Newsflash: People surprised that EVERYTHING is monitored

So for the last couple of months the Edward Snowden drama has been like a bad soap opera. Sad, monotonous, and weirdly predictable. I suppose most people were surprised we actually live in a police state, search and seizure protections have been gutted, and forfeiture of "criminal" assets has turned many a police force, now bloated and cash-strapped as the "war" on drugs money and "homeland" security money dries up, into a profit-seeking entity.

What now?

Apparently the response from Lavabit and many others has been just to curl up and go away. The latest to do this is Groklaw - an informative site I have been a huge fan of. "We can't be private in our communications, so we give up." is the summary of most of these sites' goodbye letters. Unlike most sites though, Groklaw watched the watchers. Yes, there are risks involved in watching the surveillance state back. But like all resistance, lawful and otherwise, it's a necessary risk.

Even the Guardian is standing firm - a better summary as to what the combined security apparatchiks in the US and UK are doing: http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/19/british-snoops-to-the-guardian-nice-litt

I know, I know, it's a lot of links to Reason, but then, it's nice when they keep summarizing what it is that I care about.

How Long Must One Study to be This Idiotic?

In its infinite wisdom, VANOC included bits of Leni Riefenstahl (yes, that Leni Riefenstahl) in its promotional videos. Awesome - now all we need is bits of 1984 in there, and we'd have the perfect video track to what's turning out to be the largest military presence in western Canada since World War II. Fifteen minutes of hate, anyone?

In other news, almost 1000 new CCTV cameras now go live in the "Olympic Zone," and are supposedly to be turned off again after they're over. Mmmmkay. Can we at least rename call the Games the 2010 Oppression Games? 2010 Police and Military Games?

Another opinion, nicely summed up is on the Guardian.

At least we can look forward to "Olympic Oppression Done Right" in London in 2012 - they don't need to add any more cameras.

Oh Canada! "Free Speech Areas" to be defined for 2010 Olympics

I read this, thought about it, and after a while, wondered why nobody else picked this up.

Read it on the CBC!

I am sure they'll be near the arctic circle, if they don't arrest people for applying for a "permit to protest." Add to it the recently filed lawsuit against the RCMP going by known protesters' houses and telling them "we're watching you" and this is taking on a whole new dimension. Tasering with abandon is nothing new, but the subtle intimidation has eluded authorities in Canada for some time. Now they're brazen enough to flaunt it on the CBC.

Jokes aside, this paints a frightening picture of the "authorities" and their opinion on what criticisms they should face.

Another Reason I left Canada: Bill C-61

Canada currently imposes a "fine" on all digital and analog media purchased, ostensibly to compensate artists for copyright infringement you'll do with that media. If you use your CDs for a more legitimate purpose than fair use, you paid the fine anyways.

Obviously, you're guilty, proof being irrelevant. This is akin to gasoline having a surcharge added for the speeding ticket you're expected to get.

This has backfired on the music industry. If you're on the side that states that the sales have fallen because the music industry hasn't made all much worth listening to in recent years, rather than piracy, you'll applaud this: Canada's RIAA arm got a serious smackdown about two years ago when the defendant successfully argued that no further damages were due because the fine for the crime had already been paid. That meant that because of the media reimbursement/fine/tax, copying music and video had basically been legalized.

Of course, copyright holders could not let this stand, and so had their henchmen in parliament propose a draconian addition, currently called bill C-61. Hon. Minister of Industry Bill Prentice deserves to lose his seat for this. Here is the summary - you'll note similarities with the US DMCA:

• Circumvention of encryption, no matter how trivial (like xor 81), is now a federal offence (called a felony in the US)
• $500 fine (not clear if it's a minimum or a maximum) for each copyright violation (so a Youtube posting will average $20,000)
• Unlocking of cellphones counts as circumvention of encryption (even if a provider locks your personal cell phone)

The issue, as always, is the fine print, usually skipped by the press. Critics who watch out for this sort of thing argue that the search and seizure rights granted by the bill and others on the books it refers to effectively make Canada a police state, like it isn't already (ask me about September 2003 at Vancouver International Airport one day).

Protests are cropping up all over the place, according to the CBC.

What's really missing from the debate are the following points:

• The new bill would empower distributors, who are the copyright owners (artists surrender this to get distributed), so it does not help artists, and thus does not help creativity.
• Security through Obscurity would also take over the Canadian technology market - it's okay for your bank to use XOR 81 encryption, since it's "illegal to circumvent." Tell that to your ID thief in Russia, and see if he cares. He's thankful his life was made easier.
• Security companies, those that nudge vendors to make their software more secure, now face legal penalties like they do in the United States. Point out another flaw in Internet Explorer, go to jail. There. Microsoft's happy.

Feel safer already?

The point is, the criminals on the networks don't care about this, and they are outside the reach of Canadian law. But the folks whom you trust to keep the people with your information honest will see jail if they tell the people with your information that they're not being responsible.

Good work, Canada!

Saturday Funnies #2: Not funny - FBI uses link clicks to entrap

From the CNET story:

Well, the suspect's lawyers have not used the entrapment defense, since you pretty much need to be forcibly coerced into doing something by law enforcement for that to work.

Even a challenge to the warrant, based on the IP lease information from the ISP, to the house that had an open access point, didn't fly. Nice - so someone with a WEP cracker (10 minutes) can download porn, click on the wrong link, from my connection and I get searched?

I mean - I am sure I could find "suspicious material" on everyone's computer. We're all guilty of something, after all. Heck, a link to here, with its link to cryptome.org is probably enough to get you sent to a secret prison somewhere. Maybe this post contains a secret link to make sure a kiddie porn picture is downloaded to your browsers cache from an FBI computer. You guilty sex offender, you.

Considering how many people click "OK" without reading the sentence above it, how viable is this really?

Don't get me wrong - those links were clearly labeled as child porn with all sorts of disgusting descriptions, so there is cause to be suspicious, but when you see what the convictions are really for (two images in a thumbs.db file) it's a bit of a stretch.

The Saturday Funnies #1: noreply.com apparently gets your mail

Funny for a couple of reasons. Or sad.

So this guy registered donotreply.com (Washington Post, warning, reg req'd sometimes) as a joke in the 90's, and gets confidential emails from all sorts of places - Halliburton's now-famous KBR in Iraq, some banks, and with them all sorts of legal threats from technical luddites who seem to think he's wrong for opening or reviewing emails sent to his address. Sweet.

I guess the really cool thing is he keeps it all on a good natured blog, and if he's mailed a copy of a donation to an animal charity he'll take down the ostensibly offensive post.

It's not like he's posting SSNs, account numbers, or classified information here, although stuff does end up in his inbox, I am sure.

And, instead of hassling the guy, the DHS should give the guy a medal - otherwise their misconfigured emails would end up in the hands of the Russian mob.

Blogger questioned by the FBI for online comments

This blogger was invited down to the local FBI office for his trip through the wringer for posting criticisms of laws, the FBI, and homeland security. Oddly enough, he had the guts to post about that too.

Apparently they censored his blog first though.

Nice!

Officer shot during no-knock warrant; no drugs seized

In from the Gestapo tactics department:

On January 18th, 2008, Officer Jarrod Shivers of the Chesapeake Police Department was shot during entry while serving a "no-knock" warrant for marijuana in the middle of the night. As a result, the lone occupant, Ryan David Frederick, was charged with 1st degree murder after the original group of police called in SWAT for assistance. (Virginia Pilot)

First off, my condolences to the friends and family of the slain officer. It is a tragedy.

However, it is reported that after a second article appeared in the Virginia-Pilot that omitted any drugs from the seized items list taken from the house, one has to wonder if they had the right man or house. The subsequent complete radio silence by the department makes this look like a cover up of the worst degree. So my condolences to the man and his family, who in the absence of explanations by officials, seems like another victim of government overreaching.

In the defense of the police:

• An informant told them that the suspect was growing quantities of marijuana in his garage, had a scale, and packaging equipment.
• A warrant was issued, and the officers served it at the time of their choosing.

In defense of the suspect:

• The Chesapeake PD spokesperson implied that the officers serving the warrant were in plain clothes. Now, if you had someone in plain clothes kick in your door in the dark, would you not legitimately assume this was a home invasion in progress and act to protect yourself? Home invaders are smart enough to pretend to be cops these days, too, so unless the uniform were absolutely clear, I'd argue that in the heat of the moment it would be impossible to make an informed decision, and I'd rather err on the side of my personal safety.
  
• On the seized items list are "three shells, and a Bersa 'Firestorm' .380 hand gun". So am I to believe that an officer serving a no-knock warrant was not wearing a vest? A .380ACP round has less impact energy at the muzzle than a 9mm Parabellum/Luger round does at 25m. All modern, even concealable vests are rated to stop the latter.

Evidence the police used was an informant's statement. That's fine. However, isn't it reasonable to expect that they investigate some more before kicking in doors? Anyone can tell a cop that I am growing pot in a garage, and my door gets kicked in in the middle of the night?

If you were an officer serving a warrant of this sort, in the middle of the night, wouldn't you wear a uniform, or make it absolutely clear that you were police? Yelling "Police!" while kicking in the door isn't enough - home invaders (the criminal sort) do that too.

I think it's sad that this cost an officer's life, and ruined another. Is the fight against a small time pot grower really worth this cost? Remember, pot-heads don't beat their wives. Alcoholics do.

Of course, the online police board have an entirely different view on the matter.

Ron Pauls Newsletters and Lew Rockwell

Well, I guess I had better post these links, just in case you, dear reader, don't follow the ones on the right.

Reason Magazine made a convincing case (to me, anyways, even though the title asked who did it) that longtime friend and business associate Lew Rockwell wrote some of the bigoted vomit into Ron Paul's newsletters. Ron Paul stated that "some crazy staffer" did it. Then it sounded like his campaign was about to come clean, but this would expose Ron Paul as a liar (as if you can be libertarian and pro-life/anti-choice).

Even the Donklephant noticed.

Why do politicians seem to think everyone but them is stupid?

Happy Voting Day, and uh, Apple censors everybody.

First off, I hope you voted. For someone that will defend your rights and freedoms, and not take them away "in order to protect you."

On the digital freedom front, Apple not only manages your digital rights for you (meaning you have none, kind of like having emergencies managed, and oxymoron and a federal agency) and has been super busy removing or blocking access to people complaining on its forums about problems with Mac OS X "Leopard". Especially popular ones, such as ones linked to by enthusiast sites like Tom's Hardware Guide.

Remember that some article noted anecdotally that liberals were more likely to use Macs than anyone else? I guess that's kind of like shutting off conservative talk radio in the name of "equal access."

I don't care for the conservative side of the argument either - so I just don't listen, and act to change my radio station instead of complaining. I know, this "responsibility thing" again, it's easier to blame your (usually someone else's of course) radio for putting conservative babble on, kind of like those "assault weapons" that go around on their own killing people.

Other people complaining about Apple:

Wikia
eMac

And my Google search for the lazy. Clicking on the news header is also educational.