A very long time ago, I was interviewed by Liz Davalos, of the local CBS affiliate, channel 4, for a story about what sort of information is available about us online and what we can do about it.
Apparently it's running tonight on the 11pm News, and maybe tomorrow morning too. If you are local and see it, please let me know if I was in it and how I did. (Unless I looked like a dork, in which case, let it pass in silence…)
Does encrypting your data with PGP tend to show that you are a member of a criminal organization? That's what this article, Infoshop News – Repression in Austria over PGP keys, alleges is the view of the Austrian police.
I'd need to know a lot more to form a view of how accurate these claims (by “anonymous” no less) are. Might be nothing to it.
I mention it because it's an interesting issue, and one that's sure to come up again elsewhere, in similar guises.
I can see how if parties are communicating by encrypted email (or otherwise) with someone known or suspected to be a member of a gang, then by ordinary principles of traffic analysis, police might decide they were worth knowing more about. The use of encryption on stored data, however, does not by itself suggest people are anything other than prudent.
Via Delong, Ezra Klein on the Disloyalty of the Clinton Staffers:
The most powerful case against Clinton's candidacy was always her political advisers. They were, and are, the sort who sign up with Fox News, and enter into business partnerships with Karen Hughes. And they do all that while they're still associated with Clinton, and when their services might still be needed in the near future.
Clinton's domestic policy instincts often seemed better than Obama's, but her political instincts, as evidenced by the folks she gathered around her, were far worse. It was hard to believe anyone who's internal compass pointed progressive would nevertheless spend millions of dollars asking Mark Penn for advice. The answer, from Clinton supporters, was always that it was about loyalty. These folks had been in the foxhole with Clinton, and she trusted them.
But there's nothing loyal about Penn's decision to partner with Hughes, or Wolfson's decision to rush to Fox — these moves hurt Clinton.
This bad taste in advisers is not news. It dates back to her White House days when she relied on Ira Magaziner to do her health plan numbers. Oddly, President Clinton on the whole had better taste in cronies. But don't get me started on his judge picks, which were all over the map.
Senator Bill Nelson (“D”-FL) voted against stripping telco immunity from the FISA bill. That's why they wouldn't give me a straight answer the other day — they were planning the sellout all along. (See Calling My Senator About FISA [Updated]).
I am in no way surprised. This is the same Bill Nelson who voted for torture, after all. (See Senator Bill Nelson Votes for Torture.)
Florida, and the US, deserve better.
(It goes without saying that soon to be one-term Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) also voted to support the 'if the President says so, it's legal' version of liability.)
Update: the vote was 32-66, so they had plenty of company. Cf. Amanda Simon, ACLU Blog, FISA Vote, or How I Lost Complete Faith in Our Legislative Branch.
Vote tally on Dodd-Feingold-Leahy below.
Say hello to Lively.
Things are free now, but they've programmed in the idea of “prices”…
I'm one of the 'strange bedfellows' — a coalition that spans the political spectrum — supporting accountability for illegal spying by this administration and its telco helpers.
You can be one too, by clicking below.
Meanwhile, Glen Greenwald, who has a lot more stamina that I do, continues to document and explain the whole catastrophe. The latest, which discusses plans is here. In it he explains the Strange Bedfellows,
…the campaign we have been conducting is intended to be only the first step — not the last — in taking a stand against the endless erosion of core constitutional protections and the rapidly expanding Lawless Surveillance State. We have created a new organization, Accountability Now, to conduct the ongoing battle to target and remove from power those who enable these abuses; to force these issues into our political discourse; and to prevent the Washington Establishment from continuing to trample on basic constitutional protections with impunity.
The first campaign of this new organization is the formation of Strange Bedfellows, the ideologically diverse coalition we have formed with liberals, libertarians and others who are devoted to the preservation of our core constitutional liberties and the rule of law. …
To initiate and fund our new campaign, we have teamed with the individual who was behind the innovative and extraordinarily successful Ron Paul “money bombs” — Trevor Lyman, along with Rick Williams and Break the Matrix — to plan an “Accountability Money Bomb” for August 8. That is the day in 1974 when Richard Nixon was forced to resign from office for his lawbreaking and surveillance abuses. That day illustrates how far we have fallen in this country in less than 35 years, as we now not only permit rampant presidential lawbreaking and a limitless surveillance state, but have a bipartisan political class that endorses it and even retroactively protects the lawbreakers.
Jotwell Blenderlaw