You know the scariest thing about this? It’s not that the FBI is merely incompetent. It is that, apparently, so many American Muslims in sensitive positions make contact with Al Qaeda that the FBI is forced to conduct investigatory triage and evaluate whether, in their minds, the emails are merely innocent-for-now banter or something demanding a more urgent response.
Otherwise, why the blow-off? I don’t understand how the FBI could possibly deem any chatter with Al Qaeda harmless and not worth investigating unless so much of this was going on that they had decide which illegal chatter with a hot-war enemy was worth their limited let’s-take-a-looksie-at-this resources.
Ace, “FBI: Hassan’s Al Qaeda Emails Were Probably Just Some Research and Social Chatter and Stuff”, Ace of Spades, 2009-11-10
November 10, 2009
QotD: “It’s not that the FBI is merely incompetent”
November 5, 2009
Background on those “Cellared in Canada” wines
In his November Frugal Oenophile newsletter, Richard Best looks at the evolution of that blight on the Ontario wine industry, the “Cellared in Canada” designation:
For some time (since 1973 in fact), Ontario wineries have been allowed to import juice or wine from other countries and then bottle it as their own. Bottles containing mostly foreign wine were originally labeled Product of Canada. Then in 1993 Product of Canada was replaced by Cellared in Canada (CIC). So, what you’ve been reading and hearing about lately is that people don’t get it, and that in an effort to support the local wine industry, they’ve been buying CIC wines and unknowingly underwriting wine factories in California, Chile and elsewhere.
Why Did This Come About
In the beginning, Niagara had thousands of hectares of north American Labrusca grapes the likes of Concord and Niagara and even one called President (“President Champagne” anyone?) When better grapes came along, the Ontario government encouraged growers to grub up their Labrusca vines and replant with French-American hybrids, mostly Vidal, Seyval Blanc, Marechal Foch, and Baco Noir. Then in 1989 the government launched another grubbing up program when some die-hard wineries started planting European Vinifera grapes: Chardonnay, the Cabernets, and especially Riesling. (It’s interesting to note that government experts insisted for decades that Vinifera vines could never succeed in Ontario.)
So, what do you do when you’ve ripped out your vineyard and now must wait 3-5 years to harvest grapes? The simplest solution is to allow wineries to import even more wine with which to “extend” their remaining harvest. Now, the original plan was to phase out the imported wine, with a “sunset” in the year 2000. But by then a few large wineries had shifted their business plan from Canadian fine wine to cheap and cheerful jug wines (but without the jug, at least). It’s pretty hard to change a law that has allowed a few companies to grow rich and dominate the market, so the plan was carved in stone . . . soapstone, as it turns out.
In 1993, when Canada signed the Free Trade Agreement, Ontario put a cap on the entire wine business. Only wineries establish before NAFTA would be allowed to import wine for blending. Moreover, only these wineries could own multiple site licenses. So we now have a two-tiered system: wineries that can do pretty much what they want, and those that can do little more than pay the bills.
It’s hard to pretend that it’s a level playing field for the domestic wine producers when there clearly are two distinct classes enshrined in law.
To subscribe to Richard’s newsletter, send him an email at frugalwine@sympatico.ca with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
November 4, 2009
No wonder it had to be kept a secret
Cory Doctorow looks at the “too sensitive to expose to public view” Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and finds it awful:
ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet — and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living — if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
Clueless, but powerful . . . meet powerless, but distributed. Combatants, take your corners.
Update: Your kids could go to jail for non-commercial file sharing.
November 3, 2009
Challenge to human gene patents allowed to proceed
A judge has allowed an ACLU challenge to two human gene patents to go to court:
The first-of-its-kind lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law claims that the patents violate free speech by restricting research.
U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet of New York, in ruling that the case may proceed to trial, noted that the litigation might open the door to challenges of a host of other patented genes. About one-fifth of the human genome is covered under patent applications and claims.
Sweet wrote:
The challenges to the patents-in-suit raise questions of difficult legal dimensions concerning constitutional protections over the information that serves as our genetic identities and the need to adopt policies that promote scientific innovation and biomedical research. The widespread use of gene sequence information as the foundation for biomedical research means that resolution of these issues will have far-reaching implications, not only for gene-based health care and the health of millions of women facing the specter of breast cancer, but also for the future course of biomedical research.
The case against the patent office and patent-holder Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City is the first to challenge a patented gene under a civil rights allegation — in this case the First Amendment.
October 30, 2009
Cory Doctorow on Britain’s ill-advised ‘3 strikes’ move
Cory Doctorow would have the British government do something other than their idiotic ill-advised move to enforce the “three strikes” rule:
Peter Mandelson’s proposal to disconnect the families of internet users who have been accused of file sharing will do great violence to British justice without delivering any reduction in copyright infringement. We’ve had 15 years of dotty entertainment industry proposals designed to make computers worse at copying. It’s time that we stopped listening to big content and started listening to reason.
Since 1995 — the year of the WIPO copyright treaties — the entertainment industry has won extrajudicial powers to enforce its rights without the need to prove a case in court. “Notice and takedown”, as the system was called, was supposed to stop copyright infringement on the web. It gave rights holders the power to compel internet service providers to take down material simply by stating that it infringed their rights, and obliged those providers to act or face liability.
A decade and a half later there is no indication that this has reduced copyright infringement online (certainly there is more today than there was in 1995). And, predictably, a system that allows for legalised censorship without penalties for abuse has itself been abused.
We are already at the point where it is a reasonable and sensible thing to say that access to the internet is a human right (at least in the west). Mandelson’s three strikes provision will deny innocent people access to the internet (for all it will take is accusations that do not need to have proof), which for more and more people will be the practical equivalent of being exiled from the country. No internet access would mean children can’t get access to school work, parents can’t get access to their bank accounts, and everyone will be cut off from large parts of their social circle (more and more people depend on email, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media to stay in touch).
Due process? That seems to have been lost in the rush. Proportionality? That’s been gone for years.
Justice is (belatedly) served
A short summary from The Guardian:
The Pennsylvania supreme court has dismissed thousands of juvenile convictions issued by a judge charged in a corruption scandal.
The high court today threw out more than five years worth of cases heard by former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella. He is charged with accepting millions of dollars in kickbacks to send youths to private detention centres.
The court says that all the convictions are tainted and that the youths may not be retried.
This is very good news for the young people who were railroaded . . . one wonders if a class action lawsuit can now be prepared against the state for the wrongful imprisonment?
October 29, 2009
Another non-surprise development in Britain
You can’t be a proper Nanny State without properly trained nannies:
Only council-vetted “play rangers” are now allowed to monitor youngsters in two adventure areas in Watford while parents must watch from outside a perimeter fence.
The Watford Borough Council policy has been attacked as insulting and a disgrace by furious relatives who say they are being labelled as potential paedophiles.
Of course, like all such idiotic measures, it’s intended to “protect the children”, so no rational thought is welcome on the subject. All across Britain today, local councils are suddenly wondering if they should adopt the same kind of policy for fear of being held responsible should anything happen.
The Daily Telegraph disclosed on Tuesday how employers will come under pressure to register staff with the Government’s anti-paedophile database even if they have little contact with children
Sir Roger Singleton, the chairman of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, said the scope of the planned database could increase significantly because companies would fear losing business if they did not have their employees vetted.
Last month, he was asked by the Government to look again at the complex definitions of “frequent” and “intensive” contact following concerns that the scheme would lead to state supervision of all relationships between adults and children.
It may not be the intent, but it will almost certainly be the final result.
There are many ways to destroy a neighbourhood
Chicago is contemplating one of the more effective ones:
Breaking down communities by creating incentives for friends and neighbors to betray one another is a much more effective tool in developed nations with less salient cultural cleavages a ruler can exploit. Creating distrust in society increases the public’s demand for government and reduces our ability to create (market and non-market) voluntary institutions to compete with government. If we think our neighbors are out to get us, we’re less likely to want to deal with them on a voluntary basis and more likely to demand they be controlled by government. Destroying community is good for government.
The Chicago city government seems to have realized this. It is considering a “Tax Whistleblower Program” which would pay people to rat on “tax cheats.” Grassers will most likely be paid a percentage of back taxes collected. The city officials are claiming that it’s “just another way of bringing people into compliance.” No doubt it will be an effective one too, since community can be a fragile thing.
All it takes is one neighbourhood busybody being financially rewarded for squealing on the guy down the street. Everything tends to snowball as trust evaporates and everyone starts to view their neighbours as potential threats.
October 24, 2009
October 22, 2009
Soon, they’ll demand a fee for thinking about the songs
Although this particular case appears to have ended correctly — with an apology from the heavy-handed enforcer — it does still illustrate just how far the copyright police are willing to go:
A shop assistant who was told she could not sing while she stacked shelves without a performance licence has been given an apology.
Sandra Burt, 56, who works at A&T Food store in Clackmannanshire, was warned she could be fined for her singing by the Performing Right Society (PRS).
However the organisation that collects royalties on behalf of the music industry has now reversed its stance.
They have sent Mrs Burt a bouquet of flowers and letter of apology.
Mrs Burt, who describes herself as a Rolling Stones fan, said that despite the initial warning from the PRS, she had been unable to stop herself singing at work.
October 21, 2009
Can Twittering be sufficient cause for arrest?
Regardless of your opinions on the particular cause, the recent arrest of a protest organizer should cause concern. Harry A. Valetk looks at the case from a legal standpoint:
“SWAT teams rolling down 5th Ave. … Report received that police are nabbing anyone that looks like a protester. … Stay alert watch your friends!” Pennsylvania State Police arrested New York social worker Elliot Madison last month for being part of a group that posted messages like those on Twitter. The arrest took place in a Pittsburgh motel during protests at the Group of 20 summit. In all, almost 5,000 protesters demonstrated throughout the city during two days, and about 200 were arrested for disorderly conduct.
But Madison wasn’t among those protesting on the street. Instead, published reports say he was part of a behind-the-scenes communications team using Twitter to “direct others, specifically protesters of the G-20 summit, in order to avoid apprehension after a lawful order to disperse.” A week later, FBI agents spent 16 hours in Madison’s home executing a search warrant for evidence of federal anti-rioting law violations.
This isn’t, at least based on the initial reports, a criminal mastermind perpetrating some atrocity . . . this is someone trying to help others falling afoul of legal entanglement. If it turns out that he was attempting something that is clearly illegal, then the courts will sort it out — but that isn’t what appears to be the case here.
Presumably, officers believed that Madison violated this statute when he warned other protesters on Twitter about “impending” police apprehension. But this prohibition assumes that the warning is given to fugitives or others committing a crime. Can we make this broad assumption about an entire group of protesters? Not likely. And, even so, the statute specifically allows warnings to bring that individual into compliance with law (e.g., a motorist warning a speeder about a speed trap).
Still, it seems this arrest is really about speech — what you can say to others during a public protest. Can you warn others online by saying, “Hey, don’t go down that street because the police have issued an order to disperse”?
October 15, 2009
Remember: “Cellared in Canada” means it’s not Canadian wine
Michael Pinkus has a couple of anecdotes about the marketing sleight-of-hand that allows certain Canadian wineries to sell foreign-sourced wines as if they were Canadian:
Picture, if you will, a classroom of about 30 adult students. Teacher stands up at the front and writes the words “Cellared in Canada” on the blackboard, he then asks, “Who has heard this term?” Head nods of agreement, they have heard of this. The teacher then writes these three letters “V-Q-A” on the board, “Who’s heard this term?” he asks. Everyone again nods accession. “What’s the difference?” Silence ensues. There are then some attempts to explain the difference, but there always seems to be a little confusion in the definition. The words, “no, but thanks for playing,” escaped my lips on more than one occasion. Yes I was that teacher and this happened less than 2 weeks ago. With all the media hype surrounding Cellared in Canada the only thing anyone knows for sure is that somehow cellared wines are bad; but VQA, has somehow been lumped in there too, the term has gotten lost in all the hype. Truth is, these two terms should be as clear as night and day to Ontario wine drinkers.
Now picture this. A man driving down the road, his cell phone rings, he answers, pleasantries are exchanged, then the question is posed, “What’s up?” The person on the other end of the phone is a winery owner with a very real concern, “We’re getting hammered here by irate customers telling us that they are disappointed with us and angry about being duped over our use of foreign grapes and off shore wines.” He pauses for dramatic effect, “We don’t make cellared wines, we’re strictly VQA, always have been always will be. Mike is there anything you can do?” Oh how I wish I could. My worst fears are now being realized; all Ontario wine is being painted with the sloppy broad-brush strokes of Cellared in Canada.
The two stories above are true and have come about due to the continuing controversy surrounding Cellared in Canada wine. Let’s be crystal clear about these two products: Cellared in Canada and VQA. Cellared in Canada is the foreign blend with 30% Ontario content (0% in B.C.); it is a bastard child with no home, an orphan with no earthly parentage. VQA, on the other hand is a purebred, it is 100% from the province it states, Ontario or B.C., currently the only 2 provinces with VQA regulations in place. A VQA wine has the flavour of its origin, it has a home, it has that aspect of “Terroir” the French so rightly hype. Terroir means soil, but it means more than that when talking about wine, it’s a combination, a culmination if you will, of everything mother nature brings to the table in any given year that goes into making that wine — the soil, the climate, the environment. VQA is Ontario wine — 100% — always has been, always will be — if it says VQA, it’s A-OK.
The Billionaire’s vinegar-scented legal decision
Following up on an item posted a couple of months ago (“The Billionaire’s Vinegar-scented lawsuit“), Michael Broadbent wins his lawsuit against the publisher of The Billionaire’s Vinegar:
This week, the man who authenticated the Lafite and presided over its auction won an apology and damages from the publisher Random House over a bestselling book, which, he argued, had suggested he had sold the wine knowing its provenance to be suspect. Michael Broadbent has retired as the senior director of Christie’s wine department but remains, according to Adam Lechmere, editor of decanter.com, “among the top three most respected wine critics in the world”.
Broadbent described the ruling as a “great relief”, adding that he planned to celebrate with a magnum of Mouton 1990 over dinner at his club.
The settlement relates to a book called The Billionaire’s Vinegar by American journalist Benjamin Wallace, which outlines the now notorious case of “the Jefferson bottles” – and which Random House, according to Broadbent’s lawyer, Sarah Webb, must now remove from bookshop shelves in Britain.
October 12, 2009
Protip: a police station parking lot is not a “private place”
BBC News reports that a couple of Edinburgh pub-goers chose a particularly unsuitable place to go have sex after meeting in the pub:
An amorous couple have been fined for having sex in broad daylight — in a police station car park.
Leanne Richardson, 26, and Ross Welsh, 30, had to be physically stopped mid sex act by officers from Portobello police station in Edinburgh.
They both pleaded guilty to committing a breach of the peace in the car park on 21 April and were fined £200.
October 7, 2009
Jon writes to his Member of Parliament
I sent a link to Jon the other day, asking if he’d really voted for this guy. This prompted Jon to send this to his Member of Parliament:
Dear Mr. Van Loan —
Just wondering if you could comment on the Michael Geist article that appears at the following locations:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4424/135/
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/701824
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/curious+case+access+request+that+wasn/2045337/story.htmlI am wondering if you could elaborate on why you are using the kidnapping case mentioned in the article as an example of why law enforcement agencies require increased access to internet service provider (ISP) information without oversight by the courts. Considering that ISP information seems to have played no role in this case, the case does not sound like a particularly good example of why such access is required.
Also, should the “lawful access” legislation pass, what guarantees are there that government agencies will not abuse such access for political purposes? I suspect that this sort of thing already happens in Canada, but such abuse is currently (in theory) illegal. Removing the requirement for a warrant and providing open access to an ISP’s customer records is something that seems to be wide open to abuse.
Please advise as time permits.
Thanks and best regards —
Jonathan [Redacted]
In a separate email, he also explained that he’d met Van Loan once before, with less-than-perfect meeting of the minds:
Ah yes. We knew however many years ago it was when we first voted for the guy what he would be doing. That whole telepathy and prescient seeing thing is working very well for us. Explains my success at Casino Rama.
Snark aside, though, I will admit that I put on the badge of shame years ago when I asked the guy at a local event about the child care tax credit — you know, the $100-per-month-per-kid-beer-and-popcorn fund. When I asked why they did not just reduce parents’ taxable income by $1200 per year rather than give us back our own money (less interest and opportunity cost, of course), he said that “But then people who have no income wouldn’t get anything.” My wife and I responded in unison: “Well, that’s their problem!”<flea-asterisk>**</flea-asterisk>
Van Loan and I looked at each other and I think we both regretted that I had voted for him.
<flea-asterisk>**</flea-asterisk><flea-snark>That sentence could also be emphasised as “”Well, that’s their problem, [right there]!”</flea-snark>
