Remembering Aaron Swartz

I know that Internet pioneer Aaron Swartz's death on January 13th is already reaching the old news phase, but I remembered this video and had to post it.  The fact that an event of the magnitude of Aaron Swartz's death is considered "old news" after only twelve days is a completely different topic.

This video is from Aaron Swartz's keynote "How we stopped SOPA" at the Freedom to Connect conference in Washington DC on May 21 2012.  This was one of his last big, public appearances and he really articulates the struggle that those who want a free and open internet face in today's legislative environment.


I don't know what conclusions we can draw from Aaron's speech, and he may have had a history of being a little bit extreme, but it definitely doesn't mean that we can relax and not stay vigilant in the face of powerful people who don't know how the internet works.

Rest in peace, Aaron.

An Open Letter to Congress, re: Alberto Gonzalez

Dear Congressional Democrats,

With regards to your recent treatment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, did you pass Civics class in high school? Or did you figure that you could skip out on that one since the current 18% Congressional approval rating must mean that you are, and always have been, smarter than everyone else?

Just for review, Mr Gonzalez was appointed to his position of Attorney General by President George W Bush, who is head of the Executive branch of the Federal government. Therefore, he works for George Bush. The eight other attorney’s who were fired were Federal Prosecutors, also appointed by George Bush, making him their boss as well. From this, we can infer that both Mr Gonzalez and the fired prosecutors both work in the Executive branch of the U.S. Government and answer to the President of the United States, serving "at the pleasure of the President." From there, it is not a difficult leap to say that, since they work for the President, they can be fired by the President. As far as I know of, there is no tenure system or bargaining union in place to protect the jobs of political appointment.

As for those of you who insist that Mr Gonzalez should have been more independent from the president and act accordingly, not follow the president's orders, need to recall that the Attorney General, even though he works in the court system, is not in the Judicial branch of government, and is therefore not subject to the checks and balances inherent in our separate branches of government.

You should be ashamed of your treatment of Mr Gonzalez and your treatment of the Bush Administration in general. The Attorney General did nothing wrong, immoral, or illegal. He acted according to his duties and his job description.

As far as the democrats in the U.S. Congress, if you would spend a little more time doing your job, which is legislating, and a little less time trying to sabotage George W Bush, your approval rating just might sneak above 20%. That is, until the public remembers that you don't accomplish anything that amounts to more than poorly disguised income redistribution when you do do your jobs.

Signed,

Matthew Thompson

Fort Collins, CO

Australia gives up on parenting

The Australian government recently announced a $189 million, taxpayer funded plan to curb online porn. Does that seem like they are overstepping their bounds by just a little? Since when was it government's duty to keep my dirty little courser off of porn sites?

And even though that $189 million is Australian dollars, it's still a big ol' chunk of money that could probably be better spent.

To take it one step further, the Australian Parliament is evaluating a proposal that would impose jail time on anyone caught "trafficking" pornographic videos. And by trafficking, they mean possessing five or more.

What happened to the Australia that wasn't a socialist nanny-state?

All you need to know about the Libby case

Yesterday President Bush commuted the completely excessive 2-1/2 year prison sentence that was handed down to Scooter Libby. This is far short of a full pardon, since Mr Libby will still serve a couple years probation and have to pay $250,000 in fines, and still have a felony conviction on his record.

These three paragraphs from today's Wall Street Journal article are really all you need to know about the entire case:

Mr. Libby was convicted of lying to investigators about his role in leaking the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, Valerie Wilson. Her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson [Clinton, Inc], had emerged as a prominent public critic of the administration's case for invading Iraq over weapons of mass destruction.

In his announcement, Mr. Bush underscored his respect for the jury's verdict against Mr. Libby and added that he was persuaded by arguments of those who defended the much-criticized investigation. The investigation, led by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald [Clinton, Inc], continued for more than 18 months, but never resulted in any charges directly related to the leaking. Instead, it produced only perjury and obstruction charges against Mr. Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, a strong advocate for the administration's war policies.

Mr. Bush concluded that the 30-month prison sentence given to Mr. Libby was "excessive" and decided to commute it. He was careful to add that his decision "leaves in place a harsh punishment," including permanent damage to Mr. Libby's reputation. The felony conviction itself remains intact, Mr. Libby's license to practice law was suspended, and he must serve out his two-year probation and pay $250,000 in fines, though his defense fund could raise enough to pay that.

So there you have it. With my emphasis added, you can clearly see what happened here. Clinton, Inc was still irked over the war in Iraq and wanted to try to "bring down" the current administration, so the went fishing for someone close to the President. It just so happened that a former Clinton, Inc foot soldier's identity was "compromised", so they found someone they could blame it on. Get a sympathetic prosecutor to trump up some fake charges completely unrelated to the supposed crime, and presto! -- worlds largest smear campaign. Liberals everywhere should be ashamed - but they won't be.

UPDATES: 40-Years for Porn Infected PC

If you missed my first post on this debacle, you can read it here, or check out the original article at Steve Bass's PC World column.

Steve has done several more columns and updates to this story, and you can find them here:
(Parts 1 through 4 below are a breakdown of the original article from above.)
Woman Faces 40-Years for Porn Infected PC
Part 2: 40-Years for Porn Infected PC
Part 3: 40-Years for Porn Infected PC
Part 4: Porn-Infected PC--How it Happens
Juror Speaks: Teacher in Porn Case
Detective Speaks Out in Teacher Porn Case

Read the comments. Some are pretty good. Some do suck though. I'm pretty sure this whole thing is not President Bush's or Judeo-Christians' fault.

Sounds like there is more to come from Mr Bass on this topic, and when there is, I'll probably link to it. Or you can just read it there. It's really up to you.

Teacher Faces Prison for Pop-Up Infested PC

"Crazy, but true: Woman convicted of exposing minors to porn, could serve 40 years."

You've gotta read this article. Talk about horrible abuse of power, the law, the courts, and tax payer money! This poor substitute teacher who can apparently barely turn a computer on and check her mail on AOL could go to prison for a long, long time for legitimately using a computer that had not been protected against spam / spyware / malware / adware, etc.

Go here to listen to an American Public Media (public radio) interview regarding this debauchery.

It sounds like a bunch of computer illiterate cops and prosecutes had it out for this poor lady. Also, these kids were in 7th grade, so they are like, 12 or 13 years old. Probably not their first experience with porn. Hardly a innocence shattering experience.

Fundamental Right to Privacy?

Some Brazilian floozy super-model and her rich banker boyfriend who were secretly video taped "romping in the sea off Cadiz in Spain" have sued YouTube for not finding "a way to permanently block the intimate video from being uploaded on its servers" and won. Not removing the video could cost YouTube $119,000 per day, according the the couple's lawyer.

Now, that's pretty stupid, but further down in the BBC story (click the title) it gets better:

Lawyer Rubens Decousseau Tilkian, who represents Ms Cicarelli's boyfriend, told the Associated Press news agency that YouTube had not taken sufficient action to enforce the order as people kept re-posting the clip by constantly changing the name for the file.

"The internet is democratic and has to be defended, but this struggle is to have some level of control to avoid the violations of people's fundamental rights, like privacy and intimacy," Mr Tilkian told AP.

Two things here strike me as completely stupid.

• (1) The lawyer just answered his own question, 'why doesn't YouTube do anything?' because 'people keep re-posting the clip by constantly changing the name'. How does he think the Internet works? A bunch of guys in a building in California checking everything that gets posted to look for what it is? No, that's not how it works, Mister Brazilian Lawyer. The Internet is made up of files with names and little descriptions. If someone changes the name and/or description of the file, a computer probably won't know its the same file.
• (2) Where in the world is it written that people have a 'fundamental' right to 'privacy and intimacy'? Not in the United States Constitution and not in any of the Amendments. If Brazil (or 'Brasil' as the like to be called) actually has these fundamental rights, then they are soon to become the kiddie-porn capital of the world. "Yes officer? No, that's not kiddie porn on my computer, and my fundamental right to privacy says that you can't look to find out." Ya like that? I guess they already give 16 year olds boob-jobs on a regular basis, so it's the natural progression, right?

What a crock.