Internet – Page 18

They Don’t Like It Up ’em

Published on May 2, 2007

Censorship, it’s what the Patriot Act was made for – from Slashdot:

“Cryptome, a website concerned with encryption, privacy, and government secrecy, has received two weeks’ notice from Verio that its service will be terminated for unspecified “violation of [its] Acceptable Use Policy.” Cryptome has a history of making publicly available documents and information that governments would rather keep secret. For the notice, and a public response by Cryptome webmaster John Young, see Cryptome Shutdown by Verio/NTT.”

That terse report hides a fascinating series of emails between Cryptome’s owners and their ISP, in which the ISP stonewalls in a very peculiar way and Cryptome tries to work out the subtext of what’s happening. Eventually they get this curt termination of service letter:

This letter is to notify you that we are terminating your service for violation of our Acceptable Use Policy, effective Friday May 4, 2007. We are providing you with two week notice to locate another service provider.

Cryptome had had no previous problems with the ISP despite it’s having had alleged copyright infringement complaints made against it by disgruntled exposees. So why the shutdown now?

Might it be that they’re currently exposing a massive hole in the US military’s electronic and data security?

Not to worry for the moment though, Cryptome will survive:

This never-to-be-explained self-gagging by ISPs has become characteristic around the net due to covert and open governmental, commercial and personal aggressions to suppress information. Librarians and lawyers, among others, battling to overturn clamps on information, have learned to exhibit coded signals to the public to indicate undisclosable measures to suppress. Could be that is what Danna and Verio are signaling. We’ve received over 30 offers to host Cryptome in several countries and will accept most to disperse the collection as protection against future shutdowns.

Although Cryptome’s safe for now, what happened to them emphasises that the need for data havens is becoming ever more pressing to preserve free political speech.

Secure Your Router, There’s Activist Judges About

Published on April 26, 20072 Comments

Are you reading this on wireless broadband? Is your router security on? Do you have a firewall? If not you may wish to go and do that after reading this.

This post is about injustice in a US child porn case, but the subject matter’s not really the point. You have to disregard the nature of the alleged crime in considering the principles involved, distasteful as the subject matter may be and inclined as many of us are to assume guilt where there is only unproven accusation.

If this case creates precedent (and I presume it does, being an appeal court, though IANAUSL) then any wifi subscriber could be convicted of any illegal activity taking place on their open wifi network whether it’s actually them or not. Yes, it’s dumb to leave your network open, but does that make you responsible for any and all crimes committed via the connection? The defendant in this case was convicted on evidence that seems hardly evidence at all. The Register:

A man has been found guilty of possessing child pornography despite arguing that his open wireless internet network meant the case against him could not be proved.

The case was triggered by an explicit image of a child which was sent over Yahoo!’s instant messaging network. The internet protocol (IP) address was traced to Javier Perez.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) searched Perez’s residence under warrant and discovered several CDs in his room that carried images of child porn. It was the only room of the house that was searched.

It soon transpired that the Yahoo! account used to send the original image belonged to someone listed as Rob Ram. Perez shared his residence with Robert Ramos and operated an open wireless internet (Wi-Fi) connection.

Perez argued that his open connection meant that anybody within 200 feet could have used his internet connection, meaning that it could not be conclusively proved that the original instant message came from him.

This in turn meant that the search warrant was issued in error and the evidence on the CDs gathered illegally. That evidence should be disregarded and the conviction based on it quashed, Perez argued.

The US Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit has rejected Perez’s case, saying that the evidence should not be disregarded.

“In this case it is clear that there was a substantial basis to conclude that evidence of criminal activity would be found at [the address],” the judge wrote. “[T]hough it was possible that the transmissions originated outside of the residence to which the IP address was assigned, it remained likely that the source of the transmissions was inside that residence.”

[…]

Copyright © 2007, OUT-LAW.com

Well maybe so, and that probably constituted enough probable cause for a search of the building, but it was a multi-resident building with an open wifi connection and they don’t seem to have proved any real connection between the defendant and the download.

The court that heard this appeal, the US Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit, is one of the most conservative courts in a Bushie-dominated court and justice system, so much so that 5 members of the court were considered by Bush for appointment to the Supreme Court.

It also seems to consider itself independent from settled law and precedent:

“It really is quite unusual for a lower federal court to thumb its nose at the Supreme Court so explicitly,” said Peter B. Edelman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University law school. “If you look at some of the other courts, I doubt you’ll find the same kind of flaunting defiance.”

Theodore M. Shaw, the director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said it is “extraordinary” how many times the Supreme Court felt it necessary to chastise the 5th Circuit. “We are not talking about a liberal Supreme Court,” he noted. “We’re talking about a conservative Supreme Court that apparently became frustrated with the 5th Circuit’s failure to meaningfully review criminal convictions for constitutional infirmities . . . cases involving prosecutorial misconduct, police misconduct, racial discrimination. Those problems were not being addressed by the 5th Circuit, so the Supreme Court had to step in”

And more than once. Chief Judge of the 5th circuit is Edith Hollan Jones:

Jones has been mentioned frequently as being on the list of potential nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Chicago Sun-Times and several other newspapers reported on July 1, 2005 that she had also been considered for nomination to the Supreme Court during the presidency of George H. W. Bush.

Jones was named one of the five worst judges in Texas (and was the only federal judge on the list) by the liberal leaning newsmagazine The Texas Observer, which cited polls of Texas attorneys.[2]

Oh, and guess what: she’s a big fan of the Federalist Society, that training ground for GOP placemen and women in the Justice department. From a speech she gave there:

Supreme Court Has Been Contributing to Social Decay, Jones Argues

Since the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court has been issuing decisions contrary to the generally held values of Americans, imposing a “modish, untested philosophical notions and extreme libertarianism that would have left the [Constitution’s] Framers aghast,” Edith Jones, a judge on the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told a packed room Jan. 28 in a speech sponsored by The Federalist Society.

Surveys show that “95 percent of Americans say they believe in God. People everywhere subscribe to the values of the Ten Commandments—don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t covet—however they are phrased,” she said.

The Court “got out in front of the self-governing society, overturning local authorities and self-governing groups and imposed these values on society,” Jones declared. “I love this country. I love the heritage on which it was built. I want my children to have that heritage. Once people lose self-control it results in the growth of repressive government. When you don’t have internal control, you have to have external ones.”

Jones outlined five areas in which decisions have had what she considers socially damaging consequences: crime and punishment, pornography, family relations, public order and youth and education. The Warren Court, she contended, “extravagantly assumed the power to dictate new ‘rights’ not expressly stated in the Constitution and in so doing foisted its philosophical vision on the United States with consequences far beyond the Court’s imagining.”

It’s a court dominated by right wing zealots and dangerous to the public and the rule of law:

Last year, even conservative lawyers paused when a three-member panel of the court ruled 2 to 1 that a death penalty defendant was not entitled to a new trial even though his attorney had slept through part of his trial. “It would seem to anyone in support of the death penalty that a defense attorney ought not sleep through a trial,” Shaw said.

The majority, which included Jones, wrote that it “cannot determine whether [the defense attorney] slept during a ‘critical stage’ ” of the trial. When the full 5th Circuit reviewed the decision, the court reversed itself.

“It is not a happy place for civil rights lawyers to be,” said Mary Howell, a lawyer in New Orleans who has argued before the court. “For many of us, practicing before the court means avoidance. What’s unfortunate is that lawyers are becoming very selective about which cases they chose to take to the court, and many cases that have merit don’t make the cut. It has had a chilling effect.”

Ah the classic Bushie combination of apparent ineptitude and ignorance of the law masking the cold-blooded application of rightwing social policy via the sunversion of the justice system. Now why does it not surprise me that such loyal Bushies would make a decision like this?

Just think how very convenient it could be: all you’d have to do is idly drive by, use open wifi to google ‘al-qaeda’, or ‘bomb designs’ and drive off again, your target user nicely implicated. With the powers Bushco’s justice department has to look at ISP records and snoop on private emails and phonecalls, think how very tempting it would be to pick out and swoop on individual liberals, Patriot Act in hand.

A commenter at ZDnet puts it better than I can:

The whole point of disallowing evidence gathered from illegal searches is to discourage illegal searches. If a simple record of a download from an open Wi-Fi point can trigger a search, then all any law official would have to do in order to get permission to search your home and seize your computers would be to download child porn through your open Wi-Fi point from their car out in front of your home. Once that door has been openned, even if they don’t find child porn, other evidence of other crimes such as misstating your taxes can become the basis of other charges. Even if they don’t find anything, the RICO laws make it so that in order to get your computer and other property back you have to sue the government. Just the fact that they couldn’t prove their case is NOT enough for you to have your property returned.

Think that’s paranoid? Tell that to Grandma.

This decision also has a chilling effect on the freedom to communicate, which is just fine and dandy with the government. The Register gives the story that law enforcement is pushing:

Some people involved in unlawful activity such as music and film file sharing have reportedly begun opening up their wireless networks as a pre-emptive court defence. They argue that it could not be subsequently proved that they were behind the file sharing if their network was open and, theoretically, anyone in the vicinity could have used their network for any purpose they liked.

It’s very hard not to see this as another front in the war on free speech. Fully open and integrated public wifi networks and completely anonymous or pseudonymous communication have been the holy grail of the libertarian wing of wired-world idealists since forever but I gently suggest that it really is a little naive to think that any government, let alone one as corrupt as Bush’s, would countenance it. Completely unfettered free speech is not in the governmental interest.

The extreme cynic in me can’t help but think how very useful it is for the Right that this legal issue has come to appeal in the context of a child porn case. The subject matter is so toxic that any mainstream legal media commentator or reporter could, and undoubtedly would be accused of being objectively pro-molestation by a baying mob of pitcforked wingnut bloggers and columnists if they champion the case. Handy,that.

Too Exterminateylicious For Ya, Babe

Published on April 15, 2007

While we’re on the subject of pitiless mutants bent on galactic domination, it wasn’t until I was looking for pics to illustrate that last post on the imperial hubris of Dick Cheney that I really noticed the sheer inspired loopiness of Dalek fandom; and rather than waste that potential force for good on a shit like Cheney I’m giving some of my favourite Dalek fan images this post of their own.

Are you ready for this Dalek jelly?

Victorian Dalek:

Gay Dalek:

(Plus there’s a whole series of Gay Dalek videos here.)

and cutest of all, there’s Fairy Dalek:

For those not familiar with Dr Who this may all seem a little boggling; so especially for you newbies, here’s a handy Spotting Guide To the Common Dalek.

It’s LART* Time Again

Published on April 15, 2007

Chris Clarke at Pandagon gives those men who’re pontificating on ‘wussy’ women who can’t take online harassment (see Wampum’s roundup for backstory) a great big whack with the clue bat :

How not to be an asshole: a guide for men
Published by Chris Clarke April 13th, 2007 in Gender Issues, Assholes.

[…]

I’m a big fan of dispassionate, rational, fact-based discussion of the issues myself, and it is in that spirit that I offer, to my brethren who’ve taken it upon themselves to be a shining light of dispassion on this topic, these fraternal words of guidance:

Shut the fuck up.

Here are a few of the actual facts that prompt the above sage counsel:

— You are not saying anything the women you’re talking to haven’t heard a thousand times before. You are not saying anything the women you’re talking to haven’t told themselves a thousand times before. If you would actually stop your reflexive know-it-all yammering and pay attention to what women actually SAY about the offenses they suffer on the sexual harassment – rape continuum, you will note that almost to a woman they second-guess their own gut feelings about the putative offender far beyond the point where almost any man would.

— You are wrong. If you doubt that the nature of abuse and harassment women suffer, online or off, differs from that men experience, then you don’t know what you’re talking about. Oddly, the Internets offer a way for you to verify this fact for yourself. About a dozen years ago, at the urging of a feminist online acquaintance, I logged on to AOL using an obviously female but non-provocative handle. (”AliciaMN.”) Within five minutes of logging on I had sexually abusive IMs popping up from men I didn’t know. Didn’t matter which room I was in: general chat, politics, classical music. I kept up the experiment for I think four days, a couple hours a day, sometimes chatting with people about non-sexual topics, sometimes just lurking. Two of the men who IMed AliciaMN with blatantly and obnoxiously sexual messages — “Hey, I’m up in Alaska! How ’bout you thaw my dick out with your throat?” being an example I recall — responded to my NON-response by telling “Alicia” she deserved to get raped.

This is neither new nor surprising information to any woman here. I mention it because 1) maybe if a man says it it’ll be taken seriously and 2) it implies a suggestion that disbelievers find a venue equivalent to AOL in its heyday and repeat my experiment, in the spirit of dispassionate empiricism.

— If no woman in your life has ever talked to you about how she lives her life with an undercurrent of fear of men, consider the possibility that it may be because she sees you as one of those men she cannot really trust.

— Finally, let’s assume just for the sake of argument that you’re right. You aren’t. But just as a gedankenexperiment, let’s pretend you are, and that the women who are talking about the massive deadweight silence from men about the harassment they experience, and who are getting all upset and speaking in terms of “war zones” and “hate crimes” and such are just being emotional, hysterical even, and — like the people who forward that bogus email about the guy with the ropes and duct tape in hs trunk in the mall parking lot — just need to be set straight with a calm, measured dose of logic and fact-checking.

In most situations, that’s a fine impulse. There really is no reason to get upset about LSD in blue star tattoos, and Bill Gates really isn’t paying people who forward a chain email.

But this situation is qualitatively different. When the topic at hand is men not taking an issue seriously, suggesting that the issue might not really be all that serious is not being dispassionate. It is, in fact, taking a side. And the people on the side you’re taking, incidentally, include the gropers, the rapists, the sexual-favor-demanding bosses.

In short, if you’re interested in quibbling with the data or suggesting alternate interpretations of what Kos really meant when he called Kathy Sierra a lying “crying blogger,” and your goal is not to be a flaming asshole, shut the fuck up.

And when you shut the fuck up, two magical things happen:

1) You’re no longer actively contributing to the very problem you’re discussing;
2) It’s easier to listen to what the women are actually saying.

Well, quite.

I have to wonder though – would I have featured this post with such alacrity had it been written by a woman? I’d like to think so, but let’s face it, we’re all products of our own conditioning and I, like every poor bugger else, was raised in a patriarchy so quite possibly I wouldn’t have. Which is sad.

*Google is your friend.

Mind the Gap

Published on April 11, 2007

‘Sofia Coppola feminism’, and its close relative ‘hipster feminism’ is a phrase being used by some bloggers to describe the phenomenon of the feminism of the privileged – who mean well, but really, they have no idea of the pyramid of suffering that their comfy positions depend on.

Super Babymama, (via Donna) illustrates this and the massive class differences and gaps in perception that still exist between American women in the US, in response to a Pandagon. post by Roxanne on tourism and ‘ugly Americans’.

(Speaking of which, I saw a prime example puking up his guts outside one of my former favourite Amsterdam coffeeshops last week. Yes, it’s spring again. But I digress.)

[…]

I don’t begrudge those with money their money. Depends on how they got it, and except for the very wealthy I’d imagine most people who have saved enough to do a bit of travelling for a week or two probably worked hard for their stuff. So let ’em go on their jaunts.

One commenter, though, said what I’d been thinking:

I don’t usually comment, but this post somewhat bugged me, because it’s written only from the perspective of someone who has the freedom and resources to “acquire” foreign cultures firsthand. Sure, it must be nice to have an illuminating conversation with an Indian woman over breakfast in the Himalayas, but most people in America will never be able to do that, not necessarily because they don’t want to, but because they can’t afford to. Until everyone can afford a trip around the world, “remote control acquisition of culture” will remain the best way to find out about non-American cultures for a lot of people.

Whoo boy! That brought out the middle class defensiveness in some people!

And Amanda said this:

I’m sorry, but your comment aggravated me, seeing as how you are privileged enough to use a computer to make it. Until everyone has that opportunity, I don’t see why you should get on the computer and just comment. It’s very insensitive.

Oh bullshit, Amanda. Just…bullshit. And I suspect you know that was some bull, so maybe you were being post-modernly ironic or something. But then again–well, fuck that.

This “you can’t be too broke or you wouldn’t have a computer/tv/fat belly/car,” business is such tired nonsense. You know as well as I do that not everybody who comments on a blog is doing so from their super-fast deluxe home internets system; lots of people get internet at their jobs. Lots of people use computers at the library. Lots of people had a bit of extra money, one time in their lives, and bought themselves a computer, and just hope that the damn thing keeps working cuz they’ll probably not be able to afford another one any time soon. Lots of people maybe got a computer as a gift. Or their internet access is underwritten by some government program.

The point is that those of us with limited resources, or those of us with no resources, deserve to have those little luxuries that make us happy just as much as the rest of the world. And if we decide to do without this, in order to have that, because having that makes us happy, then fuck you for questioning our right to that little bit of what the middle class has. Perhaps you’d like to see us all pay less rent on our little apartments and team up together, real old-school, five families to a flat and a toilet down the hall. And then we’d be authentically poor enough to spit out an opinion that fucks with your comfort zone.

Well, quite.

Even when at my absolute poorest, a lone parent over my head in debt and late with the rent, I paid for internet access. I got my first computer, a 286, through a very cheap deal and used nearly all my student grant to pay for it; the eventual replacement was bought with a very unexpected small legacy. Through all the late phone bills and cutoffs I kept the connection going because I realised it was important to my and my children’s future that we be computer and and internet literate. It was an investment and it proved a wise one. I have to say that to accuse someone of being insufficiently deprived because they can access a computer may be one of the more condescending, asinine online remarks I’ve read recently and smacks of blinkered complacency.

There are those self-described liberals and feminists who are so smugly enamoured of their own particular copacetic niches in life that they fail to acknowledge the reality of others’ situations and their right to choose how to best employ their own meagre resources to their own and their families’ best advantage.

Equal access to computers and the internet is essential to lift people out of poverty because in this modern global society, to be out of communication, to have no access to digital media, no mobile phone or landline or email address, is to be a non-person, as that exchange so amply proves.

Still, Superbaby Mama is anxious to bridge the divide and in the interest of furthering feminist amity offers the tourists commenting on Roxanne’s post a unique tour of her home town:

[…]

For entertainment we’d have our choice of sitting on the porch and listening to my neighbor’s radio playing salsa, or my other neighbor’s radio playing R & B, or maybe the random hothead behind tinted windows, driving down the street bumping Jay Z.

I could point out the weed house, and its awesome history of having been a weed house for the entire 12 years I’ve lived here. How many nickle bags do you suppose have changed hands on that porch? I could take them on a guided tour of the street memorials that pop up, here and there, sad reminders of gunfights past.

For the horny guys, there’s no shortage of working girls, most of whom have been walking the neighborhood so long they’ve watched my kids grow up. Rosie, Woodie-woo, Cheyenne, Dellia, always good to run an errand for you if there’s a dollar at the end of it. Always good for a blowjob in the front seat of your car if there’s a dime at the end of it.

And before my tourists leave, I’d impart some good old-fashioned local wisdom on them, so they can feel truly enlightened. Something like, “don’t believe that guy hanging out at the gas station who says he just needs 50 cents for a phone call,” or, “the best place to buy arros con gondules is at Pueblo foods over on Holton.” Maybe I’d even let them touch my daughter’s exotic, curly mass of hair, and exclaim over how smart and well-spoken she is.

I think that would be a vacation to remember. Don’t you?

Indeed it would. I’d go further and make it a mandatory six weeks every summer in a poor urban neighbbourhood as soon as the temperature hits 85 degrees and the kids are out of school. That might exercise the empathy muscles a little bit.