From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 1 10:24:23 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 11:24:23 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Obama authorizes five more years of warrantless wiretapping Message-ID: <5FB42190-8DFE-41D0-B206-C6E3FE157237@infowarrior.org> (Happy New Year, America....*headdesk*) Obama authorizes five more years of warrantless wiretapping Published: 31 December, 2012, 21:14 Edited: 31 December, 2012, 21:14 http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-fisa-faa-signed-143/print/ Federal detectives won?t need a warrant to eavesdrop on the emails and phone calls of Americans for another five years. President Obama reauthorized an intelligence gathering bill on Sunday that puts national security over constitutional rights. President Barack Obama inked his name over the weekend to an extension of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a George W. Bush-era legislation that has allowed the government expansive spy powers that has been considered by some to be dragnet surveillance. FISA, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was first signed into law in the 1970s in order to put into place rules regarding domestic spying within the United States. Upon the passing of the FAA in 2008, however, the online and over-the-phone activities of Americans became subject to sweeping, warrantless wiretapping in instances where investigators reasonably suspect US citizens to be engaged in conversation with persons located outside of the country. Congress had only up until the end of 2012 to either reauthorize FISA and the FAA, or let the bill expire. Despite a large grassroots campaign from privacy advocates and civil liberties organization to ensure the acts would fade from history, though, the Senate approved a five-year extension of the legislation on Friday. Just two days later, Pres. Obama signed his name to the act, opening up the inboxes and phone records of US citizens to the federal government until at least 2018. Although on the books since 2008, the FAA has come under increased criticism this year thanks to efforts from a select group of lawmakers who have adamantly demanded answers about a program largely considered to be cloaked in secrecy. In May, Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO) sent a letter to the National Security Agency asking for an estimate of how many Americans have been targeted since the FAA went on the books. In response, Inspector General I. Charles McCullough said honoring that request would be ?beyond the capacity? of the office, and that ?dedicating sufficient additional resources would likely impede the NSA?s mission.? ?If no one will even estimate how many Americans have had their communications collected under this law then it is all the more important that Congress act to close the ?back door searches? loophole, to keep the government from searching for Americans? phone calls and emails without a warrant,? Wyden, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told Wired.com?s Danger Room. Although Americans cannot be specifically targeted under the FAA without getting the approval of a select panel of FISA judges, the warrantless monitoring of messages involving anyone outside of the country can easily collect collateral information about US citizens. Speaking on the Senate floor on Friday before the FISA vote, Wyden warned, ?You can?t just go out checking everybody in sight with the prospect of that maybe there?s someone who?s done something wrong.? ?Government officials may only search someone?s house if they have evidence that someone is breaking the law and they show the evidence to a judge to get an individual warrant,? he said. Despite attempts from Wyden and others to overturn the FAA, though, it cleared the Senate by a vote of 73-23 on Friday and was signed by Pres. Obama in Washington just two days later. Even as the FISA renewal was up for debate on Capitol Hill, attempts to add privacy safeguards that would prevent the collection of personal data pertaining to US citizens were ignored. Sen. Wyden and others had asked for amendments to be included to this year?s update, but all provisions were rejected before the final bill was passed. Trevor Timm, an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, writes, ?all the proposed amendments that would have brought a modicum of transparency and oversight to the government's activities, despite previous refusals by the Executive branch to even estimate how many Americans are surveilled by this program or reveal critical secret court rulings interpreting it.? ?The common-sense amendments the Senate hastily rejected were modest in scope and written with the utmost deference to national security concerns. The Senate had months to consider them, but waited until four days before the law was to expire to bring them to the floor, and then used the contrived time crunch to stifle any chances of them passing.? In July 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of the FAA but said in a statement that it wasn?t an ?easy call? since the legislation was ?far from perfect.? In particular, Obama said he was concerned with a section that provided retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that cooperated with Pres. Bush?s requests for warrantless wiretapping in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Sen. Obama said he would work to remove that provision from the bill if elected president, but reauthorized it for another five years on Sunday without any comment. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 1 19:18:14 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 20:18:14 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fiscal Cliff: Hollywood Gets Tax Incentive Extension Message-ID: <8734AA25-4DD2-4BC2-9146-64D3615B92BF@infowarrior.org> Fiscal Cliff Deal: Hollywood Gets Tax Incentive Extension http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/01/01/hollywood-loophole-fiscal-cliff by Breitbart News 1 Jan 2013, 12:33 PM PDT 166 post a comment The Senate passed legislation meant to end the "fiscal cliff" crisis in the wee hours of the morning. And it seems Hollywood's rigorous backing of President Barack Obama and his Democrat peers in the waning months of 2012 paid off. Section 317 of the freshly approved legislation includes an extension for "special expensing rules for certain film and television productions." Congress first enacted production tax incentives favorable to the domestic entertainment industry in 2004, and extended them in 2008, but the deal was meant to expire in 2011. The fiscal cliff deal extends the tax incentives through 2013--even as payroll taxes rise on ordinary Americans. The original tax incentive applied to productions costing less than $15 million to make ($20 million in low-income areas). The 2008 extension applies to all films, up to a deduction of $15 million (or $20 million in low-income areas). The incentive is especially generous to television series; it applies to each TV episode. Hollywood players routinely beg the government to raise their taxes so they can pay their "fair share." Yet the industry moves new productions to places where existing tax breaks help its bottom line. That means plenty of shows and films are shot in states like New Mexico, which feature highly favorable tax rates, as well as destinations north of the border with similar perks. Now Hollywood has used its clout to ensure that its generous tax incentives will continue in a time of fiscal crisis. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 1 19:19:43 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 20:19:43 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - but yet....Hollywood celebrates end of 2012 with record box office Message-ID: Hollywood celebrates end of 2012 with record box office L.A. Biz by Gina Hall Date: Monday, December 31, 2012, 11:19am PST http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2012/12/31/hollywood-celebrates-end-of-2012-with.html Hollywood bounced back in 2012 to beat last year?s slump that had attendance at a 16-year low. While not nearly the biggest attendance the business has seen, movie ticket sales will hit an all-time high of $10.8 billion, according to the Los Angeles Times. Several big franchises and rising ticket prices helped boost the box office 6 percent over last year and saw attendance it 1.36 billion, according to Hollywood.com. ?The Dark Knight Rises,? ?Hunger Games,? ?Twilight,? ?Skyfall,? and ?The Avengers? were the top five money makers that helped the box office recover both domestically and abroad. Fifteen of the top 20 films grossed more overseas than in the U.S. and Canada, according to the report. The quality of the top grossers was up as well. Four of the top five-grossing films received above an 85 percent approval score from the nation's critics, according to Rotten Tomatoes, with Twilight being the one left off the list. Apparently the adults didn?t care for the vampire saga as much as the teens did. "The old-school thought was that tent poles ? didn't need good reviews, but I don't think that's the case anymore," said Richie Fay, president of domestic distribution for Lionsgate, which released both "The Hunger Games" and the final "Twilight" picture, told the Los Angeles Times. "If moviegoers see a title get good reviews, they're going to come out once ? and may come out a second or third time." Mid-budget, adult films also made a comeback this year. "Argo,? "Lincoln" and "Magic Mike" all made over $100 million at the domestic box office. Theaters have also shared the wealth. The two largest chains, Regal and Cinemark, saw an 18 percent and 36 percent spike in their respective share prices, per the Times. "Just looking at the fourth quarter tells you what works for us ? a lot of diverse products, well-made movies and something for everybody," said Patrick Corcoran, spokesman for the National Association of Theater Owners told the Times. "The only thing missing this holiday season was a strong family title." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 1 21:01:29 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:01:29 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: What else is tucked in "Fiscal Cliff' bill Message-ID: Jan 1, 2013 8:52pm ?Fiscal Cliff? Deal Also Doles Out Millions for Hollywood, Railroads, Rum Producers http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/fiscal-cliff-deal-also-doles-out-millions-for-hollywood-railroads-rum-producers/ The ?fiscal cliff? compromise has been heralded as a saving grace for middle class taxpayers, their families and the unemployed. But buried in the fine print of the 150-page deal are also some lesser-known New Year?s gifts to some of Washington?s favorite industries. Under the plan, the federal government would eat nearly $100 billion in forgone tax revenue over the next two years by extending special tax credits for select businesses that had been set to expire. While the provisions themselves are not new, and are often extended as part of major bills, their inclusion amidst a tumultuous year-end debate over deficits and debt did raise a few eyebrows. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget listed the so-called ?tax extenders? as a ?bad? part of the fiscal cliff deal because their cost is not offset, ?setting a bad precedent for future extensions.? The mix of tax perks covering the next year, but with budget implications for the next two years includes everything from incentives for employers to hire veterans to incentives for employers to invest in mine safety. But it also includes these: ? $430 million for Hollywood through ?special expensing rules? to encourage TV and film production in the United States. Producers can expense up to $15 million of costs for their projects. ? $331 million for railroads by allowing short-line and regional operators to claim a tax credit up to 50 percent of the cost to maintain tracks that they own or lease. ? $222 million for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands through returned excise taxes collected by the federal government on rum produced in the islands and imported to the mainland. ? $70 million for NASCAR by extending a ?7-year cost recovery period for certain motorsports racing track facilities.? ? $59 million for algae growers through tax credits to encourage production of ?cellulosic biofuel? at up to $1.01 per gallon. ? $4 million for electric motorcycle makers by expanding an existing green-energy tax credit for buyers of plug-in vehicles to include electric motorbikes. *Note the price tags above reflect estimated forgone tax revenue if current credits ? which have been due to expire ? are extended for one year as included in the Senate bill, per Joint Committee on Taxation. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jan 2 14:56:49 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 15:56:49 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Patent_trolls_want_=241=2C000=97?= =?windows-1252?q?for_using_scanners?= Message-ID: <33660CE7-7A09-4DD8-97E7-D079C43BF968@infowarrior.org> Patent trolls want $1,000?for using scanners An alphabet soup of patent trolls is threatening end users with lawsuits. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/patent-trolls-want-1000-for-using-scanners/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jan 2 14:57:12 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 15:57:12 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - History: Tsunami bomb' tested off New Zealand coast Message-ID: Tsunami bomb' tested off New Zealand coast The United States and New Zealand conducted secret tests of a "tsunami bomb" designed to destroy coastal cities by using underwater blasts to trigger massive tidal waves. By Jonathan Pearlman, Sydney 2:50PM GMT 01 Jan 2013 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/9774217/Tsunami-bomb-tested-off-New-Zealand-coast.html The tests were carried out in waters around New Caledonia and Auckland during the Second World War and showed that the weapon was feasible and a series of 10 large offshore blasts could potentially create a 33-foot tsunami capable of inundating a small city. The top secret operation, code-named "Project Seal", tested the doomsday device as a possible rival to the nuclear bomb. About 3,700 bombs were exploded during the tests, first in New Caledonia and later at Whangaparaoa Peninsula, near Auckland. The plans came to light during research by a New Zealand author and film-maker, Ray Waru, who examined military files buried in the national archives. "Presumably if the atomic bomb had not worked as well as it did, we might have been tsunami-ing people," said Mr Waru. "It was absolutely astonishing. First that anyone would come up with the idea of developing a weapon of mass destruction based on a tsunami ... and also that New Zealand seems to have successfully developed it to the degree that it might have worked." The project was launched in June 1944 after a US naval officer, E A Gibson, noticed that blasting operations to clear coral reefs around Pacific islands sometimes produced a large wave, raising the possibility of creating a "tsunami bomb". Mr Waru said the initial testing was positive but the project was eventually shelved in early 1945, though New Zealand authorities continued to produce reports on the experiments into the 1950s. Experts concluded that single explosions were not powerful enough and a successful tsunami bomb would require about 2 million kilograms of explosive arrayed in a line about five miles from shore. "If you put it in a James Bond movie it would be viewed as fantasy but it was a real thing," he said. "I only came across it because they were still vetting the report, so there it was sitting on somebody's desk [in the archives]." Forty years after the joint testing, New Zealand faced a dramatic breakdown in its security ties with the US after it banned the entry of nuclear-armed ships from entering its territory during the 1980s. The dispute led to the US downgrading its relationship with New Zealand from an "ally" to a "friend". In his new book Secrets and Treasures, Mr Waru reveals other unusual findings from the archives including Defence Department records of thousands of UFO sightings by members of the public, military personnel and commercial pilots. Some of the accounts of the moving lights in the sky include drawings of flying saucers, descriptions of aliens wearing "pharaoh masks" and alleged examples of extraterrestrial writing. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jan 2 17:23:41 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 18:23:41 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Why did a Train Carrying Biofuel Cross the Border 24 Times and Never Unload? Message-ID: <1A814E89-DAAE-44AB-A4E3-242315A29EB9@infowarrior.org> Why did a Train Carrying Biofuel Cross the Border 24 Times and Never Unload? By James Burgess | Tue, 01 January 2013 00:00 | 8 http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Why-did-a-Train-Carrying-Biofuel-Cross-the-Border-24-Times-and-Never-Unload.html A cargo train filled with biofuels crossed the border between the US and Canada 24 times between the 15th of June and the 28th of June 2010; not once did it unload its cargo, yet it still earned millions of dollars. CBC News of Canada was the first to pick up on this story on the 3rd of December 2012, and began their own investigation into the possible explanations behind this odd behaviour. CN Rail, the operator of the train, stated their innocence in the matter as they had only ?received shipping directions from the customer, which, under law, it has an obligation to meet. CN discharged its obligations with respect to those movements in strict compliance with its obligations as a common carrier, and was compensated accordingly.? Even so, they still managed to earn C$2.6 million in shipping fees. During their investigation CBC managed to obtain an internal email which stated that the cars of the train were all reconfigured between each trip but that the cargo was never actually unloaded, because ?each move per car across the border is revenue generated?, the sale of the cargo itself was inconsequential. The cargo of the train was owned by Bioversal Trading Inc., or its US partner Verdero, depending on what stage of the trip it was at. The companies ?made several million dollars importing and exporting the fuel to exploit a loophole in a U.S. green energy program.? Each time the loaded train crossed the border the cargo earned its owner a certain amount of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), which were awarded by the US EPA to ?promote and track production and importation of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.? The RINs were supposed to be retired each time the shipment passed the border, but due to a glitch not all of them were. This enabled Bioversal to accumulate over 12 million RINs from the 24 trips, worth between 50 cents and $1 each, which they can then sell on to oil companies that haven?t met the EPA?s renewable fuel requirements. Both the Canada Border Services Agency and the US EPA have launched investigations into the possibility of fraud, although the companies claim that the practice was totally legal. By. James Burgess of Oilprice.com --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jan 2 20:10:25 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 21:10:25 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Al Jazeera buys Al Gore's Current TV news network Message-ID: <1F0DC9A2-BD0C-4AA5-8FFE-E7C367D2D5C9@infowarrior.org> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/03/al_jazeera_buys_current_tv/ Al Jazeera buys Al Gore's Current TV news network Planned relaunch as Al Jazeera America this year By Neil McAllister in San Francisco ? Get more from this author Posted in Media, 3rd January 2013 01:54 GMT Pan-Arabic news network Al Jazeera has acquired Current TV, the small cable news network cofounded by one-time presidential hopeful Al Gore, for an undisclosed sum. Current TV's present line-up of programming will continue for three months, The New York Times reports, after which it will be phased out to make way for a new network that will most likely be branded Al Jazeera America. Initially, at least, the revamped network will offer a simulcast feed of Al Jazeera English, the group's current English-language channel, which is broadcast out of Doha, Qatar. (Al Jazeera is owned and operated by the government of Qatar.) Sometime later in 2013, however, the broadcaster plans to relaunch the channel as a targeted outlet offering 60 per cent American-produced programming, according to sources. Little if any of Current TV's existing programming is likely to survive the transition, those same sources say, although "Al Jazeera may absorb some Current TV staff members." If Current TV's content disappears altogether, however, it will be mourned by few. The network is available in roughly 60 million of the 100 million US households, but its viewership is low, with only about 42,000 people watching it on any given evening, according to Nielsen ratings. As one might expect of a venture founded by Gore, Current's programming typically leans left, including talk shows by former New York governor and attorney general Eliot Spitzer and California lieutenant governor Gavin Newsom. It's not clear whether Al Jazeera plans to continue that tradition as it seeks to cater to American audiences, but programming on its primary channels has often stood in stark contrast to that found on US networks. Many in the US were first introduced to Al Jazeera in the early 2000s when it chose to broadcast video statements made by al-Qaeda members, a practice that drew harsh criticism from US politicians. Other lawmakers criticized the broadcaster's decision to show graphic footage from the Iraq war. Such moves have given Al Jazeera a spotty reputation among Americans, which has hampered its ability to establish a foothold in the US market. The purchase of Current TV gives it a built-in audience ? albeit a relatively small one ? thanks to Current's existing distribution deals with cable and satellite networks. Those deals might still not be enough to give Al Jazeera the leverage it needs, however. According to Forbes, Time Warner Cable did not approve of the sale and has said it will drop Current TV from its roster, most likely even before it relaunches under the Al Jazeera brand. If other operators follow suit, the Current TV acquisition could prove to be a costly blunder for the controversial broadcaster, which is rumored to have paid as much as $400m to acquire Current TV. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 3 07:01:55 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:01:55 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The (idiotic) paranoia of classification Message-ID: <6063320C-C05C-41AB-B322-61D0E2194CF9@infowarrior.org> The bit about a "classified orange" is pathetic. Amusing, but pathetic. --rick (c/o Schneierblog) Forbidden spheres Posted August 29th, 2012 by Alex Wellerstein Spheres are special shapes for nuclear weapons designers. Most nuclear weapons have, somewhere in them, that spheres-within-spheres arrangement of the implosion nuclear weapon design. You don?t have to use spheres ? cylinders can be made to work, and there are lots of rumblings and rumors about non-spherical implosion designs around these here Internets ? but spheres are pretty common. Spheres also happen to be fairly common sights in the non-nuclear weapons design as well. What interests me is what happens when you take a perfectly non-nuclear sphere, like, say, a soccer ball, and move it into a nuclear context. To the trained eye, it takes on a rather interesting new meaning: < - > http://nuclearsecrecy.com/blog/2012/08/29/forbidden-spheres/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 3 07:18:46 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:18:46 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Must_Read=3A_What=92s_Inside_Ame?= =?windows-1252?q?rica=92s_Banks=3F?= Message-ID: <1BAE9D7A-CAED-49B8-B394-B0C3717BD62E@infowarrior.org> (long, but a nice piece of investigative journalism well worth reading. --rick) What?s Inside America?s Banks? Some four years after the 2008 financial crisis, public trust in banks is as low as ever. Sophisticated investors describe big banks as ?black boxes? that may still be concealing enormous risks?the sort that could again take down the economy. A close investigation of a supposedly conservative bank?s financial records uncovers the reason for these fears?and points the way toward urgent reforms. < - > http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2013/01/whats-inside-americas-banks/309196/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 3 07:54:49 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 08:54:49 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Court: Feds can keep drone legal opinions secret Message-ID: <0B919905-D466-4351-A153-DD2122EF0BF8@infowarrior.org> Court: Feds can keep drone legal opinions secret By JOSH GERSTEIN | 1/2/13 2:46 PM EST http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/01/court-feds-can-keep-drone-legal-opinions-secret-153169.html?hp=r15 The U.S. Government has no legal duty to disclose legal opinions justifying the use of drones to kill suspected terrorist operatives abroad, although doing so would contribute to "intelligent" public debate over the legality of that practice, a federal judge wrote in a ruling issued Wednesday. In her decision, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon largely rejected lawsuits brought by the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union seeking to use the Freedom of Information Act to make public more details about the legal basis for the drone programs. "There are indeed legitimate reasons, historical and legal, to question the legality of killings unilaterally authorized by the Executive that take place otherwise than on a 'hot' field of battle," McMahon wrote in a 68-page public opinion filed along with a secret, classified appendix. She cited the Constitution's guarantee of "due process," the Constitutional provision regarding treason and a specific criminal statute that prohibits any American from killing another American abroad. McMahon said more detailed disclosure of the administration's legal rationale "would allow for intelligent discussion and assessment of a tactic that (like torture before it) remains hotly debated." However, she concluded the law did not permit her to require such transparency. "I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules?a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reason for their conclusion a secret," wrote McMahon. The Times and the ACLU had argued that public statements from President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and other officials provided enough detail about the legal basis for the program that the underlying documents should also be released. McMahon disagreed. However, in so doing, she seemed to be tacitly criticizing the administration by describing those remarks as "vague and imprecise." A key speech by Holder last March?one repeatedly pointed to by the administration as laying out the legal basis for targeted killings?was "a far cry from a legal research memorandum," McMahon wrote. "The speech mentions relevant doctrines but does not explain the actual reasoning that led the Government to conclude that the targeted killing of a suspected terrorist complies with the law of war, or accords a suspect due process of law, or does not constitute assassination. In fact, in the approximately 15 minutes (out of an approximately 40 minute speech) that Attorney General Holder devoted to the subject of the Government's targeted killing program, he did not cite to a single specific constitutional provision (other than the Due Process clause), domestic statute (other than the AUMF), treaty obligation or legal precedent.....In fact, when you really dissect the speech, all it does is recite general principles of law and the Government's legal conclusion." In the March speech, Holder said U.S. citizens were entitled to "due process" before being targeted for killing abroad, but he said no judicial action was required to provide the legal process Americans are entitled to. (In a TV interview last year, Obama also insisted that "due process" was adhered to in the drone operations.) McMahon, a Clinton appointee, also said the law prohibited her from disputing executive branch officials' contention that many of the relevant documents were classified. "It is beyond the power of this Court to conclude that a document has been improperly classified," she wrote. While judges are usually extremely deferential to Executive Branch claims regarding national security concerns and classification, few have said explicitly that they have no power to reject a classification. Indeed, the text of FOIA indicates that they do, and in very rare cases they have done so. The Justice Department acknowledged in response to the litigation that an opinion from Justice's Office of Legal Counsel addresses the targeted killing issue. The CIA and Pentagon may have more legal opinions on the point, but they have refused to provide any details about the documents?an approach McMahon ruled was legally permissible. McMahon did hold out the possibility she might order the release of two Defense Department memoranda regarding the impact of U.S. citizenship on attempts to target enemy fighters. She said the Pentagon's explanation of why the records were part of an internal deliberative process was "wholly conclusory." A Justice Department spokesman said officials were reviewing the ruling. An attorney for the Times, David McCraw, said the newspaper plans to appeal. "Judge McMahon?s decision speaks eloquently and at length to the serious legal questions raised by the targeted-killing program and to why in a democracy the government should be addressing those questions openly and fully," McCraw said in statement. "We continue to believe that disclosure is required under FOIA." The ACLU also expressed disappointment in the decision. ?This ruling denies the public access to crucial information about the government?s extrajudicial killing of U.S. citizens and also effectively green-lights its practice of making selective and self-serving disclosures,? ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement. ?As the judge acknowledges, the targeted killing program raises profound questions about the appropriate limits on government power in our constitutional democracy. The public has a right to know more about the circumstances in which the government believes it can lawfully kill people, including U.S. citizens, who are far from any battlefield and have never been charged with a crime.? UPDATE (Wednesday, 3:11 P.M.): This post has been updated with more from McMahon's opinion and a revised opinion released by the court. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 3 10:53:12 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 11:53:12 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Dysfunctional patent reform in Congress Message-ID: <71E97DE1-1032-4524-AFF3-9B81B6B994CE@infowarrior.org> Congress So Dysfunctional, It Can't Even Fix The Errors It ADMITS It Made In Patent Reform http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130102/12173821549/congress-so-dysfunctional-it-cant-even-fix-errors-it-admits-it-made-patent-reform.shtml < - big snip - > Let's recap, because this is quite incredible: ? Congress spends seven years debating patent reform. ? It finally approves patent reform in late 2011, and despite seven years of debate, had a ton of clear errors in the drafting of the bill. ? The official sponsors of the bill flat out admit that there's a major error in a part of the bill that they did not intend to be in there. ? A year plus later, Congress finally introduces a bill to "fix problems" in the original bill. ? This "technical corrections" bill does not fix the one major problem that all admit was a flat out mistake in the original bill. And people wonder why Congress' approval rating is so low. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 3 11:51:13 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 12:51:13 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DOD nails 'best ever' Microsoft deal, brags size does matter Message-ID: <4886F369-5AEF-46FB-B18E-8999BAEA773D@infowarrior.org> (What they saved on upfront costs they'll likely be paying in support/security/admin costs over time, I bet. --rick) US military nails 'best ever' Microsoft deal, brags size does matter By Gavin Clarke ? Get more from this author Posted in Government, 3rd January 2013 17:03 GMT http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/03/us_dod_signs_win_8_contract/ US Department of Defense personnel will get their hands on Microsoft?s latest software in a deal officials claim is their best yet from Redmond. The government department has signed a three-year enterprise licence agreement with Microsoft worth $617m, giving its two-million-plus civilian and military staff access to Windows 8, Office 2013 and SharePoint 2013. The DoD reckoned the deal will save tens of millions of dollars on the cost of licensing the gear through the Microsoft?s Software Assurance upgrade programme. Announcing the agreement, the department - the world?s largest employer - made much of its size after seizing the bumper discount, claiming the deal "demonstrates the best pricing DoD has received to date for Microsoft desktop and server software licenses". David DeVries, the department's deputy chief information officer, said in a statement: ?No one comes close to our scale, so when we talk about something that produces a standardized way of buying, installing and maintaining [enterprise software], that?s a huge deal.? The deal was led by US Army Contracting Command with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), the Army and the Air Force. Army deputy CIO Michael Krieger added the service will save more than $70m annually during the three-year-lifespan of the agreement while the Navy?s Rear Admiral David Simpson, DISA vice-director and senior procurement executive, claimed savings of 10 per cent. Windows 8 was launched in October. Office 2013 is available to MSDN subscribers and business customers, and is expected to go on general sale this quarter. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 3 12:25:06 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 13:25:06 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Google Agrees to Change Its Business Practices to Resolve FTC Competition Concerns Message-ID: <054B7B7B-34BD-4AC2-B71C-5D4B82CBF5DF@infowarrior.org> 1/03/2013 http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/01/google.shtm Google Agrees to Change Its Business Practices to Resolve FTC Competition Concerns In the Markets for Devices Like Smart Phones, Games and Tablets, and in Online Search Landmark Agreements Will Give Competitors Access to Standard-Essential Patents; Advertisers Will Get More Flexibility to Use Rival Search Engines Google Inc. has agreed to change some of its business practices to resolve Federal Trade Commission concerns that those practices could stifle competition in the markets for popular devices such as smart phones, tablets and gaming consoles, as well as the market for online search advertising. Under a settlement reached with the FTC, Google will meet its prior commitments to allow competitors access ? on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms ? to patents on critical standardized technologies needed to make popular devices such as smart phones, laptop and tablet computers, and gaming consoles. In a separate letter of commitment to the Commission, Google has agreed to give online advertisers more flexibility to simultaneously manage ad campaigns on Google?s AdWords platform and on rival ad platforms; and to refrain from misappropriating online content from so-called ?vertical? websites that focus on specific categories such as shopping or travel for use in its own vertical offerings. ?The changes Google has agreed to make will ensure that consumers continue to reap the benefits of competition in the online marketplace and in the market for innovative wireless devices they enjoy,? said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. ?This was an incredibly thorough and careful investigation by the Commission, and the outcome is a strong and enforceable set of agreements.? ?We are especially glad to see that Google will live up to its commitments to license its standard-essential patents, which will ensure that companies willing to license these patents can compete in the market for wireless devices,? Leibowitz added. ?This decision strengthens the standard-setting process that is at the heart of innovation in today?s technology markets.? Google is a global technology company with more than 32,000 employees and annual revenues of nearly $38 billion. The FTC also conducted an extensive investigation into allegations that Google biased its search results to disadvantage certain vertical websites; and that Google entered into anticompetitive exclusive agreements for the distribution of Google Search on both desktop and in the mobile arena. The agency decided not to take action in connection with these allegations. ?The evidence the FTC uncovered through this intensive investigation prompted us to require significant changes in Google?s business practices. However, regarding the specific allegations that the company biased its search results to hurt competition, the evidence collected to date did not justify legal action by the Commission,? said Beth Wilkinson, outside counsel to the Commission. ?Undoubtedly, Google took aggressive actions to gain advantage over rival search providers. However, the FTC?s mission is to protect competition, and not individual competitors. The evidence did not demonstrate that Google?s actions in this area stifled competition in violation of U.S. law.? In response to the agency?s concerns about several of its business practices, Google has agreed to take the following steps: Google will not seek injunctions to block rivals from using patents essential to key technologies In 2012, Google paid about $12.5 billion to acquire Motorola Mobility (MMI), including MMI?s patent portfolio of over 24,000 patents and patent applications. These patents have been a significant source of revenue for at least a decade, and hundreds of MMI?s patents are essential to industry standards used to provide wireless connectivity and for internet-related technologies. These standards are essential for smartphones, tablets, gaming systems, operating systems, and the increasing number of devices offering wireless connectivity or high definition video. Development and use of these types of standards is a cornerstone for many high-tech markets, and encourages innovation and investment in high-tech products, according to the FTC?s complaint. By agreeing to standards, companies can ensure that the numerous components of a device or a technology network can work together seamlessly, often called ?interoperability.? Setting a standard, however, can have the effect of giving market power to the owner of a patent that is deemed essential to the standard, according to the agency. That patent ? even if it is only on a small component of a much larger and more complex device ? can be used to ?hold up? a licensee for an excessive royalty. To avoid this problem, technology companies involved in setting a standard commit to license standard-essential patents on ?fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory? terms ? known as FRAND terms. The Commission?s complaint alleges that Google reneged on its FRAND commitments and pursued ? or threatened to pursue ? injunctions against companies that need to use MMI?s standard-essential patents in their devices and were willing to license them on FRAND terms. Specifically the company pursued injunctions in federal district court and at the United States International Trade Commission (?ITC?) to block competing technology companies from using MMI standard-essential patents. The FTC alleged that this type of patent hold-up is what the standard setting organizations sought to prevent by instituting FRAND licensing requirements. According to the FTC, if left unchecked, this type of patent hold-up can lead to higher prices, as companies may pay higher royalties for the use of Google?s patents because of the threat of an injunction, and then pass those higher prices on to consumers. This may cause companies in technology industries to abandon the standard-setting process and limit or forgo investment in new technologies, according to the agency. To remedy this concern, Google has agreed to a Consent Order that prohibits it from seeking injunctions against a willing licensee, either in federal court or at the ITC, to block the use of any standard-essential patents that the company has previously committed to license on FRAND terms. Google will remove restrictions hampering advertisers? management of their ad campaigns across competing ad platforms Under a separate commitment, Google has agreed to remove restrictions on the use of its online search advertising platform, AdWords, that may make it more difficult for advertisers to coordinate online advertising campaigns across multiple platforms. Advertisers who wish to use a search advertising platform spend considerable time, effort, and resources preparing extensive bids, including keywords, price information, and targeting information. Once an advertiser has entered the information necessary to create a search advertising campaign, the advertising platform sends critical data back to the advertisers that they need to evaluate the effectiveness of, and to further manage, their campaign. Advertising platforms use application programming interfaces, known as APIs, to give advertisers direct access to these advertising platforms so they can develop their own software programs to automatically manage and optimize their advertising campaigns. Some FTC Commissioners were concerned that Google?s contractual conditions governing the use of its API made it more difficult for an advertiser to simultaneously manage a campaign on AdWords and on competing ad platforms, and that these restrictions might impair competition in search advertising. Google will give websites the ability to ?opt out? of display on Google vertical properties Under the same commitment, Google also has promised to provide all websites the option to keep their content out of Google?s vertical search offerings, while still having them appear in Google?s general, or ?organic,? web search results. The FTC investigated allegations that Google misappropriated content, such as user reviews and star ratings, from competing websites in order to improve its own vertical offerings, such as Google Local and Google Shopping. Some FTC Commissioners were concerned that this conduct might chill firms? incentives to innovate on the Internet. FTC?s investigation into allegations of search bias The FTC conducted an extensive investigation into allegations that Google had manipulated its search algorithms to harm vertical websites and unfairly promote its own competing vertical properties, a practice commonly known as ?search bias.? In particular, the FTC evaluated Google?s introduction of ?Universal Search? ? a product that prominently displays targeted Google properties in response to specific categories of searches, such as shopping and local ? to determine whether Google used that product to reduce or eliminate a nascent competitive threat. Similarly, the investigation focused on the allegation that Google altered its search algorithms to demote certain vertical websites in an effort to reduce or eliminate a nascent competitive threat. According to the Commission statement, however, the FTC concluded that the introduction of Universal Search, as well as additional changes made to Google?s search algorithms ? even those that may have had the effect of harming individual competitors ? could be plausibly justified as innovations that improved Google?s product and the experience of its users. It therefore has chosen to close the investigation. The Commission would like to acknowledge the close cooperation in this matter with the European Commission?s Directorate-General for Competition, and with the state Attorneys General of Texas, New York, Ohio, California, and Oklahoma. The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order relating to standard-essential patents (SEPs) for public comment was 4-1, with Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen voting no. The vote to issue the Commission statement in the SEP matter was 3-0-2, with Commissioners Rosch and Ohlhausen abstaining. Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch issued a separate statement regarding the SEP matter; Commissioner Ohlhausen issued a dissenting statement regarding the SEP matter. The Commission vote to close the investigation related to Google?s search-related practices was 5-0. The vote to issue the Commission statement relating to the search investigationwas 4-0-1, with Commissioner Rosch abstaining. Commissioner Rosch issued a statement concurring and dissenting with regard to the search investigationregarding the search investigation; and Commissioner Ohlhausen issued a concurring statement regarding the search investigation. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through February 4, 2013, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the ?Invitation To Comment? part of the ?Supplementary Information? section. Comments in electronic form should be submitted using the following Web link: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/motorolagoogleconsent and following the instructions on the web-based form. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has ?reason to believe? that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has actually violated the law. A consent order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000. The FTC?s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to antitrust{at}ftc{dot}gov, or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 601 New Jersey Ave., Room 7117, Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read Competition Counts. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources. MEDIA CONTACT: Peter Kaplan, Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2180 Cecelia Prewett, Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2180 STAFF CONTACT: Richard Feinstein or Pete Levitas, Bureau of Competition 202-326-2555 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 3 15:58:51 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 16:58:51 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Charles_Carreon=3A_Internet_is_s?= =?windows-1252?q?o_mean_I_can=27t_=93keep_my_cool=94_in_court?= Message-ID: <124222AE-BE3E-49D9-ABF3-E091EF9058B8@infowarrior.org> Charles Carreon: Internet is so mean I can't ?keep my cool? in court After tangling with The Oatmeal, a lawyer complains about Internet pile-ons. by Nate Anderson - Jan 3 2013, 4:00pm EST Lawyer Charles Carreon had a rough 2012. After tangling with webcomic The Oatmeal last summer, Carreon found himself widely criticized online by people "wishing me an ill fate, including that my career would collapse, that I would be raped to death by a bear, and other unpleasantness," as he recently told a federal judge. The insults?some of which Carreon posted to one of his websites?caused Carreon to flip his lid and sue Matt Inman, creator of The Oatmeal, for some violation of "professional fundraising" rules. Carreon then tried to drag everyone from the American Cancer Society to Indiegogo to the National Wildlife Federation to 100 unnamed "Does" into the case. Carreon separately threatened an anonymous critic known as Satirical Charles, warning that "I have the known capacity to litigate for years" and saying that a lawsuit might seek "the maximum cybersquatting penalty of $100,000." He then said he would sue Register.com unless it revealed the name behind the Satirical Charles account (one Christopher Recouvreur), then sent a long letter (PDF) to Recouvreur's employer demanding that it preserve everything from the Internet history of Recouvreur's work computer to telephone records and text messages that he might have sent using company equipment. Carreon even threatened to subpoena Ars Technica and Twitter to expose other critics..... < -- > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/charles-carreon-internet-is-so-mean-i-cant-keep-my-cool-in-court/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Jan 5 09:39:49 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 10:39:49 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The 'war on terror' - by design - can never end Message-ID: The 'war on terror' - by design - can never end As the Pentagon's former top lawyer urges that the war be viewed as finite, the US moves in the opposite direction http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/04/war-on-terror-endless-johnson --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Jan 5 09:39:55 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 10:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Disney Freaks Out Over Patents That May Mean It Can't Keep 3Ding Old Movies Message-ID: <9BC8CB7B-4823-47B1-9302-08F8D305CF2A@infowarrior.org> Disney Freaks Out Over Patents That May Mean It Can't Keep 3Ding Old Movies from the live-by-the-monopoly,-die-by-the-monopoly dept While lots of folks have been declaring the 3D movie obsession dead for a while now, the studios still love 3D movies. In this age where they're looking for ways to create formulaic premium experiences that get people to go out to the theaters, they seem to have jumped on the 3D bandwagon full force. Of course, as with all things Hollywood embraces too strongly, that's now leading to backlash, mainly because rather than do it well and where it makes sense, the big studios are basically just looking to add 3D to whatever they can and hope people will pay the premium. It's a short term strategy, but Hollywood execs aren't exactly known for their long term outlooks. That said, Disney -- the poster company for supporting extreme copyright monopolies -- has apparently discovered a form of intellectual monopoly that it doesn't like so much: patents. Last week it filed an emergency motion to try to insert itself into the sale of some patents that cover the 3Difying of old films, from a company, Digital Domain Media Group (DDMG), that went bankrupt. The patents were sold to a company called RealID, and that seems to scare Disney. The link above to The Hollywood Reporter has the details of the back and forth over the dispute, in which it appears that Disney had an option to get a full license to the patents, but for reasons that suggest someone was asleep at the wheel, the company did not officially exercise that option. Now it wants to block the sale unless it can get a guarantee that it won't get sued. There's got to be some amount of irony to see copyright maximalist Disney suddenly running into issues over the possibility that patents might block it from doing something it wants to do. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130104/14162121584/disney-freaks-out-over-patents-that-may-mean-it-cant-keep-3ding-old-movies.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Jan 5 11:44:39 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 12:44:39 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: Bill Maher's New Rules for the New Year Message-ID: <717DBE8C-8541-4FC7-A8F6-84DBC0774671@infowarrior.org> January 4, 2013 New Rules for the New Year By BILL MAHER http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/new-rules-for-the-new-year.html?pagewanted=print 2012: I call it the year in ?meh.? Not the worst we?ve ever experienced, but nothing particularly great to say about it either. Like being a socialite, but in Tampa. I am looking forward to 2013, however, because I love the odd-numbered years ? they?re the ones without congressional elections, Olympics, World Cups or weird extra days tacked onto the calendar by so-called scientists. Odd-numbered years are chill. They?re the 3 p.m. of years ? that small sliver of time when lunch is digested and it?s too early to think about dinner and you stand at least a fighting chance of getting something done. In that spirit, here are the New Rules for the new year: NEW RULE Now that their end-of-the-world prophecy has proved to be complete baloney, the Mayans must be given a job predicting election results for Fox News. NEW RULE Sometime during the 2013 awards show season, ?Gangnam Style? must be given an award for the shortest amount of time between my finding out what something is to my being completely sick of it. Besting the time of 7 hours, 12 minutes, set by ?The Macarena? in 1996. NEW RULE Congress must make it a tradition to drive off the fiscal cliff every year. And I mean really off the cliff, like Toonces the cat drove that car. This way Republicans can learn that lower military spending won?t lead to China invading. And Democrats can learn that no one cares what the Commerce Department does anyway. NEW RULE No more mixing politics with pizza. The filthy rich founder of Papa John?s, John Schnatter, said he?d cut his employees? hours to avoid the costs of Obamacare. This is where I?d normally suggest boycotting Papa John?s, but that?s like telling people to boycott sadness. Nobody eats Papa John?s because they like it. They eat it because Domino?s won?t deliver to crack houses. NEW RULE The winners of next month?s Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show must later compete against the winners of ?Toddlers & Tiaras? ? so we can get their handlers in one place, lock the doors and let the kids and dogs run for their lives. NEW RULE The New Year?s Eve ball drop must be moved to one of the two states that recently legalized pot, so we can hear the crowd sing in unison, ?Should old acquaintance be... what are the words again?? NEW RULE Second-term Obama must have a few laughs by acting out the Tea Party?s worst fears. He must order Air Force One to fly everywhere upside-down like Denzel and replace Bo the White House dog with two pit bulls named ?Malcolm? and ?X.? NEW RULE Drugstores, supermarkets, department stores and all other retail establishments must stop asking me to join their ?club.? A club is a place to have a few drinks. What you?re offering me is two dollars off a bottle of NyQuil. And that?s nothing like being in a club. Unless I drink the whole bottle at once. NEW RULE You can?t run for president if you don?t know how old the world is. Quizzed recently, Marco Rubio answered, ?I?m not a scientist, man.? As if you have to be Galileo to Google, ?How old is the earth?? And when asked his thoughts on evolution, Chris Christie said, ?None of your business!? Which is what you say when someone asks you if you made a baby with the maid. Fellas, if you and your party want to be taken seriously, you don?t have to recite the collected works of Stephen Hawking ? just stop regurgitating the Facebook page of Sarah Palin. NEW RULE If we must sit through a 30-second ad to see your Web site, you have to take down all of those banner ads, which no one has clicked on since 1997. Please ? I?m trying to watch a video of a nipple slip from last night?s episode of ?Real Housewives of Atlanta.? Let?s not cheapen it. The host of ?Real Time With Bill Maher? on HBO. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Jan 5 13:31:37 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 14:31:37 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?=91You=92re_welcome=2C_humanity!?= =?windows-1252?q?=92?= Message-ID: ?You?re welcome, humanity!? By Tom Spears, Ottawa Citizen January 4, 2013 http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/welcome+humanity/7776196/story.html People looking for news from NASA?s Curiosity rover may have been startled to read this message on Twitter recently: ?Just did a science on some rock dust from Mars. It was dusty and made of rock. You?re welcome, humanity!? What, after all, is ?a science?? And why is Curiosity being bitter and sullen? Like this: ?Mornings on Mars are very cold. Not just temperature-wise, they?re also emotionally distant and withholding.? While more than a million people are reading NASA?s official Twitter feed about Curiosity?s activities on Mars (in the first person, as if the rover could talk), a smaller but enthusiastic crowd is getting its Mars feed from Sarcastic Rover. It is the irreverent creation of Jason Filiatrault, a 32-year-old Calgary screenwriter and amateur space geek. Sarcastic Rover talks like this: ?If you love atoms and molecules, then Mars is your kind of planet! (so long as you don?t also need to breathe or live).? It?s no surprise that Filiatrault?s material is funnier than the official feed from a huge government bureaucracy. But what is surprising is Filiatrault?s ability to paint a sharply accurate picture of what the rover up to. And along the way, he has given his little rover personality. Sarcastic Rover is female, to begin with. She feels lonely on Mars, bored with looking at rocks and more rocks. She feels left out of all the Christmas parties. She has a sense of fun, too, but her humour is often black, like this: ?If I sent a picture back from Mars of a desiccated corpse in a Santa suit ... that would scar some children probably, right?? Or this, written as the Mayan doomsday approached: ?Now that I?m on Mars, a giant asteroid hitting Earth is less something to fear and more potential entertainment. KAPOW!? Filiatrault calls his creation ?bitterly enthusiastic? because she loves science but resents her NASA masters for sending her far away. He wrote his first few tweets for fun on the day Curiosity landed last August -- ?and when I woke up the next morning I had 2,500 people following the account.? So he kept at it. Real NASA tweets are upbeat, clean, a little dull: ?What are your goals for 2013? I?m looking forward to using my drill & driving to Mars? Mount Sharp,? says the real Curiosity, filtered through NASA. Sarcastic Rover chimes in: ?My New Years Resolution is to find evidence of life and then laser it to science-death.? And with recent Mars rovers called Spirit, Opportunity and Curiosity, Sarcastic wants the next one named Apathy ? to connect with youth. Sarcastic Rover is also far better than NASA?s Twitter writers about jumping on the news. When false rumours leaked out last month about possible signs of life on Mars (it turned out to be some carbon compounds, origin unknown), NASA tried cheerleading. ?Turn that frown upside down: We?re fewer than four months into a multi-year mission. We?ve only just begun!? it tweeted. Sarcastic Rover twisted the knife: ?NASA is doing a great job of lowering all the expectations they raised.? And: ?Almost forgot about my awesome discovery ? It?s carbon. I found some carbon. Not sure how it got here. YOU?RE WELCOME.? And finally: ?Why is NASA not discussing Will and Kate?s fetus? No wonder people are getting bored with science!? (The royal baby announcement came the same day.) Sarcastic Rover has quirks. Doing an experiment is called ?doing a science.? Filiatrault doesn?t really have an explanation for that. It just sounds right, and now there are T-shirts and coffee mugs, even at the Jet Propulsion Laboratories, with his slogan, ?Let?s do a science.? He?s not a scientist, but Filiatrault is clearly comfortable with his subject and researches what he writes. A fan asks whether Sarcastic Rover can throw snowballs up there. Reply: ?Only at the poles ? I?m equatorial. Plus it?s Carbon-Dioxide snow, which makes terrible snowballs.? NASA has taken notice. He has talked to many of the mission?s staff, including two of the robot?s drivers ? the people who guide Curiosity past rocks and craters. ?A lot of planetary science people have been really supportive. Bill Nye the Science Guy follows me, which is kind of crazy. Los Alamos National Labs were really supportive.? His attraction may be the gentle humour: ?I didn?t want it to be mean. I didn?t want to misrepresent the science of the (mission). Honestly, I just thought it was sort of funny that this robot is sent off to do this mission and it probably has its own thoughts about things.? But don?t heckle a professional comic with 106,650 Twitter followers. One reader objected to the joke about a big ball of fire, claiming it was really plasma. Filiatrault was polite but firm: ??Ball of plasma? just sounds less amusing. Don?t blame me, blame the inexorable laws of comedy.? And, of course, there?s the $2.5-billion Curiosity price tag. Sarcastic Rover comments: ?Great news! I touched a rock yesterday! It was hard and rough and made of rock-atoms! 2.5 Billion! Science! Exclamation!? Sarcastic Rover didn?t win her campaign to be chosen Time magazine?s Person of the Year. But she soldiers on, digging up rocks, doing a science, abandoned far from home but hoping for the best: ?Whenever I flip a rock over on Mars I always yell ?SURPRISE!? ? just in case.? The Twitter account is @SarcasticRover. Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/welcome+humanity/7776196/story.html#ixzz2H8CFCcS7 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Jan 5 14:40:35 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 15:40:35 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Google blocks Windows Phone from Maps, limits Gmail Message-ID: Is GOOG 2013 taking lessons from MSFT 1998? --rick Google blocks Windows Phone from Maps, limits Gmail posted by Thom Holwerda on Sat 5th Jan 2013 14:53 UTC And so this situation is starting to get ridiculous - and consumers are, as usual, caught in the middle of it all. Google has just blocked Windows Phone devices from accessing Google Maps on their phones. In addition, it also seems Windows Phone users are now restricted to the basic HTML version of the mobile GMail website. While understandable from a defensive perspective - Microsoft's extortion scheme targeting Android device makers and all that - it's still a massive dick move that only hurts consumers. The block is enforced through a simple redirect using the browser's user agent. If the user agent includes 'Windows Phone' and visits the mobile version of Google Maps, the user is redirected to Google's main page - no explanation, nothing. In addition, it seems a similar block has been put in place for mobile Gmail. I distinctly recall being able to access the full mobile Gmail web client on my HD7 running Windows Phone 7.x (confirmed by Peter Bright), while both my HD7 and my 8X are now limited to the crappy basic HTML version. The assumption was first that this was a simple bug, unintentionally caused by changes by Google. It seemed hard to believe any company would stoop as low as to use a basic user agent-based redirects to prevent users from a perfectly capable browser from accessing its services. And yet, that's exactly what Google is doing - it simply admitted to such in a statement to Gizmodo...... < - > http://www.osnews.com/story/26669/Google_blocks_Windows_Phone_from_Maps_limits_Gmail --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Jan 5 14:46:54 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 15:46:54 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - more on.... Google blocks Windows Phone from Maps, limits Gmail References: Message-ID: <45A76EC5-ECE2-4C8D-973E-A4E5A3567B41@infowarrior.org> Begin forwarded message: > From: Monty S > Google Maps is not blocking Windows Phone, Google says > > By Salvador Rodriguez > January 4, 2013 > > Google is denying reports online Friday that say the company started > blocking Windows Phone users from accessing Google Maps amid tension > in its relationship with Microsoft. > > Nothing has changed with the Google Maps service, the company told > The Times. Google Maps simply was never designed to work with the > Internet Explorer browser on the Windows Phone, according to Google. > > The company's specific technical explanation: "The mobile Web version > of Google Maps is optimized for WebKit browsers such as Chrome and > Safari. However, since Internet Explorer is not a WebKit browser, > Windows Phone devices are not able to access Google Maps for the > mobile Web." > > ... > > http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-maps-windows-phone-not-blocking-20130104,0,5808027.story > From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Jan 5 22:36:15 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 23:36:15 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - There's No Avoiding Google+ Message-ID: <255F3C37-C51D-49D5-A349-DBE24B42BFAF@infowarrior.org> There's No Avoiding Google+ By AMIR EFRATI http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324731304578193781852024980.html Google Inc. is challenging Facebook Inc. by using a controversial tactic: requiring people to use the Google+ social network. The result is that people who create an account to use Gmail, YouTube and other Google services?including the Zagat restaurant-review website?are also being set up with public Google+ pages that can be viewed by anyone online. Google+ is a Facebook rival and one of the company's most important recent initiatives as it tries to snag more online advertising dollars. The impetus comes from the top. Google Chief Executive Larry Page has sought more aggressive measures to get people to use Google+, two people familiar with the matter say. Google created Google+ in large part to prevent Facebook from dominating the social-networking business. Both Facebook and Google make the vast bulk of their revenue from selling ads. But Facebook has something Google wants: Facebook can tie people's online activities to their real names, and it also knows who those people's friends are. Marketers say Google has told them that closer integration of Google+ across its many properties will allow Google to obtain this kind of information and target people with more relevant (and therefore, more profitable) ads. Some users of Google's services are startled to learn how far the integration can reach. Sam Ford, a 26-year-old Navy petty officer, says he signed up for Google+ on his smartphone because it would let him automatically upload new photos to a Google+ folder?one that he kept private. Later, he says, he was surprised to see that his Google+ profile page?which includes his name?was tied to a software review that he wrote recently on the Google Play online store. Google is "trying too hard to compete with Facebook, and if people aren't going to share willingly, they'll make them share unwillingly," he says. A Google spokeswoman says the company began requiring use of Google+ profiles to write reviews to improve the quality of the critiques, which was lower when people were able to leave reviews anonymously. The change also allows people to see reviews by their friends, she says. A Facebook spokesman declined to comment. Google executives say more integration is coming. "Google+ is Google," says Vice President Bradley Horowitz. "The entry points to Google+ are many, and the integrations are more every day." The initiative has been controversial within Google. Some employees viewed it as a desperate attempt to catch up to Facebook while others believe it is the company's best path to being relevant in the age of social media, said people familiar with the matter. Mr. Page, the CEO, about a year ago pushed the idea of requiring Google users to sign on to their Google+ accounts simply to view reviews of businesses, the people say. Google executives persuaded him not to pursue that strategy, fearing it would irritate Google search users, the people say. A Google spokeswoman declined to comment on the matter. In recent months, Google has pressed ahead with other forms of integration. This past fall, for instance, Google began requiring people who want to post their reviews of restaurants or other businesses to use their Google+ profiles to do so. The same rule applies for reviews of smartphone software "apps," as well as physical goods, obtained through Google. Links to Google+ also appear in Google search-engine results involving people and brands that have set up a Google+ account. Vic Gundotra, who is in charge of Google+, says he sees little in-house controversy today. "There was more resistance two years ago," when the project wasn't well understood internally, he says. The integration has helped increase Google+ usage. Google last month said 235 million people used Google+ features?such as clicking on a "+1" button, similar to Facebook's "Like" button?across Google's sites, up from 150 million in late June. By using its top websites to help Google+, the company has shown how far it is willing to go to battle Facebook to become a gateway for Internet users to communicate with each other and businesses. Because using Google+ requires people to sign in to their Google accounts, Google will be able to blend mounds of data about individual users' search habits and the websites they visit with their activities on Google+. That is a potential boon to Google's ad business, from which the company derives about 95% of its more than $40 billion in annual revenue, excluding its new Motorola phone-making unit. Google is "sitting on a mountain of data," says Alan Osetek, president of Resolution Media, which helps marketers buy ads on Google. He says "click-through rates"?the rates at which Google search users click on ads?have increased for his clients' ads when they include information from Google+, such as the number of people who have recommended a brand by clicking the +1 button on the brand's Google+ page. "In the majority of cases, lift in click-through rates ranged from 2% to 15%," he says. Users' Google+ profile pages typically include their real names, and they can add other details such as their hometowns. By default, the page is public and will turn up in a Google search. It is possible, however, to change a setting so that the page doesn't show up in search results. There is also a way for people to disable or delete their Google+ accounts. Although Google doesn't reveal a user's name to advertisers, Google uses information about the person's Web visits and interests to help marketers target ads more accurately, Google says. Mr. Gundotra, the Google+ chief, says the company won't share data about individual users with advertisers and that it is important for the company to maintain users' trust. Google encourages account holders to use Google+ to share photos and thoughts with friends or other Google+ users who share their interests. Integrating Google+ with the rest of the company's properties helps users glean more information about apps, businesses, websites, products and?most important for Google's business?ads for those products. That is because Google+ users can be notified if their Google+ friends or other contacts recommend the items. "You'll go to search for a camp stove on Google, and you'll find that your friend just bought one, and you'll be able to ask him about it," says Dylan Casey, a former Google+ product manager who now works at Path Inc., a smartphone-based social network. Since Google+ made its debut in mid-2011, the Mountain View, Calif., company has had limited success getting people to spend time directly on the Google+ site. Research firm comScore Inc. a year ago estimated that Google+ users spent an average of three minutes on the site each month, versus more than 400 minutes for the average Facebook user. In the U.S., Google+ had nearly 28.7 million unique visitors through PCs in October?well below Facebook's 149 million, comScore says. Those numbers don't include mobile-device users. ?Evelyn M. Rusli contributed to this article. Write to Amir Efrati at amir.efrati at wsj.com A version of this article appeared January 3, 2013, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: There's No Avoiding Google+. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jan 6 19:12:39 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:12:39 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Why I love Twitter and barely tolerate Facebook Message-ID: Why I love Twitter and barely tolerate Facebook https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/52a20d7a17de For the past decade, I?ve tried every new social media product to come along but I find myself returning to the two giants of the industry most often: Twitter and Facebook. I?m optimistic and delighted every time I open up Twitter on my browser, while Facebook is something I only click on once or twice a day and always with a small sense of dread. This week I sat down to think about why that is. Twitter put simply is fun, fantastic, and all about the here and now. The fact that I can?t even search my own feed for past things I?ve said makes it exist almost entirely in the present tense. The people I follow are people I know, people I work with and live near, but also a good dose of random comedians, musicians, and celebrities I?ll never meet. The things everyone tweets about are mostly jokes or things that make you smile, either random things that popped into the writers? heads or comments on current events. There?s no memory at Twitter: everything is fleeting. Though that concept may seem daunting to some (archivists, I feel your pain), it also means the content in my feed is an endless stream of new information, either comments on what is happening right now or thoughts about the future. One of the reasons I loved the Internet when I first discovered it in the mid-1990s was that it was a clean slate, a place that welcomed all regardless of your past as you wrote your new life story; where you?d only be judged on your words and your art and your photos going forward. Facebook is mired in the past. My spouse resisted Facebook for many years and recently I got to watch over her shoulder as she signed up for an account. They asked her about her birth and where she grew up and what schools she attended, who her family might be. By the end of the process, she was asking me how this website figured out her entire social circles in high school and college. It was more than a little creepy, but that?s where her experience began. My experiences with Facebook are roughly similar. At first I only signed up to try it out and later (after quitting a few times) I kept running into applications that required Facebook, so I kept my account around. After the initial rush of adding a few personal friends, I started to get a steady stream of people coming out of my past to contact me. It feels strange to be active and highly visible on the Web for 15 years but it was only when I joined Facebook that someone from elementary school or high school ever contacted me. Touching base with an old acquaintance is all about catching up. If I haven?t talked to someone in 20 years, the level of detail I?d like to see is what you typically see in letters from a family that accompany their holiday cards. Let me see a photo, how many kids do you have, what trips did you recently take, where are you working, how is everyone doing, and that?s about all I want to know for the next 20 years. But on Facebook I only have the option of adding an old acquaintance as a friend or denying them, and then I am met with daily updates on their daughter?s ballet classes, photos from their workplace, and who they think should win the big game tonight, forever. I kind of wish I could just see a person?s About page for five minutes and move on, as I don?t need the daily detail/updates of every old high school buddy?s life. Facebook doesn?t offer much granularity in this regard, without moving all your friends into complex groups with different levels of permissions. If I look at everyone I?m following on Twitter, by and large they are peers I?ve known for the past few years in my current circle of friends, people that excite me with new ideas, music, and art, and lots of humor. On Twitter, I have no idea where most people grew up, what schools they attended, and they are similarly in the dark when it comes to me. You get to know more about the people you follow day by day as their comments and ideas fill my picture of what makes them tick. At Facebook, half the people in my recent feed are defined by the university they attended, even if that was 50 years ago. Their location is mentioned in posts and prominently on their profile, as well as their entire school history. Heck, the whole notion of organization at Facebook is now defining a person as a ?Timeline.? I find the new life history Timeline approach to be a way of constantly dredging up the past, to show others how it shaped this person, and it?s not necessarily the best way to define ourselves. I like my current social circle of friends and their thoughts, jokes, and ideas they share each day on Twitter. I know I?ll be delighted with new information on Twitter, interesting articles to read, breaking news, and jokes about those. Twitter is a steady stream of mostly joy and makes my life better. Facebook is filled with people I barely know, chain-emails and disaster news about the sky falling that reminds me of my own past as well as my ?friends? at every turn. The Internet is here today and all about tomorrow, and I prefer my social media to reflect that, and that?s why I love Twitter. (Honestly, if I didn?t like music on Spotify so much, I?d never have had this problem of how to deal with old friends and family on Facebook.) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jan 6 19:12:47 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:12:47 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Can Social Media Sell Soap? Message-ID: <43B53820-A424-4E05-AD8D-C7CF7E3DB32B@infowarrior.org> January 5, 2013 Can Social Media Sell Soap? By STEPHEN BAKER http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/can-social-media-sell-soap.html ONE morning in mid-December, Pope Benedict XVI gazed down on an iPad and composed his first tweet. From a marketing perspective, it was about time. While the pontiff had been issuing his traditional encyclicals online, other world leaders were venturing further, onto Facebook and Twitter. The Dalai Lama, for example, was already spreading his wisdom in 140-character packets to more than five million followers. And as people retweeted his posts, his messages winged through social media, reaching tens of millions. How could the Vatican resist such marketing magic? Growing legions of marketing consultants are pushing social media as the can?t-miss future. They argue that pitches are more likely to hit home if they come from friends on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr or Google+. That?s the new word of mouth, long the gold standard in marketing. And the rivers of data that pour into these networks fuel the vision of precision targeting, in which ads are so timely and relevant that you welcome them. The hopes for such a revolution have fueled a market frenzy around social networks ? and have also primed them for a fall. The drama swirls around data. In the ?Mad Men? depiction of an advertising firm in the ?60s, the big stars don?t sweat the numbers. They?re gut followers. Don Draper pours himself a finger or two of rye and flops on a couch in his corner office. He thinks. His job is to anticipate the needs and desires of fellow human beings, and to answer them with ideas. What slogan would light up the eyes of the dour airline executive, or the dog food people? Fellow humanists dominate Don Draper?s rarefied world, while the numbers people, two or three of them crammed into dingier offices, pore over Nielsen reports and audience profiles. In the last decade however, those numbers people have rocketed to the top. They build and operate the search engines. They?re flexing their quantitative muscles at agencies and starting new ones. And the rise of social networks, which stream a global gabfest into their servers, catapults these quants ever higher. Their most powerful pitches aren?t ideas but rather algorithms. This sends many of today?s Don Drapers into early retirement. Others, paradoxically, hunt down new work on social networks like LinkedIn. Yet this year has brought renewed hope for the humanists ? or at least a satisfying burst of schadenfreude. Facebook made its public offering in May at a valuation of $104 billion, only to see the share price tumble as many began to doubt the network?s potential as a medium for paid ads. Corporate advertisers are devoting only a modest 14 percent of their online budgets to social networks. According to comScore, a firm that tracks online activity, e-commerce soared 16 percent from last year, to nearly $39 billion this holiday season. But advertising from social networks appeared to play only a supporting role. I.B.M. researchers found that on the pivotal opening day of the season, Black Friday, a scant 0.68 percent of online purchases came directly from Facebook. The number from Twitter was undetectable. Could it be that folks aren?t in a buying mood when hanging out digitally with their friends? A more likely answer is this: When big new phenomena arrive on the scene, it?s hard to know what to count. We?ve seen this before. During the dot-com bubble in the late ?90s, investors threw billions at Internet start-ups that promised to deliver targeted ads to millions of viewers, or ?eyeballs.? But eyeballs didn?t produce dollars, and the high-flying market crashed. Many naysayers gleefully concluded that the Internet itself had failed. Yet as these cyberskeptics crowed, a company called Overture Services was pioneering an innovative advertising application for the new medium. When Web surfers carried out searches, it turned out, they welcomed related ads. And if they clicked on one, the advertiser paid the search engine. Google soon implemented this system on a mammoth scale and turned clicks into dollars. Advertisers could calculate their return on investment down to the penny. In this domain, the insights of a Mad Man counted for nothing. Search ran on numbers. The quants rushed in. While the rise of search battered the humanists, it also laid a trap that the quants are falling into now. It led to the belief that with enough data, all of advertising could turn into quantifiable science. This came with a punishing downside. It banished faith from the advertising equation. For generations, Mad Men had thrived on widespread trust that their jingles and slogans altered consumers? behavior. Thankfully for them, there was little data to prove them wrong. But in an industry run remorselessly by numbers, the expectations have flipped. Advertising companies now face pressure to deliver statistical evidence of their success. When they come up short, offering anecdotes in place of numbers, the markets punish them. Faith has given way to doubt. This leads to exasperation, because in a server farm packed with social data, it?s hard to know what to count. What?s the value of a Facebook ?like? or a Twitter follower? What do you measure to find out? In this way, marketing resembles other hot spots of data research, including brain science and genomics. In each one, scientists are combing through petabytes of data, trying to discern whether certain genes or groups of neurons cause something or simply correlate with it. It?s not clear, because these are immensely complex systems with millions of variables ? much like our social networks. Even as researchers swim in data that previous generations would have swooned over, they struggle to answer crucial questions regarding cause and effect. What action can I take to get the response I want? Debates rage as quants accuse one another of counting the wrong things. Take I.B.M.?s Black Friday study. While the numbers indicate that few shoppers clicked directly from a social network to buy a laptop or a fridge, some may have seen ads that later led to a purchase. If so, valuable influence went unmeasured. ?I.B.M. is looking at a single point in time,? says Dan Neely, the chief executive of Networked Insights, a marketing analytics company. Neely?s team followed Macy?s Black Friday campaign on Twitter, which started weeks before the big day; it generated a viral flurry on the network, he says. Clearly, many big advertisers are still believers: last week, Facebook shares got a boost from reports that Walmart, Samsung and other boldfaced names have recently stepped up social-media advertising. But gauging the effectiveness of these ads is still a challenge. ?It?s hard to measure influence,? says Steve Canepa, I.B.M.?s general manager for media and entertainment. That, in fact, may be the ultimate lesson to draw from the social media marketing miracle that wasn?t. The impact of new technologies is invariably misjudged because we measure the future with yardsticks from the past. Dave Morgan, a pioneer in Internet advertising and the founder of Simulmedia, an ad network for TV, points to the early years of electricity. In the late 19th century, most people associated the new industry with one extremely valuable service: light. That was what the marketplace understood. Electricity would displace kerosene and candles and become a giant of illumination. What these people missed was that electricity, far beyond light, was a platform for a host of new industries. Over the following years, entrepreneurs would come up with appliances ? today we might call them ?apps? ? for vacuuming, laundry and eventually radio and television. Huge industries grew on the electricity platform. If you think of Apple in this context, it?s a $496 billion company that builds the latest generation of electricity apps. Social networks, like them or not, are fast laying out a new grid of personal connections. Even if this matrix of humanity sputters in advertising and marketing, it?s bound to spawn new industries in consulting, education, collaborative design, market research, media and loads of products and services yet to be imagined. Maybe, just maybe, it will even be able to sell soap. Stephen Baker is a technology journalist who blogs at thenumerati.net, and the author of ?Final Jeopardy: Man vs. Machine and the Quest to Know Everything.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jan 6 19:13:15 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:13:15 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The horror! Coffee Brewers Secretly Swap Robusta for Arabica Message-ID: <913E0BAD-4750-4E42-8D2A-CECE0546AEC4@infowarrior.org> Inflation Hits Coffee as Brewers Secretly Swap Robusta for Arabica Posted on January 6, 2013 This article hit close to home for me. Literally. It was just over the holiday season that I mentioned to my mom that her coffee doesn?t taste as good as it used to. She insisted that she was buying the same blend as always and I insisted it didn?t taste as good. The conversation ended there. Then I came across the following article and everything started to make sense. From the Daily Finance: Reuters is reporting that many of America?s major brands have been quietly tweaking their coffee blends. While most coffee companies consider their blends trade secrets, and are loath to disclose exactly what goes into them, both circumstantial and direct evidence suggests they?re now substituting lower-grade Robusta beans for some of their pricier Arabica, and degrading the quality of our coffee. Research out of agricultural bank Rabobank confirms that demand for Arabica beans among coffee buyers ?has fallen 27% year-to-date, while Robusta [demand] is 25% higher.? This seems to confirm a widespread alteration of the bean mix. Why the switcheroo? Prepare to not be shocked. The answer is: price. Now here?s the kicker of the article.... < - > http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2013/01/06/inflation-hits-coffee-as-brewers-secretly-swap-robusta-for-arabica/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jan 6 19:13:27 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:13:27 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: The Four-Year Honeymoon Message-ID: <54387E16-549A-45B4-83AC-962FC69A5098@infowarrior.org> (c/o DS -- and yes, I know it's from William The Bloody's magazine website, but think he's got a point. --rick) The Four-Year Honeymoon Will the press ever give Obama tough coverage? JAN 14, 2013, VOL. 18, NO. 17 BY FRED BARNES http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/four-year-honeymoon_693769.html President Obama never disappoints. When the monthly unemployment rate fails to drop, forget it. What?s important is the number of jobs created. But when the rate actually does drop, forget the growth (or lack of it) in jobs. It?s the rate that matters. And don?t blame Obama for the persistence of slow economic growth and high joblessness. That?s the ?new normal.? As for the millions of dropouts from the job market, that?s no big deal, hardly worth more than a passing mention. Full credit is due Obama for his role in the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi. He was cleverly ?leading from behind.? But the killing of the American ambassador to Libya and three others in Benghazi?the president bears no responsibility for that. Perish the thought. Meanwhile, in the months before his reelection in November, Obama doled out government favors to Democratic interest groups like unions, Hispanics, teachers, and single women. This may have looked like shameless exploitation of his high office, but it really was unusually skillful politicking by a master of the game. My drift here ought to be obvious. I?m referring to the way the media treat Obama. It?s not always adoring. It?s intermittently fair and even-handed. But overall, what?s distinctive about the press coverage of Obama is the absence of fault-finding, criticism, and dogged questioning. And when Obama makes excuses, as he often does, the media tend to echo them. No president in my lifetime has been covered so favorably and so gingerly. Never has the press corps been so unwilling to pursue stories that might cast the president in an unflattering light. As a group, the media pride themselves on taking an adversarial approach to politicians and government officials. But in Obama?s case, the press acts like a helpmate. Along with that, the media seem fearful of offending Obama. This is a new phenomenon in presidential coverage. To my recollection, Obama is the first president to instill coverage anxiety, conscious or unconscious. Compare Obama?s coverage with that of President George W. Bush. The difference is startling. There was no fear of affronting Bush. He faced relentless scrutiny of his tactics in the war on terror: wiretaps, renditions, Guant?namo, the Patriot Act. The media raised questions about his motives, the constitutionality of his policies, and his brainpower. White House press conferences became tense and hostile events when national security issues were broached. Obama?s adoption of these same policies has drawn minimal attention, much less the kind of media wrath that Bush endured. Last week, for example, Obama signed a bill extending the use of warrentless wiretapping to gather intelligence on America?s enemies. Bush was harshly criticized by the media on this very issue. Obama got a pass. Bush was also hassled for so-called signing statements citing provisions of a bill he might not enforce. Charlie Savage, then of the Boston Globe, won a Pulitzer Prize for ?his revelations? about Bush?s practice. And, not surprisingly, Obama promised not to do signing statements. Yet he has continued the practice, eliciting some coverage, but none of the outrage that was directed at Bush. In his efforts to combat terrorism, Bush was accused of exceeding presidential authority. But Obama has made recess appointments when the Senate wasn?t in recess and rewritten parts of immigration and welfare law by executive order, clearly stretching his authority beyond constitutional limits. The press praised the immigration change and winked at the others. It doesn?t take much imagination to come up with actions that would have aroused the press if committed by Bush, but didn?t with Obama. The list is long. Both the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal and the Benghazi killings would have led to months of stories, investigative reports, and outraged commentary. But the media proved to be largely incurious in Obama?s case. Hurricane Sandy created damage in the billions in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. The role of Obama and his administration in handling the emergency was scarcely addressed. It?s doubtful Bush would have been let off so easily. He certainly wasn?t in 2005 after Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. What if Bush had claimed in speech after speech that Democrats who opposed his policies were putting ?party before country?? The media response to an insinuation that Democrats were unpatriotic would have been along the lines of, ?How dare the president make such a dastardly claim!? But repeated mentions of ?party before country? by Obama have been treated as perfectly acceptable. And what if Bush had insisted on selective enforcement of federal immigration law and refused to defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton? Or if the Bush White House had leaked highly classified national security intelligence to make the president look good? The press would have been in high dudgeon and rightly so. But Obama, guilty on both counts, received media immunity. Broken promises are the least of Obama?s shortcomings. But the press corps loves to zing presidents for reneging on campaign vows. Obama, as I recall, promised a press conference a month, an immigration bill his first year in office, regular meetings with leaders of both parties in Congress, and unprecedented transparency throughout his administration. He kept none of them, prompting media near-silence. Might the treatment of Obama harden in his second term? I?m moderately hopeful. I suspect a few in the media are privately embarrassed by the oh-so-soft coverage and would like to apply some accountability to the Obama presidency. If they do, they?ll discover Obama disappoints like other presidents and perhaps more often. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 7 06:45:51 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 07:45:51 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Obama to nominate Brennan as CIA head Message-ID: <7802532E-E1AF-49B2-AEA7-35881A3E08BD@infowarrior.org> 7 January 2013 Last updated at 07:26 ET Obama to nominate Brennan as CIA head http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20934638?print=true US President Barack Obama is to nominate John Brennan as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, White House officials have said. If confirmed, Mr Brennan will replace Gen David Petraeus, who resigned last year after admitting to an affair. Chuck Hagel is to be put forward as the president's next defence secretary, replacing Leon Panetta. Both appointments are expected to be formally announced later on Monday and must be confirmed by the Senate. Mr Brennan, a CIA veteran, is currently Mr Obama's chief counter-terrorism adviser. He was heavily involved in the planning of the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden. 'Full trust' Although put forward for the role in 2008, Mr Brennan withdrew his name amid questions about his connection to interrogation techniques used during the administration of George W Bush. "Brennan has the full trust and confidence of the president," a White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AFP news agency. "Over the past four years, he has been involved in virtually all major national security issues and will be able to hit the ground running at CIA." Mr Hagel, a moderate Republican senator from Nebraska, has faced criticism from some fellow Republicans who say he is hostile to Israel and soft on Iran. But White House officials say Mr Hagel's positions on these issues have been misrepresented, saying he voted to send billions in military assistance to Israel and has supported the imposition of multilateral sanctions on Tehran. Analysts say the choice of Mr Hagel will set up a tough Senate confirmation battle. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 7 12:55:01 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 13:55:01 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The AP Has Started Selling Its Twitter Feed Message-ID: <3805D6DD-E1DC-496F-99E0-2BF9C53E289D@infowarrior.org> The AP Has Started Selling Its Twitter Feed America's most venerable newswire is experimenting with new ways to make money. And they're going around Twitter to do it, too. http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/the-ap-has-started-selling-its-twitter-feed --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 8 11:04:14 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 12:04:14 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Sony Issues 'Bob Dylan Copyright Collection Volume' Solely To Extend Copyright On Dylan's Work Message-ID: <443E2160-A76E-4E65-B3FB-54ADAF4E18B7@infowarrior.org> Sony Issues The 'Bob Dylan Copyright Collection Volume' Solely To Extend Copyright On Dylan's Work from the copyright-at-work dept It's almost as if the major labels aren't even trying to hide how they like to abuse the spirit of copyright law in order to keep things locked up as long as possible. Sony Music recently "issued" (and I use the term loosely) a special limited release Bob Dylan collection and didn't even bother to try to hide the real reason for putting it out. It's in the name of the damn release: "Bob Dylan: The Copyright Extension Collection Vol. 1." < - > Of course, since this is all about protectionism rather than actually getting people to hear the music, this collection is somewhat difficult to find (well, unless you go to unauthorized sources for digital downloads -- not that we recommend such things). That's because they only made 100 copies of them and gave them to a few stores in key European countries. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130107/13514721599/sony-issues-bob-dylan-copyright-collection-volume-solely-to-extend-copyright-dylans-work.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 8 11:04:22 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 12:04:22 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Systems at Risk Message-ID: <3D8524F1-14E5-43FB-AFCB-009430C978CD@infowarrior.org> Systems at Risk Lee Howell Lee Howell is a member of the Management Board of the World Economic Forum. 08 January 2013 http://www.project-syndicate.org/print/the-world-economic-forum-s-global-risks-assessment-by-lee-howell GENEVA ? Failure to adapt to climate change, persistent extreme weather, and major systemic financial failure are just three of 50 major risks monitored every year in the World Economic Forum?s Global Risks Report. It seems natural to draw connections among them, especially after a ?superstorm? shut down Wall Street this past October. Indeed, the report reminds us of the many ways in which systems inevitably affect one another in our interdependent world. More important, the report warns of the dangers of multiple systems failing. Two of the world?s most fundamental systems, for example, are the economy and the environment; their interplay underpins the first of three case studies of risk in this year?s report. The 1,000 experts who responded to the WEF?s annual Global Risks Perception Survey, on which the report is based, ranked climate-change adaptation as their top environmental concern in the coming decade. This reflects a wider shift in thinking about the climate, with growing acceptance that we are now locked in to some degree of global temperature change and need to adapt locally ? for example, by strengthening our critical infrastructure systems in order to boost their resilience to extreme weather events. But we face these environmental challenges at a time of persistent economic weakness. Global growth remains slow; and, with monetary and fiscal policies having a limited impact on economic recovery, governments have neither the resources nor the courage to push for major projects. Not surprisingly, our survey group ranked chronic fiscal imbalances second among 50 global risks that are most likely to manifest themselves over the next ten years. Strong economies provide the leeway to invest in climate adaptation, while environmental stability ensures the breathing space needed to attend to economic problems. Facing stresses on both systems simultaneously is like losing both engines on an airplane in mid-flight. The second case study takes another perspective on systems thinking. What happens if an apparently ?minor? system ? such as social media ? sparks a ?major? geopolitical crisis? With the growing reach of social networks, information can spread worldwide almost instantaneously. The benefits of this are well documented, but the risks of misinformation are not. Consider the real-world case of someone shouting ?Fire!? in a crowded theater. Could something similar happen digitally, with a spark of misinformation igniting a conflagration and wreaking havoc before the truth is revealed? The report?s third case study looks at what happens when we become complacent about a vital system. For example, constant innovation in medical science over the last 100 years has left us with the impression that our health-care systems can never regress. But experts are increasingly concerned about the potential for pandemics caused by bacteria resistant to all current antibiotics, while our intellectual-property system is failing to create adequate incentives for the development of new varieties. The director-general of the World Health Organization has warned that if the world falls back into a pre-antibiotic age, a scratch or throat infection could become lethal once again. Each case highlights the need to consider how to make systems more resilient, which means that systems cannot be considered in isolation. They are both plugged into larger systems and comprised of smaller subsystems. While, ideally, global risks would be met with global responses, the reality is that these risks manifest themselves mainly at the national level, and countries must address them largely on their own. So we need to assess national resilience by regularly evaluating critical subsystems within countries. The WEF currently is developing metrics that could evaluate national subsystems across five factors of resilience ? redundancy, robustness, resourcefulness, response, and recovery ? by combining perception-based data with publicly available statistical data. Initial perception-based data gathered by the Forum is pointing toward the importance of leadership ability, transparency, efficiency, and good relationships between public and private-sector stakeholders. While the development of these metrics is in its early stages, the ultimate aim is to develop a practical diagnostic tool that would function as an ?MRI? for national decision-makers to assess their countries? resilience to global risks. By revealing underlying weaknesses that more traditional risk-assessment methods may miss, we could pinpoint the structural reforms, behavioral changes, and strategic investments that increased resilience requires. The result would not only directly benefit each country willing to engage in this process. It would also imply accelerated innovation in global governance, which we need more than ever for the sake of preserving the integrity of our most crucial systems. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 8 13:29:01 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 14:29:01 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Baltimore replacing entire speed camera system Message-ID: Baltimore replacing entire speed camera system By Luke Broadwater and Scott Calvert http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/baltimore-replacing-entire-speed-camera-system/2013/01/08/994decf0-5999-11e2-beee-6e38f5215402_print.html BALTIMORE ? Baltimore officials said Monday they are scrapping all 83 of the city?s automated speed cameras and ?methodically? replacing them with newer models, after a Baltimore Sun investigation found errors with the system. The overhaul, estimated to cost about $450,000, comes after the city?s new speed camera contractor, Brekford, analyzed Baltimore?s system and concluded the only way to cut down on the errors was to replace all the cameras with newer models, the company said. Maurice R. Nelson, managing director of Brekford, said hiring enough employees and police officers to catch all the errors the old cameras were generating would be too expensive. ?The old radar cameras have not progressed with technology,? Nelson said, adding that new cameras with ?tracking? technology can focus on and follow a specific car and cut down on machine-created errors. ?We want to rely on the systems and less on humans, who make errors. If you?re using the old radar cameras and it?s picking up something that?s not the car in the photograph, you leave yourself open to errors.? City Transportation Department spokeswoman Adrienne Barnes called the new cameras ?state of the art? and said some camera locations would need to be taken offline during the upgrade. The current cameras, some of which were originally red-light cameras upgraded to catch speeders, range in age, with some purchased recently and others in use for a decade or more. Del. Curtis S. Anderson (D), the chairman of Baltimore?s state legislative delegation, applauded the city?s announcement. ?If there is not a great degree of confidence in the cameras, then yes, make the change,? he said. But he wants the city?s contractor and not taxpayers to foot the bill. ?I know how government works,? Anderson said. ?Nobody wants to say the taxpayers are paying for it. They?ll say the money is coming out of future revenues from the program.? City officials did not respond to a question about financing the upgrade. Nelson said he planned to charge the city about $5,500 for each new camera purchased. The Sun reported on scores of erroneous tickets during its investigation, including one violation issued to a minivan that was sitting motionless at a red light. The city?s former speed camera vendor, Xerox State & Local Solutions, acknowledged last month that several of Baltimore?s cameras have an error rate of greater than 5 percent. And the city?s deputy transportation director said he no longer has full confidence in the accuracy of the radar in the city speed camera system, which has issued more than 1.6 million tickets since the first camera went online in late 2009. Ian Brennan, a spokesman for Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D), stressed the importance of getting the camera program right. ?The administration has always taken camera accuracy seriously, and that is why Mayor Rawlings-Blake appointed a task force of transportation and safety experts to review the entire program,? he said in an e-mail. ?At the same time, hundreds of thousands of motorists are illegally speeding in school zones; it?s dangerous and the camera program has helped reduced speeding.? Transportation advocates applauded the purchase of new cameras. ?We are pleased that the city is making a good-faith effort by addressing the operational and technical issues that have really placed the automated speed camera program under scrutiny,? said Ragina Averella, government and public affairs manager for AAA Mid-Atlantic and a member of the mayor?s task force. ?This is certainly a step in the right direction.? But Ron Ely, editor of an anti-speed-camera blog called Stop Big Brother Maryland, remained skeptical of the system, even if it is upgraded with new technology. ?That sounds very fancy,? he said. ?We?ll see how it works out.? The volume of tickets generated under the old system also led to some problems, city officials have said. Last year, the city collected more than $19 million, and it is on track to make even more this fiscal year. But the frenetic pace of processing tickets meant that police officers were sometimes asked to analyze up to 1,200 per shift. Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts said Friday that his officers? rushed review of speed camera tickets has produced ?unacceptable? mistakes and pledged ?dramatic? reform of the system, including increased staffing. Nelson said the new cameras might result in less revenue for the city because they will be more conservative in determining when a driver has exceeded the speed limit by 12 mph or more, the threshold in state law. ?The downside is our system will kick out more than not,? Nelson said. ?You have a system that will err on the side of the driver.? Baltimore City Council member Robert W. Curran (D) said it didn?t bother him that the new cameras are likely to generate less revenue. ?Obviously, we need to be accurate,? he said. ?It?s not about the revenue. The public needs to be confident in the system.? City officials did not say when the replacement process will begin or how long it will take, and Barnes said the government will not publicize when cameras are offline ?in the interest of public safety.? Even as the city pledged to buy new cameras, there appeared to be confusion about who is operating the city?s speed cameras ? or whether the cameras are operating at all. The city?s speed camera system has been in transition since Jan. 1, when Baltimore terminated its contract with Xerox, which served as the city?s speed camera contractor since 2009. Hanover, Md.-based Brekford won a bidding competition to take over, according to Brekford. Xerox spokesman Chris Gilligan said that on New Year?s Eve, ?our contract expired, and the city began its transition to a new vendor.? On Wednesday, Barbara Zektick, chairwoman of a city task force studying the cameras, said Brekford has ?actively stepped in.? But Nelson said Monday that the company had not yet begun managing the city?s cameras because it had not signed a contract. ?I have no idea,? he said, when asked who is running the speed cameras. ?As soon as the ink gets placed on the contract, I am prepared to do what we have to do.? Nelson said he believes the city?s crop of cameras suffer from several well-known radar errors, including beams measuring the biggest object on the road ? but ticketing smaller ones ? and bouncing off several objects, producing erroneous readings. The new radar systems, he said, ?won?t make those same mistakes.? Ely said it?s hard to say how much difference the new cameras might make because the city hasn?t provided technical specifications of the existing cameras. Regardless of technology, he said the city will need to ensure a strong review process and employ a secondary verification method, such as painting white lines on the road to show how far a car travels in the split-second between the two photographs the cameras are required to produce under state law. ?Doing that type of verification is what will prevent errors in the future,? Ely said. City officials ?have to assume the devices are capable of being wrong. If they do otherwise, they?ll wind up in the same situation later.? ? The Washington Post Company --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jan 9 06:12:20 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:12:20 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Steganography via Skype Message-ID: <8F794040-9A83-4858-A154-1A73F39AB734@infowarrior.org> (IMHO clever but certainly something that was bound to come sooner or later. Where there's a transmission medium, there's an opportunity for a covert channel. --rick) Crypto boffins smuggle secret messages in silent Skype calls Masquerades as normal VoIP traffic By John Leyden ? Get more from this author Posted in Security, 9th January 2013 10:27 GMT http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/09/skype_stego/ Polish security researchers have come up with a cunning method to transmit hidden messages using the silence packets transmitted during a Skype call. The VoIP service transmits voice data in 130-byte packets, and silences in 70-byte packets, a difference that creates a potential means to conceal a hidden encrypted message in the latter. The novel form of steganography was devised by Wojciech Mazurczyk, Krysztof Szczypiorski and Maciej Kara?, researchers at the Institute of Telecommunications of the Warsaw University of Technology. The crypto boffins developed an application, dubbed SkypeHide (or SkyDe), that embeds an encrypted message using structured sequences of silent packets. The same software running on a receiving computer is used to extract the concealed message. Hidden messages can contain text, audio or video content, although the maximum transmission rate of 1kbps would more or less preclude the practical transmission of video clips. Packets generated by SkypeHide Would be difficult to distinguish from normal Skype traffic, Trusted Third Party (via Google Translate) reports. The latest technique builds on earlier research by Mazurczyk and Szczypiorski into steganography using VoIP streams. Four years ago the researchers developed techniques for using unused fields in the RTCP (Real-Time Control Protocol) and RTP (Real-Time Transport Protocol) VoIP protocols to transmit hidden messages. The researchers hope to present more about the technology at 1st ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security conference in Montpellier, France, in June. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jan 9 06:56:29 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:56:29 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - HIPPA used by cops to charge public photographer Message-ID: <97FCC1FB-B950-463A-816B-4B70A8094623@infowarrior.org> (The HIPPA angle is a bit into the article but seriously. ---rick) Little Canada man videotaped sheriff's deputies, and got charged for it By Emily Gurnon egurnon at pioneerpress.com Posted: 01/08/2013 12:01:00 AM CST Updated: 01/08/2013 11:37:23 PM CST http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_22333563/little-canada-man-videotaped-sheriffs-deputies-and-got Andrew Henderson and his camera with the parking lot of his Little Canada apartment building in the background, where he filmed Ramsey County deputies arresting a man. His camera was confiscated and he was charged with obstructing justice. He plans to sue. (Pioneer Press: John Doman) Andrew Henderson watched as Ramsey County sheriff's deputies frisked a bloody-faced man outside his Little Canada apartment building. Paramedics then loaded the man, a stranger to Henderson, into an ambulance. Henderson, 28, took out his small handheld video camera and began recording. It's something he does regularly with law enforcement. But what happened next was different. The deputy, Jacqueline Muellner, approached him and snatched the camera from his hand, Henderson said. "We'll just take this for evidence," Muellner said. Their voices were recorded on Henderson's cellphone as they spoke, and Henderson provided a copy of the audio file to the Pioneer Press. "If I end up on YouTube, I'm gonna be upset." Henderson calmly insisted he was within his rights to do what he was doing. He refused to give his name. His is the latest in a string of cases nationwide involving citizens who record police activities. "I wish the police around the country would get the memo on these situations," said Jane Kirtley, professor of media ethics and media law at the University of Minnesota. "Somebody needs to explain to them that under U.S. law, making video recordings of something that's happening in public is legal." The courts have been "pretty clear" on the issue, Kirtley said. "Law enforcement has no expectation of privacy when they are carrying out public duties in a public place." Randy Gustafson, spokesman for the Ramsey County sheriff's office, declined to discuss details of the case, saying it is an "ongoing investigation." But, he said, "It is not our policy to take video cameras. It is everybody's right to (record) ... What happens out in public happens out in public." One exception might be when a law enforcement officer decides that the recording is needed for evidence, he said. In that case, the officer would generally send the file to investigators and return the camera on the spot, Gustafson said. Kevin Beck, whose law firm prosecutes nonfelony cases for Little Canada and other cities, declined to comment Tuesday, Jan. 8, on the specifics of Henderson's case. Henderson said he carries his camera with him and uses it often. Occasionally, he will post something online. "Police are in a position where they have a certain power that should be watched by the citizens," he said, explaining his motivation. "The best way to watch them is to film them and hold them accountable for their actions." The day after Henderson's camera was taken Oct. 30, he went to the Arden Hills sheriff's substation to get it back. He gave staff there his name. The camera, they said, would have to wait, according to Henderson. A week later, Henderson was charged with obstruction of legal process and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors. He had been filming from about 30 feet away, he said. Henderson said deputies gave him no warning before Muellner took his camera. The deputy wrote on the citation, "While handling a medical/check the welfare (call), (Henderson) was filming it. Data privacy HIPAA violation. Refused to identify self. Had to stop dealing with sit(uation) to deal w/Henderson." Henderson appeared in Ramsey County District Court on Jan. 2. A pretrial hearing was rescheduled for Jan. 30. The allegation that his recording of the incident violated HIPAA, or the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, is nonsense, said Jennifer Granick, a specialist on privacy issues at Stanford University Law School. The rule deals with how health care providers handle consumers' health information. "There's nothing in HIPAA that prevents someone who's not subject to HIPAA from taking photographs on the public streets," Granick said. "HIPAA has absolutely nothing to say about that." She had never heard of a case in which a law enforcement agency cited HIPAA to bar someone from recording, she said. Henderson went back to the sheriff's office in mid-November to get a copy of the report and try once again to retrieve his camera. Deputy Dan Eggers refused to give him either. He pulled Henderson aside. "I think that what (the deputies) felt was you were interfering with someone's privacy that was having a medical mental health breakdown," Eggers said, as heard on another recording Henderson made. "They felt like you were being a 'buttinski' by getting that camera in there and partially recording what was going on in a situation that you were not directly involved in." He suggested that Henderson should "have a little respect" for people's privacy. Henderson reiterated that he was doing nothing illegal. Eggers noted that the incident report said nothing was recorded on the camera. "I mean, were you just pointing it?" he asked Henderson. "No. It was deleted," Henderson surmised. "You deleted it?" "No. She must have deleted it," Henderson said, referring to Muellner. Not possible, Eggers replied. "There would have been some documentation about that." Beck, representing Little Canada, said Tuesday that any allegation that Henderson's video was deleted is false. Kirtley said the seizure and alleged erasure of the recorded material "raises significant Fourth Amendment issues for him ... The seizure here was not to preserve the evidence -- it was to destroy the evidence." The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizure. Henderson got a copy of the report the day after his conversation with Eggers. His camera was released to him two days later. Muellner has been with the sheriff's office since 1980. Her personnel file includes numerous awards, commendations and thank-you letters. There are two citizen complaints from the 1980s, found by the office to be "not sustained." Henderson said he does not intend to make a plea deal with prosecutors if one is offered. "I'm in the right," he said. "If they don't drop it, I'm definitely going to trial." Henderson works as a welder and does not qualify for a public defender. He is representing himself in court. Emily Gurnon can be reached at 651-228-5522. Follow her at twitter.com/emilygurnon. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jan 9 06:57:24 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:57:24 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Rheinmetall demos laser that can shoot down drones Message-ID: <1B7F7277-FA92-491E-AC63-1F6DEF037C27@infowarrior.org> Begin, the Drone Wars, have. --rick http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20944726?print=true 8 January 2013 Last updated at 06:25 ET Rheinmetall demos laser that can shoot down drones A laser weapons system that can shoot down two drones at a distance of over a mile has been demonstrated by Rheinmetall Defence. The German defence firm used the high-energy laser equipment to shoot fast-moving drones at a distance. The system, which uses two laser weapons, was also used to cut through a steel girder a kilometre away. The company plans to make the laser weapons system mobile and to integrate automatic cannon. The 50kW laser weapons system used radar and optical systems to detect and track two incoming drones, the company said. The nose-diving drones were flying at 50 metres per second, and were shot down when they reached a programmed fire sector. Weather trials The weapons system locked onto the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) by using radar for a rough approximation of the location of the targets, then fine-tuned the tracking using an optical system. The high-energy laser system was used to cut through a 15mm-thick steel girder, and to shoot out of the air a steel ball designed to mimic a mortar round. The company has tested the laser system in a variety of weather conditions, including snow, sunlight, and rain. Rheinmetall plans to test its laser weapons mounted on different vehicles and to integrate a 35mm revolver cannon into it. A number of governments and defence firms are in the process of developing weapons that use or incorporate lasers. For example, Raytheon unveiled a 50kW anti-aircraft laser at the Farnborough Airshow in 2010, and in June 2012 the US Army released details of a weapon that can fire a laser-guided lightning-bolt at a target. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jan 9 07:00:11 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 08:00:11 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Lawmakers outraged after AIG announces potential suit against US over bailout Message-ID: <0159D867-DA9D-4A56-9CB1-AC751A8038C8@infowarrior.org> Lawmakers outraged after AIG announces potential suit against US over bailout Published January 09, 2013 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/09/lawmakers-outraged-after-aig-announces-it-is-weighing-joining-suit-against-us/ As American International Group Inc. weighs whether to join a lawsuit against the government that spent $182 billion to save it from collapse, U.S. lawmakers have a message for the insurance behemoth: ?Don?t even think about it.? In a letter to AIG Chairman Robert Miller, U.S. Reps. Peter Welch, D-Vt., and Michael Capuano, D-Mass., characterized the insurer as the ?poster child? for Wall Street greed, fiscal mismanagement and executive bonuses. ?Now, AIG apparently seeks to become the poster company for corporate ingratitude and chutzpah,? the letter read. ?Taxpayers are still furious that they rescued a company whose own conduct brought it down. Don?t rub salt in the wounds with yet another reckless decision that is on par with the reckless decision that led to the bailout in the first place.? AIG said Tuesday its board of directors will weigh whether to take part in a shareholder lawsuit against the U.S. over the government's $182 billion bailout of the insurer. If AIG decides to join the complaint, which seeks $25 billion in damages, it would pit the company against the government that rescued it in 2008 from collapsing under the weight of huge losses on mortgage-backed securities and other toxic assets. AIG said that its directors will take up the matter on Wednesday and expects they will have a decision by the end of the month. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said it was ?simply outrageous? that AIG officials would even consider such a lawsuit. ?This is even more troubling given that it comes on the heels of a public relations campaign, the purpose of which is supposed to ?thank? the American taxpayer for saving the firm. I would urge the board to drop its consideration of the lawsuit, thank the American public for the $182 billion rescue package that prevented the company?s collapse, and support the reforms in the Dodd?Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that ensure that systemically important financial institutions can no longer hold our economy hostage.? Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., also criticized the news, saying that AIG should thank American taxpayers rather than "bite the hand that fed them? in 2008. "Beginning in 2008, the federal government poured billions of dollars into AIG to save it from bankruptcy,? Warren said in a statement. ?AIG?s reckless bets nearly crashed our entire economy. Taxpayers across this country saved AIG from ruin, and it would be outrageous for this company to turn around and sue the federal government because they think the deal wasn?t generous enough. Even today, the government provides an ongoing, stealth bailout, propping up AIG with special tax breaks ? tax breaks that Congress should stop. AIG should thank American taxpayers for their help, not bite the hand that fed them for helping them out in a crisis." Starr International Co. Inc., the investment firm of former AIG CEO Maurice Greenberg, filed the lawsuit in November 2011 on behalf of the firm and AIG shareholders. The complaint, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserts that the government didn't provide shareholders fair compensation when it took a nearly 80 percent stake in the insurer as part of its bailout. As a result, the government violated the Constitution, Starr claims. AIG said that, by law, its board must consider three options: take over the lawsuit and pursue the claims on its own; attempt to prevent the claims from being pursued by Starr; or allow Starr to continue to pursue the complaint on AIG's behalf. The insurer noted that, should it elect not to let Starr pursue its claims on the company's behalf, Starr would likely challenge the move. In such a scenario, should Starr prevail in the case, AIG would not receive any damages or portion of a potential settlement. The Court of Federal Claims denied a request by the U.S. to dismiss the lawsuit, which means the case will go forward regardless of AIG's participation. The government came to the rescue of AIG in September 2008, at the depths of the financial meltdown. The New York company did business with hundreds of firms around the world, and officials feared its collapse would wreck the financial system. All told, AIG's bailout was the largest of the Wall Street rescue packages. Since the financial meltdown, AIG has undergone a significant restructuring which has cut the size of the company nearly in half aimed at focusing on its core insurance operations. In 2010, the company spun off Asian life insurer AIA Group in Hong Kong's biggest ever initial public offering to raise $20 billion, which was used to pay bailout debt. In November, AIG reported a third-quarter profit of nearly $2 billion thanks to strength in its insurance operations and investment returns. In the same period a year earlier it lost $4 billion. The Treasury Department announced last month that it sold all of its remaining shares of AIG, ending up with $22.7 billion more than it funneled to the company during the height of the financial crisis. Shares of AIG ended regular trading down 28 cents at $35.65. Over the last 12 months, however, the stock is up more than 50 percent. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/09/lawmakers-outraged-after-aig-announces-it-is-weighing-joining-suit-against-us/print#ixzz2HTzrc0aW --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 10 06:20:56 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:20:56 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Why Facebook Data Tends to Condemn You in Court Message-ID: <8D29E289-3063-4AA9-A3C9-8C57A6CF4AA7@infowarrior.org> (c/o KM) Why Facebook Data Tends to Condemn You in Court | Wired Business | Wired.com http://www.wired.com/business/2013/01/facebook-in-court --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 10 06:21:13 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:21:13 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The routing security battles intensify Message-ID: <9132E39D-B319-42C9-9BA7-EB9ED964B798@infowarrior.org> January 9, 2013 The routing security battles intensify http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/01/09/the-routing-security-battles-intensify/ An important debate about the implications of BGPSEC - a new protocol that would use a hierarchical Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to validate and secure Internet route announcements ? is taking place in the IETF?s Secure Inter-domain Routing (SIDR) Working Group. It?s a highly technical discussion, but its significance for Internet governance is profound. It is orders of magnitude more important than the silly tiff over whether a reference to ?bulk electronic communications? in the ITU?s International Telecommunication Regulations would lead to an authoritarian takeover of the Internet.* If civil society activists and technologists both had a better appreciation of the intimate relationship between technical architectures and global??Internet governance, they would be paying far more attention to this than they paid to the WCIT. In essence, what is now being debated in SIDR is whether routing ? one of the last areas in which Internet operations is distributed and autonomous ? will become rigidified and centralized by what one participant in the debate calls ?slamming a hierarchical PKI into a distributed routing system.? As a means of validating who is the proper owner or holder of IP address resources, RPKI seems to be workable and consistent with what we know about the important role of registries in facilitating property exchange. It is the attempt by BGPSEC to use RPKI to also validate routing announcements, however, that is raising operator concerns. Inserting RPKI into route validation also inserts increased complexity, as well as hierarchy and control, into real-time operations. RPKI is being advocated by US government-funded contractors and US government agencies such as the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The engineers leading the revolt against BGPSEC in its current incarnation, on the other hand, are coming from operators ? i.e., the people who actually have to run things. One of them, VeriSign, is raising serious questions about the scalability of RPKI in routing. Beyond that, they are pointing out that despite all the scalability questions and new dependencies that RPKI/BGPSEC creates, it still does not solve many of the most pressing routing security problems, such as the use of expired data, route leaks, and other problems. The SIDR output has all the earmarks of a government-driven standardization process. It reveals the self-perpetuating cycle of the defense-industrial complex, in which a real routing problem was identified by researchers, a contractor proposed a solution, an agency hired them. The funding cycle ends, the contractor writes another proposal and convinces the agency to continue funding. This is done largely in absence of empirical evidence that the problem identified is the same problem operators actually deal with. The precipitating cause of the current controversy was an attempt to estimate RPKI?s scalability. A team of technicians from Verisign Labs produced a paper trying to calculate how big a fully deployed RPKI would be and how long it would take to download all the informational objects from all repositories needed to do the required validation computations. According to the current paper, it could take 4-5 days to gather all the information needed if router certificates are not included, and 19-20 days if one includes router certificates. This long lag time raises doubts about the feasibility of the standard. The first version of that paper was subjected to some harsh criticism by BGPSEC defenders at NIST, but the second version, which is posted here, seems to have addressed those problems and its plausibility as a first-order approximation, as far as we can tell, has not been challenged. Archives of the debate, which began in November and continued through most of December, can be seen here. *If authoritarian governments were smarter and really did want to assert direct control over Internet operations, they would forget about the ITRs and push for passage and implementation of BGPSEC, and then make plans to assert legal control over the ROA certificates. Oddly, the only government that seems to be present in SIDR is the USG. Hmmm? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 10 06:22:03 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:22:03 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fwd: Homeland security ill-defined References: <7EB33041E473EC4B8C08A7CA087AC87203DDC63B@0015-its-exmb12.us.saic.com> Message-ID: (c/o MM) January 10, 2013 > > CRS: Homeland security ill-defined > Filed under: General Homeland Security ? by Philip J. Palin on January 10, 2013 > http://www.hlswatch.com/2013/01/10/crs-homeland-security-ill-defined/ > > Thanks to the FAS Secrecy Project, a Congressional Research Service report on Defining Homeland Security is available for you consideration. From the report?s summary: > > Varied homeland security definitions and missions may impede the development of a coherent national homeland security strategy, and may hamper the effectiveness of congressional oversight. Definitions and missions are part of strategy development. Policymakers develop strategy by identifying national interests, prioritizing goals to achieve those national interests, and arraying instruments of national power to achieve the national interests. Developing an effective homeland security strategy, however, may be complicated if the key concept of homeland security is not defined and its missions are not aligned and synchronized among different federal entities with homeland security responsibilities.This report discusses the evolution of national and DHS-specific homeland security strategic documents and their homeland security definitions and missions, and analyzes the policy question of how varied homeland security definitions and missions may affect the development of national homeland security strategy. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 10 22:18:43 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:18:43 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - White House Refuses To Be Transparent About Positions On Transparency Message-ID: <00A5FF40-A73F-4ED9-B701-C5745D07C27B@infowarrior.org> White House Refuses To Be Transparent About Positions On Transparency from the not-transparent-about-transparency dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130110/13445621632/white-house-refuses-to-be-transparent-about-positions-transparency.shtml As we well know, despite promises from the Obama administration that it would be "the most transparent" in history, it has been anything but that over its first four years. The US Trade Rep (USTR) has been particularly bad on this front, especially when it comes to trade agreements that will have a massive impact on the public, such as ACTA and TPP. No matter how many times they were asked by the public, by Congress and by other countries, the USTR kept insisting that it had to keep things secret because... well... just because. There were some excuses made about how they don't "negotiate in public" or about how "this is how it's always been done," but those don't make any sense when you look at the details. It became especially silly in the ACTA negotiations, late in the process, when many of the countries involved indicated that they wished things were more transparent and many pointed their fingers at the US as being the one country that kept things secret. Also, we know that other international agreements are done in a much more transparent fashion. The folks at KEI filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents relating to the US's position on transparency regarding a particular ACTA meeting, as well as documents the US had on the positions of other countries. FOIA requests are supposed to be fulfilled within 20 business days from the time they're received. In practice, this time frame is almost never met, though sometimes for good reasons (it takes a while to do some of the searches). However, in this case, it took two and a half years for the White House to finally respond, and when it did, the response was that, while 16 relevant documents were found, it wouldn't release them, because of reasons. More specifically: "With regard to the second category, we identified sixteen (16) pages of responsive records. We have determined that all 16 pages of responsive records are exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process prong of section of the FOIA. The deliberative process privilege protects the decision making processes of government agencies by encouraging open and frank discussions on policy matters among subordinates and superiors. These records contain predecisional discussions regarding negotiating positions and their implications on future negotiations. Moreover, these documents contain policy recommendations and opinions shared between subordinates and superiors." Think about this for a second. This is a request to be transparent about positions on transparency, and they're being rejected because it may show discussions about transparency. Really. The fact that these discussions "may contain open and frank discussions on policy matters" shouldn't be a huge concern. The ACTA negotiations are done at this point, and it should be easy enough to redact other issues that might impact future policy efforts. It seems ridiculous to suggest that discussions on whether or not the US should be transparent are, themselves, not subject to transparency. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jan 11 07:29:24 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:29:24 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Lionsgate Studio vs. Fair Use Message-ID: <2E1047C3-1B5F-41F2-9342-6A1D6A46EECC@infowarrior.org> Every time stuff like this happens, a movie/album of the studio in question should be 'pirated' just on principle. That is, if they put out enough quality stuff worth using the bandwidth to get, right? --rick Lionsgate commits copyfraud, has classic "Buffy vs Edward" video censored http://boingboing.net/2013/01/11/lionsgate-commits-copyfraud-h.html Jonathan McIntosh's "Buffy vs Edward" video is a classic: a mashup that's been viewed millions of times on YouTube, discussed in the halls of the US Copyright Office, and cited in a Library of Congress/Copyright Office report as an example of legal, fair use mashup. But when Lionsgate bought out Summit Entertainment, the company that made the Twilight franchise, they started to aggressively "monetize" the remixes of the series online. That meant that they claimed ownership of them using YouTube's ContentID system, which would automatically place ads alongside all the video clips from the series -- including "Buffy vs Edward." McIntosh objected to this. His video was fair use -- the Copyright Office itself said so -- and had never had ads placed in it. Lionsgate had no claim over it. He appealed to YouTube. YouTube punted to Lionsgate, who insisted that they were legally in the right. McIntosh hired a lawyer to write an letter explaining the fair use analysis to YouTube, who agreed, and reinstated the video, and Lionsgate (seemingly) dropped the claim. But Lionsgate came back with another claim: the "audiovisual" elements in the video were fair use, but the "visual" elements were not (yeah, I know). McIntosh went through the process again, with the same result -- and so Lionsgate filed a complaint with YouTube that resulted in it being taken offline altogether. McIntosh's correspondence with Lionsgate has been very unsatisfying. The company claims that since he refused to let them make money off of his creativity, they had "no choice" but to have it censored from YouTube. The company's representatives refuse to address the fair use claims at all. Meanwhile, to add insult to injury, McIntosh had to complete an insulting "copyright education" course in order to continue using YouTube (even though he is an expert on fair use and had done no wrong), and is permanently barred from uploading videos longer than 15 minutes to the service -- all because of the repeated, fraudulent assertions made by Lionsgate. In the past, companies that sent similar fraudulent takedowns to YouTube have faced penalties (remember EFF and the dancing baby versus Prince and Universal Music?). It would be an expensive and difficult proposition for McIntosh to bring Lionsgate to court for repeating the fraud, but let's hope that these copyfraudsters don't get off scot-free. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jan 11 07:41:39 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:41:39 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Errors Mount at High-Speed Exchanges in New Year Message-ID: January 10, 2013 Errors Mount at High-Speed Exchanges in New Year By NATHANIEL POPPER http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/business/in-new-year-errors-mount-at-high-speed-exchanges.html Confidence-shaking technology mishaps have been an almost daily occurrence at the nation?s stock exchanges in the new year. The latest example came Wednesday night when the nation?s third-largest stock exchange operator, BATS Global Markets, alerted its customers that a programming mistake had caused about 435,000 trades to be executed at the wrong price over the last four years, costing traders $420,000. A day earlier, the trading software used by the National Stock Exchange stopped functioning properly for nearly an hour, forcing other exchanges to divert trades around it. The New York Stock Exchange, the nation?s largest exchange, has had two similar, though shorter-lived, breakdowns since Christmas and two separate problems with its data reporting system. And traders were left in the dark on Jan. 3 after the reporting system for stocks listed on the Nasdaq exchange, the second-biggest exchange, broke down for nearly 15 minutes. The stream of errors has occurred despite the spotlight on the exchanges since a programming mishap nearly derailed Facebook?s initial public offering on Nasdaq last May and BATS?s fumbling of its own I.P.O. two months earlier. At the end of 2012, a number of exchange executives said they were increasing efforts to reduce the problems. But market data expert Eric Hunsader said that the technology problems have become, if anything, more frequent in recent weeks. Matt Samelson, the founder of the industry consultancy Woodbine Associates, said, ?Now that the world is watching, everyone is trying to be more rigorous. Their increased rigor is not yielding the benefits they hoped.? Joe Ratterman, the chief executive of BATS, said Thursday that he viewed the firm?s announcement this week as a sign of markets that were functioning well, given his firm?s ability to find a problem that he called an ?extreme edge-case scenario.? ?We discovered this problem and reported it ? it?s a positive thing,? Mr. Ratterman said. ?It?s being covered as if it?s a negative issue, and a continuation of a series of problems. ?Call me an optimist, but I see positive indications of the markets moving forward,? he said. Regulators and traders have said that malfunctions are inevitable in any complex computer system. But many of these same people say that such problems were less frequent before the nation?s stock exchanges were thrown into a technological arms race in the middle of the last decade as a host of upstart exchanges like BATS challenged incumbents like the New York Stock Exchange. The nation?s 13 public stock exchanges now compete fiercely to offer the latest, fastest and most sophisticated trading software, in part to appeal to the high-speed trading firms that have come to account for over half of all stock trading. With each tweak comes a new opportunity for a mistake to be inserted into the system. ?The rate of change is getting so rapid that the quality assurance process isn?t as robust as it should be,? said George Simon, a partner at Foley & Lardner who used to work at the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees the nation?s stock markets. ?This has been something that has been brewing now for five years, and it keeps getting worse.? Mr. Simon said that in less fragmented and complex markets, technology problems had been less common. The market malfunctions have been assigned part of the blame for the diminishing amount of trading happening on the nation?s stock exchanges. The total volume of daily trading was down 17.6 percent in 2012 from 2011, according to Rosenblatt Securities. Mr. Samelson of Woodbine Associates said the problems had long rattled retail investors, but they were becoming increasingly worrying for big institutional investors as well. While he was talking about the BATS mishap on Thursday, he received a text message from one big investor who said, ?as if we didn?t have enough bad news.? The problem reported by BATS was different from many other recent problems because it did not halt trading. Instead, the programming error meant some trades were not executed at the best price, as exchanges are required to do by law. Only a small category of very complex trades were executed at the wrong prices, all of them coming from investors trying to do a so-called short sale of stocks. The 435,000 erroneous trades were only 0.003 percent of all trades over the last four years, according to Mr. Ratterman. ?This is so hard to identify that no customer ever identified it,? Mr. Ratterman said. Mr. Ratterman said that 119 member firms lost money. He said he was not yet sure if BATS would compensate its members for their losses. BATS informed the members and the S.E.C. of the problem on Wednesday night, after discovering it on Friday. The S.E.C. was not previously aware of the problem, but the enforcement division is already reviewing the issue, according to people with knowledge of the review who spoke on the condition of anonymity. S.E.C. officials have acknowledged that they do not have adequate tools to properly police the high-speed, highly fragmented stock markets. But the agency has started several initiatives to catch up. Last year, the agency purchased software from a high-frequency trading firm that will give regulators a real-time window into the markets. The agency has also been considering a rule that would force exchanges to submit their technology for regulatory review, something that some exchanges currently do voluntarily. At recent hearings called to examine the automation of the markets, members of the industry have supported other reforms to strengthen the system, like kill switches that would automatically stop errant trading. Mr. Ratterman said regulators could make small changes to rules that would simplify the market infrastructure and make it less prone to mishaps. But executives at some other exchanges have said that more sweeping changes are necessary. At a hearing in December, Joe Mecane, an executive at the New York Stock Exchange?s parent company, said that ?technology and our market structure have created unnecessary complexity and mistrust of markets.? Amy Butte Liebowitz, the former chief financial officer at the exchange, said that ?you are only going to see more and more of this until someone says, ?I?m not going to put up with this level of errors.? ? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jan 11 07:50:51 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:50:51 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Critical Java 0-day bug Message-ID: <39B203C8-45D2-4367-89BE-F1F6D8FD5695@infowarrior.org> (c/o RK) Critical Java zero-day bug is being ?massively exploited in the wild? (Updated) http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/01/critical-java-zero-day-bug-is-being-massively-exploited-in-the-wild/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jan 11 09:02:06 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:02:06 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - CNET just lost its credibility Message-ID: (the list of bullet points in the article is pretty accurate, I think) Just How Dumb Is It For CBS To Block CNET From Giving Dish An Award? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130111/00145421637/just-how-dumb-is-it-cbs-to-block-cnet-giving-dish-award.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jan 11 12:56:03 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:56:03 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Verizon=92s_=93Six_Strikes=94_An?= =?windows-1252?q?ti-Piracy_Measures_Unveiled?= Message-ID: <94BE85C3-A4B8-48EC-9977-C8EC3B9D0F87@infowarrior.org> Verizon?s ?Six Strikes? Anti-Piracy Measures Unveiled http://torrentfreak.com/verizons-six-strikes-anti-piracy-measures-unveiled-130111/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Jan 12 09:50:15 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:50:15 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: White House strikes back on Death Star petition Message-ID: <55EFF711-56EF-46C9-8C9D-9A9721D95811@infowarrior.org> White House strikes back on Death Star petition http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USBRE90B05720130112 2:09am EST By Roberta Rampton WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration dashed the hopes of Star Wars geeks across the galaxy by rejecting an official petition calling for the U.S. government to build a Death Star, the fictional planet-destroying space station featured in the Star Wars movies. "The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn't on the horizon," said Paul Shawcross, head of the White House budget office's science and space branch. "The Administration does not support blowing up planets," Shawcross wrote in a response to the 34,435 people who signed the petition on the White House website. The White House accepts petitions and responds to the most popular ones. Most of the petitions on the website address weighty policy issues. (Link to petition: r.reuters.com/wyv25t) But in recent weeks, national attention has been drawn to quirky petitions, such as one that supports the minting of a trillion-dollar platinum coin to avoid a debt default if Congress fails to raise the U.S. debt limit next month. The Death Star petitioners argued the project would create jobs and strengthen national defense. But it would be costly, particularly at a time when the government is fixated on finding ways to slash spending and reduce its debt. "The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We're working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it," Shawcross said. (Reporting by Roberta Rampton; Editing by Lisa Shumaker) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Jan 12 09:50:54 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:50:54 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Aaron Swartz commits suicide Message-ID: <40B2A1EF-1902-47EC-AC73-C13D2D9B4095@infowarrior.org> http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N61/swartz.html Aaron Swartz commits suicide By Anne Cai NEWS EDITOR; UPDATED AT 2:15 A.M. 1/12/13 Computer activist Aaron H. Swartz committed suicide in New York City yesterday, Jan. 11, according to his uncle, Michael Wolf, in a comment to The Tech. Swartz was 26. ?The tragic and heartbreaking information you received is, regrettably, true,? confirmed Swartz? attorney, Elliot R. Peters of Kecker and Van Nest, in an email to The Tech. Swartz was indicted in July 2011 by a federal grand jury for allegedly mass downloading documents from the JSTOR online journal archive with the intent to distribute them. He subsequently moved to Brooklyn, New York, where he then worked for Avaaz Foundation, a nonprofit ?global web movement to bring people-powered politics to decision-making everywhere.? Swartz appeared in court on Sept. 24, 2012 and pleaded not guilty. The accomplished Swartz co-authored the now widely-used RSS 1.0 specification at age 14, was one of the three co-owners of the popular social news site Reddit, and completed a fellowship at Harvard?s Ethics Center Lab on Institutional Corruption. In 2010, he founded DemandProgress.org, a ?campaign against the Internet censorship bills SOPA/PIPA.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Jan 12 10:00:26 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:00:26 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Text of Official White House Response to Death Star Message-ID: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-youre-looking Official White House Response to Secure resources and funding, and begin construction of a Death Star by 2016. This Isn't the Petition Response You're Looking For By Paul Shawcross The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn't on the horizon. Here are a few reasons: ? The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We're working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it. ? The Administration does not support blowing up planets. ? Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship? However, look carefully (here's how) and you'll notice something already floating in the sky -- that's no Moon, it's a Space Station! Yes, we already have a giant, football field-sized International Space Station in orbit around the Earth that's helping us learn how humans can live and thrive in space for long durations. The Space Station has six astronauts -- American, Russian, and Canadian -- living in it right now, conducting research, learning how to live and work in space over long periods of time, routinely welcoming visiting spacecraft and repairing onboard garbage mashers, etc. We've also got two robot science labs -- one wielding a laser -- roving around Mars, looking at whether life ever existed on the Red Planet. Keep in mind, space is no longer just government-only. Private American companies, through NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office (C3PO), are ferrying cargo -- and soon, crew -- to space for NASA, and are pursuing human missions to the Moon this decade. Even though the United States doesn't have anything that can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs, we've got two spacecraft leaving the Solar System and we're building a probe that will fly to the exterior layers of the Sun. We are discovering hundreds of new planets in other star systems and building a much more powerful successor to the Hubble Space Telescope that will see back to the early days of the universe. We don't have a Death Star, but we do have floating robot assistants on the Space Station, a President who knows his way around a light saber and advanced (marshmallow) cannon, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is supporting research on building Luke's arm, floating droids, and quadruped walkers. We are living in the future! Enjoy it. Or better yet, help build it by pursuing a career in a science, technology, engineering or math-related field. The President has held the first-ever White House science fairs and Astronomy Night on the South Lawn because he knows these domains are critical to our country's future, and to ensuring the United States continues leading the world in doing big things. If you do pursue a career in a science, technology, engineering or math-related field, the Force will be with us! Remember, the Death Star's power to destroy a planet, or even a whole star system, is insignificant next to the power of the Force. Paul Shawcross is Chief of the Science and Space Branch at the White House Office of Management and Budget --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Jan 12 16:01:56 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 17:01:56 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DNA pioneer James Watson takes aim at "cancer establishments" Message-ID: <3779D2D4-1912-42DC-8563-88B741A9A931@infowarrior.org> DNA pioneer James Watson takes aim at "cancer establishments" By Sharon Begley | Reuters ? Wed, Jan 9, 2013 http://news.yahoo.com/dna-pioneer-james-watson-takes-aim-cancer-establishments-050353182--finance.html NEW YORK (Reuters) - A day after an exhaustive national report on cancer found the United States is making only slow progress against the disease, one of the country's most iconic - and iconoclastic - scientists weighed in on "the war against cancer." And he does not like what he sees. James Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, lit into targets large and small. On government officials who oversee cancer research, he wrote in a paper published on Tuesday in the journal Open Biology, "We now have no general of influence, much less power ... leading our country's War on Cancer." On the $100 million U.S. project to determine the DNA changes that drive nine forms of cancer: It is "not likely to produce the truly breakthrough drugs that we now so desperately need," Watson argued. On the idea that antioxidants such as those in colorful berries fight cancer: "The time has come to seriously ask whether antioxidant use much more likely causes than prevents cancer." That Watson's impassioned plea came on the heels of the annual cancer report was coincidental. He worked on the paper for months, and it represents the culmination of decades of thinking about the subject. Watson, 84, taught a course on cancer at Harvard University in 1959, three years before he shared the Nobel Prize in medicine for his role in discovering the double helix, which opened the door to understanding the role of genetics in disease. Other cancer luminaries gave Watson's paper mixed reviews. "There are a lot of interesting ideas in it, some of them sustainable by existing evidence, others that simply conflict with well-documented findings," said one eminent cancer biologist who asked not to be identified so as not to offend Watson. "As is often the case, he's stirring the pot, most likely in a very productive way." There is wide agreement, however, that current approaches are not yielding the progress they promised. Much of the decline in cancer mortality in the United States, for instance, reflects the fact that fewer people are smoking, not the benefits of clever new therapies. GENETIC HOPES "The great hope of the modern targeted approach was that with DNA sequencing we would be able to find what specific genes, when mutated, caused each cancer," said molecular biologist Mark Ptashne of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The next step was to design a drug to block the runaway proliferation the mutation caused. But almost none of the resulting treatments cures cancer. "These new therapies work for just a few months," Watson told Reuters in a rare interview. "And we have nothing for major cancers such as the lung, colon and breast that have become metastatic." The main reason drugs that target genetic glitches are not cures is that cancer cells have a work-around. If one biochemical pathway to growth and proliferation is blocked by a drug such as AstraZeneca's Iressa or Genentech's Tarceva for non-small-cell lung cancer, said cancer biologist Robert Weinberg of MIT, the cancer cells activate a different, equally effective pathway. That is why Watson advocates a different approach: targeting features that all cancer cells, especially those in metastatic cancers, have in common. One such commonality is oxygen radicals. Those forms of oxygen rip apart other components of cells, such as DNA. That is why antioxidants, which have become near-ubiquitous additives in grocery foods from snack bars to soda, are thought to be healthful: they mop up damaging oxygen radicals. That simple picture becomes more complicated, however, once cancer is present. Radiation therapy and many chemotherapies kill cancer cells by generating oxygen radicals, which trigger cell suicide. If a cancer patient is binging on berries and other antioxidants, it can actually keep therapies from working, Watson proposed. "Everyone thought antioxidants were great," he said. "But I'm saying they can prevent us from killing cancer cells." 'ANTI-ANTIOXIDANTS' Research backs him up. A number of studies have shown that taking antioxidants such as vitamin E do not reduce the risk of cancer but can actually increase it, and can even shorten life. But drugs that block antioxidants - "anti-antioxidants" - might make even existing cancer drugs more effective. Anything that keeps cancer cells full of oxygen radicals "is likely an important component of any effective treatment," said cancer biologist Robert Benezra of Sloan-Kettering. Watson's anti-antioxidant stance includes one historical irony. The first high-profile proponent of eating lots of antioxidants (specifically, vitamin C) was biochemist Linus Pauling, who died in 1994 at age 93. Watson and his lab mate, Francis Crick, famously beat Pauling to the discovery of the double helix in 1953. One elusive but promising target, Watson said, is a protein in cells called Myc. It controls more than 1,000 other molecules inside cells, including many involved in cancer. Studies suggest that turning off Myc causes cancer cells to self-destruct in a process called apoptosis. "The notion that targeting Myc will cure cancer has been around for a long time," said cancer biologist Hans-Guido Wendel of Sloan-Kettering. "Blocking production of Myc is an interesting line of investigation. I think there's promise in that." Targeting Myc, however, has been a backwater of drug development. "Personalized medicine" that targets a patient's specific cancer-causing mutation attracts the lion's share of research dollars. "The biggest obstacle" to a true war against cancer, Watson wrote, may be "the inherently conservative nature of today's cancer research establishments." As long as that's so, "curing cancer will always be 10 or 20 years away." (Reporting by Sharon Begley; Editing by Jilian Mincer and Peter Cooney) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jan 13 10:44:50 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:44:50 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - #pdftribute thread Message-ID: <4948AC3B-AACF-4932-839B-B349E58A9E76@infowarrior.org> Researchers begin posting article PDFs to twitter in #pdftribute to Aaron Swartz http://neuroconscience.com/2013/01/13/researchers-begin-posting-article-pdfs-to-twitter-in-pdftribute-to-aaron-swartz/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jan 13 16:41:48 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:41:48 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - One sentence about Aaron Swartz Message-ID: <0F62C2AE-346C-488D-8D93-D145C1657B6A@infowarrior.org> http://jacobbacharach.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/the-days-when-we-had-rest-o-soul-for-they-were-long/ While I?ve always thought that there was something particularly crass about our habits of erecting edifices of grief to strangers whom we perceive as similar to us even as we note and let pass without comment the deaths of so many more distant, more different people in our country?s wars and misadventures, and while I likewise find our habit of reacting with dismay to items like the prosecution-unto-death of Aaron Swartz even as we?re dimly aware that poorer, less connected, less important people are hounded to their lives? ends by the dirty machinery of our penal system, which is powered by punishment wholly out of scale to any wrong, punishment which is itself quite often the only wrong ever committed, the sheer, tawdry, grotesquely ill-proportioned persecution of the young man for acts whose criminal taxonomy is something out of a Lewis Carroll poem is the sort of spectacle that really does make you wonder how long, actually, a society intent on destroying its genius in order to preserve the inbred rights of its rentier class to extract filthy lucre from the margins of genuine intellect can endure. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 14 06:53:21 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 07:53:21 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Without Human Insight, Big Data Is Just A Bunch Of Numbers Message-ID: Without Human Insight, Big Data Is Just A Bunch Of Numbers By Sam Ford December 19, 2012 Big data is undoubtedly useful, but it takes human analysis to figure out how to understand what it is we "know," and how to take action on it. http://www.fastcompany.com/3004000/without-human-insight-big-data-just-bunch-numbers A recent USA TODAY piece by Chuck Raasch about Rick Smolan's new book, The Human Face of Big Data, looks at how humanity is impacted by the unparalleled ways we can now collect, analyze, and use data. Perhaps what struck me most was a phrase used by both the article title and Smolan, likening "big data" to a "planetary" or "global" nervous system. Jonathan Harris uses a similar phrase in the article about the Internet in general.) Without a doubt, more things can be quantified than ever before. The myriad ways that benefits society is only hinted at in Raasch's article, and I'm sure the same can be said for Smolan's book. With the wealth of data we can now collect and analyze in increasingly sophisticated ways, we have only scratched the surface as to the vast number of advances we might find. However, in any era with rapid technological change, it's easy to start slipping into what has been termed "technological determinism," to start speaking of the technology as if it drives culture and humanity, rather than thinking of technology as a tool. "Big data as our global nervous system" presumes everything can be quantified, that culture can be culled down to quantitative data. It supposes the world is infinitely knowable. It posits that context and particularity is only so useful inasmuch as it can be captured by machines. And that's where the tail starts to wag the dog, to use a cliche. Big data can't tell Lexus that my customer survey results were skewed by the fact that the person who sold me my car laid a guilt trip on me to fill out all "excellent" reviews on his survey, lest his pay get docked. Big data can't tell Target that it might be causing significant strife for a teenage-mom-to-be by giving prenatal coupons to her family. Big data couldn't tell one major company I worked with that their heralded and highly successful social media presence for job seekers was actually primarily a place people came to only when they'd narrowed their search down to the final few contenders, and that they weren't connecting with the audiences they sought to reach earlier in the job-hunting process. Before we've completely decided what this new world looks like and what big data is, let's think long and hard about the things that can't--and won't ever be--quantifiable...or, to put it in better terms, what gets "boiled out" when you quantify human communication--the context and humanity that a spreadsheet can't capture. As I wrote last February, perhaps the answer is that our organizations must become "cyborgs": combining what can be gathered technologically with the humanity that can help us balance and make sense of what the quantitative can tell us, lest we be lose our humanity and just become robots. I'm of the staunch belief that unparalleled development of both data and qualitative insight, in combination, can further help transform human understanding, technological advancement, and everyday life. New access to quantitative data gives us unparalleled access to information at a scale we've never had before. We can discover patterns in quantitative data we didn't know existed. And qualitative insight helps us truly understand the lives of other people, to listen to them in the full context of what they are talking about--to pay attention to the particulars. Human analysis and thinking about what all that qualitative and quantitative data means is what helps us make sense of it all: to empathize with other people, to consider the ethical questions that will inevitably come along with how data is collected and what data tells us, and to perform the sort of qualitative pattern recognition that helps us identify what's happening in culture, in ways that numbers support but can't lead (because we have to know what we're looking for to find it in the numbers). Continuum's Lara Lee may have said it best in Stephanie Clifford's New York Times piece back in July: "Data can't tell you where the world is headed." Perhaps, most of all, it will take human analysis to figure out how to understand what it is we "know," and how to take action on it. As Frank Eliason once told me, senior executives are rarely convinced by numbers that aren't financial, but a good story that illustrates an issue and creates empathy--with data that backs that story up--is a convincing package. Grant McCracken, Emily Yellin, Carol Sanford, the aforementioned Lara Lee and I discussed this issue in-depth at the recent Futures of Entertainment 6 conference at MIT, in a session called "Listening and Empathy: Making Companies More Human". And coming out of that conference, finding this balance between big data and qualitative insights is a subject a group of us are planning to roll up our sleeves and tackle. I hope you'll join us. Find more business advice in the Fast Company newsletter. --Sam Ford is director of digital strategy for Peppercomm, a Futures of Entertainment Fellow, a research affiliate of the program in Comparative Media Studies at MIT, and an instructor with Western Kentucky University's Popular Culture Studies program. He is also coauthor of the forthcoming book Spreadable Media with Henry Jenkins and Joshua Green. Sam was named 2011 Social Media Innovator of the Year by Bulldog Reporter and serves on the Membership Ethics Advisory Panel for the Word of Mouth Marketing Association. He is also co-editor of with Abigail De Kosnik and C. Lee Harrington. Follow him on Twitter @Sam_Ford. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 14 07:47:29 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 08:47:29 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Now Microsoft 'actively investigates' Surface slab jailbreak tool Message-ID: (The last line is really why they're doing it. Like, obviously...same as with Apple. --rick) Now Microsoft 'actively investigates' Surface slab jailbreak tool 'Appropriate action taken as necessary' against Windows RT hack http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/14/windows_rt_hack_microsoft_investigating/ By Gavin Clarke ? Get more from this author Posted in Developer, 14th January 2013 13:24 GMT Microsoft is suddenly serious about tackling RT Jailbreak, a slick tool to unlock Surface tablets using a hack publicised just days earlier. A spokesperson for Microsoft?s Trustworthy Computing Group, tasked with Windows security, told The Register that Redmond is ?actively investigating? the RT Jailbreak Tool v1 cooked up last week. Microsoft will take ?appropriate action as necessary?, the spokesperson said, but provided no further details. RT Jailbreak is batch file created by a coder called Netham45 that can crack locked-down Windows RT tablets in a matter of seconds. Once in, users can run any unauthorised desktop apps on their ARM-powered devices. Microsoft would rather people download and install authorised, and cryptographically signed, software specifically built for touch-driven computers from its official Windows Store outlet. The jailbreak tool disables the signature check in the kernel to allow any software to run. It uses a debugging trick published last week by a security researcher known as C. L. Rokr, although the original hack entailed getting one's hands dirty with WinDbg. Netham45 tidied up the process and packaged it as RT Jailbreak Tool v1, which was released just four days after Rokr went public with his or her discovery. Microsoft appeared to brush off the Rokr hack at the time, saying it wasn?t a security vulnerability - even though it exploited an existing shortcoming in the Windows kernel. ?We applaud the ingenuity of the folks who worked this out and the hard work they did to document it. We?ll not guarantee these approaches will be there in future releases,? Microsoft noted. Redmond's now heightened concern over the new tool may be because it is not quite so inaccessible to "the average user" as the original exploit, allowing punters to install all sorts of ARM-compatible software without the need to trouble the Windows Store. ? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 14 07:49:42 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 08:49:42 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Blaze/Landau: The FBI Needs Hackers, Not Backdoors Message-ID: The FBI Needs Hackers, Not Backdoors ? By Matt Blaze and Susan Landau ? 01.14.13 ? 8:00 AM http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/01/wiretap-backdoors --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 14 14:14:06 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:14:06 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Massive espionage malware targeting governments undetected for 5 years Message-ID: <046AA416-B460-42F1-9619-42804E4243BB@infowarrior.org> (c/o DOD, no not that one) Massive espionage malware targeting governments undetected for 5 years "Red October" command-and-control setup more sophisticated than that of Flame. by Dan Goodin - Jan 14 2013, 12:15pm EST http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/01/red-october-computer-espionage-network-may-have-stolen-terabytes-of-data/ Researchers have uncovered an ongoing, large-scale computer espionage network that's targeting hundreds of diplomatic, governmental, and scientific organizations in at least 39 countries, including the Russian Federation, Iran, and the United States. Operation Red October, as researchers from antivirus provider Kaspersky Lab have dubbed the highly coordinated campaign, has been active since 2007, raising the possibility it has already siphoned up hundreds of terabytes of sensitive information. It uses more than 1,000 distinct modules that have never been seen before to customize attack profiles for each victim. Among other things, components target individual PCs, networking equipment from Cisco Systems, and smartphones from Apple, Microsoft, and Nokia. The attack also features a network of command-and-control servers with a complexity that rivals that used by the Flame espionage malware that targeted Iran. "This is a pretty glaring example of a multiyear cyber espionage campaign," Kaspersky Lab expert Kurt Baumgartner told Ars. "We haven't seen these sorts of modules being distributed, so the customized approach to attacking individual victims is something we haven't seen before at this level." The main purpose of the campaign is to gather classified information and geopolitical intelligence. Among the data collected are files from cryptographic systems such as the Acid Cryptofiler, with the collected information used in later attacks. Stolen credentials, for instance, were compiled and used later when the attackers needed to guess secret phrases in other locations. Little is known about the people or organizations responsible for the project, and conflicting data makes it hard to attribute the nationality of the attackers. While the malware developers spoke Russian, many of the exploits used to hijack victim computers were initially developed by Chinese hackers. Also clouding the identity of the attackers is the long roster of victims. The Russian Federation was the most targeted country, followed by Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Belgium, India, Afghanistan, Armenia, Iran, and Turkmenistan. In all computers belonging to 39 countries from a variety of continents are infected. The command-and-control infrastructure that receives the stolen data uses more than 60 domain names as proxy servers to obscure the final destination. These domains are believed to funnel data to a second tier of proxy servers, which in turn are believed to send the information to a "mother ship" that Kaspersky researchers still know little about. The ability of the infrastructure to shield the identity of the attackers and to resist takedown efforts rivals the command-and-control system used by Flame, the espionage malware reportedly developed by the US and Israel to spy on Iran. The Red October malware itself has remained undetected on more than 300 PCs and networks for more than five years. "It's been a very-well-maintained and set-up infrastructure that's supported with multiple levels of proxies in order to hide away the mothership," Baumgartner said. "They've been very effective at cycling through these domains and staying under the radar for the past five years." ?Foolproof? backdoor One novel feature contained in Red October is a module that creates an extension for Adobe Reader and Microsoft Word on compromised machines. Once installed, the module provides attackers with a "foolproof" way to regain control of a compromised machine, should the main malware payload ever be removed. "The document may be sent to the victim via e-mail," the researchers explained. "It will not have an exploit code and will safely pass all security checks. However, like with exploit case, the document will be instantly processed by the module and the module will start a malicious application attached to the document." Red October is also notable for the broad array of devices it targets. Beside PCs and computer workstations, it's capable of stealing data from iPhones and Nokia and Windows Mobile smartphones, along with Cisco enterprise network equipment. It can also retrieve data from removable disk drives, including files that have already been deleted, thanks to a custom file recovery procedure. Each infection is indexed by a unique ID that's assigned to the compromised machine. The identifier helps to ensure that each attack is carefully tailored to the specific attributes of the victim. For example, the initial documents designed to lure in a potential victim are customized to make them more appealing. Every single module is specifically compiled for the victim with a unique victim ID inside. What's more, when connecting to the control channel, backdoors identify themselves with a specific string that appears to be the victim?s unique ID. "Presumably, this allows the attackers to distinguish between the multitudes of connections and perform specific operations for each victim individually," Kaspersky said. Despite the sophistication and organization of Red October, the researchers said they have found no evidence that the campaign is related to Flame, Gauss, Duqu, or other espionage malware discovered in the wild over the past few years. "Currently, there is no evidence linking this with a nation-state sponsored attack," Kaspersky researchers wrote in a blog post published Monday morning. "The information stolen by the attackers is obviously of the highest level and includes geopolitical data which can be used by nation states. Such information could be traded in the underground and sold to the highest bidder, which can be of course, anywhere." (A corresponding research report is here.) Kaspersky said it came across the operation in October after a request from an unidentified partner. Researchers were able to peer inside the operation after "sinkholing"?that is gaining control of?six of the 60 domains used as first-tier proxies and observing the traffic sent between infected machines and the control servers. From early November 2012 until Thursday, researchers observed more than 55,000 connections to the sinkhole coming from 250 different IP addresses. In at least some of the cases, Kaspersky was able to obtain the domains because they remained unregistered even after they had been hardcoded into the malware. That would appear to have been a major oversight by the attackers. The discovery of Red October opens yet another chapter in the just-begun era of highly advanced espionage malware that already included Duqu, Flame, and Gauss. With its high degree of customization and its ability to evade detection for five years, the operation has rivaled previous espionage campaigns including the Aurora attacks that hit Google and dozens of other large companies three years ago. "All of these are very well-coordinated, very professionally run projects," Baumgartner said. "There's not enough evidence to link it to a nation-state, but certainly this level of interest and multi-year, ongoing campaign puts it up there with something like Flame and Duqu in the amount of effort it takes to seek out those targets and infiltrate the networks." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 14 14:19:14 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:19:14 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - CNET Reporter Resigns Over CBS Interference In Dish CES Award Message-ID: <830BC1DA-FD60-4826-AFE8-66027CD7B889@infowarrior.org> (Dislosure: I know Greg and he's run pieces from me over the years. KUDOS for his action! --rick) CNET Reporter Resigns Over CBS Interference In Dish CES Award from the editorial-independence dept Last week, in writing about CBS's unquestionably stupid decision to interfere with subsidiary CNET when it covered cover Dish's new DVR device, all because CBS is involved in litigation against Dish over a similar device, I came very close to calling out reporter Greg Sandoval by name. Sandoval is an excellent reporter for CNET who has covered the Dish case in particular, along with numerous other copyright issues. I don't always agree with him, but I think he's a tough and fair reporter, and it seemed like CBS's decision would put his objective reporting in doubt. Minutes before posting the article, I pulled the sentence that included Sandoval's name, because I thought it was, perhaps, unfair to put him on the spot like that, and that each employee of CNET had to make a personal decision on how to handle the situation. Now it appears that Sandoval has made his decision, announcing that he's resigned from CNET due to this situation: < - > As he notes, he no longer has confidence that CBS is committed to editorial independence. In later tweets, he notes that CBS never interfered with his own reporting, but that the situation was unacceptable and would lead others to call into question his own independence -- especially considering that Sandoval reported on the Dish case and other similar cases. < - > This all comes out after further information on the story reveals that CBS didn't just bar CNET staff from considering the new Dish device for the "Best of CES" award, but actually forced staffers to re-vote after the device had already won the award: < - > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/10270121658/cnet-reporter-resigns-over-cbs-interference-dish-ces-award.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 14 16:58:17 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:58:17 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - The Anti-Surveillance Clothing Line That Promises To Thwart Cell Tracking and Drones Message-ID: <854E542C-FE81-46AC-A3B7-744CD7EACF9E@infowarrior.org> The Anti-Surveillance Clothing Line That Promises To Thwart Cell Tracking and Drones By Ryan Gallagher Posted Friday, Jan. 11, 2013, at 2:57 PM ET http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/11/stealth_wear_adam_harvey_s_clothing_line_safeguards_against_surveillance.html George Orwell is often cited for the prophetic vision of a surveillance society he painted in his famous novel, 1984. But one thing the celebrated author didn?t predict was Big Brother?s impact on fashion. Enter Adam Harvey. In a move that demonstrates that drones, facial recognition technology, and cellphone snooping are starting to affect the broader culture, the New York-based artist has designed a line of high-tech garments made with sophisticated fabrics that can block signals and thwart cameras. Set to launch next week in London as part of a collaborative project with fashion designer Johanna Bloomfield, Harvey?s line of ?Stealth Wear? clothing includes an ?anti-drone hoodie? that uses metalized material designed to counter thermal imaging used by drones to spot people on the ground. He?s also created a cellphone pouch made of a special ?signal attenuating fabric.? The pocket blocks your phone signal so that it can?t be tracked or intercepted by devices like the covert ?Stingray? tool used by law enforcement agencies like the FBI. And if that?s not enough, Harvey has also made what he calls an ?XX-Shirt,? which uses material designed to ?protect your heart from X-ray radiation.? The 31-year-old artist, who studied mechanical engineering as an undergrad at Penn State, says the increased use of military surveillance technologies in civilian environments inspired him to create the clothing line. ?Military technology is coming home from the war,? he tells me, referring to the growing use of spy drones across the United States. ?These pieces are designed to live with it, to cope with it?to live in a world where surveillance is happening all the time.? The clothing range, which also includes an ?anti-drone scarf,? is primarily intended to spark a dialogue about the rapid advance of surveillance across society. Though they are pieces of concept art, at the same time they do have a genuine practical use and are being manufactured for public sale. Harvey hasn?t pinned down exactly what the cost of the garments will be yet?and he admits they?re not likely to be cheap, due to the expensive materials involved. But it doesn?t take a genius to predict that activists and other privacy-conscious individuals will be among his first customers. The ?fashionably paranoid market? is his target demographic, Harvey jokes. The artist?s past endeavours have taken a similar stand against the rise of surveillance technologies. A previous project called ?CVDazzle? explored how face-painting and hair-styling could be used to thwart face recognition cameras. He?s not alone in this anti-snooping field, either. Last year, German artist Martin Backes created a counter-surveillance balaclava called ?Pixelhead.? Meanwhile, others have tried using DIY methods such as infrared head torches to frustrate the operators of security cameras. As surveillance becomes more ubiquitous, it seems, we can expect to see increasingly creative and innovative efforts to challenge it coming from all corners of society. Fashion might be most commonly associated with models and catwalks?but it?s a sign of the times that it can now be about drones and data mining, too. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 14 19:56:40 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:56:40 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Microsoft's 13 worst missteps of all time Message-ID: Microsoft's 13 worst missteps of all time By Woody Leonhard Created 2013-01-14 03:00AM Over the years, Microsoft's made some incredibly good moves, even if they felt like mistakes at the time: mashing Word and Excel into Office; offering Sabeer Bhatia and cohorts $400 million for a year-old startup; blending Windows 98 and NT to form Windows 2000; sticking a weird Israeli motion sensor on a game box; buying Skype for an unconscionable amount of money. (The jury's still out on the last one.) Along the way, Microsoft has had more than its fair share of bad mistakes; 2012 alone was among the most tumultuous years in Microsoft history I can recall. This year you can bet that Redmond will do everything in its power to prove 2012 naysayers wrong. To do so, Microsoft must learn from the following dirty baker's dozen of its most dreck-laden decisions, the ones that have had the very worst consequences, from a customer's point of view...... < - > http://www.infoworld.com/print/210521 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 15 07:10:27 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:10:27 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?What_is_a_=91Hacktivist=92=3F?= Message-ID: <5F8903CF-EC42-47E7-A6B0-9C2FAE76C3B6@infowarrior.org> January 13, 2013, 8:30 pm What is a ?Hacktivist?? By PETER LUDLOW http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/what-is-a-hacktivist/?pagewanted=print The untimely death of the young Internet activist Aaron Swartz, apparently by suicide, has prompted an outpouring of reaction in the digital world. Foremost among the debates being reheated - one which had already grown in the wake of larger and more daring data breaches in the past few years - is whether Swartz's activities as a "hacktivist" were being unfairly defined as malicious or criminal. In particular, critics (as well as Swartz's family in a formal statement) have focused on the federal government's indictment of Swartz for downloading millions of documents from the scholarly database JSTOR, an action which JSTOR itself had declined to prosecute. I believe the debate itself is far broader than the specifics of this unhappy case, for if there was prosecutorial overreach it raises the question of whether we as a society created the enabling condition for this sort of overreach by letting the demonization of hacktivists go unanswered. Prosecutors do not work in a vacuum, after all; they are more apt to pursue cases where public discourse supports their actions. The debate thus raises an issue that, as philosopher of language, I have spent time considering: the impact of how words and terms are defined in the public sphere. "Lexical Warfare" is a phrase that I like to use for battles over how a term is to be understood. Our political discourse is full of such battles; it is pretty routine to find discussions of who gets to be called "Republican" (as opposed to RINO - Republican in Name Only), what "freedom" should mean, what legitimately gets to be called "rape" -and the list goes on. Lexical warfare is important because it can be a device to marginalize individuals within their self-identified political affiliation (for example, branding RINO's defines them as something other than true Republicans), or it can beguile us into ignoring true threats to freedom (focusing on threats from government while being blind to threats from corporations, religion and custom), and in cases in which the word in question is "rape," the definition can have far reaching consequences for the rights of women and social policy. Lexical warfare is not exclusively concerned with changing the definitions of words and terms - it can also work to attach either a negative or positive affect to a term. Ronald Reagan and other conservatives successfully loaded the word "liberal" with negative connotations, while enhancing the positive aura of terms like "patriot" (few today would reject the label "patriotic," but rather argue for why they are entitled to it). Over the past few years we've watched a lexical warfare battle slowly unfold in the treatment of the term "hacktivism." There has been an effort to redefine what the word means and what kinds of activities it describes; at the same time there has been an effort to tarnish the hacktivist label so that anyone who chooses to label themselves as such does so at their peril. In the simplest and broadest sense, a hacktivist is someone who uses technology hacking to effect social change. The conflict now is between those who want to change the meaning of the word to denote immoral, sinister activities and those who want to defend the broader, more inclusive understanding of hacktivist. Let's start with those who are trying to change the meaning so that it denotes sinister activities. Over the past year several newspapers and blogs have cited Verizon's 2012 Data Breach Investigations Report, which claimed that 58 percent of all data leaked in 2011 was owing to the actions of "ideologically motivated hacktivists." An example of the concern was an article in Infosecurity Magazine: "The year 2011 is renowned for being the year that hacktivists out-stole cybercriminals to take top honors according to the Verizon data breach report. Of the 174 million stolen records it tracked in 2011, 100 million were taken by hacktivist groups." Suddenly, things are looking black and white again. Regardless of political motivation or intent, if there are victims of the attacks they perpetrate, then hacktivism has crossed the line. Not OK. Meanwhile an article in ThreatPost proclaimed "Anonymous: Hacktivists Steal Most Data in 2011." The first thing to note is that both of these media sources are written by and for members of the information security business - it is in their interest to manufacture a threat, for the simple reason that threats mean business for these groups. But is it fair to say that the threat is being "manufactured"? What of the Verizon report that they cite? The problem is that the headlines and articles, designed to tar hacktivists and make us fear them, did not reflect what the Verizon report actually said. According to page 19 of the report only 3 percent of the data breaches in the survey were by hacktivists - the bulk of them were by routine cybercriminals, disgruntled employees and nation states (83 percent were by organized criminals). The "most data" claim, while accurate, gives a skewed picture. According to Chris Novak, the Managing Principal of Investigative Response on Verizon's RISK Team, interviewed in ThreatPost, 2 percent of the 90 actions analyzed in the report accounted for 58 percent of the data released. The interview with Novak suggests that this data loss came from precisely two hacktivist actions - both by spin-offs of the well-known hacktivist group Anonymous - and that these large data dumps stemmed from the actions against the security firm HB Gary Federal, which had publicly announced their efforts to expose Anonymous, and a computer security firm called Stratfor). That means that in 2011 if you were worried about an intrusion into your system it was 33 times more likely that the perpetrator would be a criminal, nation state or disgruntled employee than a hacktivist. If you weren't picking fights with Anonymous the chances would have dropped to zero - at least according to the cases analyzed in the report. In effect, these infosecurity media outlets cited two actions by Anonymous spin-offs, implicated that actions like this were a principle project of hacktivism, and thereby implicated a larger, imminent threat of hacktivism. Meanwhile, the meaning of hacktivist was being narrowed from people who use technology in support of social causes to meaning individuals principally concerned with infiltrating and releasing the data of almost anyone. Now let's turn to an attempt to maintain the broader understanding of hacktivism. Several months ago I attended a birthday party in Germany for Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who was turning 34. As it happened, Domscheit-Berg had also been the spokesperson for Wikileaks and, after Julian Assange, the group's most visible person. He had left the organization in 2010, and now he had a new venture, OpenLeaks. The party was also meant to be a coming out party for OpenLeaks. The party was to be held in the new headquarters and training center for OpenLeaks - a large house in a small town about an hour outside of Berlin. I was half-expecting to find a bunker full of hackers probing Web sites with SQL injections and sifting through State Department cables, but what I found was something else altogether. When I arrived at the house the first thing I noticed was a large vegetable garden outside. The second thing I noticed was that a tree out front had been fitted out with a colorful knit wool sweater. This was the effort of Daniel's wife Anke - "knit hacking," she called it. And around the small town I saw evidence of her guerilla knit hacking. The steel poles of nearby street signs had also been fitted with woolen sweaters. Most impressively, though, a World War II tank, sitting outside a nearby former Nazi concentration camp for women had also been knit-hacked; the entire barrel of the tank's gun had been fit with a tight colorful wool sweater and adorned with some woolen flowers for good measure. I interpreted these knit-hackings as counteractions to the attempts to define hacktivist as something sinister; they serve as ostensive definitions of what hacktivism is and what hacktivists do. Of course the birthday party had elements of hackerdom understood more narrowly. There were some members of the Chaos Computer Club (a legendary hacker group), and there was a healthy supply of Club Mate - the energy drink of choice of European hackers, but the main message being delivered was something else: a do-it-yourself aesthetic - planting your own garden, knitting your own sweaters, foraging for mushrooms and counting on a local friend to bag you some venison. What part of this lifestyle was the hacktivism part? Daniel and his friends would like to say that all of it is. The intention here was clear: an attempt to defend the traditional, less sinister understanding of hacktivism and perhaps broaden it a bit, adding some positive affect to boot; more specifically, that hacking is fundamentally about refusing to be intimidated or cowed into submission by any technology, about understanding the technology and acquiring the power to repurpose it to our individual needs, and for the good of the many. Moreover, they were saying that a true hacktivist doesn't favor new technology over old - what is critical is that the technologies be in our hands rather than out of our control. This ideal, theoretically, should extend to beyond computer use, to technologies for food production, shelter and clothing, and of course, to all the means we use to communicate with one another. It would also, of course, extend to access to knowledge more generally - a value that was inherent in Aaron Swartz's hacking of the JSTOR data base. Our responsibility in this particular episode of lexical warfare is to be critical and aware of the public uses of language, and to be alert to what is at stake - whether the claims made by the infosecurity industry or the government, or the gestures by the hacktivists, are genuine, misleading or correct. We are not passive observers in this dispute. The meaning of words is determined by those of us who use language, and it has consequences. Whether or not Aaron Swartz suffered because of the manipulation of the public discourse surrounding hacking, his case is a reminder that it is important that we be attuned to attempts to change the meanings of words in consequential ways. It is important because we are the ones who will decide who will win. Peter Ludlow is professor of philosophy at Northwestern University. His most recent book is "The Philosophy of Generative Linguistics." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 15 07:12:17 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:12:17 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?CBS=92s_CNET_Fiasco?= Message-ID: CBS?s CNET Fiasco http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/cbss_cnet_fiasco.php --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 15 07:41:31 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:41:31 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Swartz suicide shines light on federal anti-hacking law Message-ID: Swartz suicide shines light on federal anti-hacking law Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is applied too broadly in alleged data theft cases, critics say Jaikumar Vijayan January 15, 2013 (Computerworld) http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9235854/Swartz_suicide_shines_light_on_federal_anti_hacking_law?taxonomyName=Security&taxonomyId=17 The suicide of Internet activist and pioneer Aaron Swartz has focused attention on what some activists say is the overzealous use of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act anti-hacking statute. Swartz, 26, hanged himself last Friday, apparently over concerns stemming for the prospect of spending up to 35 years in prison on hacking-related charges. Federal prosecutors had indicted Swartz on 13 counts of felony hacking and wire fraud related to the alleged theft of millions of documents from JSTOR, an online library of literary journals and scholarly documents sold by subscription to universities and other institutions. Several charges against Swartz were tied to alleged CFAA violations. Swartz's death prompted calls by some legal experts for a review of CFAA. A petition launched Monday on the White House's website that called for reforming the anti-hacking law had garnered about 550 signatures. The CFAA, enacted by Congress in 1986, makes it illegal to knowingly access a computer without authorization, to exceed authorized use of a system, or to to access information valued at more than $5,000. In intent and spirit, CFAA is an online anti-trespassing law targeting criminal hackers who break into systems to steal or sabotage data. Penalties range from five-years prison sentences to life in prison. Federal prosecutors in Massachusetts alleged that Swartz violated the provisions of the law by allegedly misusing guest access privileges on Massachusetts Institute of Technology's network to systematically access and download a huge number of documents from JSTOR. In court documents, prosecutors alleged that while a Fellow at Harvard University's Safra Center for Ethics between Sept. 2010 and Jan 2011, Swartz registered for guest access on MITs network using a fictitious name and temporary email address. They alleged that over the course of a few weeks, According to the documents, Swartz allegedly downloaded over two million JSTOR documents over a two-week period by using a variety of deliberate, evasive tactics designed to confound JSTOR controls. Swartz maintained that the sole motivation for accessing the scholarly documents was to make them freely available on the Internet. In a blog post , Orin Kerr, a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School noted that from a strictly legal standpoint, the charges against Swartz were based on what appears to have been a fair application of the CFAA and federal wire fraud laws. Even so, legions of Swartz supporters appeared outraged that he faced a long prison term. "The government should never have thrown the book at Aaron for accessing MIT's network and downloading scholarly research," the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said in a blog post Monday. The CFAA's broad reach and vague language help the government unfairly bring a potentially crippling criminal prosecution against Swartz, the EFF said. "Aaron's tragedy also shines a spotlight on a couple profound flaws of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in particular, and gives us an opportunity to think about how to address them," the rights group noted. Hanni Fakhoury, staff attorney at the EFF said that a big problems with the law is its loose definitions of key terms, including those related to unauthorized access to data. Over the years, creative prosecutors have taken advantage of the law and applied it to situations that it was never meant to tackle, Fakhoury said. For example, Fakhoury cited the case of Lori Drew, who was indicted on charges related to her creation of a Myspace page using a fake name to tease a teenage girl. The girl later committed suicide. Federal prosecutors indicted Drew on charges that she accessed Myspace's computers without authorization and that she had exceeded her authorized access to the system when she registered the profile using a fake name. A federal judge eventually overturned a jury verdict that she violated the CFAA statute. The case illustrates how the language of the law can be used to criminalize violations of a website's terms of service agreements, Fakhoury said. "Creative and aggressive prosecutors have taken advantage of the ambiguity of some of the terms of the law to cover violations of terms of policy," he said. In recent years, several employers have turned to the CFAA in data theft cases involving past or current employees. Federal courts have been somewhat split on how to deal with such cases, In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an employee with valid access to corporate data could not be held liable under CFAA if he or she later misused that access to steal or sabotage the data. The judges in that case noted that CFAA applied specifically to external hackers and violations of computer access controls. Last September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit came to the same conclusion in a case involving an individual who used his valid access right to misappropriate data from his employer. The Fourth Circuit judges characterized CFAA as a statute that could not be used to target individuals who access computers or information in bad faith, or who disregard a use policy. Other appellate courts, including the Eleventh, Fifth and Seventh Circuit courts however have arrived at the opposite conclusion, ruling that CFAA can be used to prosecute individuals in such cases. The vastly different interpretations of the statute by various courts shows why CFAA needs to be reviewed, Fakhoury noted. "What has happened over the years is that the CFAA has been amended and extended by Congress so much it has become a very complicated patchwork of laws that has gone well beyond any of its original [intent]," said Eric Goldman, a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law in California. The problem with the CFAA is that it could be used to prosecute relatively minor crimes, Goldman said. "Anyone who misrepresents their name, age, location or other information when signing up for a web service is in a sense violating that site's terms of service and could theoretically at least be in violation of the CFAA," he said. "We have this very broad federal anti-trespassing statue that is incredibly powerful," Goldman said Jaikumar Vijayan covers data security and privacy issues, financial services security and e-voting for Computerworld. Follow Jaikumar on Twitter at @jaivijayan, or subscribe to Jaikumar's RSS --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 15 12:01:20 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:01:20 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - USAF eyes return of mobile nuke missiles Message-ID: <5C8B5639-1C77-4491-AC12-4AEC3544D0E4@infowarrior.org> Really? Really? I mean ..... really? Are they that fond to return to the Cold War? (don't answer that) --rick AIR FORCE EYES RETURN OF MOBILE NUCLEAR MISSILES By Bob Brewin http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2013/01/air-force-eyes-return-mobile-nuclear-missiles/60565/ The Air Force has dusted off plans more than two decades old to place fixed nuclear missiles on rail cars or massive road vehicles to protect them from a surprise attack. The service also wants to explore alternatives to traditional missiles to carry nuclear warheads, which could include hypersonic aircraft capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean in an hour, said Phillip Coyle of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a former associate director for national security and international affairs in the Obama administration?s Office of Science and Technology Policy. On Monday, the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., kicked off a study on modernizing or replacing its current fleet of Minuteman III nuclear missiles housed in underground silos in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming. The work includes potential upgrades to the command and control system. The center said it wants industry and academic help in analyzing the future of its Minuteman III nuclear missiles. The options include no upgrades, incremental fixes, new missiles stored in silos, and new mobile or tunnel-based systems. In 1984, the Air Force began developing a small intercontinental ballistic missile called the ?Midgetman,? which was carried on a massive, blast-resistant 200,000-lb. wheeled vehicle. The project was canceled in 1992 after the Cold War ended. In the late 1980s, the Air Force also hatched a plan to place 50 missiles formerly stored in silos on rail cars deployed to seven states. This project was canceled in 1991 after the Air Force shifted funding to nuclear bombers. In September 2011, the Center for Strategic and International Studies reported that China had developed a mobile missile system, the same month Russia indicated it planned to revive its rail car based missile program, which began in 1983 but was scrapped in 2006. Coyle said he was concerned that proliferation of mobile missile systems could lead to another arms race. ?The Air Force will need to be careful that they don't stir up a hornets nest with proposals for mobile basing or advanced concepts other than the traditional booster and reentry vehicle. The former could cause Russia or China to redouble their efforts on mobile basing of ICBMs, set off a new kind of arms race, and weaken U.S. defenses,? Coyle said. He added that if the Air Force decides to pursue hypersonic aircraft to deliver nuclear warheads, this could confuse nuclear armed countries such as Russia, which would not be able to determine if supersonic aircraft traveling at 4,000 miles per hour were carrying conventional or nuclear warheads, and potentially react with a nuclear strike. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 15 12:03:06 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:03:06 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Remember When Drones Were Supposed to Be Simple and Cheap? Message-ID: <4D376F99-FAA2-4F58-BC2B-4D008BB6640A@infowarrior.org> Remember When Drones Were Supposed to Be Simple and Cheap? http://nation.time.com/2013/01/15/remember-when-drones-were-supposed-to-be-simple-and-cheap/#ixzz2I4JFuLCu --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 15 13:46:20 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:46:20 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - How The FBI's Desire To Wiretap Every New Technology Makes Us Less Safe Message-ID: How The FBI's Desire To Wiretap Every New Technology Makes Us Less Safe from the can-you-hear-me-now? dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/20442421683/how-fbis-desire-to-wiretap-every-new-technology-makes-us-less-safe.shtml Here they go again. Every year or so we end up writing about the FBI's desire for better wiretapping capabilities for new technologies, such as Skype. Basically, the FBI argues that because "bad guys" might use those tools to communicate in secret, they need backdoors to make sure that they can keep tabs on the bad guys. But they're forgetting something: the FBI isn't necessarily the only one who will get access to those backdoors. In fact, by requiring backdoors to enable surveillance on all sorts of systems, the FBI is almost guaranteeing that the bad guys will use those backdoors for their own nefarious purposes. It's not security, it's anti-security. < - > Think this could only happen abroad? Some years ago, the U.S. National Security Agency discovered that every telephone switch for sale to the Department of Defense had security vulnerabilities in their mandated wiretap implementations. Every. Single. One. Somehow, the FBI always thinks that if there are backdoors, only it will use them. That is extreme wishful thinking. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 15 14:03:42 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:03:42 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?MIT=92s_Embrace_of_Web_Freedom_C?= =?windows-1252?q?lashes_With_Hacking_Case?= Message-ID: <7F870021-863E-4583-BD3C-DE376D65673D@infowarrior.org> MIT?s Embrace of Web Freedom Clashes With Hacking Case By John Lauerman - Jan 15, 2013 2:18 PM ET http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-15/mit-s-embrace-of-web-freedom-clashes-with-hacking-case.html The Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- the first university to require professors to make their work freely available after publication -- has posted class materials online for a decade. Last year it joined with Harvard to offer free courses on the Web. MIT?s faculty includes a hacker who was fined $10,000 for releasing a computer virus. Yet when Aaron Swartz broke into an MIT network to download millions of research articles he intended to post publicly, he found himself in a tricky legal area that MIT itself hasn?t resolved. U.S. prosecutors indicted him on fraud charges. Swartz, who advocated that access to information shouldn?t be restricted to people who can afford it, faced as long as 35 years in prison and a $1 million fine if convicted. The 26-year- old hanged himself in his Brooklyn, New York, apartment Jan. 11. Now students, faculty and top administrators at MIT are asking why the campus, known for its openness, got involved in the case in the first place. An online petition by the MIT Society for Open Science calling on the school to apologize for its role in Swartz?s prosecution had more than 220 signatures. ?A lot of people think there?s more MIT could have done or there?s alternative approaches the Justice Department could have taken? to Swartz?s case, said Zach Hynes, a computer science student, sitting in the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based school?s student union. ?Obviously what Swartz was trying to do was make information available and that resonates with a lot of people around here.? MIT Probe MIT President Rafael Reif said Jan. 13 that he ordered an investigation of the institute?s role in Swartz?s case. The school declined to comment beyond that statement ?both out of respect for those grieving Aaron?s death and because we do not want to get ahead of the forthcoming analysis,? spokeswoman Kimberly Allen said in an e-mail. In 2009, MIT?s faculty voted to require that professors make their work publicly available after publication. The policy ?is a signal to the world that we speak in a unified voice; that what we value is the free flow of ideas,? then-faculty Chairman Bish Sanyal said at the time. MIT has been a haven for computer hackers and advocates of free access to information. Richard Stallman, who founded the Free Software Foundation in 1985, was an MIT computer scientist. Robert Tappan Morris, who was fined $10,000 and ordered to perform 400 hours of community service for releasing a ?worm? computer virus in 1988, is on MIT?s computer-science faculty. Hacking ?Spirit? The university?s community is asking why Swartz didn?t get the same level of support. Students want to know whether MIT could have at least spoken out in support of Swartz?s ideals of increasing access to scholarly research. ?What he did, downloading MIT journals, is definitely illegal, but I?m not sure what?s so bad about it,? said Chen Lian, a sophomore math major. ?The institute admires the spirit of hacking, but the problem is when this conflicts with legal issues. We should figure out a way to solve the problem.? There?s some concern that MIT was ?more vigorous in this whole incident than it had to be,? said Seth Mnookin, who teaches science writing at the school. Many colleagues he spoke with ?felt aligned with what Swartz was doing and believed in what he believed in,? he said. Researchers around the world posted their articles online in a tribute to Swartz and his open-access goals. Hackers operating under the name Anonymous said in a Twitter post Jan. 13 that they initiated a denial of service attack on MIT?s website. The university temporarily shut down the site. ?Broken? System Professors at MIT and many other universities favor open access to their work because it allows others in their field to acknowledge, use and build on existing research, said Jonathan Eisen, chairman of the advisory board at Public Library of Science Biology, an online open-access research journal. Some journals charge hundreds of dollars for annual subscriptions, blocking access to poorly funded libraries and universities, Eisen said. Professors don?t get paid to write for journals, and many journals that exist solely online nonetheless charge high prices, he said. ?What we need to do is rewrite the entire publishing system,? Eisen said. ?It wouldn?t cost money -- it would probably save money -- and the system is broken beyond recognition.? Swartz was accused in a 2011 federal indictment of gaining unauthorized access to JSTOR, a subscription-service for academic journals, and downloading more than 4 million of them. According to a federal indictment, Swartz made a number of attacks on the JSTOR system from Sept. 24, 2010 to Jan. 6, 2011, while he was a fellow at Harvard University?s Safra Center for Ethics, according to the indictment. Charges ?Legit? Using a variety of computer aliases, Swartz repeatedly signed on to the JSTOR database and downloaded files as quickly as possible. JSTOR tried to stop the theft of files, first by blocking Swartz, and then by shutting down access to the database for all of MIT. While JSTOR settled its claims with Swartz, the Justice Department charged him with wire fraud, computer fraud, unauthorized access to a protected computer and computer damage. Those charges were ?pretty much legit,? according to Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor who specializes in computer crime. ?The charges against Swartz were based on a fair reading of the law,? he said in a blog post. ?Once the decision to charge the case had been made, the charges brought here were pretty much what any good federal prosecutor would have charged.? Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz dismissed the case yesterday in a federal court filing, citing Swartz?s death. Hacking Criticism Swartz?s activities, prosecution and suicide have led to mixed feelings among some open-access advocates. His illegal downloading portrays the goals of the movement inaccurately and gives it a bad name, said Peter Suber, director of the Harvard Open Access Project, in a blog post. ?I could not join those who praised his action, and I didn?t want to pile on by repeating a criticism I?d already made public,? Suber said in the post. ?I was sad that this whip- smart, forward-thinking guy took that turn and faced prison. I?m sad now for a much larger reason.? Reif?s announcement of the investigation suggests that the administration is very concerned about the case, Mnookin said. ?Even for those of us who did not know Aaron, the trail of his brief life shines with his brilliant creativity and idealism,? Reif said in the Jan. 13 statement. ?I have asked that this analysis describe the options MIT had and the decisions that MIT made, in order to understand and to learn from the actions MIT took.? The case was U.S. v. Swartz, 11-cr-10260, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston) To contact the reporter on this story: John Lauerman in Boston at jlauerman at bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Lisa Wolfson at lwolfson at bloomberg.net --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 15 17:55:25 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:55:25 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Judge Rules Twitter Images Cannot Be Used Commercially Message-ID: <317CE1A1-879D-48F2-88C3-921279241E2B@infowarrior.org> Judge Rules Twitter Images Cannot Be Used Commercially http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/01/15/2319237/judge-rules-twitter-images-cannot-be-used-commercially "Reuters reports that a Manhattan District Judge has ruled that AFP and the Washington Post infringed a photographer's copyright by re-using photos he posted on his Twitter account. The judge rejected AFP's claim that a Twitter post was equivalent to making the images available for anyone to use (drawing a distinction between allowing users to re-tweet within the social network and the commercial use of content). The judge also ruled against the photographer's request that he be compensated for each person that viewed the photos, ruling instead that damages would be granted once per infringing image only. This last point might have interesting implications in file-sharing cases ? can it set a precedent against massive judgments against peer-to-peer file-sharers?" --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 17 09:12:47 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:12:47 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - US rebuffed in effort to get copies of Canadian Megaupload servers Message-ID: <09764084-173C-49C3-BCAE-AFDFCA359422@infowarrior.org> US rebuffed in effort to get copies of Canadian Megaupload servers United States government will only have limited, court-supervised access. by Timothy B. Lee - Jan 16 2013, 6:50pm EST http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/us-rebuffed-in-effort-to-get-copies-of-canadian-megaupload-servers/ An Ontario judge has refused a US request for unfettered access to the data on Megaupload servers hosted in Canada. The ruling is another sign that overseas courts are not giving US officials the degree of deference they've grown accustomed to in this case under US law. Megaupload once had servers around the world, but they were shut down in a coordinated raid on January 19, 2012. In the United States, the government quickly took possession of servers Megaupload had leased from Carpathia Hosting, copied the data they wanted from the hard drives, and then returned the servers to Carpathia. Carpathia has complained it lost thousands of dollars because it was not able to re-allocate these leased servers to another client. The government wanted similarly unfettered access to the Canadian servers. But Megaupload objected. As Canadian Justice Gladys Pardu described Megaupload's position: "[T]here is an enormous volume of information on the servers... sending mirror image copies of all of this data would be overly broad, particularly in light of the scantiness of the evidence connecting these servers to the crimes alleged by the American prosecutors." Justice Pardu sided with Megaupload, denying the government's request for full copies of the servers, which she described as "equivalent of that contained on 100 laptop computers." Instead, she ordered the United States and Megaupload to negotiate about which information the government should get access to under court supervision. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, Justice Pardu herself will make the decision. There are good reasons to worry about overly broad disclosures of electronically-stored data. When Ohio videographer Kyle Goodwin, who used Megaupload as a backup service, requested the return of files on the servers, the government responded by examining Goodwin's files. It found he had uploaded "music files with MD5 values that matched the hash values of pirated versions of popular music." The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Julie Samuels argued that demonstrates "that if users try to get their property back, the government won't hesitate to comb through it to try to find an argument to use against them." Goodwin had not been suspected of any crime, so there was no reason his files should have been subject to scrutiny. The Canadian procedure is meant to ensure that the government only has access to evidence that's relevant to the Megaupload case. New Zealand courts have also tried to rein in US access to information in the Megaupload case. Last summer, a judge ruled the search warrant used to raid Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom's mansion was invalid. Unfortunately, the US had already taken custody of some of Dotcom's hard drives and transferred them to the United States. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jan 18 06:37:00 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:37:00 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Cable Industry Finally Admits Caps Not About Congestion Message-ID: <80ED7585-6CBA-4D35-B1DE-489C56B44E1C@infowarrior.org> Cable Industry Finally Admits Caps Not About Congestion After Insisting For Years Caps Were About Congestion http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Cable-Industry-Finally-Admits-Caps-Not-About-Congestion-122791 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jan 18 07:18:37 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 08:18:37 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - TSA removing Rapiscan machines from airports Message-ID: <15D422CC-F60B-424C-8FDF-532597C9A44B@infowarrior.org> Naked-Image Scanners to Be Removed From U.S. Airports By Jeff Plungis - Jan 18, 2013 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-01-18/naked-image-scanners-to-be-removed-from-u-s-airports.html The U.S. Transportation Security Administration will remove airport body scanners that privacy advocates likened to strip searches after OSI Systems Inc. (OSIS) couldn?t write software to make passenger images less revealing. TSA will end a $5 million contract with OSI?s Rapiscan unit for the software after Administrator John Pistole concluded the company couldn?t meet a congressional deadline to produce generic passenger images, agency officials said in interviews. The agency removed 76 of the machines from busier U.S. airports last year. It will now get rid of the remaining 174 Rapiscan machines, with the company absorbing the cost, said Karen Shelton Waters, the agency?s assistant administrator for acquisitions. The TSA will instead use 60 machines manufactured by L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. (LLL), the agency?s other supplier of body scanners. ?It became clear to TSA they would be unable to meet our timeline,? Waters said. ?As a result of that, we terminated the contract for the convenience of the government.? The decision to cancel the Rapiscan software contract and remove its scanners wasn?t related to an agency probe of whether the company faked testing data on the software fix, Waters said. In November, Representative Mike Rogers, then chairman of the House Transportation Security subcommittee, wrote in a letter to Pistole that the company ?may have attempted to defraud the government by knowingly manipulating an operational test.? Rogers, a Michigan Republican, said the panel had received a tip about falsified tests. Rapiscan has denied manipulating data or information related to the reviews. Underwear Bomber OSI Systems is ?pleased to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement with the TSA? that will involve moving the machines to other government agencies, Chief Executive Officer Deepak Chopra said in a statement. The company, based in Hawthorne, California, said it expects to report a $2.7 million one-time charge during the quarter that ended Dec. 31. The TSA accelerated its use of advanced scanners in 2010 following the failed Dec. 25, 2009, attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight by igniting explosives in his underwear. L-3 scanning machines rely on millimeter-wave technology, which uses radio frequencies that can find both metallic and non-metallic items. Rapiscan?s machines are based on backscatter technology, which uses low-dose X-ray radiation to detect objects under a passenger?s clothes. Privacy Objections Airline passengers were offended by the revealing images, including those of children and the elderly. The Washington- based Electronic Privacy Information Center sued the agency in July 2010 claiming the scanners violated privacy laws and has called use of the machines equivalent to a ?physically invasive strip search.? Under pressure from privacy advocates and some members of Congress, the TSA moved its screens to separate rooms away from airport security checkpoints. Officials monitoring the scanner images alert agents if they see a possible risk. The agency put out a contract in August 2010 asking L-3 and Rapiscan to develop the software to make images less revealing. L-3 developed its product in 2011, according to John Sanders, the TSA?s assistant administrator for security capabilities. Rapiscan recently indicated to agency officials that it couldn?t deliver its software until 2014, Sanders said. It couldn?t come up with an algorithm that met the agency?s standards for accurately detecting objects without generating false alarms, he said. ?Everybody?s Alarming? ?You can have a high probability of detection but a great deal of alarm,? Sanders said. ?Everybody?s alarming. That doesn?t work from an operational perspective.? TSA has contracted with L-3, Smiths Group Plc (SMIN) and American Science & Engineering Inc. (ASEI) for new body-image scanners, all of which must have privacy software. L-3 and Smiths used millimeter-wave technology. American Science uses backscatter. The agency?s strategy for handling passenger traffic relies on the capability of L-3?s millimeter-wave machines to process passengers in about half the time as Rapiscan machines, Sanders said. TSA will be getting about 60 more L-3 scanners in January and February, he said. TSA is also planning to move some scanners from airports where they?re underutilized to busier airports, Sanders said. The agency plans to expand the PreCheck program, in which passengers share personal data before going to the airport in exchange for less-invasive screening that lets them keep their belts and shoes on. PreCheck passengers go through metal detectors instead of body-image scanners. As PreCheck expands, it will free up millimeter-wave machines to ease crowding, Sanders said. ?Congressional Mandate? Sanders said the Rapiscan units did their job by screening 130 million passengers, and the agency wouldn?t have acted if not for the congressional mandate for privacy software. ?We are not pulling them out because they haven?t been effective, and we are not pulling them out for safety reasons,? Sanders said. ?We?re pulling them out because there?s a congressional mandate.? The TSA is talking to other government agencies with screening needs that might not require the same level of privacy called for in a crowded airport, Sanders said. To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Plungis in Washington at jplungis at bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Bernard Kohn at bkohn2 at bloomberg.net --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jan 18 10:52:13 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:52:13 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - OT: Why Is the Marine Corps Fighting With the Navy Over a Camouflage Pattern? Message-ID: <01AA1259-5EA7-4503-897A-AD59D283AF14@infowarrior.org> Why Is the Marine Corps Fighting With the Navy Over a Camouflage Pattern? By D.B. Grady http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/why-is-the-marine-corps-fighting-with-the-navy-over-a-camouflage-pattern/267232/?google_editors_picks=true Two branches of the U.S. military are locked in a property battle worthy of Google and Apple. Military combat uniforms have two purposes: to camouflage soldiers, and to hold together in rugged conditions. It stands to reason that there's only one "best" pattern, and one best stitching and manufacture. It should follow that when such a uniform is developed, the entire military should transition to it. In 2002, the Marine Corps adopted a digital camouflage pattern called MARPAT. Rigorous field-testing proved that it was more effective than the splotched woodland pattern in use at the time, and the Combat Utility Uniform (of which it was a part) was a striking change for such a conservative institution. Not to be outdone, the Army drew up digital plans of its own, and in 2005 issued a redesigned combat uniform in a "universal camouflage pattern" (UCP). Three years after the Marines made the change, four years after the invasion of Afghanistan, and two years after the invasion of Iraq, you might think the Army would have been loaded with data on how best to camouflage soldiers in known combat zones. You would be wrong. In fact, not only did the Army dismiss the requirements of the operating environments, but it also literally chose the poorest performing pattern of its field tests. The "universal" in UCP refers to jungle, desert, and urban environments. In designing a uniform for wear in every environment, it designed a uniform that was effective in none. As for durability, not long after the Army combat uniform appeared in Iraq, soldiers discovered that the uniform's crotch seams were prone to ripping open on the battlefield. Rather than fix the problem, however, the Army simply shipped more boxes of defective uniforms to supply sergeants. Stitching techniques were revisited the following year, and in 2007, uniforms already in circulation were tailored to compensate for the frustrating and distracting deficiency. As it would turn out, MultiCam -- a pattern that the Army had originally passed over in favor of the universal pattern -- was discovered to work quite well in Afghanistan. The Army began issuing MultiCam combat uniforms to deployed soldiers, but continued (and continues to this day) peddling universal pattern combat uniforms to soldiers stateside -- a combat uniform that will never again be used in combat. Such dysfunction is not unique to the Army. MARPAT was a success not only in function, but also in adding distinction to the Marines wearing it. Naturally the Air Force wanted in on that action, and set about to make its own mark on the camouflage world. It's first choice? A Vietnam-era blue tiger-stripe pattern. (You know, to blend in with the trees on Pandora.) After an outcry in the ranks, the leadership settled on a color scheme slightly more subdued. The new uniform did, however, have the benefit of being "winter weight" only, which was just perfect for service in Iraq. The Marine Corps has remained loyal to the effective MARPAT, and rightfully so. But when the Navy decided to migrate to a digital pattern three years ago, it chose a desert scheme a few shades too close to that of the Marines, and the Corps balked. The Navy has since restricted its digital desert pattern to Special Warfare units. (The Marine Corps has also warned the Army against infringing on its design.) Essentially, the branches of the U.S. military are now engaged in the same intellectual property battle as Google and Apple. To make matters worse, the new Navy Working Uniform has been found to be highly flammable, and "will burn robustly" if exposed to fire. In fact, it turns into a "sticky molten material." Nobody expects the military to make smart financial decisions. While the six-hundred-dollar hammer was a myth, such boondoggles as the F-35 joint strike fighter are very real. And while it is the world's best jet for fighting Transformers or supporting Iron Man, it is the worst for modern, non-computer-generated battlefields. (The Air Force isn't exactly flying a lot of sorties against the Taliban fighter jets.) But everyone should expect and demand that the Defense Department purchase durable combat uniforms printed with the most effective camouflage pattern. Only the galactic stupidity of the Pentagon would allow inferior concealment in the name of public relations and marketing, which is what this uniform arms race amounts to. Each branch wants its members to have a distinct appearance, and there's nothing wrong with that. Such matters should, however, be confined to dress uniforms. As a matter of camouflage in hostile areas, a standard combat uniform across the branches is the only sane option. From a financial perspective, it makes sense as well. Four combat uniforms require distinct accouterments and gear, to say nothing of manufacturing times and transportation overseas. If standards are an issue, I'll offer a baseline: a pattern that blends into the relevant operating environment; stitching that doesn't rip at the crotch; material that doesn't melt onto the skin. And the Pentagon should leave the embarrassing copyright battles to the smartphone industry. I'd like to think the United States military has more pressing things to worry about. This article available online at: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/why-is-the-marine-corps-fighting-with-the-navy-over-a-camouflage-pattern/267232/ Copyright ? 2013 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jan 18 13:43:52 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:43:52 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - One Year Later, SOPA/PIPA Supporters Still Completely Ignore The Public Message-ID: One Year Later, SOPA/PIPA Supporters Still Completely Ignore The Public http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08174321725/one-year-later-sopapipa-supporters-still-completely-ignore-public.shtml --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jan 20 10:55:55 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 11:55:55 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Pink Hello Kitty bubble gun leads to kindergarten suspension. (idiocy) Message-ID: <93B1C9D8-43C1-4E5E-9498-AEB8A8096D49@infowarrior.org> Pennsylvania girl, 5, suspended for threatening to shoot girl with pink toy gun that blows soapy bubbles By Edmund DeMarche Published January 19, 2013 | FoxNews.com http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/19/pennsylvania-girl-5-suspended-for-threatening-to-shoot-girl-with-pink-toy-gun/#ixzz2IR6JNHry A 5-year-old Pennsylvania girl who told another girl she was going to shoot her with a pink Hello Kitty toy gun that blows soapy bubbles has been suspended from kindergarten. Her family has hired an attorney to fight the punishment, which initially was 10 days for issuing a 'terroristic threat.' But her punishment was reduced to two days after her mother met with school officials and had the incident dropped to 'threatening to harm another student,' which apparently carries a lesser punishment. "It's laughable," Robin Ficker, the girl's attorney told FoxNews.com. "This is a girl who had no idea about killing or what happened in Connecticut." He was referring to the recent shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School that claimed 26 lives. Ficker says Mount Carmel Area School District officials said the girl made the threat on Jan. 10 as she waited for a school bus with friends. A school official overheard the remark and searched the girl's backpack and did not find the Hello Kitty gun, he said. The next day, the girls involved were 'interrogated' by school officials, Ficker said. By the time the girl was done speaking to administrators about the incident, she was crying, he said. A teacher called out the girl in front of her class and told her police may get involved, he said. Ficker called the girl "the least terroristic person in Pennsylvania." "What parent that you know would want their 5-year-old questioned about making terroristic threats without them in the room?" Ficker asked. School district solicitor Edward Greco tells pennlive.com officials are looking into the case. He said Friday school officials aren't at liberty to discuss disciplinary actions. Ficker said he has scheduled a meeting with a lawyer from the school board later this month to have the girl?s record expunged. The Associated Press contributed to this report Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/19/pennsylvania-girl-5-suspended-for-threatening-to-shoot-girl-with-pink-toy-gun/print#ixzz2IXGoTsxM --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jan 20 10:56:43 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 11:56:43 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Wharton: time to crack down on high frequency trading? References: Message-ID: c/o DOD (no, not that one. ---rick) Begin forwarded message: > http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3170 > > High-speed Trading: Is It Time to Apply the Brakes? > Published: January 16, 2013 in Knowledge at Wharton > > How fast is high-frequency stock trading? In the time it takes to read this > sentence, tens of thousands of high-speed, computer-automated transactions > can occur. Winning traders edge out rivals by intervals measured in > nanoseconds. Fans of the practice say that high-frequency traders add > crucial liquidity to the stock market. Critics dispute that claim and > highlight, instead, lurking perils for the global financial system. > > High-frequency traders "can execute trades more quickly at better prices, > but many investors worry that this has introduced additional fragility to > the system," says Wharton finance professor Pavel Savor. "It's also possible > that high-frequency traders earn their profits at the expense of long-term > investors." > > A series of costly glitches has added fuel to the arguments of those who > oppose the practice, in addition to inviting renewed scrutiny by regulators. > Last August, for example, faulty software used by high-frequency trading > firm Knight Capital Group generated $461 million in losses, nearly causing > the firm to collapse. Shortly afterward, Knight was sold to Getco Holding, > another high-frequency firm, for $1.4 billion. The high price Getco paid for > Knight sheds light on the value of high-frequency trading outfits, even > those in difficulty. The stakes are high: For instance, Tactical Fund -- the > high-frequency trading unit of investment firm Citadel -- recorded a 25.7% > net return in 2012, The New York Times reported. > > Despite the controversy surrounding it, high-speed trading now dominates the > mainstream with enormous sums at stake. Indeed, high-frequency trades > account for the vast majority of volume on major stock exchanges. On NASDAQ > alone, daily trading volume approached $50 billion in early January. Three > other leading exchanges -- NYSE/Euronext, BATS and Direct Edge -- as well as > "dark pools" run by banks and private equity firms outside public view trade > millions more shares every day. The flood of high-frequency bids tests > markets in search of price points. When not filled, the bids are cancelled > instantly, adding market noise for everybody else. > > The speediest traders exploit momentary "latency" gaps between nearly > instantaneous access to market orders and when those orders become widely > known. In those minute gaps, high-speed traders post orders for stock in > front of other inbound orders. Hundredths of a second decide outcomes. In > fact, shortening the lengths of fiber optic cables that carry orders at the > speed of light can make the difference between grasping market opportunities > -- or missing them. > > Humans cannot possibly trade at this pace; instead, the trades are > accomplished by computer algorithms geared to split-second investment > decisions. As one visible sign of the rapid and thorough takeover by > computers, traders buying and selling shares on the fabled floor of the New > York Stock Exchange numbered 3,000 in 2007. According to the New York Post, > today their population has dwindled to 300, with many serving as caretakers > to their digital heirs. Some observers predict extinction for floor traders > once antitrust officials approve the pending union between the NYSE and the > highly automated, Atlanta-based Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), which was > launched in 2000. > > High-frequency traders collect more than capital gains on trades. Successful > bids increase market liquidity that attracts listed companies and investors > to exchanges. To incentivize bidders, exchanges pay rebates on successful > bids. In this "maker-taker" arrangement, high-frequency traderscan buy and > sell a share of stock at the same price and still make profits by snaring > rebates designed to lure traditional investors. Once shares move in less > than the blink of an eye, high-frequency traders sell them to investors > lined up to buy. > > "Clearly, high-frequency trading has enhanced liquidity," says Savor. While > rigorous academic research on the practice is still in early stages, most > studies suggest high-speed trading helps investors trade more quickly and at > lower cost. However, visible benefits, Savor notes, do not rule out a > paradox. It appears that high-frequency traders who enhance liquidity at > times may, in fact, hurt liquidity when markets shudder and the traders > instantaneously pull back. Legions of resilient 20th Century floor traders > once stood their ground in up and down markets alike, usually to their > economic benefit. Skittish high-frequency traders in duress simply unplug > their computers. > > Algorithms Gone Wild > > Sometimes, however, they don't unplug them soon enough -- as Knight Capital > illustrated when its algorithms began issuing orders at a relentless pace > that no one could stop until its computers were shut down. Fears about > potential catastrophes brought on by computer-generated errors were > reinforced again earlier this month, when BATS Global Markets, the > fourth-largest exchange in the U.S., admitted that a glitch in its system > triggered 440,000 transactions since 2008 at prices lower than the national > best bid and offer (NBBO). Despite the fact that investors lost money, BATS > insisted that the mispriced transactions represented an infinitesimal > fraction of total BATS trading volume. > > Other events also have cast doubt on the reliability of high-frequency > trading, starting with the 1987 stock market crash when computer-driven > trading -- then only in its infancy by today's standards -- caused record > losses. More recently, the May 6, 2010, "Flash Crash" made high-frequency > trading a headline -- and a renewed target for critics and regulators. The > market that day skidded 1,000 points and recovered in a matter of minutes, a > fluctuation largely blamed on jumpy computer algorithms. > > "The story of the Flash Crash is that the market failed that day," write > stockbrokers Joe Saluzzi and Sal Arnuk in their book, Broken Markets. > High-frequency trading "was exposed as a conflicted and rigged game in which > only the connected insiders stood a chance.... When one participant accounts > for so much volume and has eclipsed so many other participants, and its > trading styles and horizons prevail, the ecosystem is in disequilibrium. One > of its more predatory species, such as a shark, has become overwhelmingly > dominant. And it is unsustainable." > > Market participants who think that high-frequency trading keeps markets > liquid at all times labor under a dangerous misconception, the authors > argue. "The slightest hiccup and our new [high-frequency trading] market > makers go running for cover," Arnuk and Saluzzi note. "They are not there to > profit from the smooth flow of capital. They are there to profit by taking > advantage of retail and institutional investors and by scalping wealth from > IRAs, 401ks, and government and corporate pension funds." > > In calmer times, the authors add, high-frequency trading firms hold an > insurmountable edge: They can see the future. "They know what the quote of > any given stock will be microseconds before those looking at the SIP [the > system that disseminates quotes to the public]." No wonder firms with deep > pockets pay dearly to locate their servers as close to exchanges as > possible. > > So far, Arnuk notes, investors have been spared the worst effects of > distortions that stem from high-frequency trading. But what if algorithms > run amok when the marketplace is especially fragile -- say, when a European > government defaults? > > Others say there may be no reversing course. "Technology is here to stay," > Lawrence Leibowitz, NYSE/Euronext chief operating officer, told a Yahoo > interviewer. "The real question is, how do we regulate it and [monitor] it > in a way that gives people the confidence that it is fair and that they have > a chance?" > > Applying the Brakes > > Proposals abound for regulating high-frequency trades. According to Wharton > finance professor and trading desk veteran Krista Schwarz, all aim at > applying the brakes: requiring high-frequency traders to honor bids for a > half a second before withdrawing them; imposing fees when ratios of bids > transacted exceed a ratio of bids withdrawn; introducing order cancellation > fees; limiting the number of orders per second; levying taxes for intraday > transactions; imposing size limits; or expanding use of circuit breakers > similar to those that NYSE/Euronext has introduced. > > New rules could erase speed differentials between distribution of orders to > public and private data feeds. Others might eliminate "phantom indexes" that > represent only a quarter of trades that occur on exchanges. Comprehensive > real-time identification would fetch trading data from exchanges and dark > pools. And some critics have prioritized putting an end to the "maker-taker" > model that rewards high-frequency trades with rebates. > > "What you are looking for is to prevent the most extreme case scenario, a > black swan," says Schwarz. "If you don't let prices move beyond certain > points or percentages in certain periods of time, it at least slows things > down and gives the market a chance to reassess." Unfairness to traders who > can't compete with high-frequency counterparts is one issue; risk to the > financial system quite another, many analysts contend. > > Some argue that calls for regulation ignore the fact that markets have never > been level playing fields. Professionals have always enjoyed advantages, and > some professionals more so than others. One former NYSE specialist who spent > decades on the stock exchange floor and has no stake today in high-frequency > trading says that he wouldn't turn the clock back. He recalls the open > outcry auctions in his day, when floor specialists had a timing and > information advantage over practically everyone else. "There is a desire by > investors to slow the process down again to make it fairer. But the real > question is, fairer to whom? The slow-witted and the lazy? People who prefer > rotary phones?" > > "Over and above clamping down on market manipulation, regulating > high-frequency trading is misguided," says Larry Tabb, CEO of the Tabb > Group, a research and advisory firm focused on capital markets. "The problem > is the speed of light. People who are [physically] closer to the markets > will always have a speed-of-light advantage"because their data has less > distance to travel. > > High-frequency trading might appear to pose threats on the horizon, notes > Tabb, but hasty regulation is all but certain to trigger unintended > consequences. "It could totally destroy the market," he says. If rules lock > a high-frequency investor into a bid of $102 for even half a second when the > market value is $101, other investors could swoop in at $101 and make a > dollar a share on the incorrect price. This will create incentives not to > quote or provide liquidity, making it harder and much more expensive to > invest. > > And while the specter of systemic risk looms large in many arguments against > high-frequency trading, those in favor of the practice note that although > Knight Capital blew up and the Flash Crash shook confidence, the market > still rebounded on its own. It is easy to overestimate the true influence of > high-frequency traders, says Savor. "They account for a lot of trading > volume, but some of it is just trading with each other. That's a lot of > churn, but I'm not sure it impacts markets dramatically." > > If any reform is to come from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission > (CFTC), which shares with the SEC regulatory oversight of high-frequency > trading, expect to wait. CFTC commissioner Scott D. O'Malia, who heads the > regulator's technology task force, says action hinges on defining > high-frequency trading itself. Does it mean all automated trading, trading > subject to a certain threshold or some other measure? "There is currently no > consensus among market participants as to the definition of high-frequency > trading," O'Malia said in May 2012. > > While the debate simmers, high-frequency traders are enlisting influential > allies in Washington. Republican members of Congress Jeb Hensarling of Texas > and Spencer Bachus of Alabama are advocating a slow approach to any > regulatory initiatives. In letters to the SEC and the House Financial > Services Committee, both congressmen warned not to "shoot the computers > first and ask questions later." > > --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jan 20 10:57:23 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 11:57:23 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fwd: USAF cyber hiring binge References: Message-ID: <00059AF2-EC08-4035-ACBE-CB9E5141CBB0@infowarrior.org> c/o DOD (no, not that one. ---rick) Begin forwarded message: > http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996 > cd7%2Dcbb4%2D4018%2Dbaf8%2D8825eada7aa2&ID=1026 > > > 1/17/2013 > Air Force Cyber-Operations Wing to Go on Hiring Binge > By Stew Magnuson > > In a time of hiring freezes and great budget uncertainty, the Air Force > plans to hire more than 1,000 personnel at its wing devoted to > cyber-operations. > > The 24th Air Force, located at Lackland Air Force Base, in San Antonio, > Texas, will ?hopefully? add ?well over? 1,000 mostly civilian new hires over > the span of two years beginning in 2014, Gen. William Shelton, Air Force > Space Command commander told reporters in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 17. > > The mostly civilian new hires will be added to the approximately 6,000 > already serving there, Shelton said. The ?hopefully? part of the equation > has to do with current civilian hiring freezes that the military services > are currently imposing because of the possibility of sequestration and the > continuing budget resolution for fiscal year 2013. Shelton, however, is > optimistic that these will all be in the past by next fiscal year. > > He expects the office of the secretary of defense to order Space Command to > add the new hires in its 2014 directions, Shelton said. The request to boost > the number of personnel assigned there, however, originates at U.S. Cyber > Command. The 24th Air Force is the service?s component that answers to the > Cyber Command located at Fort Meade, Md. > > ?If it turns out the way we think it?s going to turn out, we think it will > be on the order of 70 to 80 percent civilian,? hires, he said. They will be > involved in all aspects of the 24th Air Force?s cybermission: defend, > operate, exploit and attack, he said. > > Cyberspace is a double-edge sword, he said. The U.S. military endures > millions of probes against its networks every day. Most ? close to 100 > percent, he asserted ? are not successful. But the Air Force is also using > the Internet to do its own intelligence gathering. > > ?It is not a whole substitute ? but certainly darn near a substitute ? for > human intelligence activity. There are things you can get to from a computer > network ? that in the past would have been very hard to collect,? he said. > This is done through the authorities of the National Security Agency, but > with the services participating, he said. > > ?Attack is [a capability] that we have developed, and certainly at the > direction of the national command authority, we have the capabilities there > and ready,? he said. As for the type of cyberweapons used, he only said, > ?Let your mind wander.? > > On the space side, the command is struggling to determine how to maintain > its critical functions in a time of ?tremendous? uncertainties, Shelton > said. The main uncertainty is the budget. The continuing resolution means > there are no new program starts this calendar year, and it makes planning > for 2014 all the more difficult. It is also unclear how many troops the > command will need to serve in Afghanistan beyond next year. > > ?This is the worst I have seen in it in 36 and half years,? he said of the > budget battles. ?It is irritating.? > > The capabilities Space Command provides are critical, he said. They underpin > the forces and enable them to fight the way they fight today, he said. > Communications, GPS and remote sensing satellite fleets need to be protected > from the budget ax, or they can?t carry out their missions effectively, he > said. The command can?t just cut one spacecraft out of the budget and expect > to have global coverage. > > ?The challenge is to protect that level of service, if you will, with a > budget that is coming down,? he said. > > The Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., > which provides command and control for all the space missions, is ?way > overdue? for modernization, he said. There is a space surveillance mainframe > computer there that hasn?t had a software upgrade since 1994, he added. > > Space Command is conducting a series of studies to determine how it can > achieve its mission under the new budget paradigms. There are plans to put > some of its payloads aboard commercial or civilian spacecraft. Known as > hosted payloads, the command plans to release a contract that will help make > this procedure easier by the end of the calendar year. > > Satellites may also be smaller. GPS satellites, for example, now currently > carry nuclear detonation sensor payloads. The command wants to launch a > stripped down, navigation-only spacecraft that will boost the system?s > capabilities, particularly in so-called urban canyons where signals aren?t > as robust. > > How Space Command achieves its missions will be ?fundamentally different,? > in the future, he said. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jan 20 11:22:01 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:22:01 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Mega-Launch=3A_a_fake_FBI_raid?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_dancing_girls=97oh=2C_and_human_rights!?= Message-ID: Mega-Launch: a fake FBI raid, dancing girls?oh, and human rights! Kim Dotcom launches his super-private cloud storage?with a wild display. by Joe Mullin - Jan 20 2013, 6:23am EST http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/mega-launch-a-fake-fbi-raid-dancing-girls-oh-and-human-rights/ Kim Dotcom may see himself as being at war with Hollywood, but the man has quite a sense of theatrics himself. The show he put on for the world tonight at his mansion outside Auckland was audacious and loud, featuring a Maori-themed musical performance by Tiki Taane, a raid re-enactment complete with helicopters marked "FBI," and dancing girls clad in military-style dress (but with miniskirts). That's how Dotcom announced his new service, Mega, to the world. The service kicked off less than 24 hours ago, one year?to the minute?after Dotcom's house was raided and his old file-sharing service, Megaupload, was shut down. "Sometimes good things come out of terrible events," Kim told the gathered audience of a few hundred people. "If it wasnt for a giant comet hitting the Earth, we would still be surrounded by angry dinosaurs?hungry, too!" Kim smiled. "And if it wasn't for the raid, we wouldn't have Mega." He recapped how his company was seized, lamenting how it was shut down without the opportunity to make an argument to a judge. "Communication was taken offline, and free speech was attacked!" Dotcom said, in a staccato light German accent. But the seizures have opened a new public debate, he said. "The Internet belongs to no man, or industry, or government!" he said, to applause. "No matter how many politicians you lobby, no matter how many SOPAs you put together in Congress, you will not succeed in efforts to take control of our Internet!" Having never watched Dotcom actually speak before, I was impressed by the event. Mixing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with a techno soundtrack, all in the service of "Internet freedom"?it's quite a trick, and it takes a special kind of guy to pull it off. Encryption as "refuge from the eye of the community" So why is Mega going to be the "privacy company?" Because that's the value at great risk in the internet age, says Dotcom. "Privacy is a basic human right, but it has become increasingly difficult to communicate privately," said Dotcom. "More and more companies are collecting data about you and your behavior. ISPs are inspecting the data you transfer, on behalf of the content industry. Hosting companies sell their decommissioned services and hard drives with your data still on it... the US government is investing billions into massive spy clouds." Privacy isn't just a personal or selfish interest?it's a value vital to keeping power in check, he argued. "It's about the human need for refuge from the eye of the community. Privacy maintains balance between the individual and the state." At that point, perhaps Dotcom believed the audience needed a little reminder about the power of the "state." Because at this point in his talk, helicopters marked with "FBI" on the sides flew over the gathering. A voice boomed over a loudspeaker: "This is a crime scene and an illegal gathering!" Dotcom was quickly surrounded by his "guards," six women in sexy military-style miniskirts, while trucks rolled up to the audience. "Stop this madness!" shouted Dotcom. "Let's all be friends." And then?you knew it was coming?the whole thing turned into a dance number. "Now everybody jump, jump jump?and pump your first like this," shouted the MC. Then everything settled down into a sort of straightforward corporate Q&A session. The team behind Mega was introduced. First, CTO Mathias Ortmann, chief marketing officer Finn Batato, and Bram van der Kolk?all arrested during the raid last year?were trotted up onstage. Next came Tony Lentino, the new CEO of Mega, who is also a major investor who has helped Dotcom through tough times?paying the rent on his house, for example, when he was in prison. Dotcom describes how he'll stretch out the "long white cloud" First question from the press: Will Mega be a "Dropbox killer?" "I think there can be hundreds of competitors [in cloud storage], and they can all do well," said Dotcom. "Some people won't want encryption, and don't care about it. I don't want to see myself as a killer of anything. Ultimately we hope to list our company at the New Zealand stock exchange." What are the consequences for New Zealand? "We are going to hire back all Megaupload employees who want to come back, and in addition will hire staff in New Zealand. We are a New Zealand company, New Zealand has been good to us. They saw there is something fishy about this whole case, and we want to give back. Over the coming years, we will hopefully create a few hundred jobs." What about copyright infringement? Same answer as before. "We take things down!" said Dotcom. "We take things down. We did that with Megaupload, and went even further [by offering copyright owners direct access to the site]." "There's a very robust DMCA takedown process on Mega," chimed in Ira Rothken, Dotcom's main US-based lawyer. "There's an automated form, as well as an email process. It meets or exceeds the industry standard for takedowns." At the end of the questions, Mega's relationship to New Zealand, the host country it looks like he may be bound to for some time, came up again. "This government was too easily convinced of this case [against Megaupload]," said Dotcom in answer to an early question. "I'm not a criminal and I've done nothing wrong. I would like to be an integral part of the New Zealand community. The Maori call New Zealand the 'long white cloud'?I've just made it a little bit longer." And with that, the questions were over?and the bar was open. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jan 20 21:14:08 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:14:08 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Religious_Wars_And_Today=92s_Cop?= =?windows-1252?q?yright_Monopoly_Wars_Have_More_In_Common_Than_You_Think?= Message-ID: <9C061E7F-7E24-438E-9AF4-ACBD595B095C@infowarrior.org> The 16th Century Religious Wars And Today?s Copyright Monopoly Wars Have More In Common Than You Think ? Rick Falkvinge ? January 20, 2013 http://torrentfreak.com/the-16th-century-religious-wars-and-todays-copyright-monopoly-wars-have-more-in-common-than-you-think-130120/ People in power have always tried to prevent the common folk from obtaining knowledge that threatens their power. This happened in the 16th century, and it is happening now. Information advantage has always equaled power. The group in society that can control what the other groups know and don?t know will rise to power in every other aspect. Therefore, information technology has always been policed and even militarized to some extent, by any group that obtains the ability to control it. It has been the case since the dawn of civilization that some group has told everybody else what the world looks like, how it works, and what happens in it. (Usually, that group is placed at the center of that particular world view in one way or another.) This continues today, with governments all over the world trying to put their spin of events on the newsflow, putting themselves in a good light to literally get away with murder. The quest for the net?s liberty is not a fight for some silly right to download free music. It is much larger than that: it breaks a hegemony that has stood for millennia. This is why the old guard is terrified of the Internet. It?s not that you can copy and spread their propaganda without asking ? heck, that?s what they want, and have always wanted. What they fear is that you can fact-check it and publish your findings without asking anybody?s permission. Or worse still, you can start communicating your own view of the world, rather than relating everything you think to their image of the world. All of this has happened before. When the printing press was invented, it wasn?t a revolutionary invention as such ? it was a revolutionary combination of four other inventions: metal movable type, block pressing, oil-based inks, and cheap cloth-based paper. It revolutionized society by its ability to distribute information cheaply, quickly, and accurately. At its invention, Gutenberg pictured the Catholic Church using the printing press to distribute its bibles better and faster, being able to get a more consistent interpretation of Christianity out to the smallest village. But that?s not quite what happened. Rather, a new movement emerged, one that was much better at using the new technology, and which used its superior ability to distribute information in getting the upper hand over the Catholic Church. It was called Protestantism and it differed from Catholicism in one crucial aspect: It printed bibles in people?s own languages. The power to interpret the bible from Latin had been shattered, ruined, destroyed ? and with it, a large amount of the power of the Catholic Church. They tried every trick in the book to put the cat back in the bag and sabotage this technology ? up to and including the death penalty, which was instituted in France on January 13, 1535, against the crime of using a printing press at all. It didn?t work. The cat was indeed out of the bag. People could publish and distribute their own ideas. The hegemony fell, but not without some 200 years of horrible wars. On the surface, they were about minute details of Christianity ? about how you should go about worshipping a particular god. Looking closer at the situation, a bloody war between Catholicism and Protestantism seems odd and puzzling. They are two branches of the same religion that worship the same god, using the same instruction manual. Only the language of the instruction manual differs ? one branch has it in local languages, the other branch has its instruction manual in Latin. Why was this worth 200 years of warfare across the entire known world at the time? The differences are indeed superficial, but the consequences of those differences are not. In one branch, it means that those who know Latin ? the clergy and academics ? get the ability to tell everybody else what to do, and it was ruled in a strict religious top-down hierarchy. In the other branch, that power of interpreting the instruction manual (the bible) rested with the people themselves. The religious wars were never about religion as such. They were about who held the power of interpretation, about who controlled the knowledge and culture available to the masses. It was a war of gatekeepers of information. Does this narrative feel familiar? Interestingly, one of the methods used by the people on the Catholic side of the fight was to suppress dissent by censoring the printing press. While criminal and harsh penalties didn?t work, commercial incentives to kill freedom of speech worked flawlessly. Mary I of England gave a printing monopoly to London?s printing guild, the London Company of Stationers, on May 4, 1557. This monopoly gave them exclusive rights to printing in all of England, in exchange for allowing the Queen?s censors to prevent any threatening ideas from seeing the light of day. This monopoly was very beneficial for the new gatekeepers ? the printers ? and the ruling class alike, with every member of the public losing their freedom of information from it. But how would those members of the public know what ideas were never before their eyes, and understand their impact to society? This monopoly stands to this day. It was the copyright monopoly that started like this. Yes, that means that you can view today?s copyright monopoly wars as a logical continuation of the 16th century religious wars. There is nothing new under the sun. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 21 12:52:37 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:52:37 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Eric Schmidt's daughter frank write-up of their DPRK trip Message-ID: Teenage Daughter of Google Chief Spills The True Story on North Korea Visit: Puts to Shame Free Press, Dad, and U.S. Government < - > "Ms Schmidt did a stellar job in representing her country and the new information age, not to mention teenagers everywhere. And she put to shame the head of the world?s most powerful technology entity, represented by her dad, the U.S. government politicians, represented by Bill Richardson, and the Free Press, represented by the Associated Press, all of whom didn?t have the sense, integrity, and honesty to just cut to the chase and get to the nut of the matter. If their was a combination Pulitzer prize for citizen journalists, Sophie Schmidt has my nomination." Lots more @ http://natethayer.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/teenage-daughter-of-google-chief-spills-the-true-story-on-north-korea-visit-puts-to-shame-free-press-dad-and-u-s-government/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 21 12:53:09 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:53:09 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fwd: Youth expelled from Montreal college after finding "sloppy coding" that compromised security of 250, 000 students personal data References: <20130121152245.GA30464@gsp.org> Message-ID: <95186AFA-4218-4D2C-A89E-96D2E93E294F@infowarrior.org> Begin forwarded message: > From: Rich Kulawiec > (h/t to Nadim Kobeissi) > > Youth expelled from Montreal college after finding "sloppy coding" that compromised security of 250,000 students personal data > http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/20/youth-expelled-from-montreal-college-after-finding-sloppy-coding-that-compromised-security-of-250000-students-personal-data/ > > Same old story, complete with the customary vacuous denial-by-assertion: > > "We acted immediately to fix the problem, and were able to do > so before anyone could use it to access private information." From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 22 07:46:58 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 08:46:58 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Why_can=92t_Washington_craft_bet?= =?windows-1252?q?ter_Internet_laws=3F?= Message-ID: <1856E381-8975-46D3-9EC7-92B1E134AA3F@infowarrior.org> State of the Web: Why can?t Washington craft better Internet laws? January 22, 2013 By Andrew Couts http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/state-of-the-web-internet-laws/ The death of Aaron Swartz has sparked a new call to amend and create Internet laws worthy of our digital era. But is such a thing even possible with the same bureaucratic machinations we?ve used for 237 years? The tragic suicide of programmer and activist Aaron Swartz, who was charged with multiple computer crime felonies prior to his death, has reignited calls for Washington to craft better Internet-related legislation. Many laws on the books are seen as outdated, misaligned with reality, and just plain crazy. There has to be a better way, or so the theory goes. But what if there isn?t? What if the lawmaking process, by its very nature, cannot handle the fast-paced world of the Internet and the cultural shifts that go along with it? What then? The time problem The first hurdle to better Internet legislation is a basic one: Time. While it is technically possible for Congress to pass a bill in about an hour, as it did in 1941 when the U.S. declared war on Japan, most bills linger for far longer periods ? think months or years, not weeks. And given the complex nature of Internet-related legislation, such bills generally fall into the latter camp. Cybersecurity legislation, for example, has been on and off Congress?s agenda for years, despite increasingly pressing concerns over allegedly impending cyber attacks. Efforts to revamp the outdated Electronic Communications Privacy Act so that law enforcement may not intrude upon our emails and instant messages without a warrant have failed two years in a row. Add to the mix our hilariously dysfunctional Congress, Members of which are now terrified of pissing off the Internet community thanks to SOPA, and you have a recipe for massive delay or outright deadlock. There are many reasons inaction in Congress is bad for America. But this problem is exponentially worse with regard to Internet-related legislation because what the Internet is, and what we do with it, changes too rapidly for the sluggish process of lawmaking to properly address the problems that arise. Our laws were unable to foresee the rise of Facebook, smartphones, data brokers, or hacktivists like Aaron Swartz, and the legal complications that go with them. What reason do we have to believe that the laws we write in 2013 will not crumble under the innovations and cultural shifts that occur in the next 10 years? Broad vs. narrow One way to alleviate the problem of time is to write legislation that is broad enough to remain applicable even if the underlying technology or habits change. But as we?ve seen with bills like SOPA and the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, broad language causes problems of its own; it often makes activities that should be perfectly legal illegal, or gives the government too much power over our digital lives than it should have. The same broadness can occur when we amend current laws. Case in point: the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which was the basis for 11 of the 13 felonies burdened by Aaron Swartz, has been amended so many times that it is now a nearly indiscernible mess that makes it possible to prosecute things like Terms of Service violations as federal crimes. Some legal scholars even argue that the CFAA should be ?void for vagueness,? a doctrine derived from the U.S. Constitution that says laws must be clear enough that the average person can discern what they mean. Technical understanding The next mountain that legislators must climb when dealing with Internet-related legislation is learning how the Internet actually works, on a technical level. Much of the uproar over SOPA revolved around how it would ?break the Internet? through the implementation of DNS filtering ? something 83 of the people responsible for creating the Internet, as well as former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Stewart Baker, said could happen if SOPA went into effect. On top of the technical confusion is the problem that there are some who believe that offline rules should apply to the online world, unaltered. This is most apparent in debates over copyright infringement and the nature of file sharing on the Web: One side says illegal file sharing is the same as stealing, the other side says it?s more like giving a copy to a friend. As TechDirt?s Mike Masnic put it: ?If we?re going to address issues involving the Internet, it?s going to take actually understanding the Internet, rather than trying to apply misleading analogies that don?t actually represent the situation. The Internet is different. That doesn?t mean it is (or should be) lawless. But if there are going to be appropriate laws, they need to recognize the realities of the technology, not pretend that the internet is just like the physical world? but in pixels.? In other words, lawmakers must tackle both the complicated technical matters inherent in the Internet, as well as the amorphous differences between life online and off, before a piece of legislation can be considered ?good? by those who do grasp those issues. As smart as many in Congress are, finding this balance seems to me a Everest-like order. What freedom looks like In addition to disagreement and misunderstanding between Member of Congress, the giant leap to Internet legislation glory depends on the activists themselves agreeing on what the Internet should be. But that is not even close to happening. Both factions of ?open Internet? activists believe that government intrusion is a bad thing. What they don?t agree on is which parties matter more for the Internet to exist and thrive. On one side is the consumer protection crowd, which believes legislation should protect Internet users from both overreaching government and greedy corporations. On the other, the libertarian faction, which demands that no laws encroach on Internet companies abilities to do whatever they want. Given that lawmakers will be looking for guidance from both of these crews, and countless other organizations and companies, for how to craft proper legislation, I cannot see how much progress can be made. A glimmer of hope Of all the Internet-related laws I?ve come across, the one that stands out as a beacon of hope is the Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from getting hit with lawsuits or criminal charges for the acts of users. CDA is what allows Facebook to not get sued into oblivion for liable. It?s what keeps YouTube from dying a long death in a court room. It is, in other words, a key reason the Web we all know and love exists in its current form. But even the CDA was not perfect ? much of the law was struck down by the Supreme Court due to restrictions it placed on free speech. Out of the rubble, however, emerged a good law. And that makes me feel like progress can be made. What will likely come in the months and years that follow is the same as what came before it: Piles of bills, both good and bad, and fights over whether those bills should become law. That?s the nature of our democracy, after all: slow, tenuous, and tedious. My only fear is that the addition of overzealousness, arrogance, stubbornness, and ignorance will bring us back to where we are today, for all time. Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/state-of-the-web-internet-laws/#ixzz2IiCShPMt Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jan 23 16:06:02 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:06:02 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DOD to lift ban on women in combat arms Message-ID: <67117362-5610-465D-98E7-6BE53DF1E389@infowarrior.org> Panetta to lift ban on women in combat Published January 23, 2013 FoxNews.com http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/ Women in all branches of the military soon will have unprecedented opportunities to serve on the front lines of the nation's wars. Leon Panetta, in one of his last acts as President Obama's defense secretary, is preparing to announce the policy change, which would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war, the Pentagon confirmed Wednesday. The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women. "This policy change will initiate a process whereby the services will develop plans to implement this decision, which was made by the secretary of defense upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," a senior defense official told reporters on condition of anonymity. Some front-line military roles may open to women as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer. A defense official told the Associated Press that the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15. The announcement on Panetta's decision is not expected until Thursday, so the official spoke on condition of anonymity. Panetta's move expands the Pentagon's action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women. In recent years the necessities of war propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached -- but not formally assigned -- to units on the front lines. Women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel. Panetta is preparing to step down as Obama begins his second term, with former Sen. Charles Hagel nominated to take Panetta's place. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/#ixzz2Iq4XRxAq --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jan 23 16:18:03 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:18:03 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?PBS_Tonight=3A__=91Nova=3A_Rise_?= =?windows-1252?q?of_the_Drones=27?= Message-ID: January 22, 2013 Television Review | ?Nova: Rise of the Drones' Questioning Its Marvels and Morals By MIKE HALE http://tv.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/arts/television/nova-rise-of-the-drones-on-pbs.html Welcoming President Obama to his second term, PBS has scheduled ?Rise of the Drones,? an examination of one of the more controversial items on his agenda, as Wednesday night?s installment of ?Nova.? Though the program?s focus is technology rather than politics or military ethics, and it has the peppy, isn?t-science-great tone typical of ?Nova,? it doesn?t ignore the debate surrounding America?s extensive use of remotely piloted aircraft to launch covert missile attacks on targets in Pakistan and other countries. Experts in military design and tactics point out that no one really knows how many civilians are being killed by the strikes and that the bloodless nature of the drone allows the United States to carry out a major air war without calling it a war. But rather than dwelling on such questions, ?Rise of the Drones? quickly moves on to its next gee-whiz moment. If the problem is that the drones? pilots can make mistakes because they have too narrow a field of view, check out the new Argus camera: 1.8 billion pixels, able to show an entire small city while simultaneously zooming in on up to 65 individual spots and picking out objects as small as six inches long. The program is full of things like the Argus that are sufficiently amazing or at least intriguing to distract you momentarily from the larger moral questions. (It is pointed out that unmanned planes are used primarily for surveillance, and we?re told that the Air Force already has the ability to archive all of the video being fed to it by its thousands of drones: Big Brother with wings.) We?re given a history of the process of taking pilots out of the cockpit equation, beginning in World War II, and introduced to Abe Karem, an engineer who, in too-good-to-be-true fashion, designed and built the predecessors of today?s Predator drones in his garage. Working in the early 1980s with a few thousand dollars borrowed from his family, he never imagined, he says, that his unmanned aircraft would someday be armed. He probably didn?t imagine how they would be controlled, either, and one of the most interesting places the program takes us is inside a room where actual Predator drones are piloted. Unlike the sleek or at least commodious chambers depicted in spy thrillers, it?s a storage container in the New Mexico desert where a pilot and a spotter squeeze, space-module style, into chairs facing intimidating banks of computer monitors stacked three high, like stock traders or extremely spoiled video game players. ?Rise of the Drones? argues, convincingly, that the move to remotely piloted aircraft is inevitable and accelerating ? the Air Force is training more drone pilots than cockpit pilots. Glimpses of the automated future include a look at the X-47B, a full-size, unmanned jet that is already flying and could soon be able to land and take off on aircraft carriers (?Battlestar Galactica? fans will be reminded of Cylon Raiders), and fascinating scenes of small helicopter drones that can fly in formation or find their way through buildings, exhibiting a pilotlike intelligence. There is a possibly paranoid science-fiction element to this, reflected in the program?s title ? a heavy-handed reference to the third ?Terminator? movie, ?Rise of the Machines.? But not to worry, one of the show?s experts tells us: ?We should be so lucky? as to develop aircraft with an ability to think. Viewers may not be quite so sanguine or think that they?re lucky to have an item like the Switchblade, a long-range, remotely guided missile that fits in a small backpack. ?It?s a tool our customers are very excited about,? says a spokesman for AeroVironment, the California company that produces it. Apparently luck, in this case, means not being on the bad side of those customers. Nova Rise of the Drones On PBS stations on Wednesday night (check local listings). Produced by Pangloss Films LLC for Nova/WGBH. Written, directed and produced by Peter Yost; Paula S. Apsell, senior executive producer for Nova. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jan 23 18:48:33 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:48:33 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - NFL's IP zealots are at it again.... Message-ID: The man who trademarked ?Harbowl? a year ago, until NFL lawyers pressured him to abandon it January 23, 2013 | 5:00 pm | Modified: January 23, 2013 at 5:10 pm Timothy P. Carney http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-man-who-trademarked-harbowl-a-year-ago-until-nfl-lawyers-pressured-him-to-abandon-it/article/2519528#.UQCEUOim6vR A year ago, as the Baltimore Ravens under coach John Harbaugh and San Francisco 49ers under coach Jim Harbaugh advanced through the NFL playoffs, there was talk of a potential brother-vs-brother Super Bowl ? a ?Harbowl,? as some sportswriters had begun calling it. Roy Fox of Pendleton, Indiana, is an ordinary football fan who had an idea: make T-shirts and hats with the word ?Harbowl? on them, and sell them for some extra cash in case these brothers did ever meet up in a future Super Bowl. Mr. Fox remembered how Lakers Coach Pat Riley famously made money by trademarking the term ?Three-Peat,? Fox told me this week, and so he decided to trademark ?Harbowl? and ?Harbaughbowl.? So, is Mr. Fox expecting a payday this month, as the Harbowl becomes reality? Nope. NFL lawyers, threatening costly legal battles, pressured Mr. Fox to abandon his copyright. And under threat of costly court costs, Mr. Fox gave up the trademark early this season. Here?s the story as told by Mr. Fox, federal trademark filings, and emails Mr. Fox forwarded to me: Mr. Fox, figuring last year that the Harbowl might happen some day, signed up with the online legal services business Legal Zoom, and went through the process of applying for a trademark on both Harbowl and Harbaughbowl. The USPTO processed Fox?s trademark application in February. In July, the PTO published the trademark request, as is standard, in order to see if anyone opposed it. Resistance came from the NFL, famous for its zealous protection of its trademarks and its content. (Notice how many ads refer to ?the big game? because they haven?t paid the NFL for the right to say ?Super Bowl.) First, in August, the NFL got the PTO to extend the period allowed for filing an objection. At the same time, the NFL wrote Mr. Fox, saying ?We are concerned that, because our mark? that is, the words Super Bowl, ?and your applied-for marks are similar, it may cause the public to mistakenly believe that your goods and/or services are authorized or sponsored by or are somehow affiliated with the NFL or its Member Clubs.? In other words, if Mr. Fox sold a shirt saying ?Harbowl,? the NFL was worried Fox?s customers would be duped into thinking they were buying official NFL merchandise. The NFL requested more information from Mr. Fox. Over the course of August, NFL lawyers pushed Mr. Fox to abandon his trademark application. Mr. Fox didn?t want to abandon it. So the NFL pushed harder. ?If you are still interested in resolving this matter amicably and abandoning your trademark application, please contact me as soon as possible,? NFL Assistant Counsel Delores DiBella wrote to Mr. Fox in October. She warned that otherwise, the NFL ?will be forced to file an opposition proceeding and to seek the recoupment of our costs from you.? ?I was threatened to be taken to court,? Fox told me, ?and I just assumed I would lose, and I couldn?t afford the court costs.? Mr. Fox is not a businessman or a lawyer. He says, ?I didn?t know my rights.? He didn?t want to fight a costly legal battle with the NFL, and so he made a humble request: he would abandon his trademark in exchange for some Colts tickets. The NFL said no, according to Mr. Fox. The NFL was helpful in one regard: ?They were real, real cooperative on helping me abandon the trademarks,? Fox told me. He filed that abandonment in October. Three months later, the Harbowl became a reality, even if Mr. Fox?s business idea never did. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 24 09:42:48 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:42:48 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Fwd: NYPD Commissioner says department will begin testing a new high-tech device that scans for concealed weapons References: <201301241503.r0OF314M020391@synergy.ecn.purdue.edu> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Joe C > > > NYPD Commissioner says department will begin testing a new high-tech device that scans for concealed weapons > > The device, which tests for terahertz radiation, is small enough to be placed in a police vehicle or stationed at a street corner where gunplay is common > > > http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-readies-scan-and-frisk-article-1.1245663 > --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 24 15:15:18 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:15:18 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Widely_Cited_Government_Study_on?= =?windows-1252?q?_Iranian_Spies_=91Pulled_for_Revisions=92?= Message-ID: <0DF1607C-E49E-40A9-A54E-2E3158A2D5AE@infowarrior.org> Widely Cited Government Study on Iranian Spies ?Pulled for Revisions? by Justin Elliott ProPublica, Jan. 22, 2013, 11:55 a.m. An official with the Library of Congress says a widely cited but poorly sourced report his office did on Iran's intelligence ministry has been pulled from circulation. As we detailed last week, the study's ill-supported claim that the Iranian intelligence ministry has 30,000 employees was picked up by CNN and others. News outlets have also seized on other assertions in the report. The report, which was produced on behalf of a Pentagon office, had been posted on a non-public government-only website. It was leaked earlier this month. "The report was pulled for revisions after the Division staff identified a passage that should have been caveated but was missed in the initial reviews," said Federal Research Division chief David Osborne in an email. "The report will be re-posted when revised." Osborne declined to specify the passage in question. It might have had nothing to do with the 30,000 figure. Another section of the report prompted a married couple branded as spies for Iran to consider legal action. < - > http://www.propublica.org/article/widely-cited-government-study-on-iranian-spies-pulled-for-revisions --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jan 25 07:06:13 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:06:13 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - BitTorrent Launches Private and Secure Dropbox Alternative Message-ID: <49882254-A692-4E25-9725-8350C3E2316C@infowarrior.org> BitTorrent Launches Private and Secure Dropbox Alternative ? Ernesto ? January 25, 2013 BitTorrent Inc. has released a new application that allows users to securely sync folders to multiple devices using the BitTorrent protocol. The free application has no storage limits and can serve both as a public backup system and a shared drive. BitTorrent Sync is especially efficient for groups who need to share many large files over the Internet,. BitTorrent is a very powerful distribution tool. There is simply no faster way than BitTorrent for those who share files with several devices at once. Just ask Twitter and Facebook, two major technology companies that rely on BitTorrent technology to distribute files across their networks. For the public, however, there?s never really been a good tool to securely backup and sync files over the Internet via BitTorrent. This may change, however, with the new Sync application just announced by BitTorrent Inc. BitTorrent Sync has very similar functions to those offered by popular cloud storage services such as Dropbox and Skydrive, except for the fact that there?s no cloud involved. The upside to this is that no third-party has access to one?s files. Other advantages are that transfers generally go a lot faster with BitTorrent, and that there are no storage limits. BitTorrent Inc. is inviting the public to try the application but the company emphasizes that the current release is pre-alpha development, meaning that there may be a few bugs here and there. ?It fits into our overall goal of making a better Internet using P2P,? TorrentFreak was told in a comment on the release. The company looks forward to comments from the public on how to improve the product. ?This is a great opportunity for participants to help us shape this developing product.? < - > http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-launches-private-and-secure-dropbox-alternative-130125/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jan 25 08:24:10 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:24:10 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Unlocking cellphones is illegal in US after tomorrow Message-ID: <88AB924B-77B0-4CD8-861E-2DC1E1BB8782@infowarrior.org> (Not that this will stop anyone from doing so, of course. What idiocy! --rick) Starting Jan. 26, It Will Be Illegal To Unlock Your Cell Phone In The US BY Juli Clover on Thu January 24th, 2013 DCMA http://appadvice.com/appnn/2013/01/starting-saturday-it-will-be-illegal-to-unlock-your-cell-phone-in-the-u-s Back in October, the Register of Copyrights at the Library of Congress, decided that unlocking cell phones would become illegal. There was a 90-day window before the new restrictions went into place, meaning people could still buy and unlock a phone during that time period. There?s some bad news, though. That 90-day window will expire this Saturday, on Jan. 26. The Register of Copyrights is responsible for checking exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) every three years (deciding what people can and can?t do under the act) and while unlocking cell phones was previously allowed, that is no longer true. The ability to unlock a cell phone to move from one carrier to another has been authorized since 2006. The Register has decided that the firmware on the phone (the software locking you into a carrier) is copyrighted and may not be altered without violating the DMCA. Of course, carriers can still unlock phones. Verizon?s iPhone 5s, for example, come unlocked out of the box, and AT&T will unlock off-contract phones. You can always buy an unlocked cell phone as well, paying full price from the Apple Store. Though you can no longer unlock your cell phone on your own, you can still jailbreak it. Jailbreaking has been okayed since 2010, but don?t go jailbreaking your tablet ? that?s against the law. If you want to unlock your phone, now is the time to do it. It?s only legal for two more days. From rforno at infowarrior.org Fri Jan 25 21:08:41 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:08:41 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - More on CBS and CNET Message-ID: <7AEFEC27-BDB7-4389-BF77-888057AB0644@infowarrior.org> At CNET, ?morale is plummeting and people are pissed off? ? A disclosure attached to a CNET story posted on Thursday. On Wednesday, CNET staffers in San Francisco went into an all-hands meeting hoping to hear that parent company CBS had reversed its policy banning CNET reviews of products that are part of active litigation ? a policy that Columbia Journalism Review said ?seriously damaged the tech review and news site.? There had been hints around CNET that the edict might be overturned. During a meeting last Friday, Reviews editor-in-chief Lindsey Turrentine sounded optimistic. ?The sense of her presentation,? says one staffer, ?was that while there were still a few sticking points, overall the CBSi [CBS Interactive] team had made good progress making a strong business case to CBS corporate for overturning the policy. ?Every indication was that the discussions were going well.? But two days ago, CBS Interactive president Jim Lanzone and CBS Interactive general manager Eric Johnson announced the bad news at their meeting: There would not be a policy reversal. ?They proceeded to tell us it was no big deal,? says a CNET employee. ?But people kept bringing up different hypotheticals? and it became clear that it was a big deal. Someone asked if a writer doing a round-up of DVRs could write positively about Dish?s Hopper. No, the journalists were told by the two ?visibly uncomfortable? execs. ?At first it sounded like it was a policy that just applied to reviews,? a staffer says of CBS corporate?s edict. ?But it seems pretty clear that there?s going to be spillover into news.? I was told that ?there was a great deal of expressed unhappiness? at the meeting, and it?s only continued on CNET forums. ?There?s a lot of chatter about how [CBS Interactive] management isn?t standing up for us. Morale is plummeting. People are pissed off.? (I invited CBS Interactive to comment on Wednesday?s meeting. ?Thank you for your interest,? wrote spokeswoman Jenifer Boscacci. ?At this time, we have no comment.?) On Thursday, there was another town-hall meeting ? but not devoted solely to the CBS policy controversy. Just before that meeting, CBSi boss Lanzone posted the message below to a CNET listserv..... < -- > http://jimromenesko.com/2013/01/25/at-cnet-morale-is-plummeting-and-people-are-pissed-off/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sat Jan 26 22:05:41 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:05:41 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - FBI is increasing pressure on suspects in Stuxnet inquiry Message-ID: (c/o JC) FBI is increasing pressure on suspects in Stuxnet inquiry By Peter Finn, Saturday, January 26, 3:52 PM Federal investigators looking into disclosures of classified information about a cyberoperation that targeted Iran's nuclear program have increased pressure on current and former senior government officials suspected of involvement, according to people familiar with the investigation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-is-increasing-pressure-on-suspects-in-stuxnet-inquiry/2013/01/26/f475095e-6733-11e2-93e1-475791032daf_story.html --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jan 27 17:46:02 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:46:02 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Pentagon to boost cybersecurity force Message-ID: Pentagon to boost cybersecurity force By Ellen Nakashima http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2013/01/19/d87d9dc2-5fec-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_print.html < -- > The Pentagon has approved a major expansion of its cybersecurity force over the next several years, more than quadrupling its size to bolster the nation?s ability to defend critical computer systems and conduct offensive computer operations against foreign adversaries, according to U.S. officials. The move, requested by the head of the Defense Department?s Cyber Command, is part of an effort to build an organization that until now has focused largely on defensive measures into the equivalent of an Internet-era fighting force. The command, made up of about 900 personnel, will expand to include 4,900 troops and civilians. Details of the plan have not been finalized, but the decision to expand the Cyber Command was made by senior Pentagon officials late last year in recognition of a growing threat in cyberspace, said officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the expansion has not been formally announced. The gravity of that threat, they said, has been highlighted by a string of sabotage attacks, including one in which a virus was used to wipe data from more than 30,000 computers at a Saudi Arabian state oil company last summer. The plan calls for the creation of three types of forces under the Cyber Command: ?national mission forces? to protect computer systems that undergird electrical grids, power plants and other infrastructure deemed critical to national and economic security; ?combat mission forces? to help commanders abroad plan and execute attacks or other offensive operations, and ?cyber protection forces? to harden the Defense Department?s networks. < - > The ?combat mission? teams may help commanders in operations that include a cyber component say, to disable an enemy?s command and control system before a conventional attack. Each region will have teams that focus on particular threats ? say, from China or Iran. < - > With the decision to expand the Cyber Command, Alexander, who has been asked to stay on for another year until summer 2014, is seeing some ? but not all ? of his vision fulfilled. He has sought independent budget authority for the Cyber Command to hire and control forces similar to the way Special Operations Command can. So far, he has not won that authority, though officials agreed to give him the additional forces. He also has the support of senior Pentagon officials to elevate the Cyber Command to full command status, out from under the aegis of Strategic Command. But that move, which requires consulting with Congress, is not taking place just yet, officials say. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Sun Jan 27 21:37:34 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:37:34 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Swartz didn't face prison until feds took over case, report says Message-ID: Swartz didn't face prison until feds took over case, report says The late Internet activist was facing a stern warning from local prosecutors. But then the U.S. Attorney's office, run by Carmen Ortiz, chose to make an example of Aaron Swartz, a new report says. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57565927-38/swartz-didnt-face-prison-until-feds-took-over-case-report-says/ by Declan McCullagh January 25, 2013 1:14 PM PST State prosecutors who investigated the late Aaron Swartz had planned to let him off with a stern warning, but federal prosecutor Carmen Ortiz took over and chose to make an example of the Internet activist, according to a report in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Middlesex County's district attorney had planned no jail time, "with Swartz duly admonished and then returned to civil society to continue his pioneering electronic work in a less legally questionable manner," the report (alternate link) said. "Tragedy intervened when Ortiz's office took over the case to send 'a message.'" The report is likely to fuel an online campaign against Ortiz, who has been criticized for threatening the 26-year-old with decades in prison for allegedly downloading a large quantity of academic papers. An online petition asking President Obama to remove from office Ortiz -- a politically ambitious prosecutor who was talked about as Massachusetts' next governor as recently as last month. < - > The Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly report was written by Harvey Silverglate, a prominent Cambridge criminal defense lawyer whose clients have included Michael Milken and Leona Helmsley. Silverglate, the author of Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, is of counsel to the firm that initially represented Swartz in his attempts to defend himself against 13 felony charges brought by Ortiz's office. Those charges carried a maximum penalty of 50 years in prison. < - > Ortiz has defended her actions as appropriate. A representative for Ortiz's office did not respond to a request this afternoon for comment on this story. A representative for Gerard Leone Jr., Middlesex County's district attorney, said she did not have an immediate response to questions about Swartz's prosecution. Ortiz compared Swartz to a common criminal in a 2011 press release. "Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar," Ortiz said at the time. Earlier this month, less than three months before the criminal trial was set to begin, Ortiz's office formally rejected a deal that would have kept Swartz out of prison. Two days later, Swartz committed suicide. "He was killed by the government," Swartz's father, Robert, said last week at the funeral in Highland Park, Ill., according to a report in the Chicago Sun Times. Swartz was accused of 13 felony counts relating to connecting a computer to MIT's network without authorization and retrieving over 4 million academic journal articles from the JSTOR database (he was permitted to access JSTOR because of his Harvard affiliation, but not to perform a bulk download). The advocacy group Demand Progress, which Swartz had helped to create and which helped to defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act a year ago, likened it to "trying to put someone in jail for allegedly checking too many books out of the library." If Swartz had stolen a $100 hard drive with the JSTOR articles, it would have been a misdemeanor offense that would have yielded probation or community service. But the sweeping nature of federal computer crime laws allowed Ortiz and Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann, who wanted a high-profile computer crime conviction, to pursue felony charges. Heymann threatened the free-culture activist with over 30 years in prison as recently as the week before he killed himself. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat whose district includes the heart of Silicon Valley, has proposed rewriting those laws. The Boston U.S. Attorney's office was looking for "some juicy looking computer crime cases and Aaron's case, sadly for Aaron, fit the bill," Elliot Peters, Swartz's attorney at the Keker & Van Nest law firm, told the Huffington Post. Heymann, Peters says, thought the Swartz case "was going to receive press and he was going to be a tough guy and read his name in the newspaper." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 28 08:46:12 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:46:12 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Google Leads Fight to Limit Government Access to E-Mail on Cloud Message-ID: <913B59E7-94AE-42F4-9220-1D7EA46C19C0@infowarrior.org> Google Leads Fight to Limit Government Access to E-Mail on Cloud By Eric Engleman - Jan 28, 2013 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-01-28/google-leads-fight-to-limit-government-access-to-e-mail-on-cloud.html Google Inc. (GOOG), which says it gets about 1,400 requests a month from U.S. authorities for users? e- mails and documents, is organizing an effort to press for limits on government access to digital communications. The company has been talking to advocacy groups and companies about joining a lobbying effort to change the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, said Chris Gaither, a Google spokesman. He declined to elaborate. ?Given the realities of how people live and where things are going in the digital world, it?s an important time for government to act? to update the law, David Drummond, Google?s chief legal officer, said in an interview. ?It?s a bipartisan issue and I think the momentum is going to build because citizens are expecting this.? Google officials say changes in the law are needed to prevent law enforcement from obtaining certain e-mails and other content without search warrants, and to give documents stored on cloud services the same legal protections as paper documents stored in a desk drawer. Cloud services, which didn?t exist when the privacy law was passed, let users store and process data on remote servers via the Internet. Spending on public cloud services is expected to reach $100 billion globally by 2016, from $40 billion last year, according to technology research firm IDC. Last year, the owner of the world?s largest search engine helped lead an Internet protest movement that derailed anti- piracy legislation in both houses of Congress. It began drawing attention to the privacy law last week, disclosing that more than two-thirds of 8,438 requests for user data it received from U.S. authorities in the second half of last year took place without a search warrant. Netflix Bill The privacy law sets out how law enforcement can get access to e-mails and other forms of digital communication. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and one of law?s original architects, said it?s been made outdated by technology advances and expanded government surveillance powers. Leahy?s committee, over the objections of law enforcement groups, passed a proposal in November requiring government officials to get a search warrant to obtain e-mails and other communications regardless of their age. That eliminated a provision in the law, written at a time e-mail was rarely stored by service providers, allowing authorities to obtain messages more than 180 days old with only a subpoena. Law Enforcement Leahy attached the change to a measure backed by Netflix Inc. (NFLX) to allow online sharing of video-rental information. The language was stripped out before the Netflix bill passed both chambers of Congress in December and was signed by President Barack Obama. The senator, in a Jan. 16 speech, said he?ll reintroduce electronic-privacy legislation this year. He said he stayed on as judiciary committee chairman to continue that effort. Groups representing federal, state and local law enforcement officers say Leahy?s proposal could impede investigations. ?It changed the rules and operating procedures without conferring any advantages,? said Konrad Motyka, president of the FBI Agents Association, an Alexandria, Virginia-based group representing 12,000 current and former FBI special agents. ?Don?t just make our jobs more difficult.? Motyka said any move to increase the legal standard should be paired with measures to aid law enforcement, such as requiring companies to respond to warrants within a specified period of time, and making exceptions for cases of child abuse, violent crimes and terrorism. Justice Department The U.S. Justice Department provided ?technical assistance? on Leahy?s bill, including ?examples of problems that would be created for the executive branch in order to comply with legislative mandates,? Beth Levine, a spokeswoman for Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, the Judiciary Committee?s top Republican, said in an e-mail. Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, didn?t respond to a phone call and e-mail requesting comment. Google is part of an existing coalition, called Digital Due Process, formed in 2010 to seek changes to the privacy law. The coalition cuts across political ideology, with members including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans for Tax Reform, the anti-tax group led by Grover Norquist. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation?s largest business lobby, joined last month. Other members include Facebook Inc. (FB), Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN), and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) ?Same Rights? ?It?s critical that we start to have the same rights in the online world that we do in the offline world,? Chris Calabrese, ACLU legislative counsel, said in an interview. A paper letter has more protection against government searches than an older e-mail under current law, he said. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, has said Congress should look at the privacy law, while saying he hasn?t committed to specific changes. He said he expects to hold a hearing on the law this year. Goodlatte, who sponsored the Netflix bill, said his willingness to work on the privacy law helped convince Leahy to get the video-sharing measure passed and ?not hold it hostage? to broader privacy changes. Leahy and Goodlatte backed the anti-piracy bills in Congress that Google opposed and helped defeat last January. Google said the measures would lead to online censorship and chill innovation. Google spent $16.5 million on lobbying last year, up from $9.7 million in 2011, according to Senate lobbying disclosures. Google?s political action committee gave $9,500 to Goodlatte during the 2012 election. Gmail, YouTube The U.S. made the most requests for Google user information among governments in the second half of 2012, according to the company?s transparency report released Jan. 23. Google is posting additional information for users today about what kinds of data it discloses to U.S. agencies from its Gmail, YouTube, Google Voice and Blogger services under ECPA legal processes. While the law ?seems to allow? the government to force service providers to turn over some digital content with a subpoena or court order, Google requires a search warrant before disclosing e-mail text, private videos or blog posts, and voicemail messages, according to a company fact sheet. Google will release information other than content, such as user registration data and Internet-protocol addresses, under subpoenas or court orders, the company said. To contact the reporter on this story: Eric Engleman in Washington at eengleman1 at bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Bernard Kohn at bkohn2 at bloomberg.net --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 28 11:37:25 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:37:25 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - =?windows-1252?q?Antigua=92s_Legal_=93Pirate_Site?= =?windows-1252?q?=94_Authorized_by_WTO?= Message-ID: (I can hear the calls by the US Copyright Cartel to blacklist http, https, and all sorts of protocols to the Antigua netblock. --rick) Antigua?s Legal ?Pirate Site? Authorized by the World Trade Organization ? Ernesto ? January 28, 2013 http://torrentfreak.com/antiguas-legal-pirate-site-authorized-by-the-world-trade-organization-130128/ During a meeting in Geneva today the World Trade organization (WTO) authorized Antigua?s request to suspend U.S. copyrights. The decision confirmed the preliminary authorization the Caribbean island received in 2007, and means that the local authorities can move forward with their plan to start a download portal which offers movies, music and software without compensating the American companies that make them. Last week we broke the news that the island nation Antigua and Barbuda wants to start a Government run ?pirate? site. Today, this plan came a step closer to reality when the Caribbean country received authorization from the WTO to suspend U.S. copyrights during a meeting in Geneva. This decision affirms the preliminary approval that was granted to Antigua in 2007 after the country won a gambling related trade dispute against the United States. At the moment it?s still unclear what Antigua?s exact plans are but TorrentFreak is informed that the media portal will offer movies, TV-shows, music as well as software to customers worldwide. Antigua?s Finance Minister Harold Lovell said in a comment that the U.S. left his Government no other option than to respond in this manner. Antigua?s gambling industry was devastated by the unfair practices of the U.S. and years of negotiations have offered no compromise. ?These aggressive efforts to shut down the remote gaming industry in Antigua has resulted in the loss of thousands of good paying jobs and seizure by the Americans of billions of dollars belonging to gaming operators and their customers in financial institutions across the world,? Lowell says. ?If the same type of actions, by another nation, caused the people and the economy of the United States to be so significantly impacted, Antigua would without hesitation support their pursuit of justice,? the Finance minister adds. The Government has not given a time-frame for the release of the site, which has been in the works for a few months already. Ideally, Antigua hopes to settle the dispute before opening up their free media portal but there are no signs that the U.S. is going to comply with the WTO rulings. Thus far, the U.S. has only warned Antigua that ?Government-authorized piracy? would harm the ongoing settlement discussions. ?Government-authorized piracy would undermine chances for a settlement that would provide real benefits to Antigua. It also would serve as a major impediment to foreign investment in the Antiguan economy, particularly in high-tech industries,? U.S. officials said earlier. However, these comments haven?t changed Antigua?s course. Emanuel McChesney, Chairman of the Antigua and Barbuda Investment Authority, is not impressed by this apparent scare tactic. ?We assume this is just rhetoric for public consumption, and we look forward to the United States putting aside these tactics and focusing their future efforts on thoughtful negotiation rather than on hyperbole and intimidation,? McChesney. The Antiguan government further reiterated today that the term ?piracy? doesn?t apply in this situation, as they are fully authorized to suspend U.S. copyrights. It is a legal remedy that was approved by all WTO members, including the United States. If Antigua does indeed pull through, it will be rather interesting to see how the U.S. responds. It might add a whole new dimension to the ongoing ?war on piracy.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 28 21:46:48 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:46:48 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DRM in HTML5 Message-ID: DRM in HTML5 By ManuSporny On January 26, 2013 A few days ago, a new proposal was put forward in the HTML Working Group (HTML WG) by Microsoft, Netflix, and Google to take DRM in HTML5 to the next stage of standardization at W3C. This triggered another uproar about the morality and ethics behind DRM and building it into the Web. There are good arguments about morality/ethics on both sides of the debate but ultimately, the HTML WG will decide whether or not to pursue the specification based on technical merit. I am a member of the HTML WG. I was also the founder of a start-up that focused on building a legal, peer-to-peer, content distribution network for music and movies. It employed DRM much like the current DRM in HTML5 proposal. During the course of 8 years of technical development, we had talks with many of the major record labels. I have first-hand knowledge of the problem, and building a technical solution to address the problem. TL;DR: The Encrypted Media Extensions (DRM in HTML5) specification does not solve the problem the authors are attempting to solve, which is the protection of content from opportunistic or professional piracy. The HTML WG should not publish First Public Working Drafts that do not effectively address the primary goal of a specification. < - > http://manu.sporny.org/2013/drm-in-html5/ --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Mon Jan 28 21:48:58 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:48:58 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - House panel demands DOJ briefing concerning its prosecution of Aaron Swartz Message-ID: House panel demands briefing from Department of Justice concerning its prosecution of Aaron Swartz Two members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today sent a letter to Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, requesting answers to a number of granular questions concerning the prosecution of late Internet activist Aaron Swartz by the Department of Justice. Rep. Darrell Issa and Rep. Elijah Cummings co-signed the letter. The missive notes the fact that each felony count against Mr. Swartz was dated, turning it into a unique felony charge, drastically upping the total potential penalty that could be applied in the case. It also repeats findings from the Wall Street Journal that Swartz turned down a plea deal to a number of felony counts that would include between 7 and 8 months of jail time. He was told that if he did not take the deal, 7 to 8 years in prison would be sought instead. Aaron was found recently found dead in his apartment, deceased by apparent suicide. The letter ends with seven questions, which it requests that the Justice department answer as the situation is ?no longer a criminal case:? < - > http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/29/house-panel-demands-briefing-from-department-of-justice-concerning-aaron-swartz-prosecution/ From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 29 07:55:56 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 08:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Smartphone sensors reveal security secrets Message-ID: 28 January 2013 Last updated at 20:46 ET Smartphone sensors reveal security secrets By Mark Ward Technology correspondent, BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21203035 Data captured by smartphone sensors could help criminals guess codes used to lock the gadgets, say security researchers. By analysing data gathered by accelerometers they were able to get a good idea of the Pin or pattern used to protect a phone. The data was useable because sensors can gather information with more freedom than apps loaded on the device. Dr Adam J Aviv, a visiting professor at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, carried out the attacks by using data gathered by an accelerometer on a smartphone. Typically this sensor logs phone movements in three dimensions: side-to-side, forward-and-back and up-and-down. The data gathered as the phone is moved is often used in games to steer or guide an onscreen entity such as a car or a ball. Working with Matt Blaze, Benjamin Sapp and Jonathan Smith from the University of Pennsylvania, Dr Aviv realised that the data gathered by the accelerometer could also be used to work out where someone tapped on a screen when unlocking a gadget with a Pin or pattern. In controlled tests, data from accelerometers was captured, exported and analysed to see if it matched a bigger "dictionary" of taps and swipes that had been previously gathered. "It worked surprisingly well," said Dr Aviv of the attack. In tests, the software developed by the team got more accurate the more guesses it was allowed. After five guesses it could spot Pins about 43% of the time and patterns about 73% of the time. However, said Dr Aviv, these results were produced when Pins and patterns were picked from a 50-strong set of numbers and shapes. The pin and pattern spotting system did less well when it was applied to data gathered when users were walking around with gadgets. Using a phone while on the move introduced lots more "noise", said Dr Aviv which made it harder to pick out the unlock patterns. However, he said, many security researchers were getting interested in the sensors that came as standard in smartphones largely because the data they gathered was not subject to the same controls that governs other phone functions. 'Ensure integrity' "More sensors on smartphones equals a lot more data flowing through these devices, which means protecting them is even more critical," said Kevin Mahaffey, chief technology officer at mobile security firm Lookout. "One kink or hole in the system could lead to data being exposed and utilised," he said. "As the physical and digital worlds merge, and we become more reliant on the interconnections forged, we need to collaborate across them to ensure the integrity of data." Dr Aviv said that typically users did not have to give permission for a sensor to gather data even if the information it grabbed had nothing to do with the application they were using. Other researchers had looked into ways to subvert data gathered by gyroscopes, accelerometers and other orientation sensors to work out passwords, said Dr Aviv. One group even analysed smears on touchscreens to get clues about Pins and patterns. "We are starting to realise that the way we interact with these devices affects the security of these devices," he said. "The fact that we hold them in our hands is different to the way we use traditional computers and that actually can leak information to sensors in the device." --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 29 08:22:25 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:22:25 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Google releases detailed map of North Korea, gulags and all Message-ID: <055E6676-1651-4BBC-969D-22F0919C188C@infowarrior.org> Google releases detailed map of North Korea, gulags and all Until Tuesday, North Korea appeared on Google Maps as a near-total white space ? no roads, no train lines, no parks and no restaurants. The only thing labeled was the capital city, Pyongyang. This all changed when Google, on Tuesday, rolled out a detailed map of one of the world?s most secretive states. The new map labels everything from Pyongyang?s subway stops to the country?s several city-sized gulags, as well as its monuments, hotels, hospitals and department stores. < - > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/01/28/google-releases-detailed-map-of-north-korea-gulags-and-all/?print=1 --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Tue Jan 29 08:40:14 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:40:14 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - In the Air, Minor Tiffs Can Escalate Fast Message-ID: <0FB230FD-E695-452D-96CC-2494CE059123@infowarrior.org> (c/o AJR) In the Air, Minor Tiffs Can Escalate Fast By SUSAN STELLIN http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/business/passenger-vs-airline-policy-stand-offs-in-the-air.html At a time of heightened security concerns, disgruntled airline employees and frustrated passengers can be a combustible combination in a crowded aircraft, as travelers find themselves subject to lots of rules and little wiggle room to challenge them. On a United Airlines flight from Zurich to Washington Dulles International Airport on Jan. 2, Bill Pollock asked a flight attendant about a sign telling passengers not to venture beyond the curtain separating economy class from the rest of the plane. Mr. Pollock, a book publisher from Burlingame, Calif., said he wanted to stretch his legs and visit his wife seated on the opposite aisle, using the passageway behind the galleys in the plane?s midsection. But when he questioned a flight attendant on the policy and began recording their conversation using his cellphone, the situation quickly escalated: the flight attendant grabbed his phone and nearby federal air marshals intervened. ?Two marshals held me up against the counter, they had my hands behind my back,? Mr. Pollock said. ?I wasn?t violent, I didn?t use four-letter words. All I did was ask this guy about the sign on the curtain and they flipped out.? The flight was met by United personnel and security agents, who, Mr. Pollock said, took his statement and then sent him on his way. But the incident left him with lingering questions about his rights ? like whether there is a policy restricting economy-class passengers to their own cabin (not just their own bathrooms), whether travelers are prohibited from videotaping flight crew and what recourse passengers have if airline or security personnel overreact. It turns out, none of these questions has a clear answer. Les Dorr, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said the agency did not have a rule limiting passenger movement on a plane, but federal regulations state, ?No person may assault, threaten, intimidate or interfere with a crew member in the performance of the crew member?s duties aboard an aircraft.? Rahsaan Johnson, a United spokesman, said flight attendants routinely made an announcement asking customers not to pass through the curtains separating cabins, adding that federal regulations require passengers to ?comply with lighted signs, placards and crew member instructions.? Mr. Pollock conceded that he told the flight attendant he planned to ignore the sign, which other travelers had questioned in online travel forums. On a United flight from Dulles airport to Zurich last January, David Snead said he saw a flight attendant pin a similar sign to the curtain in front of the economy cabin. To him, it appeared ?handmade.? ?She got in arguments with people who tried to pass through,? he said. ?She was not a nice flight attendant.? He added that he sympathized with airline employees who must enforce a growing number of rules. ?Flight attendants have a ridiculously hard job dealing with passengers unwilling to accept every rule the airline comes up with,? he said. Rules that cause friction between flight attendants and travelers often involve electronic devices and carry-on bags. But as carriers invest more money in amenities for higher-paying customers, stricter divisions between passenger classes contribute to the tension. Veda Shook, international president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, said she was not aware of a policy limiting where passengers could walk, especially if a cart was blocking an aisle or a family member was seated on the other side of the plane. ?I think it?s generally understood that you hang out in the cabin that you?re in,? she said. ?But I?ve never really encountered a situation where someone couldn?t move about the cabin to get from point A to B.? Given the potential consequences of a disruptive event, Ms. Shook said, flight attendants are trained to avoid any escalation of conflict, a ?nip it in the bud? approach that may seem aggressive. ?You have to be prepared to shut anything down immediately,? she said. Airlines report to the F.A.A. incidents involving ?unruly passengers? who interfere with the duties of a crew member. The agency said there were 101 such incidents in 2012, well below the 140 to 176 reports in each of the previous three years. The statistics do not include security violations, which are handled by the Transportation Security Administration. David Castelveter, a T.S.A. spokesman, said the agency could not comment on the incident involving Mr. Pollock. But in an e-mail message, Mr. Castelveter explained: ?Federal air marshals are trained to protect the safety and integrity of the aircrew, passengers and aircraft. Due to the sensitive nature of their job, T.S.A. cannot discuss specific tactics or training.? The Federal Air Marshal Service operates largely out of public view, but the secrecy surrounding its operations can put travelers in a difficult position when interacting with agents whose role is not always clear. On a different flight, a passenger who had made several trips to the bathroom was questioned by an air marshal and detained by the police after the plane landed. ?We have reached a point where you check in your civil liberties when you check in your bag,? the traveler said, speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the situation. ?It?s a little over the top what?s going on.? Customer complaints about the airlines? service and performance have risen. The Department of Transportation received 7,524 complaints about carriers in the United States in the first nine months of 2012, compared with 5,231 in the same period in 2011. Complaints about United topped the rankings, with 3,414 filed in the first three quarters, versus 1,132 for American Airlines, No. 2 on the list. No federal regulation restricts what passengers can photograph or videotape on a plane, but Mr. Johnson said United published in its in-flight magazine a rule against photographing or recording aircraft equipment and airline personnel. So where does that leave Mr. Pollock? He said a United representative told him that their investigation indicated he refused to return to his seat, refused to stop taking pictures and refused to move away from the curtain when asked ? all untrue, Mr. Pollock said. ?It?s just emblematic of what air travel has become,? he said. ?If you ask a question on a plane, you?re going to be identified as a problem and you?re going to get whatever response they choose to take ? and there?s no recourse.? That feeling of ?no recourse? has been heightened in the digital era, as customers are directed to Web sites to submit complaints and find it difficult to get more than a form response. Jeremy Cooperstock, an engineering professor in Montreal, created the Web site Untied.com to help passengers in that bind. Besides collecting complaints about United ? the site received 4,500 last year ? Mr. Cooperstock lists contact information for United customer service managers and advises passengers, and airline employees, on their legal options. United is suing him, seeking an injunction against disclosure of its managers? contact information. ?Passengers are increasingly dissatisfied with the service and treatment they receive,? he said. ?I feel the need to alert the public to their rights and help employees who have been victimized by their management.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jan 30 16:38:45 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:38:45 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - ICANN insanity Message-ID: <8EA2DDB2-8EF0-4BAC-881D-A9972B19EE6D@infowarrior.org> Yup, that's ICANN for you. Anything for money, no matter how poorly executed!!! --rick ICANN Boss: We're Not Ready To Launch These Half-Baked New gTLDs, So Let's Launch Them from the this-is-going-to-be-a-disaster dept http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130130/02052521823/icann-boss-were-not-ready-to-launch-these-half-baked-new-gtlds-so-lets-launch-them.shtml We've talked about the fact that the whole "generic top level domain" (gTLD) process was hopelessly corrupt, as it was more or less driven by those who sought to profit from the system -- folks who ran (or hoped to run) domain registration offerings. And, the entire thing seemed based around getting a ridiculous amount of money to launch these new TLDs and then run around convincing companies they need to pay up for new domains before someone else snaps them up. However, now it's looking like it isn't just the idea that's a disaster, but the execution as well. Domain Incite's Kevin Murphy reports that ICANN's own CEO (who only joined recently), Fadi Chehade, has flat out admitted that they're nowhere close to ready, but things are going to launch anyway. David Mitnick has pulled out some of the key quotes that should be fairly scary, considering they're coming from ICANN's own CEO: 1. "Honestly, if it was up to me, I would delay the whole release of new gTLDs by at least a year." 2. "... a lot of the foundations that I would be comfortable with, as someone who has built businesses before, are just not yet there." 3. "We have people who took six years to write the [new gTLD Applicant] Guidebook and we're asking engineers and software people and third-party vendors and hundreds of people to get that whole program running in six months." 4. "When the number two at IBM called me, Erich Clementi, after we signed the deal with them to do the [Trademark Clearinghouse] he said 'Are you nuts?'. Literally, quote. He said: 'Fadi you've built these systems for us before. You know it takes three times the amount of time it takes to write the specs to build reliable systems.'" 5. "We're facing a difficult situation, we're working hard as we can, our people are at the edge." 6. "I don't mean to scare you, because I know many of your businesses rely on this, but the right people are now in place, we're building it as fast as we can but I want you to understand that this is tough, and I wish it were different. I wish you would all raise your hands and say: 'You know what? Let's take a break and meet in a year'." 7. "I don't want to delay this program, but under all circumstances my mind would tell me: stop." In other words, this is likely to be a complete and total disaster. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Wed Jan 30 21:57:15 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:57:15 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - NYT attacked by Chinese hackers Message-ID: <72E1E8DC-24B1-4B04-BE62-89EDC709577D@infowarrior.org> January 30, 2013 Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months By NICOLE PERLROTH http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-hackers-infiltrate-new-york-times-computers.html SAN FRANCISCO ? For the last four months, Chinese hackers have persistently attacked The New York Times, infiltrating its computer systems and getting passwords for its reporters and other employees. After surreptitiously tracking the intruders to study their movements and help erect better defenses to block them, The Times and computer security experts have expelled the attackers and kept them from breaking back in. The timing of the attacks coincided with the reporting for a Times investigation, published online on Oct. 25, that found that the relatives of Wen Jiabao, China?s prime minister, had accumulated a fortune worth several billion dollars through business dealings. Security experts hired by The Times to detect and block the computer attacks gathered digital evidence that Chinese hackers, using methods that some consultants have associated with the Chinese military in the past, breached The Times?s network. They broke into the e-mail accounts of its Shanghai bureau chief, David Barboza, who wrote the reports on Mr. Wen?s relatives, and Jim Yardley, The Times?s South Asia bureau chief in India, who previously worked as bureau chief in Beijing. ?Computer security experts found no evidence that sensitive e-mails or files from the reporting of our articles about the Wen family were accessed, downloaded or copied,? said Jill Abramson, executive editor of The Times. The hackers tried to cloak the source of the attacks on The Times by first penetrating computers at United States universities and routing the attacks through them, said computer security experts at Mandiant, the company hired by The Times. This matches the subterfuge used in many other attacks that Mandiant has tracked to China. The attackers first installed malware ? malicious software ? that enabled them to gain entry to any computer on The Times?s network. The malware was identified by computer security experts as a specific strain associated with computer attacks originating in China. More evidence of the source, experts said, is that the attacks started from the same university computers used by the Chinese military to attack United States military contractors in the past. Security experts found evidence that the hackers stole the corporate passwords for every Times employee and used those to gain access to the personal computers of 53 employees, most of them outside The Times?s newsroom. Experts found no evidence that the intruders used the passwords to seek information that was not related to the reporting on the Wen family. No customer data was stolen from The Times, security experts said. Asked about evidence that indicated the hacking originated in China, and possibly with the military, China?s Ministry of National Defense said, ?Chinese laws prohibit any action including hacking that damages Internet security.? It added that ?to accuse the Chinese military of launching cyberattacks without solid proof is unprofessional and baseless.? The attacks appear to be part of a broader computer espionage campaign against American news media companies that have reported on Chinese leaders and corporations. Last year, Bloomberg News was targeted by Chinese hackers, and some employees? computers were infected, according to a person with knowledge of the company?s internal investigation, after Bloomberg published an article on June 29 about the wealth accumulated by relatives of Xi Jinping, China?s vice president at the time. Mr. Xi became general secretary of the Communist Party in November and is expected to become president in March. Ty Trippet, a spokesman for Bloomberg, confirmed that hackers had made attempts but said that ?no computer systems or computers were compromised.? Signs of a Campaign The mounting number of attacks that have been traced back to China suggest that hackers there are behind a far-reaching spying campaign aimed at an expanding set of targets including corporations, government agencies, activist groups and media organizations inside the United States. The intelligence-gathering campaign, foreign policy experts and computer security researchers say, is as much about trying to control China?s public image, domestically and abroad, as it is about stealing trade secrets. Security experts said that beginning in 2008, Chinese hackers began targeting Western journalists as part of an effort to identify and intimidate their sources and contacts, and to anticipate stories that might damage the reputations of Chinese leaders. In a December intelligence report for clients, Mandiant said that over the course of several investigations it found evidence that Chinese hackers had stolen e-mails, contacts and files from more than 30 journalists and executives at Western news organizations, and had maintained a ?short list? of journalists whose accounts they repeatedly attack. While computer security experts say China is most active and persistent, it is not alone in using computer attacks for a variety of national purposes, including corporate espionage. The United States, Israel, Russia and Iran, among others, are suspected of developing and deploying cyberweapons. The United States and Israel have never publicly acknowledged it, but evidence indicates they released a sophisticated computer worm starting around 2008 that attacked and later caused damage at Iran?s main nuclear enrichment plant. Iran is believed to have responded with computer attacks on targets in the United States, including American banks and foreign oil companies. Russia is suspected of having used computer attacks during its war with Georgia in 2008. The following account of the attack on The Times ? which is based on interviews with Times executives, reporters and security experts ? provides a glimpse into one such spy campaign. After The Times learned of warnings from Chinese government officials that its investigation of the wealth of Mr. Wen?s relatives would ?have consequences,? executives on Oct. 24 asked AT&T, which monitors The Times?s computer network, to watch for unusual activity. On Oct. 25, the day the article was published online, AT&T informed The Times that it had noticed behavior that was consistent with other attacks believed to have been perpetrated by the Chinese military. The Times notified and voluntarily briefed the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the attacks and then ? not initially recognizing the extent of the infiltration of its computers ? worked with AT&T to track the attackers even as it tried to eliminate them from its systems. But on Nov. 7, when it became clear that attackers were still inside its systems despite efforts to expel them, The Times hired Mandiant, which specializes in responding to security breaches. Since learning of the attacks, The Times ? first with AT&T and then with Mandiant ? has monitored attackers as they have moved around its systems. Hacker teams regularly began work, for the most part, at 8 a.m. Beijing time. Usually they continued for a standard work day, but sometimes the hacking persisted until midnight. Occasionally, the attacks stopped for two-week periods, Mandiant said, though the reason was not clear. Investigators still do not know how hackers initially broke into The Times?s systems. They suspect the hackers used a so-called spear-phishing attack, in which they send e-mails to employees that contain malicious links or attachments. All it takes is one click on the e-mail by an employee for hackers to install ?remote access tools? ? or RATs. Those tools can siphon off oceans of data ? passwords, keystrokes, screen images, documents and, in some cases, recordings from computers? microphones and Web cameras ? and send the information back to the attackers? Web servers. Michael Higgins, chief security officer at The Times, said: ?Attackers no longer go after our firewall. They go after individuals. They send a malicious piece of code to your e-mail account and you?re opening it and letting them in.? Lying in Wait Once hackers get in, it can be hard to get them out. In the case of a 2011 breach at the United States Chamber of Commerce, for instance, the trade group worked closely with the F.B.I. to seal its systems, according to chamber employees. But months later, the chamber discovered that Internet-connected devices ? a thermostat in one of its corporate apartments and a printer in its offices ? were still communicating with computers in China. In part to prevent that from happening, The Times allowed hackers to spin a digital web for four months to identify every digital back door the hackers used. It then replaced every compromised computer and set up new defenses in hopes of keeping hackers out. ?Attackers target companies for a reason ? even if you kick them out, they will try to get back in,? said Nick Bennett, the security consultant who has managed Mandiant?s investigation. ?We wanted to make sure we had full grasp of the extent of their access so that the next time they try to come in, we can respond quickly.? Based on a forensic analysis going back months, it appears the hackers broke into The Times computers on Sept. 13, when the reporting for the Wen articles was nearing completion. They set up at least three back doors into users? machines that they used as a digital base camp. From there they snooped around The Times?s systems for at least two weeks before they identified the domain controller that contains user names and hashed, or scrambled, passwords for every Times employee. While hashes make hackers? break-ins more difficult, hashed passwords can easily be cracked using so-called rainbow tables ? readily available databases of hash values for nearly every alphanumeric character combination, up to a certain length. Some hacker Web sites publish as many as 50 billion hash values. Investigators found evidence that the attackers cracked the passwords and used them to gain access to a number of computers. They created custom software that allowed them to search for and grab Mr. Barboza?s and Mr. Yardley?s e-mails and documents from a Times e-mail server. Over the course of three months, attackers installed 45 pieces of custom malware. The Times ? which uses antivirus products made by Symantec ? found only one instance in which Symantec identified an attacker?s software as malicious and quarantined it, according to Mandiant. A Symantec spokesman said that, as a matter of policy, the company does not comment on its customers. The attackers were particularly active in the period after the Oct. 25 publication of The Times article about Mr. Wen?s relatives, especially on the evening of the Nov. 6 presidential election. That raised concerns among Times senior editors who had been informed of the attacks that the hackers might try to shut down the newspaper?s electronic or print publishing system. But the attackers? movements suggested that the primary target remained Mr. Barboza?s e-mail correspondence. ?They could have wreaked havoc on our systems,? said Marc Frons, the Times?s chief information officer. ?But that was not what they were after.? What they appeared to be looking for were the names of people who might have provided information to Mr. Barboza. Mr. Barboza?s research on the stories, as reported previously in The Times, was based on public records, including thousands of corporate documents through China?s State Administration for Industry and Commerce. Those documents ? which are available to lawyers and consulting firms for a nominal fee ? were used to trace the business interests of relatives of Mr. Wen. A Tricky Search Tracking the source of an attack to one group or country can be difficult because hackers usually try to cloak their identities and whereabouts. To run their Times spying campaign, the attackers used a number of compromised computer systems registered to universities in North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin and New Mexico, as well as smaller companies and Internet service providers across the United States, according to Mandiant?s investigators. The hackers also continually switched from one I.P. address to another; an I.P. address, for Internet protocol, is a unique number identifying each Internet-connected device from the billions around the globe, so that messages and other information sent by one device are correctly routed to the ones meant to get them. Using university computers as proxies and switching I.P. addresses were simply efforts to hide the source of the attacks, which investigators say is China. The pattern that Mandiant?s experts detected closely matched the pattern of earlier attacks traced to China. After Google was attacked in 2010 and the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists were opened, for example, investigators were able to trace the source to two educational institutions in China, including one with ties to the Chinese military. Security experts say that by routing attacks through servers in other countries and outsourcing attacks to skilled hackers, the Chinese military maintains plausible deniability. ?If you look at each attack in isolation, you can?t say, ?This is the Chinese military,? ? said Richard Bejtlich, Mandiant?s chief security officer. But when the techniques and patterns of the hackers are similar, it is a sign that the hackers are the same or affiliated. ?When you see the same group steal data on Chinese dissidents and Tibetan activists, then attack an aerospace company, it starts to push you in the right direction,? he said. Mandiant has been tracking about 20 groups that are spying on organizations inside the United States and around the globe. Its investigators said that based on the evidence ? the malware used, the command and control centers compromised and the hackers? techniques ? The Times was attacked by a group of Chinese hackers that Mandiant refers to internally as ?A.P.T. Number 12.? A.P.T. stands for Advanced Persistent Threat, a term that computer security experts and government officials use to describe a targeted attack and that many say has become synonymous with attacks done by China. AT&T and the F.B.I. have been tracking the same group, which they have also traced to China, but they use their own internal designations. Mandiant said the group had been ?very active? and had broken into hundreds of other Western organizations, including several American military contractors. To get rid of the hackers, The Times blocked the compromised outside computers, removed every back door into its network, changed every employee password and wrapped additional security around its systems. For now, that appears to have worked, but investigators and Times executives say they anticipate more efforts by hackers. ?This is not the end of the story,? said Mr. Bejtlich of Mandiant. ?Once they take a liking to a victim, they tend to come back. It?s not like a digital crime case where the intruders steal stuff and then they?re gone. This requires an internal vigilance model.? --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 31 08:03:33 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:03:33 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Schneier: Power And The Internet Message-ID: (I agree completely w/Bruce's comments. Again. --rick) http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/01/power_and_the_i.html Bruce Schneier Security Technologist; Author, Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust Society Need to Thrive Power And The Internet All disruptive technologies upset traditional power balances, and the Internet is no exception. The standard story is that it empowers the powerless, but that's only half the story. The Internet empowers everyone. Powerful institutions might be slow to make use of that new power, but since they are powerful, they can use it more effectively. Governments and corporations have woken up to the fact that not only can they use the Internet, they can control it for their interests. Unless we start deliberately debating the future we want to live in, and information technology in enabling that world, we will end up with an Internet that benefits existing power structures and not society in general. We've all lived through the Internet's disruptive history. Entire industries, like travel agencies and video rental stores, disappeared. Traditional publishing?books, newspapers, encyclopedias, music?lost power, while Amazon and others gained. Advertising-based companies like Google and Facebook gained a lot of power. Microsoft lost power (as hard as that is to believe). The Internet changed political power as well. Some governments lost power as citizens organized online. Political movements became easier, helping to topple governments. The Obama campaign made revolutionary use of the Internet, both in 2008 and 2012. And the Internet changed social power, as we collected hundreds of "friends" on Facebook, tweeted our way to fame, and found communities for the most obscure hobbies and interests. And some crimes became easier: impersonation fraud became identity theft, copyright violation became file sharing, and accessing censored materials?political, sexual, cultural?became trivially easy. Now powerful interests are looking to deliberately steer this influence to their advantage. Some corporations are creating Internet environments that maximize their profitability: Facebook and Google, among many others. Some industries are lobbying for laws that make their particular business models more profitable: telecom carriers want to be able to discriminate between different types of Internet traffic, entertainment companies want to crack down on file sharing, advertisers want unfettered access to data about our habits and preferences. On the government side, more countries censor the Internet?and do so more effectively?than ever before. Police forces around the world are using Internet data for surveillance, with less judicial oversight and sometimes in advance of any crime. Militaries are fomenting a cyberwar arms race. Internet surveillance?both governmental and commercial?is on the rise, not just in totalitarian states but in Western democracies as well. Both companies and governments rely more on propaganda to create false impressions of public opinion. In 1996, cyber-libertarian John Perry Barlow issued his "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace." He told governments: "You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have true reason to fear." It was a utopian ideal, and many of us believed him. We believed that the Internet generation, those quick to embrace the social changes this new technology brought, would swiftly outmaneuver the more ponderous institutions of the previous era. Reality turned out to be much more complicated. What we forgot is that technology magnifies power in both directions. When the powerless found the Internet, suddenly they had power. But while the unorganized and nimble were the first to make use of the new technologies, eventually the powerful behemoths woke up to the potential?and they have more power to magnify. And not only does the Internet change power balances, but the powerful can also change the Internet. Does anyone else remember how incompetent the FBI was at investigating Internet crimes in the early 1990s? Or how Internet users ran rings around China's censors and Middle Eastern secret police? Or how digital cash was going to make government currencies obsolete, and Internet organizing was going to make political parties obsolete? Now all that feels like ancient history. It's not all one-sided. The masses can occasionally organize around a specific issue?SOPA/PIPA, the Arab Spring, and so on?and can block some actions by the powerful. But it doesn't last. The unorganized go back to being unorganized, and powerful interests take back the reins. Debates over the future of the Internet are morally and politically complex. How do we balance personal privacy against what law enforcement needs to prevent copyright violations? Or child pornography? Is it acceptable to be judged by invisible computer algorithms when being served search results? When being served news articles? When being selected for additional scrutiny by airport security? Do we have a right to correct data about us? To delete it? Do we want computer systems that forget things after some number of years? These are complicated issues that require meaningful debate, international cooperation, and iterative solutions. Does anyone believe we're up to the task? We're not, and that's the worry. Because if we're not trying to understand how to shape the Internet so that its good effects outweigh the bad, powerful interests will do all the shaping. The Internet's design isn't fixed by natural laws. Its history is a fortuitous accident: an initial lack of commercial interests, governmental benign neglect, military requirements for survivability and resilience, and the natural inclination of computer engineers to build open systems that work simply and easily. This mix of forces that created yesterday's Internet will not be trusted to create tomorrow's. Battles over the future of the Internet are going on right now: in legislatures around the world, in international organizations like the International Telecommunications Union and the World Trade Organization, and in Internet standards bodies. The Internet is what we make it, and is constantly being recreated by organizations, companies, and countries with specific interests and agendas. Either we fight for a seat at the table, or the future of the Internet becomes something that is done to us. --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 31 08:23:06 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:23:06 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - DHS advice for confronting mass murders: scissors Message-ID: * Educated Lisa Simpson-esque facepalm * Homeland Security has advice for confronting mass murders: scissors ? By S.A. MILLER, Post Correspondent ? Last Updated: 5:44 AM, January 31, 2013 ? Posted: 1:09 AM, January 31, 2013 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/shear_bravery_beats_guns_feds_d9BanDpupuVezePd6trYoM --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it. From rforno at infowarrior.org Thu Jan 31 14:54:19 2013 From: rforno at infowarrior.org (Richard Forno) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:54:19 -0500 Subject: [Infowarrior] - Apple Once Again Blocks Java 7 Web Plug-in Message-ID: <4A66F1E7-54B4-4EDB-94D7-686ECE5EAB68@infowarrior.org> Apple Once Again Blocks Java 7 Web Plug-in http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/31/apple-once-again-blocks-java-7-web-plug-in/ (with instructions for rolling back this 'feature' of OSX) --- Just because i'm near the punchbowl doesn't mean I'm also drinking from it.