Typohoid Marys Place: April 2009

Saturday, April 25, 2009

The End of Times?

The nation's largest left-wing newspaper and the bible for network news producers and bookers may be going under. This week, The New York Times announced more staggering losses: nearly $75 million dollars in the first quarter alone. The New York Post is reporting that the Times Company owes more than $1 billion and has just $34 million in the bank. A few months ago, the company borrowed $250 million from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim at a reported 14 percent interest rate. With things going south fast, pardon the pun, Slim might want to put in a call to Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

The spin from Sulzberger is that the Internet is strangling the newspaper industry, and there is some truth to that. Why read an ideologically crazed paper when you can acquire a variety of information on your computer? But other papers are not suffering nearly as much as the Times, so there must be more to it.

There is no question that the Times has journalistic talent. This week the paper won five Pulitzers. It's true that the Pulitzer people favor left-wing operations (the past eight Pulitzer Prizes for commentary have gone to liberal writers), but New York Times journalists often do good reporting.

The problem is that under Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller, the Times has gone crazy left, attacking those with whom the paper disagrees and demonstrating a hatred for conservatives (particularly President Bush) that is almost pathological. The Times features liberal columnists in every section of the paper, and they hit low, often using personal invective to smear perceived opponents.

That unfair and unbalanced approach has alienated a large number of readers and advertisers. According to a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, 46 percent of Americans define themselves as conservative. Just 34 percent say they are liberal. In this very intense marketplace, insulting half the country on a daily basis may not be a great business plan.

The Times company also has a major problem with The Boston Globe, which Sulzberger bought back in 1993. That paper is on the verge of bankruptcy and recently told its employees that it will cut their pay and health benefits. Since the Times and the Globe are big on "universal" health care, that caused some giggling in anti-Times precincts.

Over the past few months, newspapers in Chicago, Seattle, Minneapolis and Denver have either folded or filed for bankruptcy. With the exception of The Rocky Mountain News, all the papers were committed left-wing enterprises. The truth is that most Americans are traditional-minded folks. They believe their country is noble; they want respectful discourse. Fanaticism of any kind is not the American way.

The New York Times is most definitely a committed left-wing concern that is openly contemptuous of the conservative, traditional point of view. That is the primary reason the paper may soon dissolve. And all the cash in Carlos Slim's fat wallet is not going to change that.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Journalism vs. Commentary

Alec Baldwin, HuffPost

A lot of huffing and puffing here about my last post. The reading comprehension here can be rather surprising at times.
I said I was a fan of both Keith and Rachel. Watch them all the time. I suppose I hold them to a higher standard as I feel that now is our time. A time for real change. I didn't vote for Obama to savor the thrill of having our first black president. I did so because I thought he was smart and tough. I want Obama to undo much of what was done these past eight years by the crypto-fascists in the Bush administration. And a good part of that would involve a press that was on the ball. On the case. Keeping an eye on what is going on. Making sure that Americans are properly informed about what our government is doing. Something that was scarce during the Bush years.

Journalism is what is required now. And, yes, some commentary. But more journalism than commentary. That's what a newspaper does. That's why newspapers are quoted so often as the sources of actual news on this very site. Newspapers are about journalism. The internet, and sites like this, are about commentary. People sign on and give their opinion. But that is not journalism. That is commentary, internet style, whereby most people are not trained as journalists and the comments of many posters here are anonymous. You can piss on anyone you want, say anything you want, and so long as it is within the boundaries of HuffPo politesse, you are in.

The sine qua non to understanding the garbage barge of the internet is the AOL home page. The AOL home page, which makes Us Weekly look like Paris Match, wants its readers to focus on the latest unflattering photos of stars or their DUIs. The AOL home page is where polls rated George W. Bush as one of the ten greatest presidents, even as late as last fall. The AOL home page is where they wrote that I had "picked a fight" with Maddow and Olberman.

Perhaps this comes as no surprise, but there are never, ever any names that appear as authors of the monstrously boring and mind-numbing content on the home page of this popular server. Never. Ever. AOL just keeps churning out all of that trash on their digital welcome mat, and you never find out who is responsible.

That's the Internet. Some great, serious, lofty thinking, one click away. The AOL home page, like a filthy dinner plate, just begging to be scraped and washed, another click away.

I'll take the Times any day. Judith Miller, or no. As for Keith and Rachel, I would never pick a fight with them. You think I want Keith Olbermann gnawing on me on national television? You haven't been gnawed till you've been gnawed by Keith. And Rachel? I love Rachel. Doesn't everyone? But just as I don't want root beer for dinner, I like my "news programming" a little straighter, at least during these times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/journalism-vs-commentary_b_186212.html

Monday, April 20, 2009

DC Reporting : Myths, Fabrications & Whitewash

DC Reporting : Myths, Fabrications & Whitewash
When creating D.C. myths, Washington reporters aren't interested in actual
data.

I was reading _this_
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123992058646826949.html) [link fixed], the zillionth "analysis" of political populism from a
Washington, D.C.-based reporter, when I came upon this pretty perfect example
of how Beltway journalists just make shit up:

The country today is different. America has an enormous middle class that
is heavily invested in the financial system and is hardly about to organize
for its overthrow...
People who have lost half the value of their 401(k) plans, in other words,
want to regain it by having the economy rebound, not by seizing the assets
of ExxonMobil Corp.

If this reporter was even the slightest bit interested in whether this
banalia was true, he would have spent all of 5 seconds on the Google and found
that actually, empirical public opinion data shows that Americans are quite
supportive of "seizing the assets" of oil companies like ExxonMobil.

As _USA Today_
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-31-energy--poll_N.htm) reported a few months ago, a windfall profits tax -
ie. a tax to seize oil company assets - is wildly popular, according to
its surveys. This was the_same finding as ABC News' earlier poll
(http://www.pollingreport.com/energy.htm) . Indeed, even the conservative-leaning
_Rasmussen_
(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/gas_oil/just_47_oppose_nationalizing_oil_industry)

found that just 47 percent of
Americans oppose complete and total nationalization of the entire oil industry.
But, you see, when creating D.C. myths - in this case, the myth that
Americans celebrate being ruled by corporate special interests, want no change,
are completely happy with the status quo, and love oil companies -
Washington reporters aren't interested in actual data. They live in a world of
six-figures and lobbyists and cocktail parties - a cloistered gated community
whose residents are nauseated by the idea of "seizing assets" of the
wealthiest corporations in the world. And so these reporters assume the consensus
of that gated community is the consensus of the majority of Americans who
live outside that gated community - even when the hard data says exactly the
opposite.

I wonder if instead of working in the factual world, I should just start
making shit up. It would save me so much time in my work to not have to, ya
know, verify anything. I could write entire columns just saying the first
piece of conventional wisdom that came into my mind, without even bothering
to see if it was true. Wow...what an easy life that would be.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

The Corporate TakeOver of Americas Newspapers

Read All About It: The Corporate Takeover of America's Newspapers is an institutional acknowledgement of what many wary readers have known for years: Corporate control is ruining our daily newspapers.

Oh, excuse me: I didn't mean to say "our" newspapers. It's just that I've always thought of daily newspapers as the guardians of our -- meaning the public's -- right to know. The guardians of truth, justice, the public welfare and all that.
But who am I fooling. America's daily newspapers don't belong to us. Nor, for that matter, do they even seek to serve us any longer. They have more important concerns now: appeasing advertisers and enriching stockholders. Read All About It, by James D. Squires, the editor of the Chicago Tribune from 1981 to 1989, explains why.

Click on title above for full article;
http://www.criticism.com/md/crit1.html

Website Demonizing Goldman-Sucks Raises Firms Ire

An irate adviser/blogger has created Goldmansachs666.com to vent against the firm
By Jamie Burns

April 17, 2009, 3:35 PM EST

With all of the frightening numbers being thrown around these days — five million jobs lost, an 8.5% unemployment rate — no numerical value conjures up evil more effectively than 666.

One angry adviser is relying on the number of the beast to illustrate his frustrations with The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. on his website, Goldmansachs666.com.
The New York financial giant — which posted positive earnings late Monday, has responded to creator Mike Morgan, a Jensen Beach, Fla. adviser, by demanding that he stop using the Goldman Sachs trademark within the URL of his site.

Although the site, launched March 26, states that it has no affiliation with Goldman Sachs, the company demanded in a letter sent April 8 that Mr. Morgan remove the company's trademark by tomorrow or face legal action.

“We always act to protect our firm,” a spokesman for Goldman Sachs said.

“This is not about Mr. Morgan’s rights to publish his views; it’s about his use of the Goldman Sachs trademark. It’s a domain issue, not a content issue.”

Mr. Morgan says he plans to fight for his domain name, as well as his First Amendment rights.

"We have followed all of the legal requirements to own and maintain the website under the address we have selected," he wrote on his blog.

"It's just another example of how a bully like Goldman Sachs tries to throw their weight around and this is a clear violation of our constitutional rights."

According to Mr. Morgan, Goldman Sachs did not mention the content of his site in the letter. “We’ve been very careful with the content,” he said in a media conference call.

Mr. Morgan says he hopes to inform readers about Goldman Sachs’ role in the economic crisis through blog posts and comments.

He hopes to write a book entitled, "How Goldman Sachs Destroyed the World" from information gathered through Goldmansachs666.com, according to the site.

Mr. Morgan and a team of volunteers are looking to expand their critique of the financial industry by franchising their 666.com brand.

He posted a list of links to upcoming sites that are in development to give other large financial institutions with the 666.com treatment, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Pacific Investment Management Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of America Corp., and Morgan Stanley and Citigroup Inc., both of New York.

As of April 17, GoldmanSachs666.com has received more than 236,000 hits.

http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090417/REG/904179963

Prof. takes questions on cybercrime and the Net

April 1 was to be the day that a destructive Web virus, dubbed Conficker, unleashed its full power upon unsuspecting Net denizens. While the day passed with no sign of calamity, worry about the virus, coupled with recent revelations of the threat of cyberespionage, have stoked fears about the impact of cybercrime. University of Toronto professor Ron Deibert is part of a crack team of Canadian researchers who
revealed this weekend a network, dubbed GhostNet, of more than 1,200 infected computers worldwide that includes such "high-value targets" as Indonesia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Indian Embassy in Kuwait, as well as a dozen computers in Canada.

Who is behind GhostNet? Along with Rafal Rohozinski, Prof. Deibert wrote in the Globe and Mail: "The most obvious explanation, and certainly the one in which the circumstantial evidence tilts the strongest, would be that this set of high-profile targets has been exploited by the Chinese state for military and strategic-intelligence purposes. Indeed, many of the high-confidence targets we identified are clearly linked to Chinese foreign and defence policy, particularly in South and South East Asia."

China, for their part, dismissed the report as lies intended to stoke anxiety over Beijing's growing influence in world affairs.

Nevertheless, following the publication of the GhostNet research, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan warned Monday that cyberwarfare will be a "growing threat" for the foreseeable future, as he urged Canadian corporations to start patching potential holes in their networks.

How immediate is the threat posed to governments by cyberespionage? With so many digital worms creeping over the Web, what is the best way to respond to viruses like Conficker? How real in these cases is the threat to our own personal privacy? Prof. Deibert is joining us live to help separate the facts from the hype. Feel free to submit your questions using our comment tool or via Twitter @GlobeTechnology.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Matt Frehner, globeandmail.com: Thanks a lot for joining us today, Professor Deibert. Following warnings from Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan concerning the "growing threat" of cyberwarfare, what should policymakers be doing to try to limit the reach and frequency of cyberspy and other botnet systems? What do you see as Canada's role in this?

Ron Deibert writes: The question of what should be done at a policy level is an important one to me personally, and to us at the Information Warfare Monitor. For many years (and at least as far back as a 2003 comment piece I wrote in the Globe and Mail) I have been warning of increasing militarization of cyberspace and that we need to begin thinking about arms control in cyberspace. Part of the solution is to focus on securing critical infrastructures, and to create incentives for manufacturers of computer and software equipment to take security seriously. But that is only part of the solution. Arms control in cyberspace is going to be very challenging, in part because the "actors" involved include more than just states, and involve criminal organizations and even individuals. How do you get all of those actors involved in any possible arms control agreement? Another vexing problem is the one of attribution. Although the GhostNet study lays out quite powerful circumstantial evidence against China, we also lay out alternative explanations. Indeed, one of the defining features of cyberspace is the ease by which the perpetrators of these sorts of attacks can mask their identity and real location.

I see a great potential for Canada in this area. Long ago, we were widely known for taking a lead in pushing for arms control as part of a broader "human security" agenda, both in terms of arms control negotiations and verification. There was a small, but very influential area of expertise within the Department of Foreign Affairs on arms control verification, called the Verification Research Unit. That unit no longer exists, and our interest in promoting arms control and human security has diminished somewhat in recent years. In the area of cyberspace, I think it's natural for Canada to lead, both because of our past experience but also because of our historical experiences with telecommunications. We are a large land mass, and have depended on telecommunications, and we have a long and distinguished intellectual history around the study of telecommunications, beginning with Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan.

Matt Frehner, globeandmail.com: With so many digital worms creeping over the Web, and the release of reports such as yours, how can the average computer user separate the hype surrounding viruses like Conficker from legitimate threats?

Ron Deibert writes: This is an excellent question and is at the heart of one of the aims of the Information Warfare Monitor -- to separate hype from reality. We are an evidence based organization, and that is why we were very careful to avoid speculation and hyperbole, and also to be cautious about making attribution. Some other organizations out there have been quick to identify China as the culprit, and the evidence does seem powerful, but it is not conclusive and there are alternative explanations. The answer is a combination of field investigations, technical scouting, and data analysis. This is a new field of inquiry we are helping to pioneer and I believe it is going to become more important as we move forward in dealing with the challenges of controlling arms races in cyberspace.

Roman Spears from St. Catharines Canada writes: With identity theft and hijack programs being threats to the average home user, what recommendations can you make to help us all be more secure online? Who is making the detection programs that can find this malicious code and rid the internet of it?

Ron Deibert writes: For the average Internet user, the GhostNet report -- and others like it -- has undoubtedly caused concerns, and we have been blitzed with many emails from individuals, activists, and NGOs, asking if they are infected, whether we can help, and what we might recommend for security online. We are not a service organization, but a research and development laboratory, so there is a limit to what we can do. There are many organizations out there whose job it is to provide information security, particular for consumers. But one of the remarkable aspects of our investigation was that the main tool used by the attackers was only identified by 11 of the 34 virus scanners we employed. That is a big problem. Many of the machines that were infected by GhostNet were using Windows, and of course most of the viruses out there disproportionately affect Windows operating systems. Switching to an open source operating system, like Linux, is now highly recommended for government ministries for this reason alone.

For NGOs and activists, there are many information security resources and training organizations out there that I would recommend, including Tactical Tech and Frontline Defenders and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among others.

Albin Forone from Canada writes: I trust and use the Canada Revenue Agency site more or less as confidently as I use my bank and brokerage sites, and I'd be inclined to assume government sites with national security data at stake are pretty secure. So given that there are nefarious government or terror groups with internet crowbars, how much concern do you have about the quality of the government site and communications internet security measures.

Ron Deibert writes: We place a great deal of trust in our governments' communications systems when we communicate sensitive information to them, and hope that they take the issues of information security seriously. What GhostNet reveals, though, is that a large swath of high impact political and economic targets can indeed be compromised, including ministries of foreign affairs, embassies, and international organizations. Many of these organizations were compromised for many months, without their knowledge, and the attackers had potential access to all sorts of sensitive documents, and even had the ability to eavesdrop on classified meetings through the activation of web cameras and listening devices. Although most governments have invested heavily in secure methods of communication, many have not. This is particularly the case in the developing world where information security is often a distant priority next to other goals, such as the elimination of poverty or even simply access to information.

As citizens, we should be diligent to ensure that our government in Canada is doing the best possible job to secure our critical infrastructures, particularly when it comes to sending and receiving our own private confidential information, and that they are handling the latter with the utmost care. We should do the same with respect to the companies that provide us with our connectivity. We live in a world deeply permeated by digital technologies, much of which is serviced by private third parties and hosted on servers beyond our immediate control. We put a lot of trust in those organizations when we communicate with and through them.

O.A. from Toronto writes: To what extent would restrictions designed to limit such malicious networks also have the overlapping effect of censoring or limiting everyone else's freedom on the Internet?

Ron Deibert writes: This is an excellent question, and one that is vexing me personally. I worry that some of the conclusions that may be drawn from the GhostNet report and others like it will end up leading to pressures to over-regulate of the Internet. For example, the difficulties around identifying the perpetrators of attacks like GhostNet may lead some to propose the elimination of anonymous communications. However, the ability to surf the Internet and communicate anonymously is often very important, especially in the cases of whisteblowers and human rights advocates, and it is intimately linked with the right to privacy. Recently, there were discussions being held at the highest levels, and including the national security organs of both China and the United States, for some kind of IP (Internet Protocol) trace-back system in which owners of machines connected to the Internet could be positively identified. Although I believe the proposal is ultimately unworkable and undesirable, the fact that both China and the United States were on the same side of this question is worrisome.

Ultimately, I worry that in order to deal with some of these emerging problems in cyberspace, regulations will be made that will ruin the Internet and turn it into something else altogether. We must avoid that while finding ways to deal with cyber-espionage, denial of service attacks, and the growing spread of viruses, trojan horses, and worms.

M.L. from Canada writes: In terms of stemming the infiltration of cyberspys, Are there steps individual users can take, or is the problem of cyberespionage largely one that governments need to combat?

Ron Deibert writes: Actually, I'd like to begin my answer by turning that question on its head (if you do not mind). One of the characteristics of cyberspace is that the capabilities to engage in the attacks described in GhostNet are now readily available on the Internet. The main tool that was used in the GhostNet attack was a trojan horse software program
called Ghost Rat that is widely available for free download on the Internet. It was written by Chinese programmers, and has since been translated into English. It has a very nice graphical user interface (GUI) and is very simple to operate. The same sort of tools and malware kits for virus and worm production are also easily obtained. One no longer need an NSA-size organization and budget to engage in sophisticated cyberespionage. The Internet has democratized many things, including apparently signals intelligence. The same goes for denial of service attacks and computer network operations.

I do believe that this is going to be one of the most vexing problems of controlling the militarization of cyberspace: getting agreement among ~200 states is one thing, but how do you get the agreement of individuals?

Governments and individuals both have a role to play. All of us need to understand that cyberspace is a precious commons, one that we will need in order to solve the many shared global problems that present themselves today. We need a shared communications medium through citizens around the world can communicate freely and safely. Right now, that medium is in the process of being degraded by Internet content filtering, censorship, surveillance, computer network attacks, privacy violations, and bandwidth throttling.

In terms of solutions, I think we need to begin locally here in Canada, and start pushing for laws that, for example, enshrine network neutrality, protect privacy, create free zones of access to the Internet for all people (especially in rural areas) and protect access to information and freedom of speech. From there, we need to encourage other jurisdictions to follow suit and hope a global regime of cyberspace protection ultimately emerges. Right now, regrettably, the opposite is the case.

Matt Frehner, globeandmail.com: That's all the time we have today. I'd like to finish off with one final question: Looking forward, can you tell us a little bit about how you see these threats developing in the next 5 or so years? What kind of a role to you see cyberwarfare playing in future conflicts between states?

Ron Deibert writes: In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in incidences of cyberwarfare, in conflicts that include Russia, Georgia, Estonia, China, Tibet, Burma, Israel, and others. Many states and non-state actors are investing heavily in cyber warfare capabilities, including the United States and China. Military doctrines now speak openly about fighting and winning wars in cyberspace and recognize the strategic importance of the information domain. At the same time, the number of states actively intervening to block access to information and services online is growing. Another research project I am involved in, the OpenNet Initiative, tracks Internet censorship and right now we are finishing up tests in 71 countries. I expect the number of instances we find of states blocking access to information will number in the dozens. That includes governments blocking access to the websites of political opposition groups and news organizations.

Alongside of all of this, the ease by which personal information can be harvested, fused, and analyzed from the digital traces we leave is growing. Surveillance is now widespread and facilitated by the private entities that service our communications, including Internet Service Providers and other communications companies.

Essentially, cyberspace is being carved up and militarized at the same time that it is being heavily monitored.

Together, these trends point to an ominous development and a troubling brew. I do believe that thinking about protecting the Internet as a forum for free expression, privacy, and access to information is one of the major issues of the next few decades.

Thanks for all of the questions!

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewContent.act?clipid=256919400&mode=cnc&tag=3.7441%3Ficx_id%3D%2FRTGAM.20090401.wgtdiscussion0401%2FBNStory%2FTechnology%2F

Iran convicts Fargo journalist of spying

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI , Associated Press

Last update: April 18, 2009 - 7:13 AM

TEHRAN, Iran - An American journalist jailed in Iran has been convicted of spying and sentenced to eight years in prison, her lawyer said Saturday, dashing any hopes for her quick release.
The verdict was the first time Iran has found an American journalist guilty of spying, and it was unclear how the conviction would affect recent overtures by the Obama administration for better relations and engagement with Washington's longtime adversary.

Roxana Saberi, a 31-year-old dual American-Iranian citizen, was arrested in late January and initially accused of working without press credentials. But earlier this month, an Iranian judge leveled a far more serious allegation, charging her with spying for the United States.

She appeared before an Iranian court behind closed doors on Monday in an unusually swift one-day trial. The Fargo, North Dakota native had been living in Iran for six years and had worked as a freelance reporter for several news organizations including National Public Radio and the British Broadcasting Corp.

"Saberi has been sentenced to eight years in jail. I'll definitely appeal the verdict," lawyer Abdolsamad Khorramshahi told The Associated Press. It was not immediately known when she was convicted.

The United States has called the charges against Saberi baseless and has demanded her release, and the conviction and prison sentence could put strains on efforts to improve ties.

President Barack Obama has said it wants to engage Iran in talks on its nuclear program and other issues — a departure from the tough talk of the Bush administration.

Iran has been mostly lukewarm to the idea, but on Thursday Iran's hard-line president gave the clearest signal yet that the Islamic Republic was also willing to start a new relationship with Washington.

In a speech Wednesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was preparing new proposals aimed at breaking an impasse with the West over its nuclear program.

But it was uncertain how Washington would react to Saberi's conviction. On Thursday, the State Department said Saberi's jailing was not helpful and that Iran would gain U.S. good will if it "responded in a positive way" to the case.

The United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran after its 1979 Islamic revolution and takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

Human rights groups have repeatedly criticized Iran for arresting journalists and suppressing freedom of speech. The government has arrested several Iranian-Americans in the past few years, citing alleged attempts to overthrow its Islamic government through what it calls a "soft revolution." But they were never put on trial and were eventually released from prison.

Iran has released few details about the charges against Saberi. Iranian officials initially said she had been arrested for working in the Islamic Republic without press credentials and she had told her father in a phone conversation that she was arrested after buying a bottle of wine.

An Iranian investigative judge involved in the case charged that Saberi was passing classified information to U.S. intelligence services.

Her parents, who traveled to Iran from their home in Fargo in a bid to help win their daughter's release, could not immediately be reached for comment on Saturday.

Click on title above for full story;

http://www.startribune.com/local/43220407.html?elr=KArksUUUU

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Goldman Sachs hires law firm to shut blogger's site

Goldman Sachs is attempting to shut down a dissident blogger who is extremely critical of the investment bank, its board members and its practices.

By James Quinn, Wall Street Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:16PM BST 11 Apr 2009

Florida-based Mr Morgan began a blog entitled "Facts about Goldman Sachs" - the web address for which is goldmansachs666.com - just a few weeks ago.

In that time Mr Morgan, a registered investment adviser, has added a number of posts to the site, including one entitled "Does Goldman Sachs run the world?". However, many of the posts relate to other Wall Street firms and issues.
According to Chadbourne & Parke's letter, dated April 8, the bank is rattled because the site "violates several of Goldman Sachs' intellectual property rights" and also "implies a relationship" with the bank itself.

Unsurprisingly for a man who has conjoined the bank's name with the Number of the Beast - although he jokingly points out that 666 was also the S&P500's bear-market bottom - Mr Morgan is unlikely to go down without a fight.

He claims he has followed all legal requirements to own and operate the website - and that the header of the site clearly states that the content has not been approved by the bank.

On a special section of his blog entitled "Goldman Sachs vs Mike Morgan" he predicts that the fight will probably end up in court.

"It's just another example of how a bully like Goldman Sachs tries to throw their weight around," he writes.

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, Mr Morgan explained how he went through a similar battle with US homebuilder Lennar a few years ago after he set up a website to collect information on what he alleged was shoddy workmanship in its homes. The pair eventually settled out of court.

"Since I went through this with Lennar, I've had advice from some of the best intellectual property lawyers, and I know exactly what I can and can't do. We're not going to back down from this," he promises.

Mr Morgan adds that if Goldman manages to shut down his site, he has a number of other domain names registered.

. Speculation is mounting that Goldman Sachs is set to raise several billion dollars via a share sale, possibly next week, in order to pay down a $10bn (£6.8bn) US government loan, as revealed in The Sunday Telegraph last week.

Monday, April 13, 2009

The AP's Desperate Attempt To Outlaw Search Engine Links

By Rich Ord / WebProNews - Fri, 04/10/2009 - 18:59

An AP win could kill "fair use" and change the Internet as we know it.

The AP is launching an all out assault on any use of its content that is not licensed (purchased) for use by Internet publishers and search engines. As I have said in the past, the AP is not just focusing on the blatant violators such as spam blogs or sites that quote paragraphs without attribution or link. On the contrary, the AP is specifically going after bigger mainstream blogs, Internet publications and believe it or not search engines such as Google.

Do you agree with the AP's actions? What do you think?

The AP believes that desperate times call for desperate measures and that means demanding royalties from any company profiting from any aspect of their content. When Google links to an AP story in a search result with an Adwords ad on the page the AP expects to be paid. Include a rewritten headline link to an AP story Matt Drudge and you will be sued for payment by the AP. Add a paragraph snippet of content from an AP article in your PaidContent.org blog post and be ready for a call from an AP lawyer demanding their share of your ad revenue.

From the AP's perspective, the concept of fair use is primitive and counter to their desperate desire to prevent their demise in an ad supported Internet content economy. The Associated Press Board of Directors, which is made up mostly of newspaper executives, has issued a member call to arms against anyone and everyone who misappropriates AP content.

The release quotes AP Chairman Dean Singleton who spoke at the AP annual meeting in San Diego, "The news cooperative would work with portals and other partners who properly license content – and would pursue legal and legislative actions against those who don‘t." Mr. Singleton added, "We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under misguided legal theories."

Exactly what misguided legal theories Mr. Singleton was referring to became more clear as reports and interviews were published by other media. The New York Times quotes AP executives as stating, "They were concerned about a variety of news forums around the Web, including major search engines like Google and Yahoo and aggregators like the Drudge Report". In other words, they are challenging the long held assumption that search engines or news aggregation sites have a right under fair use principles to republish headlines or small snippets of content without permission or payment. Should the AP be paid? Comment.

If you don't believe the AP is really going after Google, Yahoo and Microsoft's Live Search for republishing AP content in search results read what Sue Cross, a senior vice president of AP told reporters as printed in the New York Times:

" When asked if The A.P. would require a licensing agreement before a search engine could show specific material, Ms. Cross said, “that could be an element of it,” but added, “it’s not that formed.”"

Obviously, the AP doesn't consider a link that goes with the republished headline or snippet sufficient payment. The AP's stated goal is to make it illegal either through the courts or by new laws to link (with a quote) to copyrighted content on the Internet without the permission of the copyright holder. However, in the case of the Drudge Report where most headlines are rewritten, apparently even a link to their content without permission may need an AP license agreement.

If the AP is successful, and they clearly believe they will be, then the Internet will be changed as we know it. Linking (with snippets or not) to the content of others could become a permission based concept where one only links (and quotes) after they have received the appropriate approval.

If content owners like the AP can sue search engines for unauthorized use of their content and win a share of their ad revenue, then the Google apple cart could be turned upside down.

>>> Is the AP justified in their fight? Should search engines share their revenue with content providers?

... Share your thoughts below.

------ ------ ------

Author Perspective: The author of this article, Rich Ord, is the founder and CEO of the iEntry Network which includes this publication, WebProNews. In 1996 Mr. Ord started NewsLinx.com which linked via republished headlines to selected Internet business and tech related articles as they were published. NewsLinx was the first news aggregation site of its kind and spawned many similar sites such as Topix.net, Techmeme and Google News.

News aggregation was not understood or immediately appreciated by most mainstream news organizations in early 1996. At that time most newspaper websites only published a fraction of their articles online and many were experimenting with pay-for-access concepts.

Soon after the launch of NewsLinx, Mr. Ord was contacted by numerous news organizations including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, etc... asking if NewsLinx had permission to "deep link" directly to stories within their site. The answer given by Mr. Ord was that the Internet was based on links and that NewsLinx was really no different than a search engine and therefore had the right to republish headlines and link direct to the article web page.

However, to avoid action on what sounded like legal threats to Mr. Ord he offered to stop including their headlines at their request. The typical response in 1996 was that they did not want NewsLinx to stop publishing their headlines and linking to their articles.

Click on title above for article and place to leave comments on WebPro..... http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/04/06/the-aps-desperate-attempt-to-outlaw-linking#comment-73702

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Father of N.D. journalist charged with espionage in Iran will stay till daughter is freed

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI , Associated Press

Last update: April 9, 2009 - 5:49 AM

TEHRAN, Iran - The father of an American journalist charged by Iran with espionage called on Iran Thursday to free her and said in an exclusive interview with Associated Press Television News that he will not leave the country until she's released.
"I demand them to release my daughter as soon as possible so that she can return to her normal life and continue her job," Reza Saberi said. "I will stay here until she is freed."

Roxana Saberi has been living for the last six years in Iran, working as a reporter for such organizations as National Public Radio and the British Broadcasting Corp. The 31-year-old freelance reporter was arrested in late January.

A judge announced Wednesday that she had been charged with spying for the United States, a far more serious development than earlier statements by Iranian officials that she had been arrested for working without press credentials — and her own assertion in a phone call to her father that she was arrested after buying a bottle of wine.

The judge told Iranian state TV that Saberi was passing classified information to U.S. intelligence services.

"Under the cover of a journalist, she visited government buildings, established contacts with some of the employees, gathered classified information and sent it to the U.S. intelligence services," said the judge, who under security rules was identified only by his surname, Heidarifard.

"Her activities were discovered by the counterespionage department of the Intelligence Ministry," Heidarifard said.

Reza Saberi and his wife arrived in Iran Sunday and visited their daughter Monday in Evin prison, which often holds political prisoners, north of Tehran.

"We were allowed to visit her for about 20 minutes. We talked to her. She was spiritually better than before. However, she was physically extremely thin and weak but she said she eats now and is going to exercise. This gave us the hope that she will become better," Reza Saberi said.

Saberi will stand trial next week, the judge said, though he did not specify which day.

The journalist grew up in Fargo, North Dakota. The Iranian judge in the case told state TV that Saberi's American nationality had not yet been ascertained for the Iranian judiciary, but her father said she was definitely an American citizen.

"She is certainly an American national. She also came to Iran and received an Iranian ID card and passport and according to Iranian law, she is Iranian too. She is actually a dual citizen," her father said.

Saberi's father, under advisement from the lawyer representing his daughter, would not comment on whether he accepted the charges or not.

The journalist's arrest comes at a time when President Barack Obama has expressed a willingness to talk with Iran after many years of rocky relations under the former U.S. administration.

On Wednesday, administration officials said U.S. diplomats would attend group talks with Iran over its suspect nuclear program. That would be a major departure from President George W. Bush's policy of isolation from a nation it once deemed to be evil.

The U.S. has also been pushing for Saberi's release, and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday the U.S. was deeply concerned by the reported charges and was seeking information from Swiss diplomats in Tehran. The U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Iran following the 1979 Islamic revolution and the hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Saberi was one of three missing or detained Americans mentioned in a written message passed by American officials directly to Iranian diplomats last month at an international conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, Netherlands, that Clinton attended.

Iran has yet to respond to the message, which sought information about the three.

Human rights groups have repeatedly criticized Iran for arresting journalists and suppressing freedom of speech. The government has arrested several Iranian-Americans in the past few years, citing alleged attempts to overthrow its Islamic government through what it calls a "soft revolution."

In another indication of the seriousness of the case, Saberi's lawyer also learned this week that it would be reviewed by Iran's Revolutionary Court, which normally handles cases involving threats to national security.

Saberi's lawyer, Abolsamad Khorramshahi, said Thursday that he had not yet been allowed to read the text of the indictment, which he expects to see by Saturday.

Saberi will stand trial next week, the judge said, though he did not specify which day.

The journalist grew up in Fargo, North Dakota. The Iranian judge in the case told state TV that Saberi's American nationality had not yet been ascertained for the Iranian judiciary, but her father said she was definitely an American citizen.

"She is certainly an American national. She also came to Iran and received an Iranian ID card and passport and according to Iranian law, she is Iranian too. She is actually a dual citizen," her father said.

Saberi's father, under advisement from the lawyer representing his daughter, would not comment on whether he accepted the charges or not.

The journalist's arrest comes at a time when President Barack Obama has expressed a willingness to talk with Iran after many years of rocky relations under the former U.S. administration.

On Wednesday, administration officials said U.S. diplomats would attend group talks with Iran over its suspect nuclear program. That would be a major departure from President George W. Bush's policy of isolation from a nation it once deemed to be evil.

The U.S. has also been pushing for Saberi's release, and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday the U.S. was deeply concerned by the reported charges and was seeking information from Swiss diplomats in Tehran. The U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Iran following the 1979 Islamic revolution and the hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Saberi was one of three missing or detained Americans mentioned in a written message passed by American officials directly to Iranian diplomats last month at an international conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, Netherlands, that Clinton attended.

Iran has yet to respond to the message, which sought information about the three.

Human rights groups have repeatedly criticized Iran for arresting journalists and suppressing freedom of speech. The government has arrested several Iranian-Americans in the past few years, citing alleged attempts to overthrow its Islamic government through what it calls a "soft revolution."

In another indication of the seriousness of the case, Saberi's lawyer also learned this week that it would be reviewed by Iran's Revolutionary Court, which normally handles cases involving threats to national security.

Saberi's lawyer, Abolsamad Khorramshahi, said Thursday that he had not yet been allowed to read the text of the indictment, which he expects to see by Saturday.

http://www.startribune.com/local/42663747.html?elr=KArksUUUU

Friday, April 10, 2009

Is The Washington Post Profiting from Brothels?

From Change.Org; April 10, 2009

Although we at Change.org are practitioners of new media, we still have an affinity for a few old media properties like The Washington Post. But we also call a spade a spade, and this week the co-founder of a leading anti-trafficking organization, Polaris Project, called out The Washington Post in an article on Change.org for its ethically dubious practice of indirectly profiting from brothels.

The Washington Post currently accepts advertisements for massage parlors, which the Post's own reporters have shown are often thinly disguised brothels with women trafficked into the country and forced into prostitution. Because of this frequent connection to human trafficking, The New York Times, Boston Globe, and Los Angeles Times refuse advertisements for massage parlors. But The Washington Post has turned a blind eye and continues to profit from these ads, making the paper complicit in the sexual violence of women across our nation's capital.

So before you enjoy the rest of your Friday, or your Sunday paper, we strongly recommend you send a letter to the Post and urge them to stop this practice immediately.

Or, if you want to use newfangled social networking technology to inspire some innovative employee activism, search your network on Facebook, find alumni at your college who work at the Post, and kindly ask them to tell their employer to do the right thing and stop accepting these ads immediately. You can search for The Washington Post employees you're connected to on Facebook here:
http://tinyurl.com/facebookwashpost.

Seems to me there is a question of 2nd ammendment entitlement here. Not to compare animals with exploited women and children, but ar folks fought to keep animal "snuff" flicks, dog-fighting videos and beastiality off of the internet, and lost! The court held that these types of things are constitutionally protected!Cut and paste this link into your web browser to learn more about that case;
Click on title to read more about that case and the idiot judge appointed for life who read the majority opinion;
http://legal-eaze.blogspot.com/2009/04/judges.html

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Prof. takes questions on cybercrime and the Net

Professor Deibert; "Protecting freedom of expression, privacy, and access to information on the net is one of the major issues of the next few decades."

Globe and Mail Update

April 1 was to be the day that a destructive Web virus, dubbed Conficker, unleashed its full power upon unsuspecting Net denizens. While the day passed with no sign of calamity, worry about the virus, coupled with recent revelations of the threat of cyberespionage, have stoked fears about the impact of cybercrime. University of Toronto professor Ron Deibert is part of a crack team of Canadian researchers who
revealed this weekend a network, dubbed GhostNet, of more than 1,200 infected computers worldwide that includes such "high-value targets" as Indonesia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Indian Embassy in Kuwait, as well as a dozen computers in Canada.

Who is behind GhostNet? Along with Rafal Rohozinski, Prof. Deibert wrote in the Globe and Mail: "The most obvious explanation, and certainly the one in which the circumstantial evidence tilts the strongest, would be that this set of high-profile targets has been exploited by the Chinese state for military and strategic-intelligence purposes. Indeed, many of the high-confidence targets we identified are clearly linked to Chinese foreign and defence policy, particularly in South and South East Asia."

China, for their part, dismissed the report as lies intended to stoke anxiety over Beijing's growing influence in world affairs.

Nevertheless, following the publication of the GhostNet research, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan warned Monday that cyberwarfare will be a "growing threat" for the foreseeable future, as he urged Canadian corporations to start patching potential holes in their networks.

How immediate is the threat posed to governments by cyberespionage? With so many digital worms creeping over the Web, what is the best way to respond to viruses like Conficker? How real in these cases is the threat to our own personal privacy? Prof. Deibert is joining us live to help separate the facts from the hype. Feel free to submit your questions using our comment tool or via Twitter @GlobeTechnology.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Matt Frehner, globeandmail.com: Thanks a lot for joining us today, Professor Deibert. Following warnings from Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan concerning the "growing threat" of cyberwarfare, what should policymakers be doing to try to limit the reach and frequency of cyberspy and other botnet systems? What do you see as Canada's role in this?

Ron Deibert writes: The question of what should be done at a policy level is an important one to me personally, and to us at the Information Warfare Monitor. For many years (and at least as far back as a 2003 comment piece I wrote in the Globe and Mail) I have been warning of increasing militarization of cyberspace and that we need to begin thinking about arms control in cyberspace. Part of the solution is to focus on securing critical infrastructures, and to create incentives for manufacturers of computer and software equipment to take security seriously. But that is only part of the solution. Arms control in cyberspace is going to be very challenging, in part because the "actors" involved include more than just states, and involve criminal organizations and even individuals. How do you get all of those actors involved in any possible arms control agreement? Another vexing problem is the one of attribution. Although the GhostNet study lays out quite powerful circumstantial evidence against China, we also lay out alternative explanations. Indeed, one of the defining features of cyberspace is the ease by which the perpetrators of these sorts of attacks can mask their identity and real location.

I see a great potential for Canada in this area. Long ago, we were widely known for taking a lead in pushing for arms control as part of a broader "human security" agenda, both in terms of arms control negotiations and verification. There was a small, but very influential area of expertise within the Department of Foreign Affairs on arms control verification, called the Verification Research Unit. That unit no longer exists, and our interest in promoting arms control and human security has diminished somewhat in recent years. In the area of cyberspace, I think it's natural for Canada to lead, both because of our past experience but also because of our historical experiences with telecommunications. We are a large land mass, and have depended on telecommunications, and we have a long and distinguished intellectual history around the study of telecommunications, beginning with Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan.

Matt Frehner, globeandmail.com: With so many digital worms creeping over the Web, and the release of reports such as yours, how can the average computer user separate the hype surrounding viruses like Conficker from legitimate threats?

Ron Deibert writes: This is an excellent question and is at the heart of one of the aims of the Information Warfare Monitor -- to separate hype from reality. We are an evidence based organization, and that is why we were very careful to avoid speculation and hyperbole, and also to be cautious about making attribution. Some other organizations out there have been quick to identify China as the culprit, and the evidence does seem powerful, but it is not conclusive and there are alternative explanations. The answer is a combination of field investigations, technical scouting, and data analysis. This is a new field of inquiry we are helping to pioneer and I believe it is going to become more important as we move forward in dealing with the challenges of controlling arms races in cyberspace.

Roman Spears from St. Catharines Canada writes: With identity theft and hijack programs being threats to the average home user, what recommendations can you make to help us all be more secure online? Who is making the detection programs that can find this malicious code and rid the internet of it?

Ron Deibert writes: For the average Internet user, the GhostNet report -- and others like it -- has undoubtedly caused concerns, and we have been blitzed with many emails from individuals, activists, and NGOs, asking if they are infected, whether we can help, and what we might recommend for security online. We are not a service organization, but a research and development laboratory, so there is a limit to what we can do. There are many organizations out there whose job it is to provide information security, particular for consumers. But one of the remarkable aspects of our investigation was that the main tool used by the attackers was only identified by 11 of the 34 virus scanners we employed. That is a big problem. Many of the machines that were infected by GhostNet were using Windows, and of course most of the viruses out there disproportionately affect Windows operating systems. Switching to an open source operating system, like Linux, is now highly recommended for government ministries for this reason alone.

For NGOs and activists, there are many information security resources and training organizations out there that I would recommend, including Tactical Tech and Frontline Defenders and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among others.

Albin Forone from Canada writes: I trust and use the Canada Revenue Agency site more or less as confidently as I use my bank and brokerage sites, and I'd be inclined to assume government sites with national security data at stake are pretty secure. So given that there are nefarious government or terror groups with internet crowbars, how much concern do you have about the quality of the government site and communications internet security measures.

Ron Deibert writes: We place a great deal of trust in our governments' communications systems when we communicate sensitive information to them, and hope that they take the issues of information security seriously. What GhostNet reveals, though, is that a large swath of high impact political and economic targets can indeed be compromised, including ministries of foreign affairs, embassies, and international organizations. Many of these organizations were compromised for many months, without their knowledge, and the attackers had potential access to all sorts of sensitive documents, and even had the ability to eavesdrop on classified meetings through the activation of web cameras and listening devices. Although most governments have invested heavily in secure methods of communication, many have not. This is particularly the case in the developing world where information security is often a distant priority next to other goals, such as the elimination of poverty or even simply access to information.

As citizens, we should be diligent to ensure that our government in Canada is doing the best possible job to secure our critical infrastructures, particularly when it comes to sending and receiving our own private confidential information, and that they are handling the latter with the utmost care. We should do the same with respect to the companies that provide us with our connectivity. We live in a world deeply permeated by digital technologies, much of which is serviced by private third parties and hosted on servers beyond our immediate control. We put a lot of trust in those organizations when we communicate with and through them.

O.A. from Toronto writes: To what extent would restrictions designed to limit such malicious networks also have the overlapping effect of censoring or limiting everyone else's freedom on the Internet?

Ron Deibert writes: This is an excellent question, and one that is vexing me personally. I worry that some of the conclusions that may be drawn from the GhostNet report and others like it will end up leading to pressures to over-regulate of the Internet. For example, the difficulties around identifying the perpetrators of attacks like GhostNet may lead some to propose the elimination of anonymous communications. However, the ability to surf the Internet and communicate anonymously is often very important, especially in the cases of whisteblowers and human rights advocates, and it is intimately linked with the right to privacy. Recently, there were discussions being held at the highest levels, and including the national security organs of both China and the United States, for some kind of IP (Internet Protocol) trace-back system in which owners of machines connected to the Internet could be positively identified. Although I believe the proposal is ultimately unworkable and undesirable, the fact that both China and the United States were on the same side of this question is worrisome.

Ultimately, I worry that in order to deal with some of these emerging problems in cyberspace, regulations will be made that will ruin the Internet and turn it into something else altogether. We must avoid that while finding ways to deal with cyber-espionage, denial of service attacks, and the growing spread of viruses, trojan horses, and worms.

M.L. from Canada writes: In terms of stemming the infiltration of cyberspys, Are there steps individual users can take, or is the problem of cyberespionage largely one that governments need to combat?

Ron Deibert writes: Actually, I'd like to begin my answer by turning that question on its head (if you do not mind). One of the characteristics of cyberspace is that the capabilities to engage in the attacks described in GhostNet are now readily available on the Internet. The main tool that was used in the GhostNet attack was a trojan horse software program
called Ghost Rat that is widely available for free download on the Internet. It was written by Chinese programmers, and has since been translated into English. It has a very nice graphical user interface (GUI) and is very simple to operate. The same sort of tools and malware kits for virus and worm production are also easily obtained. One no longer need an NSA-size organization and budget to engage in sophisticated cyberespionage. The Internet has democratized many things, including apparently signals intelligence. The same goes for denial of service attacks and computer network operations.

I do believe that this is going to be one of the most vexing problems of controlling the militarization of cyberspace: getting agreement among ~200 states is one thing, but how do you get the agreement of individuals?

Governments and individuals both have a role to play. All of us need to understand that cyberspace is a precious commons, one that we will need in order to solve the many shared global problems that present themselves today. We need a shared communications medium through citizens around the world can communicate freely and safely. Right now, that medium is in the process of being degraded by Internet content filtering, censorship, surveillance, computer network attacks, privacy violations, and bandwidth throttling.

In terms of solutions, I think we need to begin locally here in Canada, and start pushing for laws that, for example, enshrine network neutrality, protect privacy, create free zones of access to the Internet for all people (especially in rural areas) and protect access to information and freedom of speech. From there, we need to encourage other jurisdictions to follow suit and hope a global regime of cyberspace protection ultimately emerges. Right now, regrettably, the opposite is the case.

Matt Frehner, globeandmail.com: That's all the time we have today. I'd like to finish off with one final question: Looking forward, can you tell us a little bit about how you see these threats developing in the next 5 or so years? What kind of a role to you see cyberwarfare playing in future conflicts between states?

Ron Deibert writes: In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in incidences of cyberwarfare, in conflicts that include Russia, Georgia, Estonia, China, Tibet, Burma, Israel, and others. Many states and non-state actors are investing heavily in cyber warfare capabilities, including the United States and China. Military doctrines now speak openly about fighting and winning wars in cyberspace and recognize the strategic importance of the information domain. At the same time, the number of states actively intervening to block access to information and services online is growing. Another research project I am involved in, the OpenNet Initiative, tracks Internet censorship and right now we are finishing up tests in 71 countries. I expect the number of instances we find of states blocking access to information will number in the dozens. That includes governments blocking access to the websites of political opposition groups and news organizations.

Alongside of all of this, the ease by which personal information can be harvested, fused, and analyzed from the digital traces we leave is growing. Surveillance is now widespread and facilitated by the private entities that service our communications, including Internet Service Providers and other communications companies.

Essentially, cyberspace is being carved up and militarized at the same time that it is being heavily monitored.

Together, these trends point to an ominous development and a troubling brew. I do believe that thinking about protecting the Internet as a forum for free expression, privacy, and access to information is one of the major issues of the next few decades.

Thanks for all of the questions!

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewContent.act?clipid=244973898&mode=cnc&tag=3.7441%3Ficx_id%3D%2FRTGAM.20090401.wgtdiscussion0401%2FBNStory

Thursday, April 2, 2009

eMail Censorship & a word from Ron Paul

MORE Proof that liberty defending email is being censored
savefreed0m2005
Wed Apr 1, 2009 12:38 am (PDT)
MORE Proof that liberty defending email is being censored
http://targetfreedom.typepad.com/targetfreedom/2009/03/liberty-defending-email-censored.html

THIS IS POSTED FROM THE WEBPAGE SO AS TO AVOID THE HOP WHERE THE CENSORSHIP FILTER IS INSTALLED. THESE LINKS MIGHT APPEAR TO BE "BROKEN" ON THE FIRST CLICK. JUST REFRESH THEM. IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE CENSORSHIP FOR YOURSELF JUST TRY PASSING THIS MESSAGE AROUND.

Censorship PART ONE
(Click on title above to see)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbF5PMsVmO0

Censorship PART TWO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBhU6d0HCJI

Censorship Part 3: Replying to censored political messages
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwy8rMUJl6g

Censorship Part 4: Replying to censored political messages
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O2PX0bhnwQ

Replying to censored political messages that went to spam folder. Censorship is being disguised as "spam filtering". Earlier we wrote:
"Even a reply to the censored message,
from the main Yahoo server,
will trigger the CAPCHA censorship window."

One of the censors got upset by this, and emailed me this comment:
"Have you seen one of these? ever? If you have seen one, please send me a screenshot, if you personally have never seen it, please stop saying so."

WELL HERE IT IS. I do not need to send this reply directly to him, since he is reading all of my mail anyway. This is what happens every time, except when you cannot even find the message in the spam folder. Usually it just disappears. This is called being "black holed".

Olbermann-FISA, Telecom Immunity and other Crimes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKYadABc14
Update: FISA warrantless wiretapping Bill (HR 6304)
Watch Mark Klein's testimony about this warrantless wiretapping.

Call your Senators through the switchboard at 202-224-3121

or dial direct

Why is the government unwilling to let these facts be aired in open court?

Ben Siegrist, who works for Senator DeMint, told me that Mark Klein's testimony is of no concern. See if you think that this is just a "disgruntled employee".

The Senate could cast its final vote on warrantless wiretapping as soon as today. We need to flood Congress with letters and calls demanding a no vote on the FISA bill. There are relevant amendments to the FISA warrantless wiretapping Bill. Ask your Senator to stand for liberty and the law, and vote in favor of the Dodd-Feingold-Leahy Amendment. Dodd-Feingold-Leahy Amendment stops retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.

----------------------------------------------------------

Statement on HR 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments

20 June 2008

Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.

The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens' communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.

In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration's illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.

Typohoid Marys Place

StarSuckers

Saturday, April 25, 2009

The End of Times?

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Top 25 Censored Stories for 2009 - Links

Journalism vs. Commentary

Monday, April 20, 2009

DC Reporting : Myths, Fabrications & Whitewash

Saturday, April 18, 2009

The Corporate TakeOver of Americas Newspapers

Website Demonizing Goldman-Sucks Raises Firms Ire

Prof. takes questions on cybercrime and the Net

Iran convicts Fargo journalist of spying

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Goldman Sachs hires law firm to shut blogger's site

Monday, April 13, 2009

The AP's Desperate Attempt To Outlaw Search Engine Links

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Father of N.D. journalist charged with espionage in Iran will stay till daughter is freed

Friday, April 10, 2009

Is The Washington Post Profiting from Brothels?

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Prof. takes questions on cybercrime and the Net

Thursday, April 2, 2009

eMail Censorship & a word from Ron Paul

FREE-THINKING WRITERS UNITE

WARNING!

Blog Archive

Favorite Links

Other "Typohoid Marys" Blogs

A Little Bit About Me'self

WANTED: Preferably Alive Friends

Act Up America! Fight Against Opression & InJustice!

This Way to the

The Greatness of a Nation & its Moral Progess...

If not us,...

StarSuckers

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Monday, April 20, 2009

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Monday, April 13, 2009

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Friday, April 10, 2009

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Thursday, April 2, 2009

FREE-THINKING WRITERS UNITE

WARNING!

Blog Archive

Favorite Links

Other "Typohoid Marys" Blogs

A Little Bit About Me'self

WANTED: Preferably Alive Friends

Act Up America! Fight Against Opression & InJustice!

This Way to the

The Greatness of a Nation & its Moral Progess...

If not us,...

Subscribe To this blog