SOPA and PIPA Aren't The Answer

I've been blogging for more than a decade, including more than a few years here at A Blog For All. Thousands of posts and musings. Photographs galore. That's all intellectual property that I've produced over the years. Creators of media should have some protections and enforcement to make sure that their works of art are protected. It's the hard work of these media creators that should be rewarded monetarily but there's a balancing act to be had.

To that end, the RIAA, Disney, and others that have fought to extend copyright protections. However, those efforts have made a mockery of the copyright protection system by further extending the limitations periods beyond the already previously extended limitations periods. Disney forced an extension of protections so that they could protect Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck for a little while longer, but that issue will come up once again as they near the new expiration date in a few years time.

Copyright doesn't mean gaining profits in perpetuity. The public benefits from having works of art revert to the public domain after time. Having works revert to the public domain forces creators to, well, create new products. After all, Disney got to profit from public domain use of various fairy tales, and so too can other entities as the Disney copyrights expire.

As far as protecting music works, some artists have gone direct to public sales or offering free downloads of some works to entice others to buy other products. In some ways, itunes and downloads allow people to buy the stuff they like, rather than being forced to buy an entire CD from which only one song is worth listening to. There's money to be made in the downloads too, and how the artists can monetize their works is an interesting development since its the recording industry that finds itself exposed as a middleman that can be completely avoided. This is really at the heart of matters. It's all about money and who can exploit the copyrightable and protected materials.

After all, someone could make a high quality recording in their basement and push it to the Net without any overhead (as in the cd/vinyl pressings), advertising, etc. That's more worrisome to the recording industry than anything else, since if established artists move away from the recording industry as it is now, the cash cow dies with it. Instead of adjusting to the changed circumstances of the recording industry, they're focusing on copyright violation as a savior to the industry, even though that's not nearly the problem that it's made out to be.

Entire industries are heavily reliant on intellectual property online, including the entertainment industry and software industry. Today, many sites across the globe, including Wikipedia and Reddit.com, have gone dark to protest the SOPA and PIPA bills working their way through Congress. Those pieces of legislation would put serious restrictions on ISPs and content providers, all in the attempt to thwart piracy occurring on websites run outside the US. The problem is that the legislation has the potential to open up liability for content providers and ISPs in the US if they link to these sites.

Both are meant to attack the problem of foreign Web sites that sell pirated or counterfeit goods. They would impose restrictions forcing U.S. companies to stop selling online ads to suspected pirates, processing payments for illegal online sales and refusing to list Web sites suspected of piracy in search-engine results.

The idea is to cut off the channels that deliver American customers, and their money, to potential pirates. But tech companies see the laws as a dangerous overreach, objecting because, they say, the laws would add burdensome costs and new rules that would destroy the freewheeling soul of the Internet.

“The voice of the Internet community has been heard,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who sided with the tech companies, said in a statement. Issa said he had already been told of a victory: GOP leaders told him that the House would not vote on a version of the bill that those companies oppose. “Much more education for Members of Congress about the workings of the Internet is essential.”

The NY Times provides the following example:

Under the proposed legislation, if a copyright holder like Warner Brothers discovers that a foreign site is focused on offering illegal copies of songs or movies, it could seek a court order that would require search engines like Google to remove links to the site and require advertising companies to cut off payments to it.

Internet companies fear that because the definitions of terms like “search engine” are so broad in the legislation, Web sites big and small could be responsible for monitoring all material on their pages for potential violations — an expensive and complex challenge.

They say they support current law, which requires Web sites with copyright-infringing content to take it down if copyright holders ask them to, leaving the rest of the site intact. Google, which owns YouTube and other sites, received five million requests to remove content or links last year, and it says it acts in less than six hours if it determines that the request is legitimate.

The major players supporting the legislation, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the Motion Picture Association of America, say those measures are not enough to protect intellectual property. They emphasize that their primary targets are foreign Web sites that sell counterfeit goods and let people stream and download music and video at no charge — sites that are now largely out of reach of United States law enforcement. And they are fighting against what they characterize as gimmicks and distortions by Internet companies opposed to the bills.

Considering that the emphasis is supposedly on piracy occurring overseas, this legislation will have little lasting effect on reducing piracy; even the proponents note the limited ability to go after foreign sites (that would take additional treaties and enhanced copyright protection in these foreign jurisdictions - reciprocal agreements). It would, however, have a significant and detrimental effect on innovation and content management of Internet services in the United States.

As someone who creates and publishes content for the Web, there is certainly room to improve enforcement of existing protections and to better thwart piracy. However, SOPA or PIPA are not the solutions to the problem.

UPDATE:
Two key senators drop support for the SOPA/PIPA legislation and instead are urging more research on the matter.

Freshman Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, a rising Republican star, was first out of the starting gate Wednesday morning with his announcement that he would no longer back anti-Internet piracy legislation he had co-sponsored. Senator John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who heads the campaign operation for his party, quickly followed suit and urged Congress take more time to study the measure that had been set for a test vote next week.

Mr. Cornyn, just before 9 a.m, posted on his Facebook page that it was “better to get this done right rather than fast and wrong. Stealing content is theft, plain and simple, but concerns about unintended damage to the internet and innovation in the tech sector require a more thoughtful balance, which will take more time.”

Their decisions came after swathes of the Internet were shut down Wednesday to protest two separate bills, the Stop On-line Piracy Act in the House, written by Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, and the Protect Intellectual Property Act, drafted by Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Members of Congress, many of whom are grappling with the issues posed by the explosion in new media and social web sites, appeared caught off guard by the backlash to what had been a relatively obscure piece of legislation to many of them. The Internet sensibility of the Senate was represented a few years ago in remarks by the late Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, who called the Internet “not a big truck” but “series of tubes” - an observation enshrined in the Net Hall of Shame.

The legislation, which is being pushed by the likes of the RIAA and Chamber of Commerce, wouldn't be able to really address the crux of the problem - that piracy is a matter that is outside the US jurisdiction. It happens overseas, and it is a ham-fisted measure that would adversely affect US companies and content providers here without actually reducing piracy overseas. Even the proponents of the legislation admit that the bills aren't sufficient to go after the piracy overseas and look to reduce their linkages domestically.

Then again, there are those who argue that scapegoating countries like China ignores that piracy is sometimes overblown and often used as a campaign issue. For instance, someone who illegally downloaded a song didn't cost the recording industry a $15 sale but possibly a $.99 cent iTunes download. Then again, if that person liked the song that they illegally downloaded, they might potentially buy the entire album or compilation of songs - such that the illegally downloaded song became advertising for the artist's larger collection of works. That's a somewhat compelling argument, and it underlines the difficulty in quantifying the costs to the industry.

Amazon.com Cuts Deal With California On Sales Taxes

Amazon.com has cut a deal with California over collecting sales tax on Internet sales. The company will have until July 31, 2012 to collect the tax, and the company has agreed to drop efforts to contest the tax.

States have been looking to Internet sales for years as consumers buy more and more products online rather than in brick and mortar stores. At issue is a concept known as nexus - and states are pretty much prohibited from imposing sales tax on out-of-state companies because those companies lack nexus under Quill v. North Dakota.

Instead of being hit with the additional regulatory and reporting burdens, the company ended its affiliate programs in those states like California. Amazon.com made the business decision that it doesn't want to incur additional regulatory burdens and tax obligations. That's completely within its rights as a business. Ending the relationship with the Colorado affiliates prevents it from being hit with that tax burden. End the tax burden, and Amazon.com would likely resume doing business in states like California and the California affiliates can go back to making money that ends up being taxed in the state (under the gross income tax or the corporate income tax). Claiming that the company is playing foul by fighting the tax obligations ignores that the current law likely violates existing federal law. The law isn't on California's side but the company.

The problem for Amazon is that they're taking a publicity hit because they didn't notify their affiliates in a timely fashion and they look like a bad guy here.

Of course, the state isn't blameless here either. The state imposed this regulatory burden immediately rather than phasing it in, unlike most other state requirements. California hoped that the measure would raise $200 million for the current fiscal year. Most states give a grace period to impose the regulatory requirements - but the California act was effective immediately. That led Amazon to immediately end its affiliate program.

The only real solution is for Congress to clear things up - this affects interstate commerce after all. Congress needs to stand up and set forth what states can do in terms of taxing internet sales, and one possibility is that Congress could allow states to impose sales tax collection burdens but only for the state-level sales tax or state-collected taxes, rather than requiring companies to collect all local level taxes.

This could be further modified by exempting companies with less than $1 million in sales annually or some other similar limit - companies that may not have the capabilities to provide tax filings for all states where such businesses have sales.

It would require amending the Internet Tax Freedom Act, but it's time to deal with the reality of e-commerce and would stop states from trying to do an end run around Quill and would impose a measure of certainty for retailers and states.

A Bipartisan Rickroll Courtesy of the Oregon Legislature

You have been warned:

Senate Democrats To Introduce Bill Imposing Sales Tax On Internet Sales

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois is planning on introducing legislation that would would impose state sales tax on purchases made online that should be DOA but wont be.

The proposal--expected to be made public soon after Tax Day--would rewrite the ground rules for Internet and mail order sales by eliminating the ability of Americans to shop at Web sites like Amazon.com and Overstock.com without paying state sales taxes.

Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second most senior Senate Democrat, will introduce the bill after the Easter recess, a Democratic aide told CNET.

"Why should out-of-state companies that sell their products online have an unfair advantage over Main Street bricks-and-mortar businesses?" Durbin said in a speech in Collinsville, Ill., in February. "Out-of-state companies that aren't paying their fair share of taxes are sticking Illinois residents and businesses with the tab."

At the moment, Americans who shop over the Internet from out-of-state vendors aren't always required to pay sales taxes at the time of purchase. Californians buying books from Amazon.com or cameras from Manhattan's B&H Photo, for example, won't pay the sales taxes at checkout time that they would if shopping at a local mall--which is what Durbin means by giving online retailers an "unfair advantage."

That advantage is eliminated if state taxing authorities enforced existing use tax reporting and payment requirements. However, most states don't because they consider it too difficult or bothersome to try since the use tax is often collected in conjunction with individual income tax or corporate income tax returns.

The problem with attempting to impose a state sales tax on out-of-state retailers comes down to a Supreme Court case, Quill v. North Dakota, that pretty much prohibits it unless the out-of-state retailer has nexus. Since out-of-state retailers don't have nexus, the taxing jurisdiction doesn't have the ability to impose tax collecting requirements on those retailers.

This law runs afoul of Quill from the outset but that isn't going to stop the likes of Durbin and others who see the Internet as a great untapped revenue source. The Court found that a corporation may have the minimum contacts required by the Due Process Clause and still fall short of the substantial nexus required by the Dormant Commerce Cause. Substantial nexus requires more than occasional sales. One needs to have people, property, or inventory in the state to overcome the nexus question - and that's a fact driven inquiry and one that can very from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

So, because the question of nexus is a complicated one, Durbin and other Internet tax proponents have decided to substitute their judgment for that of the Court precisely because the dire need for revenue trumps solid legal reasoning and widely accepted tax concepts like nexus.

Pointing to the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement isn't exactly a good guide for how to deal with taxing across jurisdictions either. The agreement is rife with adjustments, modifications, and exemptions that allow member states to technically adhere to the Agreement without having enacted the identical language (such as definitions that are critical to whether certain items are taxable or not).

The Agreement isn't a panacea on sales tax collection, and it further reveals the folly of trying to collect tax from thousands of individual jurisdictions (not just state sales tax, but county, special district, city, and town taxes that can result in oddball rates and drive sellers nuts in-state, but can be positively maddening for any out of state retailer and for the certified service providers who are support the tax collecting scheme by maintaining updated lists of tax rates and changes.

It's for that reason that enforcing use tax requirements is preferable to upending the nation's sales tax policy and settled sales tax law by throwing out the concept of nexus when it comes to transactional requirements.

On My Nightstand: Wild West 2.0

The latest book to grace my nightstand is Wild West 2.0: How to Protect and Restore Your Reputation on the Untamed Social Frontier by Michael Fertik and David Thompson and it's quite a read for anyone who uses the Internet, and even those who don't.

As someone who has used the Internet since its real early days - going back to USENET and the relays/IRC and BBS systems, a lot of the book reads like a history lesson, but it manages to provide some good ideas for how to protect your online reputation no matter if you're an experienced user (who probably has a much larger online footprint than you realize) or a newbie.

Gawker Security Breach Shows Password Security Remains Huge Concern

A computer system is only as secure as its least secure access point. Password systems are the main defense, and frequently users pick passwords that are so ridiculously easy to break that hackers don't even have to break a sweat.

Of course, that assumes that the systems being defended are up to snuff. Gawker's system was not. Hackers not only broke into the Gawker systems and stole all manner of password data and other confidential materials that Gawker stored on its servers, but an analysis of what the hackers posted online shows just how badly people deal with password protection.

Analysis of almost 200,000 of the stolen passwords shows that the most common were “123456” and “password”. These passwords are easy for hackers to guess and they also pose a wider security risk because many people use the same password for every website they visit. Soon after the data was hacked, thousands of Gawker users - visitors to sites like gadget blog Gizmodo and video game website Kotaku - had their Twitter accounts hijacked because they had used the same password there.

Around one third of people use the same password for every website they visit, according to research by security analysts Sophos. Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos, said: “You should use a different password on every website.”

Using different passwords on different sites makes a lot of sense, but people have a hard time remembering passwords, which is why they resort to easily cracked passwords like 123456 or password.

Gawker's "security" was so poor so as to be nonexistent. It used an outdated encryption system that was easily broken using widely available tools. Moreover, it knew about the intrusion but didn't alert users for weeks. Gawker is now in damage control mode and its commenting system is requiring all users to provide new passwords. You can check to see if your email is among those hacked via Slate.

Heads should roll at Gawker. It looks like everything Gawker has worked on is potentially in the hands of the hackers who broke into the site. Gawker's security experts are likely in for a real rude awakening (if they even have security experts on staff) - and I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch get fired for their incompetence/failure to contain the problems.

Nick Denton and everyone else involved should also be held responsible. Email transcripts among personnel trying to wrap their heads around the security breach show a complete lack of understanding of the situation and a disregard for the commenters - the very people that give Gawker its value to advertisers. I wont be surprised when the lawsuits start rolling in demanding compensation for any economic damage done to users who had their information stolen in the hack.

It also raises additional questions about their security and confidentiality of information shared with third party sites. If they care so little about their customers personal data knowing that a hack is underway, what makes anyone think that their data protection on day to day ops is any better?

Gawker may have financial liabilities if the work being done on other contracted sites gets out in violation of confidentiality agreements. Gawker (the entire company, not just the singular website) is in for a world of hurt. And justly deserved.

In sum, it's a huge mess for the Gawker organization and those emails show a disregard for the customer security.

At the same time, it should raise further questions about the security at other sites, including Facebook. Facebook just asked users to provide still more information, including phone numbers. I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no reason that Facebook needs that kind of information and if hackers manage to access Facebook to cull personal information, the fallout could be severe, no matter if Time calls Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg its person of the year.

Since users frequently use one password across multiple sites, tracing users across to other widely used sites will give hackers the ability to break into other accounts - and potentially exploit holes in security around the Internet. It's a ripple effect.

UPDATE:
Amazon has reset its users' passwords because people frequently reuse passwords across multiple sites and that this protects the company and user from unauthorized access.

Meanwhile, Gawker's internal emails, which were hacked along with all that password information, may turn into a mini-wikileaks as Gawker's confidential sources and other information may soon be outed.

Arrest of Malaysian Hacker Again Highlights Nation's Cybersecurity Problems

The arrest of a Malaysian hacker has shed light on serious weaknesses in the nation's security of vital computer systems, and raises new concerns over concerted efforts to crack the nation's security systems.

Those are among the puzzling questions raised by allegations against Lin Mun Poo, a 32-year-old Malaysia native whose case illustrates the mounting national secrets threats posed by overseas cyberattacks, U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials tell NBC News.

The U.S. government’s case against Poo, who is slated to be arraigned in federal court in Brooklyn on Monday, has so far gotten little attention. But many of the allegations against him seem alarming on their face, according to cybercrime experts. "This is scary stuff," said one U.S. law enforcement official.

Poo was arrested by Secret Service agents last month shortly after flying into New York's John F. Kennedy airport with a "heavily encrypted" laptop computer containing a "massive quantity of stolen financial account data," including more than 400,000 credit card, debit card and bank account numbers, according to a letter filed by federal prosecutors last week laying out a "factual proffer" of their evidence against Poo. [ Click here to read the prosecutors' letter in PDF format.]

He later confessed to federal agents that he had gotten the credit and bank card data by tapping into the computer networks of "several major international banks" and companies, and that he expected to use the data for personal profit, either by selling it or trading it, according to the prosecutors' letter.

Poo's court-appointed lawyer did not respond to a request from NBC News for comment.

'Impressive level of criminal activity'
But far more disturbing, according to U.S. intelligence officials and computer crime experts, was his penetration of both a Federal Reserve network of 10 computers in Cleveland as well as the secure networks of a "major" Defense Department contractor. According to the prosecutors' letter, the Pentagon contractor, which has not been identified, provides system management for military transport and other "highly-sensitive military operations."

This comes on the heels of revelations that state-owned China Telecom instructed U.S. and other foreign Internet traffic to go through Chinese servers during an 18-minute stretch on April 8, which included Pentagon sites and other vital information.

How Titillating: ICANN Approves .xxx Domains for Porn Sites

ICANN, the nonprofit organization that is trusted with assigning domain names and managing the Internet naming protocols, agreed to .xxx domain for porn sites after several years of studying the issue.

On Friday, ICANN, the not-for-profit corporation that coordinates the internet's naming system, voted to allow the application of the controversial ".xxx" top-level domain name for sites that display adult content.

The domain, which would need further approval before going live on the internet, would be applied to adult entertainment sites just as ".com" is now.

The .xxx internet suffix, which was first proposed six years ago by ICM Registry, a group that sells domain names, "will provide a place online for adult entertainment providers and their service providers who want to be part of our voluntary self regulatory community," according to that company's news release.

This doesn't mean the end of porn sites using .com or .net suffixes right away, but those sites may end up migrating to the new domains as their registrations expire.

Better Late Than Never

Redstate, which is one of the largest right-leaning websites online and has a large blogging community, is finally getting serious about cracking down on the crackpots that infest the site.

We’ve always banned truthers at RedState. Increasingly, we have also banned a number of individuals who think Barack Obama is disqualified from being President because despite the Republican Governor of Hawaii confirming the legitimacy of the Democratic President’s birth origin as a citizen of the United States these birthers (”birfers” because it sounds as crazy as they are) refuse to move on.

Today I want to reaffirm and make it more definitive. If you think 9/11 was an inside job or you really want to debate whether or not Barack Obama is an American citizen eligible to be President, RedState is not a place for you.

Birfers and Truthers are not welcome here. Period. End of Story.

They should never have been accepted there in the first place. End of story. Crackpots do not need a wider forum in which to spread their malicious lies and conspiracies. Moreover, the Tea Party movement is also thoroughly infested with conspiracy theorists and whatever positive actions may come from a grassroots outpouring of anger over excessive government spending is tarnished by the fact that those running the movement are pushing various conspiracy theories, and are busy cavorting with conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones.

Iranian Mullahs Continue With Threats; Ahmadinejad's Website Hacked?

The New York Times reports that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's website was apparently hacked by people sympathetic to the opposition.

Although the Web site appears to be down now, Mr. Heap wrote that people trying to access it last night were redirected to this page, which contains the following message:

Dear God, In 2009 you took my favorite singer - Michael Jackson, my favorite actress - Farrah Fawcett, my favorite actor - Patrick Swayze, my favorite voice - Neda. Please, please, don’t forget my favorite politician - Ahmadinejad and my favorite dictator - Khamenei in the year 2010. Thank you.

Someone apparently hacked Ahmadinejad's website and sent a redirect to that page. It's now down possibly because of traffic overload, or because the Iranians are trying to figure out the hack.

The regime continues menacing the Iranian people and branding those who oppose the regime to be nothing less than traitors and terrorists. The regime continues to warn that those responsible for the demonstrations will be executed.

"After Ashura, anyone who takes part in riots will be considered as 'mohareb' (waging war on God) and an opponent of national security," Najjar said, according to the official IRNA news agency.

Despite such warnings, the opposition has shown no inclination to back down and street protests have continued sporadically in the six months since the vote.

Thousands of protesters were arrested after the election. Most have since been released but more than 80 reformists have received jail terms of up to 15 years. Five people have been sentenced to death but none has been executed so far.

More than 300 have been incarcerated by the regime since protests resumed during the Shi'ite observance of Ashura in December. The regime also has announced that those who use the Internet to post what it calls "false information" about the regime will be arrested.

Facebooking Puts Health Insurance At Peril?

Well, if you read the headline, you'd think that someone putting their life story on Facebook, complete with pictures, is sufficient to cause an health insurance company to drop their coverage.

The Quebec woman, Nathalie Blanchard, has seen her case gain widespread attention since it came to the attention of local media last week.

Blanchard said an insurance agent told her that the long-term disability cheques were terminated after photos of her on the popular social networking website came to the attention of the insurance company.

Blanchard, 29, has been on leave since Valentine's Day 2008 from her job at IBM in Bromont, Que, battling severe depression.

The company in question, insurance giant Manulife, declined to comment on the case specifically but has said in a statement: "we would not deny or terminate a valid claim solely based on information published on websites such as Facebook."

Blanchard's battle comes as another Facebook-related blunder left the Liberals dealing with controversy on the weekend after Janine Krieber, the wife of former leader Stephane Dion, posted comments of Facebook criticizing current boss Michael Ignatieff.

Carmi Levy, a technology expert says these recent incidents involving Facebook postings should serve as a reminder that nothing is truly private on the net.

"In this day and age, where everyone is a broadcaster through Twitter, Facebook or other social media, it never ceases to amaze me how unaware people are of the implications of something such as a Twitter update or a Facebook update," Levy said in a telephone interview Sunday.

However, the story is much more than that.

It goes to how people maintain their Facebook account, who can view their information, as well as an insurance company's due diligence to determine whether someone is actually bilking the company.

I will take each in turns.

Nathalie Blanchard was diagnosed with depression and the insurer covered her medical disability. She also happened to maintain a Facebook account, and she posted photos of herself on a vacation, at a Chippendales bar show, and at her birthday party.

The company apparently denied her further claims based on the photos.

The company was right to conduct due diligence but it did not go nearly far enough. It's in the insurance company's best interest to weed out fraudulent claims since it raises costs for everyone.

However, someone under care for depression can have a good day, or even a series of good days; its potentially a sign that they are receiving the appropriate level of care. It is not necessarily a sign of fraud. The insurance company should have checked her medical records with her physicians to determine whether there was fraudulent activity here.

For her part, she apparently allowed anyone to view her profile and see all her photos, which means that anyone can use that information against her, including an insurance company.

She's hired a lawyer and is suing the insurance company for $275,000.

This case highlights the need for individuals to understand the risks of posting information online, and understanding the privacy ratings and settings on social networking sites and on the Internet in general. It also shows the lengths to which companies will go to seek out information on their employees or insureds.

Down Goes Twitter. Down Goes Twitter

The popular service has reported outages earlier this morning, which means that people relying on the service had to make due with reaching for a telephone, or making a blog posting instead of their usual fast posts.

The cause? A denial of service attack, that remains underway. Expect service to be spotty as the company tries to defend against the attack.

Glenn Beck Goes Off the Rails Again

Glenn Beck is busy ranting that the cash for clunkers program website invites the government to hack into your personal computer. He cites a page on the cars.gov website that has the following disclaimer:

This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the United States Government. It is for authorized use only. Users (authorized or unauthorized) have no explicit or implicit expectation of privacy.

Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign. By using this system, the user consents to such interception, monitoring, recording, copying, auditing, inspection, and disclosure at the discretion CARS or the DoT personnel.

Unauthorized or improper use of this system may result in administrative disciplinary action and civil and criminal penalties.

Unauthorized attempts to defeat or circumvent security features, to use the system for other than intended purposes, to deny service to authorized users, to access, obtain, alter, damage, or destroy information, or otherwise to interfere with the system or its operation are prohibited. Evidence of such acts may be disclosed to law enforcement authorities and result in criminal prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-474) and the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-294), (18 U.S.C. 1030), or other applicable criminal laws.

The language on that page can be broken down as follows:
Paragraph 1: You're accessing a government computer system, so when you're connected to the gov't system, you have to abide by government rules.
Paragraph 2: We reserve the right to check all information against law enforcement to prevent fraud (to a fault perhaps).
Paragraph 3: Penalites (well, what'd you expect if you violate 1 or 2)
Paragraph 4: If you try to circumvent existing security protocols or access the system illegally, you're subject to civil and criminal penalties.

Of all that's there, paragraph 2 is the one that would seemingly raise an eyebrow. It's overlawyered to a fault, but it's prevalent at nearly all government websites. In other words, it's the standard boilerplate used at government websites across the board. It isn't anything new, and it's not anything anyone has to worry about, unless they attempt to hack into the .gov website or computer systems.

For example, Los Alamos Natl Lab:

Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized site, Department of Energy, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign. By using this system, the user consents to such interception, monitoring, recording, copying, auditing, inspection, and disclosure at the discretion of authorized site or Department of Energy personnel.

Swap Cars.gov for that, and we're talking the same disclaimer.

Beck is an idiot who clearly hasn't done his research, and is more than willing to spew nonsensical conspiracies about the Obama Administration.

There's plenty of things to criticize about the cars for clunkers program, and I've detailed my concerns, but this isn't one of them.

UPDATE:
Sites that are peddling Beck's nonsense and claiming as Beck does that this somehow gives the government right to hack into your computer are just as off base. That includes Newsbusters' Jeff Poor and Jeff Wray.

How Much CO2 Does This Posting Produce?

So, how much does reading an article online produce in terms of carbon dioxide?

It depends on the length of the article and time spent on it, but a bunch of scientists have tried to quantify carbon output of online endeavors.

Twenty milligrams; that's the average amount of carbon emissions generated from the time it took you to read the first two words of this article.
How green is your website? Calculating all the factors involved in a website can be tricky.

How green is your website? Calculating all the factors involved in a website can be tricky.

Now, depending on how quickly you read, around 80, perhaps even 100 milligrams of C02 have been released. And in the several minutes it will take you to get to the end of this story, the number of milligrams of greenhouse gas emitted could be several thousand, if not more.

This may not seem like a lot: "But in aggregate, if you consider all the people visiting a web site and then all the seconds that each of them spends on it, it turns out to be a large number," says Dr. Alexander Wissner-Gross, an Environmental Fellow at Harvard University who studies the environmental impact of computing.

Wissner-Gross estimates every second someone spends browsing a simple web site generates roughly 20 milligrams of C02. Whether downloading a song, sending an email or streaming a video, almost every single activity that takes place in the virtual environment has an impact on the real one.

As millions more go online each year some researchers say the need to create a green Internet ecosystem is not only imperative but also urgent.

"It is part of the whole sustainability picture," Chris Large, head of research and development at UK-based Climate Action Group, told CNN.

If anything, it magnifies the point I've been making repeatedly - it's far easier on the environment if former Vice President and global warming proponent Al Gore substituted teleconferencing for his jet setting ways.

This article also sets up a rather disturbing notion - that limiting Internet usage may be in the future as a way to "curb" carbon output. By setting up the idea that mass usage of online systems will adversely affect the environment, it's opening the door to government intrusions to limit online activities in the name of "saving the environment." Never mind that online endeavors can and have replaced tangible items, such as newspapers, which damage the environment through paper production and distribution, but makes the distribution of information ever more efficient (even if not everyone is worth reading; the information is at least at your fingertips).

North Korea Behind Cyberattack On US and South Korean Gov't Websites

Several major US and South Korean government websites were disabled by a North Korean denial of service attack beginning on July 4.

Others familiar with the U.S. outage, which is called a denial of service attack, said that the fact that the government Web sites were still being affected three days after it began signaled an unusually lengthy and sophisticated attack. The officials spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter.

"It certainly seems to be a well-organized attack," an anonymous government official told The Washington Post. "There are a lot of computers involved. What we don't know is who is orchestrating it."

The Korea Information Security Agency also attributed the attacks to denial of service.

Yang Moo-jin, a professor at Seoul's University of North Korean Studies, said he doubts whether the impoverished North has the capability to knock down the Web sites.

But Hong Hyun-ik, an analyst at the Sejong Institute think tank, said the attack could have been done by either North Korea or China, saying he "heard North Korea has been working hard to hack into" South Korean networks.

North Korea devotes nearly all of its resources to military and nuclear efforts, and cyberspace is simply another battleground. It would be unwise to underestimate the North Korean ability to launch cyberattacks on government websites, particularly DoS attacks, given that there are hacking communities that devote themselves to discussing these very scenarios.

They have their sympathizers as well, and I wouldn't rule out Chinese involvement as well.

That's on the heels of a report saying that US cyberdefense systems don't work. In fact, the latest iteration of the system (Einstein 2), which alerts officials that an attack is underway, isn't going to be ready for another 18 months. The system can't thwart attacks that it isn't familiar with. One of the biggest problems is concerns over privacy, particularly since the system is being rolled out on telecommunications networks operated by various companies, including AT&T. A third iteration of Einstein may be able to thwart attacks, but there's no roll-out date.

Then again, federal authorities aren't doing much better in protecting government buildings as undercover investigators had no problem sneaking bomb materials into federal buildings.

The Government Accountability Office said investigators carried bomb-making materials past security at 10 federal buildings. Security at these buildings and a total of about 9,000 federal buildings around the country is provided by the Federal Protective Service, a target of the probe.

Once GAO investigators got the materials in the buildings, the report said, they constructed explosive devices and carried them around inside. For security reasons, the GAO report did not give the location of the buildings.

The report was made available to The Associated Press in advance of a hearing scheduled Wednesday of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

2008 Weblog Awards Now Open

Vote early and often - once per day per category. I'm in the Best Small Blog category, and there's some tough competition there as well. Best of luck to my competitors!

Chicago rules are in effect (though no money for seats at present, I know... it's something we'll have to work on).

Ace of Spades, Victor Davis Hanson, LGF, and Michelle Malkin are in a tough race for Best Conservative Blog.

Other well known lizards (folks who regularly visit littlegreenfootballs.com) and many friends of A Blog For All are up for awards as well:

Zombie (zombietime.com) and Carl in Jerusalem (Israel Matzav) for Best Midsize Blog.

Michael Totten, Elder of Ziyon, and Israellycool in Best Middle East/Africa blog.

Daled Amos and Bubblehead (The Stupid Shall Be Punished (a sub blogger)) in Best Up and Coming blog.

Michael Yon is up in best milblog category.

Best of luck to everyone!

2008 Weblog Awards Voting (OPEN)

It's only a matter of hours before the 2008 Weblog Awards open up voting.

Vote early and often - once per day per category. I'm in the Best Small Blog category, and there's some tough competition there as well.

Chicago rules are in effect (though no money for seats at present, I know... it's something we'll have to work on).


Ace of Spades, Victor Davis Hanson, LGF, and Michelle Malkin are in a tough category for Best Conservative Blog.

Other well known lizards (folks who regularly visit littlegreenfootballs.com) are up for awards as well:

zombie and Carl in Jerusalem for Best Midsize Blog.

Michael Totten, Elder of Ziyon, and Israellycool in Best Middle East/Africa blog.

Daled Amos and Bubblehead (The Stupid Shall Be Punished (a sub blogger)) in Best Up and Coming blog.

Michael Yon is up in best milblog category.

2008 Weblog Finalists Announced

And yes folks, I am among the finalists in the Best Small Blog category. The other finalists in that category are:
Chatting at the Sky
A Blog for All
Exurbanleague
Pirate's Cove
Nice Deb
Mutiny.in
The Glittering Eye
Woman Honor Thyself
Rumproast
Black Women, Blow The Trumpet

The full list of finalists in all the categories is here. Voting will open shortly, so be prepared to get your votes in early and often! Chicago rules are in effect.

Photo of the Day

This is a test of a new service as found by Instapundit. It's called Buy This Image, and lets me sell my photos online in a new format.

Let me know what you think!

Meme of the Day: 100 Things Done in a Lifetime

One hundred things done, or should be done in a lifetime. This is one of those posts that works for a weekend or when news gets slow, and today just seems like the time to post it:

1. Started your own blog: I was busy blogging before blogging was called blogging. And this particular blog has been growing since 2005.

2. Slept under the stars: Several times, but the most memorable being in Israel in the summer of 1993.

3. Played in a band: Nope, but does chorus count?

4. Visited Hawaii: It's on a list of places to go.

5. Watched a meteor shower: Many times, the most recent of which was at Bryce Canyon National Park.

6. Given more than you can afford to charity: I wish I could say yes, but that just isn't true. It is my intention to one day to do all that and more.

7. Been to Disneyland: Winter 1999.

8. Climbed a mountain: Several, including in Israel.

9. Held a praying mantis: Yes, once. Don't intend to do that again.

10. Sang a solo: Nope, just good backup singing in chorus.

11. Bungee jumped: Why would someone want to jump off a perfectly stable structure and put their life in the hands of a rope?

12. Visited Paris: Absolutely, and I've got the pictures to prove it. And here, here, and here.

13. Watched a lightning storm at sea: Nope, but I've watched them from airplanes on several occasions. Nothing quite like watching nature in all its glory.

14. Taught yourself an art from scratch: I draw and paint, so I guess that came naturally.

15. Adopted a child: Nope.

16. Had food poisoning: Thankfully not that I can recall.

17. Walked to the top of the Statue of Liberty: Sure did back when they had it open to visitors. Today folks don't get nearly the same experience that they once did walking up the spiral staircase to peer out from the Lady Liberty's crown.

18. Grown your own vegetables: Green thumb means veggies galore.

19. Seen the Mona Lisa in France: Underwhelmed. It's such a tiny painting surrounded by tremendous crowds. I think the mysteriousness of the smile is what does it. The Louvre has so many other wonderous artifacts and paintings that the Mona Lisa isn't even top 5.

20. Slept on an overnight train: They have 'em in the States?

21. Had a pillow fight: Sure, who hasn't.

22. Hitchhiked: Why hitchhike when you can rent a car on your own, and it's much safer?

23. Taken a sick day when you’re not ill: Who hasn't?

24. Built a snow fort: Back in the day before global warming.

25. Held a lamb: Lamb chops and rack of lamb, sure? Oh, you mean while the lamb was alive?

26. Gone skinny dipping: Can't say that I have.

27. Run a marathon: Watching a marathon is hard enough work. No.

28. Ridden in a gondola in Venice: It's on my list of things to do.

29. Seen a total eclipse: I have, and it was quite memorable.

30. Watched a sunrise or sunset: Quite often, but the most memorable is sunrise and sunsets in Key West and sunrise over the Dead Sea as seen from Masada.

31. Hit a home run: Who hasn't?

32. Been on a cruise: I'm working on that.

33. Seen Niagara Falls in person: Sure have, and it's majesty doesn't come through pictures because of the sheer energy that you feel just standing next to them.

34. Visited the birthplace of your ancestors

35. Seen an Amish community: Lancaster County, PA.

36. Taught yourself a new language: French, but that doesn't mean I speak it very well.

37. Had enough money to be truly satisfied

38. Seen the Leaning Tower of Pisa in person

39. Gone rock climbing: [added] Yes. Actually, it was rappelling, not rock climbing.

40. Seen Michelangelo’s David: Only in H.W. Jansen's History of Art.

41. Sung karaoke: I have the right to remain silent.

42. Seen Old Faithful geyser erupt: It's on my list of things to do and see.

43. Bought a stranger a meal at a restaurant: Nope.

44. Visited Africa: Nope, but there are a few places I'd like to see - the rolling savannas and Mt. Kilimanjaro being but two.

45. Walked on a beach by moonlight: Who hasn't?

46. Been transported in an ambulance: Unfortunately, yes.

47. Had your portrait painted: Nope.

48. Gone deep sea fishing: No.

49. Seen the Sistine Chapel in person: It's on my list of things to do.

50. Been to the top of the Eiffel Tower in Paris: And I have the pictures to prove it.

51. Gone SCUBA diving or snorkeling: Sounds like fun.

52. Kissed in the rain: You don't know what you're missing if you haven't.

53. Played in the mud: See 52.

54. Gone to a drive-in theater: See 52.

55. Been in a movie: I've seen a few being made but haven't been in any that I know of.

56. Visited the Great Wall of China: It's on my list.

57. Started a business: I did, and I profited from the experience.

58. Taken a martial arts class: Nope, but there are times I wish I had.

59. Visited Russia: It's not on my bucket list.

60. Served at a soup kitchen: No.

61. Sold Girl Scout Cookies: I guess eating them doesn't count.

62. Gone whale watching: Believe it or not, I was able to go whale watching from the shore at Bodega Bay in California. We were on a cliff overlooking the bay and I noticed a bunch of whales close ashore surfacing occasionally. It was very cool.

63. Got flowers for no reason: Haven't received them, but I have given them.

64. Donated blood, platelets or plasma: Does getting into fights count?

65. Gone sky diving: What? And jump out of a perfectly good aircraft?

66. Visited a Nazi concentration camp: I think it's something everyone should do - if only to remember that Never Again really should mean Never Again.

67. Bounced a check: Not on your life.

68. Flown in a helicopter: Nope. I did sit in one as a kid though.

69. Saved a favorite childhood toy: Where's that Curious George?

70. Visited the Lincoln Memorial: Sure have, on several occasions.

71. Eaten caviar: I sure have.

72. Pieced a quilt: I can mend a seam and fix a button, but anything more complicated than that, and I'm calling a tailor.

73. Stood in Times Square: I work in New York City and used to live there; what do you think?

74. Toured the Everglades: And I have the pictures to prove it. I also had the mosquito bites to prove it when walking along the Aninga Trail.

75. Been fired from a job: Nope.

76. Seen the Changing of the Guards in London: Sounds like fun.

77. Broken a bone: Elbow.

78. Been on a speeding motorcycle: Nope.

79. Seen the Grand Canyon in person: And I have the pictures to prove it.

80. Published a book: I haven't, although more than a few people have suggested that I do so.

81. Visited the Vatican: If I want to see the Sistine Chapel, I guess I'd have to do that, but it's not on my list.

82. Bought a brand new car: Sure did. Also bought a used car, which was my first real big purchase.

83. Walked in Jerusalem: I lived there for six weeks, and I can recall every moment there with vivid recollection. Oh, and I have the pictures to prove it.

84. Had your picture in the newspaper: Yes, but I'm not saying where or when.

85. Read the entire Bible: Sunday school to the rescue!

86. Visited the White House: I've stood in front of it, but haven't stepped inside.

87. Killed and prepared an animal for eating

88. Had chickenpox: Yes, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

89. Saved someone’s life: I have, and it was a most gratifying experiences.

90. Sat on a jury: Nope, but I've been on jury duty once.

91. Met someone famous: Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. Constantine Maroulis. Sofia Milos. Ernie Anastos. John Aniston (Jennifer's dad). Curtis Sliwa. And too many New York politicians to count, starting with George Pataki, David Paterson, Ed Koch, and Chuck Schumer to name but three.

92. Joined a book club: Nope.

93. Lost a loved one: Yes.

94. Had a baby: No.

95. Seen the Alamo in person: No.

96. Swam in the Great Salt Lake: I'll see the Great Salt Lake, and raise you the Dead Sea.

97. Been involved in a law suit: Yes.

98. Owned a cell phone: If that a joke? Can you hear me now?

99. Been stung by a bee: Ouch!

100. Read an entire book in one day: Too many to recall.


HT: Jim at Parkway Rest Stop