There have been a lot of statements about the new TSA required WBI virtual strip search/enhanced pat-down groping. Personally, I’ve already written to my congressional representative—you can too! Also, I will be protesting the WBI virtual strip search which I feel is a trampling of my 4th amendment rights by Opting Out and receiving the enhanced pat-down.

If you feel strongly about this you need to protest now and write your representatives now when the media spectacle is high or else the WBI scanning will become mandatory like it is in the UK now and it will be hard if not impossible to go back. It’s important to note that if the WBI becomes mandatory you may still be required to receive the enhanced pat-down if they think they spot something on the scanner (a stray item in your pocket, strange clothing, etc.)

As I see it we have two choices:

1. We allow these new enhanced security requirements to stay in place in exchange for a small safety advantage.
2. Or we protest this trampling of our 4th amendment rights and accept that there is a remote but possible chance of death by underwear bomb.

Option 1 comes with a whole sort of problems including:

• The Whole Body Imaging (WBI) virtual strip search (which will likely be made mandatory as it is in the UK if we don’t protest this) which is uncomfortable for some with sexual trauma.There are also some possible minor detrimental health effects with backscatter x-rays.
• The enhanced groping style pat-down, which is required if they see anything on the WBI. This is definitely uncomfortable for people with sexual trauma; depending on how strong of a panic reaction they get they’ll either never be able to fly again or they’ll be able to get through it in an Ativan haze.
• Worse lines at airports (the WBI take longer than the metal detectors and the pat-downs take even longer)
• Higher infrastructure costs to pay for the technology and private screening rooms
• underwear bombs being replaced by clever luggage bombs, butt plug bombs, tampon bombs, or fat guy bombs covered by rolls of flesh.
• Allowing more of our 4th amendment and privacy rights to be handed over to Homeland security in the guise of safety.

In contrast, option 2 only comes with one problem:

• A possible successful underwear bomber.

For me the choice is pretty clear. I don’t want to be treated like a prison inmate every time I fly, nor do I want others to especially those for whom it would be a traumatic experience, and for this I’m willing to risk the small possibility of an underwear bomber being on my flight. In any case, I don’t see this as an increased risk of being blown up since anyone willing to fill their underwear with PETN would also be willing to fill a butt plug with it (actually that may be a better way to pack it) which the WBI won’t spot unless they have no ass.

I make this decision for the same reason I choose to bicycle even though it is potentially more dangerous than driving. For the same reason I eat sushi. For the same reason I recreationally shoot firearms and fireworks. For the same reason I do a lot of things.

Normally, I’d not comment on tabloid news on my blog, but the recent iPhone 4 prototype fiasco with Gizmodo is pretty fascinating on a number of levels.

First off I sorta feel for Jason Chen. I don’t know the story completely but I assume he talked this out with his superiors at Gizmodo’s parent company Gawker and they agreed to have him pay $5000 for the iPhone. This here was their fatal and most stupid flaw. He trusted them and now he’s paying the price.

How could they have handled this differently?

1. avoid paying money for the phone and only post the photos they got in an email like Engadget did.
2. pay money for more detailed photos and video of the phone, but never actually take possession of the device itself.

Number 2 is the obvious easy solution, which in hindsight or if they actually had competent legal advice they should have known was the best course of action.

A lot of people are pointing their finger at Jobs/Apple for releasing the hounds. Well they are right to an extent, as it does seem that Apple requested the police look into the matter. But at the same time, it’s hard to feel sorry for Gizmodo who not only fucked up in a rather large way but also behaved like complete full of themselves asshats the entire time.

It remains up in the air what criminal charges they/Chen will get if any, and if they will get hit with a civil suit. From a criminal stand point, they are hiding behind the Shield Law, which it seems is a failed strategy (I usually agree with the EFF but I don’t get their stand on this for this particular case). Maybe just maybe they can rule that the iPhone was materials used for the story, and since covered under the shield law, but that’s a stretch.

Should be interesting how this plays out.

UPDATE (Apr 28th):

EFF seems to be sticking to their story that Chen is covered by the Shield Law. Yet other legal experts seem say otherwise:

“But Francke said shield laws aren’t designed to protect journalists from their own criminal acts. “I don’t think that anyone’s arguing that these protections for unpublished information provide protection against accusations of receiving stolen property,” said Francke.

The difficult question of law will be whether or not Chen’s source of the iPhone can be protected the same way that a source of information is, Francke added.

“The question is: Can he use his own rights as a journalist to suppress evidence that’s sought in the prosecution of someone else?” Francke said. “My rough guess is that he probably can.”

source: Law.com

Franke is right, it’s pretty clear that the police can’t use warrant to reveal the source for the iPhone—though they already know who it is—nor can they use any evidence they find via a warrant against said individual. Now the question becomes can they use the evidence against Chen for the crime he committed?

I’m guessing that Gawker will soon issue an injunction to stop the police from reviewing Chen’s computers, and it will probably be granted. Whether or not the police can review Chen’s computers will ultimately depend on the reading of the following bit of evidence code section 1070:

“[cannot be adjudged in contempt or issued a warrant] …for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.”

Does this protect any journalist’s information from warrants for any crime that was committed while in pursuit of a story? Personally I think no, Gawker says yes as does EFF, but it’s a tricky question. And even if the police are granted the ability use the evidence, it becomes a tricky process since they then can’t use any of it against the person who sold the iPhone to Chen.

Should the police instead have issued a subpoena? Probably. They could decide to return Chen’s computers and issue a subpoena. This could then allow them to use any evidence gained from the subpoena against both Chen and the person who sold the iPhone.  Though this would likely drastically limit the amount of evidence they would be able to get.

…yep still interesting

UPDATE (Apr 30th):

Seems that Wired tracked down the iPhone finder/seller one Brian J. Hogan and CNN found his accomplice Sage Robert Wallower who acted as a middle man contacting media companies and attempting to sell it.

According to Wired, “a friend of Hogan’s then offered to call Apple Care on Hogan’s behalf, according to Hogan’s lawyer. That apparently was the extent of Hogan’s efforts to return the phone”

So Brian Hogen, never contacted the bar to see if the owner had asked for it, nor did he contact the Grey Powell who he already knew was the owner of the phone. In fact it seems like he wasn’t about to do anything as his friend called for him. Sounds to me like a guy planning on keeping the phone which is theft. Supposedly Hogen “regrets his mistake” but sounds to me like he left mistake territory a long time ago. According to his attorney he “volunteers to assist his aunt and sister with fundraising for their work to provide medical care to orphans in Kenya,” his attorney says. “Brian is the kind of young man that any parent would be proud to have as their son.” I’m sure his parents will be proud of him when he’s on trial for selling stolen goods.

Looks like his friend Sage Wallower is in for a heap of trouble too. After idiotically blabbed to CNN and he then added, “I need to talk to a lawyer,” Wallower said. “I think I have already said too much.” …ya think?

We’ll see how long it take Gawker to start pointing fingers at Hogen and Wallower, saying that they paid for it in good faith they Hogen tried to contact Apple. Though I doubt that will fly as a defense.

…and the saga continues

I was raised on Bob Dylan by my parents. Oh my parent’s played other music and I had my share of childhood albums: 6th Grade, Quiet Riot! “Bang Your Head!“; Freshmen Highschool, Rush! “Todays tom sawyer
Mean mean pride.”

However, Dylan’s music was a common theme in our household and his lyrics still keep coming back and haunting my brain time and time again. Even during my rivethead punk as fuck “Thieves, thieves and liars, murderers. Hypocrites and bastards!“years I still admitted to liking Bob Dylan and listened to him. Thus, the news today that Bob Dylan endorses Barack Obama made me smile.

It’s all the more interesting since while I’ve been an Barack Obama supporter for most this primary season, my parents and sister have stood with Hillary Clinton. Unlike the rest of the electorate, this never lead to any squabbles, but it certainly exhibited itself as a microcosm of the larger divide in the Democratic party: that gray female liberal voting block, you know the ones who struggled all their lives against glass ceilings and being ignored by the old boys club? Well that’s pretty much my Mom. And that college educated liberal generation X voting block, you know the ones with San Francisco values who are really hoping that one day the Green Party will be more then a sideshow? Well that’s pretty much me.

So now that I got all that exposition* out of the way, I thought I’d share the results of a back and forth Bob Dylan lyric exchange I had with my Parents today.

Dubya’s Farm

I ain’t gonna pay for Bush’s war no more
No, I aint gonna pay for Bush’s war no more
Well, I wake up in the morning
Fold my hands and pray for rain
I got a bucket full of bills
That are drivin’ me insane
The only job left is to scrub Wal-Mart’s floor
I ain’t gonna pay for Bush’s war no more.

I ain’t gonna fall for Bush’s bullshit no more.
No, I ain’t gonna fall for Bush’s bullshit no more.
Well, he hands you a nickel,
He hands you a dime,
He asks you with a grin
If you’re havin’ a good time,
Then he takes all your cash to fund the war.
I ain’t gonna fall for Bush’s bullshit no more.

I ain’t gonna deal with Cheney’s lies no more.
No, I ain’t gonna deal with Cheney’s lies no more.
Well, he puts his shotgun
Out in your face just for kicks.
His bunker window
It is made out of bricks.
And Blackwater Ops stand around his door.
Ah, I ain’t gonna deal with Cheney’s lies no more.

I ain’t gonna believe McCain’s talk no more.
No, I ain’t gonna believe McCain’s talk no more.
Well, he talks to all the people
About his straight talk express.
Everybody says
He’s not like Mr Bush.
But his policies are the same on every score.
I ain’t gonna believe McCain’s talk no more.

I ain’t gonna work on Dubya’s Farm no more.
No, I ain’t gonna work on Dubya’s Farm no more.
Well, I try my best
To be just like I am,
But everybody wants you
To be just like them.
They sing while you slave and I just get bored.
I ain’t gonna work on Dubya’s Farm no more.

*I know that was quite a bit of exposition, but now you get an inkling of why I might cherish this little song cover collaboration.

So Hillary has endeavored to continue on in her quest for the presidency even though it’s turned from an up hill battle to a up cliff battle. Frankly, I’m alright with that as long as she quiets the negative rhetoric and “he’ll only get the black voters” bullshit. She does still speak for some people: mostly people over 65 and anyone who’s looking for a more hardline version of universal healthcare.

Also, her continuing on does have some benefit for Obama. Even if she were to bow out now, West Virginia and Kentucky would probably be a win for her due to:

• Graying population (WV: 15.3% are over 65; National Avg: 12.4%)
• A lot of “I remember the good old days of good unionized factory jobs” type democrats with lower education levels (WV: 14.8% have a bachelors degree or higher ; National Avg: 24.4%)
• She has Methodist roots (WV 10% of the population) and does well with Catholics (WV 8% of the population)
• And lastly there’s also the potential issue of racism

In any case, if he lost those states to someone who was out of the race, it won’t look good for Obama from a publicity standpoint. With Clinton still in the race it’s less of an publicity issue, and even with those loses the math is strongly tilted in his favor, and he’s strongly lined up to win Oregon anyway.

Matt Gonzalez released an op-ed yesterday in BeyondChron. He points out some decent points. But I’m confused why he targeted Obama rather than Hillary (or maybe both). According to the National Journal, Obama has a more liberal record.

Obama’s not the perfect progressive liberal candidate, but Gonzalez himself is an example of the fact that a progressive liberal can’t even win — even in the San Francisco mayoral race. Frankly, my first choice in this race was for Edwards, but I’m happy with my vote for Obama.

Now with him announced as the VP running mate for Nader, his rational for this whole article makes a whole lot more sense. Nader’s campaign for president has never been about winning isn’t been about yelling “your not liberal enough!” which basically sums up Gonzalez’s article about Obama.

As a progressive liberal myself, I think these things should be said, and I applaud everyone who critiques the records of all the candidates. I’m happy to see anyone write good criticism of Obama or Clinton. However in a presidential race that looks to be close, running as an unwinnable leftist third party just to say these things is irresponsible. Nader himself proved this in 2000. As much as Gore was a pandering sycophant to the center during his campaign, Bush has turned out to be a tragedy for the interests of liberals.

The Nader candidacy may be fairly irrelevant in this upcoming election, but if getting out of Iraq is in any way important to your liberal values then every vote god damn counts against John “100 years” McCain.

Critiquing the Diatribe

Seeing now Gonzalez’s motivation for writing the article it should be obvious that it probably contains some hyperbole. I don’t have time to deconstruct it completely but I’ll take a crack at some of it.

1. The War in Iraq – Obama’s public stance here leans more towards a quick exit, but his votes have been less hardline. It would be great if he was otherwise, but the political climate has not been flavorful for hardline tactics like cutting off funds to the troops. Still he’s better than Clinton on this issue and obviously better than McCain.
2. Connection with Joe Lieberman – As much as I can’t stand Joe, Obama’s connection with him doesn’t worry me too much. Lieberman was his mentor when Obama became a Senator. I’ve heard that as a junior senator you’re basically assigned a mentor. Anyways, it’s not a surprise that he campaigned for his mentor.
3. Class Action Reform – I don’t have a lot to say here. Gonzalez may have a point but I’d like to see more of Obama’s voting recond on this issue.
4. Credit Card Interest Rates – Obama had a problem with this bill and I don’t know what it was, but neither does Gonzalez. Voting against it may or may not have not been a good vote but I believe Obama is in support of credit card customer considering his promotion of the Credit Card Safety Star Act and his policy of a Credit Card Bill of Rights. The fact the Gonzalos ignored these other measures is disingenuous.
5. Limiting Non-Economic Damages – Again Gonzalez may have a point here, but considering that this article already has a few holes I’d like to review Obama’s other votes on this issue.
6. Reform of Mining Law of 1872 – As this One Good Move commenter mentioned While Obama has stated his stance against the bill it hasn’t come up to vote yet. Still it seems like a decent bill that Obama should vote for so Gonzalez has a bit of point here.
7. Regulating Nuclear Industry – I’ve read about this issue before and it seems like the classic example of a bill getting weakened to death in the legislative process. The fact that Obama used this as a example of accomplishment is disingenuous. Point to Gonzalez here, though this topic isn’t a big issue for me.
8. Energy Policy – Another point to Gonzalez, ethanol is a waste and whomever is scientifically advising Obama on this is ignorant.
9. Single Payer Health Care – I am more supportive of a single payer system like Edward’s plan. I kinda doubt we could ever get there, and I bet Obama does too which is why he’s offered his compromise plan. I kinda don’t like that Obama has compromised this early in the game, before even getting elected, but I understand his reasoning. Also, again his plan is better than McCain’s which is basically just deregulation and tax credits. A good review of the different stances can be found in this NPR Report.
10. NAFTA – Again I don’t know Obama’s complete voting record details on this issue. I don’t completely trust Gonzalez’s summary. Obama has to be better than McCain on this issue.
11. Gonzalez’s other examples – most of his other points are decent though I never really supported the impeachment issue. I may want Bush and Cheney out but I never saw a concrete impeachable offense. The lists of reasons to impeach read more like reasons to despise them and vote them out. The war was sold using using propaganda and lies, it was wrong, unjust and possibly against international law, but none of those are impeachable offenses. The Plame scandal was the closest we got to an impeachment level offense, but there never was good enough evidence.

Gonzalez ended his article with this:

“I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama‚Äôs style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I‚Äôm glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.”

Gonzalez if you were loyal to your values, you and Nader would sit this one out and just yell from the sidelines. As a bee in the ring, you’ll do nothing more than make Obama falter and possibly give McCain the win. And if that happens you and all the others who share your progressive views lose.

CatCubed, and by this I mean me, is officially endorsing Obama. I have a bunch of reasons for this, but really Andrew Sullivan says it better and more succulently than I can: Don‚Äôt screw up, Democrats, Barack Obama is your man. Yes Andrew Sullivan of all people. Like Hitchens and other pro-war libertarians, I sooooo don’t agree with him on a lot of issues, but he’s an excellent writer. And the article I links to is really good.

.

Typically, I have a vote salon to go over the confusing CA and SF props with friends prior to the election — every year I learn to hate these props more and more. However, there are happily not that many of them this year, so it’s not as necessary. In any case, I’ve released my own endorsements for the props behind the cut, so if you’re interested click read more.

[...]