South African Marikana miners charged with murder

Workers arrested at South Africa's Marikana mine have been charged in court with the murder of 34 of their colleagues shot by police.

The 270 workers would be tried under the "common purpose" doctrine because they were in the crowd which confronted police on 16 August, an official said.

Police opened fire, killing 34 miners and sparking a national outcry.

The decision to charge the workers was "madness", said former ruling ANC party youth leader Julius Malema.

"The policemen who killed those people are not in custody, not even one of them. This is madness," said Mr Malema, who was expelled from the ANC (African National Congress) earlier this year following a series of disagreements with President Jacob Zuma.

"The whole world saw the policemen kill those people," Mr Malema said, adding that he would ask defence lawyers to make an urgent application at the high court.

The killing of the 34 was the most deadly police action since South Africa became a democracy in 1994.

The decision by the South African authorities to charge 270 workers with the murder of 34 of their colleagues who were shot dead by police is politically controversial.

The prosecution is relying on the "common purpose" doctrine, once used by the former white minority regime against black activists fighting for democracy.

At the time, the African National Congress (ANC), the former liberation movement now in power, campaigned against the doctrine.

Now, its critics will accuse it of behaving just like the apartheid regime and turning victims into perpetrators.

The government has already been strongly criticised over the shooting, which has been dubbed the "Marikana massacre" and compared to the atrocities committed by the apartheid-era police.

The National Prosecuting Authority is officially an independent body but most South Africans believe it has close links to the ANC and this decision is likely to lead to more condemnation of President Jacob Zuma's government.

Six of the 270 workers remain in hospital, after being wounded in the shooting at the mine owned by Lonmin, the world's third biggest platinum producer, in South Africa's North West province.

The other 264 workers appeared in the Ga Rankuwa magistrates court near the capital, Pretoria.

Their application for bail was rejected and the hearing was adjourned for seven days.

About 100 people protested outside the court, demanding the immediate release of the men.

'Flagrant abuse'

National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) spokesman Frank Lesenyego told the BBC the 270 workers would all face murder charges - including those who were unarmed or were at the back of the crowd.

"This is under common law, where people are charged with common purpose in a situation where there are suspects with guns or any weapons and they confront or attack the police and a shooting takes place and there are fatalities," he said.

South African lawyer Jay Surju told the BBC's Focus on Africa programme that the "common purpose" doctrine was used by the former white minority regime against activists fighting for racial equality in South Africa.

"This is a very outdated and infamous doctrine," he said.

"It was discredited during the time of apartheid."

The decision has also been condemned as "a flagrant abuse of of the criminal justice system" by constitutional lawyer Pierre de Vos.

The best known case was that of the "Upington 14", who were sentenced to death in 1989 for the murder of a policeman in 1985.

The trial judge convicted the 14 activists, even though he acknowledged that they did not carry out the killing.

Anti-apartheid activists around the world protested against the ruling, which was overturned on appeal.

During a visit to the mine after the Marikana killings, President Zuma told workers he "felt their pain" and promised that a commission of inquiry would investigate the killings.

Mr Lesenyego said the commission would rule on the conduct of the police.

"It's a separate case," he said.

The commission and an internal police review are expected to take several months to complete.

Police said they started shooting after being threatened by large groups of miners armed with machetes.

Ten people, including two police officers and two security guards, were killed during the protests before the police shooting.

The protests were triggered by demands for a huge pay rise and recognition of a new union.

Talks are continuing to resolve the dispute, which has shut the mine for the past three weeks.

Grand Island Preschooler Asked to Change the Sign for His Name in School

Hunter Spanjer says his name with a certain special hand gesture, but at just three and a half years old, he may have to change it.

"He's deaf, and his name sign, they say, is a violation of their weapons policy," explained Hunter's father, Brian Spanjer.

Grand Island's "Weapons in Schools" Board Policy 8470 forbids "any instrument...that looks like a weapon," But a three year-old's hands?

"Anybody that I have talked to thinks this is absolutely ridiculous. This is not threatening in any way," said Hunter's grandmother Janet Logue.

"It's a symbol. It's an actual sign, a registered sign, through S.E.E.," Brian Spanjer said.

S.E.E. stands for Signing Exact English, Hunter's sign language. Hunter's name gesture is modified with crossed-fingers to show it is uniquely his own.

"We are working with the parents to come to the best solution we can for the child," said Jack Sheard, Grand Island Public Schools spokesperson.

That's just about all GIPS officials will say for now.

Meantime, Hunter's parents say that by Monday, lawyers from the National Association of the Deaf are likely to weigh in for Hunter's right to sign his own name.

Despite whatever rules and regulations may exist, some Grand Islanders we spoke with said they don't think it's right to make a three year-old change the way he says his name.

"It's his name. It's not like he's going to bring a gun to school when he's three years old," commented Dana Schwieger.

"I find it very difficult to believe that the sign language that shows his name resembles a gun in any way would even enter a child's mind," Grand Island resident Fredda Bartenbach reflected.

But for now, that's a discussion between the Spanjers and Grand Island Public Schools officials.

We Don’t Need No Stinking Warrant: The Disturbing, Unchecked Rise of the Administrative Subpoena

By David Kravets

When Golden Valley Electric Association of rural Alaska got an administrative subpoena from the Drug Enforcement Administration in December 2010 seeking electricity bill information on three customers, the company did what it usually does with subpoenas — it ignored them.

That’s the association’s customer privacy policy, because administrative subpoenas aren’t approved by a judge.

But by law, utilities must hand over customer records — which include any billing and payment information, phone numbers and power consumption data — to the DEA without court warrants if drug agents believe the data is “relevant” to an investigation. So the utility eventually complied, after losing a legal fight earlier this month.

Meet the administrative subpoena (.pdf): With a federal official’s signature, banks, hospitals, bookstores, telecommunications companies and even utilities and internet service providers — virtually all businesses — are required to hand over sensitive data on individuals or corporations, as long as a government agent declares the information is relevant to an investigation. Via a wide range of laws, Congress has authorized the government to bypass the Fourth Amendment — the constitutional guard against unreasonable searches and seizures that requires a probable-cause warrant signed by a judge.

In fact, there are roughly 335 federal statutes on the books (.pdf) passed by Congress giving dozens upon dozens of federal agencies the power of the administrative subpoena, according to interviews and government reports. (.pdf)

“I think this is out of control. What has happened is, unfortunately, these statutes have been on the books for many, many years and the courts have acquiesced,” said Joe Evans, the utility’s attorney.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that federal officials from a broad spectrum of government agencies issue them hundreds of thousands of times annually. But none of the agencies are required to disclose fully how often they utilize them — meaning there is little, if any, oversight of this tactic that’s increasingly used in the war on drugs, the war on terror and, seemingly, the war on Americans’ constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable government trespass into their lives.

That’s despite proof that FBI agents given such powers under the Patriot Act quickly began to abuse them and illegally collected Americans’ communications records, including those of reporters. Two scathing reports from the Justice Department’s Inspector General uncovered routine and pervasive illegal use of administrative subpoenas by FBI anti-terrorism agents given nearly carte blanche authority to demand records about Americans’ communications with no supervision.

When the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, perhaps the nation’s most liberal appeals court based in San Francisco, ordered Golden Valley to fork over the data earlier this month, the court said the case was “easily” decided because the records were “relevant” to a government drug investigation.

With the data the Alaska utility handed over, the DEA may then use further administrative subpoenas to acquire the suspected indoor-dope growers’ phone records, stored e-mails, and perhaps credit-card purchasing histories — all to build a case to acquire a probable-cause warrant to physically search their homes and businesses.

But the administrative subpoena doesn’t just apply to utility records and drug cases. Congress has spread the authority across a huge swath of the U.S. government, for investigating everything from hazardous waste disposal, the environment, atomic energy, child exploitation, food stamp fraud, medical insurance fraud, terrorism, securities violations, satellites, seals, student loans, and for breaches of dozens of laws pertaining to fruits, vegetables, livestock and crops.

Not one of the government agencies with some of the broadest administrative subpoena powers Wired contacted, including the departments of Commerce, Energy, Agriculture, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI, would voluntarily hand over data detailing how often they issued administrative subpoenas.

The Drug Enforcement Administration obtained the power under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and is believed to be among the biggest issuers of administrative subpoenas.

“It’s a tool in the toolbox we have to build a drug investigation. Obviously, a much, much lower threshold than a search warrant,” said Lawrence Payne, a DEA spokesman, referring to the administrative subpoena generically. Payne declined to discuss individual cases.

Payne said in a telephone interview that no database was kept on the number of administrative subpoenas the DEA issued.

But in 2006, Ava Cooper Davis, the DEA’s deputy assistant administrator, told a congressional hearing, “The administrative subpoena must have a DEA case file number, be signed by the investigator’s supervisor, and be given a sequential number for recording in a log book or computer database so that a particular field office can track and account for any administrative subpoenas issued by that office.”

After being shown Davis’ statement, Payne then told Wired to send in a Freedom of Information Act request, as did some of the local DEA offices we contacted, if they got back to us at all. “Would suggest a FOIA request to see whether you can get a number of administrative subpoenas. Our databases have changed over the years as far as how things are tracked and we don’t have access to those in public affairs unfortunately,” Payne said in an e-mail.

He said the agency has “never” been asked how many times it issued administrative subpoenas.

Amy Baggio, a Portland, Oregon federal public defender representing drug defendants for a decade, said DEA agents “use these like a doctor’s prescription pad on their desk.” Sometimes, she said, they issue “hundreds upon hundreds of them” for a single prosecution — often targeting mobile phone records.

“They are using them exponentially more in all types of federal criminal investigations. I’m seeing them in every drug case now,” Baggio said. “Nobody is watching what they are doing. I perceive a complete lack of oversight because there isn’t any required.”

A typical DEA investigation might start with an informant or an arrested dealer suspected of drug trafficking, she said. The authorities will use an administrative subpoena to get that target’s phone records — logs of the incoming and outgoing calls — and text-message logs of the numbers of incoming and outgoing texts. Then the DEA will administratively subpoena that same information for the phone numbers disclosed from the original subpoena, and so on, she said.

Often, Baggio said, the records not only show incoming and outgoing communications, they also highlight the mobile towers a phone pinged when performing that communication.

“Then they try to make a connection for drug activity and they do that again and again,” Baggio said. “They used a subpoena to know that my client used a phone up in Canada, but he said he was playing soccer with his kids in Salem.” That client is doing 11 years on drug trafficking charges, thanks to an investigation, Baggio said, that commenced with the use of administrative subpoenas.

The FBI was as tight-lipped as the DEA about the number of administrative subpoenas it issues.

Susan McKee, an FBI spokeswoman, suggested that some of the bureau’s figures for how many administrative subpoenas it has issued, for as many years back as possible, “may be classified.”

In a follow-up e-mail, McKee offered the same advice as the DEA.

“I am sorry the statistics you are looking for are not readily available. I would suggest that you explore the FOIA process,” she said.

If all of those statistics are classified, that would be very odd. The FBI is required to report annually how often they use the terrorism and espionage-specific administrative subpoenas known as National Security Letters to target Americans.

In all, the bureau has reported issuing 290,000 National Security Letters directed at Americans in the past decade.

But those aimed at foreigners are not required to be accounted for publicly. Likewise, FBI anti-terrorism requests for subscriber information — the name and phone numbers associated with phone, e-mail or Twitter accounts for example, aren’t included in that tally either, regardless if the account holder is an American or foreigner.

All of which means that, even in the one instance where public reporting is required of administrative subpoenas, the numbers are massively under-reported, according to Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

“I think it’s ridiculous they won’t release the real numbers,” she said. Richardson speculated that the government has “something to hide.”

Some of the stranger statutes authorizing administrative subpoenas involve the Agriculture Department’s power to investigate breaches of the Floral Research and Consumer Information Act and the Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act. The Commerce Department has administrative subpoena power for enforcing laws relating to the Atlantic tuna and the Northern Pacific halibut. It also has those powers when it comes to enforcing the National Weather Modification Act of 1976, requiring “any person to submit a report before, during, or after that person may engage in any weather modification attempt or activity.”

In a 2002 government report, the Commerce Department said it had not used its administrative subpoena powers to enforce the National Weather Modification Act “in the recent past.” (.pdf) Susan Horowitz, a Commerce Department spokeswoman, urged Wired to send in a FOIA in a bid to obtain data surrounding how often it issues administrative subpoenas.

Lacking in all of these administrative subpoenas is Fourth Amendment scrutiny — in other words, judicial oversight. That’s because probable cause — the warrant standard — does not apply to the administrative subpoena. Often, the receiving party is gagged from disclosing them to the actual targets, who could, if notified, ask a judge to quash it.

And even when they are challenged in court, judges defer to Congress — the Fourth Amendment notwithstanding.

In one seminal case on the power of the administrative subpoena, the Supreme Court in 1950 instructed the lower courts that the subpoenas should not be quashed if “the inquiry is within the authority of the agency, the demand is not too indefinite and the information sought is reasonably relevant.”

In the mobile age, one of the biggest targets of the administrative subpoena appears to be the cellphone. AT&T, the nation’s second-largest mobile carrier, replied to a congressional inquiry in May that it had received 63,100 subpoenas for customer information in 2007. That more than doubled to 131,400 last year. (AT&T did not say whether any of the subpoenas were issued by a grand jury. AT&T declined to elaborate on the figures.)

By contrast, AT&T reported 36,900 court orders for subscriber data in 2007. That number grew to 49,700 court orders last year, a growth rate that’s anemic compared to the doubling of subpoenas in the same period.

In all, the nation’s mobile carriers reported that they responded to 1.3 million requests last year for subscriber information. Other than AT&T, most of the figures that the nine mobile carriers reported did not directly break down the numbers between warrants and subpoenas.

In a letter to Rep. Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts), AT&T said it usually always positively responds to subpoenas except when “law enforcement may attempt to obtain information using a subpoena when a court order is required.” While there is much confusion as to when a court order is needed, they are generally required for wiretapping and sometimes for ongoing locational data.

Markey’s office did not respond for comment.

Many, including Baggio, charge that the government’s use of administrative subpoenas is often nothing less than a “fishing expedition.” And the courts don’t seem to mind.

In the Golden Valley case, the San Francisco federal appeals court said the outcome was a no-brainer, that Congress had spoken.

“We easily conclude that power consumption records at the three customer residences satisfy the relevance standard for the issuance of an administrative subpoena in a drug investigation,” the court ruled.

The decision seemingly trumps a Supreme Court ruling in 2001 that the authorities must obtain search warrants to employ thermal-imaging devices to detect indoor marijuana growing operations. Ironically, the justices ruled that the imaging devices, used outside a house, carry the potential to “shrink the realm of guaranteed privacy.”

Rewind to 1996, when the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the drug-trafficking conviction of a man arrested aboard an Amtrak train in December 1993. A DEA agent issued an administrative subpoena demanding Amtrak hand over passenger lists and reservations for trains stopping in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where the agent was based.

The agent reviewed the reservation information looking for passengers who paid cash, booked sleeping cars, and purchased tickets on the day of departure, “all of which in his experience suggested possible drug trafficking,” the appeals court said, in upholding the challenged subpoena.

Hilman Moffett was found to be carrying 162 pounds of baled marijuana in his luggage.

In one high-profile case, the Securities and Exchange Commission used the administrative subpoena power to help unwind the Enron financial scandal in 2003.

And a decade ago, the Justice Department used administrative subpoenas to investigate a Cleveland, Ohio, podiatrist for an alleged kickback scheme with two medical testing labs. The subpoenas sought the doctor’s professional journals, copies of his and his children’s bank and financial records, files of patients who were referred to the labs in question, and his tax returns.

In another example, a judge sided with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission in 2007, ordering publisher McGraw-Hill to turn over documents concerning data used in one of its publications to calculate the price of natural gas as part of the government’s probe into a price-manipulation scandal.

Records obtained by a federal agency don’t have to stay with that agency or be destroyed, either. Some of them may be transferred to other agencies if “there is reason to believe that the records are relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry of the receiving agency,” according to a Justice Department Criminal Resource Manual.

The records can be transferred to state agencies, too.

But the states may not need the federal government’s assistance. They have an undetermined number of statutes authorizing the issuance of their own administrative subpoenas. For instance, most every state has that authority when it comes to investigating child-support cases. (.pdf)

Consider the Boston case in which Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley issued an administrative subpoena in December demanding “subscriber information” for several alleged members of Anonymous as part of an investigation into who sabotaged Boston police’s website and released officers’ e-mails.

A Suffolk County judge in February sided with Conley’s administrative subpoena that ordered Twitter to hand over IP addresses of accounts identified as “Guido Fawkes,” “@p0isAn0N,” and “@OccupyBoston.”

Christopher Slobogin, a Vanderbilt Law School scholar who has written extensively on administrative subpoenas, said the power of the administrative subpoena was born at the turn of the 20th century, when the U.S. began developing the regulatory state.

Administrative subpoenas initially passed court muster since they were used by agencies to get records from companies to prosecute unlawful business practices, he said. Corporations weren’t thought to have the same privacy rights as individuals, and administrative subpoenas weren’t supposed to be used to get at private papers.

When the Supreme Court upheld that the Federal Trade Commission’s administrative subpoena of internal tobacco company records in 1924, Justice Wendell Holmes limited the power to companies, writing that anyone “who respects the spirit as well as the letter of the Fourth Amendment would be loath to believe that Congress intended to authorize one of its subordinate agencies to sweep all our traditions into the fire and to direct fishing expeditions into private papers.”

But times have changed.

“In some ways, they were a good thing if you were liberal,” Slobogin said of the administrative subpoena. “But they have migrated from corrupt businesses to people suspected of crime. They are fishing expeditions when there is no probable cause for a warrant.”

Millions of Americans now fall within government's digital dragnet

DCoded: Scale of digital snooping finally becomes a political issue.

by Mark Stanley and Jake Laperruque

Will government surveillance finally become a political issue for middle-class Americans?

Until recently, average Americans could convince themselves they were safe from government snooping. Yes, the government engaged in warrantless wiretaps, but those were directed at terrorists. Yes, movies and TV shows featured impressive technology, with someone’s location highlighted in real time on a computer screen, but such capabilities were used only to track drug dealers and kidnappers.

Figures released earlier this month should dispel that complacency. It’s now clear that government surveillance is so widespread that the chances of the average, innocent person being swept up in an electronic dragnet are much higher than previously appreciated. The revelation should lead to long overdue legal reforms. 

The new figures, resulting from a Congressional inquiry, indicate that cell phone companies responded last year to at least 1.3 million government requests for customer data—ranging from subscriber identifying information to call detail records (who is calling whom), geolocation tracking, text messages, and full-blown wiretaps.

Almost certainly, the 1.3 million figure understates the scope of government surveillance. One carrier provided no data. And the inquiry only concerned cell phone companies. Not included were ISPs and e-mail service providers such as Google, which we know have also seen a growing tide of government requests for user data. The data released this month was also limited to law enforcement investigations—it does not encompass the government demands made in the name of national security, which are probably as numerous, if not more. And what was counted as a single request could have covered multiple customers. For example, an increasingly favorite technique of government agents is to request information identifying all persons whose cell phones were near a particular cell tower during a specific time period—this sweeps in data on hundreds of people, most or all of them entirely innocent.

How did we get to a point where communications service providers are processing millions of government demands for customer data every year? The answer is two-fold. The digital technologies we all rely on generate and store huge amounts of data about our communications, our whereabouts and our relationships. And since it’s digital, that information is easier than ever to copy, disclose, and analyze. Meanwhile, the privacy laws that are supposed to prevent government overreach have failed to keep pace. The combination of powerful technology and weak standards has produced a perfect storm of privacy erosion.

Of course, police and other government investigators have legitimate needs for electronic evidence, and citizens enjoy huge benefits from new technologies. We don’t want to deprive law enforcement of the tools it needs, and we don’t want to give up our technology. The only solution is to ensure that the government’s use of these tools is carefully focused. The best way to do that is to follow the standard in the Constitution and require the government to get a warrant from a judge before intruding in our lives.

The problem is that the courts, in cases that are decades old, ruled that information held by a third party, such as a wireless carrier, was not covered by the Constitution’s warrant requirement. And the statute that sets standards for government monitoring of cell phones and online communications, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), was written in 1986, when mobile phones were the size of bricks and Facebook and Google didn’t exist. ECPA says that the government can obtain a wide range of information, including text messages and e-mail, with only a subpoena, issued without a judge’s approval. This is a much lower standard than requiring a warrant.
Changes brewing?

We clearly have a long way to go to reclaim our privacy, but there are some encouraging developments from DC. Last January, the Supreme Court ruled in US v. Jones that the use of a GPS device to track a person’s vehicle over an extended period of time constitutes a search under the Constitution and therefore generally requires a warrant issued by a judge. And one federal appeals court has held that the government must get a warrant before reading stored text messages or e-mail.

In addition, a broad coalition of companies, think tanks, and advocacy groups from across the political spectrum has been urging Congress to reform ECPA.

There's also some movement in Congress, where a group of lawmakers has introduced the GPS Act (S.1212 in the Senate and H.R.2168 in the House) to require that government agents get a warrant from a judge in order to track people using their mobile phones. The GPS Act offers the rare chance to find bipartisan consensus—both Republicans and Democrats have come out in support of the act.

Up to now, persistent lobbying from the Justice Department and a lack of outcry from the public have left Congress with little incentive to act. But the revelation that millions of Americans are falling within a digital dragnet may be the spark needed to make this an issue that resonates with the middle class.

One day after DC police's reasonable camera policy, phone still taken

DC resident did get his phone back, minus the memory card and family pictures.

by Cyrus Farivar

On July 20, just 24 hours after a new camera policy was enacted by the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, DC—you guessed it—the cops still took a guy’s phone. The new policy forbids the confiscation of cameras and cameraphones, and disallows police from ordering citizens to stop filming or taking photos of police action.

According to a local Fox TV affiliate, Earl Staley, a 26-year-old local resident started trying to record officers who were punching a man who they were arresting.

"So I go and grab my phone and start trying to record it," Staley told Fox 5 News in the District. "And once I do that, another vice cop reaches over my back and grabs my phone and tells me he's not giving my phone back."

Staley eventually did get his phone back, minus the memory card, which apparently had hundreds of photos of his daughter on it.

"I know it has to be illegal," Staley told Fox. "It hurt me a lot because that's a lot of pictures."

He’s right—it is illegal under the MPD’s new General Order (PDF) issued by Chief Cathy Lanier herself.

“A member [of the police department] shall not, implicitly or explicitly, coerce consent to take possession of any recording device or any information thereon,” the new order states.

MPD did not respond immediately to our request for comment.

MPAA "embedding is infringement" theory rejected by court

Judge calls on Congress to update copyright law for the online video era.

by Timothy B. Lee

A federal appeals court has decisively rejected a legal theory that would have placed anyone who embeds a third-party video on her website in legal jeopardy. In a Thursday decision, Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the "video bookmarking" site myVidster was not liable to the gay porn producer Flava Works if users embedded copies of Flava videos on myVidster.

Judge Posner's reasoning is interesting. He argues that when you view an infringing video on a site such as YouTube, no one—not you, not YouTube, and not the guy who uploaded the infringing video—is violating copyright's reproduction or distribution rights. And since simply viewing an infringing copy of a video isn't copyright infringement, he says, myVidster can't be secondarily liable for that infringement.

Viewing an infringing video online may lead to a violation of copyright's public performance right, Posner goes on, but here the law is murky. The judge called on Congress to help clarify exactly how copyright law should apply in the age of Internet video.

And if even one of copyright's most respected jurists is confused, it's a clear sign that copyright law needs work.

Embedding is not infringement

Flava Works sued myVidster because users kept adding links to Flava videos to the myVidster site. myVidster is a "video bookmarking" site that automatically embeds bookmarked videos on its site and surrounds them with ads. To the untrained eye, it looks like myVidster itself serves up the infringing copies of the videos. Based on that perception, the trial court judge ruled that myVister was directly infringing Flava's copyrights and granted a preliminary injunction.

Of course, if embedding is direct infringement, then anyone who embeds a video without first researching its copyright status is at risk of being a direct infringer. That would put a damper on the practice of embedding, which has made the Web a more convenient and interactive place.

The Motion Picture Association of America, of course, was thrilled with this initial result. But as Google and Facebook pointed out in an amicus brief late last year, the lower court's decision was inconsistent with the relevant precedents.

Judge Posner, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, overruled the lower court's judgment. While it might appear that videos embedded on myVidster are being distributed by myVidster, the underlying data is actually being streamed directly from third-party servers to user computers. Hence, Posner wrote, neither myVidster nor its users are guilty of direct copyright infringement.

Still, myVidster could be liable for secondary copyright infringement for assisting, benefitting from, or "inducing" the infringing activities of others. But Judge Posner rejected that argument as well, and his reasoning was interesting:

As long as the [myVidster] visitor makes no copy of the copyrighted video that he is watching, he is not violating the copyright owner’s exclusive right, conferred by the Copyright Act, “to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies” and “distribute copies ... of the copyrighted work to the public.” His bypassing Flava’s pay wall by viewing the uploaded copy is equivalent to stealing a copyrighted book from a bookstore and reading it. That is a bad thing to do (in either case) but it is not copyright infringement. The infringer is the customer of Flava who copied Flava’s copyrighted video by uploading it to the Internet

So a user who streams an infringing video from a website does not violate copyright's reproduction or distribution rights. But what about the uploader—isn't myVidster contributing to his initial act of infringement? Surprisingly, Posner suggests the answer is no.

Flava contends that by providing a connection to websites that contain illegal copies of its copyrighted videos, myVidster is encouraging its subscribers to circumvent Flava’s pay wall, thus reducing Flava’s income. No doubt. But unless those visitors copy the videos they are viewing on the infringers’ websites, myVidster isn’t increasing the amount of infringement. An employee of Flava who embezzled corporate funds would be doing the same thing—reducing Flava’s income—but would not be infringing Flava’s copyrights by doing so. myVidster displays names and addresses (that’s what the thumbnails are, in effect) of videos hosted elsewhere on the Internet that may or may not be copyrighted.

In Posner's view, no matter how many people view a video on a video sharing site, there's only one violation of the reproduction and distribution right: the original uploading of the video.

The distinction between "downloading" a video and "streaming" seems tenuous to us, though. Modern Web-based video streaming software typically caches a "streamed" video so that by the end of it the user has a complete copy of the video on his computer and can re-watch it as many times as he wants. That copy may stay on the user's computer for hours if the user leaves that browser window open. Posner did not examine how long an infringing video could be stored on a user's computer before it infringed the reproduction right.
Public performance

Copyright holders also have the right to control public performances of their work, and Posner argues that argument may be more promising for Flava Works. But here the law is ambiguous:

The Copyright Act makes it unlawful “to perform the copyrighted work publicly,” defined, so far as relates to this case, as “to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance... of the work... to the public... whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance... receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.” One possible interpretation is that uploading plus bookmarking a video is a public performance because it enables a visitor to the website to receive (watch) the performance at will, and the fact that he will be watching it at a different time or in a different place from the other viewers does not affect its “publicness,” as the statute makes clear... An alternative interpretation, however... is that the performance occurs only when the work (Flava’s video) is transmitted to the viewer’s computer.

Posner says the first interpretation is "hopeless for Flava" since myVidster had nothing to do with uploading the video. He argues that the second interpretation might prove more fruitful for the plaintiff, but then said that Flava had not proven its case was strong enough to win a preliminary injunction. myVidster will be allowed to continue operating its site while Flava and myVidster deal with other issues raised by the lawsuit.

"Legislative clarification of the public-performance provision of the Copyright Act would be most welcome," Posner wrote. Given the contentiousness surrounding copyright, we're not going to hold our breaths waiting for Congress to respond.

Illinois employers can no longer force Facebook password disclosure

Midwestern state follows law signed earlier this year in Maryland.

by Cyrus Farivar

Watch out employers—as of January 1, 2013, you won’t be able to compel employees or job applicants to disclose passwords for social networking sites anymore.

On Wednesday, Gov. Pat Quinn signed the law at the Illinois Institute of Technology, making the state the second, after Maryland, to halt the practice. Other states, including Washington, Delaware, and New Jersey, are considering adopting similar legislation.

"Members of the workforce should not be punished for information their employers don’t legally have the right to have," Gov. Quinn said in a statement. "As use of social media continues to expand, this new law will protect workers and their right to personal privacy."

In March 2012, the Associated Press published an article detailing how some employers, notably law enforcement, were effectively compelling job applicants to disclose their social network passwords, especially on Facebook. That, in turn, prompted Facebook to say it would consider lawsuits against firms that demand such information.

The article also prompted attention from American senators, who queried the United States Department of Justice for a ruling on the practice. Two separate Congressional bills have been introduced on Capitol Hill in April and May, although they have not yet been brought to a vote.

What do Christian fundamentalists have against set theory?

By Maggie Koerth-Baker


I've mentioned here before that I went to fundamentalist Christian schools from grade 8 through grade 11. I learned high school biology from a Bob Jones University textbook, watched videos of Ken Ham talking about cryptozoology as extra credit assignments, and my mental database of American history probably includes way more information about great revival movements than yours does. In my experience, when the schools I went to followed actual facts, they did a good job in education. Small class sizes, lots of hands-on, lots of writing, and lots of time spent teaching to learn rather than teaching to a standardized test. But when they decided that the facts were ungodly, things went to crazytown pretty damn quick.

All of this is to say that I usually take a fairly blasé attitude towards the "OMG LOOK WHAT THE FUNDIES TEACH KIDS" sort of expose that pops up occasionally on the Internet. It's hard to be shocked by stuff that you long ago forgot isn't general public knowledge. You say A Beka and Bob Jones University Press are still freaked about Communism, take big detours into slavery/KKK apologetics, and claim the Depression was mostly just propaganda? Yeah, they'll do that. Oh, the Life Science textbook says humans and dinosaurs totally hung out and remains weirdly obsessed with bombardier beetles? What else is new?




Well, for me, this is new:

"Unlike the "modern math" theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute....A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory." — ABeka.com

Wait? What?


First off, let's establish what set theory actually involves.


Sets are exactly what you think they are—groups of things. Prime numbers, unicorns, cats, whatever ... you can make a set of it. Set theory is just a way of talking about what sets do and what they are like.


On the surface, this sounds pretty simple. For instance, most of what I learned about set theory when I was in college came through classes in anthropological linguistics. That's because sets, being made of anything you damn well please, have applications outside of pure math. Ted Sider, a professor of philosophy at Cornell University has some good examples of this in a set theory primer he's written:

In linguistics, for example, one can think of the meaning of a predicate, ‘is red’ for instance, as a set — the set of all red things. Here’s one hint of why sets are so useful: we can apply this idea to predicates that apply to other predicates. For instance, think of ‘red is a color’. ‘Is a color’ is a predicate, and it looks like it holds of things like the meaning of ‘is red’. So we can think of ‘is a color’ as meaning a set containing all the colors. And these colors in turn are sets: the set of all red things, the set of all green things, etc. This works because i) a set collects many things into one, and ii) many sets themselves can be put together to form a new set.

So far, so good. In this basic form, sets are involved in lots of things. They come up in musical notation, they help define the way we communicate with computers, and they are the things that make Venn Diagram jokes possible.


But sets and set theory can also be a lot more complicated. For instance, you can make up sets that contradict themselves. The classic example is a set made up of barbers who shave everyone in town (including themselves) and who only shave the people who don't shave themselves. Oops. Another problem: Sets that are too broadly defined, so you don't know if you're actually putting the right stuff in there. A set made up of the favorite things of a tall person, say. Paradoxes like this are what really drive set theory, much of which centers on defining rules for sets and how they work so that we don't just go around assuming certain sets exist when they clearly can't—andso that we can still use the valuable logic and math of sets even when we can't prove that the stuff we're sticking into a set actually exists in the real world. Basically, set theory has a lot to do with creating rules and helping us apply a rule-based system in weird, hypothetical situations.


All of which turns out to be really important when you want to talk about the idea of infinity. Set theory actually has its origins in attempts to define infinity and deal with it in a concrete way in mathematics. Checking Wikipedia, you'll learn that this "modern" theory was actually established in 1874. Why 1874? Because that was when a guy named Georg Cantor proved that there are different infinities and that not all infinities are created equal.


Again, what?


This is really where set theory starts to sound like something you thought up while high and later forgot about.

You can have an infinite set of numbers, right? That makes sense. But, Cantor figured out that an infinite set of, say, whole numbers, is smaller than an infinite set of decimal numbers. They're both infinite. But they're not the same. This TEDEd video explains it really, really well:


So what does all of this have to do with Christian fundamentalists? I have to admit, when I first read that Mother Jones piece, I was stumped. I don't remember anybody disparaging set theory at the schools I went to. And, I'll be honest, I didn't remember enough about what set theory was to be able put the pieces together. (I was also somewhat disappointed to find that the Conservapedia entry didn't offer much help.)

But after re-acquainting myself with this stuff, I think I see a couple of things happening that would make set theory problematic for some Christian fundamentalists.

First: Some of these folks get very touchy about the idea of infinity. Mark Chu-Carroll is a software engineer at foursquare and a math blogger. Unlike me, he was already aware of the fundamentalist objection to set theory, because he's actually had people show up in his comment section railing about how the theory is an affront to God. Particularly the part about multiple infinities. Chu-Carroll told me that one commenter explained the problem this way: "There is only one infinity, and that is God." Basically, this perspective looks at set theory and Georg Cantor and sees humankind trying to replace the divine with numbers and philosophy.

The second problem is a little more complex. Remember how the modern idea of set theory really isn't all that modern? That's because I'm pretty sure A Beka doesn't mean "modern" as in "recent", but "modern" as in "modernist".

I can tell you from experience that A Beka (and Bob Jones University Press) are stridently against modernism in all its forms. (I'm assuming they're against post-modernism, too, but you have to understand that the opinions and perspectives this sort of Christian fundamentalism has about society and culture were formed between the late 1920s and early 1970s and, because of this, the culture wars that they are fighting often come across as confusingly antiquated. Thus, the ongoing obsession with the imminent threat of Communism. See also: Why I sat through multiple sermons on the evils of rock n' roll in the late 1990s.)

If you associate modernism primarily with abstract art, Scandinavian furniture, and houses made out of glass, then all of this is probably just as confusing as set theory, itself. But art isn't really what the fundamentalists are thinking about when they think about modernism.

Instead, they see modernism as the opposing worldview to their own. They are all about tradition (or, at least, what they have decided is traditional). Modernism is a knee-jerk rejection of tradition in favor of the new. Obviously, they think a very specific sort of Christian God should be the center of everything and all parts of society, public and private. Modernists prefer ideas like secular humanism and think God is something you should be doing in private, on your own time. They believe strongly in the importance of power hierarchies and rules. Modernism smashes all of that and says, "Hey, just do your own thing. Nobody's ideas are any better or worse than anybody else's. There's no right and wrong. Go crazy, man!" [Insert obligatory bongo drumming session]

I am hamming this up a bit, but you get the picture. Modernism, to the publishers of A Beka math books, is sick and wrong. The idea is that if you reject their specific idea of God and their specific idea of The Rules, then you must be living in a crazy, dangerous world. You could kill people, and you would think it was okay, because you're a modernist and you know there's really no such thing as right and wrong. Basically, they've bumped into a need to separate themselves from the almost inhuman Other on a massive scale, and latched on to modernism as a shorthand for how to do that. It doesn't matter what you or I actually believe, or even what we actually do. They know what we MUST believe and what we MUST be like because of the tenets of modernism.

More importantly, they know that we are subtle, and use sneaky means to indoctrinate children and lure adults into accepting modernist values. So the art, the literature, the jazz—probably the Scandinavian furniture, too, though I never heard anyone mention that specifically—are all just traps. They're ways of getting us to reject to One True Path a little bit at a time. (I should note that, up to this point, I am basing my analysis on what I was taught in Baptist school. After this, I'm speculating, and attempting to connect the ideas I know are present in this subculture with set theory.)

Set theory, particularly the stuff about infinity, has a bit of that wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey flavor to it. It doesn't make sense on the level of "common sense". It's dealing with things that aren't standard, simple numbers. It makes links between nice, factual math and floppy, subjective philosophy. If you're raised in Christian fundamentalist culture, all of that—every last bit—absolutely reeks of modernism. It's easy to see how somebody at A Beka would look at set theory and conclude that it's really just modernist propaganda. To them, set theory is just a step on the road to godless atheism.

Add in the historical fact that Georg Cantor's ideas weren't terribly popular at first, and they can easily create a narrative where true math is being suppressed so that false, modernist math can corrupt the minds of children.

If this sounds crazy ... you're right. It's pretty crazy. In fact, it's this kind of thinking, and my realization that it was based fundamentally on lying about everybody who wasn't a member of your religious tribe, that led me away from religion to begin with. Ironically. But there is a coherent thought process going on here, and I want you to understand that. If all you do is point and laugh at the fundies for calling set theory evil, then you are missing the point. This isn't about them being stupid. It's about who they think you are.

Olympics spectator with Parkinson's wants 'exoneration' after arrest

Mark Worsfold, 54, says he was handcuffed by Surrey police officers 'for not smiling' while watching men's cycling road race

A man with Parkinson's disease who was arrested during the Olympic men's cycling road race while sitting beside the route has said he wants a "letter of exoneration" from Surrey police, claiming their treatment of him was disproportionate.

Mark Worsfold, 54, a former soldier and martial arts instructor, was arrested on 28 July for a breach of the peace shortly before the cyclists arrived in Redhouse Park, Leatherhead, where he had sat down on a wall to watch the race. Officers from Surrey police restrained and handcuffed him and took him to Reigate police station, saying his behaviour had "caused concern".

"The man was positioned close to a small group of protesters and based on his manner, his state of dress and his proximity to the course, officers made an arrest to prevent a possible breach of the peace," Surrey police said in a statement.

Worsfold, whose experience was first reported by Private Eye, claims police questioned him about his demeanour and why he had not been seen to be visibly enjoying the event. Worsfold, who was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 2010, suffers from muscle rigidity that affects his face. He was released after two hours without charge or caution.

"It could have been done better. I was arrested for not smiling. I have Parkinson's," he said, adding that he realised the officers were working long hours and trying to control the event properly, but they had not, in his case, acted correctly. He said he did not want to make further comment until he received a response from Surrey police.

Worsfold, who teaches martial arts in Leatherhead, climbed Mount Kilimanjaro last February for the Save the Rhino charity.

Surrey police said: "There were a number of factors which led officers to make this arrest, including the fact that the race was rapidly approaching, the heightened level of security due to the high-profile nature of the event and the sheer number of spectators in attendance. These were fully explained to the individual concerned. He was given words of advice and released with no further action."

They added that Worsfold had had "a number of knives" in his possession, but that these turned out to be made of rubber and for use only as display items.

The statement said: "Surrey police has received a letter from the man in which he has said that he 'fully understands and appreciates the action taken by officers'. He has also said that he 'appreciated and thanked both the arresting officers for their apologies and explanations' following his release."

Chief Superintendent Gavin Stephens said: "Officers were policing huge numbers of people during the Olympic events and in the interests of public safety they acted quickly and decisively based on the information available to them."

Campaigners, however, said the incident was illustrative of the kind of "chronic misunderstandings" people with Parkinson's have to deal with regularly. "Sadly Mark's experience highlights the lack of understanding and compassion that many people currently living with Parkinson's have to deal with every day," said Laura Bowey, head of information and support at Parkinson's UK.

"Despite affecting over 127,000 people in the UK, people with Parkinson's are subject to chronic misunderstandings and misconceptions about the condition. All too frequently people with Parkinson's tell us how are they are accused of being drunk, or acting suspiciously as they go about their daily lives.

"Parkinson's is a complex condition, and those living with it can experience a range of different symptoms that can vary almost on an hourly basis. We hope that Mark's experience will help to raise awareness of this distressing problem and will be a reminder to be careful about making the wrong assumptions about people who have Parkinson's."

Cops Strip Search Mom, "Forcibly" Pull Tampon Out of Her for Maybe Rolling Through Stop Sign

By Chris Sweeney

Getting pulled over for rolling through a stop sign is whack. But getting pulled over, having a gun pointed in your face, and then being strip searched on the side of the road in front of your two children for rolling through a stop sign is, well, really whack and probably an excessive use of force.

At least. that's what a new lawsuit in the Sunshine State is claiming.

Last July, Leila Tarantino claims that she was pulled over by an officer with the Citrus County Sheriff's Department. In the suit, Tarantino says she came to a full stop and should have never been pulled over in the first place.

A passing cop pulled a u-turn, flashed the lights, and rolled up behind her. Tarantino claims that the cop immediately drew his weapon, pulled her from the car, and refused to explain why he pulled her over. Tarantino's two young children watched all of this unfold from inside her car.

The cop then placed Tarantino in the back of the squad car, where she allegedly sat for two hours. When backup arrived, Tarantino was strip searched on the side of the road, where passing motorists could see everything.

Then, in a gruesome twist, a female officer "forcibly removed" a tampon from Tarantino. Presumably, the cops were looking for drugs, but the lawsuit notes that a drug-sniffing dog was never called in, and cops never found any contraband or anything illegal.

The lawsuit does not name the cops involved but notes that there were five male officers and one female officer.

According to the court filing, cops released Tarantino with a citation.

Here's a copy of the lawsuit: Tarantino Tampon Lawsuit

Police Say Handcuffed Man in Back of Cop Car Shot Himself in the Head; Mother Says ‘They Killed Him’

Neetzan Zimmerman

The mother of a man who police in Jonesboro, Arkansas, claim shot himself in the head while handcuffed in the back of a cruiser isn't convinced she's being told the truth about what happened to her son.

"I think they killed him, my son wasn't suicidal," Teresa Carter told News Channel 3.

21-year-old Chavis Chacobie Carter of Southaven, Mississippi, was riding inside a pickup truck that was pulled over last Saturday night. Officer Ron Marsh reportedly questioned and searched Carter, finding "some marijuana" on his person.

Running his name by dispatch Marsh discovered that Carter was wanted in Mississippi for missing a court date related to previous drug charge. Marsh subsequently handcuffed Carter, searched him again, and then put him in the back of the patrol car.

"As protocol he was handcuffed behind his back and double locked, and searched," said Sergeant Lyle Waterworth.

After questioning the other two occupants of the pickup, Marsh says he returned to his car to find Carter badly wounded in the backseat with a small caliber handgun by his side.

Keith Baggett, the second officer at the scene, later recalled hearing "a loud thump with a metallic sound" just before Marsh returned to his vehicle.

"Any given officer has missed something on a search, be it drugs, knife, razor blades, this instance it happened to be a gun," Sergeant Waterworth said.

Carter was rushed to the hospital, but was pronounced dead a short time later.

Teresa, his mother, believes the police are not telling her the whole story. She points to the fact that her son allegedly shot himself in the right temple despite being left handed. She also claims that Carter called his girlfriend after being stopped and told her he would phone her from jail.

Local authorities say an investigation into the incident is pending, and they are still open to the possibility that Carter's wound was not self-inflicted.

Intelligence Community Agrees to Let Senator Mention It Broke the Law

Yes, we're well down the path to a police state, but let us stop and smell the roses along the way. Thus shall we make the process of enslavement at least mildly entertaining.

Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, members of the Select Committee on Intelligence, for years have been expressing concerns about abuses of power by the executive branch but say they can't tell us what they're worried about because it's classified. That has led to almost-comical statements like this one (by Udall): "When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry"—but for now, sadly, he must leave us in suspense. I guess we'll find out in an HBO miniseries in a couple of decades, which we will then be jailed for watching.

Apparently, though, Wyden has been bugging the intelligence community (get it? bugging! the word has a double meaning in this context, you see) to declassify some words about what it has been doing so that he, a United States Senator, could say the words in public. In a letter released on Friday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence agreed to let him say some of them. Specifically, he can say that while the secret FISA court has "repeatedly held" that the government has complied with the Fourth Amendment,
It is also true that on at least one occasion the [FISA court] held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

(Emphasis added.) He is also permitted to say:
I believe that the government's implementation of Section 702 of FISA has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion.

"Please be advised," the letter continues, "that this declassification decision applies only to the precise three statements that you submitted for review and the other information in this letter." That is, the details of this illegal conduct, presumably the ones Wyden and Udall already know but are afraid to tell us, remain classified.

The only real news here is that the intelligence community (or as the letter puts it, the "Intelligence Community") has now admitted it broke the law. Back in 2009, Congress was already investigating reports that the NSA engaged in what was being called "overcollection." You know, when you put it that way, it really doesn't sound like a big deal. You're out there collecting stuff, and sometimes you just overcollect. Is that a problem, really?

Kind of: "Say you get an [FISA court] order to monitor a block of 1,000 e-mail addresses at a big corporation," a senior intelligence official was quoted as saying, "and instead of just monitoring those, the NSA also monitors another block of 1,000 e-mail addresses at that corporation. That is the kind of problem they had." Oh, that kind of problem. Sure, you could call that "violating a court order," or you could be a team player and call it an "overcollection problem." Whose side are you on, anyway?

According to the 2009 report, at that time the administration "said it had taken comprehensive steps to bring the security agency into compliance with the law" after the "overcollection problem" turned up. And, again, that might sound like an admission that the NSA had not previously been in compliance with the law, or, put less patriotically, had been breaking it. But however you put it, this was back in 2009 and comprehensive steps were taken to prevent any continuance of noncompliance. So, can we assume the admitted violations all happened before that?

You'll have to take their word for it, because the most open and transparent administration in history is not giving you any details, such as just how many U.S. persons its Intelligence Community has been eavesdropping on. Of course, as we saw just last month, the NSA claims it doesn't know and can't find out how many people's privacy it's violated because an investigation would violate people's privacy. (Like I said then, at least they have a sense of humor about the whole thing.)

Less comical is the fact that a United States Senator is being told by the Intelligence Community what he can and cannot say. To be clear, the price he'd pay for giving us the details would be limited to the loss of his security clearance; under the Constitution, "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place." Art. I, § 6. For example, a senator once read parts of the then-still-classified Pentagon Papers into the record, and the Supreme Court held it was "incontrovertible" that doing so was privileged. (This, written when Bush was the culprit, discusses the issue in more detail.)

Hopefully the current group would feel the same way. I'm a little concerned, though, that somebody's eyes might wander upward and see the exception for "treason," remember the relative lack of complaint about the treatment of Bradley Manning for leaking classified material, and get to thinking. We're not that far down the path yet, but the smell is getting more and more unpleasant.

Outrage of the Week #2! British Airways Treats All Men as Pervs

by lskenazy

Dear Readers: Businessman Mirko Fischer is disgusted with British Airways for treating all men as perverts and I hope he sues their pants off (as it were). Here’s the deal:

The airline’s policy states that a grown male is not allowed to sit next to any child he doesn’t know. It doesn’t matter if the kid’s parents are elsewhere on the plane, the revolting pervert…er…possessor of a Y chromosome MUST change his seat or the plane will not take off.

I am so on Fischer’s side! His suit arises from a trip he and his 6-months-pregnant wife were taking. His wife wanted to sit next to the window to be more comfortable, so he sat in the middle seat. Next to him sat a 12-year-old boy. The steward asked Fischer to change his seat and when Fischer refused, the steward ostensibly raised his voice and Fischer felt humiliated. Eventually he did change seats, but he is suing to make his point (and he’ll donate any compensation to charity): It is wrong to treat ALL MALES as a sexual threat to children. As he put it so well:

“Statistically, children are far more likely to be abused by a member of their family. Does that mean that British Airways are going to ban children sitting next to their own parents?”

It really doesn’t surprise me that it is a British airline with this policy, as Britain already demands adults undergo background checks when they want to have ANY contact with children — be it as the class mother who brings in cupcakes, or as the mom or dad who carpools kids more than once a month.

It is a country gone crazy with pervert fear, seeing smut in every smile and depravity in every dad. But the best way to protect kids from abuse is not to separate them from the entire adult male population. It is to teach them to say no to untoward advances, and report on anyone or anything creepy.

A creepy, weird, sex-obsessed airline, for instance. — Lenore

Man on Plane Must Change Seats — He’s Next to 2 Boys. Australians Outraged!

by lskenazy

Hey Folks! Encouraging news in our war on predator panic! Over in Australia, on Virgin, a man named Johnny McGirr, 33, was seated next to two unaccompanied boys, aged about 8 and 10. The stewardess made him move because that’s the airline’s policy: Women can sit next to kids, men are apparently just too likely to pounce.

McGirr — a fireman — was understandably embarrassed. He blogged about it and now he’s everywhere in the Australian media today, saying: ”[The attitude of the airline] is ‘we respect you but as soon as you board a Virgin airline you are a potential paedophile’, and that strips away all the good that any male does regardless of his standing in society, his profession or his moral attitudes.”

He also had a new suggestion for Virgin, to keep people safe:

No male should sit next to anyone. A spare seat will be allocated next to any male at any time to ensure the safety of women and children.

Virgin — Jeez what a name for this story — is now reconsidering its policy, the way British Airways did a few years back. (Remember this incident? And its outcome?) But perhaps even better is that the Sydney Morning Herald reports more than 44,000 readers nationwide responded to an online poll about the policy, and 87 % agreed it’s ‘‘sexist and suggests all men are potential pedophiles.”

Maybe all children are not in danger from all men at all times?

How I lost my fear of Universal Health Care

By Melissa

When I moved to Canada in 2008, I was a die-hard conservative Republican. So when I found out that we were going to be covered by Canada’s Universal Health Care, I was somewhat disgusted. This meant we couldn’t choose our own health coverage, or even opt out if we wanted too. It also meant that abortion was covered by our taxes, something I had always believed was horrible. I believed based on my politics that government mandated health care was a violation of my freedom.

When I got pregnant shortly after moving, I was apprehensive. Would I even be able to have a home birth like I had experienced with my first 2 babies? Universal Health Care meant less choice right? So I would be forced to do whatever the medical system dictated regardless of my feelings, because of the government mandate. I even talked some of having my baby across the border in the US, where I could pay out of pocket for whatever birth I wanted. So imagine my surprise when I discovered that Midwives were not only covered by the Universal health care, they were encouraged! Even for hospital births. In Canada, Midwives and Dr’s were both respected, and often worked together.

I went to my first Midwife appointment and sat in the waiting room looking at the wall of informational pamphlets. I never went to the Dr growing up, we didn’t have health insurance, and my parents preferred a conservative naturopathic doctor anyways. And the doctor I had used for my first 2 births was also a conservative Christian. So I had never seen information on birth control and STDs. One of the pamphlets read “Pregnant Unexpectedly?” so I picked it up, wondering what it would say. The pamphlet talked about adoption, parenthood, or abortion. It went through the basics of what each option would entail and ended by saying that these choices were up to you. I was horrified that they included abortion on the list of options, and fact that the pamphlet was so balanced instead of “pro-life.”

During my appointment that day, the midwife asked her initial round of questions including whether or not I had desired to become pregnant in the first place. Looking back I am not surprised she asked that, I was depressed at the time, (even though I did not list that on my medical chart) and very vocal about my views on birth control (it wasn’t OK, ever.) No wonder she felt like she should ask if I was happy to be having this baby. But I was angry about the whole thing. In my mind, freedom was being violated, my rights were being decided for me by the evils of Universal Health Care.

Fast forward a little past the Canadian births of my third and fourth babies. I had better prenatal care than I had ever had in the States. I came in regularly for appointments to check on my health and my babies’ health throughout my pregnancy, and I never had to worry about how much a test cost or how much the blood draw fee was. I didn’t have to skip my ultrasound because of the expense. With my pregnancies in the States, I had limited my checkups to only a handful to keep costs down. When I went in to get the shot I needed because of my negative blood type, in Canada it was covered. In fact I got the recommended 2 doses instead of the more risky 1 dose because I didn’t have to worry about the expense. I had a wide array of options and flexibility when it came to my birth, and care providers that were more concerned with my health and the health of my baby than how much money they might make based on my birth, or what might impact their reputation best. When health care is universal, doctors are free to recommend and provide the best care for every patient instead of basing their care on what each patient can afford.

I found out that religious rights were still respected. The Catholic hospital in the area did not provide abortions, and they were not required too. I had an amazing medically safe birth, and excellent post-natal care with midwives who had to be trained, certified and approved by the medical system.

I started to feel differently about Universal government mandated and regulated Health care. I realized how many times my family had avoided hospital care because of our lack of coverage. When I mentioned to Canadians that I had been in a car accident as a teen and hadn’t gone into the hospital, they were shocked! Here, you always went to the hospital, just in case. And the back pain I had endured ever since would have been investigated and cared for with whatever X-rays, Physiotherapy or even Surgery that was needed, which would have been at no cost to me. In our particular province, even chiropractic care was provided after a car accident by the provincial care insurance.When I asked for prayers for my little brother who had been burned in an accident, they were all puzzled why the story did not include immediately rushing him to the hospital. When they asked me to clarify and I explained that many people in the States are not insured and they try to put off medical care unless absolutely needed, they literally could not comprehend such a thing.

I started to wonder why I had been so opposed to government mandated Universal Health care. Almost every western country in the world has Universal Insurance of some kind, except the USA. Here in Canada, everyone was covered. If they worked full-time, if they worked part-time, or if they were homeless and lived on the street, they were all entitled to the same level of care if they had a medical need. People actually went in for routine check-ups and caught many of their illnesses early, before they were too advanced to treat. People were free to quit a job they hated, or even start their own business without fear of losing their medical coverage. In fact, the only real complaint I heard about the Universal Health Care from the Canadians themselves, was that sometimes there could be a wait time before a particular medical service could be provided. But even that didn’t seem to be that bad to me, in the States most people had to wait for medical care, or even be denied based on their coverage. Depending on where one lived and how rural the area was, one’s access to care could be limited, and that was regardless of what country one lived in. The only people guaranteed immediate and full service in the USA, were those with the best (and most expensive) health coverage or wads of cash they could blow. In Canada, the wait times were usually short, and applied to everyone regardless of wealth. If you were discontent with the wait time (and had the money to cover it) you could always travel out of the country to someplace where you could demand a particular service for a price. Personally, I never experienced excessive wait times, I was accepted for maternity care within a few days or weeks, I was able to find a family care provider nearby easily and quickly, and when a child needed to be brought in for a health concern I was always able to get an appointment within that week.

The only concern I was left with was the fact that abortion was covered by the Universal Health Care, and I still believed that was wrong. But as I lived there, I began to discover I had been misled in that understanding as well. Abortion wasn’t pushed as the only option by virtue of it being covered. It was just one of the options, same as it was in the USA. In fact, the percentage rates of abortion are far lower in Canada than they are in the USA, where abortion is often not covered by insurance and can be much harder to get. In 2008 Canada had an abortion rate of 15.2 per 1000 women (In other countries with government health care that number is even lower), and the USA had an abortion rate of 20.8 abortions per 1000 women.

And suddenly I could see why that was the case. With Universal coverage, a mother pregnant unexpectedly would still have health care for her pregnancy and birth even if she was unemployed, had to quit her job, or lost her job. If she was informed that she had a special needs baby on the way, she could rest assured knowing in Canada her child’s health care needs would be covered. Whether your child needs therapy, medicines, a caregiver, a wheelchair, or repeated surgeries, it would be covered by the health care system. Here, you never heard of parents joining the army just so their child’s “pre-existing” health care needs could be covered. In fact, when a special needs person becomes an adult in Canada, they are eligible for a personal care assistant covered by the government. We saw far more developmentally or physically disabled persons out and about in Canada, than I ever see here in the USA. They would be getting their groceries at the store, doing their business at the bank, and even working job, all with their personal care assistant alongside them, encouraging them and helping them when they needed it. When my sister came up to visit, she even commented on how visible special needs people were when the lady smiling and waving while clearing tables at the Taco Bell with her caregiver clearly had Downs Syndrome.

I also discovered that the Canadian government looked out for its families in other ways. The country mandates one year of paid maternity leave, meaning a woman having a baby gets an entire year after the birth of her baby to recover and parent her new baby full-time, while still receiving 55% of her salary and her job back at the end of that year. Either parent can use the leave, so some split it, with one parent staying at home for 6 months and the other staying at home for 6 months. I could hardly believe my ears when I first heard it. In America, women routinely had to return to work after 6 weeks leave, many times unpaid. Many American women lost their jobs when becoming pregnant or having a baby. I knew people who had to go back to work 2 weeks after giving birth just to hang onto their job and continue making enough money to pay the bills. Also every child in Canada gets a monthly cash tax benefit. The wealthier families can put theirs into a savings account to pay for college someday (which also costs far less money in Canada by the way), the not so wealthy can use theirs to buy that car seat or even groceries. In the province we lived in, we also received a monthly day care supplement check for every child under school age. I made more money being a stay at home mom in Canada than I do in the States working a part-time close to a minimum wage job. And none of the things I listed here are considered “welfare” they are available to every Canadian regardless of income. For those with lower incomes than we had there are other supports in place as well.

If a woman gets pregnant unexpectedly in America, she has to worry about how she will get her own prenatal care, medical care for her child, whether or not she will be able to keep her job and how she will pay for daycare for her child so she can continue to support her family. In Canada those problems are eliminated or at least reduced. Where do you think a woman is more likely to feel supported in her decision to keep her baby, and therefore reduce abortions?

Since all of these benefits are available to everyone, I never heard Canadians talking about capping their incomes to remain lower income and not lose their government provided health coverage. Older people in Canada don’t have to clean out their assets to qualify for some Medicare or Social Security programs, I knew older people who went in for procedure after procedure, and we never heard about dwindling resources, kids paying for their parents medical expenses, or being forced to use up life insurance or funeral savings in order to get the health care they needed. I heard of inheritances being left even amongst the middle classes. Something I had only heard about in wealthy families in the USA.

And lest you think that the Canada system is draining the government resources, their budget is very close to balanced every year. They’ve had these programs for decades. Last year Canada’s national debt was 586 billion dollars, the USA has 15.5 trillion dollars in national debt. Canada has about one 10th the population of the US, so even accounting for size, the USA is almost 3 times more indebted. And lest you think that taxes are astronomical, our median income taxes each year were only slightly higher than they had been in the States, and we still got a large chunk of it back each year at tax time.
In the end, I don’t see Universal health care as an evil thing anymore.

Comparing the two systems, which one better values the life of each person?Which system is truly more family friendly?

The Wedding of Corporate Person to Angela Marie Vogel

On Tuesday, July 17th, Corporate Person and Ms. Angela Vogel married at Westlake Park to highlight the ridiculousness and insidious harms of "Corporate Personhood". If you'd like to get involved in ending Corporate Personhood, please check out the I103 website, print and sign the petition and consider volunteering or making a contribution.

Below you'll find video, pictures and a copy of the beautiful sermon by Pastor Rich Lang. There are also a full set of professional photos by Alex Garland on Facebook and a full roundup of our press coverage.

Video of the Wedding

Video of the Marriage License

The Sermon: 
PRELUDE

PROCESSIONAL

THE DECLARATION

I greet you in the name of Mammon and invite you to enter into this “holy time” with glad and generous hearts as together we celebrate the wedded immortality of Corporate Person with the mortal flesh of Angela Marie Vogel. We gather knowing that the love that binds them together will end in the grief and tragedy of Angela’s mortal death even as Corporate Person lives on marrying again and again with the adoration and support of shareholders world-wide. But today we celebrate this moment, this consummation of ecstasy and attraction. We celebrate these bonds of affection as Corporate Person with stony indifference evokes yet another merger of yet another possession --- this one, like others before her and others that will come after, beautiful, unique and highly desired … full of potential and full of hope. Angela of flesh, blood and bone offers herself to Corporate Person as yet another object to be used, abused and cast away when no longer profitable. But deliriously expectant that this time Corporate Person will be different!

For Angela, dear, sweet victim of corporate propaganda, she has been swept up in a love that knows no boundaries, nor limits, nor moral concerns … what really does it matter that Corporate Person is merely a legal fiction? What really does it matter that he will look upon her as a business interest to be exploited and sacrificed for greater interests and profit? What really does it matter --- for Angela has found her Rock, the one who will secure and protect her … and even though Corporate Person cannot himself display ecstasy, adoration and actual concern for another life-form, he can still produce Viagra, pornography and sex-toys as distractions of amusement. In the end Angela comes before us, as has millions before her full of hopes and dreams and expectations … but at least in this case Angela knows they can never be fulfilled -- so since a girl can’t have everything she might as well have unlimited amounts of corporate cash. We celebrate this common sense wisdom, this worldly craftiness, this cold characteristic of capitalism as each, Corporate Person & Angela Marie Vogel, marry for their own self interest.

Let us pray:

PRAYER Oh benevolent Mammon for whom all of life bows and submits just to increase your influence --- we shareholders within your commonwealth of greed come now before Thee seeking blessing and grace for our fictional friend Corporate Person and his soon to be cast-aside wife Angela Marie Vogel. Pour out your Moneyed Spirit upon them so that they might unite both Corporate and Human energies to defeat any challenges to their union: through your power in them smite Initiative 103 and all other attempts to limit Corporate control, smite all attempts to grant human rule, human reason, or human desire, the priority of care. We are so grateful to you Creator Mammon for corrupting democracy and buying off politicians, we are thankful that through you we can now give up on that old quaint experiment of human beings as independent actors ---today we celebrate our absorption into the new image of corporate commodification of all flesh, blood and bone. As Angela offers her life in submission, may we also offer our own. All in the name of the brave new world, the brave new future, the brave new evolution of corporate control in whom we seek security.

Amen.

THE QUESTIONS

Corporate Person, do you choose this mortal woman to be your wedded wife, to live with her in the commodified state of matrimony? Will you insert her into your purposes, structure her life to increase your value, receive her adoration as chains to enslave her? Will you silence her voice, surveil her movements, monitor her vagina, and restrict her opinions while increasing the illusion of her choices as long as she remains your property, an object of your lack of affection?

(shareholders respond WE WILL)

Angela, do you choose this legal fiction to be your wedded husband, to live with him in the commodified state of matrimony? Will you love, honor and serve him in sickness and in health, in prosperity and in poverty, will you practice kindness and consideration toward him, will you defend his reputation and continually give up your time, talent, treasure and trophies for his pleasure and gain, will you forsake all other loyalties and priorities, being faithful only unto him as long as you shall live? (I will)

WILL THE CONGREGATION PLEASE STAND? Will you give your blessing to Corporate Person and Angela Marie Vogel and promise to do all that you can to support them in their marriage of corporation and flesh?

OBJECTIONS:

Is there any fool here who might object --- anyone that might have reason to be concerned with this commodified union? (Jeff Reifman I-103)

PASTORAL BLESSING:

Let us not be inhabited by such a fool ---turn away from him, go back to shopping, distract yourself with amusements, don’t worry ---BE HAPPY and have a nice day!

In celebration of this merger let us each reach deep into our pocketbooks and take out a symbol of that which is most sacred and holy of all --- let us show the benevolent power of our Corporate Lords & Masters by taking out a $1 bill ---

Is there anyone here among us who is homeless? Down & out? In need of a buck? In need of moneyed love? ---If so could you just raise your hand and those around such a one just give that person a wedding gift of love … give that a person your dollar of luv ---your sacred gift of treasure.

Receive this gift as a small token of the benevolence of the Corporate-Government-Military –Market merger that now rules the land of the once free.

Let us say AMEN !!!

THE PRONOUNCEMENT Because Corporate Person and Angela Marie Vogel have consented together in commodified matrimony, having pledged to each other their faithfulness before Mammon and this public politically enslaved gathering: on behalf of our true religion, the worship of the dollar, and in compliance with the laws of this land, I pronounce that they are, from this day forward, husband and wife, one corporate flesh to the glory of Mammon and to the devastation of all the earth and its resources.

Corporate Person and Angela may your children become sacrifices in war for greater market gain, may your wealth be without end, may your desire for more always be insatiable. May you begin every day in expectation of profit, and end every night resting secure in each other’s bank accounts. May your continuous lies never be revealed, may your lawlessness never be held accountable, may your theft be forgiven, and may you own this nation lock, stock and barrel until freedom is no more.

You may kiss and merge --- and we may applaud.

Rev. Rich Lang (rich@utemple.org) is Pastor of University Temple United Methodist and a columnist for Real Change. www.utemple.org

Learning From Norway’s Tragedy

By JONAS GAHR STORE

One year ago Sunday, Norway experienced one of the worst extremist attacks Western Europe has witnessed since World War II when Anders Behring Breivik systematically killed 77 people and injured hundreds of others.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg’s reaction was unequivocal. He declared that Norway’s strongest weapon in responding to this was to employ more openness and more democracy.

Norwegians took up his call. Neither politicians nor the media turned it into a partisan political issue. The public reacted with grief but did not call for extraordinary measures. And the state chose to prosecute Brevik in an ordinary public court with full media coverage.

Many outside Norway have questioned this. Does not responding with openness allow an extremist to broadcast his fanatical views? Does it not risk strengthening extremist movements? Why not create a special, closed legal setting?

As Norway’s foreign minister, I have been frequently confronted with these questions over the past year. Without prejudice to the ongoing legal proceedings, I believe these are key questions. How we, as independent nations and as an international community, should fight violent political extremism is at the heart of politics in the 21st century. I also believe that Norway’s experience after the attack has important lessons that may be relevant beyond our borders.

The last decade has shown us that ideology can never fully explain why specific groups or individuals commit unimaginable acts. Social, psychological and individual factors always play crucial roles. Yet political extremism does not grow in a vacuum. Ideas are the oxygen that allows it to flourish and spread. Extremist perspectives win sympathy and recruits because they offer narratives that claim to identify deep injustices and enemies.

Without this fuel, the blaze of extremism is quickly extinguished. Al Qaeda networks were nourished by the ideas of Islamic fundamentalists just as Breivik invoked and may have drawn sustenance from the ideas and stories of other Western extremists.

Confronting and undermining the narratives and ideas of extremism must therefore be one of our key tasks. To do this, we must retain the courage of our convictions in the face of extremism.

Virtually all modern forms of extremism accuse liberal Western democratic systems of being hypocritical and, ultimately, weak. Al Qaeda portrays the West as anti-Islamic imperialists masquerading as promoters of democracy. Right wing extremism suggests the West is committing cultural suicide through its lax judicial system and naïve multiculturalism.

Both have committed horrific acts designed to bait us into betraying our values and making them martyrs. In fact, it is remarkable to see the many similarities between these two sorts of extremism in their disdain for diversity and their indiscriminate violence against civilians.

In this context, it is a mistake to treat crimes committed by extremists as exceptions, subject to special processes. They must be held accountable in accordance with and to the full extent of the law. Hiding suspects from public view merely dehumanizes the perpetrators and undermines any moral or judicial lessons.

By contrast, prosecuting extremists who have committed crimes in a public courtroom makes it all the more shockingly clear that their horrific acts were undertaken by human beings, and that all of us must work every day to combat the ideas of extremism.

It has been remarkable to observe that the younger generation of Norwegiens — and especially the young survivors of the island massacre — have expressed their trust in Norway’s open approach to dealing with the affair. They know that a political system based on the rule of law cannot turn its back on its standard procedures on an ad hoc basis; that doing so would only provide extremists with evidence of the supposed double standards of democracy.

I believe that the same basic principle holds true in the global fight against terrorism. Osama bin Laden successfully provoked the West into using exceptional powers in ways that sometimes have been in conflict with its commitment to human rights and democracy. This only strengthened the case of extremists, and it shows that we should try to avoid exceptionalism and instead trust in the open system we are defending.

This is not a soft approach. It requires and allows for tough security measures. But it is firmly anchored in the rule of law and the values of democracy and accountability.

That the open public square can be an impressive antidote to extremism should not be surprising. This is not only a bedrock democratic principle. We also have ample historic evidence that extremist views thrive best when confined to the gutter.

Open debate is our strongest tool in standing up to extremism. The far more dangerous avenue is to force extremist ideas underground, where they can fester without competition.

Besides, in a globalized world where ideas and networks circulate beyond the control of states, we have little choice but to forcefully present our strongest counter-arguments and embrace the challenge of fighting extremism in the open. Jonas Gahr Store is the Norwegian minister of foreign affairs.