« April 2004 | Main | June 2004 »
Annoying spamming SCUM are getting what they deserve at long last. Well, at least one of them is. Buffalo (Chips) Spammer Howard Carmack was sentenced to 3 1/2 to 7 years in prison. Hooray! This was after the evil toad lost a 16 million dollar judgement last year.
More at this handy link
Today the Psycho Sensei completed jumping through all of the necessary hoops in order to become a religious celebrant for marriages in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Unlike states that say "any ordained Minister may officiate," Virginia is rather picky and won't allow those from churches like the Universal Life Church that gives you a "drive by ordination" to be officials without putting in a $500.00 bond each time they want to do a wedding.
As I am an officially ordained Priestess, with actual training and required courses and all that, once I filled out and had notarized the questionnaire, letter from the Mother Temple, and ordination certificate, the judge signed the order, and I went in today for the Oath of Office. After a relatively painless process, I was issued a court order, shown how to fill out the marriage license, and *poof* I am official in the eyes of the Commonwealth.
So how cool is THAT? :-)
You've already seen various thoughts regarding these quite interesting "National Security Letters," including the fact that you're not allowed to say when you've received one, and if you sue over it, you aren't allowed to tell anyone until they say you can, etc. etc. Now people are attempting to do something about it.
CDT joined other privacy groups and an ISP trade association in filing an amicus brief today in support of the ACLU's challenge to the FBI's National Security Letter authority, which allows it to obtain certain customer records from ISPs and other businesses without a court order. May 24, 2004 [Center for Democracy and Technology]
I haven't been flying enough, as in putting my butt in the pilot's seat and taking an aircraft from point A to point B. A big part of the reason why not is because I just do NOT like having to completely change everything I ever learned, in order to deal with George W. Bush's paranoia about small aircraft, and his lovely new defense zone that includes my little airport in Gaithersburg, MD.
Flying used to be like driving a car. Get in, start up, and go wherever your heart desired as long as you stay out of places you weren't supposed to go. These places were well mapped out, and alternatives were provided so that you weren't inconvenienced too terribly much. For example, we were provided corridors between National and Dulles to get to the south, and a corridor between National and BWI to go to the East.
Now many might think that this is just the "whining of one of those rich pilots" but think about it. Anyone can learn how to fly if they put the time and effort into it. And yes, there is money, but you really don't have to be "rich" to own an aircraft or a piece of an aircraft. One has to think, if now they're targeting small aircraft because there are relatively few general aviation pilots, why not target other possible threats that can get MUCH closer without being detected, such as boats or trucks. What could be next?
But anyway, back to the lament. In order to fly around now, one must file a plan telling the government where you are going and when, then must sit on the ground and wait until the overworked air traffic control person has the time available to let you out. Then to come back, you have to land somewhere outside the ADIZ, and then call to refile, then circle until someone has time to let you in. Now, it generally doesn't take terribly much time (except on beautiful weekends) but having to land somewhere outside the ADIZ and then take off again can take up to 1/2 an hour or so. Still, it's not so much the inconvenience, although that is a pain. It's more the idea that suddenly we've become a threat. A distrusted part of society. Even though we know logically that someone with an ultralight that doesn't need an airport to take off and land from, could launch from anywhere around the ADIZ, get in, and drop whatever. We also know that just about anyone with a strip of land and a short takeoff and landing aircraft (STOL) can take off from any backyard and make it to the White House before anyone notices, and long before they scramble jets to stop it.
So, anyway, I haven't been flying much since the whole thing has become so much less convenient and so much less FUN. The idea of boring holes in the sky unfettered by the ground is much less appealing when you can have your butt shot down for turning in the wrong direction. Regardless of this, there are times when flying is, by far, the most convenient way from point to point, and therefore it is useful to keep one's skills current so that one may actually pilot a plane when one has somewhere to go.
It is in that vein that I finally went for my instrument proficiency check on Sunday with my favorite crazy instructor Paul. It was VERY hot outside, and of course, the airplane has no AC, but it wasn't too bad when we were off the ground and at about 3000 feet. I hadn't flown simulated instruments in over a year (besides partial IMC ferrying the airplane for annual last month), so this was an interesting endeavor to say the least. I am rusty, that much is for sure, but I made a plausible impression of someone who knew what they were doing, and actually found the runway a number of times, therefore I have been "signed off" and can now fly to Ocracoke next weekend. Yum.
A German couple discovers why they don't have any children...
A couple in Germany demonstrated conclusively why sex education should not be left to religious institutions.
According to a brief article on Ananova, a couple, who are in their 30's and have been married for 8 years, showed up at a fertility clinic at the University of Lubeck. They were concerned about the fact that after 8 years of marriage, they remained childless.
After being poked and prodded, tested and tweaked, it turns out that there was no physiological reason they could not concieve children.
There was a physiological reason they hadn't concieved any children however. They weren't having sex. At all. Ever.
Apparently, these people were brought up in a strict religious community, and they didn't know the first thing about sex. Like the fact that you have to have sex to procreate.[Morons Dot Org]
Isn't this special? A brand new lovely way to cheat. It's always something.
A funny -- and disturbing -- trend is popping up in the U.S. and in Europe: People are downloading phony alibis such as prerecorded traffic jam sounds, or even joining mobile liars' clubs, to pull one over on bosses and spouses. By Elisa Batista. [Wired News]
Well here we go again. This time, after the ACLU finally won he right to reveal the existence of a lawsuit against the Administration of the Shrub, the Justice Department forced them to change the paltry amount of information that they put out on their website.
The Washington Post reports that the two paragraphs that Justice had removed included the type of information that FBI agents are allowed to request under the law, and the briefing schedule for the case. Both of these bits of information are public record.
So why would our government (who seems to continually forget that they work on our behalf and at our pleasure) NOT want us to know our rights? Gee, maybe because they've worked so hard to ensure those rights are curtailed that perhaps if we don't understand what few rights we have left, we won't complain when the FBI comes after us to find out the brand of gum we're chewing?
Whereas in the "olden days" we were given copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, perhaps the next move is to make them unavailable online in case someone might actually want to exercise those rights? One may never know.
This is hilarious! Wendy Seltzer of EFF hits the nail directly on the head. This has GOT to be one of the highest forms of ridiculous. Bravo RIAA
The major record labels couldn't find some big-name artists to whom they owed royalties, but they could find another grandmother to sue.
Good work from NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer gets the record labels to track down such artists as Luciano Pavarotti and the estate of Elvis Presley, whom they couldn't seem to find in order to deliver royalty checks. Says Spitzer of the live performers, "It's not like it's hard to find them. You could go to a concert and throw the check at them onstage."
Maybe the failure to find artists comes from the record labels' other preoccupation, dragnetting John and Jane Does in the war against filesharers. Among the dolphins caught in the last round was a Fayetteville grandmother targetted for her grandson's music downloads. Let's get priorities straight here.
[Wendy: The Blog]Why, in the name of all that is holy, would the people who are supposed to be keeping us safe, are instead wasting taxpayers money attempting to stomp out the same type of curiosity that is the hallmark of some of the most creative minds of our time?
In days of "not so old" our intellectual elite were found mapping the steam tunnels of such illustrious institutions as MIT, RPI, and countless others. The quests through the steam tunnels taught the explorers valuable lessons in civil engineering, orienteering, and how best to pull cables through these facilities for later ethernet and fiber optics that made these same institutions the leaders of the Internet revolution to come.
However, when a student was interested in already mapped steam tunnels at the University of Texas, he was told that this information was "secret." So he did what any student with half a brain would do - he filed a Freedom of Information Act request. Unfortunately for him, he got a lot more than he asked for; namely, the FBI and the Secret Service. More here
So what is the mentality of law enforcement officials that pushes them to investigate a college Freshmen who is curious about his own school? Given that the agents inquired "why he wears long hair," it is doubtful that they were the best and brightest. They wanted to know how he knew he had the right to use a FOIA request (likely assuming most Americans should not have this type of information), and kept asking him over and over whether he belonged to any activist organizations.
So basically, if you use lawful means to request information through lawful channels, you run the risk of the FBI and Secret Service paying you a visit to ask whether you're an activist or why your physical appearance may not conform with that of your friends.
One definitely has to ask the obvious - why would a terrorist file a lawful FOIA request and put his name and information on file with the government in order to get information that might later be used in a terrorist plot? Why would a terrorist alert the government as to the very thing s/he was going to do? And what REAL leads could the FBI and Secret Service be following instead of wasting their time with a curious college freshman?
Unfortunately, we may never find the answer to those questions. And if we file a FOIA request for further information, we might find ourselves investigated too. Welcome to America.
The Psycho Sensei has a nasty head cold that has kept her in bed for 2 days now. Do not expect not standard happy fun of the Psycho Sensei. If you wish to make a positive contribution to the recovery of the Psycho Sensei, bring over many of those really soft tissues, chicken soup, and extra chocolate. Sending some nice Reiki might be helpful as well, as I don't have the energy to do it myself.
Now gee, what kind of a law doesn't allow you to talk about challenges to it? This is such a warped and totally twisted view of our rights, that it should make any thinking American take a giant step back and focus a critical eye on what, precisely, this law is meant to do.
From the Washington Post
The American Civil Liberties Union disclosed yesterday that it filed a lawsuit three weeks ago challenging the FBI's methods of obtaining many business records, but the group was barred from revealing even the existence of the case until now.
The lawsuit was filed April 6 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, but the case was kept under seal to avoid violating secrecy rules contained in the USA Patriot Act, the ACLU said. The group was allowed to release a redacted version of the lawsuit after weeks of negotiations with the government.
"It is remarkable that a gag provision in the Patriot Act kept the public in the dark about the mere fact that a constitutional challenge had been filed in court," Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director, said in a statement. "President Bush can talk about extending the life of the Patriot Act, but the ACLU is still gagged from discussing details of our challenge to it."
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the case.
The ACLU alleges that a section of the act is unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to request financial records and other documents from businesses without a warrant or judicial approval. The group also says such requests, known as "national security letters," are being used much more broadly than they were before the Patriot Act.
The bureau has issued scores of the letters since late 2001 that require businesses to turn over electronic records about finances, telephone calls, e-mail and other personal information, according to previously released documents. The letters, a type of administrative subpoena, may be issued independently by FBI field offices and are not subject to judicial review unless a case comes to court.
The ACLU's complaint focuses on the use of national security letters to obtain information held by "electronic communication service providers." The group says the letters could force Internet providers to turn over names, screen names, e-mail addresses and other customer information without proper notice to the people involved.
The lawsuit names as defendants Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and FBI Senior Counsel Marion E. "Spike" Bowman. A second plaintiff has joined the ACLU in filing the lawsuit, but that plaintiff's identity has been redacted from the public copy of the complaint.
This time, in a 7-0 decision, the replacement Alabama Supreme Court (since the real one couldn't be used because they all used to work with the looney tune who planted the 5,300 pound Ten Commandments monument smack in the middle of a public building. The Justices declined to reinstate the lunatic ex judge, saying that it's not OK to defy a federal court order because your invisible friend says so.
So what's next for the ex judge? His lawyer says he may go to the Supreme Court, wasting yet more taxpayer money. He may also go back to the real Alabama Supreme Court, even though the 7-0 decision came from retired Justices who were highly regarded in their field.
More information at this handy link
From EFF's Wendy Seltzer's Blog. It's quite the interesting twist on the attempt to rewrite public figure publicity law analysis.
Counsel to Arnold Schwarzenegger sent a cease-and-desist letter threatening a lawsuit against the makers of a Schwarzenegger bobblehead doll. Seemingly oblivious to the fact that the Governor of California is a political public figure, the lawyers demand millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages for the "egregious and malicious" "use of Mr. Schwarzenegger's publicity rights."
Best of all, though is the letter's conclusion:
This is a confidential legal notice and may not be published, in whole or in part. Any republishing or dissemination of same, including but not limited to the posting of the contents hereof on the Internet, shall constitute copyright infringement and will subject the re-publisher(s) to civil liability for such actions.You say infringement, I say fair use. Sorry, but I'm not chilled.