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 I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Vancouver 2010 Olympics

Just in: Vancouver Olympics Committee embarrassed to ask Vancouver Symphony to "Milli Vanilli" their music.

It's true, I read it all on the CBC (credit them for the pic on the right too).

First comes the article:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/12/19/symphony-olympics.html


And then their hasty apology:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/12/20/bc-vanoc-apology-symphony-orchestra.html

In VANOC's defense:

It is usually recommended that the performances for live television events be recorded in the event of technical difficulties. Fine - but asking a while orchestra to pull a Milli Vanilli?

You got caught, then backpedaled because you realized this was retarded.

VANOC, why stop there?

Apologize to the taxpayer who will be stuck paying for your boondoggle - in 2006 you were already 110 million over budget. How much is it now?

The apologize to the protesters, whom you want to keep in "free speech areas." Less willing to taze and pepper-spray their way to notoriety (as if they needed more), Vancouver police shoves this chief into the limelight trying to backpedal. Nobody buys this, since it'll be the RCMP doing the tazing and pepper spraying anyways.

Then apologize to the radicalized protesters, to whom RCMP have said "we're watching you!"
CBC Story 1
CBC Story 2 (6000 km away in Nova Scotia...)
CBC Story 3


Then apologize to the people that lampoon you in protest, and the copyright law abuse you attempted to have passed in Vancouver city council. (Backpedaling here)


Apologize to the future generations of British Columbians for not being able to see the pristine "wilderness preserve" blasted and bulldozed for your demanded highway improvements. Never mind the luxury homes along the route as part of the package.

And the Olympics should apologize for having become an institution in whose name human rights are suppressed worldwide. Remember the people who applied for protest permits in 2008...

Dare I say that the Olympics, as noble as their claimed intentions are, are now a world leader in causing oppression?

Cash for Clunkers: Punish Responsible People

I am getting sick of hearing "cash for clunkers is out of money" between dealership car ads.

So let me get this straight - anyone dumb enough to buy a car that didn't even get 20 mpg, bitched about it, gets a reward of up to $4500 for my stupidity.

Got it, thanks - the rest of us responsible proles subsidize the stupid and self-centered once again.

DC Police Chief calls iPhone Users Cowards

This is almost too funny to pass up - DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier calls iPhone users cowards for using an application that alerts them to DC speed cameras, and then laments how getting the software banned would be impractical. I guess they get brownie points for going to DC in the first place, but NO points for going the speed limit.

I call them cowards for having their digital rights managed. Why not force all iPhones to report their speeding owners? It's just another addendum to the iTunes terms of service :-)

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.

Digital Transition: Once Again, Consumer Loses

Well, us proles will now have to live with digital transmission "quality."

My disclaimer: I have cable, from none other than Comcast. I always wonder if there is a good cable company, but that's enough for a whole blog on its own. And don't ask me about the esteemed products by Scientific Atlanta (now Cisco)...

Here are my notes:

1. So you transmit a HD signal, right? Why would you then use it to transmit a signal with poorer quality than before? I mean, all the shows in the last months (say, CNN on cable) have converted to even crappier looks, but then take the time to remind you this is supposed to be "HD" by putting the HD logos on both sides of the screen. You look like a shitty YouTube video.

2. Local TV stations do the same, although I am impressed by their commercials alternating between HD and low-res ones with illegible fine print (a bunch o'pixels).

3. Digital DRM still allows remote volume control. Just so you don't miss them, they still broadcast the commercials at volumes that give me blurry vision. Even feeding the digital into an external decoder (like my stereo receiver) causes this, so my pre-HDMI digital unit still understands the "crank it" flag. Ugh.

Never mind that the true proles (not us digitally enabled people in the outer party living within the grace of cable companies, or who buy new TVs every five years) have to buy this box to make their TVs work again, and the government hand-out program doing this ran out of money. Never mind the 22 billion dollars that were collected by the auction for the spectrum freed by DTV, which should be enough to buy everyone in the states a wide screen. $60 for a DTV converter box without the subsidy lets you discover that while you don't need as strong a signal, they're all broadcasting so weakly that you can't receive sh*t with your old rabbit ears. Or my PC DTV tuner.

I guess GW was right - "digitalistical tee vee is da best."

News of the "Death of American Capitalism" grossly exaggerated

As there is further evidence of the bills on the unsustainable becoming due, let me remind you, humbly, of this:

Eight billion in farm subsidies. (Federal budget, 2006)
One trillion in oil company subsidies. (est.)
One trillion in nuclear energy subsidies. (est.)

Now, please explain to me where the capitalism part comes from.

For all of the blaming of the "free market's" role in the economic correction (say "meltdown" like you're out of breath or something), let me remind you that there isn't one, at least in America.

Much of the subsidies are returned to Washington in the form of fees paid to lobbying firms, probably a quarter in all.

Things to be said to consumers:

Nobody made you sign the leases, loans, and mortgages at variable interest rates.

Nobody told you that signing the leases, loans and mortgages absolved you of following a sound financial course.

So why did you?

Why make the rest of us pay?

Handout/bailout passes, markets plunge even more

Bound to happen. Why you ask?

Because the markets weren't afraid of the correction. They were afraid of government's reaction to a healthy correction.

It just goes to show you that Congress is really run by CNN hype-mongers.

Edit:

Washington Post's Howard Kurtz looks at this, and comments on how journalists are told that "well, you don't have an MBA. Trust us." Had I been there I would have shot back and stated "well, you people seem to think that leveraging synergies in the enterprise is always a good idea."

The point is, this crisis is MBA and press-made. While the mortgage and investment derivatives markets were deregulated during Clinton's first term, there is blame for both parties here, and just as much blame on consumers for signing mortgage contracts that they either didn't read, didn't understand, or being so desperate that they'd bet their dream on a bubble. But you can't blame the consumer. Unless you don't want to win the election.

Think of this way. 50 years ago, it took a working family (that would be one bread winner) about 10-20 years to pay off a single family home. Today, it takes two bread winners 40 to 60 years, and was rising ever faster. Measuring costs and prices in working family years or average income years does put the prices of things into a clearer perspective.

Alas, this does not fit the view of neo-classical economics, nor does it fit the hype-and-hype strategies of the press or the MBA corps.

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!

The AG declares you guilty

It looks like another suspension of the 5th amendment is under way in congress. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced HR4279, "Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008". Slashdot of course has the discussion of this.

What this bill purportedly does is create an office of intellectual property enforcement within the "Department of Justice", with powers to seize equipment that contains just one file of "dubious origin." Interestingly, seizure of items seems to be under the same rules as pioneered in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, and copyright and trademark infringements are now bona fide felonies. I recall the drug control programs working rather well in the USA, don't you?

So, basically, your computer now belongs to the government, since within your browser's cache there is a guaranteed image file covered in some sort of copyright dispute. I suggest they check Mr. Conyers' computers first.

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.

Say it's not so, Britain! CCTV is not a deterrent?

The Telegraph has an article where police admit openly that drunks are not deterred from attacking each other, or the occasional passersby, by the proliferation of CCTV cameras. This was admitted in front of the House of Lords, no less.

Just imagine - the drunken rabble does not care that it's being recorded while stomping the head of a hapless victim against a curb. And they'll get away with it - another study showed that 80% of images captured were of such poor quality that they neither helped get a conviction after the fact or even identify one of the perpetrators.

Great. At least the family gets to see their loved one's last moments alive, or more commonly, being able-bodied on grainy CCTV recordings.

Maybe it would have stopped the 9/11 terrorists. Wait! They were on CCTV too!

Corporate Accountability: Bill Collectors

I find it very interesting that any company can post what they want on your credit report, and then you have to prove it's not true, with no accountability, and little recourse to the company posting wanton incorrect information.

Example: You go to the hospital. What you don't know:

• Each department does its own billing, so that makes:
• ER doctor
• ER
• Surgeon
• Anesthesiologist
  
• Hospital Surgery Department
• Hospital Recovery
• Say one or two of those departments don't get the billing information passed on by admissions. They do have your name, SSN, but get your address wrong, and "forget" that other departments have this information.
• Since the bill gets mis-sent, and the insurance information is not available for you, and even though they have your phone number nobody bothers to call, the bill gets sent to collections.
• The other bills are paid by insurance, and you actually never see them.
• Unpaid amounts sent to collections, and sit there for five years.
  
• Collections at some point sells off the bad receivables to another collector.
  
• Collector files "in collections" to SSN on that account.

Now, let me ask the following:

1. Nobody bothered to contact the debtor. Ever.
2. The addresses on the credit report from all three credit reporting agencies were correct - looking at that would have made it clear that the address was transliterated when transferred between departments.
3. Debtor contacted original hospital for another matter (where a call was made for a different case, and some insurance information screwup), asks if there is anything else outstanding, and gets told of one of the outstanding amounts. Debtor asks is there is anything else owing, is told no. Debtor arranges payment through the insurance company.
4. Debtor finds the entries on his credit report. Contacts collector, arranges payment.

Now, the problem is that the last collecting company could not be bothered to pull contact information for the debtor, but could be bothered to file the same bills, at different months, with all three collecting agencies.

What recourse does the debtor have?

1. Debtor contacted collector, and paid of own volition.
2. Debtor is on record asking about other debts prior to being placed in collection.
3. Debtor's SSN and phone number were correct, active, and connected during this time, with current addresses on the credit report.

Thoughts?

Newsflash: Terrorists use "low tech tricks" to foil authorities

Oh no!

The Washington Post reports here that terrorists are using low tech, simple codeword transliteration to foil attempts to monitor them. No kidding. Dough becomes explosives, the hospital becomes jail, and ... you should get the picture.

Scared?

You should be. According to the article, in 2005 Andrew Rowe was sent to prison for 15 years because authorities felt they found a code book mapping Nokia phone model numbers to other "things." Presumably they had to do with terrorism, but nobody could figure out a specific plot, meaning his crime, other than a transliteration booklet, is unspecified.

Wait! If I say, I'd like a Nokia 6610, and that the Nokia N80 sucks, I can go to jail for 15 years?

Awesome!

So you didn't have the dough to help your cousin with the hospital bill? Guilty you are!

I guess it's high time sacrifice more freedoms for security, don't you think?

More on Possible Outcomes on the Second Amendment

Well, there could be another outcome of the US Supreme Court Case. It's highly unlikely, but considering that the purpose of the second amendment is:

1. Protect the People from the Government
2. Protect the United States from foreign subjugation

One could reasonably expect that the founding fathers deemed that the arms to be kept by the people, by their nature, need to be of military relevance to be useful in a militia. This is also what I typically say to those that the second amendment counts only for arms of the time - i.e. Muskets. Anyone who has studied history would know that anyone shot with a black powder firearm is in a world of hurt too, and the wounds they leave significantly less humane than a modern firearm.

If this is the outcome, we could see the legal definition of "machine guns" and "assault weapons" being made completely legal, and the remainder of the firearms be deemed "not militarily relevant" and thus subject to regulation. The USA would turn to Switzerland...

"Sorry son, you can't buy that little pistol. But we have this M249 machine gun on special..."

Supreme Court to hear on 2nd Amendment

Well, this ought to be interesting. We have DC on one side, saying the right to have a firearm is not being infringed if it's denied outright, and a security guard denied a permit to have a firearm in the district on the other side, all of this backed by the Cato institute.

The NRA-ILA was against this, since, well, their reason for existing was being threatened.

So what happens if firearms ownership is ruled a collective right?

Good question. At worst, the new democratic president would order all firearms in private hands taken away, and the USA would be just like the UK, with its skyrocketing violent crime rates. Sure, fewer people die there, but a lot more get curbstomped by drunk thugs.

What happens if this becomes a clear individual right?

Well, if the National Firearms Act gets thrown out entirely, then even convicted felons could legally purchase any firearm available, although many states have clear rules that prevent that, and those laws would not be invalidated.

Most likely there would be a backlash with the new presidency, and likely new, more restrictive laws would be enacted. Like California, where you pretty much have to be shot before you can shoot in self defense (without being charged with a felony), this would likely be the national case. The revenge of the liberals would be upon us, and self defense be made illegal.

I stuck my neck out and posted the following on the Washington Post article and editorial discussing this:

To the "government will help us" people: Specifically in the District, the right to police protection is a COLLECTIVE RIGHT. This means, according to case law, that you have to recourse if the cops don't show up when a robber wants your wallet, which you gave him, and now wants your daughter. Remember Warren vs. District of Columbia (1981).

"Children Die" because of guns. They sure do, but this is lack of parental guidance, and as much the fault of the parents. Teaching your children to not touch, and get an adult is simple, yet most people abrogate their responsibility to their children to the state.

"The streets will run with blood":
Well, Virginia's crime rate has dropped, as have those states with "shall issue" concealed carry laws. These laws state that you need not have a "valid reason" (like being a friend of the sherrif, as is the case in LA county, California) to apply for a permit. The only exception is Philadelphia, but this is clearly a case of illegal guns, and not legally purchased ones. VA Tech rampager Cho purchased his pistols legally because laws were not being followed. Note also, that you're statistically less likely to be shot by someone with a concealed pistol/weapon permit than you are by a cop - CHP holders have had more stringent background investigations done than most police, all the way to the FBI level. They are the least likely to commit a felony, ever, even lower than police.

"You're more likely to be shot with a gun in your home. This study proves it." You're right, but if you look into the statistics, they include guns brought into the home by the assailants, and also count criminal on criminal activity, like dope houses getting shot up. Statistics are meaningless unless one looks at the real numbers in question.

Now, I am all for gun control, but control the illegal stuff first before controlling what I have. I have not broken any laws, and restricting me as if I would, could, or will break the law breaks my ... what is it, 4th amendment right to due process?

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.