We all have a personal list of topics we believe are taboo.  With the endless and constantly growing amounts of information easily available on the web, we may be confronted with our personal taboos more often than ever before.  By definition, a taboo is something we feel should be banned.  So – what about free speech?

With few limits, Americans are guaranteed the right to free speech.  That means express our opinions, even if no one agrees – or likes what we have to say.  That isn’t comfortable, nor should it be. There is no creative tension in total agreement. Lack of creativity makes our culture, and our personal lives, stagnant and deadly dull.

So – what do we do when we see or hear something which we disagree with?  While there are times when discretion may rule, in general, I think we should SPEAK OUT.  Speaking out intelligently means we have to know our subject, which, in turn, means facing our taboos.  I was struck, rather forcefully, by one of my own recently.  I’ll share it here – by link, for you to decide how you would deal with this particular subject.  It’s tempting to ignore what makes us uncomfortable.  But it behooves those who are privileged to live in a society where freedom of speech is a right to be informed.

If you are one of the many who think that ugliness is best ignored, or if you think that those who foster hate are somehow less than human and don’t want that idea challenged, DO NOT click on THIS LINK.

WAIT! Before you choose to click, please know that this is a real story, about real people, and a real element in our society that seems to be gaining momentum. It is not a story of some obscure crackpot notion that can simply be ignored.  You may have nothing to say, and no forum in which to say it, yet.  But please – BE INFORMED!

In our current climate, most people think of copyright as the thing that protects a person’s intellectual property.  That’s partially right.  There’s more to it though.  Culture is built on creative effort, and creativity inspires more creativity. If you read the excerpt to the US Constitution’s “Copyright Clause”  printed below (in blue) you’ll see that the author(s) of this clause were just as concerned with making sure that individual and collective creativity was not squelched as it is with the proprietary rights of creators.

We’ve come a long way from the days of 14 year copyrights that had to be applied for.  Now, anything you create is automatically copyrighted and that copyright survives your death by 70 years. I don’t know aobut you – but that seems effectively, if not literally, limitLESS to me!

What can we do about it?  Well, we can attempt to change the laws, but production companies with deep pockets are likely to win that battle. OR we can choose the degree to which we share our creations, allow them to be used by others: altered, enhanced, or as-is, it’s up to you.  Copyright legislation which became effective January 1, 1978, states that a work is automatically protected by copyright when it is created.  “Created” is defined as produced in some fixed form.

There are advantages to the creator and our culture when some less extreme “limit” is placed on  creative work.   Collaboration may take creative forms, enhancing the final product.  Inspiration flows. New authors, com[posers, etc . . . may get more exposure and still maintain at least partial control, and receive income from, their work.  Unlike registration with the US Copyright Office licensing your work through Creative Commons is free, flexible, and fast.

• The copyright clause of the US Constitution states that the purpose of copyright is : “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” In other words, the original intent was to LIMIT the exclusive right to creative property.

Creative Commons offers a number of alternative licenses. My presentation will give and overview of how these are used and why one would choose a particular license. Creative Commons also offers custom licensing which allows an author to specify exactly how, and under what circumstances, her work may be used by others.

Creative Commons is more than an alternative copyright process. It is a way of reclaiming creativity as a cultural, social process as well as an economic one. Most ideally, it is an ethical platform which reminds us that creativity is a means of contributing to our culture, not simply control ideas and amass wealth.

Because we have the right to share our own intellectual property as we see fit, creative commons is a legal, and effective way clarify to the pubic exactly to what degree you are willing to share your creations. Options include, but are far from limited to, a copyright in the spirit and model of the original US copyright limit of 14 years, followed by an automatic rollover into the public domain.

I’m doing my term presentation on Creative commons, and it will be available online.  Until then, check the Creative Commons Website for more details.  Our culture will be more exciting for it!

From the Markle Foundation Weekly Digest:

Centers Tap Into Personal Databases
State Groups Were Formed After 9/11
BY ROBERT O’HARROW JR., WASHINGTON POST
Intelligence centers run by states across the country have access to personal information about millions of Americans, including unlisted cellphone numbers, insurance claims, driver’s license photographs and credit reports, according to a document obtained by The Washington Post.

One center also has access to top-secret data systems at the CIA, the document shows, though it’s not clear what information those systems contain.

(you can read the rest HERE: )

FUSION CENTERS?!

How’s that for a wad of new-speak crap?

What a Fusion Center does is gather information. All kinds of information. About anyone. About you. You don’t have any control over it. It can be sold. It can be disseminated for any number of purposes, most of which have not one thing to do with keeping you, me, or Mary-Jane down the street one bit safer than we are right now – or thought we were before September 2001.

According to Sue Reingold, deputy program manager in the (NEWSPEAK ALERT!) Information Sharing Environment Office ( a federal office dedicated to “improving information sharing”) the office operates with “oversight that is well understood and transparent to the public.” Oh? I really must get my vision checked. Or, perhaps I just have to give someone my credit card information and let them take $49.95 for a peek at what they are looking at. Oh, never mind – they already have that information if they want it.

“Fusion centers are vital to state and local efforts to fight crime, including terrorism,” she said.

Here are some of the pieces of information that help us “fight terrorism”

• Wage and property records
• Traffic ticket records
• Credit reports
• Your cell phone number
• Your unlisted phone number
• Wage records
• Where you work
• Insurance claims
• Property records
• What kind of car(s) you own and what you paid for them
• Utility records
• And that cute little mole on your right butt cheek. Sorry.

This is not a usual post for me – but I find this all outrageous. I can’t help it. We (I say “we” because I’m told this is still a democracy) keep letting the powers that be put pretty patriotic spins on things that should scare us to death.

I find it DEEPLY offensive, in fact, I find it obscene, (but most would not agree with obscene and, as stated in the previous post, I don’t have a right to not be offended.) That the events of September 11th 2001 have been used, and continue to be used, to sanction violations of our right to privacy.

It was inevitable that such a tragedy would change our nation. That does NOT mean, however, that we have to just sit back and watch changes we believe to be wrong simply HAPPEN. Allowing things to just happen is wrong. And, at the risk of seeming overly dramatic (I wish I believed this was) are you familiar with the song “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” ? It was written for the play Cabaret - (Cabaret is set in Weinmar Germany during the rise of the Third Reich) the original intention was to show how easily people’s emotions can be played – particularly when they feel afraid and hard done by – and how that play on their emotions can lead them into committing wrongs they never believed they would.

Are we turning into Nazi Germany? I hope not, but our minds and our hearts are being played. I think it behooves us to pay attention.

And what about “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” ? Well, look at this and consider what happens when this same kind of nationalistic sentimentality is put to post 9/11 US imagery:

Why do you see all that offensive stuff on the Web? Well, it has to do with a pesky little decision by the US supreme court in 1997. The story goes smething like this:

Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was passed into law by the Clinton administration allowed criminal penalties for anyone who:

“knowingly (A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or (B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.”

HOWEVER – the ACLU, representing DOZENS of US organizations (and not all of them part of the adult entertainment industry either) made the case that the CDA was 1) a violation of free speech and 2) so vague as to be either unenforceable, or, too easily interpreted and enforced in ways that could not be predicted – which was also a violation of the 5th Amendment (that’s the one that, among other things, guarantees anyone accused of a crime due process and the opportunity to defend themselves – it’s also the one all those cheesy law shows on TV are referring to when you hear someone say something like “I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.”)

In the end, the 5th Amendment didn’t play a big role in the decision. In a 5/2 vote – the US supreme court decided that rulings that applied to broadcast media (governed by the FCC) did not apply to the internet, the same way they didn’t apply to cable TV. The CDA was overturned.

Even the dissenters – Judges Renquist and O’Conner – more or less agreed. They just wished – as many of us do – that there was technologically feasible way (server side or user side – preferably user side – and if you’ve tried any home filters you know they don’t work very well) to choose what you want to look at – rather than just stumble on it – or have your child stumble on it. Well – over a decade has passed and we still don’t reliable technology for this purpose.

Majority Opinion:

§223(a)(1)(B), §223(a)(2), §223(d) of the CDA are unconstitutional and unenforceable, except for cases of obscenity or child pornography, because they abridge the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment and are substantially overbroad. The Internet is entitled to the full protection given to media like the print press; the special factors justifying government regulation of broadcast media do not apply.

Minority Opinion:

Cyberspace is malleable. Thus, it is possible to construct barriers in cyberspace and use them to screen for identity, making cyberspace more like the physical world and consequently, more amenable to zoning laws. This transformation is already underway. Cyberspace is moving … from a relatively unzoned place to a universe that is extraordinarily well zoned.

Too bad that wasn’t true – nor is it likely to be soon. The world is a big place – and people are funnier than anyone. How would we ever get people to agree on what was or was not “offencive” ? What about something obscene? Do you “know it when you see it”? Would the guy next door agree? How about some guy ½ way around the world?

Well – at least child pornography is obvious, right? Is it? How about those “performers” who look 12, but can prove they are 18? What about ANIMATED children? (That’s still being argued last I heard – personally I hope they find a constitutional way to outlaw it)

When it comes to child pornography, who are we trying to protect? It seems that the primary focus has been on potential child performers. But – if the performer is not a child – or not even flesh and blood, well . . .

Please don’t shoot the messenger.

I find this whole issue quite frustrating. So far, our Supreme Court has ruled that the right to free speech supersedes the right of people to not be offended. And – I agree, even when it makes me cringe.

]]> http://elbarney.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/janet-reno-vs-the-aclu-1997/feed/ 0 spin2008 http://elbarney.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/a-legitimate-light-on-bittorrent/ http://elbarney.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/a-legitimate-light-on-bittorrent/#comments Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:11:32 +0000 spin2008 http://elbarney.wordpress.com/?p=9 ]]>

According to Canadian New outlet, The Star, the CBC is recently aired the finale of a popular Canadian reality show Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister – in which participants tried to convince both television and studio audiences of their fitness for a political future.  While the show concept is interesting by itself – what’s even more interesting is that the CBC has decided to release a high quality version of the finale through BitTorrent. a P2P file sharing software package that has – like most P2P clients – an “iffy” reputation due to being commonly used to copyright infringement though sharing of copyrighted files.

Peer-to-Peer file sharing is a perfectly legitimate software function.  What is questionable is WHAT files are shared.  Most people are familiar with the suits of individuals by the music industry for downloading MP3s they did not have a legal right to.   While legal, P2P software has tended to be viewed rather like smoking “paraphernalia” which, while technically legal and  marketed as “for use with tobacco” is more commonly associated in the public mind with smoking illegal substances such as marijuana.

While the media industry has become more open to distributing their products in download or podcast formats  most have used proprietary software to do so, such as iTunes or Amazon Unbox.  The use of BitTorrent – with it’s perceived shady past – says a lot both about the changing attitudes of the media industry, and the PR work companies like BitTorrent have done to appear more legitimate.

Illegal downloads and copyright infringement continue.  The software and media industries continue to develop more secure and complex data protection systems,  and, to some extent, the media is playing along with the changes in how people want to access content.

It’s hard to say what this evolving beast will look like five years down the road.  I think it’s an evolutionary process worth watching.

I’m a Comcast customer, and a techie to boot, but I haven’t noticed any trouble with my internet traffic. I’ll grant you I don’t use BitTorrent, and do very little p2p file sharing. I also tend to blame any slowdown on “this Blanking Old Machine” But, others have noticed – and the issue continues to heat up.

Depending on which article you read, from which point of view, it seems that there is no doubt that Comcast has been adjusting TCP/IP protocols based on traffic. The questions seem to be

1. Is the practice discriminatory?
2. Against whom?

The answers seem to be (in my opinion)

1. Yes, since Comcast targeted a particular type of application and by association, a particular type of client (one that uses lots of bandwidth, whose users have a reputation, deserved or not, for sharing copyrighted materials.)
2. Against BitTorrent and its users.

People should get the bandwidth they pay for. Yet Comcast does admit to “traffic shaping.” (for a technical, but readable, explanation of exactly what Comcast has been doing, see Susan Crawford’s blog)

However Comcast is dealing with what they see as traffic overload has been questionable enough to get the FCC interested. And, the publicity has them concerned enough to have (according to the AP) hired “seat warmers” at a February 28th hearing hosted by Harvard’s Berkman Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

It seems broader legal issues are at stake. If Comcast provides a public utility, like phone service or electricity, then they are obligated to provide the service to any credit-worthy customer. If they are not a public utility, what are they? And, if they have issues with the legal status of the packets transmitted by their service, to what degree are they willing to take responsibility for that and police all of their customers? What does that do to our privacy? Is there any reasonable expectation of privacy when sending information by the Web?

This one is worth watching. However things play out, presidents will be set.

Wikileaks.org – a site that allows users to post information that would otherwise be difficult or impossible for the general public to access, such as

• 2003 operations manual from the prison at Guantanamo Bay
• Information about offshore banking activity (complete with details about companies and person inv0lved.)
• FBI Patriot Act abuse

and more, was brought to court, and the domain name ordered closed by a Federal Judge on February 14, 2008. It’s interesting to note that Wikileaks was not closed down due to it’s general purpose -a vehicle for free speec- but due to the complaints of one bank – Bank Julius Baer – over Wikileaks refusal to remove what Bank Julius Baer considered “sensitive information” concerning on of their wealthier clients. The decision has been described as tantamount to closing down an entire newspaper over a single article.

The order backfired. Not only was Wikileaks infomration still aviable at other domainextentions, but could still be accessed directly through it’s IP address. Wikileaks claims (since upheld) that this order violated the First Amendment and the resulting news coverage made Wikileaks a more high-profile source of non-mainstream news than before.

Public outcry over this clear violation of the First Amendment caused U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White to reverse his order. Wikileaks.org is now accessible through that domain name – with a bright yellow banner at the top protesting their treatment by US Courts.

Officials at Bank Julius Baer claim that it was never their intention to have the site shut down, only to have specific information – which they claim is “cyber-slander”posted by a disgruntled former employee removed.

While I, personally, am on the side of Wikileaks – there is an interesting question here about where the lawn is drawn between free speech and the right to privacy. Wherever that line may be drawn, the fact is that Wikileaks is now more well-known, and quite possibly more powerful, than before. As long as those who access the site understand the nature of a Wiki (it is publicly editable) and make the effort to further investigate information they find there to check its validity – I believe Wikileaks will continue to grow as a valuable resource for information.

Oh okay, this isn’t REALLY about Facebook so much as it is about relative freedoms. It seems that in Morocco, you can get into big trouble pretending to be a member of the royal family. It just so happens that Moroccan computer engineer Fouad Mortada did his pretending on Facebook, and earned himself three years in prison for his efforts.

He said he was arrested on February 5, blindfolded and taken to an unknown building where he was beaten and insulted, according to a Web site set up by his supporters. ( Reuters Published: February 23, 2008, 8:40 AM PST)

The arrest occurred after Fouad Mortada set up a Facebook account in the name of Prince Moulay Rachid. The excuse for such an (to me) extreme reaction was the possibility that Martada was terrorist-connected and seeking to harm the Prince.

A quick look at Facebook revealed that there is more than one profile in the prince’s name. Who know if any of them are the real thing? Do YOU know how to tell?

Now, it’s odd – I thought I’d never been to Facebook before – but, according to them, I had an account (no page – just an access account) so perhaps it was a whim of some kind I don’t recall. If not, that’s SCARY. But – it’s not unthinkable I had a whim of some kind at some point.

Here is one part that bothers me: I said I was a student – they insisted I had to use my student e-mail. Hmmmm – why do they CARE? Well – perhaps it’s a networking thing, since in the process of resetting my password – (since I didn’t recall haing an account I CERTAINLY didn’t recall a password!) I discovered that I had missed yet another live performance of The Vagina Monologues siiiiiiiiiiiiigh.

If the plight of Fouad Mortada tugs at your heart – you can sign a petition at his support website. You can also find a well written blog post from a Moroccan point of view here, and a statement by Mortada himself here.

With luck – your e-signature may even matter. I mean, REALLY folks – they know this guy’s no terrorist! A little over $1,300 and three years in jail – even a Moroccan jail – isn’t the stuff punishments for terrorism are made of. It’s a bit over the top for what is, at most, a tacky prank – don’t you think? Okay, okay, from an Islamic point of view it’s blasphemy. But isn’t blasphemy in the eye of the beholder?

Gee – I wonder how much trouble the Moroccan government had getting traces of the fake Facebook page erased?

UPDATE:   ***Fouad was released by a royal pardon, on the evening of March 18, 2008**

. . .to whom does your work belong? What about the content and concepts you discuss in company email?

Johnathan Cobb – a former contractor for Google – claims that ideas that he discussed on internal email are his – and that Google has stolen his concept for a Sky component for Google Earth. Cobb is asking $25M in punitive damages. In her brief article Did Google Steal the Sky for it’s Earth? Elinor Mills quotes an internet law expert as saying these rules are unclear. One commenter opinion is that Cobb was foolish to put his ideas in writing on the Google servers – and predicts that when the case goes to court (if it does) Cobb will be SOL.

Personaly – I have a number of questions I wish I could ask:

Is Google Sky really close to an idea of Cobbs?

If so, can he prove it?

Assuming that Cobb right, and the Sky function for Google Earth really is based on his idea – isn’t it more of a bother to go though the bad publicity and the court process than it is to simply compensate Cobb? (Yeah – I know, naive of me . . .)

Did Sally Ride Science or Sally Ride herself receive compensation for this spot?

And oh – not that anyone wants to steal them, but who owns the posts on this blog?

Added 5/7/08   — When this was written, there was a lot of flack over how difficult is was to remove FACE BOOK entries and accounts.  Since then, facebook.com has made it a bit easier to remove information you regret having added.  but BE WARNED — social networking sites are PUBLIC, even if you set your entries to “private” there are instances where your info is easily accessed (eg: if someone has lined to you in a post that is not set to “private.”  Take care, friends.  Future employers, among ohters, use FACEBOOK to get an idea of who you “truly” are.

According to the BBC News, lawmakers in the UK want to make it mandatory for ISPs to check packets of information going through their servers to check for copyright infringement. UK ISPs are saying there is no way thy can monitor enough of the packets that travel through their servers to find the majority of illegal file sharing. Though there have been numerous lawsuits over copyright infringement and illegal file sharing in the past, those caught in the act are still in the minority – this newly proposed legislation seeks to change that by holding the ISPs liable.

What about the privacy of the individuals involved? Just how easy, and how frequent, is this “packet peeking?”

Despite the international stir, Torrent Freak suggests this UK proposal isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. The reference to the paper is more literal than you may think: The proposal is known as a “Green Sheet.” It is a suggestion, without the force of law behind it. However, even if this proposal were more substantial, Torrent Freak goes on to say that:

1) It isn’t reasonable to hold ISPs liable for every packet that travels though their servers.

2) It isn’t practically possible for ISPs to act as this kind of cyber-police.

3) Insecure WiFi and packet encryption make it impossible to tell what packets may hold copyrighted material.

4) In addition to the protests from ISPs – the use of file-sharing type clients which are used to share personal photos, and other material to which the sender own the copyright or has permission to share – would make public outcry that their privacy is being invaded just as strong.

5) And, perhaps most of all, this proposed rule flies in the face of pre-existing EU laws which say that member states are not required to share personal information about files sharers as well as “Article 10 of the European freedom of expression laws, which gives every European the ‘freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.’”

While I understand that copyright infringement is a crime, and the music industry in particular claims loss of sales in the multi-million dollar range, I’m more concerned about the privacy issues involved here.

How do you think this problem should be approached?