“That sound you hear? It’s the Bill of Rights being torn in half. Talk about losing the war on terror. Who needs external forces threatening your way of life when your elected lawmakers are doing such a good job of it?”
- Cory Doctorow

Senate Approves Bill to Broaden Wiretap Powers

The Senate gave final approval on Wednesday to a major expansion of the government’s surveillance powers, handing President Bush one more victory in a series of hard-fought clashes with Democrats over national security issues.

The measure, approved by a vote of 69 to 28, is the biggest revamping of federal surveillance law in 30 years. It includes a divisive element that Mr. Bush had deemed essential: legal immunity for the phone companies that cooperated in the National Security Agency wiretapping program

- Eric Lichtblau, NY Times (July 10, 2008): Link.

Slashdot reports: Senate Passes Telecom Immunity Bill.

And yes — Barack Obama voted for it.

“It’s like a permit to spill.”

Twenty years after Exxon Valdez slimed over one thousand miles of Alaskan beaches, the company has yet to pay the $5 billion in punitive damages awarded by the jury. And now they won’t have to. The Supreme Court today cut Exxon’s liability by 90% to half a billion. It’s so cheap, it’s like a permit to spill.”

Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote that Exxon’s recklessness was ‘’profitless'’ - so the company shouldn’t have to pay punitive damages. Profitless, Mr. Souter? Exxon and its oil shipping partners saved billions - BILLIONS - by operating for sixteen years without the oil spill safety equipment they promised, in writing, under oath and by contract.

The official story is, “Drunken Skipper Hits Reef.” But don’t believe it, Mr. Souter. Alaska’s Native lands and coastline were destroyed by a systematic fraud motivated by profit-crazed penny-pinching.

- Greg Palast: Link.

“Anyone is a potential target.”
- Julian Sanchez

The award for the most bald-faced lie on the House floor Friday, however, goes to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who insisted that the bill “does not allow warrantless surveillance of Americans.” She is wrong. It does.

… The bill … allows the government to conduct “vacuum cleaner” surveillance — sweeping up international traffic willy-nilly — then filter it for anything that looks interesting. Indeed, many believe that licensing such surveillance is precisely the point of this legislation. If so, “warrantless surveillance of Americans” could well become routine, whether or not they are the formal “targets” of eavesdropping.

- Julian Sanchez @ American Prospect (June 25, 2008): Link.

Via Boing Boing: Link.

See also Obama’s support for the FISA “compromise”.

Wikipedia: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

SlashDot reports:

“The Senate mortgage bill proposed by Sen. Chris Dodd (who was the recipient of a sweetheart deal on his mortgage from Countrywide, one of the beneficiaries of the bill) includes an attempt to sneak into law a requirement that all electronic payment processors send detailed transaction data to the federal government. The proposed law contains an exception for businesses with fewer than 200 transactions or a total value less than $10,000. Quoting FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey (former House majority leader) from the article: ‘This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay’s PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America’s small businesses are breathtaking.’”

- StealthyRoid @ SlashDot: Link.

See Also

“Senate Housing Bill Requires eBay, Amazon, Google, and All Credit Card Companies to Report Transactions to the Government”
@ FreedomWorks: Link.

“There’s something perverse about a member of Congress having one of the people who is trying to persuade him what the right answer is raise $100,000 for his campaign.”
- Lawrence Lessig

Stanford professor Lawrence Lessig hates corruption. And he’s trying to do something about it:

I don’t want a world where there are no lobbyists — I think lobbyists are essential. I think the message of lobbyists and the training of lobbyists is essential. Just like I think that what lawyers do before the Supreme Court is essential. But just as I think everybody would think it weird if a lawyer before the Supreme Court would send $100,000 to the Justice Roberts Retirement Fund or $100,000 to the Renovate Justice Roberts’s Office Fund, I think we better recognize there’s something perverse about a member of Congress having one of the people who is trying to persuade him what the right answer is raise $100,000 for his campaign. That’s the link we’ve got to break.

- Lawrence Lessig, interview by Mark Hemingway @ National Review Online: March 7, 2008: Link.

Via Slashdot: Link.

Lawrence Lessig blog: Link.

Wikipedia states:

Lawrence Lessig (born June 3, 1961) is an American academic. He is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. He is founder and CEO of the Creative Commons and a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center, launched in February 2005. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.

At the iCommons iSummit 07 Lessig announced that he will stop focusing his attention on copyright and related matters, and will instead work on corruption in the political system.

- Wikipedia: Link.

“Interviewing Cory Doctorow is easy. You just flip the on switch by asking the first question, and he emits a constant stream of brilliant, insightful stuff.”
- R.U. Sirius

America became an industrial power by being a pirate nation. After the American revolution, America didn’t honor the copyrights or patents of anyone except Americans. If you were a European or British inventor, your stuff could be widely pirated in America. That’s how they got rich. Only after America became a net exporter of copyrighted goods did it start to enter into treaties with other countries whereby American inventors and authors would be protected abroad in exchange for those foreign authors being protected in America.

- Cory Doctorow (interviewed by R.U. Sirius) @ 10 Zen Monkeys: link.

“The appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs could not sue because they can’t prove they were affected by the program, and at the same time, ruled that details about the program, including who was targeted, are state secrets.”

A U.S. appeals court has ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit against the U.S. National Security Agency for a wiretapping program because it said the plaintiffs haven’t been hurt by the agency’s actions.

A divided three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled today that the lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and a group of journalists, lawyers and academics, be sent back to a district court judge to be dismissed.

… In January [2007], the closed-door U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorized the U.S. government to wiretap phone and Internet communications involving suspected terrorists, and the court-approved program replaced the NSA program.

… The appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs could not sue because they can’t prove they were affected by the program, and at the same time, ruled that details about the program, including who was targeted, are state secrets.

[Computerworld]

Via SlashDot.

See also Kafkaesque.

Wiretapping: the power of aggregate data

… Snooping on just my phone calls, no whoop. However they have the computer power to snoop on everyones calls simultaneously, aggregate the data, look for patterns, and it is so secret they 1) can’t document abuses 2) can’t discipline anyone who abuses it.

eg: if 1000 people call in to the brokers to sell their Haliburton stock at the same time, a flag might instantly pop up on the VP’s computer, and automatically sell his stock first. Knowing one persons calls to trade a stock, meaningless, knowing a 1000 insiders did simultaneously, priceless.

Japan was accused of doing stuff like this back in the 70’s. eg: The phone Company would automatically take fax’s sent or received out of country, and copy them to any interested company’s, “in the nations best interest”. So if a American executive in japan faxed out a private bid for a contract to his home office, that fax would get to the Japanese business also bidding…

[Dare nMc: SlashDot]

Over at Boing Boing, Cory Doctorow observes how ICANN policy initiatives would require “… that some perfectly infallible institution be set up to rake in gigantic profits from the sex industry while accurately dividing all material on the web into ‘porn’ and ‘not-porn.’ “

Wendy Seltzer has a great essay up today about the process by which ICANN is allocating new top-level domains (TLDs, like .com, .net, .org, and so forth). Wendy is the copyfighting civil liberties cyberlawyer who founded Chilling Effects and previously worked with me at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. She’s served on the ICANN board for years — this is the US-chartered corporation that oversees the domain name system, the only really centrally governed piece of the entire Internet.

ICANN has been thrashing for years over the creation of more TLDs, like “.sex” — the idea is to recapture the edenic glory days when all .COMs were companies, all .ORGs were educational institutions and all .WS sites were in Western Samoa. A .sex TLD would be overseen so that only porn sites got .sex domains, and so that porn sites would be forced out of the .com/net/org spaces. This merely requires that some perfectly infallible institution be set up to rake in gigantic profits from the sex industry while accurately dividing all material on the web into “porn” and “not-porn.” Simple.

[Boing Boing]

One more time, with feeling:

This merely requires that some perfectly infallible institution be set up to rake in gigantic profits from the sex industry while accurately dividing all material on the web into “porn” and “not-porn.” Simple.

The good news: “Another faction has bigger ideas: they want to blow the lid off of DNS, to allow for the creation of an infinite number of TLDs. Wendy is in this faction and in “Aging the Internet Prematurely,” she sets out a stirring call-to-arms for the TLD multiverse.”

See Aging the Internet Prematurely, One PDP at a Time by Wendy Seltzer

“The lawyers representing the families of four American Blackwater contractors killed in Fallujah make the case that the company’s executives are suing the families to keep them quiet and to avoid any accountability.”

… The surviving family members looked to Blackwater for answers as to how and why their loved ones died. Blackwater not only refused to give the grieving families any information, but also callously stated that they would need to sue Blackwater to get it. Left with no alternative, in January 2005, the families filed suit against Blackwater, which is owned by the wealthy and politically-connected Erik Prince.

Blackwater … initially hired Fred F. Fielding, who is currently counsel to the President of the United States. It then hired Joseph E. Schmitz as its in-house counsel, who was formerly the Inspector General at the Pentagon. More recently, Blackwater employed Kenneth Starr, famed prosecutor in the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, to oppose the families. To add additional muscle, Blackwater hired Cofer Black, who was the Director of the CIA Counter- Terrorist Center.

… The families claim that Blackwater is attempting to cover up its incompetence, its cutting of corners in favor of higher profits, and its over billing to the government.

… Blackwater also stonewalled the families concerning any information about how the men were killed.

… Blackwater [is] suing the families for $10 million …. Blackwater has also threatened to hold the administrator of the estates personally liable to scare him into abandoning his position, and has threatened the families’ attorneys as well.

… Blackwater’s lawsuit now seeks to gag the family members from even speaking about the incident or about Blackwater’s involvement in the deaths. This is a direct attack to their free speech rights under the First Amendment.

[Daniel J. Callahan and Marc P. Miles: AlterNet]

Via Giant Monster.

Stephan Orsak is a professional violinist, and has performed under Leonard Bernstein, Kurt Masur and Seiji Ozawa.

He is about to go to trial on six counts, including a Gross Misdemeanor of Obstructing Legal Process ‘with force or violence or threat thereof,’ after he was tased by a police officer who stopped him for riding a bike out of the airport.

What happened?
I was rudely accosted, assaulted with battery, and tased at Minneapolis St Paul USA international airport by Airport Police, simply for choosing to leave the airport by bicycle. I had broken no laws. I use a bicycle as a significant part of my daily mode of travel. I have legally cycled to and from airports internationally including 3 of the 4 major London airports, with no problems. I was using my bicycle completely in accord with MN Statutes and Metropolitan Airport Commission Ordinances.

When did this happen?
Sept 7 2006, approx 6:10pm

Where did this happen?
On the Outbound Roadway (also called Glumack Drive), just east of the post office and west of the highway.

Who would have witnessed it?
Many people. It was full daylight, and in view of the “A” concourse. Anyone leaving the airport would have passed the scene of the incident. The extensive 800+ CCTV video camera system at the airport, fully updated since 9-11, must have recorded everything, and with multiple viewpoints.

[greencycles]

Via Boing Boing.

Bo Lipari reports: “Over the last two months Microsoft and a cadre of high paid lobbyists have been working a full-court press in Albany in an attempt to bring about a serious weakening of New York State election law.”

On Thursday, June 14, I recieved a copy of proposed changes to New York State Election Law [Link to PDF] drafted by Microsoft attorneys that has been circulating among the Legislature. These changes would gut the source code escrow and review provisions provided in our current law, which were fought for and won by election integrity activists around the state and adopted by the Legislature in June 2005. In an earlier blog I wrote about Microsoft’s unwillingness to comply with New York State’s escrow and review requirements. Now the software giant has gone a step further, not just saying “we won’t comply with your law” but actively trying to change state law to serve their corporate interests. Microsoft’s attorneys drafted an amendment which would add a paragraph to Section 1-104 of NYS Election Law defining “election-dedicated voting system technology”. Microsoft’s proposed change to state law would effectively render our current requirements for escrow and the ability for independent review of source code in the event of disputes completely meaningless - and with it the protections the public fought so hard for.

[Bo Lipari: Link]

Via SlashDot, which observes that “Microsoft is siding with the makers of voting machines that run on Windows — the company doesn’t want its code inspected by outsiders.”

Mark Hurst reports on morgueFile: public image reference archive

… If you aren’t the copyright holder of a particular image you want to use in you blog, you need to get permission from the copyright holder first.

However, you are free to download and use photos from Morguefile.com, a large searchable archive of beautiful, high-resolution photos (like the one shown here). You can even use them for commercial purposes.

[Mark Hurst: Rule the Web]

See Also:

How To Find Great Free Photos for Your Blog by Andrew Ferguson

Firing the Troublemakers?

The controversy around the firing of several U.S. attorneys in December has dominated the news coming out of Congress this week and Congresspedia’s staff and citizen editors have been busy tracking developments on our thorough page on the subject. Of central importance to the controversy is the issue of why those eight particular U.S. attorneys were fired …. In the case of some of the fired attorneys, it appears that the offense committed may have been their investigations into Republican officials, including members of Congress, in the lead-up to the 2006 congressional elections.

Here is a look at four of the attorneys at issue and their respective corruption investigations:

Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney for the District of San Diego: In 2005, Lam sent Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) to jail for eight years and eight months for multiple felonies including tax evasion and accepting bribes. Cunningham, a leading Republican member of the Appropriations Committee, had been receiving bribes from Mitchell Wade, a defense contractor who was also convicted by Lam, and allegedly from Brent Wilkes, another defense contractor and huge campaign contributor to President Bush’s 2004 reelection committee. Days before she was forced to resign, Lam brought indictments against Wilkes and his friend, the former #3 at the C.I.A., K. Dusty Foggo, on multiple felony counts including conspiracy and wire fraud. Lam’s investigation into Wilkes was leading her to examine his close relationship with other California Republicans including the powerful former Appropriations Chair Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.). Recent revelations also show that a contract given to Wade by the Office of the Vice President may be connected to a yacht purchased by Wade for Cunningham.

Paul Charlton, U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona: In late October 2006, two liberal blogs revealed — later confirmed by the Associated Press and the Washington Post — that U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton had opened an investigation into a land deal made by Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and a business partner, James Sandlin. Days after this investigation came to light, the New York Times reported that the Attorney’s office had also opened an investigation into whether Renzi introduced legislation that benefited a military contractor who donated heavily to his campaigns and employs his father.

Daniel Bogden, U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada: On February 15, 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported that Daniel Bogden was investigating the newly elected Governor of Nevada, former-Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.), for allegedly accepting unreported gifts and/or payments from a campaign contributor and earmark recipient, Warren Trepp. The investigation examined the relationship between the former congressman and Trepp between the years 1997-2007. The Journal did not report when the investigation was opened.

Bud Cummins, U.S. Attorney for the District of Arkansas: In January 2006, Cummins opened an investigation into “allegations that Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt had rewarded GOP supporters with lucrative contracts to run the state’s driver’s license offices.” Cummins handled the case because the U.S. Attorneys for Missouri recused themselves over conflict of interest concerns. Cummins stated that he was told he would be fired in June as he was wrapping up the case. Cummins eventually brought no indictments against Gov. Blunt, the son of powerful Republican Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). Cummins has since questioned whether he was fired for opening an investigation into a powerful Republican in a battleground state.

[Center for Media and Democracy]

See also Bush administration U.S. attorney firings controversy

Artificial Intelligence system shut down by court ruling:
“the software was effectively practicing law without a license”

A web-based “expert system” that helped users prepare bankruptcy filings for a fee made too many decisions to be considered a clerical tool, an appeals court said last week, ruling that the software was effectively practicing law without a license.A web-based “expert system” that helped users prepare bankruptcy filings for a fee made too many decisions to be considered a clerical tool, an appeals court said last week, ruling that the software was effectively practicing law without a license.

[wired.com]

Via Boing Boing.