Welcome to tortureland

Mark my words. We pass this torture bill, we will rue this day...

Last Tango In Paris (Hilton)

An attempt to end Senate debate and proceed with a vote to repeal the estate tax failed 57-41, with a few Republicans joining their Democratic colleagues to start looking at where they are going to get the money to pay for George Bush's endless War on Terra.
According to the Washington Post, this tax effects only 1.17% of the taxpaying wealthiest, but according to Bill Frist it's really Mom and Pop, Inc.:

"The 'death tax' is an unfair burden inflicted upon America's small businesses, farmers, and families during a time of grieving and pain," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a leading proponent of repeal. "This won't be the last time this year the Senate votes on this important issue."
Frist and other leading Republicans argued that the estate tax forced closely held and privately owned businesses to sell out to public corporations, depriving family members of the benefits derived from the hard work of their elder relatives. As a result, they said, rich people wasted billions of dollars trying to avoid the tax, money that might better have been used to expand the businesses and create jobs.

Cry me a river, Bill. There is not one documented case of someone losing their estate because of this tax, but Frist has tried to convince us that he and the rest of millionaire's club on the Hill are only looking out for the Waltons, when in reality they're just trying to keep the IRS from prying the hard-inherited cash from their cold, dead hands.

Suitable for framing

While I know that getting rid of al-Zarqawi was supposedly a huge military victory that sadly will have no real effect on ending the violence over there, what's up with showing off the giant picture of his dead head?
Is this a crazy psyop that some genius at the Pentagon thought would reduce the insurgents and their supporters to quivering bowls of jelly, ya know because that's how you send a message to that kind of people.
I got news for you, they already know that if they aren't careful we'll shoot at them or drop bombs on their houses; they got that message loud and clear. Probably is the reason why there's an insurgency.
I'm just sayin'.

I'm back

Sorry for the lack of postings. I got kinda busy, and evidently Blogger has been up and down a lot.
More tomorrow.

"birth control is selfish"

So says this year's student commencement speaker at St. Thomas University. The speaker, a recipient of the "Tommy of the Year" award, picked his moment to lead a tirade on "selfishness," apparently in reference to a controversial school policy forbidding unmarried employees from rooming together on student trips.

If you want to hear the speech (and get an idea of the crowd reaction):

A portion of the controversial speech has been posted online at YouTube (be forewarned that several loud expletives from audience members are also audible). The speaker is Ben Kessler, who was elected by students and faculty members as “Tommie of the Year,” earning the right to address his fellow graduates. Kessler was a 4.0 student and a star on the football team. He is moving to Rome to study for the priesthood.

It's probably out of line for me to say this, but a boy that righteous has had own share of "selfishness," and Rome may not be far enough for him to get away from it.

Attorney general thinks we are idiots

Abu Gonzales has an answer for all of you who think you have some expectation of privacy when it comes to your phone records: shut up:

But Gonzales told reporters that, under the Smith v. Maryland ruling, "those kinds of records do not enjoy Fourth Amendment protection. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in those kinds of records."

He seems to think we are idiots, because the FISA statutes were passed in direct response to Smith and include a provision specifically intended to address the nature of business records (50 U.S.C. § 1861):

Section 1861. Access to certain business records for foreign intelligence 
and international terrorism investigations

  (a) Application for order; conduct of investigation generally
    (1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a
  designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than
  Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an
  order requiring the production of any tangible things (including
  books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an
  investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not
  concerning a United States person or to protect against
    international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities,
  provided that such investigation of a United States person is not
  conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the
  first amendment to the Constitution.
    (2) An investigation conducted under this section shall -
      (A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney
    General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
      (B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the
    basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the
    Constitution of the United States.
  (b) Recipient and contents of application
      Each application under this section -
        (1) shall be made to -
          (A) a judge of the court established by section 1803(a) of
        this title; or
          (B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of
        title 28, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of
        the United States to have the power to hear applications and
        grant orders for the production of tangible things under this
        section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

My reading of Sec. 1861 seems to include a judge, but hey, I'm not the attorney general, so I don't get to interpret the rules how I please, nor do I get to break them whenever it seems expedient.

Update: ThinkProgress adds not only a violation of FISA, but also the SCA.

NSA update

I haven't had much to add in the last few days, mostly because I keep running across other blogs covering NSA issues as well. As I'm still new to this whole blog scene, it's sometimes hard for me to see what I could possibly add. Nonetheless, I plunge on.

I've found a treasure trove of information on the NSA wiretap controversy over at DefenseTech.org. It's going to take me a little while to sort it all out, but as I delve more deeply into this, I find some common themes emerging:

1. This program is bad from the legal perspective. The program flies in the face of the separation of powers, violates a whole host of laws, and has exposed several large corporations to legal liability.
2. This program is bad from the PR perspective. Recent polls show that people are quite skeptical of the program, and are concerned potential invasions of privacy.
3. This program is bad from the security perspective. It is counterproductive, and is diverting resources from more effective means to track, thwart, and capture terrorists.
   

Iranian elephant interceptors planned for Poland

According to a recent article in the New York Times, the U.S. is offering a couple of very special European countries their very own interceptor missiles, designed to prevent Iranian elephant strikes. I myself have one of my own, sitting on my desk. I also have one that is designed to prevent North Korean tiger attacks. I got it back when I lived in Hawai`i, because I heard that soon the North Koreans would have the ability to launch ferocious, man-eating predators halfway across the Pacific Any Day Now. So far, I'm happy to report they've performed flawlessly.

In seriousness, I'm supposed to believe we are going to launch an untested but nonetheless operational theatre missile defense system in Eastern Europe, presumably to defend them against non-existent Iran ballistic missiles. And yet, for some mysterious reason, the Russians are not so thrilled about it.

Huh.

They have got to be kidding:

To improve the coverage against a potential Iranian threat, the Pentagon is upgrading a radar complex at Fylingdales, a British air base, and plans to begin similar work at the American Thule Air Base in Greenland. By building an antimissile base in Europe, the Pentagon is seeking to position the interceptors close to the projected flight path of Iranian missiles that would be aimed toward Europe or continue on a polar route to the United States.

I seem to remember that Saddam had nuclear-tipped drone aircraft poised to destroy us with poisoned tree frogs contaminated with anthrax or something, but I don't recall any attempt to beef up radar installations at the North Pole. Now suddenly the Iranians are building missiles that could hit us Any Day Now:

As far as we can tell, Iran is many years away from having the capability to deliver a military strike against the U.S.," said Gary Samore, vice president of the MacArthur Foundation and a former aide at the National Security Council. "If they made a political decision to seriously pursue a space launch vehicle it would take them a decade or more to develop the capability to launch against the U.S."

So what is this really about?

Iranian urban legends

Journalist Amir Taheri in Thursday's National Post claimed that a recent updates to Iranian dress codes will include the following "Nazi" identifiers for non-Muslims:

Religious minorities would have their own color schemes. They will also have to wear special insignia, known as zonnar, to indicate their non-Islamic faiths. Jews would be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth sewn in front of their clothes, while Christians will be assigned the color red. Zoroastrians end up with Persian blue as the color of their zonnar.

Juan Cole says this is completely bogus and cites a number of official Iranian sources denying the existence of any such legislation.

Maurice Motamed, the representative of the Iranian Jewish community in Iran's parliament, has strongly denied the rumors started by Canada's National Post that the Iranian legislature has passed a law requiring members of religious communities to wear identifying badges.

The report was also denied on Montreal radio by Meir Javedanfar, Middle East Analyst and the Director for the Middle East Economic and Political Analysis Company.

According to Cole:

There is nothing in this legislation that prescribes a dress code or badges for Iranian religious minorities, and Maurice Motamed was present during its drafting and says nothing like that was even discussed.

to which he adds, "the whole thing is a steaming crock."

Interestingly enough, even the National Post is backpedalling from the story somewhat. Nonetheless, they're still trying to say they have their information on good authority:

According to the reports, Jews were to wear yellow cloth strips, called zonnar, while Christians were to wear red and Zoroastrians blue. The Simon Wiesenthal Center and Iranian expatriates living in Canada had confirmed the order had been passed, although it still had to be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect.

The Wiesenthal center has sent a letter to Kofi Annan, demanding he investigate:

Given President Ahmadinejad’s record of labeling the Holocaust a myth and calling for the obliteration of the State of Israel, we must urgently take action. Now is the time for the United Nations and the international community to launch an immediate investigation, to seek clarification from the Iranians themselves on whether or not the new “National Uniform Law” would single out non-Moslems and require them to wear a color-coded identification patch. If that is not their intention, then let President Ahmadinejad tell the world it is not so.

Journalist Taheri is listed as a member of Benador Associates, a PR firm that outcalls virtually every neo-con in the wingnut phone book. This is starting to look like the the latest salvo in the PR campaign to demonize the Iranians in preparation for the eventual war for regime change, followed by the arrival (to sweets and flowers, no less) of the exiled Iranian community to take over.

McCain gets Colberted

Jean Rohe, singer and student speaker for Friday's New School graduation, used her moment to give follow-on John McCain a piece of her mind. She tells her side of the story at the Huffington Post.
Brave kid. If she is our future, we might just make it.

AT&T dealt court blow

AP is reporting that the judge has denied AT&T's motion to have its documents returned.

(AP) SAN FRANCISCO Secret documents that allegedly detail the surveillance of AT&T phone lines under the Bush administration's domestic spying program can be used in a lawsuit against the telephone giant, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, but the records will remain sealed.

The docs will remain under seal until the judge can decide whether they would expose trade secrets.

The judge had earlier blocked a motion from AT&T to seal the courtroom during this morning's hearings.

More on Verizon-NSA

Think Progress has been tracking this story. They suggest that under a recently-issued Presidental memorandum DNI John Negreponte, Verizon may now be authorized to deny everything, regardless of their actual relationship to the NSA:

Ordinarily, a company that conceals their transactions and activities from the public would violate securities law. But an presidential memorandum signed by the President on May 5 allows the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to authorize a company to conceal activities related to national security. (See 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A))

Mitchell estate yours for $7000/night

Or you happen to be a Congressman with an interest in defense contractors.

Sources close to the widening probe of official corruption in Washington tell ABC News that investigators are studying travel records of expensive trips to Hawaii and Europe taken by top CIA official Dusty Foggo and San Diego defense contractor Brent Wilkes.

Prosecutors want to know who paid for the lavish trips to European castles and top end Hawaiian resorts, including this $7,000 a night Honolulu beachfront mansion, owned at one time by hair stylist super-star Paul Mitchell.

For those of you from Hawai`i, they are referring to this Mitchell estate in Lanikai.
(From ABC The Blotter via Raw Story)

Verizon bamboozlement

TPM's Josh Marshall is having a little trouble trying to jibe the Verizon/Bell South denials with the USAToday's backing of their story:

I think I've got the answer: they're lying.
[...]
Now, I don't know that they're lying in a precise, semantic sense. In fact, I suspect they're not. There must be some way in which what they're saying is technically true. But if it were more than technically true, they would have said it and said it more emphatically last week, before a bunch of lawsuits got filed.
[...]
My hunch is that there's some third party involved here, a subcontractor, a private vendor, perhaps another government agency. And because of that their claims are technically true. Or, maybe, they allowed the NSA to take the data (a variety of technical means suggest themselves) rather than 'providing' it to them. Who knows.

I think he's on the right track. My suspicion is that the "delay" was the result of two factors: an assumption that the crisis would blow over after the issuance of a standard pro forma denials, and unforseen financial risks presented by litigation filings and the S&P "hold" advisory.

I would also assume that they had to get with somebody at the White House to hammer out some language that sounded more definitive, in the hopes that USAToday would be knocked back on their heels. USAToday's response was less than resolute, which makes me wonder whether they have any hard evidence.

If I were to try to go through the parsing exercise, I would break it down this way:

When Verizon says:

in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers’ domestic calls.

It could be interpreted to mean:

1. It wasn't in the "aftermath," of 9/11, but some time after, or perhaps even prior to 9/11.
2. Verizon wasn't approached, but approached the NSA on their own, or the non-arrangement was brokered in some way by a third party.
3. The non-arrangement that never happened wasn't for tracking domestic calls, but the intent was to capture international calls. "Data" could mean almost anything. Maybe they are allowing NSA to trap call route headers or some other call tags that don't directly tie back to a "customer," especially if the calls just happen to be from other carriers traveling on their trunk lines.

Verizon says:

From the time of the 9/11 attacks until just four months ago, Verizon had three major businesses – its wireline phone business, its wireless company and its directory publishing business. It also had its own Internet Service Provider and long-distance businesses.

I find this an interesting construction. Why break it down, instead of saying you have 5 major businesses? Are the ISP and the LD acquisitions that don't count in some way?

Verizon say:

Contrary to the media reports, Verizon was not asked by NSA to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer phone records from any of these businesses, or any call data from those records. None of these companies – wireless or wireline – provided customer records or call data.

Could mean:

1. "Asked" may be a term of art, for all I know. "Ordered" in some way, might be more accurate, and gives them the imprimateur of it all sounding involuntary.
2. "Provided" may also be another term with specific meaning. Again, if they were in some way ordered or otherwise compelled to turn over records, they can claim they didn't "provide" them.
3. Again with the delineation of "customer records" and "call data." If they are building a database out of call source and destination and time stamp, they may be able to claim that "customer phone records" refers to name/address and "call data" is the actual content. They're still up to their necks, but it sounds like they kept their pants zipped.

Verizon say:

Another error is the claim that data on local calls is being turned over to NSA and that simple "calls across town" are being "tracked." In fact, phone companies do not even make records of local calls in most cases because the vast majority of customers are not billed per call for local calls.

Could mean:

1. Again with the use of the term "turned over." Could it be they were compelled in some way, or perhaps the disclosures were inadvertant? They're looking for international calls, and they just happened to trap domestic calls.
2. As for the reference to "local calls," I think they are playing a game with semantics. With some telephone companies, you can choose to pay flat rate with unlimited calling, or buy your local calling by bulk. They have to track that somehow. Don't forget about toll calling? Technically, they may be correct in that purely local calls which could mean the same CO or the same area code aren't tracked, but I think USAToday is probably was just referring to the difference between regular calls and the ones you make by dialing a "1+".
   

I'm no expert on telecom stuff, but I would tend to agree with Marshall that they are deliberately misleading (if not outright lying) to try to bluff their way through this. It would behoove the EFF and likeminded civil rights guardians to not let them off the hook so easily.

3,501 targeted with FBI NSLs

ABC's Blotter has some stats on how many National Security Letters (NSLs) were issued. Presumably included in those numbers are their own reporters.

Assistant Attorney General William Moschella told Congress last month that 9,254 National Security Letters were issued in 2005 involving 3,501 people.

Verizon fights back

I'm listening to NPR All Things Considered, and they're talking about Verizon's latest denial of any complicity in the latest version of the NSA wiretapping scandal. On Thursday, USAToday accused them of being one of three companies (AT&T and Bell South the other two) cooperating with the NSA in compile a massive database of customer phone records.

Jim Zarroli was answering Nichelle Norris's question as to why they waited so long to issue the denial, and his speculation was that it might take a while for a big company such as Verizon. The thing is, they did issue a denial on Saturday:

The President has referred to an NSA program, which he authorized, directed against al-Qaeda. Because that program is highly classified, Verizon cannot comment on that program, nor can we confirm or deny whether we have had any relationship to it.

Having said that, there have been factual errors in press coverage about the way Verizon handles customer information in general. Verizon puts the interests of our customers first and has a longstanding commitment to vigorously safeguard our customers’ privacy -- a commitment we’ve highlighted in our privacy principles, which are available at www.verizon.com/privacy.

Verizon will provide customer information to a government agency only where authorized by law for appropriately-defined and focused purposes. When information is provided, Verizon seeks to ensure it is properly used for that purpose and is subject to appropriate safeguards against improper use. Verizon does not, and will not, provide any government agency unfettered access to our customer records or provide information to the government under circumstances that would allow a fishing expedition.

In January 2006, Verizon acquired MCI, and we are ensuring that Verizon’s policies are implemented at that entity and that all its activities fully comply with law.

Verizon hopes that the Administration and the Congress can come together and agree on a process in an appropriate setting, and with safeguards for protecting classified information, to examine any issues that have been raised about the program. Verizon is fully prepared to participate in such a process.

Needless to say, they aren't really denying anything. They claim to only give out that information when "authorized by law," and don't give them "unfettered access," which is just a lot of CYA that does little to reassure anybody with more than 2 brain cells to rub together that Verizon didn't turn over some customer records because the NSA asked them to.

So today, they issue (via email) another denial, this one more strongly worded.

As the President has made clear, the NSA program he acknowledged authorizing against al-Qaeda is highly-classified. Verizon cannot and will not comment on the program. Verizon cannot and will not confirm or deny whether it has any relationship to it.

That said, media reports made claims about Verizon that are simply false.

One of the most glaring and repeated falsehoods in the media reporting is the assertion that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers’ domestic calls.

This is false. From the time of the 9/11 attacks until just four months ago, Verizon had three major businesses – its wireline phone business, its wireless company and its directory publishing business. It also had its own Internet Service Provider and long-distance businesses. Contrary to the media reports, Verizon was not asked by NSA to provide, nor did Verizon provide, customer phone records from any of these businesses, or any call data from those records. None of these companies – wireless or wireline – provided customer records or call data.

Another error is the claim that data on local calls is being turned over to NSA and that simple "calls across town" are being "tracked." In fact, phone companies do not even make records of local calls in most cases because the vast majority of customers are not billed per call for local calls. In any event, the claim is just wrong. As stated above, Verizon’s wireless and wireline companies did not provide to NSA customer records or call data, local or otherwise.

Again, Verizon cannot and will not confirm or deny whether it has any relationship to the classified NSA program. Verizon always stands ready, however, to help protect the country from terrorist attack. We owe this duty to our fellow citizens. We also have a duty, that we have always fulfilled, to protect the privacy of our customers. The two are not in conflict. When asked for help, we will always make sure that any assistance is authorized by law and that our customers’ privacy is safeguarded.

This time, they tried to be more specific about what they didn't do. But why bother with another denial? Perhaps, this is why:

Standard & Poor's Equity Research maintained a "hold" opinion on shares of Verizon Communications after a federal lawsuit was filed against the telecom provider alleging sharing of records with the National Security Agency.

CGI studio acquisitions in the news

Liberty Media Acquiring IDT Ent.
Since its inception in 2003, IDT Ent. has been on a shopping spree, buying
everything from animation studio Mainframe to home video distributor Anchor
Bay, vfx studio DKP Effects and anime specialist Manga Ent. Now it
more...

Digital Domain Sold to Michael Bay & Co.
Academy award-winning visual effects studio Digital Domain has been
acquired by South Florida-based Wyndcrest Holdings LLC, a group led by
action movie director Michael Bay (Pearl Harbor) and investor John Textor.
more...

New MacBook is here

Apple released their new Macbook. It comes in black or white, features a 13" "glossy" widescreen, and runs on the 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo processor. Prices start at $1099.

National Security Letters

In case you were wondering what the law states regarding the "National Security Letter" that has been cited as the legal basis for gathering phone records. Here's the text from 18 U.S.C 2709:

Section 2709. Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records

      (a) Duty to Provide. - A wire or electronic communication service
   provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and
   toll billing records information, or electronic communication
   transactional records in its custody or possession made by the
   Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection
   (b) of this section.
     (b) Required Certification. - The Director of the Federal Bureau
   of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than
   Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent
   in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may
   -
       (1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and
     long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the
     Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or
     electronic communication service provider to which the request is
     made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing
     records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to
     protect against international terrorism or clandestine
     intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a
     United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of
     activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution
     of the United States; and
       (2) request the name, address, and length of service of a
     person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in
     writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider
     to which the request is made that the information sought is
     relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against
     international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities,
     provided that such an investigation of a United States person is
      not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by
      the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
     (c) Prohibition of Certain Disclosure. - No wire or electronic
   communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent
   thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of
   Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or
   records under this section.
     (d) Dissemination by Bureau. - The Federal Bureau of
   Investigation may disseminate information and records obtained
   under this section only as provided in guidelines approved by the
   Attorney General for foreign intelligence collection and foreign
   counterintelligence investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau
   of Investigation, and, with respect to dissemination to an agency
   of the United States, only if such information is clearly relevant
   to the authorized responsibilities of such agency.
     (e) Requirement That Certain Congressional Bodies Be Informed. -
    On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on
    Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select
    Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Committee on the
    Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the
    Judiciary of the Senate, concerning all requests made under
    subsection (b) of this section.

I've highlighted a couple of sections that may be of interest, namely the 1st Amendment exception, and the Congressional notification clause.
It seems to me that while the service provider may not divulge the results of an NSL, there's nothing that stops a member of Congress on the appropriate Committee from doing so. I also wonder if the personal disclosure prohibition precludes some a certain set a 2709(a) letter from mysteriously turning up on a cafe table at Starbucks, say.

I'm just sayin'...

The hoser threat

David Neiwert has a very good point:

Why, if post-9/11 border security is such a suddenly serious concern, aren't we sending the Guard to the Canadian border? -- It is, after all our longest and most porous border, and its many open spots do not entail dangerous and potentially lethal desert crossings. Perhaps more to the point, the one terrorist who did try to sneak into the USA with explosives as part of a plot to attack a major metropolitan area was caught on the Canadian border.

Perfectly legal

In case you were wondering how the government could legally try to gain access to the phone records of members of the media, the mystery has been solved. It turns out they are using a provision of the PATRIOT act that allows them to gather phone records in of possible terrists.

Oops, my mistake, the law allows them to gather these records to search for the recipients of leaks.

Officials say that means that phone records of reporters will be sought if government records are not sufficient.

Officials say the FBI makes extensive use of a new provision of the Patriot Act which allows agents to seek information with what are called National Security Letters (NSL).

The NSLs are a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government.

I believe the old school called that a "witch hunt."

Pseudo-trends

One of the things that I find hard to quantify, but just kind of sense are these "trends," that usually are the work of some PR campaign. They get sprinkled around in all these various newspapers, but are more like "seeded." It's hard to see the pattern without doing some serious Nexis'ing, so that's why I say it's hard to quantify.

So I'll probably just declare a pseudo-trend, and leave it up to the reader to do the homework.

The latest psuedo-trend is "the Internet is about to blow up!" Since the Internets are about to explode, we should let the telecoms do whatever it takes to protect their ability to deliver our pornography in HD. Needless to say, it usually entails dropping a lot of regulatory hurdles that are currently being protected under the general rubric of "net neutrality."

Here's an example:

Too many video files could choke Internet

Step 1: Gin up a crisis:

You may be up for it, but is the Internet? The answer from the major Internet service providers, the telephone and cable companies, is "no." Small clips are fine, but TV-quality and especially high-definition programming could make the Internet choke.

...if the customer starts watching Internet TV like the average household watches regular TV, 8 hours a day, BellSouth's cost would go up to $112 a month, according to Kafka.

Step 2: Propose a solution:

To deal with that, Kafka said says BellSouth might put caps on the amount of data that a residential user gets for free, and charge extra if the user goes over, much like cell phone users pay overages. Other options include charging content providers extra for guaranteed delivery, the kind of model that has raised the hackles of Internet content providers and activists.

To Mr. Svensson's credit, he does give the last word to those "content providers and activists":

[Editor of the DSL Prime newsletter Dave] Burstein believes the danger of letting the carriers charge extra for guaranteed delivery is that they'll put the spending for upgrades into creating that extra "toll lane," and won't reduce oversubscription in the rest of the network even though it would be cheap to do so.

Close enough, I guess...

Government is spying on the press

We already suspected as much, but ABC News is now reporting that two of their reporters were warned by a government official to "get some new cell phones, quick."

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.

Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. The CIA asked for an FBI investigation of leaks of classified information following those reports.

People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.

Or they could be trying to scare off potential leakers and their press contacts. In either case, it is yet another chilling reminder that our government really is out of control.

What are you up to Mr. Bush?

It appears the Bush machinery has been whirring non-stop all weekend to hammer, nay "cobble" together the solution to our all-consuming border problem. Isn't it great to know that these things can be worked out in a weekend, what with all the consulting Congress and frinkle-hey.

But the question no one is asking, is what's the goddamned hurry? Yes, I realize that we have to have this all set up for Bush's big fireside chat on Monday night, but why does it have to be Monday night? When did rounding up illegals suddenly become crisis #1?

What is it that is going to happen on Monday, that everyone will stop talking about at 8:01PM Eastern Monday night?

Update: Amidst all the cobbling and burning of midnight oil, somebody forgot to warn our southern neighbor to not be alarmed at sound of National Guard boots stomping around down there. Vicente Fox had to call the President to find out what's going on.

On character

Orcinus and tristero both have very interesting discussions about the Preznit's character (or lack thereof). They both reference a Gail Sheehy article from right before the 2000 elections.

I didn't need Gail Sheehy to tell me the guy was a turd, but I guess back then some people had to hear it from Vanity Fair before they'd believe their own eyes. Too bad not enough of them read it, or took her seriously enough to vote for someone else.

Anonymous officials

I really don't get how this stuff works.

So, I'm reading this article from Knight-Ridder reporters Ron Hutcheson and Drew Brown where they cite an "anonymous official" who is helping to give everybody an idea of how many National Guardsmen the President plans to deploy to "protect" the border:

A senior administration official, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the still-evolving White House plan, said that Bush would propose ways to plug security gaps until thousands of new border patrol agents can be hired and trained. The Senate bill calls for hiring 4,000 additional border patrol agents and 10,000 more immigration enforcement officers over the next five years.

The White House plan is to use National Guard troops, contract workers or local law enforcement officials in support jobs so that border patrol agents can focus on apprehending illegal immigrants.

The official disputed speculation that Bush would call for the deployment of 10,000 soldiers.

"The numbers are fluid right now. It will be in the thousands, but not that high," the official said. "There's a lot of different ways they can help without having to do the actual apprehension."

Then I find this in an article from Nedra Pickler discussing the big plans:

A White House official said Bush would propose using troops as a stopgap measure while the Border Patrol builds up its resources. The troops would play a supportive role to Border Patrol agents, who would maintain primary responsibility for physically guarding the border.

The official spoke on a condition of anonymity before the address Monday at 8 p.m. EST. The official would not say how many troops Bush wanted to use, except that it would be in the thousands but less than an estimate of as many as 10,000 being discussed at the Pentagon.

So, do these guys all and stand in a room with some "official," who tells them what to write, but won't let them identify him or her? Why? Obviously, this isn't some secret meeting at Starbucks—we're talking up to 3 reporters all getting the exact same story.
Or worse, is Pickler cribbing from the earlier KR story?

Running the playbook

So the President is going down to Arizona on Thursday to trumpet his stil double-super-secret plan to "beef up" border security.

I wonder what he'll be doing down there...

New York Sun (4/24/06)

One important element of the scheme, according to the magazine, is to emphasize the president's views on immigration. While Mr. Bolten does not think his support for a guest worker program is popular, he intends to highlight instead the president's policy to get tough with illegal immigrants by pressing for more funds for Mexican border patrols and he intends to use the new recruits and new hardware as a backdrop for press photo opportunities.

"Think of the visuals," an anonymous Time source, who is reportedly a proponent of the plan, says. "He can go down to the border and meet with a bunch of guys and go ride around on an ATV." The magazine reports that Mr. Bolten is aware that the disadvantage to this element of the revamp of the president's image is that it will discourage Hispanic voters from supporting the Republicans.

Video from the alternate universe

the one where Gore is President.

Crooks and Liars has the Gore's SNL monologue.

I'm no lawyer, but...

Inspired by a recent article in the L.A. Times, here's the relevant text of the ECPA-amended US Code Title 18:

Section 2702. Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records

 (a) Prohibitions. - Except as provided in subsection (b) -
       (1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication
     service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person
     or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic
     storage by that service; and
   (2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to
 the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity
 the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained
 on that service -
     (A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic
   transmission from (or created by means of computer processing
   of communications received by means of electronic transmission
   from), a subscriber or customer of such service;
     (B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer
   processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the
   provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such
   communications for purposes of providing any services other
   than storage or computer processing; and
   (3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic
 communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a
 record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or
 customer of such service (not including the contents of
 communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any
 governmental entity.
 (b) Exceptions for disclosure of communications. - A provider
    described in subsection (a) may divulge the contents of a
    communication -
   (1) to an addressee or intended recipient of such communication
 or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient;
   (2) as otherwise authorized in section 2517, 2511(2)(a), or
 2703 of this title;
   (3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee
 or intended recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in
 the case of remote computing service;
   (4) to a person employed or authorized or whose facilities are
 used to forward such communication to its destination;
   (5) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the
 service or to the protection of the rights or property of the
 provider of that service;
    (6) to a law enforcement agency -
     (A) if the contents -
       (i) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider;
     and
        (ii) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or
     (B) if required by section 227 of the Crime Control Act of
   1990; or
   (7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if the
      provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving
      danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires
      disclosure without delay of communications relating to the
      emergency.
 (c) Exceptions for Disclosure of Customer Records. - A provider
    described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other
    information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such
    service (not including the contents of communications covered by
    subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2)) -
   (1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;
   (2) with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;
   (3) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the
 service or to the protection of the rights or property of the
 provider of that service;
   (4) to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably
      believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or
      serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the
      information; or
   (5) to any person other than a governmental entity.

I don't see anything in here that says "when the President decides to go on a terrorist hunt."

Survey says...

Hmmm, it looks like Newsweek took a poll of their own:

According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

That's what I'm talking about!

Who are the good guys?

According to the WaPo:

Two wireless companies -- Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile USA Inc. -- flatly said they had not taken part in the NSA program. Internet companies Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and AOL also said they had not provided mass information to the government.

But it's the earlier part of the article that creeps me out:

"I wish I could say I was bothered by it but I'm not," said Jacques Domenge, a 28-year-old Potomac man who visited a Cingular Wireless store in Rockville yesterday to replace a stolen phone.

"If it's only done to protect people and find patterns that help the government find terrorists -- I don't think it will work, by the way, but let's say it will -- then I am all for it," he said, adding that he had no problems with Cingular -- or any other phone company -- turning over records.

So if it's only done to protect people and help the government find terrorists, which he acknowledges wouldn't work, he's all for it. Sounds almost a little too hypothetical to be believed. Maybe it's because I can almost picture him fumbling around is his pocket for his green card, nervously caressing the edges of the shiny plastic, hoping that the guy asking these questions aren't going to suddenly through him into an unmarked van and ship him back to Quebec or France.

And of course, to reinforce that the Frenchman on the street is perfectly in line to say such things:

According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released yesterday, 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, including 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

Nevermind the question doesn't ask whether it would be acceptable if it were also illegal. Don't believe me? Here's the question:

45. It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

        ------- Acceptable ------   ----- Unacceptable ------    No
        NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opin.
5/11/06      63       41         22      35       11         24        2

Never mind that it's the government's claim that it doesn't listen to or record the conversations. Didn't include that in the question, did they? If you mentioned this might also be illegal, do you suppose the respondents would still be in favor of it?

I remember a few short months ago the government was insisting (not swearing, thank you Sen. Specter) it didn't do what the other day it conceded it's doing. So why should I believe them when they claim they aren't using this information for something other than tracking down terrists?

Here's another question for you: How long do you think they're going to hold onto this stuff? A week? A month? Until we win the endless War on Terra™? They will keep this stuff forever, and I guarantee you that with this bunch, even a court order demanding they destroy it will be ignored. Some CompUSA will suddenly find itself out of disk drives while they backup the whole mess. Two weeks after that, you'll probably be able to buy it on the streets of Baghdad and Islamabad.

I'm going to keep saying this until I'm blue in the face. The issue here is not whether we want to fight the terrists. I think it's relatively safe to say that we're all in favor of trying to stop terrists blah, blah, blah, but if we end up turning this country into a police state, what's the frickin' point? Because then you're saying America isn't about the Freedom™, it's really about the goodies we can have.

It's very simple:
Obey the law, Mr. President.
If you don't like the law, get your rubber-stamp Congress to write you a nice shiny one.

Before you nominate him for sainthood...

CEO of Qwest is under indictment:

Yesterday, Mr. Nacchio's image took another turn. His lawyer, Herbert J. Stern, said that Mr. Nacchio refused to provide the National Security Agency with access to private telephone records of Qwest customers, apparently the lone holdout among the major phone companies.

With that statement, Mr. Nacchio, who is under indictment for insider trading, has been instantly recast as a champion of the Fourth Amendment and a friend of the man on the street.

[snip...]

Prosecutors have asserted that he failed to tell investors about warnings from his managers that the company's financial forecasts were too upbeat, yet he sold 2.5 million shares of Qwest stock in early 2001 that netted $100 million.

Mr. Nacchio, however, is expected to argue that he was optimistic about Qwest's prospects because the company was bidding for secret government contracts and stood a good chance of winning them.

So why would the next in a long line of Kenny Boys suddenly stick his head up?

"You have to wonder why he wants to be in the limelight," said John Hemann, a partner at Morgan Lewis & Bockius and a member of the Justice Department's Enron Task Force. "You take an issue where the wind is blowing the right way and you put yourself on the right side of it by saying 'I was looking out for the little guy.' This is going to play huge in Denver."

Fair enough. Then I guess we have you DOJ guys to thank for our finding out which telecoms told the government to take a flying leap:

A spokesman for Qwest, Robert Toevs, declined to discuss anything to do with security issues or the statement by Mr. Nacchio's lawyer.

Get used to the following phrase: "declined to discuss anything to do with security issues," because we are gonna hear it a lot in the next few years.

I write letters

Dear Cingular:

Q2:Please enter your phone question below:
A2: A recent USAToday article indicated that ATT, Verizon, and BellSouth
turned over to the NSA their databases of calling information regarding
their customers.
I am deeply concerned about the possibility that Cingular was involved
in this unethical and possibly illegal transaction.
If Cingular did not turn over information to government agencies, I
would like some reassurance that you will not at some future time accede
to government demands for personal information without a warrant or my
consent.

Two clicks of the form email button:

Dear ...

Thank you for taking the time to e-mail Cingular Wireless regarding
protecting your personal information. I am happy to help you with your
inquiry.

Protecting customer information is of the utmost priority to Cingular.
We have a variety of measures in place to protect unauthorized access to
customer information, and we also train our customer care
representatives to be alert for anyone who tries to improperly coax
information out of them.

While the above refers to individuals that attempt to access the
information on your account without authorization, Cingular Wireless
does not comment on national security matters. We are committed to
protecting customer privacy, and we assist law enforcement in strict
accordance with the law.

I hope that the information provided has been helpful and has resolved
all of your questions. If you need further assistance, feel free to
reply to this e-mail or contact customer service at 1-800-331-0500 or
611 from your Cingular Wireless phone.

I encourage you to visit our web site (www.cingular.com) often to view
current and previous monthly statements, make payments and to shop for
new product and service offerings. Thank you for allowing Cingular
Wireless to serve as your wireless company. We will do our best to
ensure that your wireless experience is a success.

Sincerely,

Cindy Knight
Cingular Wireless
Online Customer Care Professional

That would be "yes." and "f--- you."

One nuclear option off the table

Well, that's just peachy:

Democrats Won't Try To Impeach President
By Charles Babington
Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.

Yes, because it is important to choke off the Republicans rallying cries, as opposed to creating any for Democrats, or holding the Preznit accountable...

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.

Let me get this straight. Last I checked, nuking Iran isn't "off the table," for the Prezit, so is it gonna kill her to at least leave impeachment "on the table?"

Some Democratic activists criticized Pelosi, saying she made the party appear extreme while drawing attention away from more useful issues such as gasoline prices and Republican lobbying scandals.

Which activists?
Oh yes, the mythical "Democratic activists." Must be the same ones that told Russ Feingold to jump in the lake with his censure resolution.
But for some reason, nobody wants to provide names. Funny.

Daly said Pelosi never considered impeachment a priority. Republicans "are in such desperate shape," he said, "we don't want to give them anything to grab on to." He said Conyers agrees with Pelosi's thinking.

Oh he does, does he? Did Chuck bother to get a quote from Conyers?

When are we gonna get there?

From Bob Park's What's New (05/12/06):

3. SPACE: THE ONLY THING IN NASA THAT STILL GOES UP IS THE COST.
Michael Griffin told his science advisory committee this week
that he could not keep the commitment he made a year ago not to
shift money from science to human space flight. I wasn't on the
committee, but I tried to imagine how it might have gone if I had
been.

MG: The problem is the ISS.
RP: What problem?
MG: We have to finish it by 2010.
RP: Why is that a problem?
MG: Because the shuttle doesn't work.
RP: If we fix the shuttle and finish the ISS, what do we do next?
MG: We drop the ISS in the ocean.
RP: Why don't we do that now?
MG: Because we must honor our commitment to our ISS partners first.
RP: But what about
your commitment to space science?
MG: That will have to wait until we get back from Mars.
RP: We're going to Mars?
MG: When we get back from the moon.
RP: We're going to the moon?
MG: Just as soon as we build a new spacecraft.
RP: What's holding that up?
MG: The problem is the ISS.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Uh, is thing on?

Testing...
1...
2...
3...