Into Tech

The EFF sure has been busy today. First it a href=”http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/09/17″filed a lawsuit against the US Trade Representative/a for keeping info on the a href=”http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080916/1839352286.shtml”ACTA negotiations/a secret, and then it a href=”http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/09/17-0″ target=”_new”sued the NSA, President Bush and Vice President Cheney/a over the warrantless wiretapping issue. Must be a busy day at the EFF office. In both cases, it seems likely that the lawsuits may draw some additional attention to the issues, but it seems unlikely to have much of an impact on actual government policies.
br /br /
a href=”http://techdirt.com/articles/20080918/1152472307.shtml”Permalink/a | a href=”http://techdirt.com/articles/20080918/1152472307.shtml#comments”Comments/a | a href=”http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080918/1152472307op=sharethis”Email This Story/a
br /
br style=”clear: both;”/
img alt=”" style=”border: 0; height:1px; width:1px;” border=”0″ src=”http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?i=842b81bc2ccfe995395302363aec802b” height=”1″ width=”1″/
img src=”http://www.pheedo.com/feeds/tracker.php?i=842b81bc2ccfe995395302363aec802b” style=”display: none;” border=”0″ height=”1″ width=”1″ alt=”"/div class=”feedflare”
a href=”http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?a=mBhil”img src=”http://feeds.techdirt.com/~f/techdirt/feed?i=mBhil” border=”0″/img/a
/divimg src=”http://feeds.techdirt.com/~r/techdirt/feed/~4/396556579″ height=”1″ width=”1″/

First thing that should come to mind is, “red flag!” On February 13, 2008 President Bush signed the economic stimulus package. Along with that came a multitude of questions. Also, we now face possible scams. Be it e-mails, telephone, the list is endless.
There are millions anxiously awaiting the 2008 tax rebate check. As I said, [...]

Fans of chin pubes probably have lots of funny tales to share about trimming disasters and week-old prawns hiding in the undergrowth but, if keeping your face bush in trim is an important part of your look, then this mad-looking device could be for you.

This product does not apply to the Grizzzly Adams club of hairy-faced men but is aimed squarely at those that like wee, shaped beards with optional points.

The GoateeSaver is a new - and somewhat bizarre looking - product designed to help blokes with goatees protect their manicured fluff from dodgy shaving practices. Just insert the tab into your mouth and shave around the outside.

Jump now to see just how psychotic you’d look wearing this.

Remember just over a week ago the good news coming out of Germany concerning an appeals court ruling that noted (properly) that the owner of an open WiFi access point was not liable for actions done by others on that WiFi? Well, apparently there’s a bit of a “split” in the German courts. An anonymous reader sends us notice of a news report out of Germany with a lower level court apparently ruling in the exact opposite way (link in German, translations welcome; here’s Google’s translation). From what the submitter and the translation suggest, the court claims that it’s the responsibility of the access point owner to secure the WiFi, and if they do not, they have to take on some liability for what happens on that system. There’s no question, apparently, that the owners of the WiFi system did not actually share the file in question. They showed they were not at home at the time of the alleged infringement, and they had no file sharing software on their computer. While the case isn’t yet over, the owners of the WiFi access point have to pay court costs, lawyers fees and the amount they were sued for… and they may face criminal prosecution as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Following Congress granting President Bush the “get out of jail free” card he demanded, it probably comes as no surprise that he’s signed the bill into law — claiming (laughably) that the bill was designed to “protect the liberties of our citizens.” It’s unclear what in the new bill does that — though there’s plenty that does the opposite. Almost immediately, the ACLU has sued to challenge the constitutionality of the bill, saying that it appears to violate the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. Meanwhile, the EFF is also preparing to sue over both the telco immunity issue and the expanded surveillance powers. All of these efforts are probably long shots, but it means this isn’t over yet.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

As we continue to debate the question of telco immunity, there’s a separate, but related legal issue that’s worth paying attention to as well: the question of who can actually sue about having their rights abused by supposedly warrantless wiretaps. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that various groups such as the ACLU couldn’t sue because they had no “standing” (i.e., proof that they were impacted by the warrantless wiretaps). It’s a bit convoluted when you think about it: there’s no way to determine if illegal spying took place because the only way you could get the evidence would be to first prove you have the evidence that it took place. But if you think that’s twisted, it gets even more bizarre.

It turns out that in one related case, the government accidentally sent over proof that it used a warrantless wiretap to monitor a certain group. Thus, that group can actually show it has standing… sorta. One of the lawyers involved in pushing just such a lawsuit forward has a stunning tale explaining the amazing obstacle course he had to traverse to actually have this lawsuit move forward (and it’s not over yet). Basically, the government claims the information in the document is still secret, even though it gave it out, and some of the details have been reported on the news (in business contexts once info is out, it’s no longer secret — apparently, not so with the government).

Where things get really bizarre, though, is in how the lawyers on this case can actually deal with this evidence it has. Basically, they had to destroy all copies they had of the evidence in question, and can sort of obliquely refer to it from memory in secret filings that are written under the watchful eye of the Justice Department, officially to make sure that the “classified info” remains classified. Even better, the lawyers had to respond to a secret filing from the Justice Department that the lawyers weren’t even allowed to see. The case is far from over — as the latest ruling basically set up another ridiculous tightrope for the lawyers to walk — basically saying that they can’t use the evidence in the document because it would prove their case. Instead, they first have to prove it without the document, and then if they do that, they can use the document (after it’s basically no longer necessary). And there’s all sorts of side amusements, such as reading about how the Justice Department tries to destroy the lawyer’s computer to make sure there’s no secret documents on there (it’s like a scene from a bad comedy, where they discover that simply banging a hard drive on a table isn’t an effective way to damage it). And, there’s also the bit where the Justice Department refuses to let one lawyer take part in the drafting of the secret filing because they just don’t like him.

This has gone way beyond protecting state secrets or providing security and protection to American Citizens. As you read the details, it’s quite clear this is about doing whatever possible to hide what was almost certainly an illegal move by the administration. If telecom immunity is granted, then this particular case, Al Haramain v. Bush, would basically be the only case left that looks into the legality of warrantless wiretapping. Say what you want about the importance of protecting US citizens, the American Constitution set up a system of checks and balances for a very good reason: so no single group has enough power to make the rules itself. This whole thing shows how the executive branch is trying to guarantee there are no checks or balances on some of its activities. That’s a very scary precedent and on that anyone — no matter what your political persuasion — should be against.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

While we had thought that Congress was going to easily roll over on the so-called (but not really) compromise bill on new surveillance powers that included telco immunity from potentially illegal acts committed in the past few years, there has been some pushback in the Senate, where the bill is finally about to come up for vote. Some Senators have put together an amendment stripping telco immunity from the bill, but leaving the increased surveillance powers in place. Amazingly, the Bush Administration has now said that if telco immunity is stripped from the bill, Bush will veto the bill, even if everything else is identical. In other words, all the talk you hear from politicians about how this bill is necessary to protect Americans is hogwash. If it were true, then it is simply unforgivable to veto the bill without telco immunity.

What has been made abundantly clear by this statement is that the US government does not need these extended surveillance powers at all. Its existing surveillance powers are quite sufficient. The entire purpose of this bill then, has absolutely nothing to do with security, and everything to do with making sure that the telcos (and the administration) do not have to defend their potentially illegal actions in court. If that were not the case, then the President would still be willing to approve the bill without telco immunity.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Cable & Wireless received a boost in its bid to persuade Thus to come to the table and start takeover talks, with news yesterday that its Glasgow-based rival has lost a flagship deal with BSkyB.

The loss of the multimillion-pound contract to BT comes ahead of C&W’s self-imposed deadline of Monday, by which time, it has said, it will make a formal offer for Thus or walk away, having seen its initial, tentative approach rebuffed in May.

BT’s three-year contract to provide Sky customers with home phone services is worth between £200m and £300m in revenue, but Thus stressed yesterday it had not expected to retain the deal and that its loss “will have minimal impact” on profits and cashflow. Coming just days before the C&W decision, however, news that Thus has lost such a high-profile long-term client is a blow to the reputation of the company and chief executive, Bill Allan.

C&W approached Thus in May with an offer of 165p a share, valuing it at £300m. The board said this undervalued it. Since then, however, several Thus shareholders are understood to have approached C&W to say they would like a cash return on their investment in the business, which in nine years as a public company has never made a profit or paid a dividend.

C&W’s initial approach has been seen by many in the City as a low-ball bid. An indication of an offer at 175p to 185p would likely force the Thus board to the table. At those sorts of levels, Thus would be valued at between £320m and £340m.

Philip Rogerson, Thus chairman, has been in no rush to enter talks because of a letter he received from his opposite number at C&W, Richard Lapthorne. In the June 4 letter, Lapthorne said he was willing to seek agreement with the Thus board within a “narrow price band”. The board of Thus has taken this to mean C&W is unwilling to significantly raise its offer.

C&W is reviewing its options ahead of Monday’s deadline but advisers say it has no appetite to go hostile and take an offer direct to shareholders. A protracted takeover battle would distract management from the main focus of working on a possible demerger of C&W’s international assets from the rest of the business.

Instead, C&W remains hopeful that Thus shareholders will pressurise its management team to the table - the loss of the Sky deal may provide further impetus.

Under its deal, BT will provide Sky with a wholesale voice service for its 1.1 million Sky Talk customers. Sky’s customers will move to the BT platform over the next few months.

Delia Bushell, Sky’s director of broadband and telephony, said: “In the last year alone, over 740,000 new customers have joined Sky Talk for great value calls. This deal with BT will maintain our quality of service and ensure we enjoy increasing cost efficiencies as we continue to grow the service.”

Brian Fitzpatrick, managing director of BT wholesale markets, said: “In the highly competitive communications industry, providers are looking for ways to improve cost efficiencies. Our announcement with Sky is further evidence that BT Wholesale is the ideal partner to realise value as quickly as possible.”

What times we live in. There was time when your kid’s play toys included firehouses, hospitals and police stations but that’s just so 1950s now, which is why Playmobil have released the Security Check Point.
I’m betting that’s one side effect of the War on Terror the experts didn’t predict. The blurb on Amazon [...]

When the esteemed leader of the states visits the terrorist nation of Australia in September to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, a helicopter that jams mobile signals within the span of a football field will tail his motorcade. The measure is intended to counter cellphone-detonated bomb attacks, but I mean, now don’t the turrists know they have a few months to work around the whole dead mobile deal?

Plus, if they want to find him, won’t the massive rolling mobile outage give a pretty good indication of his position? That said, I’d like to borrow the gear next time I hit the airport. – Matt Buchanan

Banned: Mobile calls while Bush in Sydney [ZDNet Australia via Slashdot]
Image via ASM