Lauren Weinstein and Peter Neumann start cranking their own propaganda machine. Short, well produced audio commentary on current computer events. Nothing new for anyone here, but these shorts might come in useful, for example for those of us running (clears throat) radio shows. :)

Fact Squad Radio: We don't have an agenda... no... really...

] Attorney Dr. Martine Rothblatt filed a motion for a
] preliminary injunction to prevent a corporation from
] disconnecting an intelligent computer in a mock trial at
] the International Bar Association conference in San
] Francisco, Sept. 16, 2003. The issue could arise in a
] real court within the next few decades, as computers
] achieve or exceed the information processing capability
] of the human mind and the boundary between human and
] machine becomes increasingly blurred.

KurzweilAI.net: Do AIs have standing in court?

] The report finds that the introduction of cameras
] actually interrupted a downward trend in UK accidents.
] "If the 1966-93 trend line had continued until 2001 there
] would have been 825 fewer fatalities in that year than were
] actually recorded."

Cameras do not replace police. Cameras look for speeders. Police look for people who aren't paying attention.

[Politech] New study says speed cameras don't work [priv]

] Here's the story Arnold doesn't want you to hear. The
] biggest single threat to Ken Lay and the electricity
] lords is a private lawsuit filed last year under
] California's unique Civil Code provision 17200, the
] "Unfair Business Practices Act." This litigation,
] heading to trial now in Los Angeles, would make the power
] companies return the $9 billion they filched from
] California electricity and gas customers.
]
] It takes real cojones to bring such a suit. Who's the
] plaintiff taking on the bad guys? Cruz Bustamante,
] Lieutenant Governor and reluctant leading candidate
] against Schwarzenegger.
]
] Now follow the action. One month after Cruz brings suit,
] Enron's Lay calls an emergency secret meeting in L.A. of
] his political buck-buddies, including Arnold. Their
] plan, to undercut Davis (according to Enron memos) and
] "solve" the energy crisis -- that is, make the Bustamante
] legal threat go away.

Juicy Arnold conspiracy theory!

(As interesting and plausable as this sounds, keep in mind that the sources for this stuff are hard core left wing. They are also arguing that Congress should pass a Constitutional Amendment in response to the Do-Not-Call List case which says that the first amendment does not apply to corporations. (I guess these people have forgotten that their websites are corporate entities which would also loose first amendment protections under such an amendment. I'm sure they'll happily clarify that "No, no, what we really mean is that we don't want the first amendment to apply to people that we don't like, particularily rich people, because they are bad. We still think it should apply to US and other people that we do agree with.") None of this ads up to them being wrong about Arnold. They might be right about Arnold. But I'll take it with a grain of salt until someone who isn't a raving lunatic decides to back the story.)

Arnold Unplugged - It's hasta la vista to $9 billion if the Governator is selected

] Remote attestation works by generating, in hardware, a
] cryptographic certificate attesting to the identity of
] the software currently running on a PC. (There is no
] determination of whether the software is good or bad,
] or whether it is compromised or not compromised.
] "Identity" is represented by a cryptographic hash,
] which simply allows different programs to be
] distinguished from one another, or changes in their
] code to be discerned, without conveying any sort of value
] judgment.) This certificate may, at the PC user's
] request, be provided to any remote party, and in
] principle has the effect of proving to that party that
] the machine is using expected and unaltered software. If
] the software on the machine has been altered, the
] certificate generated will reflect this. We will see
] that this approach, although elegant, proves
] problematic.

Software is law.

EFF: Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk

] In the case of Robert Novak publishing the name of an
] undercover CIA WMD expert, it seems at least plausible
] that Bush administration officials (two, and supposedly
] very senior) violated federal law and threatened
] national security for political purposes. So this begs
] the question: will the Justice Department now use these
] same provisions of the Patriot Act to force Novak to disclose
] his notes and contacts?

No. Now, what does that SAY?

[Politech] Replies on Adrian Lamo, FBI using Patriot Act against reporters [fs]

] "Congress is mandating things simply because they want to
] show how tough they are on crime with no sense of whether
] this makes sense or is meaningful," U.S. District Judge
] John S. Martin, a former federal prosecutor, said after
] announcing his resignation in June.

MaximumEdge.com News - Punishment Issue Splits Ashcroft, Judges

] Attorney General John Ashcroft on Monday ordered federal
] prosecutors to come down harder on criminal defendants,
] instructing them to seek maximum penalties and to limit
] the use of plea bargains.

I can't beleive I didn't hear about this for a week!

Federal prosecutors to seek maximum penalties

] The agency, Judge Nottingham wrote in the 34-page
] opinion, "has chosen to entangle itself too much in the
] consumer's decision by manipulating consumer choice and
] favoring" charitable over commercial speech. Judge
] Nottingham's assessment of the FTC registry was blunt.
] The First Amendment, he said, bars the government
] adopting laws that give a preference to one type of
] speech over another when the content isn't significantly
] different. "Because the do-not-call registry
] distinguishes between the indistinct, it is
] unconstitutional under the First Amendment," he wrote.

This may seem like a loss, but its actually a win. Congress can't allow some telemarketers to call you and not allow others to call you. Having created this thing, they are in a political situation where they have to make it happen. In this respect the only way to legally make it work is to ban all telemarketing.

I don't really understand why the telemarking industry is making this arguement. They are making things even worse for themselves in the long run.

I'm not sure I agree with this ruling, however. This isn't a ban per say. Its a system that allows people to sign up and say "I don't want that." You are forced to comply with those requests and not send this stuff to people who don't want it. Aren't people's phones an aspect of their personal privacy? Shouldn't they be able to say "stop calling me," and charge harrassment if you don't? I don't think thats the same as a speech regulation. I would like to read this decision, if anyone knows where to get it.

Smartmoney.com: Breaking News: Another Court Rules Against FTC's 'Do Not Call' List

] Despite a summary in the report that states the Diebold
] system used in several state elections is "at high risk
] of compromise," the election officials and
] representatives of the company that wrote the report said
] they now have confidence in the Diebold system, and the
] state will proceed with its $55.6 million contract to
] purchase the machines.

You'd think that in a state with so many patriotic information security professionals there would be protests in the steets over this. Maryland is worse then Georgia.

Ballots are distributed via FTP, tallies are transmitted unencrypted over pots lines, and the tabulation machine is connected to the Internet. They have absolutely no security policies at all, and their practices are as bad as they come. These are BASIC BASIC security 101 things. If you can fix them in two months, great, guess what, we still have to deal with the intermediate and advanced issues.

So, who wants to be the next governor of Maryland?