OK, while I'm sure in a world of trust this sort of statement would make sense, seeing it Issa's site made me laugh perhaps a bit too much:
"The page promises that all personal details will be "kept in strict confidence." It requires users to state their phone or e-mail address as well as their agency or organization, but not their name."
I'm sure no one will notice his persecution of Wikileaks and all of its actors in deciding to *trust* Issa's site ;)
Given Paramount's comments one would have to wonder why they wouldn't just change their deal w/Redbox on their own. I'm going to guess that there must be some collusion here that keeps them from acting independently of the other large studios.
As you can imagine, Twitter is-a-buzzin' around this story. It might be helpful to note that the request for all information did not include the content of the messages. The Order specifically states among items that are being requested, "non-content information associated with the contents of any communication or file stored by or for the account(s); such as the source and destination email addresses and IP addresses." You can read the order for yourself at http://bit.ly/gyrdoH.
Declan McCullaugh fm cnet does delve into the 4th Amendment issues in his piece here: http://bit.ly/h6weTE. But I believe someone on Twitter pointed the issue of the request not being content. Importantly, he also notes the fact that while one federal appeals court has ruled on the need for a search warrant (as opposed to the Order issued by a Magistrate), this decision is not binding in Virginia or San Francisco, where the legal jockeying action is likely to take place.
Glenn Greenwald also has some worthwhile thoughts on the issue here: http://bit.ly/edyD2a.
...IMHO you've been a realist, at least in the directness that you approach most topics. While I don't always agree, I'd say that you keep a rational perspective that is approachable and willing to admit when you don't understand or are wrong. In this world of loud or self-righteous positioning by people over any topic, it's nice that you try to take a more fact-based approach and get through the noise to the meat of most issues. Anyway, yours is one of the few blogs that I look forward to the next post so keep'em coming :)
It also appears that none of the released cables to date were of a Top Secret nature, only Secret, which is an important designation especially so many are attacking Wikileaks for putting lives in danger with this latest batch of cables. Glenn Greenwald spent some time on a Jessica Yellin's CNN show a few days ago clarifying this among several other facts (see video: http://huff.to/ec5fx9).
What truly scares me about this idea of copyrighting drinks is that while it sounds utterly ridiculous, so did Fashion patents and today those have become a reality. From the ol' adage, "when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro", I'd change the last word "pro" with "IP entitled" ;)
It would seem to me that this is actually a broader question immaterial to Twitter specifically. Are links on any Web page to infringing material, themselves infringing on copyright? I don't know the answer, but it would seem absurd if the answer was yes. Further, I would ask how far does the link chain have to be before it's considered not infringing? In other words, if I link to a page that links to a page that links to a page that has infringing material, is my link considered infringing?
Ah, starts to remind me of the ol' fallacy, "if god can do anything, can he make a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?". Something to debate for the ages :)
Your experience is shared by several other content sites I'm aware of. Google may want to call you to the stand to testify on their behalf next time someone takes them to task over visitor traffic issues ;)
Also, really do appreciate your thoughtful commentary on the various important issues taking place online and off. Even where I may not always agree, your perspectives are thought provoking and interesting. It's always a pleasure to share your posts w/others.
That was a kick-ass amicus brief. In the footnotes he even manages to make one of Righthaven's arguments against Reality One backfire on them. That brief read like a 'feel-good' movie :) Now to hope it convinces the judge.
Another one in this category, though not put out by any gov't, is the "Drive Me Crazy" app which in effect lets users report on drivers. You can flag a driver positively (ie. courteous), negatively or use it to flirt, though w/a name like "Drive Me Crazy", I suspect that the positive reporting is not likely to be its primary purpose ;) Apparently, you can also leave them a message to their license plate #. Anyone can go into the system and register w/their license plate at which time it will tell them if they have messages even if they were not previously registered.
As with any of these apps, my concern is the lack of context and the room for abuse.
Better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission
Per the point made in the last line of this post:
while this court says the government is forbidden from wiretapping without a warrant, our government has decided it can ignore that rule, so don't be surprised if it ignores this one too...
We see that indeed whether the gov't knew or not, so long as they make appearances to have acted in good faith, breaking the law might just be incidental. From the decision, here's the excerpt that leaves something to the imagination:
We find that the government did violate Warshak’s Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) to turn over the contents of his emails. However, we agree that agents relied on the SCA in good faith, and therefore hold that reversal is unwarranted.
"Oops, sorry, we violated your rights by picking the wrong laws, but hey we found something so you should be punished anyway. You can trust us, we would never do anything to cause you harm....on purpose." ;)
Lieberman in the 21st century's new and improved McCarthy. I wonder if Wikileaks has something on him too. Wouldn't surprise me in the least. It's always the righteous that go that seem to be overcompensating for some deep dark secrets. Given this guy's attitude and behavior, I'm guessing he is evil incarnate ;)
"In the end, I would expect that to have a much bigger impact than anything that's in the actual leaked cables."
This sentiment is actually a very viable reading of Assange's white paper. By making the U.S.' policy making impotent, it can no longer perpetrate the conspiracies that Wikileaks is claiming and exposing them for having committed. When they release info on the U.S. bank, it should put a collar on the bank's relative power as well. I expect this will be the case for any organization (governmental or commercial) whose leaked information they release.
While I'm sensitive and understand Operation Payback's cause celebre ("We fight for the same reasons. We want transparency and we counter censorship."), I believe that they may be misunderstanding that Assange and Wikileaks are not seeking to make things more transparent for transparency's sake, but as a means to attack what they see as conspiracies.
In the case of the last three releases, they were addressing conspiracies of the U.S. gov't. They have previously dealt w/conspiracies of the Kenyan gov't. Soon they will be moving on to conspiracies of a large U.S. bank. Their belief is that by exposing the communications and links between the actors/nodes in the conspiracy, they can force those to shut down or reduce their ability to easily communicate, significantly reducing the conspiracy's ability to be effective.
For lack of a better term, I believe Wikileaks is actually trying to hack the political systems. He is taking a very geek approach to this problem...and we will see if after all this is said and done, it actually brings about positive change. I sure hope so.
I remember a time, when I was 10 yrs old or so some 35 yrs ago, and hearing a story of a primary school kid who told one of his teachers that his parents we bad mouthing the Russian gov't. Sure enough, the parents were soon arrested and thrown in jail. It was amazing to me that something like that could happen anywhere. I was also thankful that I lived in a country where not only did that seem absurd, but where no citizen would ever accept such behavior. That was then and this is now. Oh how times have changed.
"Still, perhaps this will convince more people just how problematic our current patent system is today and how we need to move towards fixing it."
Do you believe that? For big companies, paying up is easier and cheaper than fighting. Once they've paid, they're in on the scam. No politician, as we've seen, has the balls to take on a fight against large corporations (read "campaign donors") who'd have no interest in changing the status quo. So I guess the follow-up question would be, who do you think are the *people* who would be convinced of the need to fix things and could actually have an effect on doing so? ;)
So I've been giving some thought to Mastercard, VISA and Paypal's position on why they cut off Wikileaks and something else feels off.
Wikileaks was using these payment instruments to collect donations from individuals. As a non-profit organization, that's the primary reason for using these payment instruments. Wikileaks was not selling a membership, a product, or a service. Hence, their use of, and reason for using, these payment instruments was only to collect donations, which last I checked is not an illegal activity. Wikileaks made no false promises and did not defraud anyone.
Now, if the position of the payment instrument companies is that Wikileaks' illegal behavior (which has yet to be asserted as such, and is not being done as means of profiting from), resulted in having their accounts closed or frozen, then what does that really mean? Are the payment instrument companies playing the role of general law enforcement? For example, if Walmart were to be accused of violating labor laws by the Department of Labor, can (or would) the payment instrument companies freeze Walmart's accounts? If BP were charged w/illegally dumping oil into the Gulf of Mexico, would they stop close of freeze BP's accounts and stop allowing them fm accepting VISA or Mastercard at the pump? In other words, if a company is violating the law in an unrelated part of their business to the one for which they're accepting the payment instruments, does that still constitute a violation of their agreement with these payment instrument companies?
Seems pretty far reaching to me, and I suspect that the illegality issue would only apply to the merchant accepting payments w/these instruments in exchange for fraudulent or illegal products or services. If I were Wikileaks' attorneys, I'd be getting prepared for a round of civil lawsuits against these payment instrument providers.
Hey Chuck, have you actually had a chance to read any of these cables for yourself? See any names at risk there? How about sharing one example since you seem to believe so many are at risk? Just pick out one doc w/one name of a person that you think should be worried. Really curious to see what you come up with.
I'm betting that the increase rate of activity we're seeing around Wikileaks censures has a heck of a lot more to do w/the large, as yet unnamed, U.S. bank whose info they plan on releasing in 2011. Perhaps everyone is feeling pressure to close down on Assange before the end of 2010 in hopes to stifle the 2011 release ;)
On the post: Rep. Darrell Issa -- Who Says Investigating Wikileaks Is A Priority -- Sets Up His Own Whistleblower Site
Anonymity preserved...sort of
"The page promises that all personal details will be "kept in strict confidence." It requires users to state their phone or e-mail address as well as their agency or organization, but not their name."
I'm sure no one will notice his persecution of Wikileaks and all of its actors in deciding to *trust* Issa's site ;)
On the post: Redbox Realizing That Caving To Hollywood On 28-Day Delay Was A Bad Idea
Collusion?
On the post: Feds Subpoena Twitter For Info On Wikileaks-Supporting Icelandic Politician
Fourth Amendment may not apply
"non-content information associated with the contents of any communication or file stored by or for the account(s); such as the source and destination email addresses and IP addresses."
You can read the order for yourself at http://bit.ly/gyrdoH. Declan McCullaugh fm cnet does delve into the 4th Amendment issues in his piece here: http://bit.ly/h6weTE. But I believe someone on Twitter pointed the issue of the request not being content. Importantly, he also notes the fact that while one federal appeals court has ruled on the need for a search warrant (as opposed to the Order issued by a Magistrate), this decision is not binding in Virginia or San Francisco, where the legal jockeying action is likely to take place. Glenn Greenwald also has some worthwhile thoughts on the issue here: http://bit.ly/edyD2a.
On the post: New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism... And The Power Of Innovation
Not optimistic, not pessimistic...
Happy New Year to you and the Techdirt team!!!
On the post: Why Does The Myth Persist That Wikileaks Is Indiscriminately Leaking Thousands Of Documents?
Top Secret vs. Secret....myth #2
On the post: Drink Up: Cocktails Don't Need Nor Deserve Copyright Protection
Mixologists as funny as Fashionistas?
On the post: Would Twitter Be Liable For Links To Infringing Material?
Links more generally
Ah, starts to remind me of the ol' fallacy, "if god can do anything, can he make a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?". Something to debate for the ages :)
On the post: Anyone Notice That Sites Don't Have To Rely On Google So Much For Traffic Any More?
Thanks for not sucking :)
Also, really do appreciate your thoughtful commentary on the various important issues taking place online and off. Even where I may not always agree, your perspectives are thought provoking and interesting. It's always a pleasure to share your posts w/others.
Happy Holidays to you and your team!
On the post: Law Professor Explains How Even When A Site Copies An Entire Article, It May Still Be Fair Use
On the post: Feel Like Being A Neighborhood Snitch? There's An App For That!
More & more snitch apps are emerging
As with any of these apps, my concern is the lack of context and the room for abuse.
On the post: Appeals Court Says Emails Are Protected By The 4th Amendment
Better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission
On the post: Lieberman Praises Companies Helping Him Try To Censor Wikileaks
On the post: If Assange Were In China, US Politicians Would Be Cheering Him On
That's one way to read his position
On the post: Operation Payback And Wikileaks Show The Battle Lines Are About Distributed & Open vs. Centralized & Closed
A lil' ironic
In the case of the last three releases, they were addressing conspiracies of the U.S. gov't. They have previously dealt w/conspiracies of the Kenyan gov't. Soon they will be moving on to conspiracies of a large U.S. bank. Their belief is that by exposing the communications and links between the actors/nodes in the conspiracy, they can force those to shut down or reduce their ability to easily communicate, significantly reducing the conspiracy's ability to be effective.
For a better and very detailed analysis of one of Assange's white papers, check out: https://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-d estroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/#. The pointer to this analysis was provided via the Wikileaks twitter account.
For lack of a better term, I believe Wikileaks is actually trying to hack the political systems. He is taking a very geek approach to this problem...and we will see if after all this is said and done, it actually brings about positive change. I sure hope so.
On the post: Homeland Security Gets Walmart To Tell You To Inform On Your Neighbors
Oh, what fond memories of my youth
On the post: Intellectual Ventures Files Its First Lawsuits; Giant Patent Troll Awakened
Really?
On the post: Want To Know Why Visa & Mastercard Cut Off Wikileaks? Because Its Latest Leak Was About Them...
I don't get their position
Wikileaks was using these payment instruments to collect donations from individuals. As a non-profit organization, that's the primary reason for using these payment instruments. Wikileaks was not selling a membership, a product, or a service. Hence, their use of, and reason for using, these payment instruments was only to collect donations, which last I checked is not an illegal activity. Wikileaks made no false promises and did not defraud anyone.
Now, if the position of the payment instrument companies is that Wikileaks' illegal behavior (which has yet to be asserted as such, and is not being done as means of profiting from), resulted in having their accounts closed or frozen, then what does that really mean? Are the payment instrument companies playing the role of general law enforcement? For example, if Walmart were to be accused of violating labor laws by the Department of Labor, can (or would) the payment instrument companies freeze Walmart's accounts? If BP were charged w/illegally dumping oil into the Gulf of Mexico, would they stop close of freeze BP's accounts and stop allowing them fm accepting VISA or Mastercard at the pump? In other words, if a company is violating the law in an unrelated part of their business to the one for which they're accepting the payment instruments, does that still constitute a violation of their agreement with these payment instrument companies?
Seems pretty far reaching to me, and I suspect that the illegality issue would only apply to the merchant accepting payments w/these instruments in exchange for fraudulent or illegal products or services. If I were Wikileaks' attorneys, I'd be getting prepared for a round of civil lawsuits against these payment instrument providers.
On the post: Someone Should Tell The State Dept That The State Dept Is Hosting World Press Freedom Day
Re: Limits
On the post: Someone Should Tell The State Dept That The State Dept Is Hosting World Press Freedom Day
Starts on May Day!
On the post: Swiss Bank Finds Technicality To Freeze Wikileaks Bank Account
Re: I thought the Swiss were neutral?
Next >>