Confetti

This is what the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution look like now.

Nice to know that anyone, even a legal resident of the U.S. ~~citizen~~ living in the United States, can be declared an “illegal enemy combatant,” thrown in jail, held indefinitely, and allowed no rights of appeal.

Oh well. I guess 80% of the Bill of Rights is better than nothing. But I liked the original version much better.

… And guess what? Apparently 609 law professors share my nostalgia for the old Bill of Rights.

… More interesting reading, courtesy of Prof. Michael Froomkin of the University of Miami School of Law. Turns out Yale Law Prof. Bruce Ackerman thinks this bill will indeed apply to U.S. citizens.

And sorry if people think that this is somehow inappropriate for me to talk about. I don’t make a habit out of expressing my political beliefs here. But I truly believe this issue transcends political lines. Or, to put it in terms that might be more familiar to a modern audience, “You’re either with the Founding Fathers or you’re against them.”

Heckuva job opening

This can’t be good news:

It has been nearly a year since Homeland Security Department Secretary Michael Chertoff announced the creation of a position for an assistant cyber security czar.

Chertoff made the announcement as part of a six-point agenda July 13, 2005, which identified elevating the position to an assistant Cabinet-level post as part of an overall strategy to “ensure that the department’s policies, operations, and structures are aligned in the best way to address the potential threats — both present and future.”

That position remains unfilled.

What on earth are they waiting for?

All your browsing history are belong to U.S.

This is just wrong:

Top law enforcement officials have asked leading Internet companies to keep histories of the activities of Web users for up to two years to assist in criminal investigations of child pornography and terrorism, the Justice Department said Wednesday.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller outlined their request to executives from Google, Microsoft, AOL, Comcast, Verizon and others Friday in a private meeting at the Justice Department. The department has scheduled more discussions as early as Friday. Last week’s meeting was first reported by CNET, an online news service.

Internet providers should keep a record of my activities for exactly as long as they need it to handle my transaction, and then it should go away. If a law enforcement official thinks it’s important to know what websites I’m visiting, let them go before a judge, show some probable cause why they should be poking around in my affairs, and get a freakin’ warrant. You know, like the Fourth Amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Honest to God, these people piss me off.

Update: Brett Glass offers these relevant comments on Dave Farber’s I-P list:

As an ISP, I can tell you that what the USDOJ is demanding […] is not only an unprecedented, vast, unwarranted intrusion that should have every citizen up in arms but would be extremely costly and in many cases simply impossible.

For example, the article mentions that the DOJ wants ISPs to retain lists of the IP addresses used by every user. But we, as an ISP, do not give each user a unique IP address; we use network address translation, or NAT. To abandon the use of NAT would not only compromise users’ safety (by making them more susceptible to Internet worms and other attacks); it would also require us to spend thousands of dollars to obtain more addresses from ARIN and to re-architect our network. What’s more, the imposition of such a requirement upon all ISPs would instantly exhaust the remaining pool of IPV4 addresses at a time when most equipment is not ready for IPV6.

The requirement that all VOIP calls be monitored is likewise absurd. We don’t provide VOIP ourselves; we merely provide the pipes. We don’t even know when a VOIP call is taking place on our network. We would have no way to monitor and track every one on behalf of the government, even if we were willing to (which we are not; we owe it to our users never to participate in such blatantly unconstitutional activity).

Note that the government first attempted to use kiddie porn as an excuse to destroy our liberty, but seems to have decided that terrorism is a more effective excuse — despite the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.

The belief that everything and everyone must be monitored in the hope of preventing possible criminal activity is a hallmark of a police state. Is this what the US is coming to? If so, the 9/11 terrorists have won. By killing fewer people than died in the recent earthquake, they have given an irresponsible government an excuse to destroy our freedom, and have successfully cowed the populace into allowing it to happen.

Every citizen should be up in arms about this.

Why computer security matters

Professor Ed Felten passes along the best summary I’ve seen of this week’s report of serious Diebold Voting Machine Flaws:

The attacks described in Hursti’s report would allow anyone who had physical access to a voting machine for a few minutes to install malicious software code on that machine, using simple, widely available tools. The malicious code, once installed, would control all of the functions of the voting machine, including the counting of votes.

Hursti’s findings suggest the possibililty of other attacks, not described in his report, that are even more worrisome.

In addition, compromised machines would be very difficult to detect or to repair. The normal procedure for installing software updates on the machines could not be trusted, because malicious code could cause that procedure to report success, without actually installing any updates. A technician who tried to update the machine’s software would be misled into thinking the update had been installed, when it actually had not.

On election day, malicious software could refuse to function, or it could silently miscount votes.

A voting machine is just another computer. And those of us who study computer security know that there are some immutable rules. Like, for instance:

Law #1: If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your computer, it’s not your computer anymore

Law #2: If a bad guy can alter the operating system on your computer, it’s not your computer anymore

Law #3: If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it’s not your computer anymore

And when your computer is a voting machine, that last rule needs to be edited just a little bit: If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it’s not your government anymore.

Scary stuff.

Google this!

Every American should be distressed about the Justice Department’s subpoenas demanding records from Google and other search engines.

Want to fight back? Here are a few Google searches I plan to run every day until this issue is resolved:

Bill of Rights
Fourth Amendment
unreasonable search and seizure
due process of law

I think it would be helpful for Attorney General Gonzales to know that Americans are interested in learning more about these concepts. Don’t you?

(inspired by Bob Harris)

Write an annoying comment, go to jail

Update: Professor Michael Froomkin of the University of Miami School of Law sends word from a colleague at the EFF, who says this story is indeed overblown (the exact phrase was “much less here than meets the eye”.)

Update 2: Professor Orin Kerr of the George Washington University School of Law has another skeptical look at the CNET story:

This is just the perfect blogosphere story, isn’t it? It combines threats to bloggers with government incompetence and Big Brother, all wrapped up and tied togther with a little bow. Unsurprisingly, a lot of bloggers are taking the bait.

Skeptical readers will be shocked, shocked to know that the truth is quite different. …

It turns out that the statute can only be used when prohibiting the speech would not violate the First Amendment. If speech is protected by the First Amendment, the statute is unconstitutional as applied and the indictment must be dismissed.

Now, those of us who are worried about the fate of the First Amendment might see this as less than comforting. But that’s a post for another day.

Oh, and this is not the first time I’ve been burned by CNET’s Declan McCullagh. As someone once said, “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

This story sounds like something out of The Onion, but CNET News reports that it is depressingly true:

Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it’s OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

“The use of the word ‘annoy’ is particularly problematic,” says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “What’s annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else.”

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called “Preventing Cyberstalking.” It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet “without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy.”

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section’s other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

Here’s the relevant language.

“Whoever…utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet… without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person…who receives the communications…shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

This is wrong on about a thousand different levels. It’s also symptomatic of a legislative process in the United States that allows important clauses to be written into complex laws at the last minute, so that no one – legislators and citizens alike – has a chance to review them before they’re voted on.

Anonymous speech is an essential component of the Internet. As a Web site owner, I can exercise complete control over who is allowed to post on my site. I allow anonymous postings and only delete or moderate those that cross fairly bright lines. But under this law, anyone who comments on this site anonymously is potentially subject to Federal criminal prosecution if their post is “annoying.” Who decides what that means?

By the way, the sponsor of this bill is Rep. James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI). He is one of the biggest assholes on the planet. He’s the one who gaveled a hearing on the Patriot Act to a close and shut off all microphones rather than listen to witnesses who opposed the extension of the Act. He abused his powers as a committee chairman to rewrite the descriptions of amendments proposed by members of the opposing party so that the authors appeared to be protecting sexual predators. And who can forget his sensitivity to hurricane victims who were required by the Bankruptcy Act to come up with records that were wiped out by wind, rain, and floodwaters? As the Houston Chronicle reported:

A few weeks ago, consumer advocates and bankruptcy lawyers urged Congress to postpone the new law for Katrina victims. Although several lawmakers backed the plan, it was blocked by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., the law’s author.

As Sensenbrenner so eloquently put it, those who wanted the changes “ought to get over it.”

Feel free to leave a comment. Under the terms of the new law, though, if you have anything annoying to say about Rep. Sensenbrenner or me, you’d better sign your real name.

I choose science

My forehead is slightly flatter today than it was yesterday. That’s because of the time I spent pounding it against my desktop last night when I learned that the President of the United States thinks that it makes perfect sense to combine science classes with folklore and mythology instead of having them in separate buildings. Tom Burka had the best perspective I’ve seen on the issue:

The White House announced today that President Bush would henceforth determine the scientific curriculum to be taught in America’s schools. The announcement came immediately after Bush endorsed the teaching of intelligent design.

President Bush apparently wants to adopt a modified pre-Copernican view of astronomy, to start. “This whole notion that the universe does not revolve around our great nation, our great planet, seems kind of crazy,” he told reporters yesterday.

Bush was also skeptical about what he called “the notion of gravity.” “I’m uncomfortable with teaching our children that bodies are attracted to each other,” he said. “That seems like an unwholesome idea to put into children’s heads, don’t it?” He speculated that objects fall to the ground because “God wants them to.”

Maybe we should all suggest appropriate additions to our local school curriculums. For instance, instead of teaching high school students about how modern manufacturing systems work, why not provide this alternate explanation?

Also, in next year’s Federal budget, I want to see R&D funding for alternate energy systems based on dilithium crystals. Scotty would’ve wanted it.

Our miserable media

I was up early yesterday morning, early enough to catch the half-hour live broadcast of the BBC News that airs on my local PBS channel every morning. After it ended, I switched over to CNN and watched it until I couldn’t stand the babbling anymore. Which wasn’t very long. It turns out I wasn’t the only one who noticed a difference. This analysis by critic David Zurawik appeared in this morning’s Baltimore Sun:

While the American news channels and commercial networks that aired in Britain yesterday were filled with images of carnage and talk of confusion in the wake of bombings in London, the government-supported BBC, the most-watched news outlet in the United Kingdom in times of crisis, offered viewers an oasis of relative calm. Interviews with correspondents and government officials interspersed with videotaped images of emergency workers restoring order provided a sense of stability even as the death toll climbed.

Zurawik provided examples of CNN’s hysteria and fear-mongering and contrasted them with the calm, stoic, fact-based approach of the BBC.

The marked contrast in coverage offers clues to differences in national history and character. It also stems from a philosophy at the BBC that is decidedly at odds with that of the ratings-driven networks and all-news cable channels of the U.S.

“The tonality, rhythm and psychology of BBC coverage of the bombings – very low-key, very measured, with no calls for revenge or emotional response – is not an accident,” said Greg Nielsen, director of the BBC World Archive at Concordia University in Montreal.

“It goes back to the days of the Second World War when the BBC World Radio reports were such a key source of information for the Allied forces and the world. There’s a certain attitude and quite different history from commercial broadcasters both in America and Britain that results in higher standards – a keen sense of duty in time of crisis.”

What does that mean for Americans?

Michael Brody, a Washington psychiatrist, said he applauded the BBC coverage yesterday.

“I’ve been monitoring CNN and the BBC all day, and there’s no doubt about it,” said Brody, who heads the Television & Media Committee of the American Academy of Childhood and Adolescent Psychiatry.

“American TV – particularly the all-news cable guys – is constantly hyping things up with talk of the potential for further attacks, while the BBC was trying to calm things down and reassure viewers that things were under control. As a psychiatrist, I have no doubt about the harmful effects of the former vs. the helpful effects of what I saw happening on the BBC.”

Please note that the BBC passed along all the facts. I didn’t feel that they were holding back anything or that CNN was engaging in more aggressive or knowledgeable reporting. The professionals at the BBC were just using fewer inflammatory adjectives and adverbs, and they weren’t indulging in random speculation.

And don’t get me started on Fox News, where anchor Brit Hume said his “first thought” after hearing about the attacks was that it would be an excellent time to put a few more dollars in the stock market:

I mean, my first thought when I heard — just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, “Hmmm, time to buy.”

That’s on the heels of the disgusting remarks by anchor John Gibson (just hours before the bombings) who says he wished the Olympic committee had awarded the 2012 Olympics to France:

It would have been a three-week period where we wouldn’t have had to worry about terrorism.

First, the French think they are so good at dealing with the Arab world that they would have gone out and paid every terrorist off. And things would have been calm.

Or another way to look at it is the French are already up to their eyeballs in terrorists. The French hide them in miserable slums, out of sight of the rich people in Paris.

So it would have been a treat, actually, to watch the French dealing with the problem of their own homegrown Islamist terrorists living in France already.

It would have been a delight to have Parisians worried about security instead of New Yorkers. It would have been exquisite to watch.

Does Gibson get a free pass because he said that before the attacks? Nope. After the bombings, he wrote:

This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics (search) let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while.

In a sane world, both those guys would be working for the minimum wage instead of being paid huge salaries to whip their audiences into a jingoistic frenzy.

We really deserve a better media in this country.

(Thanks to Approximately Perfect for the Baltimore Sun link, and Scoble for the pointer to Loic’s post.)

[Comments are closed on this post. If you have a response, put it on your own blog and send a trackback.]

Buy these books, and then burn them…

Human Events Online, which bills itself as “The National Conservative Weekly,” has just published a list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. I really hate to give them the traffic, but you really have to see this list to believe it. It was compiled by “a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders,” which explains a lot. Marx, Lenin, Hitler, and Chairman Mao are on the list, of course, along with those evildoers Alfred Kinsey, Betty Friedan, and John Maynard Keynes.

What I find truly ironic is that each of these so-called harmful books contains a color picture of the book’s cover with a link to Amazon.com, with the Human Events affiliate code at the end. The road from hypocrite to whore is paved with affiliate links, apparently.

The authors were kind enough to include 20 additional books that earned two or more votes from this distinguished panel. Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species (with its title incorrectly transcribed) and On Liberty by John Stuart Mill are on the longer list. And no, My Pet Goat didn’t make the list at all.

Update: Digby has my favorite take on this bullshit list:

Speaking of books, are any of you libertarians out there a little bit discomfited by the fact that “On Liberty” by JS Mill got an honorable mention in the 10 worst books list by HumanEvents magazine? I mean, “Mein Kampf” and “Das Kapital” aren’t big surprises. I’m not shocked by “The Feminine Mystique” or even the inclusion of John Maynard Keynes (although you have to love this commentary: “FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt.” Haha.)

But “On Liberty”? What, he wasn’t sufficiently agitated about stem cell research? The capital gains tax?

Jesus, I now have not one single intellectual connection to the right. Not one. They are aliens from another planet.”

Oh. and mm notes in the comments that I’m just pissed off because Windows XP Inside Out wasn’t on the list. True. We try our best to do The Communist Manifesto with screenshots, and this is our reward. Sheesh!

Update 2: Cheers and Jeers at Daily Kos has a nice alternate take, which includes Goodnight Moon, Webster’s Dictionary, Roget’s Thesaurus, and Yertle the Turtle should have made the list instead.