This pretty much sums it up: there is a very real danger that the Obama administration will enshrine permanently within the law policies and practices that were widely considered extreme and unlawful during the Bush administration. ACLU, Establishing a New Normal

Wikileaks recently released over 95,000 formerly secret documents related to the war in Afghanistan. Obviously, this has caused quite a buzz in the news media. Boing Boing and Dan Gilmore are expecting backlash from those who keep secrets. Me too, I guess. However, from what I've read about the documents, are there really surprises? The following aren't surprises, even to someone like me who doesn't pursue war news in depth: the war is going badly; lots of civilians are killed; US troops commit war crimes; Taliban and Al Qaeda are even worse; the Pakistani ISI aren't really our allies, but often work for the Taliban etc. Haven't we been hearing this for the last couple of years? Maybe that's why support for this war is declining rapidly.

The Whitehouse response is interesting. It's along the lines of That's so 2009. Things are better now and Pakistan is our ally. Yeah, right.

This is the golden age of music. I'm not referring to the quality of the music produced, although there's a tremendous amount of wonderful music being made right now. Rather, I mean the ability to listen to whatever you want, whenever you want it. Pick any tune or performance and google it and you'll likely find it available to be streamed or downloaded, usually legally. The streaming music services have improved over the last year so much that they represent an alternative to having your own collection. The popular services have millions of tunes of all type.

I subscribe to Rhapsody, probably the most complete library, but there are a number of other streaming services with similar libraries: MOG All-Access and Rdio to name just two others.

The three mentioned above require a monthly payment, although they all have free trials. Grooveshark is a free service where you can stream music uploaded by other people. It has music that doesn't show up on the other services, Zappa for example.

Of course, there's still lots of net radio, despite SoundExchange's attempt to kill it. The best web radio, of course, is WFMU, the greatest radio station in the universe.

stumbled on to yooouuutuuube.com today. yooouuutuuube takes videos from Youtube and creates a shifting panel of frames from the video. It's a big improvement fro those boring videos that are put on Youtube consisting of a few simple images while playing a song. It turns a simpleminded video into a psychedelic vision.

The large media companies (ABC, Disney etc.) think of the net like television - a delivery vehicle for content, which they own. I think content delivery on the net is great, but the idea that the content is property that can or should be controlled limits its power and usefulness. To many, such as Youtube music video posters and more importantly folks like yooouuutuuube creators, other people's art is raw material for their own. The model of creative activity typically involving high development costs and thus creators requiring a monetary incentive and thus a large amount of control over their products is breaking down rapidly. The net is turning that model on its head. The image of a solitary creator or small team of creators is breaking down. anybody with broadband and a laptop can be a collaborator - download a few tunes, a few videos and re-mix. It may seem unfair that original creators are being paid, but it's no more unfair than the fact that the "original" creators took ideas and material, albeit indirectly from others.

The net has started to eat newpapers (Newspapers face 'unending losses,' says Warren Buffet). Television is next. Companies like Time-Warner are desperately trying things like bandwidth caps to protect their cable business, but bandwidth caps are the new DRM. We know how well that has worked. TV is dead because it's passive. There is a whole world of people who see TV, music, and movies as raw material. The big money in the near future is in finding a way to let them do just that and making a buck on it.

Aram Sinnreich and Masha Zager have an interesting article at TruthDig. They point to the increasing restriction on digital free speech. Many of these come about because of commercial restriction on transferring information, for example DRM which restricts what devices you can use to play music. Various laws and treaties get the government in the act as agents for corporate interests. As part of the article, they coin the term e-speech, making the point:

Without a name for the big picture, it’s difficult to do anything about it. Imagine trying to reverse global warming, reduce pollution and save species from extinction without the umbrella of the word environmentalism connecting the issues. Therefore, we propose the term e-speech as a concept to unite these issues, and to discuss potential solutions to the problem they collectively pose.

I don't know if e-speech will catch on. It sounds like something Apple would dream-up, although they would call it i-speech. But the concept is a good one. The increasing restriction of free digital expression has to become an issue that is debated in the mainstream. Our rights to free-expression may be dying from a million paper cuts.

However, there are contrary views. I have felt that the DMCA was a travesty, but this article in Wired argues 10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA is the Law That Saved the Web. The article argues that immunity to ISP for copyright infringement by their users has prvided the freedom for the growth of the web. Paired with the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which provides immunity against noncopyright claims like defamation, the DMCA made it possible for everyone to provide forums for users without constant fear of being sued.

I'm a bit dubious about that argument given the heavy-handed way the DMCA has been wielded by corporations. A major problem is that it is very difficult if not impossible for a single user to defend their free-use of digital material against a litigious corporation with deep pockets. Once sent a takedown notice, what do you do? You can certify that the material is noninfringing, but if the corporation decides to sue, can you afford to defend your rights?

This sort of activity even hurts the big guys like Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, who voted for the DMCA. McCain has been reusing snippets of broadcast news footage in his online campaign videos, and a variety of news outlets have been getting the videos yanked from YouTube with takedown notices. The McCain campaign is probably within their rights to use these snips, but can they afford to fight all the battles during an election campaign?

One big problem with DMCA is that it fails to recognize fair use. Until it is changed so that it does, it's a one sided law that penalizes the little guy while giving corporations the power to restrict speech.

Wow, it's been a long time since I wrote anything. I wish I could point to a good reason, but I have none except laziness.

An article at Open.salon titled Intelligent Design Rules Out God's Sovereignty Over Chance argues that the intelligent design folks have it all backwards. They argue in favor of supernatural intervention and against chance as a mechanism of evolution. To be fair to the IDers, many argue that there is some natural evolution, but at certain points, the divine hand intervenes. They may argue that the hand isn't divine in the sense that it's necessarily the Christian god, but as the Dover trials showed that's a smoke screen. The linked article argues that in addition to being bad science, ID is bad theology. Chance has traditionally been seen as a means of god working in the world. For example, the apostles supposedly cast lots to determine a new apostle to replace Judas. This was seen as letting god make the choice. So if chance is god's method of working, why the need to invoke a divine hand to directly alter an organism to add a flagellum, or whatever this month's ID favorite example of something that real biology hasn't gotten around to explaining yet. ID seems to imply that god isn't in charge of the whole process, but just a magician who shows up from time to time to muck around with certain species. It seems like a strange attitude for believers to profess.

I can't say I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that god determines chance. My notion of what passes for god isn't something that runs things. Or at least if it does, it's also the things it runs, if that make sense. Personally, I think anything said about god is wrong by definition. The god you can name is not real god. The less said the better.

An article from The Telegraph called Future wars 'to be fought with mind drugs' has been getting a bit of commentary lately. The idea is that advances in neuroscience offer the prospect of change in the way in which wars are fought. No longer just bullets and bombs, but land mines releasing brain-altering chemicals, scanners reading soldiers' minds and devices boosting eyesight and hearing could all one figure in arsenals. However, the most interesting commentary on the whole issue comes from Susie-Q

so, let’s connect the dots with this one shall we? big pharma- check, defense industry- check, torture department- check, mental health services (see big pharma)- check. is there enough money in the world to fill these coffers?

Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, but I doubt that he could have foreseen the military-phrama complex. While there is the possibility that this sort of sci-fi stuff, and most of it is just people talking through their hats, could make some wars slightly less lethal, military technology finds it way back home. Does anyone think it's likely that governments would want this sort of technology to control the populace?

According to this Australian article, doctors should ask their teenage patients what type of music they prefer to determine if they are at risk of developing a mental illness or committing suicide.

Here's the rundown on musical types and social problems: Pop - Conformists, overly responsible, role-conscious, struggling with sexuality or peer acceptance; Heavy metal -Higher levels of suicidal ideation, depression, drug use, self-harm, shoplifting, vandalism, unprotected sex; Dance - Higher levels of drug use regardless of socio-economic background; Jazz/R&B - Introverted misfits, loners; Rap - Higher levels of theft, violence, anger, street gang membership, drug use and misogyny.

I think I'm doomed. Here's what I listened to today while I worked: Eklektik Radio - obscure and classic new wave, surf, spy, exotica, weird (sadly, going off the air); Paul Weller - pop; Weather Report - jazz; Hank Crawford - jazz; Muddy Waters - blues. Right now I'm listening to some downtempo stuff on Rhapsody - dance.

No heavy metal or rap so far. I guess i don't have to worry about suicide or committing any crimes tonight. I guess I'm just an overly responsible, role-conscious, struggling with my sexuality or peer acceptance, drug using, introverted loner and misfit. Oh, well.

Probably this only applies to teenager. Most adults fall into the overly responsible, role-conscious mode anyway. Maybe that's why they listen to pop so much.

It's a bit hard to tell from the news article whether there is anything to this. My bet is that there isn't much. This seems like a case of confounding variables and weak correlation. If you surveyed all heavy metal listeners, would the suicide rate be higher than for opera listeners?

The notion that the American Physical Society (APS) has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming has been making it's way around the net. Articles stating this have recently appeared on a number of right leaning blogs. Most point to a non-peer reviewed paper by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley stating the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

One problem with the idea that the APS has changed its position is that it's not true. Here's what the APS home page says:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

I don't want to attribute bias to the bloggers who jumped on this story. Most of them are not scientists and don't distinguish between peer-reviewed articles and conference papers. Many conferences base acceptance on an abstract only but it should be noted that the Monckton's paper was presented at a conference on Physics and Society, not at a conference on the physics of climate change. I don't have the background to know whether Monckton's work is correct or not. I don't think he's a climate scientist, but rather a former policy adviser to the Thatcher administration. I'll leave the details to folks who know more about climate models. However, it is curious how people can deny the results of thousands of models that don't match certain prejudices and accept the one that matches them.

You can find a flowchart of the new vs. old FISA laws at the Ketchup and Caviar blog. One of the more interesting aspects of the law is that it removes the requirement that there be probable cause that the foreign subject whose communications are being intercepted be a suspect of any kind. Basically, the law allows dragnet surveillance of communication between Americans and non-Americans. Knowledge of who talks to whom, even without details of the communication is extremely valuable to government and business. Supposedly, one of the functions of the great firewall of China is to accumulate data on who talks with Chinese citizens for economic analysis. Would the US government use a law supposedly designed to catch terrorists for economic analysis? Would elements of the US government feed data about who competitors talked with to their friends in business, particularly, since oversight is weak or non-existent? Nah, couldn't happen here.

Glenn Greenwald expresses this much better than I can.

Today, the Democratic-led Senate ignored those protests, acted to protect the single most flagrant act of Bush lawbreaking of the last seven years, eviscerated the core Fourth Amendment prohibition of surveillance without warrants, gave an extraordinary and extraordinarily corrupt gift to an extremely powerful corporate lobby, and cemented the proposition that the rule of law does not apply to the Washington Establishment.

I actually expected this to pass. Both parties seem agree that the US should become a police state, with corporate interests and government paranoia trumping constitutional rights. I am particularly disappointed in Sen. Obama's performance. I had started to buy into his rhetoric about positive change and the idea that he was a different kind of politician. I'm old enough to know better, but hope springs eternal. I have reverted to my usual level of cynicism about politicians and consider Sen. Obama just another one, like the others.

The ACLU plans to fight.

In other news: The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. Coincidence?

I don't usually agree with Fox News, but they got this right:

But there’s a reason why this Congress is such a failure–it’s because they don’t care, are obsessed with irrelevant petty squabbling, and apparently have contempt for the American people. If they didn’t, out of simple respect for the people, all Democrat and Republican leadership in the House and the Senate would apologize and resign en masse.

The absence of any right to the substantive recovery means that respondents cannot benefit from the judgment they seek and thus lack Article III standing," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. " 'When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.' Bob Dylan, Like a Rolling Stone, on Highway 61 Revisited (Columbia Records 1965).

Chief Justice John Roberts citing Bob Dylan in his dissent in Sprint v. APCC Services.

I would have thought they would have used To live outside the law, you must be honest.

This guy sums up my feeling on the issue:

How can even one senator on either side of the aisle in good conscience vote in favor of this law that does nothing to enhance our security and everything to diminish our rights as a free people?

How can both men who seek to become our next president cast such a vote when both should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder declaring that they would govern by our consent and with our approval, not by wielding the coercive and corrosive and corrupt powers that King George III and his latter-day namesake from Texas thought are theirs by divine right?

As Internet companies continue to consolidate and Internet users spend more time using vendor-controlled platforms such as mobile devices or social-networking sites, free speech and other rights diminish. Consider these examples from a Wired News article:

Verizon Wireless barred an abortion-rights group from obtaining a "short code" for conducting text-messaging campaigns, while LiveJournal suspended legitimate blogs on fiction and crime victims in a crackdown on pedophilia. Two lines criticizing President Bush disappeared from AT&T Inc.'s webcast of a Pearl Jam concert. All three decisions were reversed only after senior executives intervened amid complaints.

One interesting aspect of this issue is that the quote above s from an article copyrighted by the Associated Press. The article outlines some of the problems that free speech faces on a vendor controlled internet and seems to be arguing for greater openness. This somewhat ironic considering the AP's stand on the online use of quotes from their articles. From PC World:

The New York Times is reporting that the AP is setting guidelines for blog usage of AP content after the AP sent takedown notices to The Drudge Retort last week. The AP's guidelines will deal with what and how much content blogs can quote and still be considered legal use under the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law.

The AP initially sent a take down notice to the Drudge Retort demanding it take down seven items that contained quotations from A.P. articles ranging from 39 to 79 words. The quotes were linked, but the AP felt they somehow violated their copyright, even though they fell squarely under the fair use doctrine.

The AP eventually backed off somewhat, but the issue is still in the air. As content creators, we firmly believe that everything we create, from video footage all the way down to a structured headline, is creative content that has value." says Jim Kennedy, vice president and strategy director of the AP.

Mr. Kennedy seems to equate value to his organization with the right to control expression. However value also exists for bloggers, scholars, and other news outlets when they quote from standard sources such as the AP. That value reflects back to the AP. The notion that being an information outlet implies absolute control is a difficult one for many large organizations to shake.

From Wired:

Google will have to turn over every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users' names and IP addresses, to Viacom, which is suing Google for allowing clips of its copyright videos to appear on YouTube, a judge ruled Wednesday.

A number of questions arise about this: Why did the judge allow this massive violation of privacy; what will Viacom do with this information; why was Google tracking this? I think the answer to the latter two questions is obvious. To Google, it is a marketing goldmine. To Viacom, it may be proof that their copyrighted material was popular on YouTube, although that could established by other means. It could also be a marketing goldmine to Viacom. Google correctly that the data should not be disclosed because of the users’ privacy concerns. Of course, that works both ways. Google should not have accumulated that information because of users' privacy concerns.

This is big enough news that it made CNN. CNN gave it about 30 seconds, followed by several minutes about black actors portraying fictional US presidents. The EFF is getting involved.

This is a big potential privacy violation in the US and can lead to some interesting embarrassing moments (Maybe John McCain watches that dumb teenage lightsaber guy over and over). The real problem is in other countries. Now that the cat is out of the bag and every user has been tracked, will Google/Viacom turn information over to various governments about who watched what video that is illegal in their domain? Think that's not a possibility? Consider Yahoo and China.