We already mentioned how terrorist supporter Rep. Pete King has said that journalists reporting on government leaks exposing blatant abuse of power should be prosecuted, and rather than admit that he misspoke, he appears to be doubling down… by flat…
In a major speech on national security, Obama said that the “Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society.”
I am getting so very tired of the people calling themselves “government” using the phrase “striking the right balance”, when what they’re ultimately referring to is the infringement of inherent self-ownership derived individual property rights.
NO! There is NO “striking the right balance” when it comes to individual property rights vs. the infringement of said rights via State aggression/force/violence, damnit!
:::suprise, surprise….:::
Excerpt:
EA, however, continues to claim otherwise, somehow expecting PC users to believe that without its valuable servers picking up the computational slack, the game would be unplayable. (Or, more so, I guess…) Unfortunately for EA and its “talking points,” a Maxis developer has stated exactly the opposite.
A SimCity developer has got in touch with RPS to tell us that at least the first of these statements is not true. He claimed that the server is not handling calculations for non-social aspects of running the game, and that engineering a single-player mode would require minimal effort.
Our source, who we have verified worked directly on the project but obviously wishes to remain anonymous, has first-hand knowledge of how the game works. He has made it absolutely clear to us that this repeated claim of server-side calculations is at odds with the reality of the project he worked on. Our source explains:
“The servers are not handling any of the computation done to simulate the city you are playing. They are still acting as servers, doing some amount of computation to route messages of various types between both players and cities. As well, they’re doing cloud storage of save games, interfacing with Origin, and all of that. But for the game itself? No, they’re not doing anything. I have no idea why they’re claiming otherwise. It’s possible that Bradshaw misunderstood or was misinformed, but otherwise I’m clueless.”
The crux of the message: people are focused on the wrong question. It’s not about “how do we make people pay for music” but “how do we let people pay for music,” by making it such that people want to support the artists they love.
by Mike Masnick - 1.17.2013 - Techdirt.com
After staying silent or issuing “no comments” for nearly a week, Carmen Ortiz, the US Attorney in charge of the prosecution against Aaron Swartz has finally released a statement about Swartz, his suicide, and her possible role in the suicide. As you might imagine, the statement is highly questionable. First, here’s the statement:
January 16, 2013
STATEMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CARMEN M. ORTIZ
REGARDING THE DEATH OF AARON SWARTZAs a parent and a sister, I can only imagine the pain felt by the family and friends of Aaron Swartz, and I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy to everyone who knew and loved this young man. I know that there is little I can say to abate the anger felt by those who believe that this office’s prosecution of Mr. Swartz was unwarranted and somehow led to the tragic result of him taking his own life.
I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. The career prosecutors handling this matter took on the difficult task of enforcing a law they had taken an oath to uphold, and did so reasonably. The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases. That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. While at the same time, his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law.
As federal prosecutors, our mission includes protecting the use of computers and the Internet by enforcing the law as fairly and responsibly as possible. We strive to do our best to fulfill this mission every day.
The statement is complete hogwash, frankly. If what she claims is true — that they recognized “his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases” then they would not have piled on more charges in the indictment in September. The original indictment, which had four charges against Swartz, had a maximum potential jail time of 35 years. And, Ortiz’s own press release trumpeted that fact:
AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million.
And, then in September, nine more charges were added, which brought the total possible time up to 50 years.
If Ortiz truly believed that his conduct did not warrant such “severe punishment” then she would not have trumpeted the 35 years in the first place, nor would she have piled on more charges. That would serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever if her claim here was true.
Furthermore, as Swartz’s lawyers have made clear, Ortiz and her assistant, Stephen Heymann were pretty explicit to Swartz’s lawyers that if he did not take their plea bargain offer, the next offer would be for more jail time, and if he still chose not to accept the offer, they’d seek at least seven years for Swartz in court. Tossing out that six month claim as if it were proof of some sort of fair dealing on Ortiz’s part is flat out insulting to the intelligence of any thinking person, and downright offensive to the memory of Aaron.
How would Ortiz like it if her own child was accused on trumped up charges and threatened with 35 or more years in prison in press releases — and then told to “settle” for just six months. I doubt she would find that to be “fair.”
As Tim Lee explains, the whole “plea bargain” system is a farce, allowing prosecutors to effectively bring forth these massive “possible” punishments to effectively force someone into pleading guilty without ever going to trial. Going to trial is dangerous, because the prosecutors effectively make sure that anyone who does exercise a right to a trial is likely to get much more time in jail:
If Ortiz thought Swartz only deserved to spend 6 months in jail, why did she charge him with crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 50 years? It’s a common way of gaining leverage during plea bargaining. Had Swartz chosen to plead not guilty, the offer of six months in jail would have evaporated. Upon conviction, prosecutors likely would have sought the maximum penalty available under the law. And while the judge would have been unlikely to sentence him to the full 50 years, it’s not hard to imagine him being sentenced to 10 years.
In this hypothetical scenario, those 10 years in prison would, practically speaking, have consisted of six months for his original crime (the sentence Ortiz actually thought he deserved) plus a nine-and-a-half-year prison term for exercising his constitutional right to a trial.
As he further notes, no judge would impose a harsher sentence on someone for exercising other rights — such as taking the Fifth, hiring a lawyer or confronting an accuser. Yet, if you demand your right to a trial, the US Attorneys have effectively rigged the system so that defendants are punished. And that gives them immense power.
Thanks in part to this kind of coercion, more than 90 percent of defendants waive their right to a jury trial. For the majority of defendants, then, the plea bargaining process is the justice system. As a result, prosecutors wield an immense amount of power with very little accountability.
It’s not surprising that Ortiz doesn’t see anything wrong with this system. Powerful people rarely see their own power as problematic. But the rest of us should be outraged—not just by Ortiz’s conduct, but by a system that treats thousands of defendants less famous than Swartz the same way.
This is not a new problem. A year and a half ago, the NY Times had a feature article highlighting this very problem, which it calls “the trial penalty.”
Also, while Ortiz claims that the final sentence “would have been up to the judge” and even suggests that since defense counsel could have recommended just probation, the judge might have been more lenient, she must know that it is quite rare for judges to issue sentences more lenient than what prosecutors put forth from a plea bargain. In fact, judges will often issue harsher sentences than what the prosecutors “agreed” to with the defendant, since the judge is not bound to the terms of the agreement specifically.
Many countries do not allow plea bargaining, because they recognize how it can be used for coercion. Meanwhile, studies have shown that plea bargains quite frequently can lead to innocent people accepting a deal recognizing that it’s much better to do that than risk a trial where the punishment would be much, much higher. Yes, more innocent people do stand up against such offers than guilty ones (according to the same study), but a large number of innocent people feel compelled to just take the deal.
Basically, this whole system is wide open to abuse, and it’s clear from Ortiz’s actions that she, too, was abusing the system in this manner: pushing for super high possible jail time as a huge and scary weapon to try to pressure Swartz into accepting a lower rate — but also making him a convicted felon. Using the plea offer as some sort of “proof” of reasonableness is really quite incredible and despicable. It’s like pointing a gun at someone, telling them that you’re planning to shoot them… and then saying that if they agree to confess to something they don’t believe, you’ll just pinch them instead. And then, when they complain, you say “well, clearly, I just thought the pinch was appropriate.” That’s clearly a bullshit explanation. Ortiz was better off with “no comment” than trying to pass this off as a reasonable claim.
by Mike Masnick || Fri, Dec 28th 2012 || Techdirt.com
Want to know the White House’s key propaganda lines for refusing to allow proper oversight into how the NSA is spying on us all? Well, sit back and read on, because the White House’s “talking points” on why the Senate should reject four key amendments to try to roll back some of the excesses of the broad and massive secret program to collect tons of data on Americans, has been leaked. First, some background.
As we noted yesterday, there was a “debate” in the Senate concerning the FISA Amendments Act renewal, and four specific amendments that some Senators tried to add to it to make the renewal less problematic. If you haven’t been following this whole mess, you can read back through our FISA Amendments Act stories here, but the short version is that this is the bill that “legalized” warrantless wiretapping — and which (it has since been revealed) is likely being used by the NSA to collect reams of data on Americans, despite the bill’s plain text suggesting that it can only be used on foreigners. At issue is that the FISA Court has apparently issued an “interpretation” of the bill, which allows for a very broad reading of the text — so broad, that it likely contradicts what most people believe the bill says. Only a small group of people know what this secret interpretation is, and while sitting Senators and Congressional Reps can find out, most do NOT have staff members with the necessary clearance to explain it to them. For this reason, most of the people voting on this bill have no idea how it is being used, and sometimes argue that it is not being used in ways that it is almost certainly being used (i.e., to scoop up data on many Americans without warrants). These provisions — the FAA for short — were set to expire last year, but were renewed for one year, ostensibly to allow for “real” debate. Of course, despite having a whole year, no debate appeared, and instead we got yesterday’s charade.
Four specific amendments to try to fix (or, at least, to minimize the damage) were proposed. The EFF has a pretty quick rundown of the four proposed amendments. The White House has been urging the Senate to reject all of them and to extend the FISA Amendments Act for five more years with no questions asked. Three of the proposed amendments were already rejected last night. This morning, a short debate and then a vote will progress on the last, the Wyden-Udall amendment. Even though the other three have already been rejected, we’ll explore the talking their points too, but let’s start with the talking points on the Wyden-Udall amendment. Here’s the White House summary:
What the Amendment Does: Requires the DNI to submit a report to Congress and the public on the impact FAA and other surveillance authorities have on the privacy of United States persons.
That’s a fair assessment and seems perfectly reasonable. Here’s the EFF on why this is important:
Sen. Ron Wyden, one of the most ardent defenders of civil liberties in the Senate, has been asking the NSA for months for information on how the FISA Amendments Act has impacted Americans.The NSA has so far refused, yet, as the New York Times reported in 2009, we know the NSA was still intercepting domestic communications in a “significant and systematic” way. We also know the secret FISA court ruled, on at least one occasion, that the government had violated the Fourth Amendment when conducting surveillance under the FAA. Yet the NSA has rather unbelievably claimed releasing the number of Americans whose privacy has been violated would violate those same Americans’ privacy.
Ron Wyden’s amendment would force the NSA to come clean and give a general estimate of how many Americans have been affected by this unconstitutional bill, and finally give us information Americans deserve.
In addition, another Wyden amendment would clarify that the acquisition of American communications is prohibited without a warrant. Sen. Wyden has accused the government of conducting “backdoor searches,” whereby the government collects communications of foreign individuals talking to Americans, but later goes back into the government’s database of intercepted communications and reviews the Americans’ communications. Sen. Wyden hopes this clarification to the law will help guard against further intrusive spying on American communications.
So what are the talking points from the White House for why this is a bad thing?
Yes, the same bullshit we’ve heard before. Telling Congress how many Americans the NSA spied upon using the FAA (despite the NSA only having a mandate to watch foreigners) would somehow violate the privacy of those Americans. That is, to put it simply, insane. What they almost certainly mean is that they’ve collected such a large treasure trove of information, much of which they haven’t actually gone through, that to estimate how many people’s info was collected would require actually looking at all that data collected, which they’re not supposed to do. This, still, is insane — as it basically reveals the fact that, contrary to what most people think, and contrary to the plain language of the bill, the NSA is almost certainly using the FAA to scoop up communications on huge swaths of the American public. This is why Senator Wyden keeps insisting that the public — and members of Congress — would likely be shocked to find out the truth here.
The idea that it is “not feasible” to come up with a number is silly, however. There are ways to estimate these things, and it’s nonsense that they won’t provide an estimate. It certainly would not compromise security to admit that. It might just compromise the fact that the NSA and the administration are abusing the FAA to spy on tons of Americans.
The “briefing” members bit is also fairly bogus. We’re talking about the interpretation of a public US law. That shouldn’t require a Senator to go into a secret room to get a secret briefing. But, more importantly, as mentioned, most Senators simply do not have staff with the necessary clearances for such a briefing — so while a member could take the initiative to learn this info, they are both unlikely to actually do so and if they do, unlikely to have an expert on hand who can help explain what it all means.
Finally, the argument that there are “significant privacy protections” is belied by the fact that the NSA has already been called out for violating the 4th Amendment under this act at least once. That, alone, should call for further scrutiny, but supporters of the FAA are twisting this around to claim that “the system works.” As Julian Sanchez notes, the existing oversight might catch accidental abuse, but cannot and will not catch systematic abuse, which is what it appears is happening.
So these “talking points” hardly address the problem, and only serve to further mislead, as the White House looks to protect its own administration’s domestic surveillance activities. When President Obama was originally running for office in 2008, he campaigned against these provisions (before eventually voting for them). Apparently, that campaigning was a flat out lie. Now he’s not only supporting the provisions, his administration is being willfully misleading concerning what they mean.
Moving on to the (already rejected, but still important) Merkley Amendment. This one involved requiring that secret FISA Court rulings that interpret the FAA be made public (in redacted form, if necessary). This seems eminently reasonable. Who could be against that? Well, the White House, for one. Here’s why:
This is completely bogus, again. As we noted yesterday, going against this amendment is like arguing that we should all be able to interpret the Constitution with just the document itself, and all Supreme Court rulings that work out the nuances and interpretations should be kept secret. The idea that the Executive Branch makes sure that Congress “is fully informed of the intelligence collection operations under the FAA” is both laughable and meaningless at the same time.
Just this very debate — and this very document — prove that the White House isn’t about keeping Congress “fully informed” but about pulling the wool over their eyes with misleading statements and kinda/sorta true in the letter, but bogus in the spirit, arguments. Members of Congress have flat out said that the FAA does not impact Americans’ communications at all, when that it’s known to be absolutely false. Also, the fact that the administration may provide classified briefings to Congress is, again, besides the point. We’re talking about allowing the public to understand the secret interpretation of a law that impacts many Americans directly (and in which that interpretation is almost certainly contrary to the plain language and public belief about the bill), and the White House falls back on this “well we’ll tell you in secret” argument?
The idea that the administration has committed to reviewing FISA opinions for public release is equally laughable. This administration has been one of the most secretive on record when it comes to exposing this kind of information, all while patting itself on the back as being the most transparent.
Moving on, we have the rather basic Leahy Amendment that shortens the date on which this extension expires from 2017 back to June 1 of the 2015, to basically move in the walls for the next time we’ll have this debate in the closing days before “OMG TERRORISTS WILL DESTROY US ALL!!!@!@” again. Rather than simply punting the ball on this issue as far down the field as possible, Leahy is trying to force at least some review within the term of Obama’s presidency, rather than long after it’s over. This, too, was voted down so the longer timeline stays in place. The White House is pleased, for a whole bunch of completely bogus reasons:
This one should just make people angry. Is the White House really arguing that Congress is too stupid to hold the specifics of the FAA separate from the specifics of the wider Patriot Act? If they’re confused by those issues, then they shouldn’t be in this job. Period.
That second point is the real doozy. Basically, the White House doesn’t want this debate, because Senators who know what kind of scam they’re pulling might (*gasp*) accidentally reveal too much. So, let’s just not talk about it at all. And let the NSA keep abusing it. Because, otherwise, we might actually find out about the abuse. As for the “oversight” claim, I think we’ve already covered just how completely bogus that claim really is.
Finally, there’s the Paul amendment, which serves to reinforce the basic principles of the 4th Amendment, in reiterating that all communications are subject to the 4th Amendment’s limitations on searching. Currently, many in law enforcement rely on some really questionable precedents to argue that people don’t really have an “expectation of privacy” in their email. It’s disingenuous in the extreme. This amendment got voted down by a whopping 79 to 12 votes. I’m sure that pleased the White House, who argued the following:
In other words, they’re admitting that the FISA Amendments Act clearly tramples the 4th Amendment and allows for widespread surveillance of Americans without a warrant. Also, the Constitution isn’t about making life easier for law enforcement. It’s about the opposite. It’s specifically about making it more difficult for law enforcement, because that’s how a free society functions, by telling its law enforcement officials that they can’t just snoop on everyone, but need real oversight in the form of a warrant. So to argue that this might make the NSA’s job a bit harder isn’t just not compelling, it’s not even a legitimate reason, because it’s arguing that the government should, effectively, be allowed to do whatever the hell it wants if it “makes law enforcement’s job easier.”
It’s clear that the FISA Amendments Act is about to be extended, and the White House, even with completely bogus talking points, will prevail. But, reading through these talking points is just highlighting the depths to which our government will stoop to make sure they can continue to trample the basic principles of the 4th Amendment.
by Mike Masnick | Nov 30th 2012 | Techdirt.com
Chris Stokel-Walker, over at Buzzfeed, has an absolutely fantastic feature article all about the creation of the video game Pong by Atari. 40 years ago, this week, Atari delivered the first 12 Pong machines (outside of a prototype at a local bar that proved how addictive the game was). The full article is wonderful, with tons of well-researched details. You should absolutely go read it. But one bit that might be interesting to folks around here: this game, which nearly everyone agrees launched the entire video game industry (now pushing $80 billion per year), was based on infringement. Actually, it looks like Atari’s founding was basically based on copying games. Before Pong, it had a different video game console, called Computer Space, which was basically a copy of Spacewar!, a game created by MIT student Steve Russell in 1962.
However, it was Pong that set the world on fire. And… it was almost entirely based on Nolan Bushnell copying someone else’s idea:
Meanwhile, the first TV-based home console, the Magnavox Odyssey, designed by gaming-industry forefather Ralph Baer, was being released. The Odyssey was demonstrated in Burlingame, California, on May 24, 1972. “It turned out that Al started at Atari almost exactly the same day I went up to see the Magnavox game,” says Bushnell. Around the same time, Baer was at Tavern on the Green in Central Park, sitting amongst the 30 or so East Coast retailers to whom his employers were trying to sell his creation. Beaming with pride, Baer could barely sit still. “The entire Magnavox product line for 1972 was displayed there,” he explains. “That included the Odyssey game, which was the hit of the show.” One of the games on the Magnavox console was a version of tennis.
“I thought the game was kind of crappy,” Bushnell says. Yet people were lining up to play it, “and they were kind of having some fun. I thought, If they can have fun with this shite” — Bushnell breaks off into a hearty laugh — “if it can be turned into a real game, that’d be great.” On the drive back from the demonstration, “I got thinking of ways it could be improved.”
Boom. Bushnell had someone on his team: re-create that basic tennis-like game for arcade machines. And that’s what they did. But, they made some improvements. This is, of course, the nature of how innovation works. Two key steps: build on the idea that you see elsewhere… and figure out a way to make people love it. And that’s what happened. This, once again, highlights the difference between invention and innovation in a fairly striking manner. And, while the creator of the Magnavox tennis game, Baer, wasn’t thrilled about it, the article makes it clear he grudgingly admires Bushnell’s ability to take that silly game and turn it into a giant industry.
Baer, the inventor of the Odyssey, is to this day ambivalent about his competitor. “Mr. B. didn’t ‘invent’ anything,” Baer, now 90, told me via e-mail, “but he started a whole industry, the arcade video game industry. Give the man credit for that achievement. He just simply didn’t invent anything.”
So here’s the quick question: which action here was more valuable? Baer’s or Bushnell’s? This is one of the issues that we’ve tried to make for a while. For all the talk of how infringement “harms” the inventor, if someone else can build a massive market where the originator failed, isn’t that better for society and the economy?
Oh, and part of the reason that the industry itself became so big, was because tons of others jumped into the market as well, often copying Atari (and, eventually, figuring out how to do it better — which is why consoles today are from Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony… rather than Atari).
Other developers, big and small, saw the runaway success of the game and brought out their own clones to take a slice of Pong’s pie. Allied Leisure released around 20,000 cabinets of Paddle Battle in March 1973. Nutting Associates, the company Bushnell and Dabney had worked with to release Computer Space, ended up releasing Computer Space Ball, which was strikingly similar to Pong. There was Paddle-Ball from Williams Electronics, and Rally from For-Play. Midway Manufacturing, then a pinball machine company, dipped their toe into the waters of arcade games with Winner in 1973.
In fact, as various studies have shown, with a developing market, it actually helps quite a bit to have lots of copying going on, because it basically cuts the marketing costs of developing that market a ton. That was clearly true with the video game market:
These manufacturers doubled down on their advantage: Not only could they piggyback on Pong’s PR success, they did not have to take into account the cost of developing the game: They could simply lift its internal machinery wholesale.
Yes, the article highlights that eventually Bushnell had to pay off Magnavox, after they pulled out a broad patent “regarding interaction between machine-controlled and player-controlled elements on the screen,” but Bushnell insists that he only paid out because the settlement costs were half of what it would have cost to have won in court (sound familiar?). Once again, the article quotes Baer admitting that even if he invented the game, credit has to go to Atari:
“That’s the business,” he says. “Most inventions are based on some prior history. Al Alcorn knew absolutely nothing about the existence of the Odyssey game — he deserves the major credit for getting Atari started successfully.”
The thing is, this isn’t a unique story by any stretch of the imagination. Look into the histories of lots of developing industries and you see the same basic thing. Lots and lots of copying and building off of each other… and quite frequently it’s that very fact that leads to those industries being so successful. Yet, we look to shut off that possibility due to an over-reliance on things like intellectual property, which hinders that kind of market development.
by Mike Masnick | Oct 22nd, 2012 | Techdirt.com
A year and a half ago, we wrote about some Italian seismologists who were being tried for manslaughter after a risk assessment they wrote up, in which they concluded that a series of small earthquakes along a faultline wasn’t that serious, and the risk of a big earthquake was not that high. About a week later, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake struck, destroying a bunch of buildings and killing over 300 people. Admittedly, one government official exaggerated what the report said, claiming that there was no danger — but government officials have a way of taking a nuanced claim and turning it into a crazy absolute. Either way, because of all of this, the seismologists and the government official were charged with manslaughter — especially after it was claimed that some people stayed inside during the quake, believing the recent reporting about there being no risk.
Because of that, they’ve now been convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to six years in jail. This is despite the fact that the report quite clearly said that “earthquakes were unpredictable, and that building codes in the area needed to be adjusted to provide better seismic safety.”
The conviction is tremendously troubling — and the scientific community is quite rightly up in arms about it. Even more bizarre is that the judge didn’t seem to care too much about the concerns everyone was raising. From John Timer’s report:
The prosecution had attracted widespread condemnation from the scientific community, with one petition on behalf of the seismologists attracting over 5,000 signatures. But, shockingly, the judge in the case took only a few hours to deliver the verdict, and handed down sentences that were two years longer than those requested by the prosecutor.
It seems like a fairly extreme theory of negligence that would lead one to decide that a “too tame” seismology report was negligent and resulted in manslaughter. And, of course, the chilling effects of such a ruling will be tremendous. Who will be willing to provide such a report in the future? And, if anyone does, won’t they now err on the side of “we’re all going to die!!” even if the evidence doesn’t support that? It’s not surprising that people want to spread blame around when there are tragic deaths, but sometimes it goes way, way too far.
by Timothy Geigner || Oct 9th 2012 || Techdirt.com
Okay, it’s official. I no longer believe that our Department of Homeland Security is an actual government agency with important work to do. No, I now believe that it is a series of highly subtle performance art pieces designed to make us laugh at the sheer audacity of dumb government. We already know about the agency’s boss, who is in charge of cybersecurity, not bothering to use the internet. And then there is the DHS’s highly touted fusion centers being both a waste of money and a detriment to the very freedoms they’re supposedly protecting.
But Tim K writes in about a rather stunning admission by DHS officials of a bogus DHS report on a water pumping facility. It essentially amounts to: “sure the report is a complete lie, but it was a successful lie.” Don’t believe me?
Officials behind the false claims told Senate investigators that such reports weren’t meant to be “finished intelligence” and that despite their report’s inaccuracies and sloppy wording they considered it to be a “success.”
“[It did] exactly what it’s supposed to do – generate interest,” DHS officials told Senate investigators.
Now, let’s do some quick background on this report, less because it informs you and more because it’s hysterical. About a year ago, a water pump failed in an Illinois water facility. In response, almost immediately, an Illinois fusion center (part DHS, part Illinois State Police) circulated a report blaming a hacking attack from Russia. Not soon after that report was circulated, the greater DHS office rebuffed the fusion center’s hacking allegation as absolute nonsense. It pointed out, as does the linked article, that the allegation was pure conjecture based on the fusion center’s inability to do even the most basic investigation.
Someone did access the water district’s SCADA system from Russia, but it was a water district contractor who was asked to access the system by water district employees, as Wired first reported. They had called him to seek his opinion on something while he was on vacation in Russia, and he had logged into the system remotely to check on some data for them.
When the pump broke five months later and someone examined the network logs to determine the cause, they found an IP address from Russia listed in the logs next to the username and password of the contractor. No one ever bothered to call the contractor to see if he had logged in from Russia; they just assumed someone in Russia had stolen his credentials.
It’s worth noting that the water pump busted 5 months after this Russian IP logged in. In other words, none of this makes a lick of sense, except if it’s the case of someone looking for a convenient scapegoat. “Hackers! Russians!” is apparently what these people went with, for reasons unknown to this author.
But the DHS report circulated to Congress, which DHS says is a success even though it’s bullshit, was written up after they called out their own fusion center for making stuff up. I think most reasonable people would suspect that such successful excriment is part of the fear mongering around so-called cyberwars and the trumped up need for Congress to pass some kind of cybersecurity bill. But even the least cynical person would at least expect the DHS to correct their report and alert Congress to the pure made-up-iness of it. DHS has thus far declined to do so, because, paraphrasing DHS itself, the lie is more effective than the truth. Yay, government!
by Mike Masnick | Oct 3rd 2012 | Techdirt.com
We’ve written plenty about how the US government has been quite aggressive in spying on Americans. It has been helped along by a court system that doesn’t seem particularly concerned about the 4th Amendment and by the growing ability of private companies to have our data and to then share it with the government at will. Either way, in a radio interview, Wall Street Journal reporter Julia Angwin (who’s been one of the best at covering the surveillance state in the US) made a simple observation that puts much of this into context: the US surveillance regime has more data on the average American than the Stasi ever did on East Germans. And, of course, as we’ve already seen, much of that data seems to be collected illegally with little oversight… and with absolutely no security benefit.
To be fair, part of the reason for why this is happening is purely technical/practical. While the Stasi likely wanted more info and would have loved to have been able to tap into a digitally connected world like we have today, that just wasn’t possible. The fact that we have so much data about us in connected computers makes it an entirely different world. So, from a practical level, there’s a big difference.
That said, it still should be terrifying. Even if there are legitimate technical reasons for why the government has so much more data on us, it doesn’t change the simple fact (true both then and now) that such data is wide open to abuse, which inevitably happens. The ability of government officials to abuse access to information about you for questionable purposes is something that we should all be worried about. Even those who sometimes have the best of intentions seem to fall prey to the temptation to use such access in ways that strip away civil liberties and basic expectations of privacy. Unfortunately, the courts seem to have very little recognition of the scope of the issue, and there’s almost no incentive for Congress (and certainly the executive branch) to do anything at all to fix this.
by Mike Masnick | Oct 3rd 2012 | Techdirt.com
Since September 11th, the government has often had something of a blank check (and the equivalent lack of oversight) for anything labeled as being part of an anti-terror effort. As such, it should hardly come as a surprise that programs are wasteful, possibly fraudulent, bad for civil liberties and (oh yeah) completely useless (to actively harmful) in fighting terrorism. A Congressional investigation into the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) “fusion centers,” which were supposed to be a key force in anti-terrorism efforts, presents an absolutely scathing condemnation of the effort.
The Subcommittee investigation found that DHS-assigned detailees to the fusion centers forwarded “intelligence” of uneven quality - oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens’ civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published public sources, and more often than not unrelated to terrorism. The Subcommittee investigation also found that DHS officials’ public claims about fusion centers were not always accurate. For instance, DHS officials asserted that some fusion centers existed when they did not. At times, DHS officials overstated fusion centers’ “success stories.” At other times, DHS officials failed to disclose or acknowledge non-public evaluations highlighting a host of problems at fusion centers and in DHS’ own operations.
Oh, and did we mention how wasteful they were? Apparently, taxpayer money simply “disappeared” into the program often being spent on totally unrelated things like flat screen TVs:
The Subcommittee investigation also reviewed how the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a component of DHS, distributed hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to support state and local fusion centers. DHS revealed that it was unable to provide an accurate tally of how much it had granted to states and cities to support fusion centers efforts, instead producing broad estimates of the total amount of federal dollars spent on fusion center activities from 2003 to 2011, estimates which ranged from $289 million to $1.4 billion. The Subcommittee investigation also found that DHS failed to adequately police how states and municipalities used the money intended for fusion centers. The investigation found that DHS did not know with any accuracy how much grant money it has spent on specific fusion centers, nor could it say how most of those grant funds were spent, nor has it examined the effectiveness of those grant dollars. The Subcommittee conducted a more detailed case study review of expenditures of DHS grant funds at five fusion centers, all of which lacked basic, “must-have” intelligence capabilities, according to assessments conducted by and for DHS. The Subcommittee investigation found that the state and local agencies used some of the federal grant money to purchase: dozens of flat-screen TVs; Sport Utility Vehicles they then gave away to other local agencies; and hidden “shirt button” cameras, cell phone tracking devices, and other surveillance equipment unrelated to the analytical mission of a fusion center.
Of course, this kind of thing isn’t all that uncommon. I remember a story from nearly a decade ago about all the money designated for things like E911 services, instead being used to pay for boots and pens. We recently wrote about the failure of a NY City program to spy on Muslims to turn up a single lead, but this takes that kind of failure to a whole new level.
Of course, the scary part in all this isn’t just the misuse of funds or the failure to produce anything relevant. It’s that what was done almost certainly violated the public’s rights. And apparently, such violations of civil liberties were a very common problem.
The inappropriate reporting appears to have been a regular problem. An April 2009 email from an alarmed senior I&A official stated: “[State and Local Fusion Center officials] are collecting open-source intelligence (OSINT) on U.S. persons (USPER), without proper vetting, and improperly reporting this information through homeland information reporting (HIR) channels,” wrote Barbara Alexander, then director of the Collection and Requirements Division, which oversaw HIR reporting. “The improper reporting of this information through HIR channels is likely a result of a lack of training on proper collection and reporting procedures … they are inadvertently causing problems.” In an interview with the Subcommittee, Ms. Alexander said she recalled being told the Reporting Branch was “flooded” with inappropriate reporting. “A lot of information was coming in inappropriately,” she remembered. “The information was not reportable.”
[….] Ms. Schlanger’s presentation, a copy of which DHS provided to the Subcommittee, indicated that areas in which DHS intelligence reporters had overstepped legal boundaries included: Reporting on First Amendment-protected activities lacking a nexus to violence or criminality; reporting on or improperly characterizing political, religious or ideological speech that is not explicitly violent or criminal; and attributing to an entire group the violent or criminal acts of one or a limited number of the group’s members.
The investigation goes on to quote numerous examples of “reports” prepared on information that DHS is not allowed to report on as it violates civil liberties.
In the end, as with so many “anti-terror” programs, what we have is a program that took in a ton of taxpayer funds, with almost no oversight as to what happened to those funds (leading to $1.4 billion disappearing), no intelligence of any use but undertook plenty of efforts that were clearly beyond the mandate of Homeland Security. And all of this is supposed to make us feel safer?
by Mike Masnick | Tue, Oct 2nd 2012 | Techdirt.com
Over at The Atlantic, Jordan Weissmann has a great article covering the latest paper from economists Michele Boldrin and David Levine (names that, I hope, are familiar to Techdirt readers), which argues why it might make sense to abolish the patent system entirely, even while admitting that patents may have some benefits in some cases. You can read the full paper here(pdf) where it makes “the case against patents.” While this may sound similar to Boldrin and Levine’s earlier works, this one goes further, and is definitely worth the read. In effect, they argue that not only do patents rarely help innovation, but, even worse, the existence of patents (even where they help) will only lead to the system being expanded to where they do more harm than good:
The initial eruption of small and large innovations leading to the creation of a new industry — from chemicals to cars, from radio and TV to personal computers and investment banking — is seldom, if ever, born out of patent protection and is, instead, the fruits of highly competitive-cooperative environments. It is only after the initial stages of explosive innovation and rampant growth end that mature industries turn toward the legal protection of patents, usually because their internal grow potential diminishes and the industry structure become concentrated.
A closer look at the historical and international evidence suggests that while weak patent systems may mildly increase innovation with limited side-effects, strong patent systems retard innovation with many negative side-effects. Both theoretically and empirically, the political economy of government operated patent systems indicates that weak legislation will generally evolve into a strong protection and that the political demand for stronger patent protection comes from old and stagnant industries and firms, not from new and innovative ones. Hence the best solution is to abolish patents entirely through strong constitutional measures and to find other legislative instruments, less open to lobbying and rent-seeking, to foster innovation whenever there is clear evidence that laissez-faire under-supplies it.
The report does a good job highlighting how innovative firms and innovative industries almost never use patents (or use them sparingly). This should indicate that the basis of the patent system (that it’s needed to encourage innovation) is shaky at best. But, they note that what little research there is on this tends to be ignored. They even highlight research that finds that IP strengthening almost always happens during times of “deregulation” where researchers (including Judge Richard Posner) struggle to figure out why that would be. Boldrin and Levine argue that the confusion here is mainly due to thinking of patents as “property” rather than as a monopoly restriction:
In fact, neither Landes and Posner nor, apparently, most industrial organization researchers, seem interested in figuring out why patents are either ignored or scarcely used in new and competitive industries while being highly valued and over-used in mature and highly concentrated ones. The point here seems to be that, being themselves strong advocates of the usefullness of patents in fostering innovations, the authors fail to recognize the intrinsic problem with the design of the institution itself. Being not a “property” right but rather a “monopoly” right, patent possessors will automatically leverage whatever initial rents their monopoly provides them with in order to increase their monopoly power until all potential rents are extracted and, probably, dissipated by the associated lobbying and transaction costs.
Boldrin and Levine also hit back at the charge that abolition of the patent system is too extreme given that it already exists. They note that other bad laws of a similar nature have been ditched as well:
Economists fought for decades – and ultimately with great success – to abolish trade restrictions. It will not escape the careful reader that patents are very much akin to trade restrictions as they prevent the free entry of competitors in national markets, thereby reducing the growth of productive capacity and slowing down economic growth. The same way that trade restrictions were progressively reduced until reaching (almost complete) abolition, a similar (albeit, hopefully less slow) approach should be adopted to “get rid” of patents. Moreover the nature of patents as time-limited makes it relatively easy to phase them out by phasing in ever shorter patent durations. This conservative approach has also the advantage that if reducing patent terms indeed has a catastrophic effect on innovation the process can easily be reversed.
They admit that the poster child for the patent system, the pharma industry, may have to face the biggest changes, but also suggest that there are plenty of ways to still create the necessary incentives, including both lowering the costs of clinical trials and using prizes to award key drug treatment developments.
It’s an interesting read. I will admit that I’m not fully convinced that the argument makes sense — but I find the argument a lot more persuasive than most others I’ve seen.
by Timothy Geigner | Sep 27th 2012 | Techdirt.com
In a move that should remind you of Spain’s ruling that personal file-sharing was legal, before America’s entertainment industry helpfully wrote the Spanish people a new law (wait…what!!?!?), file-sharing for personal use has been declared legal in Portugal. How could something so monumental happen, you wonder? Well, funny story: the entertainment industry made it happen.
The tale goes something like this. An anti-piracy group sponsored by the entertainment industry called ACAPORgot all uppity about Portuguese filesharing a year ago and decided to helpfully deliver boxes (yes, physical boxes) of IP addresses suspected of filesharing infringing files to Portugal’s Attorney General’s office. They did this while wearing shirts that proclaimed “Piracy is illegal” in case anyone thought they were there for a cause that is actually useful and/or interesting.
“We are doing anything we can to alert the government to the very serious situation in the entertainment industry,” ACAPOR commented at the time, adding that “1000 complaints a month should be enough to embarrass the judiciary system.”
Secure in their knowledge that justice would be done, ACAPOR’s minions then went home and did whatever it is these kinds of people do when they aren’t making fantastic amounts of noise and generally making fools of themselves.
Well, as is their duty, the folks at the Attorney General’s office did look through the boxes of evidence ACAPOR had provided…and promptly threw them out.
The Department of Investigation and Penal Action (DIAP) looked into the complaints and the prosecutor came back with his order this week. Contrary to what the anti-piracy group had hoped for, the 2,000 IP-addresses will not be taken to court. Worse for ACAPOR, the prosecutor goes even further by ruling that file-sharing for personal use is not against the law.
“From a legal point of view, while taking into account that users are both uploaders and downloaders in these file-sharing networks, we see this conduct as lawful, even when it’s considered that the users continue to share once the download is finished.”
Oops. Turns out those “Piracy is illegal” shirts are as ill-informed about the law in Portugal as the people wearing them. Especially since, for good measure, the AG informed ACAPOR that IP addresses are not people, so their evidence wasn’t so much “evidence” as it was “a horrific waste of time and trees”.
Now, not one to let facts get in the way of saying something stupid, ACAPOR boss Nuno Pereira pushed back on the AG’s office.
“Personally I think the prosecutors just found a way to adapt the law to their interest – and their interest is not having to send 2,000 letters, hear 2,000 people and investigate 2,000 computers,” Pereira says.
Sure, that makes sense. Everyone knows if you’re looking to avoid having to send letters and do paperwork, becoming a lawyer is the way to go. But did you really expect an anti-piracy group to take a sane thumping gracefully?
Of course, as we’ve seen elsewhere, whenever a country reacts sensibly concerning things like file sharing, the entertainment industry lobbying engine revs right back up… and suddenly the countries are described by US politicians in the worst possible terms. Any bets on whether or not Portugal just wrote itself onto the USTR’s Special 301 list and the Congressional Anti-Piracy Caucus’ “watch list”?
by Mike Masnick | 9.27.2012 | Techdirt.com
Back when Wikileaks first released some State Department cables, creating quite the uproar among government officials, the Treasury Department was clear that it would not declare Wikileaks a terrorist organization or list Julian Assange as a “Specially Designated National” on the list, because it did not meet the proper criteria. However, a document from the Air Force, released under a Freedom of Information Act request has revealed that Assange and Wikileaks have been declared “enemies of the US” in a specific investigation into a cyber systems analyst who dared to “express support for Wikileaks” and attended a pro-Wikileaks demonstration. By designating Wikileaks an enemy of the US, the military is effectively declaring that any contact with Wikileaks or its supporters could be deemed “communicating with the enemy” — which can be punished severely (even death). For all sorts of reasons, this seems like a ridiculous and horrific overreaction. Even if you disagree with Wikileaks or how Assange goes about what he does, having the US government declare you an “enemy to the United States” for seeking to increase transparency seems both extreme and completely out of proportion with the reality of the situation.
Meanwhile, Assange himself was able to address the UN via video, in which he lashed out at the hypocrisy of the US government, defending freedom of speech with one breath, while at the same time seeking to bring down Wikileaks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmQwvgvR1S8&feature=player_embedded
While it’s no secret that Assange and Wikileaks have embarrassed the US, it’s a massive leap to go from that to claiming that it is an “enemy” of the United States. Just doing so could put incredible chilling effects on all sorts of journalists. The idea that leaking relevant and newsworthy information can get you classified as such has incredibly scary implications. It broadens the definition of an “enemy of the state” to ridiculous proportions, and begs to be abused by a government that doesn’t seem to handle embarrassment particularly well. Even if you think Wikileaks goes too far or that Assange himself is an egomaniac, it seems that we should all be quite worried about the implications of declaring him and the organization enemies of the state for merely leaking information that they felt was newsworthy.
