee70UyprFIkBCOTYZbOy38-5E8/s1600/afghan-election.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If you’ve ever heard something like ‘America is the greatest democratic country in the world’ take heed. While many believe that to be the case, the State Governors of both Iowa and Texas are afraid to put that to the test. They’ve threatened independent election inspectors with Jail. That’s right, the supposed shining beacon of democracy is afraid of scrutiny.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Yes, you read that right, the Governor and Secretary of State for a US state, has threatened to arrest independent election monitors for monitoring perhaps the highest-stakes election of the times.</div><a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">Earlier this week, State officials from Iowa <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/31/Iowa-Secretary-of-State-Threatens-Foreign-Election-Monitors-With-Arrest" target="_blank">threatened</a> independent international election monitors with arrest if they attempted to monitor voting in that state next week. On Tuesday, November 6, voters across the US will go to the polls to elect members of the house, Senate, and local elections, but it’s the Presidential race that has been the focus of all attention in recent months.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Nor is Iowa alone. A week earlier, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-elections/international-observers-draw-warning-ag/" target="_blank">made a similar statement</a> about international monitors there. Texas has a long history of voter suppression, and as such is covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, requiring it to get ‘preclearance’ from the Federal Department of Justice, before changing anything voting-related.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In his <a href="https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=4195" target="_blank">letter</a>, Abbott states</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>Elections and election observation are regulated by state law. The Texas Election Code governs anyone who participates in Texas elections—including representatives of the OSCE. The OSCE’s representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">You <b>do </b>have to wonder what he’s afraid of.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">To top it off, he announced it with a tweet</div><br />
<center><blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center">UN poll watchers can't interfere w/ Texas elections. I'll bring criminal charges if needed. Official letter posted soon. <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23comeandtakeit">#comeandtakeit</a><br />
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) <a data-datetime="2012-10-23T19:04:28+00:00" href="https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/260818991700910080">October 23, 2012</a></blockquote><script charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></center><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">Of course, he’s a bit mistaken, as OSCE isn’t a UN org, any more than NATO is. Both are ‘<a href="http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter8.shtml" target="_blank">chapter 8</a> organisations’ but that’s as far as it goes. That didn’t stop the ignorant commenting on the story on various republican news sites talking about attacking, evicting, or going to war with the UN.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Meanwhile, Iowa has it’s own problems. As one of the ‘swing states’ it’s one of the most hotly contested areas of the US, where presidential campaigns and the vast influx of private money enabled by ‘Citizens United’ has led to some amazing expenditure figures.</div><div class="redbox" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b><span class="header">INFO</span></b> The electoral college system allocates a number of votes equal to the number of members of congress that state has. Thus every state has at least three (two Senators and a Representative) with California having 55 (two Senators and 53 Representatives). All states except Maine and Nebraska use a winner-takes-all method for assigning their votes. This can lead to situations where the winner of the nationwide popular vote can lose the election. This last happened in 2000)</span></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This video by National Public Radio shows the difference between votes, and the importance of swing states, where the state’s overall preference is not clear-cut. </div><br />
<center><iframe frameborder="0" height="338" scrolling="no" src="http://www.npr.org/templates/event/embeddedVideo.php?storyId=163632378" width="600"></iframe></center><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">But the accusation levelled against international observers – that they will interfere with the election - is a worrying one. It seems people are unwilling to accept that there can be any problems with accountability, and that the US has any problem with democracy and elections. As we’ve seen, this isn’t true. As <a href="http://falkvinge.net/2012/02/28/the-real-voter-fraud/" title="The Real Voter Fraud">previously discussed</a>, there are longstanding misconceptions about the type and frequency of voter-fraud in the US.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Iowa, by contrast, upped the stakes somewhat. Iowa’s Secretary of State, in charge of elections in the state, referenced a certain provision of Iowa law, <a href="http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=82&input=49.104" target="_blank">49.104</a> which lists the people who can be there, along with <a href="http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=82&input=49.105" target="_blank">49.105</a> which says that poll workers can order the arrest of people violating that statute.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Two problems with Secretary Schultz’s assertion.</div><ol style="text-align: justify;"><li>There are actually sections of 49.104 that can authorise their attendance.<br />
Part 5 allows for an observer representing any non-party political organisation. It’s hard to see how an international election monitoring organisation could NOT fall under that.<br />
Specifically part 1 allows anyone charged with performing official duties to be there. Independent election monitors could easily fall under that. Unless of course, it’s referring to state defined official duties. However there is a lovely bit of law that nicely covers this<br />
</li>
<li>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause" target="_blank">Supremacy Clause</a>. Article VI, clause 2 of the US Constitution states <i>“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”</i><br />
In short, anything in the US Constitution, or any US treaty, superceeds Iowa law. Guess what? OSCE is formed via a treaty agreement, which includes <a href="http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304" target="_blank">all members to allow observers</a> from other signatory countries to observe their elections.</li>
</ol><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">And further, if it’s always been illegal, why hasn’t anything been done about it before? OSCE election monitors have been observing US elections <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/264121-texas-sparks-international-row-with-election-observers" target="_blank">since 2002</a> (after the farce of the 2000 election, where a winner <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore" target="_blank">was decided</a> in questionable circumstances. It's certainly touched off a firestorm, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/iowa-joins-texas-tells-international-poll-watchers-dont-mess-with-us/" target="_blank">involving</a> the US' Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">When discussing this with Amelia Andersdotter (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Andersdotter" target="_blank">Swedish MEP</a>) last week, she too noted the ability for Schultz to allow the observers under the state law. His flat out refusal to allow that certainly disappointed her.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>"It is sad to see the American political institutions react in this way to the election observers. At a time when voter turn-out is sinking, and the trust in democratic institutions is very low they could not possible lose from having more transparency in their process. Unfortunately this will only undermine further the low confidence people (especially the young) have in the democratic system they find themselves in. One would have hoped that the American authorities could have done better.</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Amelia is not the only elected official to express distaste over the actions. Russia’s Central Election Commission chief has <a href="https://rt.com/politics/russia-us-elections-churov-voting-machines-648/" target="_blank">also decried things</a>, calling the system amongst "the worst in the world". He does have a point. As both the head of the US party, and PPI, I've helped to get parties registered around the world. The requirements for most countries to be recognized as a political party are significantly easier than the US, where each state has their own set of requirements. In fact, most US states have stricter requirements to register a party than most countries. And the US is also one of the few to have a electoral result barrier in order to STAY a party. In fact, it's not too much of a stretch to say that it's easier for me to register a party in Russia, than it is to register one in Georgia - and I don't speak Russian!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Meanwhile, these two are not the only states looking to make this a highly contentious election. Ohio, another swing state and the state with the most spent per-person, has made also acted in a way to question the honesty of elections there.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Over the weekend, it was revealed that in many of the counties, voting machines have had a new, untested and uncertified <a href="http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2012/4766" target="_blank">‘patch’ installed</a>. By bypassing the strict methods used to ensure the integrity of the already-suspect electronic voting machines.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It has led to an <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/mia-in-voting-machine-war_b_2054411.html" target="_blank">FBI investigation</a>, especially as one Cincinnati, Ohio news station ran a <a href="http://www.fox19.com/story/19919995/reality-check-the-facts-behind-whether-hamilton-countys-voting-machines-can-be-hacked" target="_blank">piece late last month detailing</a> how easy Hamilton County (considered by many to be a key county in the battleground state) voting machines are to compromise, as well as their ties to Romney supporters and former co-workers.</div><div class="redbox" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #cccccc;"><b><span style="color: #cc0000;"><span class="header">DISCLOSURE</span></span></b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: #cc0000;"> I’ve been friends with a volunteer in Obamas’ Hamilton, Ohio <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizing_for_America">org</a>. for about 15 years</span></span></span></span></div><br />
<center><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="338" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vs-HOaZzeMs" width="600"></iframe></center><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">This is after the state had <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/31/federal-judge-restores-3-early-voting-days-in-ohio/" target="_blank">lost a lawsuit</a> over restricting early voting to just the military (who tend to be republican voters) over the last few days. Despite being told it was designed solely to give preferential voting status to certain classes of citizens, they charged ahead saying it was to ‘help the military. However, the change in law didn’t give the military anything new; it just took it away from non-military voters. Especially those that don’t have jobs that allow people time to vote on Tuesday. As a result instead of stopping voting entirely, the hours are just <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/18/1038521/despite-court-order-ohios-gop-election-chief-is-still-cutting-back-early-voting/?mobile=nc" target="_blank">significantly cut</a>. And to cap it all, this past weekend has seen an emergency order issued which <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/ohios-provisional-ballot-order-the-biggest-legal-story-of-the-weekend/264498/" target="_blank">may invalidate a large number</a> of early votes, in a manner that may not be in accord with state law.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The final result is, with two of the key battleground states actively performing in an anti-democratic (some might say Anti-American) way, any sort of legitimacy the US hopes to have in terms of democratic agendas and integrity is out the window, especially as its officers of one of the two major parties behind it. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">If the US wants to be taken seriously, it needs to crack down on these enemies of democracy, and destroy any ability for any sort of electoral corruption to take hold.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">This piece was first published on <a href="http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/05/iowa-ohio-and-texas-take-stand-against-transparent-elections/" target="_blank">Falkvinge.net</a> and is released under a CC0 license</span></b> </div></div>K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-25950624791277878932012-10-31T14:21:00.000-04:002012-10-31T14:34:43.458-04:00Breitbart - Targeting the Innumerate<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMfHM1fUUqRsi_f12lXGyXvasqC5PK13b2jw0SGfdptRtaTC4v0CNwJArD52sQCiIVgLV3YgTIgQ3JH6HwiNVLuzXTthKmyFMk0bGLNbHcb7n3s7FBENQSMEZM2-sv6aKq00RpLo0lYZM/s1600/innumeracy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: justify;"><br /><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMfHM1fUUqRsi_f12lXGyXvasqC5PK13b2jw0SGfdptRtaTC4v0CNwJArD52sQCiIVgLV3YgTIgQ3JH6HwiNVLuzXTthKmyFMk0bGLNbHcb7n3s7FBENQSMEZM2-sv6aKq00RpLo0lYZM/s200/innumeracy.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
This caught my eye today. I subscribe to the Breitbart
email list, not so much because I believe the politics, but because it’s often
amusing to see the ways a masterful lack of intellect can be played. It really
is a class lesson in manipulation, and fear-mongering.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One of their more recent actions has been fundraising for
the Republicans (shows how little they consider themselves a ‘news source’ when
they’re openly campaigning for political candidates and PACs) but today there
was one that caught my eye, mainly because it was so bold, I couldn’t let it
pass without comment.</div>
<a name='more'></a><o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
It starts by talking about a $2Million target that they
set 2-3 weeks ago. Then, and here’s the important bit, they say any donation
will be <u>triple</u>-matched. Those exact words</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
Every donation recieved in the next 48 hours will be
TRIPLE MATCHED.</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Then it goes on, for the less mathematically inclined, to
give examples (screeengrabs of the emails are at the bottom), such as:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
*** Your gift of $25 today is worth $75.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
*** If you donate $50 right now, the NRSC will receive
$150.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
*** And if you can find a way to contribute $100, that
will result in a total amount of $300, which would be an incredible help.</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
There’s just one big problem I’ve spotted here. That’s
not Triple-matching. That’s <b><span style="color: #cc0000;">DOUBLE</span></b> matching.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Let me break it down.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
If it is<b> matched</b>, then for every $25 given, it is matched
with $25 to a total of $50<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
If it’s <b>Double-matched</b>, then $25 is matched with $50 for
a total of $75<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>TRIPLE matching</b> $25 would mean $75 is matched giving a
total of $100<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
The fact is, the Breitbart site supposedly caters to the
Right. Generally these people go on about how we must be better about money, and
indeed many Breitbart emails have arrived in my inbox begging me to donate to
Romney (a man whose business experience <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html">isn’t quite what it’s made out to be</a>)
to ‘save the economy’.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
Turns out, the people they’re targeting, have no clue
about basic maths. They’re being played for fools. It's also deceptive advertising.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
And as a side-note, just who exactly is doing to be doing
the double-matching? Neither the email, OR the site it links to (no less than 5
times) shows it (screengrabs are included below) give any indication who it is.
Frankly, I’d be worried who it was, and why. But when you’re part of a crowd,
racing headlong in the maelstrom of sheer pig-ignorance, you’re probably not
thinking enough to ask basic questions like that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibTJ-jRrJ4sAgh7uVl3-1xyu-Ik57MLWPBPFfDYCPJJMEMFEdksx5zqytIxQoyrTaqU01IN-mE49x8fwYSGI1A9BO6G2JyAI45rT8pRsPvudTfTFsJGzVVvTvIUhunq83nu_PZ_jDsA10/s1600/The+next+48+hours+-+Breitbart+mail+-+Gmail.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibTJ-jRrJ4sAgh7uVl3-1xyu-Ik57MLWPBPFfDYCPJJMEMFEdksx5zqytIxQoyrTaqU01IN-mE49x8fwYSGI1A9BO6G2JyAI45rT8pRsPvudTfTFsJGzVVvTvIUhunq83nu_PZ_jDsA10/s200/The+next+48+hours+-+Breitbart+mail+-+Gmail.png" width="200" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigoWefjRyn1LMmOGleCtnIQtHVTNFf5Sg2NvNvXjBd8JjqEiwu1vxA6MtbEuDvqV4BsCaLdrG77UQZG1-rT0LPkqXVqJWTLVYCUAd7SjIiCQ4crFTFD9-lmyVfZQsIOoNMaPyTahnw79A/s1600/TRIPLE+YOUR+IMPACT+---+%25242+MILLION+DOLLAR+GOAL+%25C2%25BB+NRSC+-+National+Republican+Senatorial+Committee.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="100" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigoWefjRyn1LMmOGleCtnIQtHVTNFf5Sg2NvNvXjBd8JjqEiwu1vxA6MtbEuDvqV4BsCaLdrG77UQZG1-rT0LPkqXVqJWTLVYCUAd7SjIiCQ4crFTFD9-lmyVfZQsIOoNMaPyTahnw79A/s200/TRIPLE+YOUR+IMPACT+---+%25242+MILLION+DOLLAR+GOAL+%25C2%25BB+NRSC+-+National+Republican+Senatorial+Committee.png" width="200" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-785727435884999126.post-31658373391402130302012-10-29T16:10:00.000-04:002013-01-07T21:09:14.488-05:00Is it Time to Police the Police?<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRW-BiKKK5xkDANDZf5fQSSoW4AbWzmjWHvdazjwTkAt9obNSYiINwakJUFCizv6TJ5p4_1ujm-nvMZLbheKRIDdyOUnWT5NIh20ZZZukIVMMJqnQm4-hlwuqM0u8-fEJI8hRMOPpKDIM/s1600/thin+blue+line.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRW-BiKKK5xkDANDZf5fQSSoW4AbWzmjWHvdazjwTkAt9obNSYiINwakJUFCizv6TJ5p4_1ujm-nvMZLbheKRIDdyOUnWT5NIh20ZZZukIVMMJqnQm4-hlwuqM0u8-fEJI8hRMOPpKDIM/s200/thin+blue+line.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">'The 'thin blue line' - a barrier<br />
shielding officers from responsibility?</td></tr>
</tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;">Every week, somewhere in the US, there's a story of some kind of police activity that leads people scratching their head, or saying 'That isn't right'. It's an issue that's been around as long as police officers have and has become a cliche, accepted without question. The problem is that it's a problem that's only getting worse, not better, and it's a problem that's not being addressed.</div><a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">Law Enforcement - the name sounds majestic, but the reality is anything but. On the streets today, a number of police officers will conduct crimes, and face not even casual questioning of it, much less any sort of punishment. It has truly turned into a world where people are above the law.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This was an issue I started thinking about at Dragoncon when we ran the annual panel of '10 rules for dealing with the police'. Our expected speakers cancelled at the last moment, so we solicited tales from the audience. In the end we had three people who had bad experiences with police officers, two of them were former Law Enforcement officers themselves. If you want to hear their stories, the audio is available on the track's <a href="http://archive.efforums.net/index.php/2012-schedule-and-audio.html" target="_blank">archive site</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Then there was this story at <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/cop-accused-of-tackling-15-year-old-in-retaliation-for-videotaping/" target="_blank">ArsTechnica</a>, A plain-clothes officer, in an unmarked car, stopped a teenager who was going through a park on his way home, then physically tackles the kid because he decided to videotape it, while sitting on the ground complying. Now, if you or I had attacked a kid, and there was evidence of it, we'd be locked up and waiting to see the judge. This officer is on 'desk duty'. Not arrested, not imprisoned, but still working for the police department and being paid.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the most famous incidents of police brutality was Lt. Pike, at UC Davis. The infamous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident#Pepper-spray_incident" target="_blank">pepper-sprayer</a>, who used a chemical weapon in violation of it's guidelines on use, and did so on a group of seated individuals. If you need to be reminded, here it is again.</div><br />
<center> <iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WmJmmnMkuEM?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></center><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">Indeed, there are now <a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=police+violence&oq=police+violence&gs_l=youtube.3...0.0.0.3763.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1ac." target="_blank">TENS OF THOUSANDS</a> of videos on youtube showing officers violating the law, committing criminal acts, or condoning them through inaction.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">There have been instances in the UK as well. Two famous cases occurred in London, In 2005 there was the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, and in 2009 the death of Ian Tomlinson. Both were killed by police officers, and had committed no crime.</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;">de Menzes death was at the hands of the SAS-trained SO19 firearms squad. They believed him to be someone else, involved in bombing the previous day. Regardless, the officers charged him down, threw him to the floor, and fired. Seven shots to the head, and one to the shoulder. They had mistaken him for a suspect that lived in the same building, a fatal mistake for de Menezes.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;">Such a serious flaw would naturally lead to arrests, trials, etc. yes? No. Cressida Dick, the person in charge of the operation, has been promoted twice since then, and is now the Assistant Commissioner for Special Operations. None of the firearms officers involved were disciplined, or even identified publicly.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Tomlinson" target="_blank">Ian Tomlinson</a> is, if anything, worse. A man attempting to get home from his place of work during the G20 protests is quite literally attacked by police officers. He was attacked from behind; and thrown to the floor. When on the floor, he remonstrated with police, then was helped to his feet by a protester, and started to walk off. Some 60meters (200ft) down the road, he collapsed. He never got up. When passers -by (including a news photographer) attempted to give medical assistance, the police forced them away. Tomlinson died before he reached the hospital.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;">Despite Tomlinson offering no resistance, doing nothing but standing with his hands in his pockets, a full-strength strike was performed by PC Simon Harwood, on the back of Tomlinson's legs; followed by pushing him to the ground, where his head struck the pavement. He had committed no crime, had ignored no order, his only 'crime' was to be present. It wasn't until this footage was found, that the police even admitted any misconduct had happened, instead they <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Tomlinson#.281_April.29_First_police_statement" target="_blank">flat-out lied</a> about it.<o:p></o:p></div><br />
<center><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HECMVdl-9SQ?rel=0" width="480"></iframe></center></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;">The aggressor, PC Simon Harwood, was finally <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620627" target="_blank">fired</a> last month by the Met for his actions, the second time he’d left the London force. In the late 90s he left on medical grounds and was awarded a medical pension, coincidentally while waiting to face a disciplinary board for <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/05/query-g20-assault-case-officer" target="_blank">misconduct in aroad rage incident</a>.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;">The problem seems to be increasingly exacerbated by the ‘threat aware’ mentality of police officers these days. Officers are seeing every interaction in terms of threats, and a need to control the situation. This domination mind-set invariably starts things off on the wrong foot and leads to confrontation and distrust. <o:p></o:p></div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;">But exacerbating it is the ‘closed ranks’ mentality – the ‘<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Code_of_Silence" target="_blank">blue shield</a>’ that protects officers. It usually shows itself as ‘<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omert%C3%A0" target="_blank">Omertà</a> and is nearly impossible to penetrate.</div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;">Those that do, such as the NYPD officer Frank Serpico (who testified about systemic corruption in the NYPD in the late 60s/early 70s, after being <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Serpico#Shooting_and_public_interest" target="_blank">shot and abandoned</a> on a drugs raid), are often ostracised. When Serpico got the departments not medal, the ‘New York City Police Department Medal of Honor’ It wasn’t in a ceremony, it was without the pomp and circumstance you would expect, because not only were they ashamed of it, they didn’t want to encourage others.<o:p></o:p></div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;">And this doesn't even come close to the problems when it's the chiefs, and not just the patrolling officers that have the problem, such as Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has had his jails <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio#Unconstitutional_jail_conditions" target="_blank">ruled unconstitutional</a>, and has been investigated for intimidation and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio#Abuse_of_power" target="_blank">abuse of power</a>. But what can you do? Walk up and arrest him?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">All in all, we're seeing a <a href="http://falkvinge.net/2011/08/10/the-consequence-of-no-consequences/" target="_blank">'consequence of no-consequences'</a>, as rights and procedures which would be followed for your or I, are <a href="http://falkvinge.net/2012/02/03/no-civil-rights-for-you/" target="_blank">ignored for actions performed by law enforcement</a>.</div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></div><div class="MsoNoSpacing"><div style="text-align: justify;">So, what should we do? That’s something that will be addressed in part two, but if you have suggestions, by all means leave them in the comments.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">This piece was also published at <a href="http://falkvinge.net/?p=13944">Falkvinge.net</a> and is released under a CC0 license</span></i></div></div></div>K`Tetchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12923661185364709506noreply@blogger.com0