This is the first time I've ever recommended a TV show. (Like an actual episode rather then a program in general.)

1. This is illegal as hell.
2. If the ads are included there is no good reason for ABC to have a problem with this.
3. This looks like an interesting program.
4. The ensuing discussion is exactly why I want to connect mythtv to memestreams.
5. If it is legal, and it is, for me to save television programming off the wire, and view it at any time, why should it not be legal, and it isn't, for someone else to download television programming, and provide it to me. This is assuming we aren't talking about cable, and we aren't cutting out the ads. Seems to me that people who make television like this, which is entirely ad supported, could simply increase their viewers, as well as revenue, by posting the archives online. There might even be some money to be made in selling access to complete archives. I think there is a short term strategic advantage for the company that does this first....

(U: Its about 20 minutes of video. No commercials (hrmph). Comstock does a good job of defending the act. She handles Koppel well. Its clear that the "enemy combatent" issue is more serious then the Patriot act. Its clear that the level of secrecy makes it difficult to know if the FBI is abusing the law. They clearly state that they can't discuss specifics, and then they offer specific examples about notification timeframes for "sneak and peek" warrants that are probably reasonable. I.E. The secrecy allows the FBI to only release information that is politically useful to them, and they clearly take advantage of that here. Can we say "I rest my case" yet? When Koppel comes back for his closing remarks, however, he lets them have it. Its totally worth watching to see him come back and tear into them.)

On Lisa Rein's Radar: Ted Koppel On The Dangers Of The Patriot Act

The first time I went to the dekalb county webpage it was to determine why it was illegal to practice golf in a public park. I live next to a public park. People play frisbee, they play volleyball, they play basketball, they play baseball. Why the fuck can't I go down there with a bunch of whiffle balls? Its not safety. Baseballs are bigger, faster, and they go further then my little whiffle balls. Its revenue. They want the golfers to pay to access state golf ranges where they charge you $10 to hit a bucket of balls.

Tonight I learned that you cannot buy beer in Dekalb on any day after midnight. I ended up having to drive to Fulton, through the stalled morass of blingers at buckhead, all the way down to a gass station near Peidmont hospital. My quick trip to get beer took an hour.

I realise that these things are minor. I have lovely county run golf courses to play on. I can buy beer during the day. The thing is, that when and where I buy beer, and when and where I practice golf, are none of your damn business. This is not a nessecary and useful purpose for government. The minor details of your personal life are, in fact, minor. Not a big deal. But if the government feels compelled to stick its nose into issues that are so trivial, then there really are few limits to what they may feel the right to stick their nose into. This is not freedom.

Fuck Dekalb County

This is worth noting. CAPS II was halted two months ago so that it could get a privacy overhall. Now its back, and there has been no privacy related improvements that I can see. Whats critical is that its mission has already expanded beyond terrorism. You will now get a general warrant check for violent crimes every time you fly.

] Only a few months ago TSA officials were issuing public
] assurances that CAPPS II would remain confined to
] searching for foreign terrorists.  Now it has been
] expanded to include domestic terrorists and violent
] criminals -- all before the program is even
] officially launched.  And the definition of
] "domestic terrorist" is being steadily expanded
] far beyond the everyday meaning, potentially encompassing
] political protesters and, if recent proposals are
] accepted, even suspects in the "war on
] drugs." And how long before the system is expanded
] to search for con-artists, drug dealers, deadbeat dads,
] and so on down the scale of wrongdoing until it becomes a
] comprehensive net for enforcing even the most obscure
] rules and regulations? 

American Civil Liberties Union : The Five Problems With CAPPS II: Why the Airline Passenger Profiling Proposal Should Be Abandoned

] Congress may consider a bill that not only expands the
] government's wiretapping and investigative powers but
] also would link low-level drug dealing to terrorism and
] ban a traditional form of Middle Eastern banking.

Wired News: Patriot Act II Resurrected?

] It's against the law for police to set up narcotics
] checkpoints to check whether any randomly passing
] motorists happen to have illegal drugs.
]
] But it's not illegal for the police to pretend that's
] what they're doing, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled
] Thursday.

I think this is seriously suspect. What is the difference between this activity and a real search checkpoint? That the suspect was pulled over for littering? You have to have a serious problem contemplating the big picture to fall for such an arguement. The intent of the forth amendment is to prevent the police from randomly sweeping people in search of crimes they can prosecute. The intent of this operation is to randomly sweep motorists in search of crimes to prosecute. This is, frankly, obvious.

This ruling should be overturned, and this judge should be removed.

Questionable rulings...

] The Bush administration, under increasing criticism over
] its terrorism policies, is beginning an unusual
] counteroffensive this week in an effort to shore up
] support for the prized legislation that grew out of the
] attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
]
] The pitchman for the campaign-style initiative is
] Attorney General John Ashcroft, a politically divisive
] figure who plans to deliver more than a dozen speeches
] around the country beginning on Tuesday in defense of the
] administration's terrorism efforts.

Bush Administration Plans Defense of Terror Law

] In a final report released July 31, the President's
] Commission on the U.S. Postal Service said sender
] identification technologies such as "personalized stamps"
] that embed digital identification information would not
] only improve mail tracking and delivery operations but
] would also enhance the security of the entire mail
] system.

No more anonymous mail.

U.S. Postal Service eyeing technology for 'smarter' mail - Computerworld

] Police in Florida are creating a counterterrorism
] database designed to give law enforcement agencies around
] the country a powerful new tool to analyze billions of
] records about both criminals and ordinary Americans.

Mini-TIA?

The problem with systems like this is not so much the information they have but the sort of questions you are allowed to ask them.

Asking who has brown hair and a red truck within a 20 mile radius, in the context where this is a suspect description in a murder, is a standard question that police ask all the time. Having this information more readily available is probably a good thing (unless you're an anarchist).

However, if you run a correlation which shows that people who have brown hair and red trucks are 30 percent more likely to commit murders then average, and subsiquently decide to submit people fitting that profile to additional scrutiny at airport security, you've crossed into pre-crime, and that is where the policy debate lies.

This question is going to continue to be raised. Poindexter, for all his faults, is a leader. He is way ahead of the curve. We'll see a lot more of this over the next 20 years from all kinds of directions, just as we are seeing similar techniques used in unrelated fields (Customer Relationship Management).

Objective research into the effectiveness of pre-crime, and the impact of it upon innocents, is sorely needed. Unfortunately, finding objective researchers is going to be damn near impossible. On the one side we've got arms dealers and drug smugglers, and on the other side we've got civil liberties advocates. Much like the studies on RF related cancer, the truth is probably only going to be found somewhere in the dialog between them, in an environment where both sides are given the resources they need to do the studies they want to do, and there is absolutely no political pressure to rush things into application.

U.S. Backs Florida's New Counterterrorism Database (TechNews.com)

] Your readers already know about my opposition to useless
] airport security crap. I'm suing John Ashcroft, two
] airlines, and various other agencies over making people
] show IDs to fly -- an intrusive measure that provides no
] security. (See http://freetotravel.org). But I would be
] hard pressed to come up with a security measure more
] useless and intrusive than turning a plane around because
] of a political button on someone's lapel.

Politech: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing a button

] Adults, the government also noted, can ask librarians to
] disable the filters.

That line there is the key. The Supremes are right. Its not censorship if you can ask them to stop.

Supreme Court Upholds Internet Filters (TechNews.com)