Action « Ben Shoemate's Notebook

RSS

Posts Tagged ‘Action’

Toy Soldier Army

23 Nov

An anonymous reader reimagines the TSA's logo.

No Comments

Posted in Google Reader

Tim Wu on the new monopolists: a “last chapter” for The Master Switch

13 Nov

I reviewed Tim Wu's great history of media consolidation and regulatory capture The Master Switch earlier this month; now Tim says, "This piece I wrote for the Wall Street Journal is an important one. It is like a last chapter for my book."

We wouldn't fret over monopoly so much if it came with a term limit. If Facebook's rule over social networking were somehow restricted to, say, 10 years--or better, ended the moment the firm lost its technical superiority--the very idea of monopoly might seem almost wholesome. The problem is that dominant firms are like congressional incumbents and African dictators: They rarely give up even when they are clearly past their prime. Facing decline, they do everything possible to stay in power. And that's when the rest of us suffer.
AT&T's near-absolute dominion over the telephone lasted from about 1914 until the 1984 breakup, all the while delaying the advent of lower prices and innovative technologies that new entrants would eventually bring. The Hollywood studios took effective control of American film in the 1930s, and even now, weakened versions of them remain in charge. Information monopolies can have very long half-lives.
Declining information monopolists often find a lifeline of last resort in the form of Uncle Sam. The government has conferred its blessing on monopolies in information industries with unusual frequency. Sometimes this protection has yielded reciprocal benefits, with the owner of an information network offering the state something valuable in return, like warrantless wiretaps.

In the Grip of the New Monopolists

No Comments

Posted in Copyfight, Google Reader

Man at San Diego airport opts out of porno scanner and grope, told he’ll be fined $10K unless he submits to fondling

13 Nov

Johnnyedge checked the TSA's website and learned that the San Diego airport had not yet implemented its porno-scanners, so he went down to catch his flight. When he arrived, he discovered that the TSA's website was out of date, and the naked scanners were in place. He opted out of showing his penis to the government, so they told him he'd have to submit to an intimate testicle fondling. He told the screener, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." After faffing around with various supervisors and supervisors' supervisors, he opted not to fly, collected a refund from the American Airlines counter, and started to leave the airport. But before he could go, the supervisor's supervisor's supervisor told him he wasn't allowed to leave the checkpoint once he entered it, that he was already in for up to $10,000 in fines, and that he would have to return and allow the man's minons to palpate his genitals before he'd be allowed to leave the airport. After he objected, he was left cooling his heels for a long time. Finally, he asked if he was under arrest, and being told that he wasn't, but that he would be sued for $10K if he tried to go, he said, "you bring that suit" and left. Most of the incident was recorded on his phone, and has been posted to YouTube.

TSA encounter at SAN

No Comments

Posted in Google Reader

Feds admit to storing tens of thousands of images from naked scanners – unknown number leaked back to manufacturer

09 Nov

You know those naked scanners that we're seeing at the airport that use backscatter radiation to show snoopy security staff high-resolution detailed images of your genitals, breasts, etc? The ones that aren't supposed to be storing those images from your personal involuntary porn shoot?

Well, the US Marshals have just copped to storing over 35,000 of these personal, private images taken from a single courthouse scanner in Florida.

What's more, another machine used in a DC courthouse was returned to the manufacturer with an unspecified number of naked images on its hard drive.

A 70-page document (PDF) showing the TSA's procurement specifications, classified as "sensitive security information," says that in some modes the scanner must "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide a mechanism for "high-speed transfer of image data" over the network. (It also says that image filters will "protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger.")
"TSA is not being straightforward with the public about the capabilities of these devices," Rotenberg said. "This is the Department of Homeland Security subjecting every U.S. traveler to an intrusive search that can be recorded without any suspicion--I think it's outrageous." EPIC's lawsuit says that the TSA should have announced formal regulations, and argues that the body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches.

Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images (Thanks, Master Pokes!)

No Comments

Posted in Google Reader

Crutchfield Dermatology of Minneapolis claims copyright in everything you write, forever, to keep you from posting complaints on the net

05 Nov

An anonymous reader writes,

Crutchfield Dermatology, in the Minneapolis area, requires its patients to give them the copyright for everything they write on the Internet, in exchange for service. The provision is in an agreement called: "No Show and Cancellation Policy, Patient Satisfaction Agreement, Privacy Protection and Assignment of Copyright Policy." Basically, the company doesn't want its patients saying bad things about it on the Internet. So it demands:
"In consideration for your medical care and the additional patient protection, described above, by signing this document you or your legal ward agree to refrain from direct or indirect publication or airing of commentary about Crutchfield Dermatology and Dr. Crutchfield's practice, expertise or treatment except in the manner provided in the preceeding Patient Satisfaction Agreement Procedures. You recognize that Crutchfield Dermatology has made significant investments to develop Crutchfield Dermatology's practice and reputation for outstanding care, and that published comments on the internet or through mass correspondence may severely damage Crutchfield Dermatology's practice. By this agreement, you grant all copyright ownership in any and all published statements, comments, blog postings, and any other communication made by you outside of the Patient Satisfaction Agreement Procedures. You further agree that Cruthfield Dermatology is entitled to equitable relief to prevent the initiation or continuation of publishing or airing of such commentary regarding Crutchfield Dermatology's practice, expertise, or treatment."
Giving them copyright over things I write about them is bad enough; giving them copyright over everything I write turns me into an indentured servant. And, of course:
"Crutchfield Dermatology reserves the right to modify any policies without notice."

Crutchfield Dermatology

MDs ask patients to assign copyright in any web-posting that ...

No Comments

Posted in Copyfight, Google Reader

What parents worry about, what parents should worry about

08 Sep

From NPR, a list of 5 common parental worries that are extremely unlikely, and the top five risks for kids: the gap between the two is the source of much anguish, bad policy, and danger:

Based on surveys Barnes collected, the top five worries of parents are, in order:
1. Kidnapping
2. School snipers
3. Terrorists
4. Dangerous strangers
5. Drugs
But how do children really get hurt or killed?
1. Car accidents
2. Homicide (usually committed by a person who knows the child, not a stranger)
3. Abuse
4. Suicide
5. Drowning

5 Worries Parents Should Drop, And 5 They Shouldn't (via Schneier)

No Comments

Posted in Google Reader

Glee vs copyright: do as I say, not as I do

09 Jun

Fox's Glee sounds like a fun bit of TV, and it's true to life in that it features lots of scenes in which people who care passionately about art end up copying the works they're inspired by, and share their copies. But what does it mean for Rupert Murdoch's Fox to bring us all these positive messages about remixing the culture around us as a natural part of life and creativity, even as Rupert and his family are travelling the globe, calling every act of copying theft, declaring that fair use is illegal and will be eliminated, and that every use of work, no matter how trivial, must be compensated?

Christina Mulligan, a visiting fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, guest-posts on the Balkinization blog:

In one recent episode, the AV Club helps cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester film a near-exact copy of Madonna's Vogue music video (the real-life fine for copying Madonna's original? up to $150,000). Just a few episodes later, a video of Sue dancing to Olivia Newton-John's 1981 hit Physical is posted online (damages for recording the entirety of Physical on Sue's camcorder: up to $300,000). And let's not forget the glee club's many mash-ups -- songs created by mixing together two other musical pieces. Each mash-up is a "preparation of a derivative work" of the original two songs' compositions - an action for which there is no compulsory license available, meaning (in plain English) that if the Glee kids were a real group of teenagers, they could not feasibly ask for -- or hope to get -- the copyright permissions they would need to make their songs, and their actions, legal under copyright law. Punishment for making each mash-up? Up to another $150,000 -- times two.
The absence of any mention of copyright law in Glee illustrates a painful tension in American culture. While copyright holders assert that copyright violators are "stealing" their "property," people everywhere are remixing and recreating artistic works for the very same reasons the Glee kids do -- to learn about themselves, to become better musicians, to build relationships with friends, and to pay homage to the artists who came before them. Glee's protagonists -- and the writers who created them -- see so little wrong with this behavior that the word 'copyright' is never even uttered.
You might be tempted to assume that this tension isn't a big deal because copyright holders won't go after creative kids or amateurs. But they do: In the 1990s, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) asked members of the American Camping Association, including Girl Scout troops,to pay royalties for singing copyrighted songs at camp. In 2004, the Beatles' copyright holders tried to prevent the release of The Grey Album - a mash-up of Jay-Z's Black Album and the Beatles' White Album -- and only gave up after massive civil disobedience resulted in the album's widespread distribution. Copyright holders even routinely demand that YouTube remove videos of kids dancing to popular music. While few copyright cases go to trial, copyright holders like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) don't hesitate to seek stratospheric damage awards when they do, as in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset filesharing case.