The "Priest" They Called Him (1992) is a collaboration between William S. Burroughs and Kurt Cobain. Cobain provides dissonant guitar backing based on "Silent Night" and "To Anacreon in Heaven" to Burroughs' deadpan reading. Originally released as a limited edition 10-inch EP picture disc on Tim/Kerr Records in 1993, it was subsequently re-released on CD and 10-inch vinyl. Kurt Cobain's friend and bandmate Krist Novoselic is featured on the cover as the Priest.

Merry Christmas

The "Priest" They Called Him - William S. Burroughs & Kurt Cobain - YouTube

This is Greenwald's take on the border search phenomenon.

In essence, the bargain offered by the state is as follows: if you meaningfully challenge what we're doing, then we will subject you to harsh recriminations. But if you passively comply with what we want, refrain from challenging us, and acquiesce to our prevailing order, then you are "free" and will be left alone. The genius is that those who accept this bargain are easily convinced that repression does not exist in the US, that it only takes place in those Other Bad countries, because, as a reward for their compliant posture, they are not subjected to it.

What makes this tactic particularly effective is that it will not affect those who have no interest in engaging in real dissent against the government. If you're not a filmmaker who challenges the prevailing government narrative (Poitras), or a scholar trying to understand rather than demonize currents in the Muslim world (Abidor), or a lawyer involved in groups suing the US government for unconstitutional behavior (Wayne), or an activist advocating for WikiLeaks and working to protect online anonymity and thus thwart government spying and control of the internet (Jacob Appelbaum), or someone who supports Bradley Manning's legal defense (David House), then you're not going to be subjected to this sort of intimidation and rights-invasions, and it's thus easy for you to simply assume that it does not exist.

Although this sounds shrill, where the rubber meets the road with this concern regards the use of TSA, rather than CBP. Jacob Appelbaum has reported publicly that he is subjected to additional scrutiny by TSA whenever he boards an airplane. I've heard similar reports from others.

The constitutional context for the authorization of TSA searches is protection of the security of flights. The TSA only has a legal authority to search people's effects without probable cause insofar as the purpose of those searches is to protect the security of flights and is narrowly tailored to that purpose. It is unconstitutional for the TSA to perform searches for other law enforcement purposes without meeting the Fourth Amendment's warrant and probable cause requirements. The TSA cannot, for example, perform searches for the purpose of locating illegal drugs. That is absolutely unconstitutional, no matter what you might have heard to the contrary.

It is not clear that the list of dissidents and activists Greenwald mentions present a risk to the security of flights. No matter what you think of Jacob Appelbaum, the idea that he represents a risk to the security of flights is dubious. Therefore, if the TSA is monitoring Jacob Appelbaum and subjecting him to additional scrutiny every time he flies, that scrutiny may violate his Constitutional rights. Whatever the rationale for the scrutiny, if it isn't related to the security of flights, it is not legitimate.

Laptop seizures by US government highlight 9/11-era climate of fear | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

This News York Times piece provides an update regarding the laptop border search debate. There isn't much new information here other than some statistics about how many electronic devices are being searched - about 5,000 a year.

However, its notable that the New York Times makes an important error in reporting on the issue.

Courts have long held that Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches do not apply at the border, based on the government’s interest in combating crime and terrorism.

That is not true. No court has held that the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searchers do not apply at the border. What they have held, is that in depth, suspicionless searches at the border are not "unreasonable."

Court Cases Challenge Border Searches of Laptops and Phones - NYTimes.com

Hijexx wrote:

AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and other wireless providers would be required to record and store information about Americans' private text messages for at least two years, according to a proposal that police have submitted to the U.S. Congress.

This is just laziness on LEA's part. You want text messages for someone? Get a warrant and start tapping. This is as stupid as "ISP's have to keep 100% of all logs for years in the event that we need 0.01% of the logs, well, maybe at some point... or not, and who cares what it costs them!"

Bottom line, the telephone system should not be converted into an always on surveillance system that watches everyone.

RE: Cops to Congress: We need logs of Americans' text messages

Due to a court ruling the UK is more or less living with a SOPA style Internet filtering system. News today that it is, of course, blocking access to legitimate content:

Several UK Internet providers are blocking Pirate Bay’s perfectly legal promotion platform for independent artists. The Promo Bay website is currently being blocked by BT, Virgin Media, BE and possibly several other providers. A plausible explanation is that the Promo Bay domain is listed on the same blocklist that’s used to enforce the Pirate Bay blockade. However. the domain itself has never linked to infringing material, nor is it hosted on The Pirate Bay’s servers.

Contrast this actual reality with the following statement made by Chris Dodd during the SOPA debate:

THR: How do you answer critics who say this legislation would be a threat to free speech online?

Dodd: That’s the most offensive line of all... Illegal conduct is not protected by the First Amendment. The Internet is not a law-free zone. It doesn’t create exceptions for illegal activity. Stealing is wrong. The First Amendment doesn’t protect stealing. There’s nothing in this bill in any manner, shape or form that would deprive people of their First Amendment rights.

You know the great H.L. Menken line: "When they tell you it's not about the money, it's about the money." So they bring up freedom of speech, break the Internet. But the fact of the matter is, it’s a huge revenue stream off of this.

He goes on to argue that the DMCA also has no consequences at all for freedom of speech!

That was the same argument made 14 years ago when the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was adopted. And it’s the same argument — the sky is falling. You only need to go back and take a cursory look to see what happened in the last 14 years, the advances and innovations in technology despite the claims in 1998 [of what would happen] if [Congress] passed that act. It did not break the Internet. It did not deprive anyone of freedom of speech at all. And it certainly did not curtail or stymie creative innovation in new technology.

This is what SOPA looks like.

I'm recommending this article as an entry point into a very interesting rabbit hole regarding the NDAA. Rand Paul and Dianne Feinstein have proposed a simple amendment stating that an authorization for the use of military force by Congress does not authorize the indefinite detention of US citizens on US soil unless it is explicitly stated.

I can't say that I have a problem with such a clarification, but everybody else does.

The libertarian left doesn't like it because the Constitution prevents such detentions of both citizens and non-citizens alike. I agree with that in theory, but it clearly didn't help much in the case of Padilla and the matter was never really satisfactorily resolved, so I can't say I'm opposed to some clarification from Congress even if it is only part of what is needed.

The authoritarians don't like it because they don't like civil liberties at all. The Wall Street Journal editorial that the linked blog post skewers is a great example. Check out this zinger:

With its strict rules on surveillance, the U.S. is already something of a safe haven for people who wish to kill innocents.

Seriously?

Frankly, the time for Congress to make this clarification was in 2002, not in 2012. It means little now. Furthermore, the authoritarians have a funny way of referring to Supreme Court decisions that occurred over the past 10 years in which they got their asses handed to them as if they agreed with those positions all along. Here is the WSJ again:

This question last reached the Supreme Court in the 2004 case of Louisiana-born al Qaeda terrorist Yasser Hamdi. The Court said that Hamdi deserved a habeas corpus hearing to challenge his detention, but it reasonably declined to equate his predicament with that of a domestic criminal.

The authoritarians didn't want Hamdi to have a habeas hearing either!

In the end, although its nice to have Congress clarifying things like this, the Supreme Court is the only authority that the authoritarians respect. The message needs to come from there.

Or we need to amend the Constitution to clarify this rather than passing a bill in Congress.

WSJ editors come out swinging in defense of indefinite detention of US citizens | Privacy SOS

The issue is long-standing royalty rate discrimination against internet radio. As each new form of radio was invented (including cable and satellite radio), new legislation was passed but only addressed the new form. The result is dramatically different royalty rates: satellite pays about 7.5% of revenues and cable pays about 15%, while Pandora pays more than 50% of revenue in royalties. The inequity in how different digital radio formats are treated under the law when it comes to setting royalties is a clear case of legislation falling behind advances in technology. The current law penalizes new media and is astonishingly unfair to internet radio.

This has long been a problem. Lots of history here.

The royalty system for Internet Radio has always been broken. Internet Radio stations are required to pay several kinds of royalties that traditional FM broadcast stations and satellite based radio stations are not required to pay. The recording industry negotiated themselves a bigger pie slice on the Internet through a process that included shutting down a large number of stations in the summer of 2002 (including SOMA FM) because the industry didn't think those stations were big enough to bother allowing them to exist and its leadership has no concept of how things in technology grow over time.

Why doesn't the government have consistent policies for this?

The answer is Realpolitik - nascent Internet services don't have the negotiating position of the ClearChannels of the world, and the RIAA is too myopic to understand that they are strangling new revenue streams in the cradle.

Support The Internet Radio Fairness Act – Pandora Radio

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to require police to obtain a warrant before reading people's emails, Facebook messages and other forms of electronic communication.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the author of the bill and chairman of the committee, said he does not expect the full Senate to vote on the measure until next year.

I don't know what to think of Leahy anymore after the SOPA debacle. Its nice to see someone doing something positive for privacy rights in our government. Politics is weird. Your mortal enemy on one bill might be your best friend on another.

Senate panel votes to require warrant for police email searches - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

This post by Stewart Baker has apparently riled up the Internet for two reasons. One is because he is a supporter of the TSA, and lots of people have a problem with that, and are looking for an opportunity to attack him for it. The second reason is because he makes the mistake of framing his analysis in the context of sex, and for some reason everyone has taken that a bit too seriously.

In fact, there is a lot of pressure to be efficient when negotiating the TSA security line. That pressure isn't sexual. The people behind you will be annoyed with you if you move too slowly through the line. The agents will scream at you if you do something wrong. Although these pressures aren't about sex, they are real, and it makes sense to discuss their impact on people's perceptions of the TSA.

I totally agree with Barker's conclusions in this article, even though I disagree with him about a great many other things.

The agency should avoid any hint that it is judging our performance from on high. How about a sign on the way to the belt that says, “Forty of the forty-two TSA officers now on duty have forgotten their cell phones at least once while walking through the scanner. We’re hoping this sign will help you avoid our mistake”? Or one that says, “We change our protocols from time to time to make life harder for terrorists. We know it makes life harder for you too, and we’re sorry. If you’ve got questions about the new procedures, just ask”?

I have been yelled at by TSA agents before, for messing up the procedures of the security line. TSA agents should never assume that travelers understand the procedures of the security line. TSA agents should never yell at travelers. Whats worse is in this case my knowledge of the procedures was correct and the TSA agent was wrong.

I have an 11 inch Macbook Air. Although TSA regs require laptops to be taken out of your bag for screening, the 11 inch Macbook Air is so small that the TSA doesn't consider it a laptop - it is a personal electronics device, like a video game system or mp3 player, and it can stay in the bag.

However, the person operating the X-ray machine has the right to ask that any device be removed from the bag and rescreened. Unfortunately, in this case the x-ray screener didn't tell the agents to remove the electronics device from my bag - she said "Laptop in bag!" at which point I had a TSA agent confronting me about the fact that there was a laptop in my bag and explaining forcefully that all laptops must be removed from bags prior to screening.

While I removed the laptop from the bag I tried to explain that the device was not a laptop per the TSA's regs. This really pissed the agent off - "Does it have a keyboard on it!? Then it must come out! ALL LAPTOPS MUST BE REMOVED FROM BAGS PRIOR TO SCREENING!!"

Eventually several other TSA agents joined in the argument and in the end they explained to me that I had made an incorrect assumption about what the first agent had said. In my mind the meaning of "Does it have a keyboard on it?" is crystal clear.

Stewart Baker is absolutely right - the TSA could use an attitude adjustment. There is no reason to scream at people who are trying to comply with the policies. It is unfortunate that this point seems to have been lost among all the hand wringing over the fact that he framed the issue in sexual terms.

You can't talk to Americans about sex. We're too conservative. We can't take it.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Sex Secrets of the Security Line

Police used Moocherhunter to find other devices connected to the subscriber’s wireless router, which led them to Richard Stanley, who lived across the street from the subscriber. Police then used the Moocherhunter information to obtain a warrant to search Mr. Stanley’s home, and based on evidence they found, Mr. Stanley was indicted in November 2011 for possessing child pornography.

Mr. Stanley sought to suppress the evidence, arguing that police needed a warrant to use Moocherhunter to locate him. U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti found that Mr. Stanley “could have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the signal he was sending to or receiving” from the wireless router.

“An internet subscriber does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his IP address or the information he provides to his Internet Service Provider, such as Comcast, in order to legally establish an internet connection, and likewise, a person connecting to another person’s wireless router does not have an expectation of privacy in that connection,” she wrote in a Nov. 14 order.

I'm not sure whether you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location from which you are making a wireless transmission (a reasonable expectation against triangulation). I'm also positive that if you did, the police would have successfully obtained a warrant in this case. However, I'm also pretty sure that the argument quoted above is incorrect in its reasoning, if not in its conclusions (again, I'm not sure what the right conclusion is, but this reasoning doesn't get me there.)

The reason you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding your IP address and subscriber information is the third party rule - things that you've told your ISP, you've told the government, more or less. You haven't told a wireless access point what your physical location is, so if you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding that information, its for a totally different reason.

Update: OK, I think I figured out how this should work. The rule should be the same as for automobile searches - probable cause should be required but a warrant should not be required.

Wireless transmissions are fickle and transient. Police may need to act in the moment to triangulate them, and so the bureaucratic requirement for a warrant is too onerous and would not work in practice. However, people DO have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the physical source of their wireless transmissions, and the police should establish probable cause before triangulating them. Otherwise you have a situation where the police can monitor everyone's physical movements all the time by tracking their cellphones, and that ain't gonna work. There are several case precedents that could be used to buttress both positions.

In this case the police had probable cause. They didn't get a warrant, but they didn't need to. The triangulation of the defendant's wireless signal was proper and the evidence should not be suppressed.

Can Police Locate Wireless Internet Moochers Without a Warrant? - Law Blog - WSJ