U.K. to impose restrictions on Internet pornography

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You'll excuse the crassness of the tweet I wrote yesterday, posted below. But how is one to respond to Prime Minister Cameron's announcement that the British government intends to impose restrictions on Internet pornography?

Look, I'm not defending (all) Internet porn, and I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with porn. But the point should be to crack down on illegal porn -- depicting children, criminal violence, etc. -- not to demand that there be filters that customers must turn off if they want to see any adult content. First, this isn't going to stop anything that ought to be stopped. And second, it's about freedom, and the right of people to consume information/entertainment as they please.

Even if you argue that the purpose here is to go after criminal activity, it's clearly the thin end of a dangerous wedge that could see the government and its corporate partners intrude ever deeper into people's private lives -- a slippery slope, if you will.

Consider the problems: Who decides what is and is not appropriate content, or what in this case will only be able to be accessed by turning off the filter (thereby announcing one's intent to anyone paying attention)? It's one thing to try to block obviously horrific content. But that's just at the extreme. The massive gray area is another matter entirely. Furthermore, who decides what "horrific" search terms to blacklist, as Cameron put it? And what are those search terms? Again, there may be a number of obvious candidates, but there's a massive gray area otherwise.

The government, obviously. But do you really want the government telling you what you can and can't see on the Internet, or on television, or wherever? And do you really want the government telling you what search terms you can't use? This is the sort of thing authoritarian states do to restrict access to information. Coming from a supposed liberal democracy like the United Kingdom, it's just as appalling. Those who have fought for freedom and won should know better than to turn the clocks back.

Cameron is concerned that pornography is "corroding childhood." Look, I don't want my children seeing it either, in any form, but censorship is hardly the answer. Criminal activity should obviously be dealt with under the law. But free people should be able to be free, genuinely free, without the government legislating its own narrow idea of morality. Because there's no telling where it might stop.

Looking forward to XXX porn video featuring character named "David Cameron" into spanking and pegging. Called "Cum Through the Tory Hole."
— Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) July 23, 2013

Dictatorships 101, in 2011

Guest post by Ali Ezzatyar

Ali Ezzatyar is a journalist and American attorney practising in Paris, France.

(Ed. note: This is Ali's second guest post at The Reaction. In January 2010, he co-wrote a post on Iran with Bryan Tollin. -- MJWS)

As Egypt moves ever closer to life without Hosni Mubarak, governments and analysts everywhere ponder the important question of what will come next. The conventional and clichéd wisdom pronounced by pundits and politicians the world over focuses on the risk of a dramatic rise to power for the Muslim Brotherhood and the inevitability of a new Islamist, and implicitly dictatorial, ruling establishment. Disaster for the U.S., for Israel, and for the future of Egypt, right? If the events of recent weeks demonstrate anything, however, it is that dictatorship is increasingly difficult to manufacture in the age of modern communications.

Let's take a step back and acknowledge exactly what these Twitter and Facebook "revolutions" have managed to overcome in just Tunisia and Egypt so far (bearing in mind events in Jordan and Yemen as well). Former president Ben-Ali ruled over Tunisia, with the help of a highly-trained secret police force (among other levers of control), for over 20 years. Just weeks before he fled the country, few a Tunisian would have ever imagined a day where he and his cronies would not dominate the landscape of politics and life in Tunisia for as long as he lived. What had largely been considered one of the most stable and pacified populations in the Arab world, however, took to the streets in large numbers, rendering the president's apparatus of control inoperable against the masses of people from which it was drawn. Increasingly facing the possibility of internal betrayal and what that would mean for his own head, Ben-Ali fled. What happened afterwards, however, was in many ways more remarkable than his being deposed.

The government that immediately replaced the Ben-Ali regime was largely made up of his associates. And while that new government immediately pledged and took concrete steps to dismantle the means of censorship and develop democratic institutions, the Tunisian population, well-informed, continued to protest. Staging demonstrations and continuing to put pressure on a still-infant government, remaining elements from the old guard were purged from the new interim regime. All the evidence suggests that Tunisia is on its way to democratic institution-building and free elections. From communication to coordination, it is hard to imagine how such an historic sequence of events could have happened without the Internet tools that have only become widely used in the region in the last few years.

Events in Egypt are, in the most important ways, following a similar trajectory. While such events are impossible to predict, it is reasonable to hypothesize that, as in Tunisia, no group that fills the potential power vacuum in Egypt will have the clout, influence, or muscle that Mubarak developed over the last 30 years to implement his dictatorial rule. With the tools at the disposal of the world's citizens today, the fear of new dictatorships springing out of such well-established ones -- former dictatorships that had decades to harness accountability from their repressive systems -- seems almost far-fetched. The protesters and the press, emboldened by the information and images they see and transmit in seconds, are already focusing their rhetoric on a post-Mubarak era and the avoidance of a failed transition to democracy.

The world's governments that have been criticized for becoming more dictatorial in the last decade seem to have done so through reform, not revolution. Take Venezuela, for example. The specter of an Iranian-type genuine revolution turned radical Islamic regime also seems unlikely in the Egyptian context. The lack of a unified and charismatic Islamic front (with the Muslim Brotherhood being rather late to the game), coupled with the modern means of communication that are helping to topple Mubarak, will threaten to make the consolidation of power for a new dictatorial regime untenable unless it is extremely popular.

Most importantly, though, let's acknowledge that democracy's growing pains, whatever they may be, deserve the opportunity to play themselves out. It is not the business of entities foreign to Egypt to try and divine the potential makeup of a future government, and then exercise preference over whether or not Egyptians have a right to their own destiny. Foreign influence (short of intervention) should be designed to help strengthen populations and countries that seek to take destiny into their own hands, in the model of Tunisia (with the U.S.' encouragement of Ben-Ali's stepping down), and not in the old model of Iran. Note that the undermining of Iran's popular and democratic movements of yesterday are thought to have contributed to the radicalism and anti-Americanism of its revolution and its government today.

U.S. policy suggests it is frantically trying not to be on the wrong side in Egypt, and in the region generally. We should consider, though, the monumental reputational damage the U.S. will sustain if it stands on the side of autocracy or even ambiguity as it has done in the last two weeks. The specter of loss of interests should yield to the realization that only democratic partners in the region can protect our interests permanently, and that those democratic partners had better be our friends.

Tea Partier’s nude photo drama fuels TSA paranoia

By Nicholas Wilbur

Baseless Paranoia isn't a Christian folk band, but if it were Michele Bachmann would be the lead singer.

The Tea Party representative from Minnesota recently added herself to the ever-growing list of Republicans who abhor the space-bubble etiquette violators known as TSA scanners. The reason was not constitutional in nature, surprisingly. It did include a riff about airport security privatization, not surprisingly. But mainly it was personal: Bachmann will avoid TSA scanners because she fears naked pictures of her will turn up on the Internet.

We have always known that there is a vein the size of a fire hose that pumps paranoia into the organs of the Tea Party. What we didn't know, until now, is that the 54-year-old founder of the Tea Party caucus in Congress is a World Wide Web virgin who so trembles at the unknown ether world that she has proposed handing over our national security to the unregulated whims of profit-based corporations in order to thwart potential voyeurs.

It will probably not calm this Heartland harpy to know that beyond the websites and blogs that spew left-wing propaganda, advocate atheism, denounce farm subsidies, demand logic-based political discourse, and lament the intellectual decline of the conservative demographic, there is also a cache of risqué photos of Bachmann already circulating the Internet.

And yes, some of them show the milk maid farm girl of the Breadbasket in the nude. Others show her drinking cocktails with suggestive expressions on her face. Another shows her in the seductive pose of pin-up model. A few show her as the subject of the Spanish Inquisition-era painting, The Naked Maja. And at least one shows her in the least flattering light of all – as a 54-year-old woman (wrinkles, stretch marks, sagging baby feeders, and all.) For all ye who hath grappled with the curse of curiosity, rest assured that none of the photos are worth viewing.

Nor would I recommend sharing the photos with Bachmann. That would be like giving The Origin of Species as a Kwanzaa gift to your creationist Catholic mother-in-law. It would be like showing a copy of the president's birth certificate to your Fox News-addicted grandfather. It would be like returning from a hunting trip and dropping an elk fetus on the dining room table for your six-year-old daughter to dissect as practice for achieving her dream of one day becoming a veterinarian.

Such brisk exposure to the World Wide Web might cast Bachmann into the solitary confinement of a priest's confession chamber for the rest of her life.

Then again, it would be irresponsible to become an enabler of such hyper-paranoia. The truth, as they say, will set you free. So perhaps we should free Bachmann of her ignorance and open her eyes to how ridiculous it is to criticize airport security on the hypothetical basis of leaked nude photos.

The fact is, TSA scanners make us cringe not because they are an infringement on our freedoms, but because we can't accept the fact that we are imperfect beings. We are a nation of fat people living in a hypersensitive society where a blemish is akin to sin, and we will stop at nothing and invest in anything to hide this reality from ourselves.

The makeup, the girdles, the loose-fitting clothing, the attempts by "big-boned" women to draw attention to their oversized breasts – via low-cut blouses and push-up bras – in hopes of drawing attention away from their oversized arses, thighs, and midriffs – these are all zealous yet failed attempts at over-emphasized vanity.

And if you're a man with a complex about having TSA workers mock your less than Herculean genitalia, do what others in your position have done: overcompensate with intelligence. With a million bucks in your pocket, you can hire your own airport security. With a trophy wife on your arm, self-esteem won't matter.

If you fear a grainy x-ray image of your figure being leaked to the web, stop eating at McDonald's, begin an exercise program more vigorous than lifting your fat ass out of the sofa for a second serving of Häagen-Dazs every night, and, most importantly, stop worrying about what you aren't.

As for Bachmann, she's a 54-year-old woman who has brought five beautiful children into the world. A lifetime supply of Victoria's Secret lingerie, Cover Girl, and Mary Kay will not turn you into a pencil-thin supermodel. So get over it. Web surfing voyeurs jacking off to ultrasound images of your pixilated silhouette should not be a source of paranoia.

Especially not when there are Kenyan colonialists turning this country into a socialist state populated by pot-smoking liberals bent on upending the Constitution and stomping on the graves of our Founding Fathers. Get your fucking priorities straight.

There's no need to start calling for Israeli interrogation-style airport security just because our body parts don't point in the same direction they did as vestal maidens and strapping young lads.

I can promise that a TSA image of Michele Bachmann wouldn't go viral. Most of us already know what a middle-aged woman looks like nude (we can all thank Kathy Bates for the hot tub scene in About Schmidt for that revelation).

We expect more from our elected representatives in the United States Congress than this.

(Cross-posted from Muddy Politics.)

Freedom vs. corporate authoritarianism: The FCC and net neutrality, Apple and WikiLeaks

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As we move into an ever more virtual, digital world, there can be no genuine freedom without net neutrality. But it has to be all-out net neutrality, not limited net neutrality that gives ISPs, our corporate overlords, the ability to restrict our access to content.

The FCC -- with three Democrats and two Republicans -- voted yesterday "to approve its first ever Internet access regulation," as The Washington Post reports. The new rule "ensures unimpeded access to any legal Web content for home Internet users." 

But not really.

While the regulation is certainly a step in the right direction (one that Republicans oppose and are doing everything they can to block, so beholden are they to our corporate overlords and so opposed are they to genuine free speech, and access to free speech), and while President Obama claims it "will help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet while encouraging innovation, protecting consumer choice, and defending free speech," it only goes so far -- and not nearly far enough.

Two of the FCC's Democratic members agree but essentially had to vote for "weak rules or no rules at all." Wherein lies the problem? Where does the regulation fall short?

The agency's two Republican members voted against the rules, showing support for Internet service providers who say the regulations will impede their ability to create new business plans to expand their broadband networks and boost speed.

[FCC Chairman Julius] Genachowski said the measure represents a compromise between industry and consumer interests.

"I reject both extremes in favor of a strong and sensible framework -- one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment," Genachowski said.

The same provisions do not apply as strongly to cellphone users because the agency voted to keep wireless networks generally free of rules preventing the blocking and slowing of Web traffic.

The Republican argument is both dishonest and nonsensical. Republicans want ISPs to make as much money as possible while controlling access to content -- that is, bluntly, to allow ISPs to restrict accessible content to corporate-approved content; that is, to Republican-friendly content.

Genachowski's argument is somewhat defensible, though as the deciding vote he didn't have to appease the Republicans -- it's not like they voted for this supposed compromise, after all. A more robust regulation could have passed 3-2 as well.

The problem is that this supposedly "strong and sensible framework" has a gaping hole in it -- namely, Internet access through mobile devices and wireless networks. Under the regulation, you'll be able to access what you want at home, through your ISP, but not necessarily on the go on your iPhone, BlackBerry, or other portable device. So how does the new rule protect freedom and openness?

Here's how Sen. Al Franken put it on Monday:

As a source of innovation, an engine of our economy, and a forum for our political discourse, the Internet can only work if it's a truly level playing field. Small businesses should have the same ability to reach customers as powerful corporations. A blogger should have the same ability to find an audience as a media conglomerate...

For many Americans -- particularly those who live in rural areas -- the future of the Internet lies in mobile services. But the draft Order would effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content, applications, and devices on mobile Internet connections.

Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to shut off your access to content or applications for any reason. For instance, Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it costs money to use and isn't nearly as good. Or a mobile provider with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an app that connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a Tea Party group in your area).

I'm not sure if the new rule is "worse than nothing," but Franken goes on to address its other problems and makes a persuasive case.

Yes, it's still a step in the right direction, I think, but, given Republicans' objections to net neutrality altogether, shouldn't Democrats push for all-out net neutrality instead of promoting compromises, as Obama himself is doing, that give ISPs much of what they want? Why isn't the choice between net neutrality or no net neutrality instead of between some net neutrality or no net neutrality?

Once again, this looks like Democrats caving in to Republican demands and allowing the range of options to be shifted to the right.

And, politically, this should be a winnable issue for Democrats, who can make the case, as Franken does, that this is about access to content generally, not just to left-wing, pro-Democratic content. Conservatives are very much in bed with our corporate overlords, which are generally on the Republican right, but who's to say that non-neutrality wouldn't result in restrictions on access to right-wing content as well?

Isn't freedom non-partisan? Can't Democrats make the case that you're either for freedom or for corporate authoritarianism?

**********

Case in point:

As The New York Times reports, Apple has removed a WikiLeaks app from iTunes, claiming that the app "violated [its] developer guidelines." "Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or group in harm's way," said an Apple spokesperson. (The app was unofficial, not formally endorsed by WikiLeaks.)

As The Guardian notes, "this is all part of the momentum behind the campaign to silence Wikileaks, and ultimately to extradite Julian Assange."

Whether you approve of WikiLeaks or not, though, the issue isn't WikiLeaks, or Assange, but full access to content that governments and ISPs might not like. I don't support white supremacism, but I support access to white supremacist content, however despicable I may find it. And, while the truth-revealers at WikiLeaks are the current targets of governments and corporations, I'm sure you can find an extraordinary amount of white supremacist and neo-Nazi content on the Internet. The point is to keep it all free. That's net neutrality.

No one says you have to like all the content you can find on the Internet. You're free not to like it, just as you should be free to access it.

Of course, Apple's point is about illegality. An app promoting child pornography, for example, should never be allowed. Some content, obviously, is illegal.

But WikiLeaks and child pornography are two very different things. As Sean Paul Kelley puts it at The Agonist, "Wikileaks has broken no laws that the New York Times hasn't broken. The Pentagon and Biden and The State Department have all said no one has died as a result of the leaks. But it has embarrassed our leaders."

So is this really about illegality? Or is it not rather about a major corporation (once thought to be a radical one, contra Microsoft) blocking access to legitimate content?

Kelley adds: "Free speech will not be regulated by the Federal Government. The Bill Of Rights guarantees it won't. But there is nothing in the constitution to stop corporations from regulating speech. This is exactly what is going to happen. Most people get their internet from wireless devices these days, so expect more and more rigid firewalls."

There's the problem.

And it doesn't help that Democrats aren't fighting for all-out net neutrality and that the president of the United States, once thought to be a progressive, backs such corporate-friendly compromises. (Yes, Republicans are fighting this with a vengeance, but they should actually be very happy about the FCC's regulation. It's change they should be able to believe in.) 

I'll give the FCC a single cheer, maybe a cheer and a half. But with Republicans frothing at the mouth, it'll take much more from Democrats to make net neutrality a reality.

In this case, compromise in the name of limited freedom is a terrible vice.

Gagging the Web

By Capt. Fogg

What's a COICA? Not an anatomical term, but yet another government-sponsored acronym for the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. According to some, it's needed to protect intellectual property, a term which often provokes cynicism regarding the intellectual properties of some intellectual property, but I'll save that for another post.

According to others, like Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, quoted at Raw Story this morning, it's 

almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb, when what you need is a precision-guided missile. 

As I read it, if any state AG finds something you wrote last year was insufficiently attributed or a thought or picture that belonged to someone else -- you're off the air along with everything else you've written. Is it just me, or does that sound as if it had been designed for misuse? Will any website critical of government or government officials or members of the same party as a state attorney general be sifted for some infraction that can justify it's obliteration or postpone publication indefinitely? Is this bill far too broad to be safe? Were we all born yesterday?

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed this bit of poorly digested legislation yesterday. (There's a metaphor here. Look for it.) It was passed unanimously and yet it won't be hanging over the heads of bloggers like some bloody sword just yet and we owe it to Wyden who used his senatorial option to place holds on pending legislation to force proponents to re-introduce the bill in the next session. I hope that by then the opposition will have made its case and shed enough light on the potential for politically-based government censorship.

Ron Wyden is a Democrat, but Democrats should perhaps avoid crowing about being the defenders of freedom of the press since the bill was co-sponsored by Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, who described it as a bipartisan effort to protect property rights. Obviously there's no lack of support for putting such things above freedom of speech by Democratic senators.

A group calling itself Demand Progress is circulating a petition it hopes will make a difference, and now that we have a brief reprieve, perhaps it will. Perhaps you will agree.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Net Neutrality and you

By Capt. Fogg

If you're reading this, you most likely have an interest in the future of the Internet and concern with the ownership thereof. Most of us assume it belongs to us, the way we once assumed the ' air waves' belonged to us -- just like the air itself. The electromagnetic spectrum now largely belongs to those who make a profit from it and the Internet may well follow suit. The phone and cable companies would certainly like to regulate what you may or may not get on line and how fast you get it as well as how much you'll have to pay.

What's at stake for them is the ability to sell you "premium" services over dedicated networks and to be able to "prioritize" or discriminate between traffic that takes up bandwidth and traffic they can make a buck on. Of course it's much more complex than this, but the outcome of FCC deliberations on Net Neutrality may very well have a huge effect on the flow of information and our assumption that everyone has a right to hear and be heard without interference; without corporate censorship.

Of course the ability of the FCC to do anything at all is in question following recent court decisions that seem to be part of the crusade against regulating anything and everything and without such an agency to provide a system of rules to protect a media that's fast replacing print and broadcast as our portal to the world, what you know, what you are able to know may well be determined by what makes the most money or most suits the interests of service providers. Indeed we've already traveled quite a distance down that path.

The FCC is now open to public comment. You can be sure that Verizon and Google, inter alia, are speaking very loudly and carrying a very big stick so if there's going to be any slim chance for the public to weigh in on Net Neutrality, your chance to be heard is now.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Mobile email and its discontents

By Peter Henne

I had half-expected the UAE and Saudi ban on some BlackBerry services to be an esoteric topic; the details of telecommunications policy in Gulf states is hardly a regular conversation point. As a DC resident, however, I daily wade through seas of people made oblivious to the world around them by these devices. For better or worse, mobile access to the internet and email is the lifeblood of many, so this story is of concern to both the business and human rights communities.

Two aspects of the story stand out. The first is the rather technical justification put forward by Saudi and UAE authorities. The UAE has claimed they want only the "same regulatory compliance" that other states demand from telecommunications companies, while the Saudis talk of "regulatory requirements." Most agree this is blatant censorship, but it is useful to compare it to Pakistan's blasphemy-based justifications for recent limitations on internet access. This hardly endeared the Pakistani government to international opinion, but it did generate support among some religious conservatives. That the Gulf states--especially Saudi Arabia--seem to be avoiding religious appeals demonstrates the balancing act involved in their attempt to be an integral part of the global economy.

The second interesting element is how widespread moves to censor BlackBerry seem to be. Both India and Lebanon have been moving towards similar controls. And Indonesia apparently considered limitations on email access, but recently claimed there would be no ban on the services. That relatively open countries like India and Indonesia are concerned about BlackBerry access shows these policies are not tied to the peculiarities of the Gulf states.

The efforts to limit BlackBerry access are part of the tension between states benefiting from the free flow and ideas and resources in the modern international system, and their desire to limit their vulnerability from these flows. The problem is not that these states have a limited understanding of the Internet--as some have argued--but that they understand it all too well.

What's "The Reaction" in Cyrillic?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The BBC reports that the Internet as we know it is about to change dramatically:

The internet regulator has approved plans to allow non-Latin-script web addresses, in a move that is set to transform the online world.

The board of Icann voted at its annual meeting in Seoul to allow domain names in Arabic, Chinese and other scripts.

More than half of the 1.6 billion people who use the internet speak languages with non-Latin scripts.

It is being described as the biggest change to the way the internet works since it was created 40 years ago.

The first Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs) could be in use next year.

I suppose it was about time for the period of Latin hegemony to come to an end, even if this will undoubtedly make the Internet more complicated to use. (To access an Arabic website, for example, would one not need to know Arabic script? Could this move not actually get in the way of effective communication across culture and language divides? I understand the objection to Latin dominance, but at least there's been a domain name standard to facilitate cross-cultural and cross-linguistic interaction.)

The Third Musketeer: Pathos

By Carl

Poor Joe Klein over at Time magazine:

Twice in the past month, my private communications have been splashed about the internet. That such a thing would happen is unfortunate, and dishonorable, but sadly inevitable, I suppose. I ignored the first case, in which a rather pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald's published a hyperbolic account of a conversation I had with her at a beach picnic on Cape Cod. Now, Greenwald himself has published private emails of mine that were part of a conversation taking place on a list-serve. In one of those emails, I say that Greenwald "cares not a whit for America's national security."

A few points before I go on:

1) Joe, as any long term denizen of the Internet... not the World Wide Web, but the thing that Al Gore helped Tim Berners Lee turn into that pretty little colorful Flash animated monstrosity that is the WWW, the Internet, Usenet and Listservs...any long time user of the Net will tell you that ListServs are not "private communications".

If you are dumb enough to post something on a listserv, then you deserve to have your shit called.

2) As anyone with an ounce of sense knows, a conversation with an "acolyte" is going to get reported back. And if you did not know she was an "acolyte," then maybe you should have stopped staring at her tits and started engaging your other head.

But I digress...

I can't speak for Greenwald or his position on the US military. Frankly, most of his columns bore the shit out of me, but he's a popular blogger on the left and likely enhances his prose to appeal to part of his base. My suspicion is he is not as anti-military as you want to make him out to be in your notes.

All writers write what they think their audiences want to read, particularly if they are being paid for presumably attracting a readership (thus negating any need I have to write what I think my audience wants to read...I do this for love). It's no different for Greenwald.

Or for you, Joe. I don't know the authority structure at Time, but I would imagine there is someone with one of those clickers that keeps tabs on how many eyeballs your columns attract to determine if Time is getting enough bang for its buck.

Some of us on the left think your focus is here, and not on reporting and analysis. This is sad, in my opinion. You seem like you could be a fairly bright guy who once worked hard to tell a story. Now it seems more often than not, you're rewriting someone's press release.

Left, right, center. It doesn't really matter. Sometimes, like in this column, you don't seem to want to think things through all that carefully and see if there's a different conclusion you could reach.

In this column I linked to, you posted the following note you sent to the listserv:

Therefore, I have seen no evidence that he [Greenwald] cares one whit about the national security of the United States. It is not hyperbole, it is a fact.

It's hard to prove a negative, but it seems to me that Google is your friend. One verified, pro-soldier stance is hadly "no evidence." And based on Googling "Greenwald military," it seems as though you don't want to look at his nuance. He's not attacking the military as keeping close tabs on the legality of their actions, particularly with respect to human rights not just of terror suspects but of American citizens (in particular, possible posse comitatus violations proposed by Dick Cheney).

I'd hardly call that attacking the military. Attacking an unecessary war (Iraq) is not attacking the military. Attacking Pentagon abuses is not attacking the military. Attacking power hungry politicians, the ones you chat up at cocktail parties in Georgetown, is not attacking the military. Talking about wanting to freeze military spending when the US outspends the entire world combined is not attacking the military.

It's taking a rational stand athwart history, pleading for sanity.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Can't wait to see the Super Bowl ad on this one!

By J. Thomas Duffy

This one... we'll have to wait awhile to see how it plays out.



Jeff Taylor, founder of Monster.Com, is looking to make (pun intended) his next killing:

Out of print ... Monster.com made its name by putting help-wanted ads online. And now its founder sees untapped potential in widening the audience for death notices, too

Taylor, the founder of the online career site that became Monster.com, raised $32 million in venture capital funding for Eons. The company filled its Charlestown offices with about 60 staffers, who focused on building an online community for people over the age of 50 with features such as a 40-question quiz that aimed to estimate one’s longevity and supply advice about healthy living.

But three years after the glitzy launch party, just 12 people remain on the payroll at Eons, and the site’s traffic has been shrinking. Taylor is now hoping that Tributes.com, a spinoff from Eons, might do better than the original site. It offers news about notable personalities who’ve died, and sells online obituaries (they prefer the term “tributes’’) to grieving families via a network of funeral homes. Just as Monster grew to a $1.3 billion company by putting a section of newspaper classifieds online - the help-wanted ads - Taylor plans to do the same for death notices, though this time, he faces competition from a big rival.

[snip]

The site tries to build traffic by creating online memorials for departed celebrities such as Paul Newman and Michael Jackson. It also has information from the Social Security Administration about more than 80 million deceased Americans. But its revenue comes from individuals who pay for online obits that can include unlimited text about the deceased, along with photos, videos, and music.

Yes, you too can live for infinity, out on the World Wide Web!

(We touched on this, back in April -- After Death, No Reason For The Spam To Stop.)

Not only that, but if you go out to Tributes.Com, you can set up your very on "Celebrity Alert."

Oh yeah, death is going to be big bucks.

It's definitely not your father's funeral home any longer.

Now, we will have to wait until next January, for the Super Bowl, to see if Taylor copies his success of Monster.Com for Tributes.Com with some clever, witty television spot.

Maybe they can come up with a combo -- Someone dies while searching Monster.Com for a job, so they segue to the deceased's Tribute.Com page, perhaps offering a deal if you sign up for both services.


Bonus Links

Monster.com Super Bowl Ad

Legendary Ads ... Some ads suck, but these are an art form. Or at least funny

Kellogg Grades 2009 Super Bowl Ads, Monster.com Gets A+




(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Five hundred words about the World Wide Web

By Carol Gee

Intro - Haiku by "betmo" --

family circles
grow forming communities-
sharing mother earth.

Why is it that so many of us reading and writing online stay "plugged in" to the news, to our blog friends and to current events? And why do others get discouraged and drop out? We know there must be payoffs or else the behavior would not continue. Only masochists continue to do things that produce merely negative reinforcement. Therefore I am assuming that I have too much of an apparently optimistic style to attract any masochists. So what are the payoffs for those of us who do this on a regular basis for a long time, despite frustration?

What is it we want? Nancy Perry Graham, in AARP The Magazine piece summed it up well: "Good health, financial security, family and community, giving back, having fun." Because we are self-interested we use the Internet as a resource by which we find out vital information about our well-being. And we are willing to take advice from those whose opinions we respect. Over time we learn who is trustworthy and who is not -- who will tell the truth and who will shade it, or outright lie. This applies to the regular obscure bloggers we read as well as the authorities with larger audiences. In the process we also learn who is "up" and who is "down, politically" or as celebrities, depending on our interests.

With whom do we associate? We like to know about, or to actually be where the action is; we are activists. Being associated with a bunch of like-minded people adds to our sense of belonging. I suspect that we also enjoy "associating" with powerful or famous people. And many of us want to try to make a difference in a troubled larger world. Whether we are faith-based or nonbelievers with a strong sense of morality, it is human nature to want to make things better.

Where we hang out depends on individual preferences. Over time we develop a list of favorites we read, the most trustworthy news sites, people in whom we are interested, communities to whom we belong and references upon which we regularly call. And of course we are habituated to routines and tools that help us stay ahead of information overload. Tasks such as catching up on the news, deleting outdated saved material, answering e-mails, editing our web pages, sorting favorites and providing regular posts keep us busy at best, and overwhelmed at worst.

When we surf the Internet is also a very individual choice, often dictated by circumstance. I am lucky because I am retired. Work and family requirements must be worked out. Writing at the times when we are most alert serves our readers well. Doing a variety of things serves our moods well, and taking regular breaks serves our minds and bodies well. I read bloggers who post while on vacation, when they are sick, after surgery, when they are sad or when they want to celebrate.

Celebrating us!

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

How much "cybersecurity" will we achieve?

By Carol Gee

When the Obama administration came into office, some of its best and brightest thinkers started looking at the issue of security on the world wide web, or "cybersecurity." The thinking was undoubtedly spurred when the White House computers went down for a day as staffers were moving in. More and more reports of breaches to private and government computers, fears about Russia, China's efforts to break into U.S. computers and other issues related to terrorism and the internet persisted.

Cybersecurity was an issue that had been discussed by the previous administration, but nothing was ever done about it, possibly because it has been hard to determine who should be in charge of the overall program. The Director of National Intelligence, retired Admiral Dennis Blair, proposed at this confirmation hearing that the NSA should run it. Rod Beckstrom, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who resigned his post as the director of America's National Cyber Security Center in March, claiming that a lack of support was preventing him from doing the job. But the firestorm of protest that went on for weeks eventually calmed when the headline from Wired Threat Level (4/21/09), "NSA Chief: ‘We Do Not Want to Run Cyber Security’," appeared. To quote:

NSA Director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, speaking at the RSA Security Conference in San Francisco, told the audience of security professionals on Tuesday that the NSA does "not want to run cyber security for the United States government."

Aiming to dispel news reports — and counter previous intelligence agency statements — that the National Security Agency is angling to grab the top spot in the government’s cyber security initiative, Alexander said it’s a job that’s bigger than one agency and that the NSA isn’t looking to control but rather to partner with DHS, other defense departments, industry and law enforcement.

President Obama asked for a report in 60 days on the extent of the threats and put former Bush administration adviser, Melissa Hathaway in charge of it the study. Hathaway wrote about it on the White House blog on 5/29. Both Hathaway and Beckstrom could be in contention for the czar position, according to The Guardian. But according to the AP,

As many as a half dozen candidates — from the public and private sector — are being considered for the job, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

Obama's announcement comes as the Pentagon is poised to create a new cyber command to improve protection of military networks and coordinate its offensive and defensive cyber missions.

President Obama presented a briefing Friday, as the White House released a report on a 60-day review of the nation’s cybersecurity efforts (.pdf). The report was conducted by acting White House cybersecurity chief Melissa Hathaway, who is considered a front runner for the permanent czar job, according to Wired Threat Level. After months of rumors, Obama confirmed that the White House will be creating a new office to be led by a cybersecurity czar. The story's headline, "Obama Says New Cyberczar Won’t Spy on the Net," is from (5/29/09). To quote:

. . . The office will be in charge of coordinating efforts to secure government networks and U.S. critical infrastructures. . . Obama was quick to add that the new White House cybersecurity office would include an official whose job is to ensure that the government’s cyber policies don’t violate privacy and civil liberties of Americans. He also reaffirmed his support for the principle of net neutrality.

“Our pursuit of cybersecurity will not include — I repeat, will not include — monitoring private sector networks or internet traffic,” he said. “We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans. Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the internet as it should be, open and free.”

. . . in his address on Friday, Obama said the new cybercoordinator will have “my full support and regular access to me as we confront these challenges.”

. . .“From now on our digital infrastructure, the networks and computers we depend on every day, will be treated as they should be — as a strategic national asset,” Obama said. “Protecting this infrastructure will be a national security priority. We will ensure that these networks are secure, trustworthy and resilient. We will deter, prevent, detect and defend against attacks and recover quickly from any disruptions or damage.”

The story of the report is also in Wired Threat Level (5/29/09):"Obama Cybersecurity Report Addresses Critical Infrastructure and Privacy Issues." The article includes a good set of highlights from the recommendations. To quote:

A cybersecurity report . . . touches on everything from establishing communication networks for emergency response teams to the role government should play in the protection of critical infrastructure networks and whether or not entities that experience a breach should have to notify governments and law enforcement agencies. Privacy and civil liberties concerns receive a repeated nod, with privacy being mentioned in the report more than five dozen times.

The 76-page report (.pdf) was released in conjunction with a White House announcement that the president will be creating a new cybersecurity office and czar, as well as a privacy and civil liberties official to oversee the government’s cybersecurity plans.

How much cybersecurity will result from all of this is not yet known. But it certainly seems like a good start. Hathaway, if she is named the czar, had a very good reputation. Both she and President Obama seem cognizant of the concerns about privacy raised by civil libertarians. That concern has been dampened now that the office will be in the White House and not the NSA. And it is "down one rung" on the White House authority ladder (under both the National Security and Economic Security councils) because both private and government internet needs must be protected. And it seems clear that the czar will have adequate direct access to the President, who will probably get to settle any remaining turf battles. Much remains to be seen as the military arm of cybersecurity is more fully revealed. And finally, President Obama has reaffirmed his support for net neutrality.

(Cross-posted at Making Good Mondays.)

Lolcats? WTF?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm a cat person. I really am. And I don't mind photos of cats. I don't even mind "cat-blogging," though I've never posted a pic of my cat here.

And I'd like to think that I'm fairly Internet savvy, that I'm up with, if not in on, the major fads.

But how is it that I'd never heard of I Can Has Cheezburger until yesterday? Don't know what that is? Then don't go any further. Enjoy your blissful ignorance.

But if you're curious, or you know of it already, check out this fine piece by Slate's Farhan Manjoo, my favourite tech writer. Apparently, the whole "lolcat" thing has become a significant cultural phenomenon, with ICHC pulling in a whopping one million unique visitors a month (and growing). All for somewhat amusing cat photos and really silly, "ironic, allusive, peculiarly spelled captions." It's even making money for its owner, Pet Holdings, which has become a one-stop resource for many such memes:

Pet Holdings markets memes: In addition to I Can Has Cheezburger, the company also runs Failblog, which collects photographic instances of spectacular flops; Engrish Funny, a chronicle of poorly translated signs; GraphJam, in which people try to distill life into PowerPoint-type slides (such as "Relationship Between Money and Problems," an ascending, 45-degree line graph); and Once Upon a Win, a trove of awesome, faddy things from the past (friendship bracelets, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, videos of Weird Al).

I sort of get it, lolcats and the other memes, and some of it's funny, but... really? This is popular? This is how so many people waste time online? This is profitable? Huh.

But so what? Isn't the Internet great? Seriously, isn't it?

(Well, seriously, this has to be a Sign of the Apocalypse. Yes, it's #65.)

Idiocracy, The Sequel

By J. Thomas Duffy

When the casting call comes for the sequel to Idiocracy, these jurors -- and court officials -- must make all effort to be first in line.

Mistrial by iPhone: Jurors’ Web Forays Are Upending Trials

Last week, a juror in a big federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he had been doing research on the case on the Internet, directly violating the judge’s instructions and centuries of legal rules. But when the judge questioned the rest of the jury, he got an even bigger shock.

Eight other jurors had been doing the same thing. The federal judge, William J. Zloch, had no choice but to declare a mistrial, wasting eight weeks of work by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers.

[Snip]

Last week, a building products company asked an Arkansas court to overturn a $12.6 million judgment against it after a juror used Twitter to send updates during the civil trial.

And on Monday, defense lawyers in the federal corruption trial of a former Pennsylvania state senator, Vincent J. Fumo, demanded that the judge declare a mistrial after a juror posted updates on the case on Twitter and Facebook. The juror even told his readers that a “big announcement” was coming Monday. But the judge decided to let the trial continue, and the jury found Mr. Fumo guilty. His lawyers plan to use the Internet postings as grounds for appeal.

Jeralyn, over at Talk Left, seems to have the Luke Wilson role here:

The solution seems easy enough -- require jurors to park their cell phones with the Marshals when entering the courthouse.

Holy Cow!

Bonus High Tech Hijinks

News In Brief - Wikimania Attendees Take Over Event ...Wikimania Conference Ends Abruptly In Cacophonous Chaos ...First Speaker Drowned Out By Attendees With Edits, Footnotes and Sub-Categories

Apple Settles With Cisco!; Rolling Dice With New iBeckham Phone ...Jobs Promises Aging Soccer Star Can Store "Billions of Photos" of Himself; New "Posh" Command Added

New iPod Phone Requires Downloading Calls

Life Imitates Art ... Or, Did Burt Lancaster Invent Google Earth?

Breaking News! Giant Search Engine Downed By GOP and RNC Staffers ... Google Crashes! Besieged With “I’m Feeling Lucky” Searches From White House, Congress ... Amazon, D.C. Novelty Stores Hit With Run On Magic 8-Balls

Top Ten Cloves: How The Amazon Kindle Can Effect The Legal World


Bonus Bonus

Idiocracy - The Trailer



(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Bigger, more intrusive government

By Capt. Fogg

"The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men — the right to be let alone."

- Justice Louis Brandeis -

Whenever there's a lot of outrage being sold, whether it's about protecting children, preventing tax shelters or defending the faith, it's fairly safe to assume they're selling something else and it's safer to assume it's something you wouldn't have bought otherwise.

There are few things easier to bundle with invasive, intrusive or even abusive government than protecting children, hence the carefully maintained impression that children are in vastly more danger then ever before and controlling the internet in the cause of controlling people and their unwanted thoughts and words attaches to our parental fears like a remora to a shark.

A free internet

offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children,

says U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican. Well, of course! So does freedom of association and freedom of speech and assembly and, of course, so does freedom in general. It also offers opportunities for dissent, for exposure of secrets of invidious nature and other things authoritarian and paranoid governments fear. So in order to protect the children, Cornyn would like to make sure that with every word you write, every breath you take, every move you make, he'll be watching you. listening to your calls, reading your mail, checking your financial records, tracking your movements: all these things we bought in the name of Bush's "warrontare" and yet it's not enough.

The plan is to have everything you say on the internet and a list of every search you make and every site you visit stored for the benefit of anyone who may want to investigate you -- for two years. Two bills have been introduced so far--S.436 in the Senate and H.R.1076 in the House. Both bills bear the same title: "Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act," or Internet Safety Act. Both use the same words:

A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least two years all records or other information pertaining to the identity of a user of a temporarily assigned network address the service assigns to that user.

And what is a provider or remote service? If you're got a home network with a wired or wireless router, you are! Better buy another hard drive and keep it backed up, you potential child molester, you.

That sweeps in not just public Wi-Fi access points, but password-protected ones too, and applies to individuals, small businesses, large corporations, libraries, schools, universities, and even government agencies. Voice over IP services may be covered too.

says CNN.com's Declan McCullagh.

Alberto Gonzales may be gone, George Bush may be a bad memory, but the Republican Dream lives on. A country where nothing you do is private and nothing they do is public; a country where "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" is seen as an unnecessary impediment to control.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Updated Obama Primer

By Carol Gee

"Barack Obama 1-2-3-4-5"

This post was first written on 3/22/08. For today I've updated the original a bit and reposted it. It amounts to a little "pocket reference" for keeping connected with (or regarding) President Obama.

Obama on the Web - In chronological order:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need -- Obamba Blog, Obama Store: This is the original campaign web site, Obama for America*.

The Inauguration of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden -- This was the site of the Presidential Campaign Committee, fronted by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

USA Service.0rg -- This was the web site that was used with the thousands of volunteers who participated in the MLK National Day of Service on January 19.

Welcome to the White House -- The main website of President Obama's administration. It replaced White House.gov in the blink of an eye at noon on January 20. It can also be reached via a link (click Executive Branch) at "Federal Government" at USA.gov.

USAspending.gov -- is the result of legislation authored by Senators Obama and Coburn in 2006 and launched in 2007. To quote Obama,

"We should do everything we can to ensure that the American public can easily access and track how the Federal government does its business," said Senator Obama. "Our government took an important step last year by launching USASpending.gov and giving ordinary citizens an important tool to hold Washington accountable.

"*Obama for America becomes Organizing for America" in a merger with the Democratic Party. David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, will remain involved. Former Governor Tim Kaine has replaced former Governor Howard Dean as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Marc Ambinder explains (1/17/09):

The Obama political machine is merging with the Democratic National Committee.

The President-elect launched Obama 2.0, or Organizing for America, this morning with a YouTube video.

An Obama political aide said that OFA will be housed at the Democratic National Committee, resolving a longstanding debate about whether the entity should be separate.

A press release prepared by OFA calls the organization "the next phase" of the Obama organization, and will offer "volunteers the continued opportunity to work for change in their communities by organizing in support of reform in Washington."

From the original post -- March 2008

Barack Obama: My Space

Barack Obama: Wikipedia

3/18/08:" The Speech" from NYT Obama on Race

Foreshadowing References -- I found it interesting to see his progression in print as I wrote the first post.

Roots -- From Voice of America, "Obama Receives Hero's Welcome at His Family's Ancestral Village in Kenya" Nairobi 27 August 2006.

National oratory -- Barack Obama: 2004 Democratic Convention Speech

Environment -- From Grist/Muckraker Barack Star :"Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama's got green cred." By Amanda Griscom, 04 Aug 2004 To quote:

"Environmentalism is not an upper-income issue, it's not a white issue, it's not a black issue, it's not a South or a North or an East or a West issue. It's an issue that all of us have a stake in," Obama shouted. "And if I can do anything to make sure that not just my daughter but every child in America has green pastures to run in and clean air to breathe and clean water to swim in, then that is something I'm going to work my hardest to make happen."

The crowd went bananas in response to this call for unity across ethnic and socio-economic lines, as though they'd been waiting for exactly this kind of dynamic leader to free environmentalism from the perception that it's predominately a white upper-middle-class issue.

Obama's environmental activism stretches back to his undergrad days at Columbia University, during which he did a three-month stint with a Ralph Nader offshoot organization trying to convince minority students at City College in Harlem to recycle. Later, when he worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, he fought for lead abatement in the Altgeld Gardens neighborhood.

Harvard Law Review -- Barack Obama in New York Times Feb. 6, 1990, "First Black Elected to Head Harvard's Law Review." To quote:

The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago's South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.

''The fact that I've been elected shows a lot of progress,'' Mr. Obama said today in an interview. ''It's encouraging.

''But it's important that stories like mine aren't used to say that everything is O.K. for blacks. You have to remember that for every one of me, there are hundreds or thousands of black students with at least equal talent who don't get a chance,'' he said, alluding to poverty or growing up in a drug environment.

. . . On his goals in his new post, Mr. Obama said: ''I personally am interested in pushing a strong minority perspective. I'm fairly opinionated about this. But as president of the law review, I have a limited role as only first among equals.''

Therefore, Mr. Obama said, he would concentrate on making the review a ''forum for debate,'' bringing in new writers and pushing for livelier, more accessible writing.

. . . Professors and students at the law school reacted cautiously to Mr. Obama's selection. ''For better or for worse, people will view it as historically significant,'' said Prof. Randall Kennedy, who teaches contracts and race relations law. ''But I hope it won't overwhelm this individual student's achievement.''

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)