Representative Mike Rogers (R-Michigan), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said of Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, who published secret material leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that:
“[Greenwald] doesn’t have a clue how this thing works. Neither did the person who released just enough information to be dangerous.”
The snippet above was taken from an article by Jane C. Timm (@janestreet) on the MSNBC/Morning Joe blog in which Greenwald defends his own actions, and those of Snowden as "essential to Democracy.
Really?
Here is what I have to say to Rep. Rogers, and all the rest of our electeds who provide supposed "oversight" in relation to the type of intelligence gathering which involves collection of data from American citizens, on American soil, with no notice, no recourse, and no probable cause:
Please, Mr. Chairman, please do enlighten us, with sufficient information to NOT be dangerous, and so that we, the people YOU WORK FOR, DO have a clue "how it works."
When you are collecting my private communications, I expect you to act with accountability. As a proud American, I am ashamed that those who (somehow) find themselves elected to office anymore seem to think they act with impunity. The safety of our nation is indeed a priority. But there are ways you can get what you need without obliterating our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and protections.
In the wake of news reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been secretly mining data from large internet service providers Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google CEO Larry Page both released statements about their respective company's position on the matter.
While both read like well-thought-out, carefully crafted (but very "corporate") responses, and appear to support the notion that neither company actually participates in a program like the alleged PRISM, both statements also read like thinly disguised paraphrases of the same script. You know, almost like they were being spoon fed.
We've Never Heard of PRISM
Both companies also appear to craft their statements using very carefully chosen language. From Zuckerbergs post on Facebook (Emphasis mine):
"Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers. We have never received a blanket request or court order from any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk, like the one Verizon reportedly received. And if we did, we would fight it aggressively. We hadn't even heard of PRISM before yesterday."
And now, From Larry Page's post, released shortly prior to Zuck's statement (again, emphasis mine):
"First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday . . . Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received"
Interesting that in both instances, each CEO is very specific in stating what their company is not doing. They have not granted the government direct access to their servers. They have never received a blanket request such as that reportedly received by Verizon. If you read the full content of each CEO's statement you will find that they are essentially paraphrasing each other, or some third source.
Apple spokesman Steve Dowling also responds with a similar statement:
"We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order."
When asked whether Apple had joined the joint NSA-FBI data collection program, Apple declined to comment, according to the Huffington Post.
Only with a Court Order?
All of the companies that have responded publicly make some form of statement indicating that they comply only with court orders, and under applicable law. Each gives some lip-service to resisting attempts by government to compromise the privacy of users. However, in an article from the Washington Post, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union states:
"I would just push back on the idea that the court has signed off on it, so why worry? This is a court that meets in secret, allows only the government to appear before it, and publishes almost none of its opinions. It has never been an effective check on government."
Bad things are happening on the web. Governments around the world seek to monitor and control this invaluable communications resource. Totalitarian governments like those of China and Iran have set the example for what we, in the US, do not want to see happen.
Except, well, it kind of is happening, and has been for several years now.
I understand that, to paraphrase US President Barack Obama, you can't have 100% security, and 100% freedom, and 100% privacy with zero inconvenience. But the lack of transparency and sheer underhandedness of the US government in this case appears to be not only appalling, but growing by the minute.
It's not the Crime that Kills You, It's the Cover-up
We don't know all the facts at this point, and we likely never will. But paying close attention to the manner in which the big internet providers respond is at the very least interesting, and quite possibly a sign that there is, indeed, more here than meets the eye.
I encourage the Googles and Facebooks and Apples of the Silicon Valley to remember the old political adage: It's not the crime that kills you, it's the cover-up.
John on Google
A work in Progress
It becomes more and more apparent each year that the historical frameworks governing copyrights and patents in this country (if not the world) has become strained under advances in modern technology, and particularly, the internet. The digital millennium has changed the face of content creation, distribution, and consumption to such a degree that legislation governing copyright, infringement, and plagiarism can scarcely keep up.
One of the principal tools in use today in the United States is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed into law in October of 1998. We are all at least somewhat familiar with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. At least, we know it has to do with “protecting” copyrighted works online, and that it allows online content to be “removed with” the simple issuance of a “takedown” notice by the party alleging infringement, usually to the hosting entity.
In broad strokes, the DCMA requires that, upon receipt of an infringement notice, the Internet Service provider or hosting site must block or remove public access to the alleged infringing material in order to be protected from liability under “safe harbor” rules built into the DMCA. In the meantime, the content host generally notifies the user or customer who posted the content, who is then free to file a counter-notice establishing that the content does not, in fact, infringe as claimed.
The above description is intentionally broad and vague, because I am not an expert in copyright or the DMCA. In addition, more detailed information abounds online. You can start HERE if you want more information. In short, the DMCA was a step forward in that it established explicit measures protecting internet service providers and content hosting sites from being held liable for infringing content uploaded by users.
Big Media, for the Takedown
I am proposing that the DMCA has potential to be a reasonable compromise in terms of bringing copyright enforcement kicking and screaming into the modern age (ok, at least to the eighties or nineties). The problem at present is that, like many things, the current implementation is one-sided in the extreme, unduly favoring the plaintiff, which is most often a heavily-lawyered, well-healed large corporation. Essentially, all one need do to get somebody’s content blocked, even temporarily, is issue the takedown notice. It then becomes the problem of the content publisher to demonstrate that the posted content does not, in fact, infringe upon the plaintiff’s work.
Certain major media companies have taken to issuing indiscriminant take down notices, apparently using internet search algorithms and “web crawling” technology to identify potentially infringing content. In some cases, it appears that content is targeted based upon keywords, titles, or other criteria which may well identify infringing works, but also a good many other sites which are not in fact plagiarizing or pirating the work of others. Often acting through surrogates, big media companies seem to favor a shoot first, ask questions later approach, issuing the take down notices indiscriminately. The current law provides no penalty for this, and the result is that, if YOUR content happens to contain the right combination of keywords, your content might be yanked, pending resolution through a counter notice.
Balancing the Equation – a Common-Sense Solution
I propose that the DMCA be modified to penalize those who issue a takedown notice which turns out to be invalid. If someone is going to claim MY content infringes upon their previously published work, they should be damn sure that it does if they are going to step on my livelihood. Just as in civil court, if I sue you, and I lose, I will be required to pay your attorney’s fees and other legal costs. Under the modification I propose, at the very least, those who are found to have issued a bogus or insufficiently researched takedown notice should have to pay for my costs to get my content restored, plus any lost revenue arising from the period during which my content was off line. Other penalties should also be levied, since at present, there seems to be no mechanism to regulate the profligate issuance of these takedown notices in a slash-and-burn manner by big media companies.
I am very much against plagiarism and piracy. I think that those who seek to profit by illegally distributing copyrighted materials, and/or through plagiarism, should be punished accordingly. But I don’t feel that the laws by which this is accomplished are balanced fairly at the moment, and the situation is skewed too far in the direction of the big publishers.
Don’t steal. Don’t plagiarize. And don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
We can do better.
John on Google
Revenge of the Nerds
In the last week, there has been a most entertaining (and semi-civil) exchange on Twitter between the public face of the Activist group Anonymous and Dana White, President of the UFC (Ultimate Championship Fighting). The discussion escalated to the point of tough-guy talk from Dana White (Like, uh, what else would you expect from the President of the UFC?) and some interesting game-playing on the part of Anonymous. The "Hactivists" posted a link on twitter to a page containing what appeared to be a swath of White's personal data, including Social Security number, address, and financial data. On Friday, Anonymous attempted to break into the UFC server, and initiated targeted redirects of the UFC.com domain.
"Dana White - what do you have against the Internet? We're just curious, as we were quite surprised at the harsh tone of your comments . . . do you support what we do, in terms of activism & raising public awareness of critical security/privacy issues?"
- @YourAnonNews to Dana White, via Twitter
Mr. White is a supporter of SOPA/PIPA, and feels that internet piracy is no different than stealing. He would know, apparently, because UFC "pay-per-view" fights are often pirated, depriving the UFC of revenue. The hackers of Anonymous contend that SOPA/PIPA amounts to censorship and a deprivation of our basic freedoms. On which point I heartily agree.
"The only thing that we're focused on is piracy. Piracy is stealing. You walk into a store and you steal a (freaking) gold watch, it's the same as stealing a pay-per-view."
- Dana White, Thursday January 26, 2012
Been Caught Stealin'
On the point of piracy I agree with Mr.. White. To a point.
Piracy IS a big issue. Mr. White, and all those whose livelihoods are impacted by piracy are understandably pissed. And, no, it really does not matter that some of them may be really, really rich already (Mr. White is pretty well off). Stealing is still stealing, and it is wrong and illegal.
According to White: "The only thing that we're focused on is piracy. Piracy is stealing. You walk into a store and you steal a (freaking) gold watch, it's the same as stealing a pay-per-view."
And that is true.
The problem with SOPA/PIPA, and the problem with Data White's analogy of stealing from a store, is that you still need to be proven guilty when you are arrested for stealing from a store.
"I love the Internet. It helped us grow our biz. Stealing is stealing! And hacking into people's (expletive) is terrorism . . . I'm a fight promoter. I put on fights. People are stealing my shit on the net and selling it or selling ads on it."
- Dana White to Anonymous, via Twitter
SOPA/PIPA, and any other legislation which allows the government to block or takedown entire IP addresses and remove domains from the DNS system is that, under SOPA and PIPA, due process has been circumvented. SOPA/PIPA would empower the government to block sites "suspected" or "reasonably believed to be" hosting pirated content with minimal due process, and largely at the urging of large media companies and content providers.
Mr. White, I feel your pain. Piracy sucks, and needs to be addressed. However, compromising the basic freedoms of the internet is not the way to do it. The unfortunate truth is that, like any other criminal enterprise, online piracy will continue in spite of any government intervention. Like any other criminal enterprise, we the people must fight within the confines of law and order, while the criminals are not so constrained.
UFC, Hollywood, and the US government already have tools to fight piracy. They are not as effective as some would like, but they exist. Hell, the best SOPA could have done would have been to block Americans from accessing pirated content hosted on foreign servers. It would have had no impact upon foreign access to pirated American content hosted on those same foreign servers.
Increased regulation, especially of the sort offered by SOPA/PIPA would most definitely impact the internet as a whole, however. Now that Mr. White and the rest of Hollywood have begun to realize the profit potential of the internet, they and their cohorts in the Congress are also suddenly interested in seizing as much control of the internet as possible.
As I related in an earlier post, there exists the very real possibility that by the end of the decade, the internet as we know it will no longer exist. After all, the same media companies which brought you the "Big Three" broadcast television networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC), and the same providers who have dominated the cable television industry have now seen the future of content delivery. And that future is the internet.
In the past decade, the internet has exploded with user-generated content. The medium is such that just about anyone has been able to create a blog, or publish a video, or create an online forum, etc. Hosting has been cheap or free, and there are few barriers to entry. We were all just fine without streaming UFC fights and Hollywood movies.
If the government and Hollywood become the heavy players in this space, you can kiss all that goodbye.
I say again - Mr. White, I feel your pain. It sucks to be stolen from, whether you are rich or poor. But let's not destroy the very thing that makes the internet great. If SOPA and PIPA had been passed into law, your pay-per-views would still be stolen. Pirates would still make new release movies available, both on the web, and on DVD. Thieves are very clever, and they don't play by the rules.
112 Channels of Crap for just $79.95 per Month . . . If you act NOW!!
I urge you all to adapt and innovate. As Apple, Netflix, and Amazon have aptly demonstrated, a user-friendly experience at the right price will win the day with handsome profits. And without forcing the customer to buy bloated programming "packages" which include two channels they don't want for every one they do. Or an entire album, at album prices, to get the two songs they want. Oh, and take some of the money you all have been shoveling into the hands of Congress through your lobbyist middle-men, and use it instead to spearhead investigations. Or to work with tech companies to find solutions which work for everyone, instead of just yourselves.
The key to maintaining your enterprise in the internet era is to jump on board, without destroying the very thing which makes the internet what it is. After all, it was a bunch of geeks and hackers who brought it this far. What right have you to claim it as yours, now?
References for this post include:
SOPA and PIPA are only the beginning . . .
We all knew it would happen. Back in the '90s, Big media came late to the internet game. For most if its history, the internet has been (rightfully) held as a free exchange of ideas and information, with very little interference from government, at least in the Democratic West.
Now, in the last decade Big Media has taken notice. With the effective monetization of the web, Corporations have now moved into "our" space. The impact can be felt in the form of new regulations proposed, on a regular basis, with the aim of restricting the freedoms of the average internet user in a manner which benefits Big Media.
Prior to the evolution of profitable business models for on-line commerce, the big boys really had little interest in "our" space, and the profiteers in the US Senate and the House of Congress were less than interested in the internet. In the last ten years, however, that has begun to change, and in the last two, things have reached a critical mass. While big business was slow to catch on for the first decade of the internet, the sleeping giant is stirring . . .
Like turning an oil tanker
There is a familiar pattern to this. Each time a technology shift occurs in the content delivery space, large publishers and media companies cry about the threat of piracy, and that the sky is falling. Remember how Home Taping was going to kill music ("and it's illegal")?
How about when recordable CD's became publicly available? This was going to end the music industry.
With the advent of the internet, the game changed on media publishers, first and most visibly for the music industry. Napster made possible the ability to share your music collection far and wide. More importantly, you didn't have to buy an entire album to get the one song you wanted by an artist. While the wide-scale distribution of content-for-nothing via Napster and it's subsequent imitators in reality did represent copyright infringement and piracy, it also demonstrated a new business model for the internet era. Unfortunately, the record companies' and publisher's reaction was not to recognize which way the wind was blowing and adapt. Instead, they resorted to tried and true tactics (not really) of "lawyering up", using lawsuits, threats of lawsuits, and scare tactics in an attempt to restore the status quo. Instead of seizing the moment, instead of becoming early adopters and profiting handsomely, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) reacted in a protectionist fashion, to its own detriment.
Come bite the Apple . . .
As it turned out, Apple recognized the potential of the new business model, and dragged the music industry kicking and screaming into the internet content delivery market. iTunes demonstrated that the majority will pay for legal downloadable content, provided an adequate, user-friendly mechanism to do so. Millions of paid downloads later, both Apple and subsequently Amazon have demonstrated that on-line delivery of paid-for digital music is not only viable, but highly profitable.
By the end of the first decade in the new millennium, delivery of high-definition streaming video has become not just a reality, but a fact of life. From humble beginnings in 2001, Netflix has amassed nearly 25 million subscribers, with an average growth of 2.4 million new subscribers per quarter through most of 2010 and 2011. While the company has since lost subscribers due to a series of marketing blunders, the demand for streaming video content delivery, and the willingness of the masses to pay for it are clear. At 25 million subscribers, Netflix currently has more subscribers than any single cable service provider including Comcast.
Think the internet is going to be the place where your video content comes from over the next decade?
Reddit?
Print media is lagging behind audio and video in achieving a profitable digital presence. But the decline in readership of "old-fashioned" paper magazines and newspapers, combined with the rise of digital readers such as the Kindle, Nook, and of course, the iPad show which way the wind is blowing here as well. In May of 2009, eMarketer reported that "nearly 20 million eReaders were expected to be in consumer hands" by the end of 2011, and that 12% of adults will have an eReader of some type or another. And of course, who can forget that on December 26th 2009, Amazon announced that for the first time, sales of Kindle books exceeded that of physical books.
Bring on the clowns . . .
Now, as the U.S. Congress attempts to pass some extraordinarily bad legislation in the form of SOPA ("Stop Online Piracy Act") and the US Senate does the same with PIPA ("ProtectIP" Act), we stand at a precipice. For the first time, American legislators are actively considering passing into law an Act or Acts which will radically change the internet as we know it forever. Either of these proposed pieces of legislation represent the first step in a process by 
which Corporate America will attempt to seize control of the internet in much the same way it did the radio broadcast market, and subsequently, the broadcast television spectrum.
As things sit right now, at 10:42 PM Central Time, a day of "protest" by major internet sites such as Wikipedia, Reddit, and others appears to have rattled the cage of our fearless leaders in D.C. Support for SOPA and PIPA has been evaporating throughout the day.
Don't worry. They'll be back.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (The more things change, the more they stay the same) . . .
With billions of dollars on the line, and the evaporation of historical distribution mechanisms for print, music, and visual media, the large powerhouses of the entertainment industry are not going to sit idly by while the free-as-in-beer internet replaces the money machine. SOPA and PIPA are likely only the opening salvos in a war by which the media companies do their ham-fisted worst to seize control of the internet, to the exclusion of the layman.
Can you imagine a day in which you might need to apply for a license to host a website? Or a day in which the dominance of a small group of mega-corporations on the web infrastructure is so great that there are no avenues for entry at the ground level?
Media markets for sale - contact your state representative for more information!
This may seem like paranoid thinking, when we examine the web as it is today. But take a look back. The internet is rapidly supplanting a multitude of industries which remain, to varying degrees, entrenched in an antiquated business model predicated on dominance through regulation. Television. Telecom. Audio recording, publishing and copyright. Print media. The players in these industries are not going to go quietly into the night. Instead they will, in the coming years, bring the full war chest to the table, starting with our elected officials (you know, the path of least resistance, right?).
It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this “blackout” to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy.”
- (Former) Senator Chris Dodd, CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, in response to planned protest of SOPA/PIPA
Imagine that! A former US Senator, now heading one of the largest lobbying groups in the country, is accusing the tech industry of engaging in "PR stunts" and hyperbole. I can only chuckle at the irony.
The thinking of big industry, and its attitude towards the rest of the internet community, could not be more effectively demonstrated than by this release (former) Senator Dodd from January 17th, the day before the "blackouts":
Chris Dodd Statement on "Blackout Day Protests"
If the connected community that is the world-wide-web does not succeed in preventing government encroachment and regulation, we face the very real threat of an internet which more closely resembles the "big three" of radio and television networks than the free information super-highway envisioned by its creators. SOPA and PIPA are bad, and they will likely die in the chambers of the Congress and the Senate. But SOPA and PIPA are only the beginning.
Relevant Resources
Congressional Support for SOPA/PIPA - A chart by Pro Publica showing who supports and opposes the measures. Interestingly, in the wake of today's (January 18th, 2012) internet "blackout" by a number of major internet sites (including Wikipedia), the balance on this chart has tipped dramatically since last night as legislators flee a "sinking ship".
SOPA is a red herring by Adam Curry - Interesting commentary makes the case that SOPA and PIPA are small-potatoes compared to changes being made to the Domain Naming system itself, and that the privacy aspect of the internet will be compromised forever.
Senate Copyright Bill Loses Key Supporters - Forbes Magazine, following the rush of former supporters (and several original co-sponsors) of the SOPA/PIPA legislation as they backpedal in an early election-season rush to please voters.