Matthew

For years, plenty of people have been wondering why HBO absolutely refused to offer a standalone internet offering for cord cutters (and cord nevers), with the general response being that "the math" was against it. Basically, HBO gets a ton of money from cable, and every time new customers sign up, that's free money for HBO without having to spend anything on marketing. A standalone product may not even bring in as much money and would require HBO to do more marketing efforts on its own for the offering. Of course, as we pointed out in response to that argument, "waiting for the math to make sense" is a kind of predictor for legacy companies that wait too long to innovate and find that the future has become the present while they're still in the past.

Eventually, the timing was going to be right, and apparently HBO has decided that time is now. Or, at least, sometime next year. The company announced plans to launch a stand-alone internet offering leading to much speculation. Actual details are lacking, and there's some speculation that it might be a very different product than the current HBO Go offering. Some are saying it may actually be in coordination with another player (like Amazon or Hulu). Reading too much into at this point doesn't do much good.

Of course, this has also led to some speculation that it may increase people cutting the cord -- and that's likely true for the segment of the population that has cable for HBO (duh) and not for sports (a bigger driver). However, the real point here may be that where HBO goes, others are likely to follow -- including sports.

HBO's decoupling with cable TV may not single-handedly change the cable TV market, but it's a sign of a much larger shift that started long before and is now dragging HBO along with it. The traditional cable TV market has been ripe for disruption for quite some time. This is just a single mile marker in an ongoing process.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Whether you have trick-or-treaters of your own, or you'll just be stocking up on discount candy on November 1st, you'll need this chart.

READ MORE »

We've been among those who have pointed out that the "most transparent administration in history," the Obama administration, has prosecuted media leakers more than all other Presidents in history combined (eight prosecutions in this administration, compared to three total in all previous administrations). Gabe Rottman, over at the ACLU, decided to dig into another stat: how much time has the Obama administration been able to lock up media leakers in jail compared to all other administrations. The answer? The Obama administration has put folks who leaked info to the media in jail for 526 months as compared to 24 months for all other Presidents combined. Admittedly, 420 of those months went to Chelsea Manning, but even if you take that out, we're still talking 106 months for other leakers in cases from this one administration vs. 24 months for all other administrations.

It once again has to make you wonder why the Obama Administration is so focused on punishing anyone who leaks information to the media (even as it likes to "unofficially" leak information all the time). In the end, I keep going back to the speculation I heard from Daniel Ellsberg nearly four years ago (which is also where I first heard the stat about the number of Obama prosecutions against leakers -- at that time, it was just five prosecutions, rather than eight).

Ellsberg's theory was that while President Bush abused the power of the Presidency in the surveillance realm, he was actually proud of it. And while people were upset about secrets leaking, they didn't find it embarrassing. President Obama, on the other hand, came into office claiming to be different -- arguing against those kinds of abuses and promising changes and protections for civil rights. Instead, it appears that the process started under President Bush continued and expanded under President Obama and -- Ellsberg speculated years ago -- the President is somewhat embarrassed by this, leading him and his administration to react negatively to the leaks. Not because of any legitimate security concern, but to try to silence those who seek to reveal that the administration and the President have not come close to living up to their ideals but rather went the other way entirely.

Putting those who leaked info to the media in jail for 526 months -- nearly 44 years -- says a lot about the way the administration truly views whistleblowing, and it's not a saying anything good.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

New exclusive comic today at The Nib!

My new running book hit bookshelves today

View

We all hate when prices for our favorite goods and services go up. Another big service is set to increase their prices soon. Plex, which allows you to stream multimedia content over your home network, will now be asking for a $5 monthly fee, up from its typical $4. Not too bad there. The annual fee is rising from $30 to $40. The biggest jump is the lifetime access option: it’ll be doubled from $75 to $150.

Thankfully you will have a chance to stay locked into these prices for as long as you’re a member. Folks already signed up for Plex will be able to stay locked into whichever option they chose, while new users (or existing users wanting to hop onto a different subscription type) will have until September 29, 2014 to get in on the fun.

Plex says this change didn’t come on a whim or for no reason, as they have many new updates and developments in the work that these changes will help support:

We’re working harder than ever to bring more Plex goodness to all your favorite devices, and we’re super excited about the things we’re working on and can’t wait to share them with you over the next few months! With premium features and content, sometimes come moderate cost increases.

They also left the door open to further price increases down the line, so you’ve been adequately warned. Be sure to head to Plex’s site today to sign up if you want to make sure you’re locked in before the cheaper gates close.

We're big fans of IKEA's kitchen cabinet system, AKURUM. It offers value, a great warranty, and modern design for a fraction of the price of custom and semi-custom cabinets. I installed AKURUM cabinets while renovating my own kitchen and have been very happy with them (see how they look).

But there have been murmurs and rumblings about the demise of AKURUM, and IKEA has officially announced the news: AKURUM will be replaced by a new kitchen system, SEKTION, starting February 2015. Read on for more details and lots of photos!

READ MORE »

The slow descent into madness continues...

Starting this month Verizon FiOS customers can get upload speeds every bit as fast as their download speeds. Since that means faster, easier sharing of high-res illustrations, designs, and photos, FiOS is sponsoring a series of posts on Colossal to help us commission and share these super hi-res animated GIFs from some of the most amazing artists we could find.

Digital artist Dave Whyte (previously) continues to amaze us with his impressive mathematical gifs that bounce, swirl, and twist around the web as quickly as he posts them online. The Dublin-based PhD student is currently studying the physics of foam and tells us his first geometric gifs riffed on computational modules he was exploring while in undergrad. As interest in the work grows Whyte is focusing more on his artistic side, pushing the boundaries of these small animations created with the Processing programming language. He’s now able to fully envision each animation before coding it, making tweaks to color, timing, and measurements along the way. The artist publishes new images almost daily on his Tumblr, Bees & Bombs.

Hey, look! It's more abuse of privileges by people in power. (via PoliceMisconduct.net)

Court documents show that Fairfield Police Officers Stephen Ruiz and Jacob Glashoff used company time and equipment to search for women on internet dating sites.

Just a bad idea, whether you're a government employee or engaged in the private sector rat race. In almost every case, using work computers (while on the clock) to surf dating sites will be a violation of company/agency policy. But there's more.

Court documents allege the officers then used a police-issued computer to look up the women they found appealing in a confidential law enforcement database that connects to the DMV and state and federal records.

This isn't an isolated incident. Government employees and law enforcement officers have a long history of abusing the public's trust.

There's not a ton of commentary to add here. The basic issue is this: many, many people have access to personal information that the government demands you provide in exchange for essential items like driver's licenses, vehicle/home titles, etc. Connected to these databases is one used to house information on every person booked by police (notably, not every person convicted or even every person charged).

Some people place a lot of trust in those who have access to this information. This trust is often misplaced. Many others place no trust in those who have this access and yet, there is very little they can do without placing their personal information in the hands of people they actively distrust.

Having verifiable records on hand is a safeguard against fraud and other criminal activity… by the public. The internal safeguards meant to protect citizens from untoward actions by public servants are ultimately useless because the government far too frequently refuses to take serious actions against those who abuse the public's trust. People are given paid suspensions or are allowed to transfer out of the agency rather than face more severe consequences. These two officers face the possibility of criminal charges (after being reported by another officer -- kudos to him or her) but in the meantime, both are still on duty and fully paid. Innocent until proven guilty, sure, but it would seem the police department should have caught this before it became a problem severe enough that felony charges are even being discussed. Externally, police are issuing tickets for expired vehicle tags and other minor lapses. Internally, no one can apparently be bothered to monitor access of sensitive info.

Defenders of surveillance and the wholesale collection of personal information by government entities often claim the Googles and Twitters of the world are just as disinterested in your privacy as any government agency. But you can opt out of Google, Twitter, et al. You can choose to not participate. The government, for the most part, isn't optional. There's no TOS you can read before deciding to do business elsewhere. Your information is gathered, stored and rifled through by any number of people, some of whom are doing it just because their positions give them access.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Read 7 remaining paragraphs | Comments

President Obama, most likely prompted by the invasion of Ferguson by armed forces, has called for a review of military equipment provided to local police departments by the same government he presides over. Presumably, this isn't the sort of "review" he has in mind.

Not that local law enforcement agencies couldn't throw an impressive Victory Day parade. The 1033 program, which sends military vehicles, weapons and equipment downstream to law enforcement agencies for pennies on the dollar, has shifted $4.3 billion from the Dept. of Defense to hundreds of police departments across the United States since 1997. Here's what the President is actually interested in seeing.

"Among other things, the president has asked for a review of whether these programs are appropriate," said a senior administration official, who was not authorized to speak on the record about the internal assessment. The review also will assess "whether state and local law enforcement are provided with the necessary training and guidance; and whether the federal government is sufficiently auditing the use of equipment obtained through federal programs and funding."

In other words, don't expect much to change, and not any time soon (if at all). "Training and guidance" are just fancy words for mandated Powerpoint presentations and initials from all officers required to attend these sessions. There's not much in here that indicates the government will start recalling equipment from over-armed law enforcement agencies. And as we all know, the government is objectively terrible at auditing itself. It's especially terrible when it comes to entities engaged in drug/terrorism wars. Let's not forget the Attorney General's office has yet to compile its required yearly roundup of excessive force statistics... for the 20th year in a row.

We can also expect a whole lot of nothing considering how many government agencies will be allowed to meddle with review process. The full list (so far) includes a fair number of entities whose self-interest will far outweigh their desire to make the United States a better place for its citizens.

The official said the review will be led by White House staff, including the Domestic Policy Council, the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget, along with the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury.

Speaking of the Attorney General: Eric Holder, who recently visited Ferguson, Missouri, made the following statement in nominal support of the review.

“This equipment flowed to local police forces because they were increasingly being asked to assist in counterterrorism,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a statement Saturday. “But displays of force in response to mostly peaceful demonstrations can be counterproductive. It makes sense to take a look at whether military-style equipment is being acquired for the right purposes and whether there is proper training on when and how to deploy it.”

Yes, "because terrorism" is the justification listed most often on War Machine Requisition Requests [Short Form]. The federal government is as much to blame as anybody, willing to oblige even the most paranoiac request with an explosive-resistant vehicle and a handful of assault rifles. But if you hand over a bunch of war toys to combat-ready cops desperately in search of a war, they'll create one if the public isn't willing to oblige.

Agencies cite domestic terrorism fears and then use the guns and vehicles for basic warrant service. Local SWAT teams, which are now more heavily armed than the military itself, are deployed for increasingly mundane tasks. And when finally given a reason to break out all of its acquisitions, officers roll up on the First Amendment in armored vehicles with gunmen on top and fire tear gas into/at crowds using grenade launchers.

As populist as this move is by the administration, it's still preferable to it doing nothing in the wake of the Ferguson debacle. I'd say we'll have to wait and see what comes of this, but I think we can pretty much agree that it's more noise than substance. It's been well over a decade since the US government decided fighting terrorism was Job #1 and nothing has really been rolled back since. We're finally seeing some pushback against dragnet surveillance, but that's something that has been forced on the government by a series of leaks, rather than a top-down initiative spearheaded by either of the two administrations presiding over US v. Terror.

Over-militarization isn't a new problem. It's just suddenly a highly visible problem. Inevitably, Ferguson will recede into the background and the President's review will just be another directive that's ignored or half-assed by a plethora of agencies who feel there's ultimately nothing wrong with deputizing the nation's police forces into the War on Terror and handing them equipment to use against non-terrorists. Let's not forget that behind every self-interested agency stands a number of self-interested corporations whose main goal is to secure lucrative, long-lasting contracts. No one listed above has any interest in tightening their belts, being more responsible about the distribution of military equipment or dialing back the marketing of terrorism as an all-encompassing, existential threat.

The President isn't interested either, but he had to respond to the situation somehow. And this is it: a highly-symbolic directive meant to address something the government only views as a fleeting concern, rather than the ongoing problem it actually is.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Over the weekend, Engadget had a post claiming that India has said it's illegal to "like" blasphemous content. The headline there somewhat misstates what's actually happening, but what's actually going on is no less ridiculous. It is not all of India, but rather the state of Karnataka (which includes the city of Bangalore), which has passed a new law officially called "The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates (Amendment) Bill, 2014" though it is being locally referred to as the Goonda Act. The main thing it has done is taken offenses under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and let the government take people into preventative custody if they think you're going to break one of those laws. And, the law is written so broadly that it can also potentially be used against various activities online:

Until now, people with a history of offences like bootlegging, drug offences and immoral trafficking could be taken into preventive custody. But the government, in its enthusiasm, while adding acid attackers and sexual predators to the law, has also added 'digital offenders'. While it was thought to be against audio and video pirates, Bangalore Mirror has found it could be directed at all those who frequent FB, Twitter and the online world, posting casual comments and reactions to events unfolding around them.

The implications here for a variety of things are massive. Planning to share something that someone merely claims is covered by their copyright? You can get a year in jail without a chance of bail. Ditto for forwarding a photo that the government decides is "obscene."

Advocate Nagendra Naik says, "The Goonda Act provides for preventive arrest. In the Information Technology Act and The Copyright Act, you have to commit the offence to be arrested. But here, you can be taken into preventive custody even before you commit the said offences. In normal arrests, you can straightaway apply for bail. But under the Goonda Act, you cannot. There is a long process of review and you will be in custody at least till then. The third impact is, you can have a history sheet started against you by the police. Technically, your slips on WhatsApp will attract the Goonda Act against you."

The fact that both the IT Act and the Copyright Act are already excessive is only further exacerbated by the Goonda Act allowing for preventative arrests. As the Bangalore Mirror notes:

Section 67 of the IT Act will be the most dangerous for the common man with a smartphone in hand now. The section, "Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form," includes "any material which is lascivious or appeal to the prurient interest." This could have a very broad interpretation.

A useful Constitutional analysis of the new law, highlights the many problems with the law. It notes that including these kinds of activities is classic prior restraint, which is not allowed in India.

The Goonda Act, with its wide-ranging preventive detention provisions for a whole host of offences (295A, 153A, 67 IT Act and so on) takes no account of the Supreme Court’s carefully crafted proximity requirement between speech and public order. Consequently, it is over-broad: i.e., it prohibits speech that it is entitled to prohibit (that bearing a proximate connection with public order), and that which it is not entitled to prohibit (all other kinds of speech). This makes it clearly unconstitutional. It is to be hoped that the Act will be swiftly challenged before the Courts, and struck down – or at least, the offending portions severed from the rest.

Others have noted that, as in the US, things like state laws cannot incorporate and expand federal laws, and yet that seems to be exactly what the Goonda law is trying to do here.

Here's more from the Bangalore Mirror on that issue:

Supreme Court advocate KV Dhananjay says, "The definition of a 'digital offender' is simply laughable. I do not think that whoever asked the state government to include 'digital offence' under the Goonda Act has carefully read the Constitution of India. Under the Constitution, both copyright and telecommunications are exclusive central subjects. This means that states simply cannot make any law on these subjects."

And another example of how this law is absolutely ridiculous:

Sunil Abraham gives two examples by which the amended Goonda Act will become a ruthless piece of legislation. "If I publish an image of a naked body as part of a scientific article about the human body, is it obscene or not? It will not be obscene and, if I am arrested under the IT Act, I will be produced before the magistrate within 24 hours and can explain it to him. But now, I will be arrested under the Goonda Act and need not be produced before a magistrate for 90 days. It can be extended to one year. So for one year, I will be in jail even if I have not committed any wrong. Another example pertains to bringing offences under the Copyright Act under the Goonda Act. In the Copyright Act, there is an exception for reporting, research, educational and people with disability. A visually impaired person, for example, can, without paying royalty, convert a book into another format like Braille or audio and share it with another visually impaired person on a non-profit basis. But if he is arrested under Goonda Act, he will be in jail for one year, even before he does it."

As multiple people discussing this new law have noted, it seems clearly unconstitutional, but will almost certainly be abused (and enable corruption) in the meantime. The fact that law enforcement can jail you without bail as a "preventative" measure based on their belief that you might do something that infringes or which is "blasphemous" (without any real definition) is dangerously excessive.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

You know something's wrong when the police have become public enemy number one — and this week, that's the story the top comments tell. The most popular target for this week's ire wasn't even a cop from Ferguson, but rather an LAPD officer whose tone-deaf, self-contradictory opinion column spurred Michael to write our most insightful comment of the week:

Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you.

Ladies: do what the rapist tells you to and it will end safely for both of you.

Children: do what the molester tells you to and it will end safely for both of you.

Journalists: do what the government tells you to and it will end safely for both of you.

Jews: do what the Nazi tells you to and it will end safely for both of you.

...I'm not sure his advice is very good...

The officer's position was confusing, and he didn't seem to realize that some parts ("I know that some officers engage in unprofessional and arrogant behavior; sometimes they behave like criminals themselves ... And you don’t have to submit to an illegal stop or search. You can refuse consent") entirely and directly contradicted his overall message that you must always, unquestioningly, do whatever a cop tells you to. In the face of such doublespeak, Digger got frustrated enough to write our second most insightful comment of the week:

No police officer has the authority to commit an illegal act. period.
No police officer has any authority when they are bullying or harassing people for the fun of it.
No police officer has any legal standing when they ignore people's Constitutional rights.
No police officer is above the law.

So Mr. High and Mighty L.A.P.D. Officer, what I say to you is - shut the fuck up you pathetic little whiner. Do you know why you get cursed at? Yelled at? Called vile names? It's because your brethren, predecessors and hell, possibly even you do all of the above, which makes the people that you work for angry.

Guess what happens you piss off your bosses. You get fired, you get demoted, you get thrown out. Since you cops think that just because you wear a badge you have the right to do anything you want, say anything you want, harass anyone you want, you're going to get treated like the scum you are.

Act professional. Act within the letter as well as intent of the law. Arrest your fellow officers that do not comply with this. Prevent abuse and harassment by your fellow officers. Take the time to talk to those people who you normally just stare down at from your high horse. Get to know them, they're usually pretty good people who are scared of what you're going to do to them today. People get angry and do stupid shit when scared, so stop scaring them, stop angering them, stop the abuses of the police state.

We the people are the law, you the police officers are the ones who were hired, by us, to enforce it. If you cannot or will not do the job correctly, we the people will take action and remove you from the job in whatever way necessary. Does that sound like a threat? It's not - it's just common sense. Something that is sorely lacking in today's police departments and governments.

The crux of the defence offered by the police and their supporters is that they face danger and abuse in their job, making their more questionable actions necessary or at least understandable. Our first editor's choice for insightful goes to That One Guy for explaining why cops need to stop playing the victim card, and start being the "bigger man":

Working the street, I can’t even count how many times I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone, and outright challenges to my authority.

Cops, by the very nature of their job, are going to see people at their worst. They are going to encounter people who've just had something terrible or tragic happen, people who are under intense stress and are looking to lash out, to somehow deal with the situation, to get some measure of 'control' back into their lives.

This may take the form of 'curses', it may take the form of 'screaming tantrums', or something similarly drastic or 'confrontational'.

Cops also, by the nature of their job and the power and authority vested in that position are quite often seen as a threat. They are people who can, at a whim, make your life miserable, carry, and are allowed to use, such 'delightful' items as batons, tazers, pepper spray, and pistols. People who have few actual limits as to what they can do to a member of the public, but who are protected, extremely so, by the system and their fellow officers from the public.

It should go without saying that people that are seen as a threat, generally don't get the warmest welcome.

Given the above, the various reasons people aren't going to be on their best around cops, and the fact that none of this should be a surprise to anyone who is, or is looking to become, a cop, if he, or any other officer can't maintain a professional demeanor around this sort of response from the public, if they can't remain civil and polite even if the other person isn't, I've a simple suggestion: Get another job. Because if they can't handle that sort of stuff, then they don't deserve the position and power they have as police.

Whining about how 'hard' the job is is just that, whining. They knew how hard the job was before going in(or they should have anyway), and yet they took it anyway, if they can't handle it, get out, and let someone more qualified take their place.

For our second editor's choice, we'll take one brief detour from admonishing the police. After a UK man was sentenced to 33 months in jail for filming and uploading a movie, one commenter transparently attempted to derail the discussion by making it all about black-and-white "morals" — a notion jupiterkansas rightly rejected:

You can't bring up morality until we've settled on the morality of continuous extensions of copyright length so that that it now lasts two lifetimes and has locked up a whole century of culture.

You can't bring up morality until you we've settled on how Hollywood and the music business cooks the books and doesn't pay out royalties they way they should.

The laws must command respect and businesses must behave respectably before you can start talking about the morality of what some kid does with a video camera in a movie theatre.

If you think he deserves jail, then there's a lot more immoral people that need to be behind bars.

The article isn't about whether someone did something wrong or not. It's about the extreme punishment for a minor offence based on lousy laws dictated by a private company.

Over on the funny side, we're back to the cops. With the situation in Ferguson continuing to bubble and the cops continuing to threaten reporters, one anonymous commenter took first place by asking a simple question:

Why hasn't anybody blamed video games yet?

Meanwhile, with more and more people demanding to know why local police forces have been kitted out with military-grade equipment, Squirrels Without Borders gave the only possible satisfactory answer — a bunch of lies:

You guys have short memories. That is why you don't realize why this level of force is necessary.

What about the time when the citizens of Ferguson, MO beheaded an American journalist?
What about the time when the citizens of Ferguson, MO crashed several planes into skyscrapers?
What about the time when the citizens of Ferguson, MO hid weapons of mass destruction?
What about the time when the citizens of Ferguson, MO tried to capture territory below the 42nd parallel?
What about the time when the citizens of Ferguson, MO bombed the pacific fleet?
What about the time when the citizens of Ferguson, MO invaded France and Poland?

For editor's choice for funny, we start with one more nod to Michael, whose reply to an anonymous commenter's claim of having been stopped 37 times by the cops is some professional-grade satire, though I'm not sure about the choice of "widdling":

Careful, you are widdling down your anonymity.

We now know that you are in your 20's, black, and live in New York City.

Finally, after hearing the news that the National Guard (which is now withdrawing) was moving into Ferguson, another anonymous commenter perfectly expressed our shared hope for a peaceful resolution:

I hope the National Guard has better luck at dispersing the police than the protesters have had.

That's all for this week, folks!

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

If you're interested in parasites, Kelly did an interview.

I gave a short talk at W00tstock this year about animals in space.

View

Reflection photography is a challenging and special sort of photography that requires a good grasp of angles and perspective and an ever-vigilant artist’s eye. These 25 photos are just a few examples of the amazing reflection photos that can be taken if you keep your eyes open.

Reflection photos can be hard to capture because they require you to think about your perspective differently. Instead of shooting a beautiful scene head-on just as you see it, you may have to change your perspective drastically or even shoot upside-down to be able to capture a good reflected photo. The rewards, however, can be wonderful – reflections can place images within images, or apply beautiful and artistic effects naturally – without Photoshop.

Inception In New York

Image credits: Trey Ratcliff

Milan Reflected In A Tuba

Image credits: Diego Bardone

Prague In A Wine Glass

Image credits: imgur

Chicago Reflected On Lake Michigan

Image credits: Marc Hersch

An Illuminated Bridge In Comacchio, Italy

Image credits: uccio78

Surreal Self-Portrait With A Mirror Shard

Image credits: Paul Apal’kin

Street Lamp

Image credits: Marco Britto

Skyscrapers

Image credits: wtek79

Girl Peeks At Apple On Reflective Table

Image credits: Philip Cornish

Grand Palace Reflected On Table In Lille, France

Image credits: elessar91

The World Upside Down

Image credits: Patty

La Defense Reflections in Paris

Image credits: Daniel Vine Garcia

Daily Life Reflections

Image credits: Anil Tamer Yilmazz

Reflected Skyline Of Doha, Qatar

Image credits: donyana.com

Reflection Of Faith

Image credits: FW Stupidio

Flowers Inside Waterdrops

Image credits: Miki Asai

Scottish Landscape

Image credits: Michal Vitasek

In Silence

Image credits: Jacek Stefan

Colorful Reflected Houses

Image credits: Toni Verdú Carbó

Kiss

Image credits: Nika Vera

Winter

Image credits: unknown

The Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey

Image credits: Bruno Kolovrat

Flowers Reflected In Dewdrops

Image credits: Miki Asai

Let It Rain

Image credits: David Marcu

These 25 Stunning Reflection Photos Will Turn Your World Upside Down originally appeared on Bored Panda on July 30, 2014.

After they were tipped off that a Walmart ice cream sandwich left out overnight didn't melt, a Cincinnati news station set out to investigate. They put the question to food scientists, and the answer (not surprisingly) turned out to lie in the amount of stabilizers used in them.

READ MORE »

Today's demonstration of post-brutality scrambling is brought to you by the California Highway Patrol. First off, we'll take a look at the "alleged" brutality, which looks incredibly similar to non-alleged brutality. (Apologies for the watermark the person who recorded the incident slapped all over the video.)

This head-punching (David Diaz, who recorded the incident, counts 15 punches in total) was performed as an act of civil service, according to the CHP.

Speaking to the television station ABC7, the California Highway Patrol said that the officer had ordered the woman to stop walking, out of fears for her safety.

She failed to follow this order, possibly due to mental illness. After the unnamed officer's fists were finished ensuring her safety, the CHP sent the woman to a mental health facility and refused to allow her family to see her. The video surfaced shortly thereafter, forcing the CHP to make further statements about how "physically combative" the woman was, as well as expressing its utmost desire to find a way out of this to see justice done.

"We're looking at every possibility, every fact, every circumstance that have contributed to this situation, and we're going to try to come to a just conclusion," Highway Patrol Assistant Chief Chris O'Quinn said at a news conference on Friday.

"Just," in this context, seems to actually mean "exonerating." The investigation continues, apparently, albeit in unexpected (and terrible) directions.

California Highway Patrol investigators have seized the medical records of a woman seen on video being repeatedly punched by one of its officers on the side of a Los Angeles freeway.

Chris Arevalo, executive administrator for psychiatric services at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center, confirmed that the CHP served the search warrant Tuesday for Marlene Pinnock's records.

Why the CHP would need to seize the records, rather than just view them, is completely inexplicable. The person served the warrant noted that it was issued to grab "property or things" as part of a felony investigation, which apparently included communications with her doctor about her well-being and "references to her attorney."

I'm sure the ongoing investigation will clarify the CHP's need to violate its victim's privacy before this debacle is wrapped up. That's how it works. But it looks like an uphill battle. The statement released by the CHP commissioner sounds like even he was caught off-guard by this bizarre, smells-like-a-cover-up records seizure.

"I think what they're trying to do is, they don't have a statement from her, and they're trying to find that out," Farrow said. "I don't think the CHP is trying to put her on trial or make it an issue about her. What I'm looking at is entirely about the circumstances, we all saw what happened. Our job is to find out the why and the how."

So, the CHP gets statements by hospitalizing someone and seizing their medical records. While these records may offer some insight as to why she didn't immediately follow the officer's instructions, they really don't fill the "statement" void -- unless the CHP is going to further violate her privacy by releasing a statement on its own behalf using information gleaned from the seized records. As it stands now, it looks exactly like the CHP is planning to "make it an issue about her." If it isn't, then perhaps it might quid pro quo with the release of the disciplinary records of involved officers.

Moving on from this larger wrongness, I'd like to take a little time to point to the complicity of the Associated Press in the low-level whitewashing of this latest development by using that famous law enforcement standby, the passive voice.

My first notification came to me via Officer.com, whose headline read:

CHP Seizes Medical Records of Woman Seen Punched

"Seen punched?" Punched by whom? By the CHP, of course, not that this headline indicates that. As far as this headline goes, it may have just been a random mugging. A more accurate headline would be "CHP Seizes Medical Records of Woman They Were Seen Punching." Clumsy, but more honest. Considering this AP story was reposted by a police-centric site, the passive voice is completely expected. But it's not just cop sites like Officer.com. It's other places as well.





The AP buries the lede and other media sites run the feed without even altering it. Of course, Police One took the AP's weak title and made it even worse.

CHP seizes medical records of woman in scuffle with cop

Not only does it side more with the CHP, but it also makes it appear as though the CHP seized her records during the "scuffle."

We expect this use of the passive voice from police officers. The media doesn't really need to assist law enforcement spokespeople in their blame-deflection efforts. When misconduct allegations arise, they're always followed by details of "weapons discharging" and innocent bystanders "receiving gunshot wounds" and officers never striking anybody but always "responding" to actions, movements or words from some person whose personal safety was ensured by hospitalization.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Ars Technica's Cyrus Farivar filed a FOIA request for the Passenger Name Records (PNRs) that had been stored by the federal government concerning his own travel history. PNRs are created by travel companies (airlines, hotels, cruise lines) whenever you book a reservation, and are then handed over to the government. After an appeal, Customs and Border Patrol turned over the records, showing that airlines (1) record a ton of information about you every time you book a flight and (2) hand over all that information to the government. Bizarrely, this includes the credit card number and IP address you used to book your travel, and it appears that the airlines and the US government are ignoring the most basic of cybersecurity protections in that they store the credit card info in the clear. The fourth line in the record above is Farivar's (long-expired and changed) full credit card. While it may not seem like a huge surprise that the government is basically snooping on everything you tell the airlines (including seat changes, food preferences, any special assistance you might need, etc.), it's stunning that they're passing around and storing credit card info in the clear.

Fred Cate, a law professor at Indiana University, said that my story raises a lot of questions about what the government is doing.

“Why isn’t the government complying with even the most basic cybersecurity standards?” Cate said. “Storing and transmitting credit card numbers without encryption has been found by the Federal Trade Commission to be so obviously dangerous as to be ‘unfair’ to the public. Why do transportation security officials not comply with even these most basic standards?”

Farivar also notes that the CBP publicly states that the info is kept for five years, but his own records go back to March of 2005 -- suggesting that the CBP is hanging onto all this info for a lot longer. Of course, as we've seen in the past, if there's one government agency that appears to be able to get away with anything with absolutely no oversight at all, it's Customs and Border Patrol. However, this seems like a fairly serious problem. Beyond the 4th Amendment questions it raises about why they're getting all this information on Americans, it seems like they're creating a much bigger security risk in storing (and passing around) all such info in the clear.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

There's probably no better way to announce that the broadband service you're providing is inadequate than the mayor of a town feeling compelled to write an apologetic letter to tourists, apologizing in advance for the lousy connection (or the complete lack of one).

Blogger Ewan Grantham came across the following letter in his hotel room in Tusayan, AZ (right outside the Grand Canyon). [link to photo of the letter]

Dear Tusayan Guest-

As a guest in one of our wonderful Tusayan hotels, we know that like our residents, you have expectations in today's technology age of being able to easily and consistently access the internet highway during your stay in our community. Again, like our residents, we understand your frustration with the inconsistent strength of the broadband signal, or even total lack of an ability to connect. It is an issue that we have to deal with on a daily basis due to a lack of sufficient signal from our primary service broadband provider, CenturyLink. What bandwidth we have coming into the entire community has been severely over-subscribed (sold to too many users for the small signal strength available) and thus the poor quality of connectivity in our community. The situation is NOT due to a lack of effort or desire to provide you a quality service by the hotel where you are staying. It is due the lack of availability of broad bandwidth from CenturyLink.

The Town itself has been working for many months to try and resolve this situation by working with several entities to bring in a consistent and reliable service to meet not only our residents needs, but to also provide the level of service that we feel our guests and visitors to the Grand Canyon deserve. Hopefully we will be able meet those needs in the near future. Please understand that the issue is beyond our control as a whole community and not just this individual business and bear with us and we work to join the internet highway with quality services.

In the meantime, enjoy the reason you have come to our community, the Grand Canyon in all its magical and powerful beauty. We very much appreciate you choosing to stay in Tusayan and hope that you will also enjoy our great rooms, food & beverage services and the wonderful people and staff that call Tusayan their home.

Respectfully,

Greg Bryan
Mayor
Town of Tusayan

That CenturyLink's connection is indeed lousy has been confirmed by Grantham.

Unfortunately I can vouch that service throughout the area surrounding the national park was rather bad anywhere we went. In the national park itself service was actually pretty good, but I gather that is because the NP has it's own AT&T contract that avoids using the CenturyLink backhaul.

Grantham also wonders what purpose this letter ultimately serves: whether it's to push CenturyLink to the bargaining table, or hoping that the negative attention will draw bids from competing services. Either way, there's no shaming quite like public shaming, and CenturyLink is getting its shaming from the top man in town.

A look at Tusayan's city council meetings shows that the town has been unhappy with CenturyLink for nearly four years now. The minutes from the June 1, 2011 meeting state the following:

Councilmember Rueter gave a presentation on internet opportunities for the Town and recommends continuing discussions with Century Link, but also to research options for a tower for the Town.

A report on that meeting quotes the mayor as saying previous discussions with Qwest (which CenturyLink bought) date back even further.

Mayor Greg Bryan said he was not encouraged by his own findings. Using his business, the Best Western Squire Inn, as an example, he said conversations with Qwest regarding Internet expansion began nine or ten months ago. In order to provide fiber optics in town, Qwest said they would need around $1,000,000.

More details from that council meeting indicate that Qwest/CenturyLink was looking for a 10-year commitment for a certain number of Tusayan businesses before it would move forward with expanding its capacity -- on top of the $1,000,000 investment from the city itself. Mayor Bryan said that Qwest was refusing to move forward until it received more service renewals for Tusayan businesses.

Further notes from later council meetings indicate CenturyLink has been unwilling to budge from either its long contracts or $1 million in funding from the town.

Oct. 26, 2011:

Robbie Evans, Tusayan Fire District, suggested that the Council look into the Arizona Corporation Services in reference to CenturyLink providing the town with broadband service. CenturyLink is supposed to be serving the town with internet and the Arizona Corporation Services can be contacted if CenturyLink does not.

Feb. 15, 2012:

CenturyLink is unresponsive to a solution as it is costly to install. There is current legislation that would allow ADOT to lay conduit along highways or allow vendors to lay conduit in the right away. The Town may need to lay aside money for the next several years to address this problem. Council Member Rueter would like to see fiber laid as wireless broadband would only address the problem temporarily as the need for use increases.

To that end, it appears the city has now abandoned hope of working this out with CenturyLink and is seeking bids on fiber optic lines. While considerably more expensive (this 2013 meeting's minutes contain a quote from NI Solutions of $1.7 million), this may finally give the town a connection that won't disappoint incoming tourists and, at least at this point, doesn't seem to come bundled with a demand for a 10-year contract with a single provider. (NI provides "open-access" fiber connections which can be utilized by any service provider.)

On the other hand, the situation doesn't seem to have progressed much past the estimate stage. Mayor Bryan's letter indicates things are still at a standstill with CenturyLink, and no competitor has offered to take over the territory. Bryan's shaming letter also indicates that CenturyLink's purchase of Qwest didn't improve local service, despite earlier hopeful comments that the new providers were "more attuned to help[ing] rural Arizona areas." This lack of movement possibly suggests that no bids are in the range the town is willing to spend, or it could be that CenturyLink is actively blocking competitors from receiving additional federal funding, something it has done in the past. Bryan's move, however, is a smart one (if not a little self-interested -- he owns a hotel in town): put more eyeballs -- especially those of people who drive the town's economy -- on the problem.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story