« February 2005 | Main | April 2005 »
Mercury News: Supreme Court case pits tech innovation vs. Hollywood's rights: "
Professor Lessig talks to the San Jose Mercury News in this article about MGM v Grokster, which was heard yesterday before the Supreme Court.
"(Via Lessig News.)
The revenge of Sapir-Whorf (Alan Wexelblat): "
One of the things the Cartel has most successfully done in this war is control the language, reporting, and thought around P2P music sharing.
One side effect of this is that there has been an almost complete shut-out of mainstream reporting on real research in the area. Why? I believe it's because every study that has been done since Napster has shown that music sharing has no negative effects on music sales (CD or downloaded). In fact, some show a positive effect. If that message got into the public consciousness the Cartel would be much worse off. Therefore, they've done all they can to frame the debate in terms of their scares, not science. So we have the scene - surely worthy of Beckett - in which a certified class of 27,000 songwriters and music publishers will argue against Grokster, as Tony Mauro put it on law.com 'casting it as a life-or-death struggle over theft of their means of livelihood.'
There's just one eensy weensy problem here - NOBODY's livelihood is being stolen. It's just not happening. There were no WMD in Iraq, there was no cocaine on that boat (*), and music sharing does not cost artists money.
How do we know this? Well, we do studies. Like, for example, the just-published Japanese study by Keio Universtity Economics professor Tatsuo Tanaka, who looked at the P2P application 'Winny' and its effect on Japanese music consumers. Prof. Tanaka's original study is reported on here (Japanese HTML), but fortunately for people like me there's an English translation (17 page PDF).
In addition to a lack of negative effects, the study argues, there is evidence for a positive correlation between sharing music and purchasing more new music. Not terribly surprising, if you've been paying attention over the last half dozen years and not been deafened by the drums of the other side. Sadly, just about nobody has been paying attention. We've been soundly defeated in the propaganda war. Here's hoping Tuesday goes better.
(*) The Usual Suspects reference, in case you were wondering
"(Via Copyfight.)
Hammers and mercury (Alan Wexelblat): "
Way back in the dark ages, when the Cartel decided to sue Napster into oblivion, I suggested that this was the effective equivalent of smashing a blob of mercury with a hammer. Nice noise, flashy splash but at the end you have just about exactly as much mercury as you did before. Except now it's scattered all over creation.
Continuing this winning tradition, the Cartel have hammered at KaZaa, BitTorrent, and other large P2P networks. As if smashing the networks would somehow answer consumer demand. Sigh.
Anyway, Paul Roberts has a brief piece in PC World reporting on a Pew Internet & American Life Project study of this. The study points out that file sharing is moving out from traditional P2P networks into email, IM, and even (*gasp*) IPods. Apparently this surprises researchers because the iPod isn't 'designed' to support this behavior. May I point these esteemed individuals, once again, to Gibson's dictum?
I'm starting to sound too much like a broken record, even for my own tastes. Saying the same thing over and over for seven years is dull.
"(Via Copyfight.)
TOS for Citizenship (Donna Wentworth): "
A Slate piece uncomfortably close to the truth:
"
IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR US CITIZENS ABOUT CHANGES TO YOUR CITIZENSHIP AGREEMENT.PLEASE READ AND RETAIN FOR YOUR RECORDS.
[...]
SECTION 5
The Freedom of Speech section of the Agreement is amended to distinguish between Regular Preferred Speech and Non-Preferred Speech. The Non-Preferred Speech rate applies to all speech which is not in good standing as defined under the 'Preferred Citizen Rate Eligibility' section of your Agreement. Both the rate and your freedom of speech may vary based on changes in the National Terror Alert Level.[...]
SECTION 11
The Rule of Law section of the Agreement remains in effect, except that it no longer applies to Us. It may also, from time to time, cease to apply to Contributors above a certain level (see Schedule G, attached).SECTION 13
The Cruel and Unusual Punishment section of the Agreement is unchanged, except that 'unusual' is amended to read 'unusual in Texas.'SECTION 16
This amendment affects the Right to Privacy section of your agreement. Under the new terms, the Right to Privacy must be applied for on an individual basis. To apply for your Right to Privacy, you must send your full credit history, a copy of your party registration and church membership, a complete set of fingerprints, a DNA sample, and two (2) passport-size photographs of your bedroom to: National Privacy Registry, Washington, DC, 20012-3006, att: Doris.SECTION 26
This amendment affects the Unreasonable Search and Seizure section of the Agreement. Under the new terms of this section, the right to unreasonable search and seizure shall not be abridged.
(Via Copyfight.)
Flaming DUH. You keep rewarding these imbeciles and guess what, they are going to continue to SPAM you. If you're stupid enough to click on their offerings, don't you DARE complain about getting the junk in your mailbox.
Bad e-mail habits sustains spam
The 'bad behaviour' of e-mail users is helping to sustain the spam industry, a new study has found.
According to a survey conducted by security firm Mirapoint and market research company the Radicati Group, nearly a third of e-mail users have clicked on links in spam messages.
One in ten users have bought products advertised in junk mail.
Clicking on a link in a spam message can expose people to viruses and alert spammers to live e-mail accounts.
Once again, Karl Auerbach hits the nail on the head. Privacy? That's for the government, not for the "little guy."
Today's news brought two items that are interesting in their separate ways but much more interesting when placed side by side.
First we see an article (also at) in which the US National Institutes Health (NIH), a US Federal agency, is resisting Freedom of Information (FOIA) Requests to reveal documents that the NIH is required to publish under the Federal Ethics In Government Act.
What reason did the NIH use to refuse the request? They claimed that these documents, documents mandated by Federal statute to reveal conflicts of interest by high Federal officials, were being withheld because they would be an 'unwarranted invasion of privacy' of those officials. (I wonder what the US tax authority, the IRS, would say if taxpayers were to use that excuse to withhold their tax forms?)
Second we see a letter from a commissioner of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) asking ICANN to be more demanding in its private contracts to require the opening of the the private customer records ('whois') of domain name registries and registrars to the public on a 24x7x365 basis.
In other words, we see the US FTC requesting nominally private corporations and businesses to engage in privacy-busting behavior of the first order. In fact the requested behavior is so outrageous that is likely to be in violation of the privacy laws of many countries.
Why does the FTC want this? Because they are very lazy. The FTC people apparently feel that their power to issue subpoenas or to otherwise use supervised legal methods of obtaining access to private business records, which is what the 'whois' database is, is simply too much of a bother. They'd rather do their investigation via a web browser. I'm all for efficiency - but not when that efficiency comes at the expense of our civil rights. The FTC apparently believes that it is OK to expose the private data of families and their children to predators if that exposure makes life a bit easier for some lazy FTC investigator.
So from these two articles I would have to conclude that the Executive Branch of our US Government believes:
A) that high officials deserve privacy even if that means violating the express requirements of a Federal statute and
B) that peons, oops, I mean citizens, have no right to privacy and that the private customer records of businesses, even in the absence of any accusation of wrongdoing or threat to health or safety, are to be published for the benefit of predators, spammers, and competitors.
And thinking of FTC and investigations - I wonder when the FTC is going to get back to its real job, which is to track down and stop unfair trade practices in the US. When is the FTC going to send a letter to ICANN asking ICANN to explain exactly and precisely why ICANN is not an illegal combination in restraint of trade?
"(Via CaveBear Blog.)
Me and the 13 year old ventured forth from Dulles airport today to visit family in the frozen tundra of NH. Prior to leaving the house, I printed out our boarding passes, checked in online, and read the "important information" from Independence Air. They told us to be at the airport 1 hour in advance. Well, luckily for us, I decided to go earlier, just in case of strangeness.
Strangeness it was when we found that the line began almost as soon as you entered the door, near the escalators down to baggage claim. It then went off to the right, almost to the end of terminal, then left, almost to the other end of the terminal, then filtered through a VERY FEW open screening stations.
Of course, the employee screening stations were clear and open.
So, there we were, approximately 8:45, in this VERY long line. By approximately 9:45, we wound up just about to go through the security station, when a TSA representative told us "we're closing this one, you have to wait in line for the next one." We were VERY annoyed, to say the least, but grumbled into the next line. Approximately 10 minutes later, we were again about to go through the security station, when another TSA representative informed us that THIS one was also closing, and we would have to go back and wait in yet ANOTHER line. So, I called for the supervisor, who decided to keep it open, likely because about 10 other people started also complaining.
By the time we got through security, went through the tunnel to terminal A, and got to our places, we had approximately 10 minutes before boarding. Arrival at 8:45 for a 10:50 flight and we barely had time. Go figure.
No kidding, folks. How can one have a democracy when one can't even express ideas for fear of running afoul of intellectual property law, even when their speech is decidedly non commercial?
Wendy Seltzer: "The Madrid Summit was outside my usual realm of intellectual property law, but the change served to remind me that while the copyfight is but a small part of the picture, the principles we're fighting for are more than music. ....At least a part of [the task of promoting democracy] is communication -- communicating with other democratic citizens and with other people seeking democracy. ...I don't think it's stretching too far to say that protecting against abuses of privacy, copyright or trademark online strengthens these tools of democracy."
[Copyfight]The D.C. Circuit has asked for briefing and evidence on our standing to fight the broadcast flag. That's good news, because the court needs to get through the standing question -- whether we can demonstrate concrete injury from the flag -- before it can rule on the merits of the case -- whether the FCC had authority to mandate a flag at all. In oral argument, the Court expressed skepticism about the FCC's authority, likening a tuner mandate to regulation of dishwashers.
Specifically, the Court asked in part
Are there any injuries, (not including the increased cost of consumer electronics), ... that identifiable members of petitioners’ organizations will face as a result of the broadcast flag regime? If so, petitioners must identify the relevant member or members and describe the precise nature of the injury that will be caused by the FCC’s adoption of the broadcast flag regime?. We think this is a question we can answer with reference to MythTV builders, hardware manufacturers, and home theater enthusiasts, as well as educators and archivists. Then, the court can get to the meat of ruling that the flag was an unjustified extension of FCC authority. [Wendy: The Blog]
In a blinding act of decadence, I bought myself a Roomba Discovery. Having a big black dog, we found that in order to keep the bedroom even SLIGHTLY black dog hair free, we were vacuuming up to 2 times per day. No cat I've ever had has been anywhere near the hair factory that Jeppiepooh has been. Love him to pieces, but MAN what a mess.
Since the hair finds its way under the bed, under the dressers, under the nightstands and under EVERYTHING it was becoming more and more difficult to get to. The bedroom is a large open area, with hardwood floors, a few area rugs, and lots of "stuff" in the way. Wes didn't think that a Roomba could properly navigate the mess. I, on the other hand, was optimistic.
This little Roomba does a really good job. It has emerged unscathed out from under the bed. This is a significant accomplishment as many an item has been lost for eons. When it gets itself stuck, teetering on the edge of an area rug it has partially ingested, it cleverly rocks itself off. When it wedges itself under something that was just that little bit too short, it shuts down for a second or two, seemingly "thinking," then figures a way out. If it can't get out, it plays a silly little song that basically says "help me mom."
It is not too difficult to empty its bagless dirt compartment. A bit more difficult to remove its brushes and clean them, but that only has to be done about once a week. The only engineering issues I would have changed with the unit is that I don't think that the battery remains charged long enough to do a large room like this one. Also, it is rather loud. However, all in all the unit makes our "dog hair duty" a lot easier.
The Cavebear has very good points. Check them out.
In many respects the internet is going to hell in a hand basket.
Spam, phishing, DNS poisoning, DDoS attacks, viruses, worms, and the like make the net a sick place. It is bad enough that bad folks are doing this. But it is worse that just about every user computer on the net offers a nice fertile place for such ill behavior to be secretly planted and operated as a zombie under the control of a distant and unknown zombie farmer.
Most people still think that the the main risk of being on the net is the risk that one's own machine might be damaged from things lurking out there on the net.
Some of us are coming to the converse point of view - that the net is being endangered by the masses of ill-protected machines operated by users.
For a decades upon decades Ma Bell (AT&T) insisted that the telephone networks be protected against the dangers of non-Bell phones and other equipment. This reached the height of absurdity with the Hush-A-Phone case when AT&T claimed that an innocent plastic hand could deafen operators, shock linemen off of poles, and otherwise wreck havoc.
Yet Ma Bell had a point - the telephone network could be damaged if I were to plug my Tesla-Coil Phone or my Arc-Welder Phone into the little phone jack on my wall. There clearly are some limits.
And those limits were found - today in the US, and I imagine in most other countries, telephones must pass muster and obtain a certification before they may be legally plugged into the telephone network.
Is it unreasonable to conceive of a day, perhaps a day not all that far distant, when only certified equipment can be legally plugged into the internet?
When this thought first went through my head I said, nah, no way. I was thinking "a requirement to certify personal computers is a death knell for the kind of innovation we have had inside PC's." But then I looked at my own setups and considered how most people connect to the net: via intermediary boxes. It occurred to me that what would have to be certified are those intermediary boxes, not the user PC's or the software they run.
At home I have a nice little router attached, in turn, by my nice little DSL box. These sit between me (the user) and the network. These are in a position not unlike that of the old ISDN NT-1 protection device. At the office I have a not-so-little router that sits between the internet at-large and my office networks.
The burden of certification would fall on exactly those companies best prepared to deal with the issue - companies like Cisco (Linksys) or Netgear - who build attachment devices. These devices are not open to general programming and have a well defined, and relatively fixed, function.
In order to obtain a certificate these devices would have to demonstrate that they offer robust protection to the network from adverse behavior on the customer side of the internet/customer-premise demarcation. In other words, part of the certificate would require that the device operate as a reverse firewall.
That's easier to write than to do. When viewed through a peephole in which packets are observed one at a time or with only limited context, it is difficult to recognize and block behavior that constitutes a danger to the internet. (In fact the whole idea of what kinds of actions are dangerous is still somewhat obscure and few objective principles have been enunciated - and I once more refer to my First Law of the Internet as an attempt to propose one such principle.)
Despite the difficulty of finding a fully satisfying general definition there are certainly several specific things that could be required for a certificate. For example the following restrictions on out flowing packets could be implemented without too much effort and would not significantly impair anyone's ability to use the internet and create new innovative uses.
- Block the outflow of packets bearing false source addresses.
- Block certain illegal bit patterns (e.g. TCP SYN+FIN or FIN+RST).
- Require TCP packets to be related to established connections.
- Block IP fragments and excessive ICMP activity.
I'm sure that this list could be easily extended without getting into contentious issues such as how a user might offer a network service rather than simply being a consumer of such services.
Bad people will ignore the requirement. But if good folks, the kind of people who make up the vast majority of machine owners, did use a certified attachment device than today's big zombie farms would lose much of their ability to do bad things.
There are certain other potential benefits. For example a certified box on the customer demarcation is a nice place to do remote loop backs so that ISPs could more quickly diagnose and resolve service issues.
Of course this is yet another layer of regulation. And it's imperfect and incomplete - it's not a panacea. But I am not convinced that it is an idea that should be discarded without serious contemplation of the costs (long and short term) and the benefits.
[CaveBear Blog]No longer is it enough to ensure that your creativity is not accomplished through use of your employer's computers or network, now you must make certain not to ask for advice or collaboration from friends who might be on AOL. If you email them your idea, AOL could claim ownership of your ideas. Make sense? Only to AOL's lawyers. Time to vote with your feet.
AOL raised a few eyebrows recently with some quiet changes to its Terms of Service. Although it has attempted to 'clarify' its position that the ToS don't apply to AIM, the fundamental problem still remains - the content belongs to AOL, not to you. You have no copyrights to your fiction, no trademarks in your online business ideas, no patentable notions in your invention drawings, if you put any of it onto AOL's net. AOL owns it all and can "reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote" it at will.
My intuition is that the other big online services have ToS that are equally privacy- and IP-hostile but today is AOL's turn under the kleiglight.
[Copyfight]Did we expect anything different? I mean really. Do you have ANY idea in the world that with the makeup of THIS Congress with its "screw the poor" mentality (oh, well they CREATED the poor, but screw them anyway) would do anything less? Still, it's quite depressing.
A bill favoring credit card vendors over voters has passed in
the Senate...
The Senate has passed a bill aimed at making bankruptcy more
difficult as a favor to the credit card industry at the expense
of voters. The bill makes it more difficult for individuals to
file under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. Those who file... [Morons Dot Org]
This needs to be said. Hooray for the people who actually made it to Madrid for this. Although my personal travels to these International Venues to be more "hands on" with Internet Freedom have been curtailed due to budgetary considerations, I follow the trends, and do what I can from my side of the keyboard.
I re-emerge.
Sorry for the hiatus. I will do my best in following posts to recount the sound and fury in my part of Meatspace that has led to my recent silence in Cyberspace. For now, here I am, in real time.
I'm in Madrid at a meeting convened by the Club of Madrid, a group of former heads of state, led by former Brazilian president Fernando Cardoso and, including everyone from Bill Clinton to Mikhail Gorbachev to Vaclav Havel, to John Major, all seeking to expiate their sins of office with subsequent good works.
The good work at hand is called The International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism, and Security. It feel a little like the World Economic Forum, though smaller and more focused. The security is intense and the press is excluded.( Though, interestingly, I am posting these words from inside a session, along with the many other bloggers.)
I fear, that despite enough good intentions to pave a superhighway to hell, not much is likely to come from this. Everyone seems to be playing we within the boundaries of his usual rule set. I have yet to hear anyone say something that seemed likely to mitigate the idiocy of this age.
And I'm no better in this regard. I spent all damned day yesterday in session with many of the stars of Cyberspace, folks like Joichi Ito, John Gage, Dan Gillmor, David Weinberger, Ethan Zuckerman, Marc Rotenberg, Andrew Mclaughlin, Rebecca MacKinnon, etc. etc. Laboring long and loud, we collectively produced the following statement:
The Infrastructure of Democracy Strengthening the Open Internet for a Safer World March 11, 2005
I. The Internet is a foundation of democratic society in the 21st century, because the core values of the Internet and democracy are so closely aligned.
1. The Internet is fundamentally about openness, participation, and freedom of expression for all -- increasing the diversity and reach of information and ideas.
2. The Internet allows people to communicate and collaborate across borders and belief systems.
3. The Internet unites families and cultures in diaspora; it connects people, helping them to form civil societies.
4. The Internet can foster economic development by connecting people to information and markets.
5. The Internet introduces new ideas and views to those who may be isolated and prone to political violence.
6. The Internet is neither above nor below the law. The same legal principles that apply in the physical world also apply to human activities conducted over the Internet.
II. Decentralized systems -- the power of many -- can combat decentralized foes.
1. Terrorist networks are highly decentralized and distributed. A centralized effort by itself cannot effectively fight terrorism.
2. Terrorism is everyone's issue. The internet connects everyone. A connected citizenry is the best defense against terrorist propaganda.
3. As we saw in the aftermath of the March 11 bombing, response was spontaneous and rapid because the citizens were able to use the Internet to organize themselves.
4. As we are seeing in the distributed world of weblogs and other kinds of citizen media, truth emerges best in open conversation among people with divergent views.
III. The best response to abuses of openness is more openness.
1. Open, transparent environments are more secure and more stable than closed, opaque ones.
2. While Internet services can be interrupted, the Internet as a global system is ultimately resilient to attacks, even sophisticated and widely distributed ones.
3. The connectedness of the Internet – people talking with people – counters the divisiveness terrorists are trying to create.
4. The openness of the Internet may be exploited by terrorists, but as with democratic governments, openness minimizes the likelihood of terrorist acts and enables effective responses to terrorism.
IV. Well-meaning regulation of the Internet in established democracies could threaten the development of emerging democracies.
1. Terrorism cannot destroy the internet, but over-zealous legislation in response to terrorism could. Governments should consider mandating changes to core Internet functionality only with extraordinary caution.
2. Some government initiatives that look reasonable in fact violate the basic principles that have made the Internet a success.
3. For example, several interests have called for an end to anonymity. This would be highly unlikely to stop determined terrorists, but it would have a chilling effect on political activity and thereby reduce freedom and transparency. Limiting anonymity would have a cascading series of unintended results that would hurt freedom of expression, especially in countries seeking transition to democratic rule.
V. In conclusion we urge those gathered here in Madrid to:
1. Embrace the open Internet as a foundation of 21st Century democracy, and a critical tool in the fight against terrorism.
2. Recognizing the Internet's value as a critical communications infrastructure, invest to strengthen it against attacks and recover quickly from damage.
3. Work to spread access more evenly, aggressively addressing the Digital Divide, and to provide Internet access for all.
4. To protect free speech and association, endorse the availability of anonymous communications for all.
5. Resist attempts at international governance of the Internet: It can introduce processes that have unintended effects and violate the bottom-up democratic nature of the Net.
In other words, precisely what you would expect us to say. So predictable as to be the equivalent of silence. And yet, it's what we all passionately believe.
We are now all in a session where we are presenting this little manifesto.
It has just been strongly and rather surprisingly rebuked by my friend Benjamin Barber who laid out the usual older, indigerate stuff about how the Internet is nothing but the handmaiden of big media, scarcely better than television.
Now an Iranian lady has risen to discuss, among other things, the fact that all the ayatollahs of Iran have sites on the Internet.
[BarlowFriendz]
So why are people surprised by this? WIPO is simply following the ICANN model. If a group that claims it is "open and transparent" can be allowed to have meetings in places where they KNOW that public interest people can't afford to go, and although a few people make noise about it, the organization it supposedly reports to (NTIA) does nothing, why can't WIPO follow suit? After all, WIPO has never claimed to be open and transparent, and has ALWAYS been up front about its mandate to protect intellectual property interests.
...and nobody is allowed to show up?
Or, in another clever variation of the theme, you're told to meet in separate groups somewhere far away, where it's too expensive for those who support your position to join you?
Yesterday I provided the fleetest of updates on the first scenario. Cory did a better job of it over at BoingBoing, capturing in a few typically vivid sentences where we are in the struggle to introduce public-interest considerations to WIPO decsionmaking:
When I first got involved [in WIPO], I wasn't sure that we could make a different against this monolithic, enormous institution, but these days, I'm less worried: WIPO has been fighting the participation of public interest groups with the kinds of dirty tricks that indicate that they're running scared, which means that we're doing something right.
Regional consultations are generally held in far-flung corners of the world, unreachable by civil society NGOs [non-government organizations] on a low budget and less likely to covered by the press. There are generally no formal requirements to invite any single country, and some countries have argued that the Casablanca meeting excluded countries that expressed vocal opposition to the wealthy nations' proposals.
As I've written before, it's very important that we shine as bright a light as possible on what's happening here.
It's tough to write about WIPO; you spend half your time unraveling acronyms, the other sending off flares to convey the urgency of the situation. But your voice here is very important. Most "big media" outlets aren't covering this story, and that's a huge advantage for the powers-that-be. If you're reading this post, please take a few minutes to write about how important it is that WIPO abandons these tricks and begins the real discussion about pursuing IP law and policy that serves the world majority rather than only a tiny minority of powerful entertainment companies.
[Copyfight]Do we REALLY think that the FBI needs to prove necessity, regardless of what the law says? All they need to do is use the magic word "terrorism" to get anything that they desire. Meantime, the ISPs will be obliged to spend billions to change their technology to permit the intrusion.
In a detailed letter, CDT on March 2 urged the Federal Communications Commission to stop its on-going rulemaking process to impose wiretap design mandates on the Internet. CDT has long argued that the FCC lacks the statutory power to take such action. In its latest filing, after reviewing hundreds of pages of comments by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice, CDT concluded that there is no evidence of any problem justifying such mandates. The Commission has been considering the issue of design requirements for Voice over Internet Protocol services since 2003, but has announced no schedule for action. [Center for Democracy and Technology]
So why are we losing privacy? Why is it SO important to find who owns a domain name? The most overwhelming reason is so that the Intellectual Property Cartel can serve them with cease and desist orders and try to take away their domain names. If a crime is committed, such as fraud using a website, it's a simple matter for prosecutors to subpoena the information from an ISP. However, for civil suits, the government has stepped in to make it much easier for the "big guys" and more difficult for the domain name holders, who now continue to be spammed and stalked by people who know enough to do a "whois." Equitable? Hell no! But then, what HAS been equitable since corporate takeover of the Internet?
As facts unfold, and the NTIA's decision to take away our privacy comes to light, it is interesting to see the NTIA struggling to explain its decision. Keep in mind that an "as yet to be identified" bureaucrat made this decision to take away your privacy, did it without notice, and without holding hearings. Those affected were not given an opportunity to explain how the loss of privacy would negatively affect them. Quite simply, this is NOT how our government is supposed to work.... [CircleID]
Yet another "feel good" measure so that the not so bright masses feel "safe."
Real ID's, Real Dangers
By RICHARD A. CLARKE
Have you ever wondered what good it does when they look at your
driver's license at the airport? Let me assure you, as a former
bureaucrat partly responsible for the 1996 decision to create a
photo-ID requirement, it no longer does any good whatsoever. The
ID check is not done by federal officers but by the same kind of
minimum-wage rent-a-cops who were doing the inspection of carry-on
luggage before 9/11. They do nothing to verify that your license
is real. For $48 you can buy a phony license on the Internet (ask
any 18-year-old) and fool most airport ID checkers. Airport personnel
could be equipped with scanners to look for the hidden security
features incorporated into most states' driver's licenses, but
although some bars use this technology to spot under-age drinkers,
airports do not. The photo-ID requirement provides only a false
sense of security.
From the NY Times
Governments around the world, including our very own, have mandated that Internet Service Providers become "wiretap ready" so just in case the government wants to see what information originated where and when, they can "big brother" you. Iran has already used this type of information to imprison Arash Sigarchi, a blogger in that country. Before you say "that would never happen here" think about a few interesting facts:
1) Many dissidents in the US have found themselves on the "do not fly" list solely because of their political views, and not because of any "terrorist activities." It doesn't matter that the government calls political views "terrorism" these days.
2) Our government wants us to all be RFID tagged with special identification that will make it easy to track us wherever we may be.
This significantly disturbing trend has far too few people standing up and saying "this is wrong." Likely because people who do are seen to be "soft on terrorism" and therefore "unpatriotic." Go figure.
Yes, of course our pal Justice Scalia, who doesn't understand the impropriety of playing golf with potential parties in cases he has to decide, would also have difficulty figuring out why glorifying Judeo/Christian documents at public expense is a "bad thing." It would be nice if Supreme Court Justices actually protected the Constitution rather than found ways to push their own personal agendas to the detriment of the minority. Yes, the Constitution is supposed to protect against the "tyranny of the majority" but not if people like Scalia have their way.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia today challenged people who want to ban displays of the Ten Commandments on government property, noting legislative proclamations invoking God's name are permissible. "I don't see why the one is good and the other is bad," Scalia said. [CNN.com]