Lemming Tracks: Boston Marathon, Bombs, Death

"Source: Bombs were likely in pressure cookers in backpacks"
Josh Levs, CNN (April 16, 2013)

"The deadly bombs that turned the Boston Marathon into gruesome devastation were apparently placed inside pressure cookers hidden in backpacks, a federal law enforcement source told CNN.

"The blasts were likely detonated by timers -- not by cell phones, a law enforcement official said.

"The U.S. government has warned federal agencies in the past that pressure cookers -- air-tight pots used to quickly cook or preserve foods -- have been turned into bombs in parts of the world. A Department of Homeland Security memo called it 'a technique commonly taught in Afghan terrorist training camps.'..."

The Lemming is not at all happy about what happened at about 2:50 p.m. Monday in Boston. Three people were killed when bombs exploded. That was a tragedy. Other folks survived, but are now missing limbs. That's far from good news.

Tuesday's news includes a few new details. It looks like pressure cookers and timers were used to make the bombs.

We still don't know who was responsible. Whoever decided to cause death, suffering, and destruction, was probably motivated at by hate: at least in part. That, in the Lemming's considered opinion, is a bad thing.

The Lemming suspects that someone will seriously propose that pressure cookers, timers, and maybe backpacks, be outlawed: or that pressure cooker owners be required to register their kitchen appliances. Maybe we do need pressure cooker controls. Maybe not. And that's another topic.

Related posts:

• Common sense
  • "Boston Marathon Bombing: Tragedy and Uncertainty"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (April 15, 2013)
  • "Boston Marathon Bombs"
    Another War-on-Terror Blog (April 15, 2013)
  • "Wisconsin: Dead Sikhs; Disrupted Lives"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (August 5, 2012)
  • "How to Not Sound Crazy - or - THE PARANOIDS ARE AFTER ME!!!"
    (June 12, 2011)
  • "Nuclear Weapons, Space Aliens, Conspiracy Theories, and Getting a Grip"
    (September 24, 2010)
• Dangerous technology
  • "Technology, Freedom, and 'Love Your Neighbor' "
    A Catholic Citizen in America (January 18, 2013)br /> Particularly
    • Dealing with Dangerous Technology
  • "Lemming Tracks: Fire; 1,000,000 Years of Sizzling Steaks and Burned Fingers"
    (April 9, 2012)
  • "Next-Generation Prosthetic Hand - and Intel Says Direct Neural Interface Brain Chips by 2020"
    (December 2, 2009)
  • "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
    Another War-on-Terror Blog (June 27, 2008)
    Particularly
    • Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, but the Printing Press is Deadly
  • "'Search Neutrality:' Deciding What We're Allowed to Find?"
    (January 22, 2011)

"Copyright Ownership and Transfer, 203: Termination of - - -" Finally!

"Record Industry Braces for Artists' Battles Over Song Rights"
Larry Rohter (August 15, 2011)

"Since their release in 1978, hit albums like Bruce Springsteen's 'Darkness on the Edge of Town,' Billy Joel's '52nd Street,' the Doobie Brothers' 'Minute by Minute,' Kenny Rogers's 'Gambler' and Funkadelic's 'One Nation Under a Groove' have generated tens of millions of dollars for record companies. But thanks to a little-noted provision in United States copyright law, those artists - and thousands more - now have the right to reclaim ownership of their recordings, potentially leaving the labels out in the cold.

"When copyright law was revised in the mid-1970s, musicians, like creators of other works of art, were granted 'termination rights,' which allow them to regain control of their work after 35 years, so long as they apply at least two years in advance. Recordings from 1978 are the first to fall under the purview of the law, but in a matter of months, hits from 1979, like 'The Long Run' by the Eagles and 'Bad Girls' by Donna Summer, will be in the same situation - and then, as the calendar advances, every other master recording once it reaches the 35-year mark.

"The provision also permits songwriters to reclaim ownership of qualifying songs...."

Why should the Lemming care what some rock star's lawyers may be doing? 'Those people' make gazillions of dollars and deserve nothing by envy and/or contempt, right?

First, for every rock star who makes and spends several million a month - and might get called a 'creative genius' after dying of an overdose - there are a whole lot of performers to travel from one gig to another for decades, earning a living while studio brass travel from one luxury resort to another on 'company business.'

Steady, now - the Lemming needs to calm down.

Creative, Marketing, Distribution, and Fairness

A few folks are good at being creative, selling what they create, managing a network of distributors: and hyperactive enough to do all that on their own.

But not many.

The point is that entertainment studios serve an important function, taking care of the business end of music, movies, and media: giving the 'creative' types time to be creative. That's the way it should work, anyway.

In the real world:

• Responsible studio folks go prematurely gray
  • Wondering if this performer will stay sober enough to finish a tour
  • Trying to find the superstar who stormed out of a recording session
    • And hasn't been seen since
• Responsible 'creatives' develop ulcers
  • Arguing with the studio over travel expenses
  • Trying to explain why "sunny" doesn't rhyme with "orange"
    • Even if "Sunny Orange" is an important sponsor

More seriously, folks who create and perform deserve tangible rewards; and so do folks who run the business side of entertainment: in the Lemming's considered opinion.

January 1, 2013: 35 Years Later

A rather dry bit of United States law reads, in part:

"(a) Conditions for Termination. - In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions...."
(§ 203 . Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author³)

January 1, 1978 plus 35 years started a little over two and a half weeks ago. From the Lemming's point of view, intellectual property rights changed for the better in America.

More:

• "Copyright Law of the United States of America
  and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code
  Circular 92"
  • § 203 . Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author³

Related posts:

• "Lemming Tracks: Instagram; Intellectual Property; and Underage Models"
  (December 21, 2012)
• "Lemming Tracks: SOPA, Tech-Savvy Folks, Hollywood, and Congress"
  (January 9, 2012)
• "SOPA, Censorship, the Twits in Washington, and a Ranting Lemming"
  (December 28, 2011)
• "COICA: A Federal Official Deciding Who Gets to Stay Online"
  (November 19, 2010)
• "Intellectual Property Rights: Yes, They Matter"
  (June 13, 2010)

Papa John's Spam Blast: Oops

"Papa John's faces $250 million spam lawsuit"
Olivia Smith, CNN Money (November 13, 2012)

"Popular U.S. pizza chain Papa John's faces a $250 million class-action lawsuit for blasting customers with illegal text messages.

"The plaintiffs allege that Papa John's (PZZA) franchises sent customers a total of 500,000 unwanted messages in early 2010. The spam texts offered deals for pizza, and some customers complained they were getting 15 or 16 texts in a row, even during the middle of the night, according Donald Heyrich, an attorney representing the class.

" 'After I ordered from Papa John's, my telephone started beeping with text messages advertising pizza specials,' Erin Chutich, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement. 'Papa John's never asked permission to send me text message advertisements.'

"The pizza franchises sent the text blasts through a mass text messaging service called OnTime4U, which is also a defendant in the case. When Papa John's was first sued in April 2010, the franchises allegedly ended their involvement with OnTime4U's text program...."

Somehow, somewhere, someone got the idea that pestering customers - in the middle of the night - was a good idea.

Or maybe it was a programming glitch.

The CNN Money article says that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 requires wannabe spammers to wait until folks opt in to a text messaging spamfest.

Papa John's, OnTime4U, and probably a lot of other outfits, will be contributing to the welfare of lawyers for quite a while, in the Lemming's opinion.

Nearly-related posts:

• "Lemming Tracks: States Provide Voter Information (and email addresses - EEEEK!)"
  (February 6, 2012)
• "Lemming Tracks: Epsilon Breach, Spam, and Getting a Grip"
  (April 6, 2011)
• "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People With Email: 10 Easy Points"
  (February 24, 2011)
• "Advertising Humor: In Dubious Taste"
  (August 23, 2010)
• "Blog Comments Categorized: Encouragers to Aliens"
  (May 28, 2010)

Microsoft, Windows, Internet Explorer, "Mere Anarchy is Loosed Upon the World," and All That

"Microsoft returning Windows to 'the digital dark ages'?"
FoxNews.com (May 10, 2012)

"The biggest lawsuit in Microsoft's history dominated the 90s, when the company battled accusations that it was stifling browser competition. Rival Netscape couldn't survive, but the Windows giant was ultimately forced to strip Internet Explorer from its operating system in a landmark ruling.

"That conflict may be brewing up again.

"Mozilla, the developer group behind the popular Firefox browser, argued Wednesday night that Firefox is being banned from certain versions of Windows 8, the forthcoming tablet-centric OS from Microsoft -- returning Windows users to the dark ages before competition.

" 'The upcoming release of Windows … and Microsoft's browser practices regarding Windows 8 Metro signal an unwelcome return to the digital dark ages where users and developers didn't have browser choices,” wrote Harvey Anderson, Mozilla general counsel, in a Wednesday night blog post...."

Hyperbole about "digital dark ages" aside, it looks like Microsoft's upcoming version of Windows will allow Microsoft's Internet Explorer to work on computers using Windows, along with most other browsers. Or, Microsoft's new version of Windows will let only Internet Explorer to work.

Either way, it'll be the fault of Big Bad Microsoft: for some folks.

Concerned, Yes: Worried, No

The Lemming is concerned about the latest claim that Microsoft is doing something stupid and self-destructive. The Lemming's computer uses Windows, and the Lemming uses Firefox for most Web browsing: and Chrome, mostly to let the Lemming's webcam talk to a free-with-ads display service.

If the next version of Windows, and subsequent versions, won't let anything but Internet Explorer function as a browser, the Lemming may decide that the next computer on the Lemming's desk will have another operating system.

It's the Lemming's considered opinion that quite a few folks may make that decision: which is why the Lemming is concerned, but not worried. Even if Microsoft decides to be daft: there are other options.

The Town of Hypothetical, West Dakota

Competition doesn't always feel good. Consider this hypothetical situation: Let's say you live somewhere that isn't like Los Angeles or New York City. A remarkable number of folks do, and that's another topic.

You run the only grocery in town: if folks want to buy at another grocer's, they'll have to drive 50 miles. You have to put fresh produce out occasionally, and be careful enough to keep the health inspector from closing you down: but apart from that, you don't have to worry about whether folks will buy your fuzzy fruit and glow-in-the-dark cold cuts.

Then: SOMEONE ELSE OPENS A GROCERY at the other end of town. With (really) fresh fruit, and meat that's not quite so thoroughly aged.

You've got a choice: improve your grocery, or go out of business.

Harsh as this may sound: everybody else in town might benefit from grocers competing with each other. And maybe the hypothetical 'you' with the fuzzy fruit might find indirect benefits in competition-induced improvements.

Who knows: your neighbors might even stop throwing rocks through your windows.

"Things Fall Apart:" A More Sophisticated, Literary, Approach to Unpleasantness

Maybe the Lemming is being unfair about this: but after a while these perennial complaints about big, bad, whatever gets tiresome.

It's like that fellow whose sole talent seems to be finding a dark lining in every sliver cloud; and whose greatest satisfaction is pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. For some reason, a sort of loquacious pessimism has been highly thought of in at least part of the literary world:

"...Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
"Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
"The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
"The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
"Are full of passionate intensity...." (Yeats (1920))

That's not bad, actually. Gloomy, And not the sort of thing to take in large doses on an overcast day: but not bad.

Vaguely-related posts:

• "Google, Bing, Microsoft, 'Original' Work, and Getting a Grip" (February 2, 2011)
• "Microsoft; XP; Support; Marketing, Smart and Otherwise" (August 5, 2010)
• "Microsoft, Domains, Zombie Computers, and Spam" (February 26, 2010)
• "First Google Gmail Hack, now Windows Hole Announced" (January 21, 2010)
• "Lemming Tracks: The Zlob Worm and Related Malware Issues" (April 19, 2009)

Hackers Hooked: Some of Them, Anyway

" 'Lulzsec hackers' arrested in international swoop"
Technology, BBC News (March 6, 2012)

"Seven alleged hackers based in the US, UK and Republic of Ireland have been charged with crimes related to computer attacks said to have affected 'over one million victims'.

"The FBI said that five of the men were involved in the group Lulzsec, while a sixth was a 'member' of Antisec.

"It said that Lulzsec's 'leader' Hector Xavier Monsegur had pleaded guilty in August to 12 criminal charges....

"...The bureau said that Mr Monsegur - also known as Sabu - had admitted involvement in cyber attacks against the media groups Sony Pictures Entertainment, Fox Broadcasting Company and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) among others...."

How bad could this be - really? After all, it looks like the victims are Big Businesses. The Lemming will skip the usual stuff about corporate greed, oppressed classes, and the rest. You've heard it all before, anyway.

Good Morning, Information Age

A hundred years ago, hacking into networks run by large companies wouldn't have made a bit of difference in the lives of ordinary folks. Mainly because there weren't any computer networks to be hacked into.

That was then, this is now.

Large corporations use contemporary information technology to store data about folks who do business with them - which includes a whole lot of folks all across the economic spectrum. Some of the data may not be as important as, say, access codes to bank accounts. It's a little hard to imagine how lives would be disrupted as a result of X Factor contestant data getting stolen.

On the other hand, little things can add up. Particularly in a world that's increasingly interconnected. And where an increasing share of the 7,000,000,000 or so folks have Internet access - or know someone who does.

Contestant Data, a Porn Site, America's Congress, and All That

"Hackers claiming to be part of Lulzsec said they had carried out or have been linked to the following attacks:"

• May 7: US X Factor contestant database
• May 10: Fox.com user passwords
• May 15: Database listing locations of UK cash machines
• May 23: Sonymusic Japan website
• May 30: US broadcaster PBS. Staff logon information
• June 2: Sonypictures.com user information
• June 3: Infragard website (FBI affiliated organisation)
• June 3: Nintendo.com
• June 10: Pron.com pornographic website
• June 13: Senate.gov - website of US Senate
• June 13: Bethesda software website. User information
• June 14: EVE Online, League of Legends, The Escapist and others
• June 16:'Technical disruption' to the website of the CIA
• June 20: The website of the UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) taken offline by denial of service attack
  (Source: BBC News)

The BBC article doesn't say, but presumably these dates are all in 2011.

Customers with data on Nintendo.com probably didn't appreciate having their data fiddled with: but life would probably still go on, even if every customer of a giant like Nintendo lost data they'd entrusted to the entertainment company.

The American Congress, now: that lot is supposed to be running this country, so there might have been serious consequences.

The same goes for networks used by the FBI, CIA, and Soca. Not that they're running any countries - conspiracy buffs notwithstanding - but the Lemming thinks that data used by national law enforcement might be more important than access codes for online games. But that's just the Lemming's opinion.

But - remember that we're living in a very interconnected world, and a big one. Get enough folks spending time unscrambling entertainment accounts, instead of going about their normal routines: and you've got the potential for some fairly large-scale consequences.

Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, and a 124-Year Sentence

"...According to the court papers Mr Monsegur formed Lulzsec last May. It said he acted as a 'rooter', identifying vulnerabilities in victim's computer systems.

"Alongside other recruited hackers he is also alleged to have attacked the US Senate, the cyber security firm Unveillance, Visa, Mastercard and Paypal.

"The FBI said he faced a maximum sentence of more than 124 years in prison if found guilty of all counts...."

That's 124 years, maximum, if found guilty: Mr. Monsegur will probably serve substantially less time. From his point of view, that's a sort of 'worst-case scenario.'

Is doing time for a dozen decades overkill for this sort of offense? That's a good question. It looks like Mr. Monsegur did an awful lot of damage - spread out over a whole lot of people, but still an awful lot of damage.

Whether or not the sentence is 'fair' or not: the Lemming hopes someone has the sense to make sure that Mr. Monsegur doesn't have Internet access while he's a guest of the legal system.

No Sudden Shortage of Hackers

"...Trend Micro's director of security research, Rik Ferguson, added that while this might mark the end of Lulzsec, it would be premature to say the same about Anonymous.

" 'Anonymous is a very different organisation to Lulzsec and other more closely linked groups - anyone can and does act in the name of Anonymous and their activities do not require individual hacker publicity or disclosure of personally identifiable details,' he said.

" 'The very fact that Sabu became the "celebrity" he was, illustrates the real difference between Lulzsec and Anonymous.

" 'I think the hackers we really need to worry about are those that trusted no-one and sought no glory in the first place.'..."

It would be nice if someone could wave a magic wand, and make everybody want to be nice to everybody else. Or, not.

Actually, the Lemming would be very, very, concerned if someone could do that. The situation could make Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" look like a Sunday school picnic, in comparison. And that's another topic.

It's somewhat reassuring to see another set of arrests. The Lemming's not being vindictive: it's a relief to see that law enforcement is taking 'cybercrime' seriously. It's also, in the Lemming's opinion, good that the legal codes in America and the United Kingdom now take late-20th-century information technology into account.

Will there be other hack attacks? Almost certainly. But it looks like folks are starting to take the issue seriously - and that's a good thing.

Related posts:

• Bad News
  • "Oops: pcAnywhere, Symantec's 2006 Norton Antivirus Hacked"
    (January 26, 2012)
  • "Move Over, Sony: Sega Joins 'We Were Hacked' Club"
    (June 19, 2011)
  • "Citibank Card Data Hacked!! (but keep reading)"
    (June 9, 2011)
  • "Lemming Tracks: Epsilon Breach, Spam, and Getting a Grip"
    (April 6, 2011)
  • "3,300,000 People's Student Loan Data Stolen: That's a Lot of Zeroes"
    (March 27, 2010)
• Getting a grip
  • "Lemming Tracks: 'password' As a Password?!"
    (November 21, 2011)
  • "Cloud Computing, Dropbox, and the Postcard Principle"
    (May 13, 2011)
  • "Lemming Tracks: China, Internet Traffic, and Why It Matters"
    (November 18, 2010)
  • "International Cyber Crime Ring Busted: 'By Jove, I Think They've GOT It!' "
    (October 3, 2010)
  • "Web Cookies: About 500 Words of Common Sense and Peanut Butter"
    (August 5, 2010)

SOPA, PIPA, and a Disapproving Rabbit

You know it's serious, when a rabbit gets involved:

"We Disapprove of SOPA/PIPA"
Disapproving Rabbits (January 18, 2012)

"Hey all,

"We normally keep politics out of Disapproving Rabbits, but as people who create and sell things on the internet (and have had our work stolen), both Sharon and I feel we should join the protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect-IP Act (PIPA), which as you can probably tell by the names, are designed to fight Internet Piracy.

"We feel that the legislation goes too far, gives the government and media companies too much power, and is poorly written. You can learn more about them here, but I urge you to investigate on your own...."

Disapproving Rabbits had planned to take the site down for 24 hours, but that would have been a whole lot of work: since they use Blogger, just like the Lemming. Instead, they turned the background color to black.

Turning this blog's background to black would be trickier, since it's a bit complicated - and uses an antique Blogger template. Excuses, excuses.

SOPA may be a well-intentioned, incompetently-planned, overly-powerful bit of legislation. On the other hand, a free Internet is a serious threat to the power of old-school information gatekeepers. Maybe SOPA isn't as daft as it seems: and represents an attempt to regain control of what Americans are allowed to see and read.

I've posted about information gatekeepers before:

• "Information Technology, People, and a Changing World"
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (February 23, 2011)
• "Blogs, Freedom of Speech, and Threats to the Status Quo"
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (July 31, 2010)
• "Cultural Chaos, Divisiveness, and CNN"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (April 1, 2010)
• "What is an Information Gatekeeper?"
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (August 14, 2009)
• "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (June 27, 2008)
  • Why I don't mind people owning dangerous things like
    • Guns
    • LP gas
    • Ammonium nitrate¹
    • Anhydrous ammonia¹
    • Printing presses
    • Fax machines
    • Computers

Other related posts:

• "SOPA and PIPA Google Petition: I Signed"
  (January 18, 2012)
• "Lemming Tracks: SOPA, PIPA, and 'Rules are for the Little People?' "
  (January 17, 2012)
• "Lemming Tracks: SOPA, Censorship, and 'Protection' "
  (January 13, 2012)
• "Lemming Tracks: SOPA, Tech-Savvy Folks, Hollywood, and Congress"
  (January 9, 2012)
• "SOPA: 20 Reasons Why It's a Really Bad Idea"
  (December 30, 2011)

Lemming Tracks: SOPA, PIPA, and 'Rules are for the Little People?'

SOPA is still working its way through Congress, sort of like a badly-cooked triple-cheese pizza.

If SOPA had been written by someone who understood information technology, and gave a rip about freedom of speech, the Lemming wouldn't be all that upset about one more piece of legislation. As it is, it looks like SOPA is - at best - a well-intentioned disaster waiting to happen.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that we do have pesky things like the First Amendment and blogs, and folks who aren't sufficiently submissive to what our betters in Washington think is good for us.

We've also got tech giants like Google, whose leadership is savvy enough to realize that giving some government official the power to shut down bothersome domains is a bad idea.

There's "Smart, Targeted;" And there's Congress

"Google will protest SOPA using popular home page"
Declan McCullagh and Greg Sandoval, CNET News (January 17, 2012)

"The tech sector is pulling out the big guns.

"Google, the Web's top search company and one of technology's most influential powers in Washington, will post a link on its home page tomorrow to notify users of Google's opposition to controversial antipiracy bills being debated in Congress.

"The company confirmed in a statement that it will join Wikipedia, Reddit, and other influential tech firms in staging protests of varying kinds against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA), which are backed by big entertainment and media interests. (Read a roundup of our SOPA and PIPA coverage here.)

" 'Like many businesses, entrepreneurs, and Web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue Web sites without asking American companies to censor the Internet,' a Google representative said. 'So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our U.S. home page.'..."

Let's cut the folks in Congress some slack here: many of them have devoted decades of their lives to spending our money and getting entertained by Hollywood. Unlike many of the rest of us, they may not have had time to learn about stuff like "computers" and "Internet." Besides, mere drudgery like typing and reading are what secretaries and interns are for, right?

Wikipedia Goes Away: For a Day

"Wikipedia joins web blackout in Sopa protest"
BBC News (January 17, 2012)

"Wikipedia plans to take its English-language site offline on Wednesday as part of protests against proposed anti-piracy laws in the US.

"The user-generated news site Reddit and the blog Boing Boing have also said they will take part in the 'blackout'.

"The sites' webmasters are opposed to the Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (Pipa) being debated by Congress.

"However, Twitter has declined to take part in the shutdown.

"Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, told the BBC: 'Proponents of Sopa have characterised the opposition as being people who want to enable piracy or defend piracy.

" 'But that's not really the point. The point is the bill is so over broad and so badly written that it's going to impact all kinds of things that, you know, don't have anything to do with stopping piracy.'..."

In the Lemming's opinion

• Freedom of speech is not piracy
• Protest is not terrorism
• Disagreement is not treason

The Lemming's been over this sort of thing in another blog:

• "Bahrain, Foreign Troops, and - Maybe - the Last Stand of Kings"
  (March 18, 2011)

'Rules are for the Little People?'

"More on SOPA/PIPA"
Caitlin Williams, WTOL.com News (January 15, 2012; updated January 17, 2012)

"SOPA creator caught in own web

"The author of the controversial SOPA bill which seeks to introduce stricter penalties for companies and individuals caught violating copyright laws online, has been caught in his own web.

"An archived screen shot of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith's, R-TX, website depicts a beautiful lush forest used as a background.

"According to an article by Vice.com, this stock image traced back to photographer DJ Schulte.

"The photographer protects his image under the Creative Commons license, which allows anyone to use an image so long as they attribute the image to the photographer and do not use it for commercial purposes.

"The only problem is that attribution for the image does not appear on the site. If Smith's proposed bill were to pass, action could be taken against his own website.

"Lamar's website no longer utilizes stock images, save for one banner strip across the top, but this incident exposes the faults and vagueness that critics point out in the bill...."

In fairness, anybody can make a mistake. Maybe whatever underling Lamar Smith told to do the website simply forgot to include the Creative Commons license attribution.

On the other hand, that's embarrassing. And an example of what could get someone's website kicked off the Internet, under SOPA provisions.

Not that Smith would be affected. He's important. As long as he was part of the Washington set, it's unlikely that some trifling little peccadillo like using DJ Schulte's picture without attribution would result in SOPA enforcement.

The story might be different, if whoever committed such an act of 'piracy' was one of those 'troublemakers' who don't agree with our great leaders in Washington. And that's almost another topic.

Related posts:

• "Lemming Tracks: SOPA, Censorship, and 'Protection' "
  (January 13, 2012)
• "Lemming Tracks: SOPA, Tech-Savvy Folks, Hollywood, and Congress"
  (January 9, 2012)
• "SOPA: 20 Reasons Why It's a Really Bad Idea"
  (December 30, 2011)
• "SOPA, Censorship, the Twits in Washington, and a Ranting Lemming"
  (December 28, 2011)
• "Lemming Tracks: Internet Freedom; or 'Be Careful What You Wish For' "
  (April 19, 2011)

Lemming Tracks: Toxic Light Bulbs For a Brighter Future

There's good news, and there's bad news. First, the good news.

Rejoice! Energy-Efficient Light Bulbs!!

"Old light bulbs fading, but what will replace them? "
Dave Gathman. The Courier-News (January 10, 2012)

"There's one trend we usually can count on in electrical equipment, from TV sets and radios to music players and telephones: As the years pass, it will become cheaper and cheaper, and more and more disposable.

"But as a five-year-old federal law takes effect this month, Americans may have to get used to just the opposite when it comes to the light bulb.

"The bulbs of the future will cost much more than the cheap, disposable incandescent bulbs we have been using since Thomas Edison figured out how to make one way back in 1879. But they also will last much longer - maybe even to the point of becoming built-in pieces of each lamp that last as long as the lamp does. And they will reduce our electric bills.

"On New Year's Day, the light-bulb business felt the first impact of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which had been passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007. The law was backed by an alliance of congressmen who wanted to reduce foreign energy imports and cut greenhouse gas emissions from making electricity...."

What joys! Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, and the Federal government, we'll soon pay a few cents less each month for electricity!! Oh, if only this glorious moment had come in warmer weather, so there could be dancing in the street!!!

Oh, wait: there was something in the third paragraph. "...The bulbs of the future will cost much more...."

That's the bad news.

What's Money to Congress?

"Government Phasing Out Incandescent Light Bulbs"
ktbs.com (January 2, 2012)

"Get ready to say goodbye to the incandescent light bulb and hello to a future lit only by energy efficient bulbs, like compact fluorescent light bulbs or CFLs.

"The new federal light bulb efficiency standards, sought by the Department of Energy, went into effect yesterday. The standards passed Congress with bipartisan approval and was signed by President Bush. These new standards mean the end of incandescent light bulbs.

"According to Energy Star, CFLs approved by them will use about 75% less energy than incandescent bulbs and last 6 times longer, which should equal to energy savings for you and a cleaner environment. Home Depot employee Isham Smith, who goes by Smitty, said that CFLs can last 9 years or more.

"Home Depot will continue selling incandescent light bulbs, but only for as long as suppliers have them...."

"...The general cost of energy efficient bulbs can be frightening. Some of the bulbs at Home Depot can be nearly 50 dollars each. Smitty tells us that prices should go down as the bulbs become more popular and when manufacturers produce more of the bulbs...."

Okay: That's "...some...nearly 50 dollars each...." And Smitty's probably right. Today those fancy, toxic, expensive, high-tech lights are a sort of novelty item. With the government making everybody use them, economies of scale should kick in for the manufacturing process.

Which means that each fancy new light will cost less to make. Maybe enough different companies will be making them, so that competition will let prices get down to where folks can afford to have electric lights in their homes.

That would be nice.

On the other hand, the Lemming could claim that the ban on incandescent lights is some sort of conspiracy - and SOPA is an effort by Congress to silence folks who don't agree.

That would be silly. The Lemming thinks SOPA is a bad idea: but part of some conspiracy? Maybe involving space aliens and Elvis? Unlikely in the extreme.

Still - it sounds like Americans will be paying quite a bit more for lighting equipment. Because Congress wants us to.

Of course, it's for a good cause. As anyone who has seen "Captain Planet" knows, Mother Earth is threatened by evil forces. Like greedy developers and light bulbs.

Or, rather, the power plants that generate electricity that the light bulbs use.

Sense, Nonsense, and Congress

In the Lemming's opinion:

• Is using less electrical power per unit of lighting a good idea?
  • Yes
• Are new lighting gadgets more efficient?
  • Yes
• Will we benefit from using more energy-efficient lighting?
  • Eventually, yes
• Are Americans going to be paying more for light?
  • Yes
    • For quite a long time
  • Eventually, no
• Will this Congressional stunt have unintended consequences?
  • Yes

Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs and Mercury: Oops

Acronyms are wonderful things, if you know what the mean. A CFL is a Compact Fluorescent Light bulb.

"...These efficient bulbs are not without problems. CFLs contain small amounts of mercury, but that can still be a hazard to the human body. All CFLs should be recycled to prevent mercury from reaching the environment. You can recycle the bulbs at your local Home Depot. Broken CFLs can be recycled, as well. You must handle and clean up after broken CFLS with extreme care...."
(ktbs.com)

Fear not, citizen! You, too, can clean up toxic waste!! ktbs.com helpfully supplied a link to an EPA page that tells folks how to clean up after a fluorescent lighting unit breaks. The ktbs.com link doesn't work, due to a little coding error, but this one does: "Cleaning Up a Broken CFL." (epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html)

The good news is that we won't need to buy hazmat suits when we pay for those fancy new bulbs. The bad news is that breaking one of the government's new gizmos creates a health hazard.

Then there's this item from that EPA instruction page: "...Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment...."

Open a room for five or ten minutes? What's the big deal? This time of year, in central Minnesota, it's a tad chilly outside. Lowering a room's temperature to below freezing is better than breathing toxic fumes: but it's inconvenient at best.

Toxic Light Bulbs, Technology, and Getting a Grip

At this point, the Lemming could rant about

• The evils of
  • Technology and capitalistic greed
  • Big brother government
• Power plants that
  • Explode
  • Kill millions of people
  • All the time
• The wonders of
  • Technology
  • Congress
    • The wise
    • The benevolent
    • The far-seeing

Or, the Lemming could note that

• Saving energy seems to make sense
• The new gadgets are pricey
• Other lighting technologies may be safer
  • And available
    • Eventually

Meanwhile, the Lemming may have to replace a desk lamp that uses a slightly non-standard incandescent light bulb. And that's going to cost money, too.

Somewhat-related posts:

• " 'Carmageddon?' 'Never Mind!''"
  (July 17, 2011)
• "Fukushima, Japan: (Somewhat) Good News, Bad News"
  (March 19, 2011)
• "Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide Now! Or, Not"
  (January 3, 2011)
• "Saving the Environment Makes You Sick"
  (September 28, 2010)
• "Power Stations in Space: No Panacea; But No Kidding, Either"
  (December 2, 2009)

Lemming Tracks: SOPA, Censorship, and 'Protection'

SOPA is - we're told - supposed to protect Hollywood and the American record industry from pirates.

That's not the problem. Copyright and other intellectual property rights are important, and should have legal protection.

But SOPA, as originally set up, would allow some Federal official to blacklist websites. But that's okay? After all, only 'pirate' websites will be affected. And, presumably, since they're 'pirates,' there's no need for a trial: according to SOPA.

Let's imagine a hypothetical situation.

'It Can't Happen Here?'

Let's say there's this website, run by someone who isn't sufficiently grateful about being protected from pirates. One of the pages on this website includes that quote from "Star Wars," "I've got a bad feeling about this." Complete with a sound clip from the 1977 movie.

That, according to some Washington bureaucrat, is 'piracy.'

And so the troublesome website disappears.

Without a trial.

After all, SOPA protects Hollywood against 'pirates,' and their kind doesn't deserve a trial, right?

Or, maybe not-so-right.

Quite a few folks have been raising a fuss about SOPA: including a sort of protest shutdown on Wednesday of next week, January 18.

• "Notch Joins January 18 Anti-SOPA Protest"
  Ian Miles Cheong, gameranx.com (January 13, 2012)
• "Reddit to protest SOPA with Jan. 18 Blackout"
  PC World India News (January 13, 2012)
• "Sen. Leahy bows to pressure, pledges to amend Protect IP bill"
  Declan McCullagh, CNet (January 12, 2012)

Now we're told that SOPA is going to be cleaned up a little before getting imposed on us. That's nice to hear. Maybe it's even true.

Protected from 'Pirates' - And Disturbing Ideas?

Maybe the most disturbing part of SOPA is that a member of Congress apparently decided that websites should be suppressed - without a trial - based on whether or not some government official thought they had the 'wrong' sort of content.

Protecting folks who produce content is a good idea. That was the idea behind "residuals:" allowing someone besides studio heads from profiting from a movie that continues to make money. And yes: there's more to residuals than that:

• "Residuals FAQ"
  Screen Actors Guild

But 'protecting' the world, by taking 'bad' websites off the Internet? Based on what some government official wants? With no trial?

Even if whoever is pushing SOPA 'means well,' this is a very bad idea.

On the other hand, it could be worse. The Egyptian government shut down the Internet in their country a year ago. Egypt has a new government now, by the way.

'It can't happen here?' Well, maybe. But folks with power have been known to react badly when they think they're not being properly appreciated:

• "Lemming Tracks: Egypt Government Shuts Down Internet: It Can't Happen Here?"
  (January 29, 2011)
• "China Protects Online Gamers: Another Dubious Idea"
  (January 18, 2009)
• "The Internet: USA Rules, UAE Rules"
  (August 14, 2007)

Just a reminder: America has a national election coming up this November. Maybe it's time to swap out the current lot with politicos who understand today's technology: and who value freedom of expression.

Other related posts:

• "Lemming Tracks: SOPA, Tech-Savvy Folks, Hollywood, and Congress"
  (January 9, 2012)
• "SOPA: 20 Reasons Why It's a Really Bad Idea"
  (December 30, 2011)
• "SOPA, Censorship, the Twits in Washington, and a Ranting Lemming"
  (December 28, 2011)
• "Lemming Tracks: Internet Freedom; or 'Be Careful What You Wish For' "
  (April 19, 2011)
• " 'Search Neutrality:' Deciding What We're Allowed to Find?"
  (January 22, 2011)

Lemming Tracks: SOPA, Tech-Savvy Folks, Hollywood, and Congress

This isn't a 'political' blog. Not in the sense that the Lemming says every [insert political position] idea is brilliant, while everyone associated with [insert political party] are satanic traitors with body odor issues.

On the other hand, the Lemming likes freedom of expression, and an Internet where folks can voice opinions: even if some federal official doesn't agree. Maybe SOPA is a wonderful idea, that just happened to get introduced toward the start of an election cycle.

Here's what got the Lemming started this evening:

Blacklisting Pirates and Other Subversive Elements?

"Geeks to Testify (Finally!) About SOPA Blacklisting Implications"
David Kravets, Threat Level, Wired (January 9, 2012)

"Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California), a major opponent of the Stop Online Piracy Act, announced Monday he is bringing in the techies to hold a public hearing highlighting the online security implications of a proposed bill that would force changes to internet infrastructure to fight online copyright infringement.

"The announcement came three weeks after a markup of SOPA in the House Judiciary Committee was abruptly postponed amid concerns over its blacklisting element, which lets the attorney general order changes to core internet infrastructure in order to stop copyright infringement.

"The fight pits the big donors of Hollywood against Silicon Valley, relative newcomers to the world of influence peddling. Hollywood argues that millions of jobs are lost a year due to pirate websites, while the tech world argues that the open nature of the internet has created millions of jobs and that copyright holders already have tools to fight illegal downloaders...."

The Lemming is a content provider, and concerned about intellectual property rights. Data, including software, music, and written material, can be copied and distributed online: without the permission of whoever owns the information; and without giving the owner any credit - or profit - which might result.

SOPA is being sold as a solution to online piracy. Maybe it is. But the Lemming is very dubious. Particularly since the folks who seem to be pushing SOPA, like American movie and music studios, do not have a good record where it comes to allowing creative folks to share credit or profit for the content they produce.

Content providers need some sort of legal protection for their intellectual property rights. But the Lemming remembers the 'good old days,' when America was repairing damage done by McCarthy-era blacklists. Today's wannabe blacklisters are a different bunch, and this time it's Hollywood types who would benefit. Blacklists, particularly when created by a government agency with inadequate safeguards for citizens' rights, sound like a very, very bad idea.

Related posts:

• "SOPA: 20 Reasons Why It's a Really Bad Idea"
  (December 30, 2011)
• "SOPA, Censorship, the Twits in Washington, and a Ranting Lemming"
  (December 28, 2011)
• "Lemming Tracks: Internet Freedom; or 'Be Careful What You Wish For' "
  (April 19, 2011)
• " 'Search Neutrality:' Deciding What We're Allowed to Find?"
  (January 22, 2011)
• "The Horror! Monster Comics that Scared Congress"
  (October 31, 2010)

SOPA: 20 Reasons Why It's a Really Bad Idea

"20 Ways SOPA Can Affect The Internet"
Info Carnivore (December 30, 2011)

"The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is now before the American Congress, waiting to be passed or not. With online piracy at an all time high, the US feels that it’s become almost impossible to manage traffic across borders. While the Congress ponders over this, the internet population is concerned as to how SOPA will affect the internet...."

The Lemming ranted about SOPA on Wednesday. Normally, there wouldn't be another post about the same topic for - maybe a week or more. In this case, the Lemming thinks a little repetition won't hurt.

SOPA may be well-intentioned, but the Lemming thinks that Congress should stop, take a deep breath, tear the thing up, and start over.

The Info Carnivore post is mostly a 20-point list about SOPA. It's not good news. Here's a sample:

Forget About Online Business, Freedom of Speech

"...1. Death Penalty For Online Businesses: SOPA authorizes sites that are reported for copyright infringement to be cut off from their domain name. ISPs can force advertisers and payment processors to suspend their services to the site...."

That "death penalty" phrase is a bit over-stated. The Lemming has heard or read nothing to indicate that business owners would actually be executed under SOPA provisions. Still, as a metaphor for driving a company out of business, it's appropriate.

"...6. Free Speech Rights Will Be Censored: Online businesses, user-generated content sites and social media sites will try to play it safe and start heavily censoring user content. This can stifle users’ free speech rights, making the internet a risky place to say anything at all...."

"It can't happen here?" The Lemming remembers McCarthyism and political correctness. Moving on.

'Who Needs a Trial?'

"...2. Sites Blocked And Sued For User Content: Sites which host copyright content uploaded by users can be blacklisted and blocked via ISPs, search engines and payment processors. This can be done without the benefit of a court hearing...."

Let's look at #2 again. Sites that host content uploaded by users can be driven offline. Maybe that doesn't sound so bad: SOPA is against pirates, right? Here's the problem: "...This can be done without the benefit of a court hearing...."

Let's look at a hypothetical situation. You wake up some morning, go online, and try to find something on CNET's Download.com. It's not there any more. Google reports that there's no such site. A few weeks, maybe months or years, later, you find out why. Somebody told the SOPA enforcers that something on Download.com was illegal. So the site was taken off the Internet.

Why bother with a trial?

Is that being alarmist? Maybe. But governments, governmental agencies, and officials have been known to do odd things.

The Info Carnivore post discusses what we can expect from SOPA:

1. Death Penalty For Online Businesses
2. Sites Blocked And Sued For User Content
3. Copyright Holders Can Sue Sites
4. Social Media Held Accountable
5. Small Tech Companies To Suffer
6. Free Speech Rights Will Be Censored
7. Downloading Free Content Will Become Risky
8. Legitimate Business Will Be Held Liable
9. Open Source Sites May Shut Down
10. DNS System Will Be Undermined
11. Internet Speeds May Slow Down
12. Downgrade Attacks Will Increase
13. Use Of Illegal Web Proxies Will Increase
14. Emergency Proxy Servers May Be Made Illegal
15. Streaming Sites Will Be Penalized
16. Online Album Sites Will Shut Down
17. Browsers Will Be Penalized
18. ISPs Will Infringe On Privacy
19. Legitimate Links Can Be Deleted
20. Browser Ability To Generate Fair Links Will Be Impacted

Pirated intellectual property is a real issue, one that should be addressed. But SOPA doesn't look like a solution.

Whether SOPA is an ill-considered effort to show how busy Congressional incumbents are, or an effort to grab control of what commoners may say or see on the Internet: SOPA looks like a really bad idea. For everybody except whoever winds up running it.

A tip of the Lemming's hat to danielsnyder1, on Twitter, for the heads-up on this post.

Related posts:

• "SOPA, Censorship, the Twits in Washington, and a Ranting Lemming"
  (December 28, 2011)
• "Lemming Tracks: Internet Freedom; or 'Be Careful What You Wish For' "
  (April 19, 2011)
• " 'Search Neutrality:' Deciding What We're Allowed to Find?"
  (January 22, 2011)
• "The Horror! Monster Comics that Scared Congress"
  (October 31, 2010)
• "Yogi Yorgesson's 'I Yust Go Nuts At Christmas' and the Hamms Bear"
  (December 15, 2009)

News and views:

• "20 Ways SOPA Can Affect The Internet"
  Info Carnivore (December 30, 2011)
• "Reddit Users to Target Supporters of SOPA in Congress After Successful Boycott of GoDaddy"
  Tech, Forbes, (December 28, 2011)
• "Online piracy a hot issue for Congress in January"
  Mike Snider, USA TODAY (December 28, 2011)
• "On Eve of Net Boycott, Dump GoDaddy Exodus Begins"
  Perry Chiaramonte, FoxNews.com (December 28, 2011)
• "What You Need to Know About SOPA in 2012"
  Dan Rowinski ReadWriteWeb (December 23, 2011)

Lèse Majesté, and Staggering Into the 21st Century

The Lemming posted "Lemming Tracks: 'Sexual Harassment' in the Information Age" about an hour ago. That was about an apparently-daft decision to slap a nine-year-old with a three-day suspension from school. For saying his teacher is "cute." What the kid did was, maybe, inappropriate. Maybe it warranted a three-day suspension.

But "sexual harassment?" Disco is dead, the '80s are long gone, and it's time to get a grip. In the Lemming's opinion, of course. Some folks never left Woodstock, and that's another topic.

Three Day Suspension, Two and a Half Year Prison Sentence, and a Lifetime of Memories

I'm not sure that throwing an adult in prison for insulting a king is 'more serious' than teaching a nine-year-old that people in authority are hypersensitive nitwits. Mr. Gordon's two and a half year prison sentence will last longer: but the nine-year-old will probably remember his experience for the rest of his life.

Anyway, here's what the Lemming saw in yesterday's news:

Don't Dis the King

"American Sentenced to Prison for Insulting Thai Monarchy"
Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (December 8, 2011)

"A court in Thailand sentenced a U.S. citizen to two and a half years in prison Thursday for defaming the country's royal family by translating excerpts of a locally banned biography of the king and posting them online.

"The verdict is the latest so-called lese majeste punishment handed down in the Southeast Asian kingdom, which has come under increasing pressure at home and abroad to reform harsh legislation that critics say is an affront to freedom of expression.

"The 55-year-old Thai-born American, Joe Gordon, stood calmly with his ankles shackled in an orange prison uniform as the sentence was read out at a Bangkok criminal court...."

"Lese majeste" isn't something you hear every day. Not in 21st-century America, at least. A Wikipedia article says it's French (lèse majesté), that came from the in-house brand of Latin the French used for legal stuff. It means "injured majesty," more or less.

Essentially, offending the king was treason in the 'good old days:' which the Lemming doesn't miss all that much.

Joe Gordon, Thailand, Family and Names

"Joe Gordon" sounds like an old-fashioned, solidly Anglo 'American' name. It's possible that Mr. Gordon did what many other Americans did, to make life easier for themselves: changed his name to something the locals could pronounce and remember easily. Let's face it: most Americans are going to remember "Joe Gordon" more easily than they would something like เจ้าพระยาบดินทรเดชา. Or even กอร์ดอนโจ.

Whether or not someone decides to take an 'American' name is up to the individual: Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar got along fine with his distinctly un-British name. Although the Lemming's noticed that it's reduced to "Chandra" fairly often. The Lemming opined about names and America in another blog:

• "'American' Names, the Diocese of Little Rock, and Father Agbakwuo"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (March 19, 2011)

Moving on.

Two and a Half Years: A Light Sentence?

Apparently, the Thai judge is letting Mr. Gordon off easy. Which was awfully nice, considering what a dastardly deed the American had done: dissing the king, and all:

"...Judge Tawan Rodcharoen said the punishment, initially set at five years, was reduced because Gordon pleaded guilty in October.

"The sentence was relatively light compared to other recent cases. In November, 61-year-old Amphon Tangnoppakul was sentenced to 20 years in jail for sending four text messages deemed offensive to the crown.

"Gordon posted links to the banned biography of King Bhumibol Adulyadej several years ago while living in Colorado, and his case has raised questions about the applicability of Thai law to acts committed by foreigners outside Thailand.

"Speaking after the verdict, Gordon said, 'I am an American citizen, and what happened was in America.'...
(Associated Press, via FoxNews.com)

The Lemming could rant about American arrogance, cultural imperialism, and the general ickiness of Yankee warmonger white racist male dominated authoritarian oppressors. But why bother? The Lemming doesn't have a position in American academia to maintain, and isn't trying to be considered 'intelligent' by America's 'better' sort.

Besides, the Lemming thinks that quite a few folks in America are tired of the post-disco 'establishment' in America. And that's yet another topic.

'There Oughtta be a Law?'

"...Thailand's lese majeste laws are the harshest in the world. They mandate that people found guilty of defaming the monarchy -- including the king, the queen and the heir to the throne -- face three to 15 years behind bars. The nation's 2007 Computer Crimes Act also contains provisions that have enabled prosecutors to increase lese majeste sentences.

"The U.S. Embassy's consul general, Elizabeth Pratt, told reporters in Bangkok after the ruling that Washington considered Gordon's punishment 'severe because he has been sentenced for his right to freedom of expression.'..."

The Lemming remembers the trailing edge of McCarthyism, endured political correctness, and doesn't think highly of what either ideological storm did to America. Freedom of expression is precious: even when the other guy says something you don't like. Sometimes, especially when the other guy doesn't agree. And that's yet more topics, that the Lemming's gone on about in this and other blogs.

Goodbye, 18th Century - - Hello, Information Age

Bottom line? The Lemming thinks that America has done well, in part because folks here don't get thrown in prison for criticizing Congress or the President. Not usually, anyway.

The American Revolution (the one in 1776) was an early step in working out ways to run a country without worrying about what some irritable nincompoop with a crown wanted to hear.

A remarkable number of countries discovered that criticizing incompetence, corruption, and unearned privilege didn't bring civilization to its knees. Some countries, like Thailand, don't seem to have read the memo yet.

Yet again more topics.

Related posts:

• Freedom of expression
  • "2009 Preakness Beating: Phones, Freedom, and a Ranting Lemming"
    (December 2, 2011)
  • "Lemming Tracks: Internet Freedom; or 'Be Careful What You Wish For' "
    (April 19, 2011)
  • "Zimbabwe, Where Watching the Wrong Videos is Treason"
    Another War-on-Terror Blog (February 25, 2011)
  • "FCC, the Internet, Regulations, Freedom of Speech, and a Ranting Lemming"
    (December 23, 2010)
  • "William Felkner vs. College Conformity: Traditional Information Gatekeepers Face Another Challenge"
    Another War-on-Terror Blog (December 16, 2008)
    Particularly
    • Traditional Information Gatekeepers and the Information Age
• 'Free - to agree with me?'
  • "Freedom, Even For 'Those People Over There' "
    Another War-on-Terror Blog (November 11, 2011)
  • "My Take on the News: 'There Oughtta be a Law?'"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (November 11, 2011)
    Particularly
    • 'Everybody Knows What Those People are Like'
    • Bias Made Easy
      • A sort of menu
    • Religious Freedom
    • Freedom: For Everyone
  • "Blogs, Freedom of Speech, and Threats to the Status Quo"
    Another War-on-Terror Blog (July 31, 2010)
  • "School District Celebrates Religious Freedom Day: By Banning Bibles"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (July 1, 2010)
  • "More Academic Freedom, American Style?"
    Another War-on-Terror Blog (September 22, 2008)
• Living in a big world
  • "Chauvinism Knows No Borders"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (July 23, 2011)
  • "Cultural Chaos, Divisiveness, and CNN"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (April 1, 2010)
  • " 'Criticism is Terrorism:' Chavez and Twitter 'Terrorists' "
    (February 1, 2010)
  • "What is an Information Gatekeeper?"
    Another War-on-Terror Blog (August 14, 2009)
  • "Tolerance: Yes, it's a Good Idea"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (August 3, 2009)

2009 Preakness Beating: Phones, Freedom, and a Ranting Lemming

Freedom is a funny thing. Folks want it for themselves, but aren't always comfortable when others use their freedom. When the uncomfortable folks wear a police uniform, bad things can happen.

From yesterday's news and views:

'Don't Nobody Look!?' 'Nothing to See Here!?'

"Taking Liberties: iPhone, YouTube and the First Amendment"
Douglas Kennedy, FoxNews.com (December 1, 2011)

"The YouTube video shows the 2009 Preakness. A woman lies bleeding on the ground inside Pimlico Race Course in Maryland after an altercation with police.

" 'How many times are you going to punch her, someone yells at the five or so cops, who are holding the woman on the ground.

" 'Was that necessary?' another person screams.

"An officer at the scene can be heard telling bystanders to stop videotaping the incident with their cellphones.

" 'Turn that off,' he says, claiming it's 'illegal' to tape the police in a public place...."

That's where the Lemming got really, really, interested.

If it's "illegal" to tape the police in a public place, the police departments all over the United States must be routinely breaking the law. The television series "Cops" has been running since 1989, broadcasting footage recorded by dashcams.

Of course, 'that's different.' Those dashboard cameras are part of the police department inventory, and are used as a law enforcement tool.

Back to that article.

"Illegal," or Embarrassing?

"...So is it really 'illegal?' It's a question many courts are facing these days with the proliferation of cell cameras and other handheld recording devices.

"Chris Sharp was at Pimlico that day and also pressed the record button on his phone. The woman on the ground was a friend of a friend, and Sharp caught the entire confrontation, including what he calls 'the beating.'...

"...Unlike the YouTube video, Sharp says he caught the initial takedown.

" 'I got the whole thing,' he said as he paced back and forth in the parking lot behind the headquarters for the Maryland American Civil Liberties Union.

"Unfortunately, Sharp said something similar to the police at the scene. 'I told them I got it all.'..."

Sharp, in the Lemming's opinion, made a really big mistake at that part: assuming that his story is essentially accurate.

Telling someone you think is committing a violent crime, that you've got video evidence of the crime, when the perpetrator can hurt you, is, again in the Lemming's opinion, not prudent.

Collecting - and Destroying Evidence?!

"...He says the police then took his camera and erased all the contents, including the video and all his pictures.

" 'After they took my phone,' he said, 'and then gave it back to me, everything was off of it… my personal videos of my son and family and friends.'

"Sharp and his attorney are now suing the Baltimore Police Department, claiming it violated the First Amendment...."

Things get a little technical at that point. Essentially, some folks think that the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to America's Constitution, give Americans certain rights.

Some of them aren't all that much of an issue today, like Amendment III:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Then there's Amendment IV:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

A key word there is "unreasonable." The Lemming figures the police officer who apparently erased the evidence he was confiscating thought what he did was "reasonable." At least, using the "I want to do this, so it's reasonable" principle.

On the other hand, Amendment I doesn't mention cell phone cameras, or videotape. Not once:

First Amendment: Cell Phones, No; Freedom, Yes

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Which makes sense, considering that video recording devices hadn't been invented in 1791. Those excerpts, by the way, are from:

• "Bill of Rights Transcript Text"
  The Charters of Freedom, National Archives, United States

Freedom ISN'T Conformity

"Freedom" can mean quite a few things, depending on who you listen to. A regrettable number of folks seem to think that "freedom" means, "free to agree with me." McCarthyism and political correctness are two recent examples of that sort of aberration.

It's the Lemming's considered opinion that freedom is the:

• Condition of being free
• Power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints
  (Princeton's WordNet)

Folks in a society have to agree on some things, like which side of the road to drive on, and whether a red traffic light means "stop" or "go." Beyond that sort of thing, the Lemming thinks that freedom allows folks to make decisions.

Even if they're not exactly what the Lemming decided.

At least, that's the way it should work.

The First Amendment's "establishment clause," and odd notions about religious beliefs - - - is a topic for another blog:

• "My Take on the News: Religion, Politics, and Freedom"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (October 28, 2011)
  Particularly
  • Conspicuous, Maybe: But Not Typical
  • Faith, Reason, and Politics
• "The Establishment Clause; Religious Freedom; and Getting a Grip"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (October 5, 2011)
• "Sex, Science, and the Home Schooling Parent"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (September 17, 2011)
• "First Amendment Suspended for 9/11 Memorial Service: Wrong, but Understandable"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (September 10, 2011)
• "Religious Freedom, Niemöller, and Muslims in America"
  A Catholic Citizen in America (April 7, 2011)
  Particularly
  • Why the Rights of Muslims Matter to This Catholic

American Police: Sensible, Professional, Mostly

"....[Attorney] Jeon says the police 'harangued' Sharp to give them his phone, claiming they wanted it for evidence.

" 'Then, she says, 'they took the phone and deleted the so called "evidence." They were the ones who broke the law.'..."

At this point, what happened at the 2009 Preakness seems to be a 'he said/she said' situation. Since Sharp's video no longer exists, it can't be used as evidence for or against anybody. That's assuming that it exists, of course.

In a perfect world, everybody on every police force would act - perfectly. We probably wouldn't even need police. But this world isn't perfect, some folks are not safe to be around - and, unhappily, a few of them wear police uniforms.

Please note, the Lemming said "some," and "a few." Each time that the Lemming was detained by the police, they acted in a sensible, professional manner: and that's another topic. The Lemming is also aware that wearing a police uniform doesn't guarantee good behavior.

The Lemming hopes that there were enough witnesses to piece together what really happened: either to exonerate the law enforcement folks involved; or identify a problem before someone gets hurt. Hurt more.

If that video existed, what happened is daft: at a minimum. Seriously: Identifying something as "evidence," and then destroying the evidence?! In front of an interested witness? Without, ah, dealing with the witness later?

Never mind ethics and Constitutional rights: that's daft. And stupid.

"Ridiculous," No: Dubious, Maybe

Back to that article, again:

"...'This is ridiculous,' says Rod Wheeler. 'This lawsuit should go nowhere.'

"Wheeler is a former Washington, D.C., detective and current police advocate.

" 'Police officers,' he continued, 'do not need citizens out there with cameras videotaping each and every move that they make.'..."

The Lemming has no reason to doubt that Wheeler is sincere.

However: being sincere, and being right, aren't necessarily the same thing.

For folks in police uniforms, "...cameras videotaping each and every move that they make...." may be inconvenient, uncomfortable, or embarrassing: but that doesn't make it wrong.

Like the Lemming said:

• dashcams
• Cops

Granted, that example is a case of the police videotaping themselves.

Wheeler is probably right about police, some of them, 'not needing' citizens recording visual evidence of their activities. The rest of us, though, are arguably better off with citizen video. 'Checks and balances,' and all that. Back to the article, yet again:

Cameras "In the Way?"

"He says cameras get in the way of good law enforcement.

" 'They interfere with the arrests and, actually, that's exactly what happened with that arrest in Baltimore.'...

"...'These individuals were standing back hollering, taunting the police,' he said. 'They were interfering and obstructing the arrest.'..."

Wheeler has a definite point of view. He may be right. The Lemming wasn't at the 2009 Preakness, and doesn't have all the facts. Sometimes bystanders really do interfere with and obstruct legitimate police work.

Sometimes they interfere with and obstruct the activities of uniformed thugs.

The Lemming doesn't have enough facts to form an opinion about the 2009 beating.

Moving on.

"Recording" isn't "Interfering"

"...Sharp says he certainly did not interfere with the police.

" 'I can't disagree more,' he said. 'I was nowhere close to the incident going on.'

"He said he now believes recording the police is an important right that needs to be preserved.

" 'I think we have a right to videotape anyone we want to, especially someone that's a public servant,' he said.

"The ACLU urges anyone with questions about what they can and can't videotape in public to view their video called '"Know Your Rights.' "

Like the Lemming said, every time the Lemming and the police got up-close-and-personal, they acted sensibly and professionally. And, in a few instances, had very good reasons for detaining the Lemming. Not that the Lemming is 'one of those criminals,' and that's yet another topic.

The idea that observing and recording actions done in public is 'interfering' with the actions doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Not to the Lemming. But then, the Lemming doesn't get hissy fits over security cameras in a parking lot, or the Highway Patrol using radar to determine how fast the Lemming is driving.

Photographers Should Obey The Law: So Should Police

The Lemming's no great fan of the ACLU, but they put together a pretty good resource, "Know Your Rights: Photographers." (ACLU)

Here's an excerpt:

"...Your rights as a photographer:

"When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes pictures of federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police. Such photography is a form of public oversight over the government and is important in a free society.

"When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the taking of photographs. If you disobey the property owner's rules, they can order you off their property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply).

"Police officers may not generally confiscate or demand to view your photographs or video without a warrant. If you are arrested, the contents of your phone may be scrutinized by the police, although their constitutional power to do so remains unsettled. In addition, it is possible that courts may approve the seizure of a camera in some circumstances if police have a reasonable, good-faith belief that it contains evidence of a crime by someone other than the police themselves (it is unsettled whether they still need a warrant to view them).

"Police may not delete your photographs or video under any circumstances.

"Police officers may legitimately order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations. Professional officers, however, realize that such operations are subject to public scrutiny, including by citizens photographing them.

"Note that the right to photograph does not give you a right to break any other laws. For example, if you are trespassing to take photographs, you may still be charged with trespass...."

The next part of that page, advice on what to do if a police officer stops you, starts with:

"Always remain polite and never physically resist a police officer...."

That's good advice, in most situations: in the Lemming's opinion.

The Lemming's done photography, professional and otherwise, and had to learn America's rules for photographers. What the ACLU said matches what the Lemming got from other sources. It's also 'common sense.' But that's the Lemming's take on the matter: and the Lemming doesn't think that photographers can do anything they want.

The Lemming also thinks that America's police are:

1. Generally
   • Professional
   • Competent
   • Focused on public safety
2. Not perfect
   

Number two is why the Lemming thinks it's okay to consider the possibility that someone in a police uniform may not have acted properly. Even if that person "collected evidence," and deleted information that showed what happened.

Related posts:

• "Freedom, Even For 'Those People Over There' "
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (November 11, 2011)
• "FCC, the Internet, Regulations, Freedom of Speech, and a Ranting Lemming"
  (December 23, 2010)
• "Police Abuse: America isn't Russia"
  Another War-on-Terror Blog (February 19, 2010)
• " 'Criticism is Terrorism:' Chavez and Twitter 'Terrorists' "
  (February 1, 2010)
• "It Can Happen Here: 'Hate Speech' and Censorship"
  (January 12, 2008)

Litigation-Based Business Model, Freedom of Speech, and Intellectual Property

"Bloggers Mull Legal Action Against Righthaven"
David Kravets, Threat Level, Wired (June 15, 2011)

"Bloggers who paid thousands of dollars each to settle copyright-infringement allegations with Righthaven were mulling their legal options Wednesday, a day after a federal judge said the copyright troll had no legal standing to bring that kind of lawsuits.

" 'We're thinking seriously about what to do,' Clayton Cramer, the former operator of the now-defunct Armedcitizen.net, said in a telephone interview.

"More than 100 owners of blogs and other sites have settled with Righthaven for undisclosed sums, and Cramer wants his money back. Righthaven has lodged more than 300 lawsuits across the nation in a courthouse barrage that might not have been legal.

"Cramer settled for an undisclosed sum with Righthaven last year to end allegations his gun-rights site committed copyright infringement for running an entire Las Vegas Review-Journal article. The agreements prohibit either party from disclosing the settlement terms, but Righthaven's suit initially sought $75,000 in damages.

" 'That made their threat demanding $75,000 a credible threat, so we settled,' Clayton said...."

This isn't a political blog. The Lemming doesn't say that one person, or party, is always right - and that anybody who disagrees is stupid. The Lemming is also "apathetic" in the sense of not having the properly-hysterical reactions to the proper ideas. ("About the Lemming")

The Lemming isn't upset because Righthaven wanted $75,000 from a "gun-rights site." Lifting an entire article is, the Lemming thinks, a dubiously-sensible practice, since a blog or website can link to outside articles. Or do what the Lemming does: quote excerpts, link to the original source, and say where the material is from and who created it.

Which is why the Lemming calls these posts "micro-reviews." They're short(ish) reviews of stuff the Lemming digs up.

The Lemming is a trifle concerned that someone may have tried to drive a website supporting the 'wrong' views off the Internet by 'assault with crippling lawsuit.' Freedom of expression is something the Lemming does care about - and folks with money to hire lawyers have, in the Lemming's opinion, quite enough clout as it is.

To Link or Not to Link - That is the Question

Sorry, Shakespeare - the Lemming couldn't resist that one. Didn't, anyway.

Linking without quoting a meaningful excerpt assumes that the original source will still have the article available - at that URL - a week, a month, or a year from publication. Some outfits realize that they lose viewers by shuffling their content or deleting pages - and don't hide or destroy their content. Some editors/bosses/supervisors may think they've got a reason to discourage repeat visits - and that's another topic.

"Pilfering??"

Back to that article:

"...Cramer's reaction was in response to a Nevada federal judge's Tuesday decision that Righthaven did not have standing to bring a copyright lawsuit against the Democratic Underground blog for allegedly pilfering four paragraphs from a 34-paragraph story published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which is owned by Stephens Media.

"Righthaven sues on behalf of Stephens Media copyrights, and U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt ruled that such a litigation tactic was impermissible because a 'copyright owner cannot assign a bare right to sue.' (.pdf) The decision, and a similar one in Colorado, has thrown a monkey wrench into the litigation-based business model, which the Electronic Frontier Foundation has declared a 'sham.'..."
(Wired)

Quoting 4/34 of an article - and that's "pilfering??" "Allegedly" or not - that's just a little over 1/8 of the article - which isn't all that much, in the Lemming's opinion. Maybe Democratic Underground claimed - tacitly or otherwise - that they'd created the content.

If "Las Vegas Review-Journal" sounds familiar - a post by the Lemming mentioned them about a year ago. (June 13, 2010)

Intellectual Property Rights and the Lemming

The Lemming thinks intellectual property rights are important. Partly because the Lemming creates content - like this post (the stuff that's not an excerpt from the Wired article), and that picture.

Is what the Lemming writes as valuable, word-for-word, as a Stephen King novel? Or are the Lemming's pictures going to sell like a Mary Cassatt original? Hardly. Not even close. But the Lemming slaps identifying text on images the Lemming makes, anyway - and has fairly standard copyright statements in blogs and websites.

On the other hand, the Lemming doesn't lie wake nights, worried that somewhere, somehow, some nefarious nogoodnik has copied a paragraph of a post and republishing it. The Lemming's got enough to do, just writing these posts.

And making the occasional semi-nifty picture.

Related posts:

• "Lemming Tracks: Erin Andrews, Policing the Internet, and Power to the People"
  (July 29, 2010)
• " 'Search Neutrality:' Deciding What We're Allowed to Find?"
  (January 22, 2011)
• "[Information] Power to the People!"
  Drifting at the Edge of Time and Space (April 16, 2010)
• "Intellectual Property Rights: Yes, They Matter"
  (June 13, 2010)
• "The Associated Press, Bloggers, Fair Use, and Common Sense"
  (June 17, 2008)

More of the Lemming's opinions:

• "Intellectual Property Rights"