Time To Get Rid Of No Fly List Altogether?

from the from-the-mainstream-press? dept

We recently noted that some members of the "no fly" list are suing the US government, questioning why they're "too scary to fly, but not scary enough to arrest," and complaining that there's simply no way for them to even find out why they're on the list or to get off the list. That's resulted in a Chicago Tribune editorial suggesting we dump the "no fly" list altogether. In fact, the editorial goes even further, saying we should go back to letting people fly without having to show a government-issued identity. The argument is that this is really security theater, and there are lots of other things in place that would likely stop a terrorist attack:

What no one seems to notice is that other improvements in security have made this one a needless burden.

The government required airlines to install reinforced cockpit doors to keep hijackers from taking the controls. It tightened security rules -- banning penknives, lighters, ski poles, snow globes, and liquids except in tiny bottles.

It initiated random pat-downs of travelers and gave extra scrutiny to those who did suspicious things. It deployed thousands of armed air marshals.

Equally important, travelers changed their mindset, meaning that terrorists can no longer count on passive victims. On several occasions -- starting with United Flight 93 on 9/11 -- passengers have acted to foil attacks.

With all these layers of protection in place, the rationale for the no-fly list has crumbled. Even if someone on the list can get on a plane, his chance of taking it over or bringing it down is very close to zero. And you know the other good thing? The same holds for an aspiring terrorist who doesn't make the list.

The government's tedious insistence on identifying all travelers and grounding some may convey an illusion of security. But we could live -- and I do mean live -- without it.

I have to admit I'm surprised to see an editorial like this in a mainstream publication like the Chicago Tribune. And while I agree that the no fly list is a joke, it should be admitted that many of those other "improvements in security" are equally as ridiculous, so citing them as the argument alone isn't very convincing.

Filed Under: civil rights, no fly

No Fly List Members Sue The Gov't; Want To Find Out Why They Can't Fly

from the national-security dept

Apparently ten people who claim that they're on the official US government "No Fly" list have sued the US government, claiming that it's illegal to be on such a list where there's no way for them to confront their accusers or get themselves off of the list. Some of the people in the lawsuit are US citizens and military veterans. There's a great quote about how these people are "too scary to fly but not scary enough to arrest." It does seem like a valid question, but legally I doubt the case will go anywhere. The government will claim national security, and that will basically be that.

Filed Under: civil rights, no fly

Part Of Civil Rights Documentary Finally Coming Out On DVD After Years Of Copyright Battling

from the slowly,-but-surely dept

Back in 1988 and 1990, PBS aired the two parts of the seminal documentary Eyes on the Prize about the civil rights movement. Since then, it's been considered one of the best ways of explaining and showing the civil rights struggle to those who did not live through it. Yet, it soon went out of print, and for years there have been fights to get it released on DVD. The problem? You guessed it: copyright. When the original documentary makers made the film they were only able to secure limited licenses for the archival footage they used, and once those licenses expired, the film was effectively dead in the water. For obvious reasons, this greatly upset some people, who started encouraging people to download copies of the film to get it seen -- even if this did upset others who were (loosely) associated with the film, fearing that it would hurt the ongoing negotiations for eventual licensing.

While it's taken a long, long time, the good news is that part I of the documentary has finally been released on DVD, even though part II is still tied up in licensing problems. While I can understand why some have been upset in linking the issue of civil rights with copyfighting, this seemed like a perfect example of the problems of copyright law today. Allowing this DVD to go forward would, in no way, "harm" the market for the original archival footage. It was a way to get it much more attention -- on an incredibly important topic that has deserved much greater awareness. To have all that content mostly locked up for nearly two decades is a real shame, and speaks to the censoring power of copyright law.

Filed Under: civil rights, copyright, documentaries
Companies: pbs

UK Police Arresting People Just To Add To DNA Database?

from the civil-rights? dept

We were just talking about how pretty much any government database will get abused by government employees eventually. But it's not just on the accessing or revealing of data that this can happen. How about the collection of data as well? Jabberwocky alerts us to the news that police in the UK have supposedly been arresting innocent people just to add them to the UK's DNA database. The report looking into this, sarcastically titled "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?" finds that nearly one in five of the DNA records in the database are from innocent people. And part of that is an "arrest first, ask questions later" policy towards collecting DNA:

The commission had received evidence from a former police superintendent that it was now the norm to arrest offenders for everything possible. "It is apparently understood by serving police officers that one of the reasons, if not the reason, for the change in practice is so that the DNA of the offender can be obtained," said Montgomery, adding that it would be a matter of very great concern if this was now a widespread practice.

Oh yeah, to make matters worse: "there is very little concrete evidence on the importance of the DNA match in leading to a conviction and whether the suspect would have been identified by other means anyway." Don't you feel safer now?

Filed Under: arrests, civil rights, database, dna, privacy

Tiburon Approves Recording Every Car That Enters/Leaves... Despite More Evidence Of Traffic Camera Abuse In UK

from the feeling-safer-yet? dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about plans in the wealthy coastal town of Tiburon here in northern California to photograph and record the license plate info of every car entering or leaving the town. It kicked off quite a debate in the comments, and now comes the news that the town is moving forward with the plan, despite complaints about civil liberties and privacy violations. Of course, it's worth noting that just as this plan is moving forward, reports out of the UK are indicating that law enforcement there has been abusing traffic cameras for purposes well beyond traffic monitoring. They're using traffic camera images of traffic around political protests to note cars that appear at multiple such events, and placing them on some sort of terrorist "watch lists." Police are apparently going through the database of images and "marking" certain cars, which then allow them to be searched in the fight against terrorism. Not that there's a big protest culture in Tiburon, but this certainly shows how a simple traffic camera effort can escalate into something that is much more questionable from a civil rights standpoint.

Filed Under: abuse, civil rights, privacy, tiburon, traffic cameras, uk

Christian Engstrom Explains The Pirate Party's Position: Freedom To Communicate; Freedom From Privacy Invasion

from the sounds-reasonable-enough dept

Christian Engstrom, the representative from the Swedish Pirate Party who is now a member of the European Parliament has written an opinion piece in the Financial Times where he explains the basic rights he is fighting for and the worries about where society and culture go if we continue to allow a few small industries to overpower everyone else's rights:

If you search for Elvis Presley in Wikipedia, you will find a lot of text and a few pictures that have been cleared for distribution. But you will find no music and no film clips, due to copyright restrictions. What we think of as our common cultural heritage is not "ours" at all.

On MySpace and YouTube, creative people post audio and video remixes for others to enjoy, until they are replaced by take-down notices handed out by big film and record companies. Technology opens up possibilities; copyright law shuts them down.

This was never the intent. Copyright was meant to encourage culture, not restrict it. This is reason enough for reform. But the current regime has even more damaging effects. In order to uphold copyright laws, governments are beginning to restrict our right to communicate with each other in private, without being monitored.

He details the inevitable push by copyright holders to simply block what the internet enables because their old business models can't keep up and they're unwilling to change:

The technology could be used to create a Big Brother society beyond our nightmares, where governments and corporations monitor every detail of our lives. In the former East Germany, the government needed tens of thousands of employees to keep track of the citizens using typewriters, pencils and index cards. Today a computer can do the same thing a million times faster, at the push of a button. There are many politicians who want to push that button.

The same technology could instead be used to create a society that embraces spontaneity, collaboration and diversity. Where the citizens are no longer passive consumers being fed information and culture through one-way media, but are instead active participants collaborating on a journey into the future.

While certainly copyright system defenders love to mock the Pirate Party based on its name alone, the basic tenets of what Engstrom speaks about are quite important and reasonable: encouraging creativity by enabling technologies is much more important than protecting an obsolete business model -- and stomping out individual privacy rights or technologies just because a few old businesses can't compete any more just doesn't make any rational sense.

Filed Under: christian engstrom, civil rights, pirate party

Understanding The Pirate Party

from the good-or-bad? dept

In writing about The Pirate Party's success in winning a seat in the EU Parliament, I noted that I wasn't necessarily a fan of The Pirate Party's name or some of its positions, but I do think the Party is bringing some attention to important issues. Ivor Tossell, at The Globe and Mail, has an interview with Christian Engstrom from The Pirate Party, who will be taking the seat, where they discuss a variety of issues -- including the name. When Tossell questions why it wasn't called something like the Copyright Reform Party, Engstrom pointed out (most likely correctly): "Because if that had been the name, you wouldn't be talking to me."

The other issue, that was raised in the comments to that post, was the assertion that members of The Pirate Party aren't actually interested in the civil rights and freedom issues the party stands for, but that they just want "free stuff." However, in the audio interview, Engstrom does a good job highlighting why the issues they fight for are very much civil rights issues. He talks about the value of privacy and human rights -- as well as access to information.

Much of the discussion does focus on the name. Engstrom insists that the name is essential -- and notes that he joined the party because the word "pirate" acts as an effective shorthand for everything that the party stands for. Tossell, though, does raise some important questions about how far the Party can go with the name, however. I tend to agree. While I agree that calling it The Pirate Party helps in getting initial attention (and press attention), it also brings out those sorts of false accusations that it's just about "getting free stuff" rather than serious issues that impact civil rights and innovation.

Filed Under: christian engstrom, civil rights, pirate party

EU Court Says Simply Taking Someone's Photo Can Violate Their Civil Rights

from the who-did-what-now? dept

I'm definitely a big supporter of privacy rights, but sometimes it seems that big time privacy rights supporters go too far. The latest is that an EU court on human rights has declared that simply taking someone's photograph can be a violation of their privacy. In the past, laws in Europe have said that you can't necessarily publish a photo of someone without their permission, but merely taking the photo was allowed. No longer. In the press release about the decision, the court explained its reasoning:

"The Court reiterated that the concept of private life was a broad one which encompassed the right to identity. It stressed that a person's image revealed his or her unique characteristics and constituted one of the chief attributes of his or her personality. The Court added that effective protection of the right to control one's image presupposed, in the present circumstances, obtaining the consent of the person concerned when the picture was being taken and not just when it came to possible publication."

Now, I could potentially understand such reasoning in private settings, but the statements above don't seem to limit the issue to private settings. The situation in the case itself also highlights what's a gray area between public and private. It involved a hospital that photographed a newborn baby -- as it does with all newborn babies. The parents protested and demanded the negatives, claiming that the photograph violated their baby's privacy rights -- and the court agreed. What's troubling is the implications of such a ruling, that you simply cannot photograph anyone without their official approval. This will almost certainly lead to new lawsuits, and even begins to raise some other questions. If it's a violation of someone's privacy rights to photograph them, at what point is it a violation of their rights just to see them?

Filed Under: civil rights, eu, photographs, privacy

Up Is Down, Black Is White, Not Discriminating Against Internet Traffic Is Discriminating

from the explain-please? dept

While a bunch of consumer groups have come out in favor of keeping the internet neutral, a bunch of civil rights groups are taking the opposing view. However, the reasoning is hard to follow, as it doesn't make very much sense: "The effective prioritization of P2P traffic would represent an altogether new type of 'back of the bus' second-class status for our speech on broadband networks -- and ought to be resoundingly rejected." Actually, it's the use of traffic management that would create a second-class status for some traffic. Preserving network neutrality does exactly the opposite -- making sure all packets are treated equally. What the groups seem to be saying -- incorrectly -- is that by not using traffic management, P2P traffic is prioritized. That's not true. It's treated equally with any other traffic.

It's completely fair to argue that treating all packets equally doesn't make sense -- as many have. However, to claim that treating all packets equally somehow makes some traffic "second-class" is an outright misrepresentation. No one denies (perhaps other than these civil rights groups) that traffic management is all about officially making certain kinds of traffic second-class. They just argue that this is necessary and reasonable. The filing by these civil rights groups is simply backwards.

Filed Under: civil rights, discrimination, net neutrality

China Can Access Mobile Phone Data To Spy On People

from the but,-you-know,-only-for-good-reasons dept

Given China's mentality towards its citizens, it probably won't surprise many people to find out that the head of the country's biggest mobile phone operator gleefully acknowledges that it can spy on anyone's location and has no qualms about handing that info over to authorities. He also talks about how the company is considering using this data to better target advertisements. While the article paints this as somehow shocking, it's been widely assumed that this was true already. And, the idea, as expressed in the article, that it wouldn't or couldn't happen in the United States seems a bit naive as well. Given how telcos helped the US government spy on phone calls without warrants, it seems like it may already be happening here as well.

Filed Under: china, civil rights, mobile phones, privacy, surveillance, us