tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33622111354316069552024-03-13T08:32:27.260-07:00MoronathonRace to the bottomset.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.comBlogger134125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-3526743130460823462012-08-02T04:41:00.000-07:002012-08-02T04:41:21.448-07:00Toe Fungi<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/TLHbHmwhRuI/AAAAAAAAAQk/CFyPsaEGAOY/s1600/p-40e_01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="143" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/TLHbHmwhRuI/AAAAAAAAAQk/CFyPsaEGAOY/s200/p-40e_01.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germs of every other…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual war.</i><br />
<br />
James Madisonset.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-84522789511702921812012-08-02T04:37:00.000-07:002012-08-02T04:37:12.734-07:00humanity hanging from a cross of ironEvery gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not
spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the
genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way
of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it
is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.<br />
<br />
Dwight D Eisenhower.set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-30283282537209776712011-05-17T12:26:00.000-07:002011-05-17T12:26:13.164-07:00it should be the BombI have much to say, but I also have much to do. Since nobody actually reads this, I am not under considerable social pressure to put anything up.<br />
<br />
Still, we get mail here at Work. Enjoy.<br />
<br />
<br />
<pre wrap="">We write to congratulate your feat in developing the super computer, and wish o request for collaboration with your company in pursing the frontier of technology and opening the GATES. It can control all that is in HEAVEN, it could also begin the process of communicating with other planets
We are involve in application of new technological formula in Research and production of computer that should not just serve as complimentary tool but an independent entity that can initiate action, reaction e tc, the way humans could do. Instead of controlling aero plane or Electric Train It should be the flight or Transport. Instead of controlling Nuclear Bomb, it should be the Bomb. Instead of forecasting the weather, it should create the weather e t c .it should be super, but not necessarily big.
We have already established the path and opened the GATES in the software side. We created software's that can identify a terrorist, loan default, identify the rise and fall in stock, indentify a criminal from a list of suspects, etc.</pre>set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-53010265323494372832011-05-02T22:12:00.000-07:002011-05-02T22:12:53.685-07:00Eat My Fuck Mitt RomneyJust in case you think that Mitt Romney is not just a dick for a bunch of cross burning motherfuckers:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“You remember during the Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter debates that Ronald Reagan came up with this great thing about the misery index, and he hung that around Jimmy Carter’s neck and that had a lot to do with Jimmy Carter losing. Well we’re going to hang the Obama misery index around his neck.” <br />
He continued, “ The fact that you’ve got people in this country really squeezed…We’re going to hang him with that, so to speak, metaphorically, with uh, you have to be careful these days.”</blockquote>uh, maybe you might if anybody in the news saw this as anything more than a 'gaff'. So while I am here, eat my fuck Corporate News Bitches.set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-23220268928505655082011-04-09T11:53:00.000-07:002011-04-09T11:53:29.544-07:00Rule of what? So Ordered.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L3XZAQdjrlo/TaCqNrxc8GI/AAAAAAAAARY/OVIZtIhB1hQ/s1600/the-rule-of-law.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L3XZAQdjrlo/TaCqNrxc8GI/AAAAAAAAARY/OVIZtIhB1hQ/s200/the-rule-of-law.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Two posts in one day! Trying to clear the docket of stuff I have to rant about...</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">This one revolves around a decision yesterday by a DC Appeals Court for Yasein Khasem Mohammad Esmail, detainee, Camp Delta. As I am not well versed in reading a typical court decision, it is not my normal reading material. Went and looked over this one though since it was referred to in a rather unhappy post on </span><a href="http://gtmoblog.blogspot.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The Guantánamo Blog</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">. If you have never seen it, this is a very good read.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">In looking over this opinion, I am struck by how arbitrary it all seems to be. In a country where such notions as innocent until proven guilty, chain of evidence and differentiating between hearsay and verifiable evidence it is a little shocking to read. In reading it over I hear the courts saying something like "we really don't give a shit that we tortured you, tried you on uncorroboratable hearsay, we </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">think</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> that there is a strong enough chance that you could have been part of al Qadea and that lets us violate all legal precedent and tradition."</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">I can not make this up, from the </span><a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/CF90BB9790E6DDB68525786C004EBE28/$file/10-5282-1302328.pdf"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">source</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">: </span><br />
<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM. Concurring opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge SILBERMAN. </span></span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">PER CURIAM: Appellant, Yasein Khasem Mohammad Esmail, a detainee at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was captured by Northern Alliance forces in December 2001 and transferred to American custody in January of the following year. In 2004, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The district court denied the petition, and Esmail now appeals. Because we agree with the district court’s ultimate determination that Esmail was more likely than not “part of” al Qaeda at the time of his capture in December of 2001, we affirm.</span></span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Esmail challenges the district court’s decision on a number of grounds. In particular, he argues that the district court erred in finding that statements he made to American interrogators in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay were voluntary. He also argues that the district court erred in relying on those statements despite the government’s failure to provide sufficient evidence corroborating their content. But we have no need to consider either of those issues because the record contains sufficient facts—affected neither by the alleged coercion nor by the lack of corroboration—to support the district court’s conclusion that Esmail was “part of” al Qaeda at the time of his capture. See Bensayah v. Obama, 610 F.3d 718, 724–25 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he [Authorization for Use of Military Force] authorizes the Executive to detain, at the least, any individual who is functionally part of al Qaeda.”); see also Barhoumi v. Obama, 609 F.3d 416, 423 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (clarifying that in habeas appeals involving Guantanamo Bay detainees we review district court fact findings for clear error, and we review the ultimate issue of whether the detainee was “part of” al Qaeda de novo).</span></span></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Was more likely than not "part of" al Qadea. Perhaps I am a bit old fashioned, but that seems a little less like a burden of proof than I would like to have applied to me.</span></div><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Think about what is going on here. What sucks even more is the opinion statement in the last two pages. It is here in part:</span><br />
<br />
<div style="font: 12.0px Times New Roman; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"></span></span></span></span></span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">My second point, not unrelated to the first, goes to the unusual incentives and disincentives that bear on judges on the D.C. Circuit courts – particularly the Court of Appeals – charged with deciding these detainee habeas cases. In the typical criminal case, a good judge will vote to overturn a conviction if the prosecutor lacked sufficient evidence, even when the judge is virtually certain that the defendant committed the crime. That can mean that a thoroughly bad person is released onto our streets, but I need not explain why our criminal justice system treats that risk as one we all believe, or should believe, is justified.</span></span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> When we are dealing with detainees, candor obliges me to admit that one can not help but be conscious of the infinitely greater downside risk to our country, and its people, of an order releasing a detainee who is likely to return to terrorism. One does not have to be a “Posnerian” – a believer that virtually all law and regulation should be judged in accordance with a cost/benefit analysis – to recognize this uncomfortable fact.</span></span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> That means that there are powerful reasons for the government to rely on our opinion in Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2010), which persuasively explains that in a habeas corpus proceeding the preponderance of evidence standard that the government assumes binds it, is unnecessary – and moreover, unrealistic. Id. at 1104-05. I doubt any of my colleagues will vote to grant a petition</span></span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> if he or she believes that it is somewhat likely that the petitioner is an al Qaeda adherent or an active supporter</span></span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">. Unless, of course, the Supreme Court were to adopt the preponderance of the evidence standard (which it is unlikely to do – taking a case might obligate it to assume direct responsibility for the consequences of Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)). But I, like my colleagues, certainly would release a petitioner against whom the government could not muster even “some evidence.”</span></span></blockquote></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">So the (sic) Justice Department just has to come up with </span><i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">some evidence</span></b></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> to detain a person - be that hearsay, or that derived by torture - to hold someone because that person was "more likely than not part of al Qadea". And this determination is left up to a judge based on a burden that they think it is "somewhat likely" that they are even a </span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">supporter</span></i></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> of al Qaeda? What the fuck?</span></span><br />
<div style="font: 12.0px Times New Roman; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times New Roman; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">I have another post about madness at the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) - which you may know from it's fine tradition of telling the executive branch (often post-facto) that silly things like laws and constitutionality no longer apply to them which then just seems to magically become law. WTF?!?!</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times New Roman; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times New Roman; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">More later. The last sentence in the decision says it all:</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times New Roman; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Times New Roman; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">So Ordered.<br />
<br />
<br />
</span></span></span></div>set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-62597574341571589722011-04-09T10:04:00.000-07:002011-04-09T17:01:23.998-07:00The widespread pattern of discriminationSo scratch another state of the list of places I will <i>ever</i> live. In an act of anti science dumbfuckery, the state of Tennessee has passed a bill which encourages "science" teachers to "explore controversial topics without fear of reprisal." <br />
<br />
The bills <a href="http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf">text</a> says that teachers will be protected if they:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">"help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught," namely, "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." The bill also says that its "shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine." </span></blockquote>So remember this folks, Evidence Based Analysis is just a non-religious doctrine.<br />
<br />
I hate this fucking place some times.set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-69493686315581655722011-03-13T10:44:00.000-07:002011-03-13T10:44:02.108-07:00Are there no work houses?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-BeH1uwQ06Co/TX0CKit1rmI/AAAAAAAAARU/j40_6pO00PQ/s1600/feet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="130" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-BeH1uwQ06Co/TX0CKit1rmI/AAAAAAAAARU/j40_6pO00PQ/s200/feet.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>In a effort to get those lazy driftless children off the public dole and out into productive society, free market hero Jane Cunningham sponsored a <a href="http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?BillID=4124271&SessionType=R">bill</a> in the Missouri congress which proposes the following:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">SB 222 – This act modifies the child labor laws. It eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed. It also repeals the requirement that a child ages fourteen or fifteen obtain a work certificate or work permit in order to be employed. Children under sixteen will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished. It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers who employ children and to require them to keep certain records for children they employ. It also repeals the presumption that the presence of a child in a workplace is evidence of employment.</span></blockquote>This is not a joke. The text of the bill has clearly been taken over since the pdf available at the above link tracks changes made in the bill text. Don't really know what to say about this. It took <i>decades</i> of determined effort to get rid of child labor in this country when business claimed that they needed child labor to be competitive. <div><br />
</div><div>I have nothing to add, but to ask Jane Cunningham what it is like to live as a person without shame.</div>set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-88426225318452014532011-03-01T21:39:00.000-08:002011-03-01T21:39:31.583-08:00One small step for non-crazypants wearin' people<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-qYCvPvJSaX4/TW3Vl75Ep2I/AAAAAAAAARM/UMXyG2xaoIk/s1600/anon.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-qYCvPvJSaX4/TW3Vl75Ep2I/AAAAAAAAARM/UMXyG2xaoIk/s1600/anon.gif" /></a></div>I share with you a profoundly amusing clip of a so called representative of the Westboro Baptist Church being interviewed at the same time as a member of the Anonymous group (of which I have a soft spot in my heart for).<br />
<br />
The representative has done the belt and suspenders thing with her crazy pants and would really not be all that much fun to spend time with in, say, a 20 hour greyhound ride. In retrospect she is a profoundly good representative of this so called church.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OZJwSjor4hM" title="YouTube video player" width="500"></iframe><br />
<br />
I can do nothing more than ask you to watch this entire episode unfold before your eyes. You might note that the page posted on the upload site shows a complete and total owning of the internal network of these fuckweasels and that group showed more restraint than I would have in not salting the (virtual) earth or tossing the entirety of their internal correspondence out into the sun.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-hGbfzX192Xs/TW3WrUGFRzI/AAAAAAAAARQ/y1vcESu0hQ4/s1600/anon-dec.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-hGbfzX192Xs/TW3WrUGFRzI/AAAAAAAAARQ/y1vcESu0hQ4/s640/anon-dec.jpeg" width="377" /></a></div>set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-21702950209763512162011-02-27T07:08:00.000-08:002011-02-27T07:08:43.421-08:00War on XX, redux reduxJust in case the outstandingly (good and bad) events in WI have taken your eyes off the criminals in Washington, a quick overview courtesy of the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26sat1.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211">New York Times</a> might be in order.<br />
<br />
Besides the gobsmackng stupidity at a variety of state levels, we have the budget bill pushed through the the House last saturday which contained:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>Defunding of Planned Parenthood</li>
<li>The elimination of support for Title X, the federal family planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted diseases.</li>
<li>Slash support for international Family Planning, reimposing the odious global “gag” rule, which forbids giving federal money to any group that even talks about abortions.</li>
<li>Cut by 10 percent the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known as WIC, which serves 9.6 million low-income women, new mothers, and infants each month, and has been linked in studies to higher birth weight and lower infant mortality.</li>
<li>The G.O.P. bill also slices $50 million from the block grant supporting programs providing prenatal health care to 2.5 million low-income women and health care to 31 million children annually.</li>
<li>$50 million in cuts to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant that “supports state-based prenatal care programs and services for children with special needs.”</li>
<li>$1 billion in cuts to programs at the National Institutes of Health that support “lifesaving biomedical research aimed at finding the causes and developing strategies for preventing preterm birth.” </li>
<li> Nearly $1 billion in cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for its preventive health programs, including to its preterm birth studies. </li>
</ul><br />
Additional bills include:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>Two bills in the Republican House would go even further than the current Democrat agreement to stop insurance companies from offering plans that cover abortions in denying coverage to the 30 percent or so of women who have an abortion during child-bearing years. </li>
<li>A bill, offered by Representative Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, has a provision that would allow hospitals receiving federal funds to refuse to terminate a pregnancy even when necessary to save a woman’s life. </li>
</ul><br />
In the opinion section there is a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26blow.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB">somewhat more strongly worded article</a> (hooray!) which states:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">It is savagely immoral and profoundly inconsistent to insist that women endure unwanted — and in some cases dangerous — pregnancies for the sake of “unborn children,” then eliminate financing designed to prevent those children from being delivered prematurely, rendering them the most fragile and vulnerable of newborns. How is this humane? </span> </blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">...</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">Of the 33 countries that the International Monetary Fund describes as “advanced economies,” the United States now has the highest infant mortality rate according to data from the World Bank. It took us decades to arrive at this dubious distinction. In 1960, we were 15th. In 1980, we were 13th. And, in 2000, we were 2nd. </span> </blockquote><br />
While I am a little anxious about graphs than mix a large number of things up on the same axis wo/ units, this still tells the tell tale story:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-wRBzI_nrvUA/TWpnvbb8hLI/AAAAAAAAARI/BVLKHL2XLZ4/s1600/26blowgraphic-popup.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-wRBzI_nrvUA/TWpnvbb8hLI/AAAAAAAAARI/BVLKHL2XLZ4/s1600/26blowgraphic-popup.jpg" /></a></div><br />
This is a fucking mess. If one of these cowards who voted for this ever contends than they think of women as less than secondary citizens, call them out for the lying shitbags that they are. Cutting access to health care to the majority of all women will require a whole lot more spine than the "firm leadership" called for in the same NYT article. I am pleased that they printed the article, but the democrats can not be counted on to do anything but throwing women's health and equal rights issues under the bus to placate their theocrat wingnut opponents.<br />
<br />
s.e.set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-83762753983352418952011-02-23T10:15:00.000-08:002011-02-23T10:20:18.616-08:00Koch Whore: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker answers his master’s callThis is just too cool...<br />
<br />
Social engineering at it's finest - call up Her Walker and pretend to be David Koch.<br />
<br />
http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=5045<br />
<br />
I have had some problems getting through since the site is getting kinda popular at the moment..<br />
<br />
<object height="290" width="420"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WBnSv3a6Nh4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WBnSv3a6Nh4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object><br />
<br />
and<br />
<br />
<object height="290" width="420"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z3a2pYGr7-k&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z3a2pYGr7-k&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object><br />
<br />
Just a quick taste:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Koch: Well, they’re probably putting hobos in suits.</blockquote><blockquote>Walker: Yeah.</blockquote><blockquote>Koch: That’s what we do. Sometimes.</blockquote><blockquote>Walker: I mean paying for the senators to be put up. I know they’re paying for these guy—I mean, people can pay for protesters to come in and that’s not an ethics code, but, I mean, literally if the unions are paying the 14 senators—their food, their lodging, anything like that…[*** Important regarding his later acceptance of a Koch offer to “show him a good time.” ***]</blockquote><blockquote>[I was stunned. I am stunned. In the interest of expediting the release of this story, here are the juiciest bits:]</blockquote><blockquote>Walker: …I’ve got layoff notices ready…</blockquote><blockquote>Koch: Beautiful; beautiful. Gotta crush that union.</blockquote><blockquote>Walker: [bragging about how he doesn't budge]…I would be willing to sit down and talk to him, the assembly Democrat leader, plus the other two Republican leaders—talk, not negotiate and listen to what they have to say if they will in turn—but I’ll only do it if all 14 of them will come back and sit down in the state assembly…legally, we believe, once they’ve gone into session, they don’t physically have to be there. If they’re actually in session for that day, and they take a recess, the 19 Senate Republicans could then go into action and they’d have quorum…so we’re double checking that. If you heard I was going to talk to them that’s the only reason why. We’d only do it if they came back to the capital with all 14 of them…</blockquote><blockquote>Koch: Bring a baseball bat. That’s what I’d do.</blockquote><blockquote>Walker: I have one in my office; you’d be happy with that. I have a slugger with my name on it.</blockquote><blockquote>Koch: Beautiful.</blockquote><br />
Remainder of transcript and utube links are at:<br />
<br />
http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=5045<br />
<br />
s.e.set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-40324404682099366762011-02-19T11:12:00.000-08:002011-02-19T11:12:50.824-08:00Mephistopheles dental floss, or Toe Jam<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-je4oxW83VYw/TWAK7kJa1UI/AAAAAAAAARA/pqg81qW-Cg8/s1600/MetaDentalFlossWTF.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-je4oxW83VYw/TWAK7kJa1UI/AAAAAAAAARA/pqg81qW-Cg8/s200/MetaDentalFlossWTF.jpg" width="128" /></a></div>I am at a loss for the bolts falling off our so called society, so I counter the irrational fervor with a good serving of word salad. You try putting "Mephistopheles dental floss" into google image search and see what <i>you</i> get.<br />
<br />
All sorts of shit is going on now and it is getting a little weird. What troubles me is not that I think that all of these things will pass, but what sort of world would exist if they did, and what sociopath would push for such a dream? Quick bullet point list:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>Defunding Planned Parenthood</li>
<li>Defunding PBS (ok, I get defunding Elmo...)</li>
<li>Defunding NPR</li>
<li>Whatever the fuck is going on in WI: War on unions (rather, those who did not suck Scott Douchbag Walkers ass), teachers, universities and other non-trolls</li>
<li>Tearing down Social Security</li>
<li>Significant Defunding of many state schools</li>
<li>Authorizing the assassination of medical providers (see prev post)</li>
<li>And So Much More!</li>
</ul><br />
<br />
On the other hand, the same federal congressional brain trust voted to continue having the US Army spend more than<a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/02/pentagons-nascar-sponsorship-gets-a-green-light-congress-rejects-measure-to-cut-funding-for-ads-on-r.html"> $7 million a year</a> to sponsor NASCAR Sprint Cup driver Ryan Newman and several million more as part of a partnership with NASCAR. Since I lack many of the essential social boundaries that lubricate our "normal" interactions, I will indeed ask: what did Ryan have to do to who to get such an excellent contract??? <br />
<br />
This is life in new america folks.<br />
<br />
If you are not in, you are out in the cold of some sort of Dicken's novel. Except without any hope of a good ending. Just a cold angry fearful place. Just in case I am planning on re-reading <i>The Handmaiden's Tale</i> for homework.<br />
<br />
As an antidote to the bile that I have been choking down, I offer you this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tp3GIbQIBko/TWAUxq-k_RI/AAAAAAAAARE/szBgfzsitWw/s1600/WI-fist.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tp3GIbQIBko/TWAUxq-k_RI/AAAAAAAAARE/szBgfzsitWw/s1600/WI-fist.jpg" /></a></div><br />
For the first time in a while I am actually proud of the people who live here. Tens of thousands of people have gone down to the capitol building for days now to protest the absurdity of our current state governor. The mighty Mrs. set.element and I are dragging thing1 and thing2 down there to provide a little demonstration of participatory democracy. Now that makes me happy.<br />
<br />
s.e.set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-82766872520130906712011-02-16T08:26:00.000-08:002011-02-16T09:31:47.706-08:00HB1171: codifying abortion provider killingI have blovated at length about the world spinning down and the continuing war against Reason and decency. I have scooped up a big stinking pile of shit and waited for the mushrooms to grow. And still I wait. So here in this happy place I discovered a new low. Go figure.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?File=HB1171HJU.htm">HB1171</a> is a bill currently in play in South Dakota which redefines justifiable homicide in such a way as to make it legal to shoot abortion providers in cold blood. No doubt it will not make it out of committee, but that kinda misses the point.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child,<b> master, mistress, or servant</b>, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.</span></blockquote><br />
If you have the stomach, read more in a <a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/south-dakota-hb-1171-legalize-killing-abortion-providers">Mother Jones</a> about this. I am going to lose my shit for a moment.<br />
<br />
This bill is sponsored by Rep. Phil Jensen a "committed" foe of abortion rights. He is just another chickenshit doushbag from the religious right. He lacks the fucking stones to actually say what he means - he says <em>"This simply is to bring consistency to South Dakota statute as it relates to justifiable homicide"</em> which is bullshit. What a bastard. Every one of these people acts like this - a fucking refusal to step up and actually <b><i>own</i></b> the consequences of their actions. These fans of "personal responsibility", these baby jebus loven' freedom hating spoiled shits get the wingnuttery all riled up then sit around and have the gall to stare blankly into a camera and say they had NO IDEA that thirty years of increasingly violent hate speech would somehow be a problem after people start being killed.<br />
<br />
I am not better now, but if I do not stop I might write something that is ALL IN CAPS and FULL OF THINGS THAT MIGHT GET ME IN TROUBLE.<br />
<br />
Looks like the bill made it out of committee and will be on the floor of the state house.<br />
<br />
By the way if you see the beautiful Mrs set.element today, please give her a hug cause today is a hard one. Also I apologize to Spiros for the terrible violence I have committed against the english language.<br />
<br />
Peace<br />
<br />
quick amendment - the delightful Mrs set.element just pointed out the creepy master/mistress/servant language. WTF? These people are so many damned layers of creepy I just want to take a shower after reading this.set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-74633368114048454242011-01-30T12:41:00.002-08:002011-01-30T13:11:18.856-08:00Another day where my head slowly spins...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/TUXMps8UG4I/AAAAAAAAAQ4/qz46i3tJ3Pg/s1600/streetviewbusted-150x150.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/TUXMps8UG4I/AAAAAAAAAQ4/qz46i3tJ3Pg/s200/streetviewbusted-150x150.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>In order to keep everyone as informed (and depressed) as possible, I am going to post quite a bit more for a while. Pointless I assure you.<br />
<br />
So todays irritant involves the collective activities of google (you know them?) as well as the Connecticut AG in a change of attitude about some activities involving privacy and data collection.<br />
<br />
A moment about google - I acknowledge (and even embrace) the irony of using a "free" public blog hosted under google services while I call them names. I know (as do you) that if you are not purchasing a product from a company that in fact <i>you</i> are the product. And yes, Soylant Green is made of people.<br />
<br />
A moment about what google did. <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8a23b394-5fab-11df-a670-00144feab49a.html#axzz1COcF71vW"> Short version</a> - in order to have a better idea about who is exactly where when they use the google location services. As part of the street view program (where they drive around and take pictures of streets, houses and whatnot) they hoovered up wireless data from unsecured wireless installations instead of just the id of the transmitter. After denying that they did this (a profoundly dicky thing), they acknowledged the act and threw the programmers under the bus since that it what management does.<br />
<br />
So who really gives a shit?<br />
<br />
Former Attorney General Richard Blumenthal last December in response to Google's 'accidental' collection of payload data from WiFi networks had the <a href="http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=2341&Q=469804">following to say</a>:<br />
<div><blockquote> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">“Verifying Google’s data snare is crucial to assessing a penalty and assuring no repeat. Consumers and businesses expect and deserve a full explanation, as well as measures shielding them from future spying. We will scrupulously safeguard the confidentiality of information we review.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">“We will fight to compel Google to come clean–granting my office access to improperly collected materials and protecting confidentiality, as the company has done in Canada and elsewhere.”</span></blockquote></div><div>I like this for many reasons including the simple fact that it is the right thing to do.<br />
<div><br />
</div><div>Enter new Attorney General George Jepsen, who is <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20110128/connecticut-wont-press-for-google-wispy-data-looks-to-settle/">now saying</a>:</div><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">Jepsen said Friday that his office will </span><a href="http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/press_releases/2011/012811googlestip.pdf"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">enter into settlement negotiations with the company</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;"> without reviewing the pilfered data, which Google has steadfastly refused to share with it. Under the terms of the deal between the two, Connecticut will drop the civil investigative demand it was using to force Google to produce the data at issue here, and Google will stipulate to collecting and storing it. It will also stipulate that the data collected included confidential and private information like “partial or complete e-mail communications.”</span></blockquote><div>Note that google does not have to<i> get rid of </i>the data that it has.</div><div><br />
</div><div>So why, good readers am I so pissed off? We are living after all in a Business Friendly universe now. There is a <a href="http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/press_releases/2011/012811dataprivacy.pdf">second press release </a>which says in part:</div><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">For Immediate Release FRIDAY JAN. 28, 2011 </span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">HARTFORD – In recognition of Data Privacy Day, Attorney General George Jepsen Friday advised Connecticut residents to protect their personal and communications data by encrypting their own wireless Internet networks. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">The recommendation stemmed from Connecticut’s investigation into Google Inc.’s collection of payload data being transmitted over unsecured business and consumer networks. That investigation led to a stipulation with Google that will avoid the need to go to court as settlement negotiations continue. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">“Google’s collection of payload data demonstrates that others may be watching your Internet activity without your knowledge,” Jepsen said.<b><i> “Consumers should know that the wireless routers they purchase from the store are not automatically encrypted, and they need to activate the encryption feature to ensure better protection,”</i></b> Jepsen said.</span></blockquote><br />
So it is the <u><i>users fault</i></u>. So think of it like this. Google goes around the neighborhood and tries all the doors. If it is unlocked they write down your address, take a picture of your house and walk in and copy any sort of mail or paperwork that happens to be sitting around by the door. Then they leave. They are asked about it, and deny it. A month later they say that they were actually doing this and sorry, we were only planning on trying the doors and writing down the addresses! The AG asks to see what sort of personal correspondence was copied and is told to go fuck himself. Later a new AG says that the correspondence is more or less irrelevant and that people need to have done a better job of locking their doors and keeping their bills in order.<br />
<br />
This is why I am slowly going mad.</div>set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-58023014680877839352011-01-30T12:41:00.000-08:002011-01-30T12:41:38.871-08:00Another day where my head slowly spins...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/TUXMps8UG4I/AAAAAAAAAQ4/qz46i3tJ3Pg/s1600/streetviewbusted-150x150.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/TUXMps8UG4I/AAAAAAAAAQ4/qz46i3tJ3Pg/s200/streetviewbusted-150x150.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>In order to keep everyone as informed (and depressed) as possible, I am going to post quite a bit more for a while. Pointless I assure you.<br />
<br />
So todays irritant involves the collective activities of google (you know them?) as well as the Connecticut AG in a change of attitude about the activities.<br />
<br />
A moment about google - I acknowledge (and even embrace) the irony of using a "free" public blog hosted under google services while I call them names. I know (as do you) that if you are not purchasing a product from a company that in fact <i>you</i> are the product. And yes, Soylant Green is made of people.<br />
<br />
A moment about the offense (since there seems to be no real suggestion that they did not in fact do this I remove the usual 'alleged' qualifier). <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8a23b394-5fab-11df-a670-00144feab49a.html#axzz1COcF71vW"> Short version</a> - in order to have a better idea about who is exactly where when they use the google location services. As part of the street view program (where they drive around and take pictures of streets, houses and whatnot) they hoovered up wireless data from unsecured wireless installations instead of just the id of the transmitter. After denying that they did this (a profoundly dicky thing), they acknowledged the act and threw the programmers under the bus since that it what management does.<br />
<br />
So who really gives a shit?<br />
<br />
Former Attorney General Richard Blumenthal last December in response to Google's 'accidental' collection of payload data from WiFi networks had the <a href="http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=2341&Q=469804">following to say</a>:<div><blockquote> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">“Verifying Google’s data snare is crucial to assessing a penalty and assuring no repeat. Consumers and businesses expect and deserve a full explanation, as well as measures shielding them from future spying. We will scrupulously safeguard the confidentiality of information we review.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">“We will fight to compel Google to come clean–granting my office access to improperly collected materials and protecting confidentiality, as the company has done in Canada and elsewhere.”</span></blockquote></div><div>I like this for many reasons including the simple fact that it is the right thing to do.<div><br />
</div><div>Enter new Attorney General George Jepsen, who is <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20110128/connecticut-wont-press-for-google-wispy-data-looks-to-settle/">now saying</a>:</div><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">Jepsen said Friday that his office will </span><a href="http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/press_releases/2011/012811googlestip.pdf"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">enter into settlement negotiations with the company</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;"> without reviewing the pilfered data, which Google has steadfastly refused to share with it. Under the terms of the deal between the two, Connecticut will drop the civil investigative demand it was using to force Google to produce the data at issue here, and Google will stipulate to collecting and storing it. It will also stipulate that the data collected included confidential and private information like “partial or complete e-mail communications.”</span></blockquote><div>Note that google does not have to<i> get rid of </i>the data that it has.</div><div><br />
</div><div>So why, good readers am I so pissed off? We are living after all in a Business Friendly universe now. There is a <a href="http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/press_releases/2011/012811dataprivacy.pdf">second press release </a>which says in part:</div><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">For Immediate Release FRIDAY JAN. 28, 2011 </span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">HARTFORD – In recognition of Data Privacy Day, Attorney General George Jepsen Friday advised Connecticut residents to protect their personal and communications data by encrypting their own wireless Internet networks. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">The recommendation stemmed from Connecticut’s investigation into Google Inc.’s collection of payload data being transmitted over unsecured business and consumer networks. That investigation led to a stipulation with Google that will avoid the need to go to court as settlement negotiations continue. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">“Google’s collection of payload data demonstrates that others may be watching your Internet activity without your knowledge,” Jepsen said.<b><i> “Consumers should know that the wireless routers they purchase from the store are not automatically encrypted, and they need to activate the encryption feature to ensure better protection,”</i></b> Jepsen said.</span></blockquote><br />
So it is the <u><i>users fault</i></u>. So think of it like this. Google goes around the neighborhood and tries all the doors. If it is unlocked they write down your address, take a picture of your house and walk in and copy any sort of mail or paperwork that happens to be sitting around by the door. Then they leave. They are asked about it, and deny it. A month later they say that they were actually doing this and sorry, we were only planning on trying the doors and writing down the addresses! The AG asks to see what sort of personal correspondence was copied and is told to go fuck himself. Later a new AG says that the correspondence is more or less irrelevant and that people need to have done a better job of locking their doors and keeping their bills in order.<br />
<br />
This is why I am slowly going mad.</div>set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-80334146820052150932011-01-28T21:05:00.000-08:002011-01-28T21:05:46.360-08:00The Grey<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/TUOf8hoqJMI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/DFHadraP5K0/s1600/gey.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/TUOf8hoqJMI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/DFHadraP5K0/s200/gey.jpg" width="132" /></a></div>It has been approximately a year since I felt like there was time to sit and write out my frustrations to the world. Well, there is even less time than before, but I am tired and need to get a few things off my chest.<br />
<br />
I am sitting in my office overlooking a city composed from this perspective completely of muted grey, browns and white. A single red pipe sticking up from the new construction across the way composes the only primary color in view. The two things, the Grey and the Tired, are probably not unrelated and in part seem to be kept in check by the miracle of Modern Pharmaceuticals for which I am happy.<br />
<br />
In reading the interwebs the other day I run across this l<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9206379/DOJ_seeks_mandatory_data_retention_requirement_for_ISPs?taxonomyId=17">ittle gem</a> -<br />
<br />
<b>DOJ seeks mandatory data retention requirement for ISPs</b> ; <b>Joins police chief organization in calling for law to bolster enforcement efforts to fight child porn, other online crime</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">John Douglas, chief of police in Overland Park, Kansas and a representative of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, </span><a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Weinstein01252011.pdf" target="new"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">echoed similar concerns (PDF)</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">. "Clearly, preserving digital evidence is crucial in any modern-day criminal investigation," Douglas said in his prepared testimony for the House subcommittee. On occasion, law enforcement has been able to use existing legal processes to get ISPs to preserve data in connection with specific investigations, he said.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">However, because of widely varying data retention policies, sometimes law enforcement requests for protecting data are made too late. "There are cases where we are not able to work quickly enough -- mostly because a 'lead' is discovered after the logs have expired or we are unaware of the specific service provider's protocols concerning data retention time periods," Douglas said.</span></blockquote>What is being asked for is that ISP's retain data about online activity for a period of two years. The form of the data that is being asked for has not been fully described but <i>any</i> form of this retention represents a significant erosion of the notion of privacy. In the more full bodied version, providers would be required to keep full session information (think of this in terms of all your "web traffic"). Two years is a long time.<br />
<br />
Now this strikes me as a little stinky. There is almost no discussion of privacy concerns except perhaps:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">A discussion about data retention is also not about whether the government should have the ability to obtain retained data. Retained data is held by the provider, not the government. Federal law controls when providers can disclose information related to communications, and it requires investigators to obtain legal process, such as a subpoena or court order and in some cases with a search warrant, in order to compel providers to disclose it.</span></blockquote>Any way, the same DOJ jokers who currently break the law and abuse the system will just get another tiny speed bump put in place to see whatever you have been doing on line for the past couple of years.<br />
<br />
This is by no means a suggestion that it will be used by unethical folks for illegal actions, but really people give me a fucking break.<br />
<br />
In a larger perspective we can look back on the NSA coercing telecommunication companies into allowing them to engage in warentless surveillance. I have gone on and one about this in the past so, this will be short and to the point. From one of my <a href="http://www.pruningshears.us/">favorite sites</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">Senator Barack Obama, desperate for some traction against Hillary Clinton in the fight for the Democratic nomination for president </span><a class="offsite-link-inline" href="http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_i_would_support_dodds_filibuster.php" target="_blank" title="Obama: I Would Support Dodd's Filibuster | Greg Sargent"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">announced</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;"> (</span><a class="offsite-link-inline" href="http://fivebeforechaos.com/2007/10/24/obama-and-clinton-give-lukewarm-support-to-fisa-filibuster/" target="_blank" title="Obama and Clinton give lukewarm support to FISA filibuster | Five Before Chaos"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">via</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">) he would support a filibuster if it contained retroactive immunity, but in the end he </span><a class="offsite-link-inline" href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9986716-38.html" target="_blank" title="Senate endorses retroactive FISA immunity for warrantless wiretapping | Declan McCullagh"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">supported it</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">. The phone companies were off the hook (har) and no one had to find out anything.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">Why dredge up this ancient history? Because it sent the message to the business community that if the government comes calling it is best to go along. There is no downside to cooperating, apart perhaps from some anxiety while the pretty theater in the capitol plays out. There is a definite downside to pushing back, though.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">This scenario appears to be repeating, this time with Internet companies. Twitter just received a subpoena for user data along with a gag order preventing it from telling the targets. To its enormous credit, it fought back, </span><a class="offsite-link-inline" href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/twitter/" target="_blank" title="Twitter's Response to WikiLeaks Subpoena Should Be the Industry Standard | Ryan Singel"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">challenging and quashing</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;"> the gag order. WikiLeaks - the target of the investigation - raised the entirely reasonable </span><a class="offsite-link-inline" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/08/wikileaks-calls-google-facebook-us-subpoenas" target="_blank" title="WikiLeaks demands Google and Facebook unseal US subpoenas | Peter Beaumont"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">question of</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;"> whether, say, Facebook and Google have received similar orders. What assurance can anyone have that their data is being protected from US government surveillance?</span></blockquote>Honestly compared to this, the NSA buildout in various telcos is totally kids stuff.<br />
<br />
Just another day in The Grey.set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-52808905945114993932010-09-14T21:07:00.000-07:002010-09-14T21:07:21.831-07:00Compelling Necessity<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/TJBGRh96gGI/AAAAAAAAAQc/rsX9Y1RI47w/s1600/legend.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/TJBGRh96gGI/AAAAAAAAAQc/rsX9Y1RI47w/s200/legend.jpg" width="138" /></a></div>I have been digesting this for a few days now. Since no amount of "digestion" seems to help, I will just get it off my chest in the usual way.<br />
<br />
On 8, Sept the 9th Circuit ruled that the state secrets doctrine bars a court action for torture. That means that you (yes <b><i>you</i></b>, citizen!) can be dragged away in secret, held for years without charges, tortured etc etc and if the government wants to call their own law breaking a secret (meaning that there are "state secrets" involved) there is not fuck all that you can do. Full stop.<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #073763;">This case requires us to address the difficult balance the state secrets doctrine strikes between fundamental principles of our liberty, including justice, transparency, accountability and national security. Although as judges we strive to honor all of these principles, there are times when exceptional circumstances create an irreconcilable conflict between them. On those rare occasions, we are bound to follow the Supreme Court’s admonition that “<b>even the most compelling necessity cannot overcome the claim of privilege if the court is ultimately satisfied that [state] secrets are at stake</b>.” United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 11 (1953). After much deliberation, we reluctantly conclude this is such a case, and the plaintiffs’ action must be dismissed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.</span> </blockquote>From the <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/07/08-15693.pdf">Jeppesen Dataplan</a> suit.<br />
<br />
This is a big deal in that the same branch of the government that is breaking all these international laws, is the same one that defines what should be kept secret in the name of national security. You do the math.<br />
<br />
You can not tell me that the current administration is somehow innocent of this as well - they have pushed for a <i>growth</i> of executive privilege and pledged to ignore the self admitted crimes against humanity from the previous administration.<br />
<br />
The ACLU’s Ben Wizner on the decision:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #073763;">This is a sad day not only for the torture victims whose attempt to seek justice has been extinguished, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation’s reputation in the world. To date, not a single victim of the Bush administration’s torture program has had his day in court. If today’s decision is allowed to stand, the United States will have closed its courtroom doors to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers. The torture architects and their enablers may have escaped the judgment of this court, but they will not escape the judgment of history.</span></blockquote>I need a fucking drink.set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-80095749735735832992010-09-13T18:54:00.000-07:002010-09-13T18:54:37.339-07:00The tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/TI7VwXMXNxI/AAAAAAAAAQU/MD-xeH2ui1A/s1600/blueprint1008.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/TI7VwXMXNxI/AAAAAAAAAQU/MD-xeH2ui1A/s200/blueprint1008.jpg" width="150" /></a></div>In reading (whatever the hell I manage to read in my spare time), ran across this. More to say about it, but want to get it down now.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">Korematsu was born on our soil, of parents born in Japan. The Constitution makes him a citizen of the United States by nativity, and a citizen of California by residence. No claim is made that he is not loyal to this country. There is no suggestion that, apart from the matter involved here, he is not law-abiding and well disposed. Korematsu, however, has been convicted of an act not commonly a crime. It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">Even more unusual is the series of military orders which made this conduct a crime. They forbid such a one to remain, and they also forbid him to leave. They were so drawn that the only way Korematsu could avoid violation was to give himself up to the military authority. This meant submission to custody, examination, and transportation out of the territory, to be followed by indeterminate confinement in detention camps. . . .</span></blockquote><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #20124d;">A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. Even during that period, a succeeding commander may revoke it all. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes. All who observe the work of courts are familiar with what Judge Cardozo described as “the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.” * A military commander may overstep the bounds of constitutionality, and it is an incident. But if we review and approve, that passing incident becomes the doctrine of the Constitution. There it has a generative power of its own, and all that it creates will be in its own image. Nothing better illustrates this danger than does the Court’s opinion in this case.</span></blockquote></blockquote>Justice Jackson, wrote this in his dissent from <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/323/214/case.html" rel="nofollow">Korematsu v US</a> (starting on page 322 US 243).set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-9123272779600021762010-09-03T14:31:00.000-07:002010-09-03T14:31:28.724-07:00Impunity<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/TIForCk5qHI/AAAAAAAAAQE/mAT63-AaGzA/s1600/face.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/TIForCk5qHI/AAAAAAAAAQE/mAT63-AaGzA/s200/face.jpg" width="149" /></a></div>So I have been on hiatus for the past six months or so, trying to catch up on work and home and all the other things that people do besides complain to the great indifferent internets.<br />
<br />
I have read many things in that time which have caused my blood to boil, yet one small comment from some ignorant fuckwit has pushed me over the edge. As part of my non-pseudo-anonymous life I keep up with a number of computer security related things which is all good and fun. Just a few days ago there was some shenanigans about some software put out by some big company - the details are really not all that important. Looking over the comments I see:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #073763;">It appears this flaw was irresponsibly disclosed, that is, the vendor was not consulted for producing a hotfix before dumping the details on the web. I think sw vendors should refuse to fix irresponsibly disclosed bugs or exploits and direct users to do whatever they want to the hackers in retaliation. Maybe corporates should even have a policy of hunting down vxers and hackers, who publish zero days. I can't see why a big company, richer than many small countries, shouldn't have the authority to dispose of their enemies with impunity, in the same way any small country can, if they have a secret service.</span></blockquote>Huh? <br />
<br />
Anybody here see why big companies (or governments!) should not be able to dispose of their enemies with <i>impunity</i>? Even if this is a contemporary Modest Proposal, I have had the misfortune of people share this very same notion after a drink or two.<br />
<br />
Not sure exactly why this set me off, but with a little luck I might get a few things written in spite of myself.<br />
<br />
FIN|ACKset.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-46399431082154682572010-04-29T10:09:00.000-07:002010-04-29T10:09:58.787-07:00Nuke Oklahoma, or the sancity of baby jebusNot much time, but this is<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html?src=mv"> such vile bullshit</a>.<br />
<br />
Tuesday the Oklahoma legislature voted on two anti-abortion measures. The first mandates that the women undergoing the procedure have to watch a detailed ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus. The second protects doctors from being sued if they withhold information about birth defects when the fetus is in the womb.<br />
<br />
There are no exceptions for cases or rape or incest.<br />
<br />
The Democratic governor attempted to veto the two measures based on the rape/incest problem, the unconstitutional intrusion into a woman's privacy and the idea that: "It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient."<br />
<br />
Both houses voted to override the vetos.<br />
<br />
I was profoundly pissed off before I got to the last paragraph of the article. I make the quote the color of chickenshit, because that is what it is:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #7f6000;">“The goal of this legislation is just to make a statement for the sanctity of human life,” State Senator Todd Lamb, the majority floor leader, said in an interview after the vote. “Maybe someday these babies will grow up to be police officers and arrest bad people, or will find a cure for cancer.”</blockquote>I would like to know when this becomes a civil and human rights issue for women in that they are defacto being denied medical care because it violates the delicate religious notions of a bunch of hypocritical douches. set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-22991727841667197312010-04-13T21:13:00.000-07:002010-04-13T21:13:35.998-07:00"Useless" Air Marshal Service too busy aiding human-trafficking ring to stop underware bomberCatchy title, yes?<br />
<br />
Well what can I say? Homeland Security appropriates $860 Million for this agency who have had more air marshals arrested than actual suspects. <br />
<blockquote style="color: #20124d;">We now have approximately 4,000 in the Federal Air Marshals Service, yet they have made an average of just 4.2 arrests a year since 2001. This comes out to an average of about one arrest a year per 1,000 employees. </blockquote><blockquote style="color: #20124d;">Now, let me make that clear. Their thousands of employees are not making one arrest per year each. They are averaging slightly over four arrests each year by the entire agency. In other words, we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest. Let me repeat that: we are spending approximately $200 million per arrest. </blockquote> From <a href="http://duncan.house.gov/2009/06/22062009.shtml">here</a>. Based on what I see on the web site I might have a few issues with Congressman Duncan, but this message is spot on.<br />
<br />
If you don't click on the link, the following is a painfully true statement about the nature of almost any response to government RFPs:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #20124d;">Professor Ian Lustick of the University of Pennsylvania wrote last year about the money feeding frenzy of the war on terror. And he wrote this: “Nearly 7 years after September 11, 2001,'' he wrote this last year, “what accounts for the vast discrepancy between the terrorist threat facing America and the scale of our response? Why, absent any evidence of a serious terror threat, is a war to on terror so enormous, so all-encompassing, and still expanding? The fundamental answer is that al Qaeda's most important accomplishment was not to hijack our planes but to hijack our political system.” </blockquote><blockquote style="color: #20124d;">“For a multitude of politicians, interest groups and professional associations, corporations, media organizations, universities, local and State governments and Federal agency officials, the war on terror is now a major profit center, a funding bonanza, and a set of slogans and sound bites to be inserted into budget, grant, and contract proposals.'' </blockquote><br />
Back to our regularly scheduled madness...set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-21175353135690840222010-04-10T15:11:00.000-07:002010-04-10T15:11:44.838-07:00Where I rant pointlessly about religion and injustice<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/S8D3AXoslwI/AAAAAAAAAP8/4M_hCEhG7dE/s1600/flushing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="148" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/S8D3AXoslwI/AAAAAAAAAP8/4M_hCEhG7dE/s200/flushing.jpg" width="200" /></a></div> A few things have come over my computer in the past weeks, all relating to the repugnance of organized religion. Odd how when you spell check 'repugnance' you get 'Republican' in the list of options. Coincidence?<br />
<br />
The first I am sure everybody has heard about by now. It is old news about some stupid inbred church in the stupid inbred backwoods of the cold dark state of Wisconsin. In this place, we have a less broken priest named John Hartwig who had the indecency of suggesting that within the Lutheran church, perhaps the fundamental belief that "women should not have authority over men" might not be ok. In response, the men men men in Authority at this particular church held a meeting to fire this <strike>infidel evildoer</strike> priest at which women were not only not allowed to <i>vote</i>, but were <a href="http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_932a56c8-36d4-11df-a17e-001cc4c03286.html"><i><b>not allowed to speak</b></i></a> at the meeting either.<br />
<blockquote style="color: #20124d;">"While congregational leaders acknowledge Mr. Hartwig's fine administrative skills and recognize the personal admiration many parents have for him, our overriding concern is for maintaining sound biblical doctrine and practice," Fricke's said in a written statement.<br />
Women who wanted to ask questions at the meeting were told to write them on a piece of paper and have a man read them aloud. But some, including Hartwig's own daughter, said their questions were never read.</blockquote>So fuck these people in their little dark age church. I feel no desire for constructive criticism at this point...<br />
<br />
Speaking of the Dark Ages, our friends at the Catholic church have risen to the challenge and provide us with two examples of just how craven and corrupt they are as an institution.<br />
<br />
First we start with a favorite subject of the church - child abuse. More specifically the problems that the church seems to have with priests having sex with children, and the establishment covering up the acts. In an act of uncontrollable blovating, so brazen that even I was taken aback, the Bishop of Tenerife has taken to <a href="http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_14332.shtml">blaming the victims</a> of this abuse. From Pharyngula:<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #20124d;"><blockquote>His comments were that there are youngsters who want to be abused, and he compared that abuse to homosexuality, describing them both as prejudicial to society. He said that on occasions the abuse happened because the there are children who consent to it. </blockquote></blockquote><br />
<blockquote style="color: #20124d;"><blockquote><span class="creationist">"There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what's more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you",</span> he said.</blockquote></blockquote> This callus, disgusting attitude provoked a response from our friends at Pharyngula which I reproduce whole cloth since I can not do better myself:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #20124d;">Oh, it is so hard to be a noble heterosexual man in this society, with every woman, every gay man, every child, every moist orifice, every knothole, every small animal burrow on the ground, every lemon meringue pie, every velvety wrinkle in the Pope's cassock, all just taunting and teasing and tantalizing you, begging you to stick your penis in them. And then when you finally give in and let them have what they want, despite all your insistence that you're doing it for their benefit, not yours, what do they do? They cry rape, or lock you up for child abuse, or the Vatican dry cleaning service sends you an extravagant bill.</blockquote>If only they would lock these bastards up, but somehow that never gets done.<br />
<br />
Finally we move to Baltimore where the Catholic church is suing the city claiming <i>oppression</i> because the city is forcing organizations providing services to pregnant women to be overt about the services they (do not) provide:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #20124d;">The ordinance requires that a "limited-service pregnancy center" post an easily readable sign, written in English and Spanish, stating that the center does not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth-control services. A center failing to comply within 10 days of being cited could be fined up to $150 a day.</blockquote>We are talking about the sort of "services" providers who traditionally post "Pregnant, call us" signs then browbeat or delay services till carrying to term is the only option. I say screw the church for claiming oppression about not being able to lie to people about what is (not) being provided.<br />
<br />
As a last tiny taste, here in WI (again!) there is a sheriff <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/90020507.html">threatening jail time</a> to any sex ed teacher who talks about condoms:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #20124d;">The new law "promotes the sexualization - and sexual assault - of our children," Southworth wrote in a March 24 letter to officials in five school districts. He urged the districts to suspend their sex education programs and transfer their curriculum on anatomy to a science course.<br />
"Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," he wrote. "It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks."</blockquote>The sheriff Southworth, it typical spineless neocon jackoff gobldygook bullshit states:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #20124d;">He disputed claims by Roys and Grigsby that he was inciting fear in teachers or trying to promote his political views, saying he had an ethical obligation to tell districts his interpretation of the law.<br />
"If I'd wanted to be ideological, I would have said in the letter you shouldn't have sex before marriage because that's the Christian perspective. I'm an evangelical," Southworth said.</blockquote>What is wrong with these fucking people? Even after it has been proven that the sort of bullhsit abstinence only education increases pregnancy and the instance of STDs, we still have $250 Million in the upcoming 5 year budget for this program.<br />
<br />
I can take this no longer.set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-36203591461316269862010-03-24T20:32:00.001-07:002010-03-24T20:32:44.345-07:00I get mailRegister Today! Q2 2010 IT Security Auditor Roundtable Webinar<br />
<br />
Join Our Webinar:<br />
Thursday, April 29th, 2010<br />
11:00 AM - 12:00 PM ED<br />
<br />
http://xxx.xxx.xxx/ccccccc<br />
<br />
Are you prepared for this changing database audit environment? Join our webinar and listen to leading audit firms discuss some of the biggest database audit challenges today and present tips that your organization can implement to ensure compliance and database security.<br />
<br />
Please join us!<br />
<br />
Register Today!set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-15333151404622919062010-03-21T08:24:00.000-07:002010-03-21T08:24:56.397-07:00Death from Above?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/S6Y6AugBorI/AAAAAAAAAP0/8o3J11lajcQ/s1600-h/international_news.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6uNZKrgqZHE/S6Y6AugBorI/AAAAAAAAAP0/8o3J11lajcQ/s200/international_news.JPG" width="200" /></a></div> One of the excellent legacy policies inherited by the Obama administration was the public assertion of the right of the US Government to hunt down and kill, you know, evildoers. In the excellent tradition of using technology to distance ourselves from messy problems, the US has been (for the better part of a decade) been using unmanned drones to hunt and kill said evildoers. Or people who look like them. Or people near them. Or other folks who happen to be there. Or folks targeted by accident. Or accidents, lies or misrepresentations. But I digress.<br />
<br />
Don't think that being a US citizen will help you either, since the US government is an equal opportunity killer.<br />
<br />
Well, the ACLU got it in their heads that we as citizenry have the right to be informed about the actions of the military due to that whole "civilian control" thing, and filed a FOI in January asking about the pesky legal basis for such killings. <br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #073763;">In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings.</span></blockquote><blockquote style="color: #073763;">"The public has a right to know whether the targeted killings being carried out in its name are consistent with international law and with the country's interests and values," said Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project. </blockquote><blockquote style="color: #073763;"> <br />
"The Obama administration should disclose basic information about the program, including its legal basis and limits, and the civilian casualty toll thus far."</blockquote>The Defense Department has ignored the FOI request and hence won the right to be sued by the ACLU.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>I am dumbfounded that we are even having this discussion, but in a time and place where torture is not denied, but redefined and used on non-persons held outside of legal captivity, it should not really surprise me. That is a topic for a much longer rant.<br />
<br />
But the way, the quote above is from the "myfoxdc.com" web site which titled it <i>U.S. Civil Liberties Group Questions 'Legal Basis' Of Using Drones To Kill</i> and filed it under <b>International</b> News. That pesky 'Legal Basis'.<br />
<br />
Feh.set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-23522197768474729962010-03-16T12:50:00.000-07:002010-03-16T12:50:43.350-07:00MySpace takes your lunch moneyJust a data point to keep in mind as we plug away in our web-bound semi-anonymous persona's: MySpace has jumped into "bulk user data sales". This means that if you happened to post any of the following: <a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1268757909030">user playlists, mood updates, mobile updates, photos, vents, reviews, blog posts, names and zipcodes</a><a href="http://infochimps.org/collections/myspace-real-time-stream"> </a>for the sales period, it will be available to anybody.<br />
<br />
For what it is worth, this does not include friend lists...<br />
<br />
In case those Facebook and Twitter users are feeling smug abut now think again. There is absolutely no reason why they will not do the same since anything you have ever posted - every letter and image - is owned whole cloth by the respective service provider. It is not like something as quaint as morality has ever gotten in the way of the bottom line.set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3362211135431606955.post-22884379662118047152010-02-13T20:00:00.000-08:002010-02-13T20:00:19.361-08:00Free LunchThere are so many other importaint things to write about than what I am about to partake in, but my willingness to dig deep is curtailed by my tiredness. I have work to do as well but it involves something called eigenspaces which might give you some idea as to why I am strolling along complaining to the internets...<br />
<br />
So my Esteemed Employer, like so many other establishments, will be moving it's email infrastructure to Google. This is not unusual and represents a <a href="http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1915112,00.html">growing trend</a> for IT departments within buisness, education and government who are facing huge budget cuts and growing expectations for service and features. <br />
<br />
All I ask for people is to think for a moment - what will Google really get from this? Ultimately they are a corporation driven by their shareholders desire of maximizing stock value and profitability. "There is no such thing as a free lunch" a grumpy old Econ teacher used to say and I am wondering where this will ultimately come to rest. <br />
<br />
Mrs. set.element has completed another day of study so perhaps we might enjoy a spot of wine.set.elementhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01261739496078291644noreply@blogger.com0