Brindle

Here on Techdirt we've been pretty scathing about the way that Big Pharma develops drugs -- often poorly -- and then uses patent monopolies to keep prices so high that only rich Westerners can afford them. Of course, it's easy to complain about the flaws of the current approach, but are there any alternatives? We've already covered one -- using prizes - and now Carl Levinson points us to another potentially powerful approach: crowdsourcing. It's already been adopted by 'Project Marilyn' to develop a patent-free anti-cancer drug:

The campaign will fund a xenograft experiment, which is the next step in developing the promising anti-cancer compound "9DS". This experiment needs to be completed before 9DS can move on to clinical trials.

Here are some more details of both the drug and the project:

The drug candidate 9DS was developed at the University of Maryland. The last work done on the drug showed that it had activity against cancer competitive with leading cancer drugs such as taxol. Moreover, 9DS is also likely to have lower side effects than most chemotherapies, since a related compound, SJG-136, seems to have low side effects in early clinical trials.

Project Marilyn involves: production of more 9DS, and submitting 9DS to a xenograft study ('curing cancer in mice'). This is the next step in drug development and an important one on the way to doing clinical (human) studies. The process we're seeking to fund should take approximately 6 months. If we receive more funding, we will add stretch goals, such as further preclinical experiments on 9DS, development 9DS analogs, or other exciting anti-cancer ideas.

Of course, even if enough money is raised -- at the time of writing, just over a quarter of the crowdfunding target has been pledged -- there's still much more work to be done before the drug can be sold to the public. An article in the Times of San Diego explains what will happen next:

Provided that the xenograft study goes well, 9DS will move into further preclinical trials, possibly through a collaboration with a for-profit company. Research and development at the later stages costs between $1 million and $10 million and will likely not be crowdfunded.

Due the drug's patent status, the threat of competition is likely to keep the price of 9DS low, regardless of a partnership with a for-profit company. Currently, when a drug loses its patent status, the price can come down ten-fold, according to [project leader Dr. Isaac] Yonemoto.

It's only a small-scale project, but it's exciting to see new funding models being tried out for drug development. Moreover, the Times of San Diego reports that Yonemoto wants his site indysci.org to host further crowdfunded projects, both from himself and other researchers. Let's hope enough pledges are made, and that others do indeed start to build on the idea.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

If you're going to allow the corporate finger to rest heavily on the "Release the Lawyers" button, you need to be braced for the backlash. As backlashes go, this particular incident is light on one-star reviews and widespread excoriation. But it is dripping with sarcasm masquerading as wide-eyed innocence and shows just how quickly a handful of internet denizens can make someone wish they'd never bothered trying to "right" a "wrong."

A redditor registered the domain slutsofinstagram.com, as one does when presented with the available tools and the inclination to make snap judgements for the amusement of one's self and (hopefully) others. Shortly after that, the legal department of Instagram got involved, as one does when elbowing others for trademark breathing space and possessing the inclination to host photos without worrying about third-party hecklers.

The letter notes that slutsofinstagram.com "contains" the trademarked word "Instagram." It then talks about its 30 million users and being a "worldwide leader" in photo uploading and justifiably famous for doing so.

It also points out that it must police the internet for uses/abuses of its trademark, ensuring that consumers aren't confused and its mark remains tarnish-free. Finally, the letter notes that the registrant may not be familiar with trademark law, but that's the registrant's fault and he should immediately cease all use of the Instagram trademark, disable any site at that address and not attempt to trade/sell the domain name to another party.

That bit of officiousness prompted this completely ridiculous (but in the more positive sense) response:

Hi

Wow that sounds like you guys have a cool videogame. 30 million members. Holy moly! I was confused at first but you must be referring to my online fantasy series Slütsof in Stâgram. It's a really cool project I'm working on, you should check it out. It's about a magical goat and a duck princess who journey across the enchanted land of Stagram, many adventures are had…

I'm sorry if it sounds close to your company name but I don't think you own the alphabet, that would be funny imagine? Have a good day.

Two pages from slutsofinstagram were attached (completely SFW):


Soon, more images were posted, some by the site owner but many more from others, fleshing out the Stâgram world.




As the site owner notes, he has yet to hear back from Instagram. Some questions have been raised, like what kind of legal rep only signs her first name on a C&D and who the hell actually posts funny content to r/Funny? There's also a lack of clarity on the chicken-and-egg problem. Did this redditor create the site with artwork in place simply to troll Instagram, or did he actually have a more unsavory destination in mind before Instagram stepped in?

Either way, the resulting silence (if legit) is growing rather loud. The redditor apparently posted this in early August, even though it was only in the past few days that any attention has been paid to it. Instagram's purported actions have pretty much ensured this site will remain filled with hand-drawn ducks and goats (and Stâgram maps), rather than the more titillating content unwary surfers (and "Edith") may be expecting. So, in a way, it's still a win for Instagram, which won't have its name associated with the word "sluts." On the other hand, the content swiftly filling up slutsofinstagram.com definitely makes it a bit harder to legally claim this redditor should have to abandon his registered domain.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Issued in 1981, updated in 1991 (to consolidate power, basically) and continuously expanded (mostly unofficially) since 2001, Executive Order 12333 (EO 12333) is what grants surveillance powers to our nation's intelligence agencies.

Foreshadowing the severe twisting of the English language that follows (see also: NSA-to-English dictionary), the opening paragraphs note that what certain wording sounds like isn't actually what it means. [pdf link]

In spite of the constraining appearance of all the requirements, under E.O. 12333, DoD Directive 5240 .IR, and DIAR 60-4, intelligence activities conducted by the DHS currently have much more latitude and potential for effectiveness than they have had for quite some time.

Looks like "constraints" but in practice is hardly anything at all.

Covert and clandestine operations ("Special Activities") -- normally limited to the CIA -- are now something any agency can participate in, if given permission to.

The meaning of the proscription is not that intelligence components are prohibited from conducting all Special Activities; rather, that such activities must be directed by the President and approved by the Secretary of Defense and the respective Service Secretary.

Going on from there, we see the first public instance of the government's redefinition of the word "collection."

Procedure 2 introduces the reader of DoD 5240.1-R to his or her first entry into the "maze" of the regulation. To begin the journey, it is necessary to stop first and adjust your vocabulary. The terms and words used in DoD 5240.1-R have very specific meanings, and it is often the case that one can be led astray by relying on the generic or commonly understood definition of a particular word.

For example, "collection of information" is defined in the Dictionary of the United States Army Terms (AR 31011 25) as: The process of gathering information for all available sources and agencies. But, for the purposes of DoD 5240.1-R, information is "collected" -... only when it has been received for use by an employee of a DoD intelligence component in the course of his official duties ... (and) an employee takes some affirmative action that demonstrates an intent to use or retain the information.

"Collection" is now defined as "collection plus action," rather than the way it's been defined for hundreds of years. "Information held" is not a "collection," according to this document. It still isn't collected, even if its been gathered, packaged and sent to a "supervisory authority." No collection happens until examination. It's Schroedinger's data, neither collected nor uncollected until the "box" has been opened. This leads to the question of aging off collected data/communications: if certain (non) collections haven't been examined at the end of the 5-year storage limit, are they allowed to be retained simply because they haven't officially been collected yet? Does the timer start when the "box" is opened or when the "box" is filled?

Also of note: "incidental" collections are not collections if utilizing the same mental gymnastics.

If the information is not essential to the mission of the component and it does not fit into one of those categories, then that information may not be collected. However, you will recall from our discussion in paragraph 3 -7 that "collection" means receiving plus an affirmative act to use or retain the information. Therefore, mere receipt of non-essential information does not constitute a violation of DoD 5240.1-R.

More redefining is done here:

Once again, we must cautiously examine the vocabulary used in DoD 5240.1-R. The term "retention" means more than merely retaining information in files - it is retention plus retrievability. As stated in DoD 5240.1-R -... the term retention as used in this procedure, refers only to the maintenance of information about United States persons which can be retrieved by reference to the person's name or other identifying data.

Somewhat more positively, this section instructs analysts to a very limited view of "retrievability" and err on the side of "purging" information on US persons that cannot legally be retrieved, even if it was legally "collected" (using the DoD's expanded definition). It does, however, hedge by noting information "necessary to ongoing missions" should be retained.

The document goes on to applaud the FISA court for being instrumental in protecting citizens' rights… apparently by eliminating legal barriers to domestic surveillance.

The [Senate Select] Committee has reviewed the five years of experience with FISA and finds that the Act has achieved its principal objectives. Legal uncertainties that had previously inhibited legitimate electronic surveillance were resolved, and the result was enhancement of U.S. intelligence capabilities. At the same time, the Act has contributed directly to the protection of the constitutional rights and privacy interests of U.S. persons.

There's a lot of information in there, very little of it redacted, but until the ACLU liberated it, completely withheld from the public. The question is, why? Despite the many paragraphs given over to rewriting the English language to better suit intelligence agencies' aims, there's also a lot of very blunt statements made about the balance between the government's counterterrorism efforts and the rights of US citizens.

The ACLU highlights this particular section in its write up of the released documents.

This area of DoD intelligence activities, that is, the use of special collection techniques, is the area in which there tends to be the greatest amount of confusion regarding the limitations on permissible activities. Because of this confusion, this area also tends to be the most fertile ground for both abuse and unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of the rules. To be sure, it is fundamental that abuse of the legitimate DoD intelligence and counterintelligence resources and authority must be avoided. The rights of US persons must also be protected, and no intrusion into these protected areas is permissible without first meeting constitutional standards, and then only through a system of careful scrutiny of the intruding apparatus.

This is spelled out more explicitly later, reminding those entering the intelligence world that the job is necessarily difficult -- a fact many of those in the intelligence and law enforcement fields forget all too quickly.

The system is complex, but it is not impossible. Its underlying structure is designed to balance the legitimate needs of the government with the rights of the individual. Given those constraints, one could not expect a system to exist which did not inherently contain adequate checks, balances, and oversight procedures.

This is miles away from the DOJ's statements that cell phone search warrant requirements make it too difficult to capture criminals, a refrain now being echoed by law enforcement agencies in response to automatic encryption on iPhones and Android devices.

These are the limits these entities must adhere to. These are built-in as a check against government power. But these rights are not a one-way street solely favoring the American public. The DIA guidebook discusses what the intelligence community and the administration have refused to: and it does it in plain, straightforward language.

Nevertheless, we must be mindful of too much caution. We must remember that we are engaged in a real-world mission that involves unprincipled adversaries, and a plethora of sophisticated technical collection and counter-collection enterprises and devices. Terrorism and have destruction as their common denominator, and we are fueling their malignancy when we unnecessarily restrain or restrict our foreign intelligence or counterintelligence efforts, just the same as we would damage the fiber of our democracy through abusive use of our own capabilities and powers.

Our business is one that involves constant vigilance and omnipresent balancing of competing interests. To survive, we must take risks. To succeed, we must minimize those risks. To preserve our precious ideals, we must carefully pursue our crafts in such a manner as to not offer up the rights and dignity of our citizens in exchange for that success.

As the ACLU points out, this frank discussion of the tension between the two is a far cry from the usual "dissembling and obfuscation" the government has provided so far in its tepid responses to leaked documents. This willingness to discuss the balance in real terms may be part of the reasons a lawsuit was needed to free the document.

The other, larger issue, is that this order may be the main justification for most of the NSA's surveillance and data dragnets -- an order not subject to any form of oversight.

Because the executive branch issued and now implements the executive order all on its own, the programs operating under the order are subject to essentially no oversight from Congress or the courts. That's why uncovering the government's secret interpretations of the order is so important. We've already seen that the NSA has taken a "collect it all" mentality even with the authorities that are overseen by Congress and the courts. If that history is any lesson, we should expect — and, indeed, we have seen glimpses of — even more out-of-control spying under EO 12333.

For all of the tough talk about respecting the public's rights, a vast amount of surveillance occurs under this order. In the document, any questions about overriding civil liberties concerns are directed towards members of the Executive branch, rather than to anywhere that might act as a check against its powers -- like courts or the legislative branch. In fact, the legislative branch has done nothing but expand its powers of the last 30+ years. So, new analysts might hear plenty about the importance of respecting civil liberties, but they'll find that in practice, those words -- like "retention" and "collection" mean next to nothing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Marlene Pinnock, the 51-year-old grandmother with bipolar disorder who was politely asked to refrain from walking on Interstate 10 with the judicious application of California Highway Patrol officer Daniel Andrew's fist (no less than nine times), has been awarded a settlement of $1.5 million from the city of Los Angeles. Further details on the settlement aren't forthcoming, but the issuing of a settlement generally means never having to say you're sorry -- most settlements are awarded without an admission of wrongdoing.

The CHP's statement notes that the officer involved has elected to resign, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'll avoid facing criminal charges.

The CHP forwarded the results of its investigation of the incident to Los Angeles County prosecutors last month, saying he could face serious charges but none have been filed yet.

Left unaddressed entirely is the CHP's seizure of Pinnock's medical records, which occurred shortly after it became apparent she would be suing over the beating she received. Here's the recording of Officer Andrew's life-saving beating. Ask yourself whether this settlement would have arrived this quickly without this recording. (You already know the answer.)


Speaking of cops and cameras, it's a damn good thing State Trooper Sean Groubert didn't have the presence of mind to disable his dashcam before shooting a man in the hip for following his instructions.


Sean "Jumpy" Groubert may have thought the driver was reaching for a weapon, but he did just instruct him to get his license -- which happened to be in his wallet -- which happened to be in the car -- and presumably, the rest of his vehicle documents. Instead of allowing Levar Jones to comply, Groubert's weapon discharged (to use the Police Passive Tense) at least four times, hitting Jones in the hip and leading to a very surreal conversation in which the victim asks a perfectly logical question: "Why'd you shoot me?"

Fortunately, there was no extensive, drawn-out investigation. Groubert has been fired and charged with aggravated assault. Again: would Groubert still be employed if his camera hadn't been on or if the recording had vanished?

Finally, courtesy of PINAC, here's one of the nation's most incompetent cops hard at work.

It took almost eight painstaking minutes for the dimwitted cop in this video to realize he was being recorded, which was when he turned to the man with the camera and told him it was “technically illegal.”

But it also took the cop 24 hours before realizing he had forgotten to issue a citation to a man he had pulled over the prior evening, which is why he had the man meet him at the gas station the following night in an attempt to get the man to sign it.

"Technically illegal." Which means not illegal at all, but also means that the cop knows it (or thinks he does) but desperately wants the person recording to be more ignorant than he is and think that Officer Better Late Than Never is cutting him a break. Ridiculous.

The person who actually obliged this poster boy for law enforcement IQ tests points out that he really shouldn't be cited for something that happened 24 hours ago -- an interaction in which he was released by this same cop without a citation. The retort?

He also admits he routinely forgets to issue citations to people he pulls over, requiring him to track them down the following day to do so.

Um. Touché.

Again, the camera is the public's best friend. Hopefully this circulated footage will make its way back to the officer's superiors, who will hopefully assign him to an immovable desk that will never not be right where he expects it to be, even 24 hours later.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Attorney General Eric Holder announced he would resign yesterday, after serving as the nation’s top law enforcement official since President Obama came into office in 2009. Holder will leave behind a complex and hotly debated legacy at the Justice Department on many issues, but one thing is clear: he was the worst Attorney General on press freedom issues in a generation, possibly since Richard Nixon’s John Mitchell pioneered the subpoenaing of reporters and attempted to censor the Pentagon Papers.

Holder presided over the largest legal crackdown on journalists’ sources in American history. Under his watch, the Justice Department prosecuted more sources and whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined, and many of those cases directly led to surveillance of reporters. In one, the Justice Department secretly subpoenaed twenty Associated Press phone lines, gathering information on over one hundred AP reporters. In another, the Justice Department accused Fox News reporter James Rosen in court documents of being a “co-conspirator” and “aiding and abetting” State Department employee Stephen Kim in violating the Espionage Act. Both moves by the Justice Department were personally approved by the Attorney General.

After a loud public backlash, the Justice Department recently tightened its media guidelines, but that hasn’t stopped them from attempting to force one of the nation’s best national security reporters, New York Times’ James Risen, into jail for refusing to testify against an alleged source. In Risen’s case, the Justice Department caused the most damage to reporter’s privilege in decades when it convinced the Fourth Circuit to do away with the privilege in its jurisdiction altogether. Shamefully, Holder’s Justice Department argued in front of the Court of Appeals that not only did Risen not qualify for reporter’s privilege, but the privilege did not exist at all, literally comparing reporters who protect sources who tell them about sensitive information to receiving drugs from a drug dealer and refusing to talk about it.

Despite all this, Eric Holder had previously promised that, “As long as I’m attorney general, no reporter who is doing his job is going to go to jail.” How the Justice Department could pursue contempt of court charges against Risen but keep him out of jail was unknown. But now that Holder is stepping down, the Justice Department is not obligated to abide by his promise.

The Justice Department’s pursuit of Risen has led to a petition signed by over 100,000 citizens, and over twenty Pulitzer Prize winners issued statements condemning it. The Justice Department has still refused to drop its pursuit.

And often forgotten in the Justice Department’s awful crackdown on the press, is its sprawling, four-year grand jury investigation into WikiLeaks for publishing classified State and Defense Department documents in 2010 and 2011, under a “conspiracy to commit espionage” theory where WikiLeaks may or may not have asked source Chelsea Manning to send them the documents. Many have referred to it as the largest investigation of a publisher in American history.

Despite the fact that the investigation has been widely condemned by legal experts and Constitutional scholars—former Times general counsel James Goodale said Holder might as well be investigating WikiLeaks for “a conspiracy to commit journalism”—recent court documents show the grand jury is still active.

Any indictment would leave all US newspapers in the perilous position of constantly under threat of prosecution when publishing supposedly “secret” information. But even without an indictment, the open-ended investigation chills WikiLeaks’ work and anyone caught in its wide net.

In addition, the Justice Department's handling of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its aggressive tactics in court to keep basic information from journalists and the public has been deplorable, especially given Holder's promise to reform FOIA when he first came into office. Holder is also attempting to expand the controversial 'state secrets' privilege to new lengths, after promising to reform that as well.

The next attorney general, whoever it is, will have a lot of issues on his or her plate. But better respecting the rights of reporters and the First Amendment should be at the top of that list.

Reposted from the Freedom of the Press Foundation

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Yeah, so you've read the headline. No criminal activity. No charges brought. And a cheap shot fired across the bow of the Fourth Amendment, not to mention Vermont's own Constitution.

But let's travel back further to set this up. Twenty-one-year-old Gregory Zullo was supposedly pulled over for having his license plate registration sticker (incidentally) covered by a small amount of snow.

Not a crime. From the ACLU filing [pdf link]:

At all times relevant to this action, it was not a violation of Vermont law to drive a car on which the validation sticker on the rear license plate – but not the numbers and letters of the license plate itself – was touched by snow, leaves, or any other material.

The lawsuit notes that the officer who stated this was the reason he initiated the event spent no further time on that subject. He didn't bother to brush the snow away from the registration sticker or have Zullo do it, despite the fact that both spent over 30 minutes no more than a few inches away from the offending plate.

Officer Hatch spent most of his time trying to talk Zullo into allowing him to search the vehicle without a warrant. Hatch seemed to be convinced that Zullo was involved with the heroin traffickers he was searching for. Hatch tried everything, including lying.

More than once, the defendant’s employee told Mr. Zullo that Mr. Zullo should consent to a search because the police dog in the back of his truck smelled something.

But the police dog in Hatch’s truck was not a drug detection dog, and, at all times during the encounter between Hatch and Mr. Zullo, the dog remained in the truck with the truck’s windows rolled up.

This isn't just a mere allegation based on Zullo's statements to the ACLU. It's confirmed during the few minutes of actual dialog captured by the dash cam's mic. (Interestingly [or not, depending on your particular faith in law enforcement], Officer Hatch was wired for sound, but either his body mic wasn't activated or was buried so far beneath his winter gear it was rendered useless.) At no point does the non-drug dog appear outside the vehicle. About 30 minutes into the recording, Hatch returns to his vehicle to inform his precinct that Zullo wouldn't agree to warrantless search, so "he's [Hatch] just going to take it [Zullo's car]."

During that same call, the defendant’s employee admitted that he did not have a drug detection dog with him, but would have access to one at the state police barracks. App. A at 33:59

As the officers and Zullo waited for the tow truck, they continued to try to get his permission for a search. Zullo held firm, so the cops ditched him miles from home in 20-degree weather.

Mr. Zullo asked Hatch if he could retrieve his money and cell phone from his car, because he did not know how he would get home without either item.

Hatch refused, saying that getting home was “not my problem,” and warned Mr. Zullo that if he attempted to retrieve those items from the car he would be arrested. When Mr. Zullo walked towards his car, Hatch placed his hands on Mr. Zullo to restrain him from reaching the car.

After the tow truck arrived and took Mr. Zullo’s car, Hatch and the second state trooper left the scene, leaving Mr. Zullo stranded on the side of Route 7.

After being seized, Zullo's car was searched by Officer Hatch using an actual drug dog and an actual warrant [pdf link]. Nothing illegal was uncovered. Hatch found both a pipe and a grinder with "marijuana residue." Again, no laws were broken by Zullo's possession of these items.

On June 6, 2013, Governor Shumlin signed the bill, and the relevant parts of the enactment became effective on July 1, 2013. 2013 Vt. Acts & Resolves 669. As a result, at the time of the events giving rise to this suit, Vermont law deemed possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by a person over the age of twenty-one a civil offense, punishable by no more than a fine contestable in the Judicial Bureau. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, §4230a(b)(1).

That part of the state statutes reads:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person 21 years of age or older who possesses one ounce or less of marijuana or five grams or less of hashish or who possesses paraphernalia for marijuana use shall not be penalized or sanctioned in any manner by the State or any of its political subdivisions or denied any right or privilege under State law.

Both the drug angle and the registration sticker angle dead end into a search and seizure based on non-criminal actions. The state does have an out (one that will likely be deployed in its defense against Zully's lawsuit) that still allows law enforcement to search for marijuana, even if what's discovered isn't a criminal amount.

This section is not intended to affect the search and seizure laws afforded to duly authorized law enforcement officers under the laws of this State. Marijuana is contraband pursuant to section 4242 of this title and subject to seizure and forfeiture unless possessed in compliance with chapter 86 of this title (therapeutic use of Cannabis).

But this should have resulted in something better than the response given to Zully when he finally made his way to the precinct to retrieve his vehicle (as well as being told he was responsible for the towing fees).

When Mr. Zullo asked the defendant’s employee why he had to pay for the tow, the defendant’s employee told him that the tow cost was Mr. Zullo’s fault for exercising his rights.

There's the now-familiar lesson: exercise your rights and cops will make you pay -- one way or another -- for making their jobs difficult. This was plainly stated by an LAPD member shortly after the situation in Ferguson blew up: be anything but compliant and you'll be hurting. If you have problems with us steamrolling your rights, sue us. That attitude brings us to this. Another lawsuit filed against a law enforcement agency simply because a police officer couldn't handle being told, "No."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Over the weekend, TorrentFreak covered the discovery of the latest thing in copyright enforcement: algorithmically-generated content created solely for the purpose of extracting infringement settlements and licensing fees.

That's the staggering notion being put forward by Qentis Corporation. The outfit, which claims a base in Russia, says that its business model is to use massive computing power to generate digital intellectual property on a never-seen-before scale and transfer the rights to its partners.

"Our clients are private high net-worth individuals (HNWI), investment funds and corporations that act as pure investors," Qentis explains.

What Qentis is proposing is the bulk algorithmic creation of content – music, text, images etc – on such a large scale that in a few years its clients will own the rights to just about anything people might care to create and upload.

The creator of Qentis, Michael Marcovici, told TorrentFreak that his "company" had the potential power to generate content before actual creators can, resulting in a world where every new work is already infringing.

"Qentis aims to produce all possible combinations of text (and later on images and sound) and to copyright them," Qentis' Michael Marcovici told TorrentFreak.

"Concerning text we try this in chunks of 400 word articles in English, German and Spanish. That would mean that we will hold the copyright to any text produced from now on and that it becomes impossible for anyone to circumvent Qentis when writing a text."

By 2020, supposedly every possible photograph will have been created and registered by Qentis. Text content generation is advancing at a faster rate.

Qentis -- as a concept -- is frightening. As an actual entity, it's an ultra-dry satirical device. Marcovici's website isn't the future of anything. The computing power needed to accomplish this is beyond the means of anyone. Brute force creation results in tons on unusable "content," something Marcovici readily admits.

"About the mathematics, this is mainly about working with n-grams, we don't work iteratively with misses because that would produce as you mention a LOT of misses, probably only 1 out of few million would be readable," the company's Michael Marcovici told us.

Qentis is a piss-take on utilitarian content creation and over-broad content protection. It seeks to embody the worst aspects of automatically-generated content and copyright trolling. And it pretty much nails both, presenting a respectable corporate front that almost masks the insanity leaking in around the edges. A quasi-proof of concept page claims Qentis' software "wrote" Lady Gaga's "Applause" four years before she did. On its About page, it notes that it has already generated "97.42%" of all 400-words-or-less text in several languages before dropping this bombastic (and misspelling-laden) statement.

If you are planning to publish any text in these languages we must inform you that the chances are almost 100% that they are already part of the copyrighted inventory of the Qentis Corporation and that you are about to violate these and you will be held responsible for this.

Qentis does not issue permission to individuals to publish any of its texts or images, please do not try to inquire. Qentis grants writes for reproduction only two is selected group of publishers.

Another page claims this company will free online content providers from the hassle of creating content. Instead, all content roads will lead to Qentis, from which rights to its algorithmic creations will be distributed to a variety of middlemen ("high networth individuals"), who will then license the content.

Whoa if true, but you'd have to ignore the computing power needed to brute force content creation that covers almost every conceivable combination of words -- especially given that the language keeps evolving and changing, adding massive new permutation and combinations. The claims Qentis/Marcovici make would be impossible in one language. Quentis claims to be doing this in several.

Then you'd have to ignore the fact that solely computer-generated content (i.e. content created without an actual creator) generally isn't copyrightable. From the USPTO:

Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.

While it wouldn't take much to skirt this in real life (the presence of an editor or someone who tweaks algorithms before generating content), in the Qentis world where millions of pieces of content are being "created" every year, it would be impossible.

Furthermore, even if Qentis could create all those works and even if they were found to be copyrightable, Qentis would still run into a different problem: under the law, if someone truly comes up with the identical works independently, there's no infringement which would kind of break Qentis' entire business model (were it real). Independent invention, while not allowed in patent lawsuits, is a defense against copyright infringement. As Judge Learned Hand once famously wrote: "if by some magic a man who had never known it were to compose anew Keats's Ode on a Grecian Urn, he would be an "author," and, if he copyrighted it, others might not copy that poem, though they might of course copy Keats's." In short, even if all the other impossible situations above were taken care of, others creating these works independently likely would not be infringing anyway.

But it's all a joke… or at least, yet another art project from Marcovici. At his personal website, it's listed along with other concepts like Bitcoin paper money, rats in a Skinner box entering trading orders, an underground package delivery system and advertising on paper money.

Marcovici's publicity bio that looks suspiciously like a Wikipedia page notes that he also owns the Domain Developers Fund, conveniently located out of reach of US regulators in the Cayman Islands. The website seems to be dead, but his personal site gives some details as to its purpose. The language used is decidedly more flowery than informative, but it appears to be (if it actually exists) a domain squatting business. While this is listed alongside other Marcovici projects (like Qentis), this one at least appears to have some basis in reality. Marcovici's email address (mike@qentis.com, according to the Qentis.com registry) is linked to at least 1,649 domain registries.

Interestingly, one of those is Fontsy.com (also listed on Marcovici's website), a site that gives away "free" fonts (many of which can only be licensed by their creators), providing the following warning to those who partake of its services.

The fonts which available on this website are their authors' property. If you want use any font from this website commercially, you should contact the author. Look at the redme-files for more informations. is there no readme-filme, open the font file. Under windows there are copyright informations.

So, Marcovici (or at least the administrators of this website) have a pretty slippery grasp on intellectual property rights, something Qentis.com definitely shares.

Qentis.com's history as a domain dates all the way back to 2003, when it linked surfers to Marcovici's ebay store. By 2006, it had gone dormant. From there it became a platform for pushing his book on his ebay experiences, only morphing to its current form sometime this year.

So, this is Marcovici's stunted, but expansive, satire. A copyright-trolling automaton that will cleanse the world of creativity using brute force computing power and a team of outsourced rights enforcers. But behind all the copyright monopoly bluster, there are small hints at the message Marcovici is trying to send.

The same page where "Howard LaFarge" states that Qentis will become the "universal source of all web content," thus "freeing" corporations from their dependence on "expensive" creators, this paragraph appears.

what is left now to creatives is not anymore the repetitive low quality text they currently produce mainly from machines for SEO but to engage in real creativity at the level where context becomes more important than words.

It's even more explicit on a page detailing an interview with a "Russian TV station" that likely never happened.

The first way is simply to create something new, something really new, not just the remix of parts that are already there, really creativity is when people grow out of the usual stuff, we have been written books for thousands of years, produced images for thousands of years, it’s time to make use of new technologies and the combination of technologies to create content in new ways. such new ways of content, combinations of acting, sound, text, smell and and more can never be reproduced in an automated way. Yes Qentis makes it useless to continue to write average texts because they already exist writing text has become an activity like harvesting potatoes, or washing the car, jobs we want to eliminate so that we can grow over this and focus on more intellectual activities.

That's the statement of intent. I don't agree with all of it, especially since creativity is informed by predecessors and influences, but if Marcovici's Qentis "project" is meant to mock SEO-friendly filler and bots that compile web detritus into ebooks, then I can get behind the concept. There's nothing here that's based in mathematical reality, but using hyperbolic bullshit to take an (admittedly blunted) swipe at "brute force" content generation (millions of web pages generated with all the care and creativity of "harvesting potatoes") is a worthy windmill tilt. Unfortunately, Marcovici -- with his domain-name squatting and casual use of the IP of others (at Fontsy, but likely elsewhere as well) -- isn't the best medium for the message.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

This is the custom made 'Proposal' Magic: The Gathering card that Lindsey Loree used to propose to her boyfriend (links to his account of the story) in the middle of a game. He said yes. She also game him a Ring Pop. No word if he spotted the Ring Pop beforehand, but it would be hard to say no to a girl with a Ring Pop. Hell, I still have a hard time not taking candy from strangers and I should know better. Congratulations you two. Keep going for a shot of the lucky man and his card and Ring Pop, and one of the happy couple. Thanks to carey, who told me she hopes to get engaged over a game of

Harris Corporation's Stingray cell tower spoofers are swiftly becoming synonymous with government lying. The FBI has specifically instructed law enforcement agencies to lie about the use of these products, which basically puts the agencies in the position of lying to courts when producing evidence or securing warrants.

Law enforcement agencies would probably lie anyway, even without the federal government's nudge. Many chose to read the restrictive non-disclosure agreements Harris includes as meaning they should withhold this information from local courts -- rather than simply seal the documents or redact them.

So, it comes as no surprise that the web of lies also includes lying to other federal agencies. The lies originate from Harris itself.

New documents obtained by the ACLU of Northern California appear to show the Florida-based Harris Corporation misleading the Federal Communications Commission while seeking authorization to sell its line of Stingray cell phone surveillance gear to state and local police. The documents raise the possibility that federal regulatory approval of the technology was based on bad information.

Harris says its devices are FCC-approved, but what it doesn't specify is the very limited approval it has actually received. An email from a Harris representative to FCC employees [pdf link] contains the following paragraph.

Just want to make you aware of the question below we received regarding the application for the Sting Fish. I know many of these questions are generated automatically but it sounds as if there is some confusion about the purpose of the equipment authorization application. As you may recall, the purpose is only to provide state/local law enforcement officials with authority to utilize this equipment in emergency situations.

As the ACLU points out, Stingray (or "Sting Fish") usage had long since surpassed the "emergency use only" restriction -- if that ever existed at all. Routine investigations utilize these devices all the time. Just one of several examples: when the Tallahassee police department's use of Stingrays came to light, the court noted that it had deployed the technology (without a warrant) more than 200 times, with less than 30% of the deployments being for department-labelled "emergencies."

Law enforcement agencies are secretly acquiring and deploying these devices in violation of the limited FCC approval, and have been doing so for years -- well ahead of this 2010 statement. And Harris is telling them that it's OK. The ACLU has written a letter to FCC chairman Tom Wheeler [pdf link] asking him open an investigation into the use of Stingray devices. If Wheeler obliges, the FCC is going to face a united front of zipped lips. The FBI already locks the Dept. of Justice out of its investigations. There's no chance it's going to be more obliging of a tangentially-related federal agency.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Stephen Hayes, who is the official biographer of former Vice President Dick Cheney and who also authored an entire book promoting dubious claims that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had a close working relationship, is the sort of person who basically seems to support nearly all of our government's excesses in the supposed "war on terror." So, as some people noted, there seems to be a bit of irony in the fact that he has ended up on the DHS Terrorist Watchlist.

As we've discussed, the recently leaked guidelines about how you get on the watchlist shows that it's incredibly (and ridiculously) vague. It can be summed up as "someone at DHS thinks you did anything that might possibly be suspect, so onto the watchlist you go." That's why nearly half of the people on the list have no actual terrorist affiliation.

As for how Hayes ended up on the list, he claims it's because he recently booked a one-way flight to Istanbul for a cruise, returning to the US from Athens a few weeks later. Indeed, that seems likely. Marcy Wheeler has been pointing out for a while that one of the criteria to be put on the watchlist is merely "travel... to a locus of TERRORIST ACTIVITY" and apparently Istanbul counts.

In fact, Spencer Ackerman, at the Guardian, actually got US officials to quietly admit that those reports you've heard of 100 Americans "fighting for ISIS" is an almost entirely bogus claim based entirely on Americans who "travelled to Syria or attempted to travel to Syria over the past 18 months." In other words, if you're an American and you happened to travel to or near Syria, the US government claims you're fighting for ISIS -- even if, say, you went to provide humanitarian aid or to fight against ISIS. The US government doesn't care. Onto the "terrorist" list you go.

Speaking of not caring, when asked about Hayes being placed on the watchlist, Senator Harry Reid's long-time spokesperson (who previously worked for Senator Ted Kennedy) gave a "who cares?" response:

I have no idea and frankly don't really care why [a] Bush/Cheney apologist ended up on a TSA watch list -- Senator Kennedy was on a list as well

That is... an absolutely ridiculous response, and shows just how out of touch those in power have become. The proper response is that if people like both Stephen Hayes and Ted Kennedy are ending up on a terrorist watchlist something is seriously screwed up with that list and the process to get people on the list. Besides, isn't it a little disturbing that a person in power on one side of the traditional political spectrum shrugs off the government putting someone at the other end of that spectrum on a terrorist watchlist?

No one's legitimately worried about any harm done to Hayes for being on that list. He's going through the motions to get off the list, which I'm sure will work out just fine. Because he's white and a person of some influence with connections to famous politicians. But, as we've covered, if you happen to be Muslim, and happen to be put on the list it's nearly impossible to get off. Even if you're politically connected, being Muslim means that you can be put on a watchlist here in the US.

At some point you have to ask what is the point of all of this. It doesn't seem to be about making us any safer.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Earlier this year, then NY Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson called out the Obama administration for being the most secretive in history, despite the claims of Obama himself that his would be "the most transparent administration in history." Not only has this administration used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers more times than every other administration in history combined, it's currently fighting a legal battle to put NYT journalist Jim Risen in jail for refusing to reveal a source. It's also denied more FOIA requests than any other administration in history. The White House has ridiculously tried to defend its "most transparent in history" claims by pointing to the fact that unlike previous administrations, this one releases visitor logs. Whoop. De. Doo.

At a big journalism confab in Chicago, apparently anger about the administration's unprecedented level of secrecy boiled over as journalists vehemently criticized the lengths to which this administration will go to block journalists and to create significant chilling effects.

"The White House push to limit access and reduce transparency has essentially served as the secrecy road map for all kinds of organizations — from local and state governments to universities and even sporting events," Brian Carovillano, AP managing editor for U.S. news, said during a panel discussion.

Reporters noted that sources are now afraid to talk to them, given the crackdown on leaks -- though, again, it only happens on leaks the administration doesn't like. When the leaks make the White House look good, no investigations, hounding or prosecutions happen. However, if you leak something the administration doesn't like -- such as blowing the whistle on corrupt government practices, the administration has an official policy that you are "aiding the enemy."

And while some might claim (incorrectly, usually) that there's a legitimate argument there when it comes to leaks involving national security, the crackdown goes way beyond that:

The AP's Washington chief of bureau, Sally Buzbee, said the Obama administration's efforts to control information extend even to agencies not directly involved in intelligence gathering. Some sources, she said, have reportedly been warned they could be fired for even talking to a reporter.

"Day-to-day intimidation of sources is also extremely chilling," she said.

Buzbee said she's frequently asked if the Obama administration, when it comes to transparency, is worse than the administration of President George W. Bush.

"Bush was not fantastic," she said. She added, "The (Obama) administration is significantly worse than previous administrations."

We tend to agree that the following statement is a ridiculous one in most situations, but since government officials seem to use it all the time, it seems worth asking: if they've done nothing wrong, what do they have to hide?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Reaping what you sow doesn't seem to be an operative metaphor in the law enforcement world. Years of excessive force and biased policing by the Seattle PD resulted in a Dept. of Justice investigation. The final outcome was a series of reforms being ordered to address these issues [pdf]. These reforms -- including a new use of force policy -- went into effect at the beginning of 2014. And probably not a minute too late. 2013 saw the Seattle police officers performing 20% of the city's homicides (6 out of 29 total).

But some officers on the force seem to prefer excessive force and discriminatory policing. The Oregonian reports that a group of Seattle police officers has set up a crowdfunding campaign to finance its legal battle against these reforms, which they say "violate" their "rights." (via Techdirt reader hoare)

A Seattle police officer suing to block new use-of-force policies has set up an Internet fundraising page to help pay for the legal fight, calling the federally mandated reforms "the greatest threat to the city's public safety in our time."

Robert Mahoney, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit brought by 113 officers, created the crowdfunding page Saturday on the website GoFundMe.

The manifesto delivered there is impressive in its assertion of nonexistent rights and misrepresentation of the dangers Seattle cops face.

We would prefer to just be doing our jobs rather than having to also wage a legal battle for our rights. However, as well as being public servants, we are also fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors. We have the right and the duty to go home at the end of each watch. Requiring us to take unnecessary risks that will inevitably prevent this is not only unreasonable, it is immoral.

No one has the "right" to make it through work safely. There are plenty of safeguards in place in hopes of assuring this happens, but it's a stretch to say that anyone has the "right" (guaranteed by what?) to not die while on the clock. To be sure, wrongful death suits can arise out of workplace-related deaths, but this is a civil remedy that deals mainly with employer negligence, not the normal, known hazards of the work environment. If you don't want to face these known risks, then your best bet is to find alernate employment.

The crowdfunding page tries to turn a statement by the Supreme Court dealing with self-defense into a "right" to live through a shift.

The Supreme Court has long acknowledged that self-defense is a natural individual right possessed by every citizen, regardless of profession, i.e. "the rules which determine what is self-defense are of universal application, and are not affected by the character [of a person's] employment."

Even if self-defense is a right, staying alive until the end of the shift is not. The government has never portrayed police work -- or any other dangerous work -- as subject to a right to remain alive. What these officers are doing here is turning self-defense into something much more proactive than it really is. It's a defensive method ties to justified force, not a blank check for excessive/deadly force. These cops seem to believe in preemptive self-defense, which helps explain why the Seattle PD was responsible for 20% of homicides last year.

This fact points to uglier truth: do these Seattle cops believe only the police have a "right" to make it home safely? Is that only guaranteed for some people? Because six people didn't "make it home safely" in 2013 as a direct result of police force. And yet, all we're seeing here is an argument that because police work is inherently dangerous, there should be nothing standing between a police officer and a safe return home -- even if it means "violating" other people's "right" to self-defense/make it home alive. This statement pushes for everyone to make the assumption that at all times, it is civilians who are the aggressors. Fighting back -- even in self-defense -- isn't really an option for civilians. That behavior tends to make members of the public more bruised/bleeding/dead.

Further "justification" for the removal of DOJ-ordered remedies takes the form of phrases delivered without citing any evidence whatsoever.

Being a cop has never been more complicated, unpredictable, and dangerous. We work in a city, like many American cities, faced with increasing criminal violence…

Being a cop is actually safer than it's been in over 50 years. Police have access to a greater variety of offensive and defensive options than they've ever had. The assertion that Seattle is "facing increasing criminal violence" is just plain wrong. Crime rates nationally have been in a steady decline since the late 1980s. Seattle is no exception. Its crime rate is now half of what it was in 1985.

The statement leans heavily on depicting self-defense as a Constitutionally-guaranteed right to deploy whatever amount of force the officer deems necessary when faced with a potentially dangerous situation. The Constitution does not guarantee an "any means necessary" approach to threats -- not for police officers and not for members of the public.

Officers will find themselves in more dangerous situations than most members of the public, but they also have Kevlar vests, openly-carried weapons, Tasers, nightsticks, etc. on hand at all times. What these officers want to do is roll things back to the days when they could go hard on certain ethnicities and dole out excessive force as they saw fit. And now they want the public to help fund a fight for worse policing -- the same public that's on the hook for every settlement handed out to excessive force victims, as well as paying for any legal action the city of Seattle takes in response. That's beyond tone-deaf. That's audaciousness bordering on sociopathy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Via Amy Alkon, we learn of yet another bizarre moment in the world of security theater known as the TSA. It involves a young man from Orono, Minnesota, named Kahler Nygard, who for reasons no one will ever explain, happens to be on a "selectee" list for flying. It's not quite the no fly list, but it's the list where you get four S's on your boarding pass ("SSSS"), and the TSA is then supposed to give you and your bags that extra level of privacy-destroying attention, including a full gropedown. Nygard claims he got the full groping in Minnesota, but the TSA (or potentially a Spirit airlines employee) apparently believed it was overlooked -- though, they didn't "realize" this until the flight was halfway to Denver. Frantic calls were made and the TSA was eagerly waiting for Nygard when he landed in Denver, leading him to be pulled off the plane first (that's a self-recorded video where he cheerfully announces to those on board, "No, I have not committed a crime!"), at which point the TSA demands to grope him again: Yes, after he's already flown from Minneapolis (where he claims he was groped, though the TSA claims it was missed) to Denver, the TSA wishes to grope him (and search through his bags again). Apparently, they believe that he might magically reverse time and go back in time to blow up the plane or something.

The TSA agent, Andrew Grossman, first demands Nygard's boarding pass. Nygard points out that he no longer has it (you don't need it after you board), which stumps Grossman, leading him to have to make a phone call -- where he helpfully tells whoever he's talking to at the other end that Nygard is "pretty objectionable, filming me." Nygard keeps asking why they need to search him, and the TSA has no good answer, other than saying they need to do so. Nygard asks if he's being detained, and they don't answer. He asks if it's an order or a request, and the TSA's Grossman again doesn't really answer (other than to say that he's following orders). Finally, Nygard just walks away, saying that if he's not being detained, he's leaving. The TSA claims it's calling the Denver police, who apparently did not do anything to stop Nygard, who walked out of the airport without any further problems.

I'm curious if the TSA's Blogger Bob will step up with an explanation for why a passenger should be groped post-flight.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We've been detailing the issue of police militarization for quite some time around here (though the best resource on the issue has been Radley Balko, who wrote an excellent book on the topic). The issue has finally become at least somewhat mainstream, thanks to the high-profile appearance of militarized police responding to the protests in Ferguson, Missouri. This has, at the very least, resulted in at least a few police departments thinking better of their decision to accept surplus military gear from the Defense Department via its 1033 program. And the latest is the Los Angeles School Police Department.

Just last week, MuckRock posted on its site about a FOIA request from California, detailing the military equipment given to school police forces. Just the fact that any military equipment is being given to school police should raise some serious questions, but the one that really stood out was that the LA School Police had been given three grenade launchers, along with 61 assault rifles and one MRAP (mine resistant vehicle -- the big scary looking armored vehicles that have become one of the key symbols of police militarization). Asked to explain itself, the LA School police chief, Steve Zipperman, claimed that the district had actually received the grenade launchers and the rifles all the way back in 2001 (though the MRAP is brand-spanking-new). But, he claimed, we shouldn't worry too much, because the police didn't think of them as "grenade launchers," but rather "ammunition launchers," and they were mainly kept around in case other police needed them:

Zipperman said that although the Pentagon identifies the three launchers as grenade launchers, civilian police call them less-deadly ammunition launchers. He assured me that the school police never had any intention of lobbing grenades at anyone, ever, and that they would not be used against students to launch anything. But as a police department, he said, LAUSD’s finest engage in mutual-aid pacts with other police agencies, and the ability to move those launchers out of storage might come in handy.

As for the assault rifles, Zipperman said they were converted to semiautomatic assault rifles -- why am I not feeling better yet? -- and are used to train a cadre of officers within the department. Those officers in turn are equipped with civilian semiautomatic rifles, which are either kept in locked compartments within their patrol cars, or in more centralized locations, in case of a Columbine High School-type gunman attack.

Either way, with the outrage and backlash growing, the school district police force has now agreed to give up the grenade launchers, but it's keeping the rifles and the MRAP. The department told the LA Times that the rifles were "essential life-saving items" though no evidence is given of what lives they've saved.

That same article at the LA Times quotes someone from the Oakland School Police Department up here in Northern California, who received a "tactical utility truck" from the Pentagon program, saying that the truck is "a rolling public relations vehicle." Public relations how, exactly? That if the police don't like the look of you, they may blow your head off? And then there's this:

"We end up having to bring out a gas can and jumper cables every time we want to drive it — it's only used twice a year."

If they have to bring out the gas can and jumper cables every time they want to use it, it doesn't sound like it's particularly useful in those "emergency" situations we keep hearing about in defense of these programs. If there's suddenly a big emergency, and the police have to go searching for some gas and the jumper cables? Perhaps that just shows how non-"essential" these giveaways are.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Almost exactly a year ago, one of the many Snowden revelations came out, this time concerning the fact that the NSA was giving raw domestic communications data to Israeli military intelligence. This was somewhat shocking, because it basically was allowing Israeli intelligence to sift through communications data (both metadata and actual communications), including on Americans, without any restrictions. As was noted at the time:

Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.

The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy of US citizens caught in the dragnet. The intelligence community calls this process "minimization", but the memorandum makes clear that the information shared with the Israelis would be in its pre-minimized state.

James Bamford, the long-time NSA watcher and chronicler, has a new article in the NY Times, where he now connects that free and unencumbered data sharing with revelations of abuse by the very Israeli military intelligence unit the data went to. Bamford notes that, when he interviewed Snowden over the summer, Snowden had called out the data sharing with Israel as one of the most shocking finds:

Among his most shocking discoveries, he told me, was the fact that the N.S.A. was routinely passing along the private communications of Americans to a large and very secretive Israeli military organization known as Unit 8200. This transfer of intercepts, he said, included the contents of the communications as well as metadata such as who was calling whom.

Typically, when such sensitive information is transferred to another country, it would first be “minimized,” meaning that names and other personally identifiable information would be removed. But when sharing with Israel, the N.S.A. evidently did not ensure that the data was modified in this way.

Mr. Snowden stressed that the transfer of intercepts to Israel contained the communications — email as well as phone calls — of countless Arab- and Palestinian-Americans whose relatives in Israel and the Palestinian territories could become targets based on the communications. “I think that’s amazing,” he told me. “It’s one of the biggest abuses we’ve seen.”

And, indeed, Bamford notes, it's now been more or less confirmed that the information that NSA was sharing was used to persecute innocent Palestinians. This is only coming out now because dozens of veterans of the unit publicly called out the abuses and refused to continue to participate in the process:

It appears that Mr. Snowden’s fears were warranted. Last week, 43 veterans of Unit 8200 — many still serving in the reserves — accused the organization of startling abuses. In a letter to their commanders, to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and to the head of the Israeli army, they charged that Israel used information collected against innocent Palestinians for “political persecution.” In testimonies and interviews given to the media, they specified that data were gathered on Palestinians’ sexual orientations, infidelities, money problems, family medical conditions and other private matters that could be used to coerce Palestinians into becoming collaborators or create divisions in their society.

Everything about this is disturbing. There have long been concerns about the NSA and other intelligence agencies using the information they have access to try to coerce innocent people, threatening to embarrass them or reveal secrets. Other Snowden documents have revealed that the NSA in fact had plans on how to do something similar, using things like the porn surfing habits of people they didn't like to embarrass and discredit them -- even if they weren't part of any terrorist organization. While the NSA insisted it never did such things, this latest revelation suggests that the NSA clearly enabled the Israelis to do exactly that -- often using communications and metadata of Americans, handed over willy-nilly to the Israelis to do just that.

Meanwhile, kudos to the Israeli veterans for blowing the whistle on this kind of activity.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Dropbox revealed in its latest Transparency Report that 80 percent of the subpoenas it receives are accompanied by a request not to inform users their data is being requested.

Over two years ago, Washington, DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier enacted a new policy for her officers to follow when dealing with citizens armed with cameras. Very simply put: leave them alone.

"A bystander has the same right to take photographs or make recordings as a member of the media," Chief Lanier writes. The First Amendment protects the right to record the activities of police officers, not only in public places such as parks and sidewalks, but also in "an individual's home or business, common areas of public and private facilities and buildings, and any other public or private facility at which the individual has a legal right to be present."

Lanier says that if an officer sees an individual recording his or her actions, the officer may not use that as a basis to ask the citizen for ID, demand an explanation for the recording, deliberately obstruct the camera, or arrest the citizen. And she stresses that under no circumstances should the citizen be asked to stop recording. [Emphasis added for reasons that will become clear in a few paragraphs.]

Even if citizens are somehow impeding police work, under no circumstances should they be asked to stop recording. They should be asked to move out of the way and that request should be the totality of the interaction.

The new citizen recording policy was violated the next day. DC police officers seized a man's phone. They later returned it, but without the memory card. Both actions violated Lanier's clear instructions that cameras/phones could only be acquired with the person's permission and that all devices seized must be returned intact.

This policy has now been in effect for nearly 26 months. Some officers apparently have yet to be "read in" on the specifics.

Here's what happened to one citizen who attempted to record an arrest being made.


From the description:

"I pulled out my phone and began recording when I came upon a man being physically restrained by 7 D.C. police officers outside the downtown branch of the D.C. Public Library September 7, 2014, at 6:24 p.m. The video came out blurry, but 48 seconds in, Officer C.C. Reynolds (badge 3983) didn't like that I was recording the proceedings, and tried to intimidate me into leaving the scene."

Officer C.C. Reynolds tries out various tactics, like claiming a public sidewalk is private property, claiming the recording is part of the investigation/evidence, claiming that the person recording could easily become part of the investigation (a little threat) and that the photographer is interfering with the arrest. All of it is false. He also baselessly demands the photographer give him his name and present ID.

So far, nothing surprising. The First Amendment right to record public officials is still intact, but it is very often ignored by those being recorded. What is surprising is the official reaction. None other than the police chief herself criticized the actions of the officer in a written statement to WNEW.

We have an extremely clear policy that addresses the Metropolitan Police Department's recognition of the First Amendment rights enjoyed by – not only members of the media, but the general public as well – to video record, photograph and or audio record MPD members conducting official business or while acting in an official capacity in any public space, unless such recordings interfere with police activity.

We spent an extensive amount of time to ensure that members were aware of the policy (developed in 2011).

The video speaks for itself. I was shocked when I saw it. There is no excuse for an officer to be unaware of the policy.

This matter is under investigation.

Cathy L. Lanier
Chief of Police

It's not very often that a police chief will publicly criticize an officer's actions. Normally, this sort of thing is handled with a blow-off statement about being "under investigation." Only in very rare circumstances is that statement accompanied by a clear admission of fault.

According to Andrew Heining (the photographer who was harassed), he received another out-of-the-ordinary response when he filed a complaint at the precinct.

I filled out a PD-99 Citizen Complaint form with MPD Sunday night and submitted it to Internal Affairs and the District 1 Commander. I heard back from Commander Jeff Brown and Captain Brian Harris on Monday afternoon, and again from Capt. Harris Tuesday night. Capt. Harris told me the officers shown were clearly in the wrong, that he and another officer he showed it to said "What the hell!?" aloud while watching it. He told me that the officers in the video would be disciplined.

If nothing else, this indicates Chief Lanier is dead serious about the new photography/recording policy. It wasn't something slapped into place as a token effort to mollify critics. She wants officers to respect her constituents' First Amendment rights. Even better, it appears other commanding officers feel the same way.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

An activist is a terrorist, at least according to Senior Police Officer Justin Berry of the Austin Police Dept. While the terms aren't mutually exclusive, a person can be one without being the other. In Berry's mind, they're both, and he feeds off the FBI's paranoia to reach his conclusion.

If you can't read it, it basically says that Berry has come across some information on a "national domestic extremism trend" that is echoed by local activist groups. He claims to have found "mirror warning signs" in "FBI intel." From there, his own report follows, naming such unlikely domestic extremists as CopBlock, CopWatch and Peaceful Streets. Also included are sovereign citizens groups and government accountability activists. [pdf link]

A nationwide movement has begun against the United States Government and all government officials including those at the local level and the police officers employed by these agencies (Anonymous, 2012). Locally, numerous activists have combined their programs to work together towards the same agenda, which seems similarly in line with that of the national revolution movement…

Here's the list of groups Berry believes are an imminent threat.

Peaceful Streets Project Austin, TX- Leader and Founder Antonio Buehler

Cop Block- Austin, TX

Cop Watch- National and Local

Texans for Accountable Government Austin, TX (State and Local legislative front) - Leader and Co-Founder John Bush

Occupy Austin- Austin, TX (Political)

Lone Star Sovereign Mutual Aid Response Team Austin, TX (legal aid and blanket calling) - Leader and Founder John Bush

Anonymous- Global (Computer Hacking and obtaining of personal and banking information)- Unknown

Oath Keepers- A first responder and military organization supporter group- National (Police Information Source)- Unidentified Members, one known member within the Austin Police Department

Institute for Justice- National. Texas Chapter Headquarters in downtown Austin, TX (Legislative Arm)- Unidentified at this time

His report goes on to say that these disparate groups share common members and acknowledges that the operations themselves are often peaceful -- or at least, not directly violent. But he calls out individual members for social media posts containing broad threats or other antagonistic behavior as being indicative of these groups' latent potential for violence.

Below is several screen shots that show these organizations intentions, statements, and goals that should not be discredited as mere chatter, but considered an active threat until after November 5, 2012...

Unfortunately, the screenshots are not among the documents posted at antimedia.org [which also include discussion of an online impersonation charge that likely went nowhere], but anyone who's perused a few comment threads or Facebook posts can probably imagine what was included. In any group, there are always a few commenters who will advocate for violence in response to police misconduct and abuse. These are generally not indicative of the group in total, but do tend to skew higher in certain activist groups. Rather than address the threats as words of individuals, Berry tries to tie the whole thing together as a revolutionary force composed of sovereign citizens, police accountability activists and Anonymous itself. Then he uses a movie to illustrate the severity of the situation.

A good visual of what they are hoping for can be seen in the movie for V for Vendetta. basically what they are basing all their movements off of. At time marker 1 hour 42 minutes a detective is heard telling the plan which is basically hoping one police officer will make a mistake and poor decision, in the case of the movie killing an unarmed child committing a minor offense. They then used that event to bring out regular people to support their cause. Though in real life they do not have numbers needed to pull anything like that off, which is why they will have to create a problem by claiming one-thing ahead of time, then forcing police to take a certain action. My concern is that John Bush has already stockpiled up weapons…

… and so on. Fortunately, Justin Berry's hysteria (possibly prompted by some recorded run-ins with members of these groups) falls mostly on deaf ears. Much more measured responses are given by other law enforcement officers and supervisors.

Following the notification that Peaceful Streets was planning to hand out free cameras to citizens to record police activity, Lt. Robert Richman had this to say.

Please see Tom's email below. It summarizes a very good approach to use while discussing the recent "video" activist movement with our officers. If our officers encounter any problems with the activists. please have them bookmark the incident via DMAV and send me a copy of the case number.

Although we don't anticipate any issues, officers should always be cognizant of their officer safety and the safety of the citizens on scene. If problems do arise. officers should be well versed on the various tools available within the law that may assist them. A few examples are:

Texas Penal Code 38.15 Interference with Public Duties
Texas Transportation Code. Section 552.006 Use of Sidewalk (Le. Pedestrian in Roadway)

Calming, but with a hint of authority behind it. He references "Tom's email," which is even more forthright in its assertion that recording police officers is perfectly acceptable behavior.

I have reminded my officers that there is nothing wrong with citizens recording us while we work. Don't let someone bait us into a negative confrontation.

The would-be camera-persons are to keep their distance and not interfere with the Incident. I have told my guys that 30' is a fair guideline for acceptable distance, since any closer and the subject becomes a potential immediate threat, which causes an officer to divide their attention. However this will be up to the officer to reasonably articulate if they decide to enforce this. Ultimately, maintain officer safety and if the person attempting to records us legitimately interferes with a police incident, arrest them.

I have encouraged my officers to welcome the recordings and present a pleasant professional image for the cameras. "Smile and wave, gang. Smile and wave" - The less our officers respond to the baiting, the more quickly they will tire of their game.

Lt. Tom Sweeney's advice is sound, although he's a bit wrong to belittle recording police officers as a "game." To some, it undoubtedly is, but to many others, it's one of the only forms of officer accountability available to average citizens.

As to Justin Berry's breathless statements that activists are endangering police officers by posting their personal information online, Lt. Richman chills his heated assertion with obvious facts.

Additionally. some officers have complained about the activists posting links on Face Book tothe officer's pay and other personal data. Officers should be reminded that our pay is actually public record and easily found as is many other bits of information via a simple Google search. Officers should be reminded to lock down the security settings on their Face Book accounts and to cleanse any personal data they find on the internet by contacting the site which shows the data.

Antimedia.org portrays this as a wholesale libeling of these activist groups, but what's released here appears to be nothing more than the fruits of one officers' personal, um, vendetta. As was briefly mentioned earlier, Berry has had multiple run-ins with one of these activist groups -- Peaceful Streets -- and appears to be hoping to find a "legal" way to mute their presence (note how it's listed first and explained in the greatest detail). The other cops in the thread appear to be much more pragmatic, even up to the point of feeling citizen recordings are a "game" that activists will tire of if officers refuse to rise to the "bait." Berry's inferences are objectionable but he seems to be finding little support. Without that, there's not much he can do.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

One of the standard talking points right after the Ed Snowden revelations first started coming out was that the leaks were causing terrorists to change how they communicated, meaning that US intelligence was somehow "losing track" of important information on the whereabouts and plans of terrorists. The most obvious example of this was from CNN "reporter" Barbara Starr (who has a long track record of repeating Defense Department talking points) who directly claimed: "terrorists are trying to change the way they communicate because of what they learned from Edward Snowden's admitted leaks of classified information about government surveillance programs." We questioned this claim on a number of points -- in part because there was plenty of evidence that most terrorists already suspected such surveillance and acted accordingly. Meanwhile, in private, James Clapper (who publicly was claiming massive damage from terrorists changing how they communicate) admitted that he really wasn't that worried.

Clapper has said repeatedly in public that the leaks did great damage, but in private he has taken a more nuanced stance. A review of early damage assessments in previous espionage cases, he said in one closed-door briefing this fall, found that dire forecasts of harm were seldom borne out.

So it should come as no surprise at all that a new research report more or less confirms that there is no evidence of terrorists changing how they communicate post-Snowden. You can read the full report from Flashpoint Partners yourself, but it's pretty clear:

• The underlying public encryption methods employed by online jihadists do not appear to have significantly changed since the emergence of Edward Snowden. Major recent technological advancements have focused primarily on expanding the use of encryption to instant messenger and mobile communications mediums.
• Aside from warning of tampered copies of “Asrar al-Mujahideen” that were deliberately infected with spyware, none of the prominent jihadi logistical units have expressed any public doubt as to the continued effectiveness of encryption methods employed in their software packages that were released prior to the Snowden leaks.
• The actual release of new jihadi-themed encryption software packages, like “Asrar al-Dardashah,” seems to have had a far more noticeable impact in terms of driving waves of interest in the subject of encryption among users of jihadi web forums than the publication of the Snowden NSA revelations in June 2013.
• Well prior to Edward Snowden, online jihadists were already aware that law enforcement and intelligence agencies were attempting to monitor them. As a result, the Snowden revelations likely merely confirmed the suspicions of many of these actors, the more advanced of which were already making use of – and developing –secure communications software.

In other words, as we said, most terrorists already assumed their electronic communications were at risk and acted accordingly. There is little to no evidence that Snowden's leaks had any significant impact at all. The report shows that encryption packages were popular well before the Snowden leaks, and little seems to have changed after the Snowden leaks.

The report also looked at forum discussions on various encryption techniques on forums frequented by terrorist groups. As you can see from the following two charts, there doesn't appear to be any bump in discussions about encryption or related software post Snowden (the leaks began in June of 2013). If anything there was much more discussion before the Snowden revelations started:

The full report is quite interesting, though I doubt we'll see any NSA defenders/Snowden haters admitting that their doom and gloom claims turned out to be false.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Not to be outdone by European fast food chain Quick's Darth Vader themed black-bun burger, Burger King Japan has just announced a burger with black buns, black sauce and black CHEESE. Apparently the patty contains black pepper, the buns and cheese are blackened with bamboo charcoal, and the onion and garlic sauce contains squid ink. I'd try it. I just had a cheeseburger last night but it was not black. It was tan and brown and yellow and red and green. It was like eating a rainbow. "Like Skittles?" Absolutely nothing like Skittles, it was a f***ing cheeseburger. Do your parents even know you're on the internet? Also, you know how some kids refuse to eat foods that are a certain color? Well I know some adults that are still that way. They're really hard to stay friends with. Keep going for several more shots of the black burgers. Thanks to rob the jerk, Christina and tabby, who agree it's only a matter of time before scientists develop clear burgers like Crystal Pepsi.

After a successful fan campaign to bring the drink back (hey, everybody uses their spare time in different ways -- some just more meaningfully than others), Coca-Cola has just announced it's bring SURGE soda back to market. *glug glug glug, shivers* Oh yeah, I can already feel the diabetes forming.

SURGE, which debuted in 1996 and was taken off the market in the early 2000s, is making a comeback thanks, in part, to a passionate and persistent community of brand loyalists who have been lobbying The Coca-Cola Company to bring back their favorite drink over the last few years. SURGE is Coke's first discontinued brand to return to the market. SURGE will be sold on Amazon.com, which represents the first time a Coca-Cola product has been sold exclusively through an online retailer. SURGE's relaunch will also be an experiment in social media marketing for the brand, since they said they will not invest in any traditional marketing for this product.

Great job, guys. It's just a shame you couldn't have put all that time and effort towards something that actually matters. Like, I dunno, bringing back Squeezits or Hi-C Ecto Cooler. I swear, all the crazy shit going on in the world and some people still only think about their own selfish agendas. Keep going for a video about the re-release. Thanks to Dan-O and E V I L A R E S, who have already ordered pallets of SURGE to sell on eBay when Coke inevitably pulls the drink again.

In discussing yesterday's internet slowdown day protest, we noted that, at its peak, the effort was driving over 1,000 calls per minute to Congress. The final numbers are now in, and they're amazing. If you can't see the image, it shows 303,099 calls made to Congress, 2,167,092 emails sent to Congress, and another 722,364 comments filed with the FCC. If you want to file comments with the FCC (you can read ours, if you'd like a sample) I recommend using EFF's DearFCC.org website.

What's amazing is how quick some folks have been to try to dismiss this massively successful effort. The most hilarious of all has to be Newsweek (the same publication that recently outed the wrong Satoshi Nakamoto as the "creator" of Bitcoin), whose Lauren Walker seemed so anxious to slam the protests as meaningless that she wrote a hilariously wrong article suggesting no one really participated in the protests, and that even the activists are conceding that net neutrality is dead.

Walker uses the weak premise that so many cynical tech press folks have used in the past few years: if an online protest doesn't match the astounding numbers from the giant anti-SOPA/PIPA internet "blackout," then clearly it's a failure. That's a dumb hacky premise, but hacky reporters keep jumping on it. Even worse, however, is that (beyond misquoting Fight for the Future's Evan Greer), Walker insists that the protest fizzled because very few sites took part, and those that did probably didn't drive anyone to do anything. She reports none of the numbers above, and totally incorrectly claims that just 76 websites participated. The number was actually more than 10,000. Reporting!

Either way, the effort yesterday has to be seen as a huge success in driving awareness on the issue and also in letting DC know that the public really cares about this issue. And, now, we wait to see if the FCC will actually listen to those pleas.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

A secret and scrappy court battle that Yahoo launched to resist the NSA’s PRISM spy program came to an end in 2008 after the Feds threatened the internet giant with a massive $250,000 a day fine if it didn’t comply and a court ruled that Yahoo’s arguments for resisting had no merit. The detail of […]

The post Feds Threatened to Fine Yahoo $250K Daily for Not Complying With PRISM appeared first on WIRED.

The notion that certain rights are guaranteed to citizens is being proven false every day. For instance, you have the First Amendment right to film police officers and other public officials, but it often takes an official policy change (usually prompted by lawsuits) before these public servants will begrudgingly respect that right.

You also have certain rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, but even these aren't innate. You can't simply remain silent while detained or arrested. You have to invoke these rights (often repeatedly) or risk having your silence (things you didn't say) used against you.

In the case of photographing police officers, you'll notice that activists and others who are recording will invoke their rights repeatedly. In some cases, this forces those being recorded to back off and reconsider their attempts to shut down recordings or seize cameras. It doesn't always work but it works often enough to show that these police officers know you have this right but won't respect it unless you invoke it.

Techdirt reader timlash sends in this video of two citizens filming a sally port (where prisoners are shuttled in and out of the courthouse) in Jacksonville, Florida. As is to be expected, police officers show up and try to shut down the recording of a public building from a public sidewalk. But the most amazing part of the video is the police officer's statement in response to the cameraman invoking his rights.

"You must be doing something wrong if you invoke your rights."

That's the prevailing attitude. Invoke your Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures and the government assumes you have something to hide. Invoke your Fifth Amendment rights and the government assumes you've committed a crime. Invoke your First Amendment right to record police officers and you're told that you're "obstructing" an investigation or creating a public disturbance.

You have rights as an American citizen. They just won't be respected by default. And when you invoke them, you'll be treated as an activist (at best) or a criminal (at worst). The land of freedom has tipped the balance away from the citizens and towards the government -- because whether we're fighting terrorism, drugs or illegal immigration, the respect of citizens' rights impedes the progress of the nation's many "warriors."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We've mentioned in the past how Comcast has been pretending to support net neutrality, with ad campaigns stating that it does -- clearly in an attempt to confuse the public. Yesterday, Comcast even put a thing on its own front page claiming that the company is "committed to an open Internet and Net Neutrality." That links to a blog post from David Cohen, Comcast's chief lobbyist / government relations guy, whose job it is to convince lawmakers to rubber stamp any of Comcast's big plans; from killing (not preserving) net neutrality to letting it acquire Time Warner Cable. Cohen, who has ridiculously and cynically been given the title "Chief Diversity Officer" (by which we assume means the guy who gives money to minority groups to have them repeat Comcast's talking points), tries to make the argument that Comcast supports net neutrality.

Again, as we've noted in the past, this is not actually true. Comcast supports the 2010 open internet rules that were painfully weak and didn't really limit Comcast in any meaningful way. And Comcast supports them because it's legally obligated to support those rules as part of the terms of its last big merger, with NBC Universal. But that agreement runs out in a few years and Comcast has, in the past, shown a willingness to compromise on net neutrality issues, and as it gets bigger that seems likely to continue. Many of Cohen's claims are outright laughable:

We don’t interfere with our customers’ ability to access lawful content online.

Well, unless that lawful content you want to access online is from Netflix, and Netflix hasn't paid up at the Comcast tollbooth. As a reminder, here's the wonderful chart that the Washington Post put together of Netflix's download speeds on various broadband networks. See the black line as it drops and drops before suddenly darting upwards? That's Comcast purposely letting its border routers clog up until Netflix paid the toll, and Comcast went in and hooked up a few more ports (a trivial exercise it could have done quite a while ago if it actually cared about its customers' ability to access lawful content online.) So, uh, yeah, Comcast does interfere. And, of course, it's done so in the past as well, such as the time it throttled all Bittorrent traffic, whether it was "lawful content" or not. Or how about more recently when it came out that Comcast is using packet injection to insert its own ads over other company's websites?

As today’s actions show, the availability and access to lawful content and websites online is ultimately up to the provider of that specific content.

Until they get big like Netflix, and then it's up to how much that provider is willing to pay Comcast to stop letting their traffic purposely degrade.

We continue to be committed to delivering the same high-quality, high-speed Internet service that our customers rely on each and every day.

Committed... right up until the point Comcast feels it can shake down a company to pay extra just so Comcast's consumers can actual reach them with the bandwidth those customers already bought.

Of course, the meat of the post is that Comcast really, really, really hates the idea of reclassification under Title II. You can practically hear Cohen screaming "don't do it!"

What we don’t support is reclassification of broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II because it would harm innovation and investment. It would harm the very thing we love about the Internet – the speed at which it can change, adapt, and innovate. And a Title II reclassification is simply not necessary.

Except Comcast is not exactly viewed as a particularly innovative or adaptable company. Comcast totally tried to mislead the FCC by misrepresenting a Fortune listing of "most admired" companies (Comcast was way, way, way down the full list, but at the top of a very, very small list of "cable and satellite providers" all of whom were not particularly admired). And should we really forget that Comcast regularly wins the "world's worst company" award from Consumerist? Comcast hasn't exactly shown its ability to be particularly innovative under the existing regime.

In fact, if history has shown anything, it's that greater competition leads to innovation, not greater consolidation. But, remember that Comcast is actively trying to buy one of the biggest competitors in the space, Time Warner Cable. And while both companies and their supporters point out that the two companies don't compete head on for customers, they do compete in other areas, such as in how they can buy third party services. And, of course, just think about how much more leverage a combined company would have in shaking down internet companies in the future...

At Comcast alone, we have invested tens of billions of dollars in our network and continue to invest more every year.

Yes, and that won't change under the FCC's regulations... unless there's no competition. Investment follows competition.

We want our customers to continue to enjoy their favorite videos, web applications, shopping, news, and whatever may come next.

Unless, of course, those favorite videos come from Netflix, and Netflix hasn't paid the toll taker.

Light touch Open Internet regulations should be a part of that.

Because it allowed us to shakedown Netflix, and Comcast now has its eyes on others as well...

Again, if there were a truly competitive market, perhaps this wouldn't matter. But there isn't, in part because of efforts by companies like Comcast to block out anything that might lead to real competition. Comcast isn't supporting an open internet. It's supporting whatever puts it in the best position to shakedown internet companies.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Well, file this under 'holy crap'. Microsoft is nearing a deal to buy Mojang AB, makers of the Minecraft video game franchise, according to a new report. According to the Wall Street Journal, the deal would value Mojang at more than $2 billion and could be signed as soon as this week. No. Just no.