Friday, May 02, 2003
-Michael Moore on Osaka’s Radio Lava Lamp Internet Radio
Michael Moore of “Bowling for Columbine” & “Stupid White Men” fame spoke in front of 4,000 students at University of Texas, Austin. Thanks to the IMC, Austin, Radio LavaLamp is currently carrying his talk (approximately 90 minutes).
Other talkies include WPKN’s “Between The Lines” with under-reported news, transhumanist “Changesurfer Radio” and UN Radio’s “UN Calling Asia” current events magazine. Also in the line-up are spoken word performances form waaaay back in 1979 featuring Patti Smith, the late Allen Ginsberg & the even-later Frank Zappa. And if that ain’t enough, part 2 of the Joseph Campbell - Bill Moyers “Power of Myth” series is in the schedule too.
Experimental, World & Anti-Authority Alternative music also available on the 8-hour steam.
Web Page: http://www.rinku.zaq.ne.jp/bkaec205/
***Note: The Live 365 company which we use to stream the audio now requires a 1-time, free registration. A Canadian listener describes the process as “painless.” Registration is linked at above web page.
Radio LavaLamp is a non-profit project kept going by a handful of folks. If you have any programming ideas or want more info on how to participate, please send email to
-Global Internet Liberty Campaign Newsletter
GILC Alert Volume 7, Issue 3 29 April 2003
===============================================
Free expression
[1] Jailed Tunisian Net dissident resumes hunger strike
[2] China limits Net discussions of SARS epidemic
[3] File trading software distributors win legal battle
[4] US state super-DMCA bills may curb Net free speech
[5] Record companies bully student Net file sharers
[6] Vietnamese prosecution of Net dissident draws fire
[7] Kazakhstan restricts access to news and politics websites
[8] US court throws out anti-DMCA lawsuit
[9] German gov’t steps up Net censorship
[10] Australian Net blocking plan criticized
[11] ISONews.com cofounder faces jail time
[12] Iranian website editor arrested
[13] Intel e-mail case heads to California high court
[14] Net cafe chain settles copyright claims
[15] Al-Jazeera news site faces many problems
Privacy
[16] Report: US gov’t may make controversial spy laws permanent
[17] US high court refuses to hear foreign intelligence spy case
[18] Japan ponders cybercrime measures
[19] Austria loses surveillance costs case
[20] US gov’t supports music label Net user personal info grab
[21] Cisco Systems plans spy-friendly computer hardware
[22] US gov’t pushes built-in Net phone spy systems
[23] New Zealand universal Net ID system sparks privacy concerns
[24] Big Brother Awards ceremonies held in UK, US
[25] EFF Pioneer Awards handed out [26] New GILC member: HREA
ALL ARTICLES ARE BELOW (SERCH BY NUMBER)
===============================================================
[1] Jailed Tunisian Net dissident resumes hunger strike ===============================================================
The proprietor of a noted Tunisian news website has begun a second hunger strike to protest the conditions of his imprisonment.
Zouhair Yahyaoui founded and edited TUNeZINE, which included coverage of political affairs in the North African nation and materials from opposition party leaders. The Tunisian government arrested, tortured, then jailed him for republishing via the Internet a letter written by his uncle that criticized the country’s legal system. During his time in jail, he had to share a cell with 100 other inmates, and prison authorities have reportedly denied Yahyaoui medical treatment even though he has been suffering from a variety of serious ailments. Yahyaoui had begun a hunger strike back in January of this year but ended it in mid-February. He then resumed his hunger strike several weeks ago as a call to his supporters to keep up the pressure in order to obtain his freedom; reports indicate that he has since ended this second strike for health reasons.
These latest developments have spawned serious concern from human rights advocates, who have noted that Yahyaoui’s detention is just one of a series of measures that Tunisian authorities have instituted to stifle dissent online, including recently-announced plans to restrict the number of licenses granted to cybercafes. Robert Menard, the Secretary-General of Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF-a GILC member), warned that the Tunisian government had assumed a “huge responsibility” for Yahyaoui’s well-being and called “on President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali to free him immediately and unconditionally.”
For more about the Yahyaoui case, click http://www.tunezine.com
An RSF press release on this subject is posted at http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6271
====================================================
[2] China limits Net discussions of SARS epidemic ====================================================
The Chinese government is trying to prevent free-ranging online discussion of a deadly illness that has infected thousands of people, even as it finally has begun to reveal more details about the disease’s spread.
Beijing is vetting Internet chatroom messages that mention Sudden Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). While Chinese government officials have refused to provide any details as to what procedures they use to censor such missives, a spokesperson at one prominent Chinese web portal explained: “The main point is that positive postings can be posted, but those that are negative cannot be posted. There are regulations, if the postings have a bad influence on social stability then we can’t post these kinds of things.” Moreover, many Chinese mobile phone users reportedly are no longer able to receive text messages from overseas, after such transmissions became a popular way for people to find out the true extent of SARS outbreaks. Government officials in the city of Beijing have also gone so far as to shut down all Internet cafes, even while allowing other public gathering places (such as restaurants) to remain open.
In addition, Chinese authorities have recently detained five people for speaking their minds via the Information Superhighway. Three of those people, Luo Changfu,Yuan Langsheng and Jiang Lijun, were held after expressing support for a fellow Internet dissident, Liu Di. A fourth person, Zhang Yuxiang, is under house arrest for various articles that he posted online; it is unclear whether he has actually been charged with a crime. Finally, Chinese law enforcement agents have arrested a 17-year old girl after she posted what state media called “harmful information in an Internet chatroom, causing a negative social influence and breaking the law”; however, the Chinese government officials have yet to disclose the contents of her postings.
Chinese Internet users seeking to avoid such perils may soon be helped by electronic countermeasures. The International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), which puts out the Voice of America radio and Internet broadcasts, has commissioned new software to circumvent Chinese government censors, who have blocked citizens from visiting numerous news and human rights websites, including the homepage of Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF-a GILC member). Among other things, the program tunnels through Chinese blocking routines and includes anonymizing features to make it more difficult for Chinese authorities to hunt down individual users. The IBB’s Ken Berman explained: “The Chinese government jams all of our radio broadcasts and blocks access by their people to our Web site. We want to allow the people there to have the tools to be able to have a look at it.”
See Maria Siow, “Chinese police work to quell SARS rumors online,” Channel NewsAsia.com, 27 April 2003 at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/38351/1/.html
For more on the Beijing Internet cafe shutdown, see “Sars ‘still on increase’ in China,” BBC News, 28 April 2003 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2981531.stm
Read “China gags SARS talk on Internet chatrooms,” Agence France Presse, 6 April 2003 at http://news.sify.com/cgi-bin/sifynews/news/content/news_fullstory_v2.jsp?art icle_oid=12991376&category_oid=-20608&page_no=1
See Holly Williams, “Chinese text for virus information,” BBC News Online, 8 April 2003 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2928969.stm
See also Shanthi Kalathil, “Battling SARS: China’s silence costs lives,” International Herald-Tribune, 3 April 2003 at http://www.iht.com/articles/91886.html
For further information on the arrests of various Chinese Internet dissidents, visit the Digital Freedom Network (DFN-a GILC member) website under http://www.dfn.org/news/china/four.htm
Additional details are available from Human Rights in China at http://iso.hrichina.org/iso/news_item.adp?news_id=1297
An RSF press release regarding China’s blocking of its website is posted at http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6132
To download IBB’s antiblocking software, visit the Peacefire (a GILC member) website under http://www.peacefire.org/circumventor/simple-circumventor-instructions.html
Read Paul Festa, “Software rams great firewall of China,” CNet News, 16 April 2003 at http://news.com.com/2102-1028-997101.html
For more background information on Chinese government Internet censorship efforts, read Staffan Thorsell, “The Great Firewall of China,” MediaGuardian (UK), 24 April 2003 at http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,7496,942956,00.html
======================================================================
[3] File trading software distributors win legal battle ======================================================================
In a closely watched case, a Federal trial court in the United States has held that the makers of Internet file trading software are not liable for copyright infringement by the users of their products.
The case involved a lawsuit by several major entertainment companies against a number of organizations that distributed free Internet file-trading programs, including Grokster and Streamcast Networks (which provides Morpheus software). The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants should be held liable for copyright infringement. However, a Federal trial court in the United States disagreed and ruled in favor of Grokster and Streamcast. Presiding judge Stephen Wilson pointed out that the software provided by Grokster and Streamcast was capable of many non-infringing uses (such as “distributing movie trailers, free songs or other non-copyrighted works; using the software in countries where it is legal; or sharing the works of Shakespeare"), and compared them to videocassette recorders and other types of “copying equipment,” the sale of which, according to past U.S. Supreme Court precedents, does not constitute contributory infringement. The court also relied on the fact that Grokster and Streamcast did not have the ability to control users and did little to “actively facilitate ... infringing activity” by their users. Similarly, the court refused to impose vicarious copyright liability on Grokster and Streamcast because did not have “a right and ability to supervise the infringing activity.” The plaintiffs have signaled that they will appeal the decision.
Many free speech advocates have warmly embraced the trial court’s ruling. Cindy Cohn, Legal Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF-a GILC member), which represented Streamcast, explained that, “Hollywood sought to control what innovators can make available to consumers. This ruling makes clear that technology companies can provide general purpose tools without fear of copyright liability.”
The text of the decision (in PDF format) is available under http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/030425_order_on_motions.php
An EFF press release on this subject is posted at http://eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/030425_morpheus_win_pr.php
Read Frank Ahrens, “File-Swap Sites Not Infringing, Judge Says,” Washington Post, 26 April 2003, page E1 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39322-2003Apr25.html
See John Borland, “Judge: File-swapping tools are legal,” CNet News, 25 April 2003 at http://news.com.com/2102-1027-998363.html
Read “Boost for web song-swappers,” BBC News Online, 28 April 2003 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2982123.stm
See also Oliver Burkeman, “Court win for music-copying software,” The Guardian (UK), 28 April 2003 at http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,944923,00.html
Additional coverage in Spanish (Espanol) is available in “Los programas de intercambio de ficheros no vulneran los derechos de autor, segun una sentencia en EE.UU.,” DelitosInformaticos.com, 28 April 2003 at http://www.delitosinformaticos.com/propiedadintelectual/noticias/10515460373 4487.shtml
For further information in French (Francais), read “Phrase du jour: Grokster et StreamCast ne sont pas significativement differentes des societes qui vendent des magnetoscopes ou des copieurs,” Transfert.net, 28 April 2003 at http://www.transfert.net/a8731
=======================================================
[4] US state super-DMCA bills may curb Net free speech =======================================================
A prominent film industry group is pushing for new local laws in the United States that critics say could stifle free speech online.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is urging various state legislatures to enact proposals that, among other things, would criminalize the possession of what the MPAA calls “unlawful communication and access devices.” While the precise contours of this legislation vary from state to state, many of the bills would bar consumers from possessing or distributing software that can take music or video transmitted over the Internet and convert it to another format without the copyright holder’s explicit permission. Some forms of the legislation, such as a bill currently being considered by the state of Colorado, also bar people from concealing or assisting another person “to conceal from any communication service provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication that utilizes a communication device"--a provision that may bar the use of anonymizing or other privacy-enhancing software.
In a number of respects, the bills’ standards are tougher than the controversial U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which has been savaged by many free expression experts. Indeed, Fred von Lohmann from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF-a GILC member) described these “super-DMCA measures” as “special interest legislation that dramatically expands the reach of the federal DMCA, which has already put fair use, innovation, free speech and competition in peril. Communication service providers—meaning ISPs [Internet service providers], cable companies, and providers of digital entertainment services—can use this legislation to restrict what you can connect to your Internet connection and cable or satellite television lines and can ban a variety of tools critical to protecting the anonymity and security of Internet users.” Other groups have expressed similar sentiments, such as the American Library Association, which issued a letter along with two other library groups warning that “some of the proposed amendments will undermine the ability of libraries to provide important information services.”
For further information, visit the EFF website under http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/states/20030414_eff_sdmca_pr.php
See Benny Evangelista, “Heading off film piracy: Movie trade group staying one step ahead in lobbying efforts,” San Francisco Chronicle, 28 April 2003, page E1 at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/28/BU269543.DTL
Read Declan McCullagh, “DMCA critics decry state-level proposals,” CNet News, 28 March 2003 at http://news.com.com/2102-1028-994667.html
For coverage in German (Deutsch), read Detlef Borchers, “Forschungsfreiheit von ‘Super-DMCA’ bedroht,” Heise Online, 20 April 2003 at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-20.04.03-008/
====================================================
[5] Record companies bully student Net file sharers ====================================================
A major recording industry trade group has launched legal attacks against several University students over their online activities.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is suing 4 students in the United States for running file-sharing programs on campus computer networks. The RIAA claims that by doing so, they allowed other people to violate copyright laws by trading music files using the programs (named Direct Connect, Flatlan and Phynd). The file-sharing software in question did not allow access by all Internet users, but only other individuals who happened to have accounts with the respective universities (so, for example, Princeton University students could use the program installed on Princeton’s computer network). Reports indicate that the RIAA did not tell the affected universities (Princeton, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Michigan Technological University) beforehand about its impending action.
Not surprisingly, the RIAA’s legal assault has led to considerable concern from educators and cyber-rights experts. Among other things, there is growing fear that the trade group’s actions may chill academic discourse online. Furthermore, questions remain as to whether the RIAA’s methods may deter people from using various types of computer programs even if they can be used for non-copyright infringement purposes.
Read “Students sued in piracy battle,” BBC News Online, 4 April 2003 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2917779.stm
See “Music Biz Sues Student File-Swappers,” CBSNews.com, 4 April 2003 at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/tech/printable547687.shtml
For coverage in Spanish (Espanol), see “Demandos estudiantes estadounidenses por intercambio de archivos musicales,” DelitosInformativos.com, 7 April 2003 at http://www.delitosinformaticos.com/propiedadintelectual/noticias/10497161601 0254.shtml
Further information in German (Deutsch) is available from “US-Universitaat beklagt sich ueber Musikindustrie,” Heise Online, 10 April 2003 at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-10.04.03-002/
========================================================
[6] Vietnamese prosecution of Net dissident draws fire ========================================================
Cyberliberties advocates have condemned the Vietnamese government for attempting to prosecute a human rights activist on espionage charges.
Vietnamese authorities have arrested Dr. Nguyen Dan Que after he allegedly sent information critical of the Vietnamese government through the Internet. He had only recently been released as part of a prison amnesty program after serving part of a 20-year jail sentence. Vietnamese government officials have searched his house and seized his computer as well as various written materials. He has since been charged with violating the country’s espionage laws; if convicted, Nguyen could face the death penalty.
Several groups, including Human Rights Watch (HRW-a GILC member) vehemently objected to Hanoi’s actions. HRW’s executive director for Asia, Brad Adams, charged that although “Vietnam has signed UN treaties protecting the right to free expression ... it’s locking up citizens using the Internet to express their views. This is going on while Vietnam is participating in deliberations of the United Nations’ highest human rights body. Delegates should publicly call on Vietnam to cease these arrests.”
An HRW press release on this subject is posted under http://hrw.org/press/2003/03/vietnam033103.htm
===============================================================
[7] Kazakhstan restricts access to news and politics websites ===============================================================
Kazakhstan apparently has restricted access to numerous Internet sites in an attempt to stifle dissent against the ruling regime.
Kazakhstani authorities are imposing these blocking restrictions on all customers of the country’s sole Internet service provider (ISP), Kazakhtelecom. The list of censored materials includes the websites of various independent online news bureaus and several leading opposition party leaders. Many of these sites contained articles that criticized the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, and a number of other prominent government officials accused of corruption. Kazakhstani citizens are only able to visit the censored webpages through overseas ISPs, but are then subject to long time delays that can last 30 minutes or so.
Free speech advocates have condemned the government’s blocking campaign. Robert Menard, the secretary-general of Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF-a GILC member) complained in a letter to Kazakhstani culture and information minister Mukhtar Kul-Mukhamed that the “near-monopoly of the state-owned Kazakhtelecom as an Internet service provider ... must not be used to block independent and diverse news. We ask you to make every effort to ensure the free flow of online news and to end all censorship of news websites, whatever their editorial line.”
An RSF press release on this subject is posted at http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6122
==================================================== [8]
US court throws out anti-DMCA lawsuit ====================================================
A United States Federal trial court has thrown out a challenge to a much-maligned copyright statute.
The case centers on a blocking package manufactured by N2H2 that is used by thousands of public schools and governmental agencies in the U.S. Harvard University student Ben Edelman, who was investigating the extent to which N2H2’s program prevents access to Internet sites, worried that his activities might run afoul of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), as well as N2H2’s license, which warns users that they may not “copy or make any changes or modifications to the software” or “decrypt, decode, translate, decompile, disassemble or otherwise reverse engineer the software.” These fears came in light of several incidents where various industry-related groups, such as technology giant Hewlett-Packard, had threatened computer researchers with DMCA-related legal action.
He then filed papers asking a U.S. Federal court to declare that he had a right to examine N2H2’s blocking program and “to share his research tools and results with others.” Edelman, who was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU-a GILC member), believed that “the public has a right to know what is being blocked, and I believe I have a right to uncover this information without being subject to a corporate lawsuit.”
However, the presiding judge Richard Sterns dismissed Edelman’s claims. In Sterns’ opinion, “[T]here is no plausibly protected constitutional interest that Edelman can assert that outweighs” N2H2’s assertions of copyright, nor was there “any pending credible threat of a criminal prosecution if” Edelman were to move forward with his project. Curiously, the judge went so far as to compare Edelman’s scholarly research to “an invasive and destructive trespass.”
To read the text of the court order (in PDF format), click http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/edelman-v-n2h2/order-040703.pdf
Read Declan McCullagh, “ACLU loses digital copyright battle,” CNet News, 9 April 2003 at http://news.com.com/2102-1025-996245.html
For further information in German (Deutsch), read “US Gericht wehrt Angriff auf Copyright-Gesetz ab,” Heise Online, 10 April 2003 at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-10.04.03-005/
====================================================
[9] German gov’t steps up Net censorship ====================================================
The German government has adopted new rules to restrict various types of digital expression.
Under the “the Treaty on Human Rights & the Protection of Minors in Broadcasting and Telecommunication Media,” current regulations and indexing schemes for films and videos can now be applied to computer games and the Internet. The country’s Minor Protection Law also has been altered to ban electronic media and computer games that “glorify war.” Furthermore, a new committee (called the Kommission fuer Juegendmedienschutz) will be created to sift through online content for possible blocking.
Questions remain as to what extent these changes will have a detrimental impact on Internet free speech. Some of these fears are due to the relatively vague wording of the new rules, such as a provision barring materials that “apparently could harm children and minors seriously.”
Read “Sperrverfuegungen gegen Websites: Einer kam durch,” Heise Online, 7 April 2003 at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-07.04.03-005/
Read “German law shields children from content,” Washington Internet Daily, 3 April 2003 at http://www.computeruser.com/news/03/04/03/news5.html
========================================================
[10] Bill to restrict Aussie Net blocking system details ========================================================
Cyber-liberties advocates and various political leaders are crying foul over an Australian government proposal that they say would further prevent public oversight of a controversial Internet censorship regime.
Nearly 4 years ago, the Australian government passed the Broadcast Services Amendment (Online Services) Act, which restricted Internet content based on a rating scheme previously used for films. Current exemptions in the country’s Freedom of Information Act (FOI) have allowed several government agencies, most notably the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA), to deny access (on a case by case basis) to various types of information regarding the scheme. Thus, when Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA-a GILC member) requested data regarding the government’s content restriction system, the ABA blacked out details such as website addresses and names/titles of prohibited online content prior to releasing the relevant documents-a decision that was upheld by an Administrative Appeal Tribunal.
Since then, the Australian government has begun considering a new plan to create a blanket FOI exemption, thereby allowing the ABA, the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) and the Classification (Censorship) Boards to prevent the release of a broader range of information that does not include identifying information about, or copies of, prohibited content. Thus, documents that were previously released regarding the censorship scheme with some information blacked out would not be released at all. The move came even though the government has not provided any legitimate reason for curtailing citizens’ rights to access information concerning the operations of the ABA and OFLC, or any indication, let alone evidence, that FOI law has been or can be misused. Not surprisingly, EFA issued a statement contending that the FOI amendments “should be rejected outright and the Broadcasting Services Act should be amended to require the ABA and OFLC to make freely and publicly available the same amount of information about classification decisions concerning online content as has long been made readily available about classification of movies, publications and computer games.”
While the proposal has passed the Australia’s House of Representatives, it is expected to receive a hostile reception in the Senate (which is in recess until mid-May 2003). The chief Federal opposition party, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) has voiced serious concern over the FOI amendments, as ALP’s Shadow Minister for Communications, Lindsay Tanner, explained: “In the Senate, Labor will be seeking the support of the minor parties and Independents to remove this part of the bill. Labor will not permit the government to fundamentally undermine the freedom of information regime in this country, which is so fundamental to ensuring that we have genuine public scrutiny and accountability with respect to government agencies.”
For further information, visit the EFA website under http://www.efa.org.au/FOI/clabill2002/
============================================
[11] ISONews.com cofounder faces jail time ============================================
The cofounder of a technology news website is headed to prison after pleading guilty to violating a heavily criticized copyright law.
David Rocci, who helped found ISONews.com, has been sentenced to 5 months in prison as part of a plea deal. Previously, the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) had seized the website’s domain name, claiming that Rocci had violated the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act by selling microchips that allow Xbox computer game console users to play games from other geographic regions as well as bootleg versions and backup copies. The DoJ is now redirecting would-be ISOnews.com visitors to a special government webpage.
The case has drawn concern from various cyber-rights groups. Fred von Lohmann from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF-a GILC member) said it was “troubling that people are being sent to prison for selling a device that may have uses that may not be infringing to copyright at all.” In addition, some observers are worried that the DoJ’s tactics may allow tracking of innocent people (such as investigative journalists) whose personal information may be revealed as they are transferred to the government website.
Read “US mod chip retailer jailed and fined,” The Register (UK), 9 April 2003 at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/30165.html
See “Microsoft cuts console cost,” BBC News Online, 10 April 2003 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2934621.stm
For information in Spanish (Espanol), read “Sentencia en Estados Unidos por la venta de chips para la modificacion de consola de videojuegos,” DelitosInformaticos.com, 10 April 2003 at http://www.delitosinformaticos.com/noticias/104998679837318.shtml
Press coverage in German (Deutsch) is available in “Haftstraf fuer Modchip-Haendler,” Heise Online, 10 April 2003 at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/anw-10.04.03-001/
===============================================================
[12] Iranian website editor arrested ===============================================================
Authorities in Iran have arrested a journalist over his Internet speech activities.
Sina Motallebi had previously worked a daily newspaper, Hayat-e-No, that was shut down this past January. Afterwards, as editor of the news website [url=http://www.rooznegar.com]http://www.rooznegar.com,[/url] he expressed support for a number of Hayat-e-No reporters who had been imprisoned, and criticized reform-minded Iranian leaders for failing to defend his former colleagues. Motallebi was then accused of “undermining national security through a cultural activity”; after having been summoned numerous times by Iranian government officials, he was apparently arrested and interrogated several days ago by a special Tehran police division dedicated to punishing “moral” offenses.
Motallebi’s predicament has angered many Internet free speech groups. Robert Menard from Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF-a GILC member) called for Motallebi to be released and pointed out: “This is the second journalist to be arrested this year for running a website. It comes as the United Nations Human Rights Commission is due to issue a report on Iran. Regardless of what the report says, the Iranian regime should know that sooner or later it will have to answer for its arbitrary arrests of journalists.”
An RSF press release on this subject is posted at http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=20
========================================================
[13] Intel e-mail case heads to state high court ========================================================
If someone sends several email messages to his colleagues complaining about his former employer’s practices, should that person be held liable for trespassing?
This issue was recently debated before the California Supreme Court. The case centers around Ken Hamidi, who was fired by chipmaking giant Intel due to a disagreement over a work-related injury. He then sent a number of email messages to thousands of Intel staffers that took the company to task over the way it treated its employees. The firm eventually sued Hamidi and won a decision from California’s Third Appellate District Court, which curiously held that he had trespassed on Intel’s property by sending the aforementioned messages and banned him from sending any more emails. Hamidi has since appealed the ruling.
Many legal experts worry that the decision, if upheld, would seriously erode free speech rights in cyberspace. Lee Tien from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF-a GILC member) explained that the state Supreme Court “heard arguments explaining why extending the trespass to chattels doctrine to electronic communications would be very hard to justify. The court seemed unwilling to rule that anyone who sends electronic communications after having been told not to could risk a lawsuit from recipients.” Similarly, Ann Brick, a lawyer with the Northern California affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU-a GILC member), called Intel’s actions “censorship. This is about an employer or some other third party deciding what kind of e-mail I can send that you receive.”
An EFF press release concerning this case is posted under http://eff.org/Cases/Intel_v_Hamidi/20030402_eff_hamidi_pr.php
Read Harriet Chiang, “Ruling could redefine parameters of free speech rights in cyberspace,” San Francisco Chronicle, 2 April 2003 at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/02 /MN181676.DTL
=============================================
[14] Net cafe chain settles copyright claims =============================================
The recording industry has settled its lawsuit against a global business mogul over alleged copyright violations.
Stelios Haji-Iannou founded the EasyGroup business empire, which includes the EasyInternet Cafe chain as well as the European airline EasyJet. Several prominent recording industry organizations, including the British Phonographic Industry (which represents Universal, Virgin and EMI) sued EasyGroup, claiming that the company should be held liable for music that allegedly has been downloaded illegally by EasyInternet Cafe customers. Sony went so far as to ask the court for a “gag order” to prevent public discussion of the dispute-a request that was denied. A British trial court ruled against cybercafe chain; in response, Haji-Iannou accused the presiding judge of failing to answer one of his firm’s key arguments: that downloading music was a legally permitted fair use, similar to recording a television program for later viewing.
Earlier this month, EasyInternet agreed to pay GBP 80 000 in damages as well as GBP 130 000 in legal costs. The settlement is being seen as largely a business decision, especially since, as Haji-Iannou himself explained, the payment was far smaller than the amount that was originally demanded from his company: “They came back with an attractive offer - a 92% discount on the original claim.”
Read “Net cafe settles over music rights,” BBC News Online, 9 April 2003 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/2933163.stm
See also Owen Gibson, “Stelios settles music copyright row,” Guardian Unlimited, 9 April 2003 at http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,933707,00.html
====================================================
[15] Al-Jazeera news site faces many problems ====================================================
The website of a prominent independent Arabic-language news broadcaster has been beset with numerous difficulties over the past month or so.
For a time, attackers were able to redirect Internet traffic away from the English language version of Al-Jazeera homepage. Would-be visitors were instead sent to a webpage with an American flag and the slogan “Let Freedom Ring.” Although the problem has since been corrected, the site has also been hit with repeated denial-of-service attacks. In addition, several companies have terminated service agreements with Al-Jazeera or otherwise let such agreements expire, notably web server giant Akamai.
Al Jazeera’s difficulties have drawn considerable attention from free speech activists. The Association for Progressive Communications (APC-a GILC member) deplored the situation, saying that the “Internet must be allowed to freely perform its unique and vital role as a promoter of ‘freedom of expression’ and content diversity, especially in times of conflict. The computer hacks, online vandalism and the canceling of Al-Jazeera’s web hosting contract all interfere with the UN [United Nations] declared right to ‘receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’”
The Al Jazeera website is located at http://www.aljazeera.net
For the English-language version, click http://english.aljazeera.net
The APC press release is posted at http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=10848
For further information, visit the Digital Freedom Network (DFN-a GILC member) website under http://dfn.org/news/mideast/al-jazeera.htm
See “US turns to net for war updates,” BBC News Online, 8 April 2003 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2925289.stm
Read Sandeep Junnarkar, “Akamai ends Al-Jazeera server support,” CNet News, 4 April 2003 at http://news.com.com/1200-1035-995546.html
For further information in German (Deutsch), see “Wirbel um Website von Al Jazeera (Update),” Heise Online, 27 March 2003 at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-27.03.03-007/
===============================================================
[16] Report: US gov’t may make controversial spy laws permanent ===============================================================
Several United States policymakers are reportedly hoping to make permanent various controversial changes to government surveillance laws.
The measures, which were adopted in late 2001, allowed the U.S. government to make greater use of controversial spy tools such as Carnivore. Among other things, the legislation applied loose pen register protections previously used for such information as phone numbers and applied them to the Information Superhighway, rather than requiring law enforcement agents to show probable cause that a crime is being committed and get a court order. It also expanded the powers of a secret United States court, created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), whose procedural protections are not as strong as those of other tribunals. In addition, the measures provided the government with the ability to break into houses and conduct secret “sneak-and-peek” searches. A number of these powers were scheduled to expire or “sunset” by 2005. However, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch has reportedly drafted a proposal to remove the “sunset” language, thereby allowing the weakened standards to remain in place indefinitely.
The move comes despite growing public concern over whether the U.S. government is already abusing its powers under the 2001 changes. According to records revealed through Freedom of Information Act requests from various groups, including GILC members the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has sent out hundreds of “national security letters,” thereby forcing businesses to turn over electronic records about finances, telephone calls, e-mail and other personal data. These letters are issued without prior judicial approval, and the recipients of such letters are barred from telling anyone (including their customers) about the FBI’s requests. In addition, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has apparently signed three times more “emergency foreign intelligence warrants” than in the past 23 years. The ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer warned: “Without judicial oversight, there is simply no assurance that the Attorney General is using this authority in keeping with democratic principles and constitutional rights.”
Read “GOP wants to keep anti-terror powers; Broad spying tools would become permanent,” New York Times, 9 April 2003 at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/09 /MN257910.DTL
An ACLU press release regarding the increased use of spy powers is posted at http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12166&c=206
Read Dan Eggen and Robert O’Harrow Jr., “U.S. Steps Up Secret Surveillance,” Washington Post, 24 March 2003 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1 6287-2003Mar23?ÊFound=true
=================================================================
[17] US high court refuses to hear foreign intelligence spy case =================================================================
The United States Supreme Court has decided not to review an intelligence tribunal’s ruling that many experts fear will greatly erode privacy online.
Previously, the United States Justice Department had pushed revised rules that would allow investigators to conduct surveillance operations and get search warrants under the looser standards of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), even if the primary purpose of the wiretapping or search is not to collect foreign intelligence. Under this theory, law enforcement agents could make use of such standards so long as foreign intelligence gathering was merely a “significant” purpose. A Federal trial court disagreed and ordered Federal officials, among other things, to “ensure that law enforcement officials do not direct or control the use of the FISA procedures to enhance criminal prosecution.”
Subsequently, in its first-ever decision, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review essentially threw out the trial court’s decision and ruled in favor of the government. The appeals court’s opinion, FISA “did not preclude or limit the government’s use or proposed use of foreign intelligence information, which included evidence of certain kinds of criminal activity, in a criminal prosecution.” Among other things, the 3-judge panel went on to say that the trial court did not have the power under the U.S. Constitution to take prior restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering operations and impose “them generically as minimization procedures.”
Several organizations (including GILC members the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Open Society Institute) who had previously filed legal papers urging the appeals panel to uphold the lower court’s ruling then called on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the appeals panel’s decision. However, the high Court rejected their request. Ann Beeson of the ACLU expressed frustration over this setback but vowed to fight on: “We will continue to press Congress and the courts to curb abuse of government spy powers.”
An ACLU press release on this subject is posted at http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12167&c=206
===============================================================
[18] Japan ponders cybercrime measures ===============================================================
The Japanese government is considering new cybercrime measures that may have a significant impact on Internet privacy.
Although specifics regarding the proposal are still hard to come by, among other things, the plan would apparently require Internet service providers (ISPs) to retain e-mail and other information up to 90 days without subscribers’ knowledge. ISPs who refuse to comply with these retention requirements could face heavy penalties. In addition, creating a computer virus or providing it to others would be made punishable by up to three years in prison, even if it has not caused any damage. Proponents of the legislation claim that it is necessary in order for Japan to join the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, despite the fact that the Convention does not actually require data retention.
The entire proposal is expected to be debated in the Diet (Japanese parliament) sometime in the next few months. However, a number of observers expect the proposal to engender serious opposition, due to the potentially great privacy implications. Industry groups, including many ISPs, are also expected to voice objections over portions of the bill, such as a provision that would force providers to retain data to aid the investigation of certain acts even if they are not considered criminal in Japan.
For further details on the data retention proposal, see “Stiffer e-data rules eyed,” Asahi Shimbun, 17 March 2003 at http://www.asahi.com/english/national/K2003031700230.html
===============================================================
[19] Austria loses surveillance costs case =============================================================== Telecommunication companies in Austria have won an important court case against the federal government regarding a controversial surveillance law.
The case revolved around two subsections of Austria’s Telecommunications Law (Telekommunikationsgesetz or TKG). Taken together, those subsections essentially required telecom companies to implement surveillance measures on behalf of law enforcement agents and pay for these measures themselves. The technical requirements for such spyware (which may change every year) are not specifically provided in those provisions and must be provided through secondary legislation. Several communications firms challenged the TKG subsections in court, charging that those provisions were unconstitutional under various legal theories, including vagueness and proportionality grounds.
The Austrian Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the statute “imposes a significant burden on third parties [that] may only be justified for exceptional circumstances.” More specifically, the judges held that the two contested TKG subsections violated the right of property and the liberty of profession or business guaranteed under the Austrian Constitution because the provisions were not proportional and did not meet the principle of clarity. The court ordered that, starting in 2004, the government would have shoulder the economic burden by reimbursing communications companies for implementing wiretapping measures, unless the “exceptional circumstances” mentioned earlier exist.
To read the verdict (in PDF format), click http://www.vfgh.gv.at/vfgh/presse/G37-16-02.pdf
For an English-language outline of the decision and commentary, visit the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC-a GILC member) website under http://www.epic.org/privacy/intl/austrian_vfgh-022703.html
===============================================================
[20] US gov’t supports music label Net user personal info grab ===============================================================
The United States government is backing a recording industry trade group in its efforts to collect personal information about an alleged Internet file trader.
Several months ago, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) requested data concerning a subscriber of telecom giant Verizon. The RIAA claimed that the individual in question had engaged in copyright infringement through peer-to-peer music file trading over the Internet. The Association argued that it had the power to gather such information under the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) even though it has not actually filed a lawsuit yet. The cited DMCA provision essentially says that copyright owners can request a U.S. Federal court to subpoena “information sufficient to identify the alleged infringer” from a “service provider.” Verizon refused, claiming that this power can only be used when infringing material is stored or controlled on the service provider’s network. A number of privacy groups, including GILC members the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), filed legal papers expressing opposition to the RIAA’s demands. A trial court in the U.S. subsequently agreed with the RIAA and has now ordered Verizon to turn over the requested information within 14 days; Verizon is in the process of appealing the trial court’s decision.
In the meantime, the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) has filed papers with the appeals court siding with the RIAA. Among other things, the DoJ essentially claimed that the release of personal information about the Verizon customer would not have a negative impact on ordinary people who communicate through the Internet because “the DMCA’s subpoena provision targets the identity of alleged copyright infringers, not spoken words or conduct commonly associated with expression.” Verizon Vice President Sarah Deutsch was dismayed by the government’s decision: “We would have expected they would have recognized there are important privacy and safety issues beyond the narrow copyright claims here.”
To read the text of the trial court’s order (in PDF format), visit the website of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT-a GILC member) under http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/03-ms-0040.pdf
For the latest details, read John Borland, “Verizon gets 14 days to ID file-swapper,” CNet News, 24 April 2003 at http://news.com.com/2102-1027-998268.html
See also “Verizon Must Reveal Song Swappers,” Associated Press, 24 April 2003 at http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,58620,00.html
See “Fed favors record labels over Verizon,” Reuters, 18 April 2003 at http://news.com.com/2102-1027-997568.html
For information in German (Deutsch), read “US-Justizministerium: Preisgabe der Identitaet eines Kazaa-Nutzers richtig,” Heise Online, 20 April 2003 at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-20.04.03-005/
To read a friend-of-the-court brief filed by various privacy groups (including EPIC, EFF and CPSR) in PDF format, click http://www.eff.org/Cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/20020830_eff_amicus.pdf
===============================================================
[21] Cisco Systems plans spy-friendly Internet hardware ===============================================================
A leading telecommunications hardware maker is planning to redesign its products to make it easier for government agents to spy on Internet users.
Cisco Systems has unveiled a proposal published to build “lawful interception” features into its devices. While many of the details have still yet to be worked out, under the proposal, wiretapping “must be undetectable,” and various government agencies could simultaneously spy on the same person without being aware of each other’s operations. Internet service providers (ISPs) would also decrypt customers’ messages and hand the information over to law enforcement agents, assuming that the ISPs have access to the relevant encryption keys.
Cisco’s apparent attempt to appease would-be wiretappers has alarmed cyber-rights experts. Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC-a GILC member), wondered “why the technical community should hardwire surveillance standards and not also hardwire accountability standards like audit logs and public reporting. The laws that permit ‘lawful interception’ typically incorporate both components--the (interception) authority and the means of oversight--but the (Cisco) implementation seems to have only the surveillance component. That is no guarantee that the authority will be used in a ‘lawful’ manner.”
Read Declan McCullagh, “Inside Cisco’s eavesdropping apparatus,” CNet News, 21 April 2003 at http://news.com.com/2102-1071-997528.html
===============================================================
[22] US gov’t pushes built-in Net phone spy systems ===============================================================
A number of recent events regarding phone calls made over the Internet have led to questions about the future of privacy online.
On one front, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) wants the Federal Communications Commission to rule that the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) applies to phone calls made over the Internet, including transmissions using the Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). CALEA, which was passed in 1994, generally requires telecom companies to build surveillance capabilities into their networks, but exempts information services, most notably the Internet. The FBI has pushed for this authority even though it has failed to cite in public any case where wiretapping efforts were thwarted by VoIP.
The FBI’s stance has caused anxiety among privacy advocates and industry leaders. David Sobel from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC-a GILC member) worries that, among other things, if the FBI gets its way, the use of surveillance tools to spy on Internet phone calls could be used for unnecessary government spying on other types of Internet transmissions, such as surfed webpages and private email messages. Additionally, Internet service providers are concerned about who will be forced to pay for installing such spy devices. Further complicating matters is the fact that there are no universal standards for such wiretapping operations, in part because no universal standards exist even for creating VoIP networks.
In addition to the FBI’s efforts, Vonage DigitalVoice, the biggest provider of VoIP service, is apparently partnering with another company, Intrado, to provide automatic locational tracking of people who make Internet phone calls. Reports indicate that Vonage’s customers (which number in the tens of thousands) will be required to give their address, city, state and postal code to be stored in Intrado’s databases. While the system is supposed to be used for tracking of emergency 911 calls, questions remain as to whether this system eventually will be used for other purposes, such as geolocational mass marketing.
Read Ben Charny, “Net phone services get 911 capability,” CNet News, 22 April 2003 at http://news.com.com/2102-1037-997851.html
See also Anick Jesdanun, “Tapping Into Web Telephony,” Associated Press, 4 April 2003 at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/tech/printable547765.shtml
=================================================================
[23] New Zealand universal Net ID system sparks privacy concerns =================================================================
Public concern is rising over efforts in New Zealand that may lead to a national online identification system.
During the past month, there have been a number of developments suggesting that such a system may not be far off. For one thing, the country’s Inland Revenue Department (IRD) inaugurated its first password-protected service, which allows members of the public to access various government databases. Soon afterwards, New Zealand State Services Minister Trevor Mallard publicly hinted that he wants one agency to handle password authentication for all online Government services. Some observers subsequently calling for this comprehensive authentication system to be expanded and used for surfing the World Wide Web, sending and receiving email, reading electronic documents, and using instant messaging systems. The New Zealand State Services Commission is now preparing a report on this issue that apparently will be released in the middle of 2003.
However, a number of groups have expressed serious reservations about these ideas. One industry spokesperson suggested that “there are too many privacy implications,” and that such a widescale system, if implemented, might make identity fraud a “damn sight easier.” There are also worries over the potential costs of implementing the proposal as well as providing customer support.
Read Richard Wood, “Fears over public ID system to access Govt services online,” New Zealand Herald, 22 April 2003 at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3450452&thesection=t echnology&thesubsection=general
==================================================
[24] Big Brother Awards ceremonies held in UK, US ==================================================
Privacy International (PI-a GILC member) recently held its annual Big Brother Awards ceremonies for 2003 in Britain and the United States. These prizes are designed to publicize some of the most serious threats to individual privacy.
United Kingdom winners included London Mayor Ken Livingstone (the year’s Worst Public Servant for “his obsession with travel and transport surveillance"), Capita (deemed the Most Invasive company for being “behind many of the government’s most controversial surveillance and data management schemes"), the Piu Data Sharing Report (the British “government’s discredited Entitlement Card proposal,” which was termed the year’s Most Appalling Project), the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) (the Most Heinous Government Organisation for having “recently gone beyond merely being a patsy for bad government policy,” and taking “a more active role in developing and promoting invasive schemes"), and British Prime Minister Tony Blair (a Lifetime Menace because of “his active involvement in the government’s attack on civil liberties"). A new “Dog Poo on a Stick” Award was given to British Home Secretary David Blunkett for being “so odious and contemptible” that the organizers were “reluctant to agree to spending scarce money on an expensive gold award for the villain.” Five Winston awards were given out to defenders of individual privacy, including Dr. Roger Needham (posthumous), Teri Dowty (Joint national coordinator, Childrens Rights Alliance for England and Wales), Marion Chester (Legal Director, Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales), STAND (a volunteer organization that has fought strenuously against various privacy-invasive proposals and legislation), Richard Norton-Taylor and Stuart Millar (from the British newspaper the Guardian), and the video activist group Undercurrents.
Meanwhile, the United States government received several of the year’s American Big Brother awards, including Most Invasive Proposal (for the Total Informational Awareness project) and Worst Public Official (to Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, who “was the architect of the PATRIOT Act and of the Attorney General’s Guidelines, which now allow the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] to engage in searches and monitoring of chat rooms, bulletin boards, and websites without evidence of criminal wrongdoing"). Other winners included Osama Bin Laden, who received an Admiral John M. Poindexter Lifetime Menace for “giving [U.S.] Attorney General Ashcroft the excuse he needed to pass the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act, and the gall necessary to formulate PATRIOT II, new draft legislation designed to push police power even further” and Delta Airlines, which was dubbed the Greatest Corporate Invader for helping to test the U.S. government’s Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II-a system that “relies heavily on the commercial information brokers to provide personal data on individuals.” The list of Brandeis recipients (for their support of privacy rights) included consumer advocate Ed Mierzwinski, North Dakota state representative Jim Kasper ("a business leader and tireless advocate of opt-in privacy laws"), Charlene Nelson ("a North Dakota farmer who led a successful referendum in her state to reestablish opt-in privacy rules) and bookseller Joyce Meskis (who “led an important battle for book buyer privacy").
The U.S. Big Brother Awards were handed out at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy (CFP) 2003 Conference, which also featured the first-ever presentation of the Stupid Security Awards. The Australian government garnered a Most Egregiously Stupid Award “for a litany of pointless, irritating and self-serving security measures,” such as creating a “suspicious” activity hotline without explaining what activities should be considered “suspicious.” Philadelphia International Airport got a Most Inexplicably Stupid Award “for over-reaction to a bottle of cologne,” including issuing a code-red hazardous materials alert, quarantining an entire hospital emergency room and shutting down 2 shops. The British arm of phone giant T-Mobile won a Most Annoyingly Stupid Award “for pointless and idiotic financial security measures,” such as forcing customers to send in two credit card bills along with the details of their phones in order to pay for services by credit card. The Delta Airlines terminal at New York’s John F. Kennedy airport received a Most Flagrantly Intrusive Award “for forcing a nursing mother to drink her own breast milk,” and San Francisco General Hospital won a Most Stupidly Counter Productive Award “for blind idiocy in its identity checking procedures,” including turning away homeless potential patients because they did not have photo identification cards. A special Dishonourable Mention award was given to the hotel that hosted the CFP 2003 conference, the New Yorker Hotel, “after a series of absurd security measures.” These included demanding and photocopying photo ID’s, refusing to loan a guest a pair of scissors “because of security,” and threatening another guest with a visit from the anti-terrorism squad of NY police if he continued to refuse to provide photo ID.”
For more on the 2003 British Big Brother Awards, click [url=http://www.privacyinternational.
-Clusters of Bombs: War, Death, Disability: In Iraq and at Home
ZNet Commentary
April 30, 2003
By Marta Russell
-- Marta Russell Los Angeles, CA http://www.disweb.org
Support ZNet: visit their site to learn about the Sustainer program
http://zmag.org
In a truly “developed” world where diplomacy reigned over brute force and the wealth of a nation was used to better the lives of its citizenry, the US military would be stripped of the billions of the people’s tax dollars it wastes. Militarism would be sidelined, if not outlawed.
I got arrested at the March 19 LA antiwar protest near the Westwood Federal Building. There were several hundred of us who gathered at noon before the military dropped Bush’s “Shock and Awe” bombs onto the people of Iraq. We were marching to make a last ditch effort to raise American voices against the oncoming so-called preemptive strike that would initiate an illegal act of aggression and stop a manufactured war for the sake of geopolitical dominance.
The four earsplitting helicopters hovering overhead gave me pause. US military flying objects now in Iraq hoard what the military casually calls a “daisy cutter” or a “cluster bomb.”
The chain of command for use of a cluster bomb goes like this. Bush, the born-again Christian self-anointed “by God” thumbs his nose at the United Nations attempts to maintain the peace and insists upon bloodshed. He has a vast murderous arsenal and generals at his disposal, unlike any in history. His general directs the Airforce plane to fly in and drop the bomb at just the right angle. It breaks up into “bomblets” separating in mid-air and then seconds later a huge wave of fire and shrapnel shoots along a straight line obliterating everything in its path.
Now envision this. The “compassionately conservative” and pious Bush bean counters have a shrapnel agenda at home. It too is to alter the domestic policy landscape. The Bush machine, reminiscent of the Gingrich congress of the mid-nineties, is out to dismantle social entitlement programs. Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill said as much before he was fired. The planes flying in are loaded with numbers in a budget that congress is to approve.
Already across the nation, teachers are being laid off, schools closed, health care pared down, and college aid slashed to pay for tax cuts for President Bush’s upper-class friends.
A tomahawk missile costs about one million each. The military has dropped hundreds in Iraq.
After telling the broke governors last Christmas that the federal government had no money to help bail their states out of debt and help them avoid deep cuts to domestic programs, this spring the Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Perle machine got $80 billion from the Congress for the Iraq war. Already the military gets over half of annual federal revenues. It just got more.
The Bush machine proposed and the House passed a Y2004 budget bill that would cut $94 billion from Medicaid (over ten years), $18.5 million from SSI, $14 billion from Veteran’s programs, $13 billion in food stamps, and $1.2 billion in Child Care programs. These are all poor people’s programs.
The war at home against entitlements, upstaged by the Iraq occupation (and future invasions?), is off the radar screen. Make no mistake. It has reignited.
The nonexistent American class system has a class warrior in the oval office who very well knows what class war is all about. The Bush machine gave the rich $1.6 trillion in tax cuts through 2010 and promised more—nearly $2 trillion through 2013 (including added interest of the national debt, Center on budget and Policy Priorities).
The President’s “growth package” would cost the treasury $726 billion (over ten years according to the Tax Policy Center) and result in tax reductions averaging $90,000 each (Y2003) for Americans who have annual incomes of more than $1 million! Does it get any clearer than that?
As I watched an American soldier who occupied one of the palaces in Basra on TV condemn the Hussein version of the Ba’ath party government for such great wealth disparity that would allow lavish palaces to co-exist beside poverty-ridden neighborhoods, I wondered why the low-paid soldier could not see the same in his own native land. What is so different about the Bush version of the Republican Party aiding and abetting the owners of the giant American estates - or the fact that Bush just gave the wealthy who don’t need it a huge tax cut spitting on the working stiffs? Most of the benefits of Bush’s tax plan go to those making incomes over $300,000 per year. Does the soldier fit in that class? Hardly.
This disconnect cannot be understated or overemphasized. The polls are full of figures citing Americans who think they are in the top 1percent who aren’t and those who expect to get rich but won’t.
Wealth disparity in the US, both in assets owned and the income gap, is greater than at any time since the Great Depression. According to the Gini Index, a measure of income inequality from 1913, income distribution has been getting more unequal for over 30 uninterrupted years. The top 1 percent has nearly 40 percent of the nation’s wealth, up from 20 percent in 1976!
The reasons disabled persons organizations have come out against the Bush war are in sync with many others—moral, realpolitick and geopolitical. We, however, add another dimension.
Whirlwind Wheelchair International, for instance, a group against the war that promotes the design and production of sturdy low cost wheelchairs around the world. Pointing out that already more than 20,000,000 people in the world are still in need of a good wheelchair, WWI works in more than 40 countries, some of which are post conflict nations, seeing to it that every person who needs a wheelchair can obtain one.
The collateral damage and human rights abuses fomented by the warmongers have just made their job harder.
WWI says that it “feels a great responsibility to help people with disabilities in Iraq.”
Crips Against War, formed out of Chicago says the Bush administration’s agenda promises to “to rob us of the self-determination for which we have fought for so long.”
The Bush machine, including John Ashcroft, has had no use for anyone’s civil rights but the budget will ensure that the civil rights divisions of the federal agencies assigned to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act won’t have the resources either.
Further, under capitalist medicine dominated by for-profit insurance corporations and the ongoing institutional discrimination in education, welfare, the built environment and employment practices that exclude disabled people in large measure, self-determination often includes the ability to access to Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security. Entitlement, however, is a word the “compassionate conservatives” intend to eliminate from government’s dictionary and erase from the collective memory.
“The war is a perfect smokescreen to accomplish this. Disabled people will be sacrificed at the altar of war,” warns Crips Against War.
With estimates approaching a trillion dollar deficit each year for the next five years, the predicament is dire.
The broke states facing unprecedented deficits are already cutting or slapping co-payments onto the “optional” benefits. Those are medical services the federal government does not mandate the states to provide. People are losing Medicaid “optionals” such as prescription drugs, rehabilitative services, dental services, physical therapy, prosthetic devices, and eyeglasses, to name but a few.
Some states are halting progress on home and community-based services or personal care services that allow disabled persons an alternative to being warehoused in institutions.
Further there are “optionally eligible persons” under Medicaid. These are populations that (amongst others) include working disabled individuals whose incomes are above the SSI limit or who have high medical expenses that allow them to qualify. With the states in debt and looking to reduce expenditures these people’s health care is on the line.
By the end of this fiscal year 49 states will have cut Medicaid and 32 states will have cut Medicaid twice.
That was before the beginning of the “endless war” Dick Cheney, speaking on behalf of the machine, promised after September 11. It doesn’t take a genius to know that one cannot cut taxes for the wealthy and wage a war that will cost endless dollars - especially not during a recession - without curtailing spending somewhere.
“Collateral damage” is the euphemistic term that describes what happens to civilians caught in the crossfire of war.
What about collateral damage at home? With counties in debt and looking to cut costs--health care, social support services, poor people’s lives or those least likely to weather the cutbacks will change for the worse. Can we extend the term “collateral damage” to encompass people who die prematurely from lack of appropriate health care or go without vital social services?
At a rally to prevent the closure of Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Hospital in Downey, CA, due to LA County budget deficits, Janelle Rouse shared her story with me. Rouse came to Rancho as the result of a significant brain injury that regressed her function to the level of an infant. With the knowledge of the rehab expertise at Rancho she had relearned most everything - from the seemingly smallest things like how to dress to the more complicated like continuing to live in her community.
Rouse who lives with short-term memory loss contributes her time as a volunteer at Rancho.
Faced with Rancho’s closure, however, Rouse is uncertain of her future. Where will she go for the non-replaceable support services she receives from Rancho? Can she continue to live in the community? Will she find a doctor who will take MediCal? Where will she wind up—on the streets with so many others?
Other people who rely on Rancho will surely get displaced. People who use ventilators, for instance, are faced with no other LA hospital that will take them (stated by the County’s own consulting firm).
The present Congress, swayed by the right-wing Zionist lobby, the right-wing Christians, and the military-industrial complex with defense companies lobbying for military contracts all over the nation, is likely to accomplish what Gingrich could not. Clinton vetoed his contract on America. Bush-Cheney-Rove-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Perle will not. This budget has the devout blessing of the evangelicals-on-a-mission and the hawks beside them.
The organization Disabled Peoples’ International took a stand appropriately called “Peace is a Disability Issue.” DPI declared:
“Let us call for all nations’ economies to be transformed from war economies to peace economies. Let us insist that the $600 billion now spent on armaments is diverted to socially useful projects.”
Socially useful would not include pouring money into bigger better killing devices such as “daisy cutter” bombs or training our young people to become troops who kill other human beings.
While the popular culture often has interpreted impairment/disability as a metaphor for evil and menace, the real Dr. Strangeloves are people like able-bodied Donald Rumsfeld, a clinically “normal” person. Let’s call this the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Perle “perfect body” complex? The born-again President who says God told him to start this war would be considered delusional in a psychology textbook or suffering from “grandiosity” at an AA meeting or a violent fundamentalist at the very least. Then again, those who use the banner of religion as a cover for their deeds are seldom questioned for lack of coherence.
As I was being arrested I tried to talk two decent cops out of working for the LAPD. Why support that, I asked? I felt that they deserved more. How does one not harden into a tool of the state when protecting the interests of people who care nothing for one’s class? When it came down to it they had more in common with the working people, women, and children that day on the streets, not the Bush machine’s strategy for world domination nor his friends’ moneymaking agendas at Halliburton, Bechtel, Trireme (Perle is a managing partner) and Fluor corporations.
Americans live in an imperialist state with a passive, depoliticized population. The soldier in Iraq and the cops who arrested me do not make the connections. How could it be much different given the central values upon which capitalism rests: individualism, competitive “free enterprise,” and consumerism?
Still we built a vigorous antiwar movement and we must keep opposing this war plan, and militarism, and imperialism, generally. Damage control is needed now to stop the cluster of bombs dropping on the home front and to get these self-serving criminals out of office.
-ACTION ALERT: ABC’s Weapons “Scoop” Turns Up Empty
from FAIR-L Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting: Media analysis, critiques and activism
April 29, 2003
On April 26, ABC’s World News Tonight led with a major scoop. Anchor Claire Shipman announced at the top of the broadcast, “U.S. troops discover chemical agents, missiles, and what could be a mobile laboratory in Iraq. An ABC News exclusive.” But ABC’s “exclusive,” as it turns out, appears to be false.
The April 26 report began: “The U.S. military has found a weapons site 130 miles northwest of Baghdad that has initially tested positive for chemical agents. Among the materials there, 14 55-gallon drums, at least a dozen missiles and 150 gas masks.” Correspondent David Wright explained, “Preliminary tests showed it to be a mixture of three chemicals, including a nerve agent and a blistering agent.” Wright added that an Army lieutenant “says the tests have an accuracy of 98 percent.”
While expressing some reservations, Wright called it “by far the most promising find in the search for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,” especially since it included what his military source told him “looks like a mobile laboratory.”
Perhaps somewhat self-consciously, ABC followed Wright’s report with a short segment about weapons claims that have turned out to be false alarms. But ABC continued to pump the story the next day, with Wright appearing on This Week to explain that “what may turn out to be a very significant find are these mobile laboratories, which appear to have a pumping apparatus as well as machinery to mix chemicals.”
The story led World News Tonight again on Sunday, as anchor Carole Simpson explained that “for the second day in a row, some of the preliminary tests have come back positive for chemical agents.”
But the report also noted one new development: the arrival of a Mobile Exploitation Team (MET Bravo), which conducts its own testing of suspected weapons sites. When those tests were done, the story had changed significantly. According to an April 28 report in the New York Times, the MET Bravo team “has tentatively concluded that there are no chemical weapons at a site where American troops said they had found chemical agents and mobile labs.” As a member of the team told the Times, “the earlier reports were wrong.”
Reporters should be cautious when preliminary tests seem to confirm the existence of banned weapons in Iraq, particularly since so many of these initial findings have not been borne out (see FAIR Action Alert, 3/25/03). ABC was aware of this, but still chose this story as its lead news item for two days. On Monday, April 28, the story had seemingly crumbled. But ABC’s viewers were none the wiser: When the news was that ABC’s “exclusive” had washed out, there was no mention of the story on the Monday or Tuesday broadcasts of World News Tonight.
ACTION: Encourage ABC News to set the record straight on the weapons story it was pushing on April 26-27. Remind ABC that retractions of false stories should be featured as prominently as the original reports, and ask that more caution be shown in reporting government claims.
CONTACT: ABC’s World News Tonight Phone: 212-456-4040 mailto:PeterJennings@abcnews.com
As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if you maintain a polite tone. Please cc with your correspondence.
---------- Please support FAIR by subscribing to our bimonthly magazine, Extra! For more information, go to: http://www.fair.org/extra/subscribe.html . Or call 1-800-847-3993.
FAIR SHIRTS: Get your “Don’t Trust the Corporate Media” shirt today at FAIR’s online store: http://www.merchantamerica.com/fair/
FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html .
FAIR’s INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its New York office on a rolling basis. For more information, see: http://www.fair.org/internships.html
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( ). We can’t reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to .
You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
-U.S. Government Uses fanatical Rightwing Christian Broadcast Company in Iraq
from A Jewish Voice for Peace
[An investigative report published by Common Dreams News Center reveals that the US government’s new Arabic language satellite TV news channel for Iraq is being produced at the studios of Grace Digital Media, which, by all appearances, is associated with a messianic Christian religious broadcaster called Grace News Network. (To supplement the article, I have included corporate identity information from the web pages of both Grace Digital Media and Grace Network News, which are indeed located in the same building.) The connection underscores the increasingly troubling influence of Christian Zionists in the Bush administration. Of course, a full-time U.S. government-run television station in Iraq is problematic under any circumstances. While the religious-fundamentalist ties may remain shadowy, Kenneth Tomlinson, the head of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the US government agency in charge of the channel, is quite open about his goal. “Al-Jazeera should not go unanswered in the Middle East,” he said to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, according to a short article published last week at Europemedia.net (also included here). Quips the writer of the article, “Having bombed the offices of Al-Jazeera in both Afghanistan and Iraq - as well as those of rival Abu Dhabi television - and still the network doesn’t learn its lesson, the US seems now to be attempting a more softly, softly approach to counteracting the broadcast of objective news in the Middle East.” --H. Siegel (guest editor)]
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0429-10.htm
Grace News By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
The U.S. government this week launched its Arabic language satellite TV news station for Muslim Iraq.
It is being produced in a studio—Grace Digital Media—controlled by fundamentalist Christians who are rabidly pro-Israel.
That’s Grace as in “by the Grace of God.”
Grace Digital Media is controlled by a fundamentalist Christian millionaire, Cheryl Reagan, who last year wrested control of Federal News Service, a transcription news service, from its former owner, Cortes Randell.
Randell says he met Reagan at a prayer meeting, brought her in as an investor in Federal News Service, and then she forced him out of his own company.
Grace Digital Media and Federal News Service are housed in a downtown Washington, D.C. office building, along with Grace News Network.
When you call the number for Grace News Network, you get a person answering “Grace Digital Media/Federal News Service.”
According to its web site, Grace News Network is “dedicated to transmitting the evidence of God’s presence in the world today.”
“Grace News Network will be reporting the current secular news, along with aggressive proclamations that will ‘change the news’ to reflect the Kingdom of God and its purposes,” GNN proclaims.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the U.S. government agency producing the television news broadcasts for Iraq, likes to say it is the BBC of the USA.
BBG runs Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, and Radio Sawa—Arabic language radio for the Middle East.
“Our mission is clear,” BBG’s Joan Mower told us. “To broadcast accurate and objective news about the United States and the world. We don’t do propaganda, leafleting—we are like the BBC in that respect.”
Well, then why hook up with Grace?
BBG’s Joan Mower said that Grace Digital Media is a mainstream production house used by all kinds of mainstream news organizations.
“Grace will have nothing to do with the editorial side of the news broadcast,” she said. “They are renting us equipment, space, studio. The Grace personnel we use include technicians, production people but no editorial people.”
But Mower said she couldn’t get us a copy of the contract between BBG and Grace Digital media. Nor could she say how Grace Digital was chosen as the production studio.
Grace News Network proclaims that it will be a “unique tool in the Lord’s ministry plan for the world.”
“Grace News Network provides networking links and portals to various ministries and news services that will be of benefit to every Christian believer and seeker of truth,” according to the company’s mission statement.
The CEO of Grace News Network is Thorne Auchter.
The same Thorne Auchter who began the dismantling of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under Presidents Reagan and George Bush I.
Auchter did not return our calls seeking comment for this story.
While it’s unclear whether Grace News Network actually produces any news, it has produced a documentary movie titled “Israel: Divine Destiny” which it showed at the National Press Club in September 2002.
The film is about “Israel’s destiny and the United States’ role in that destiny,” according to Grace News Network.
Grace News said that it could not make a copy of the film available to us at this time, since it is now undergoing post-production editing. Nor could it provide a transcript.
The mainstream media has documented strong and growing ties between right-wing Republican Christian fundamentalists and right-wing Sharonist Israeli expansionists.
This alliance is personified in Ralph Reed’s Stand Up for Israel, a group formed to “mobilize Christians and other people of faith to support the State of Israel.”
President Bush has very strong ties to fundamentalist Christians, most notably Franklin Graham, the son of Rev. Billy Graham.
Last week, Franklin Graham delivered a Good Friday message at the Pentagon, despite an uproar over his previous slander of Islam as “a very evil and wicked religion.”
Don Wagner, a professor of religion and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at North Park University, an evangelical Christian college in Chicago, has written extensively about what he calls Christian Zionism, whose leaders he identifies as, among others, Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, and Franklin Graham.
“Christian Zionists have historically pointed to Genesis 12:3 - I will bless those who bless you. And the one who curses you, I will curse,” Dr. Wagner said. “They have interpreted this to mean that individuals and nations who support the state of Israel will be blessed by God. It has come to mean political, economic, and moral support, often uncritically rendered to the state of Israel.”
Grace News Network seems to fit the mold.
Joan Mower says that BBG is currently producing and transmitting six hours of news into Iraq including a dubbed version of the daily evening news from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and PBS, plus three hours of original news programming from BBG.
BBG says it sees no problem in having Grace produce the evening news broadcast for Iraq.
Given the brewing anti-American revolt through all sectors of Iraqi society, maybe it should reconsider.
We called Grace Digital Media to speak with Cheryl Reagan.
Her secretary told us that she has been away in extended vacation for more than a month—in Israel.
When will she back? we asked.
No one knows, the secretary said.
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, http://www.multinationalmonitor.org They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press; http://www.corporatepredators.org)
(E) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
Grace News Network
Grace News Network, headquartered in Washington D.C. a few blocks from the White House, is dedicated to transmitting the evidence of God’s presence in the world today. Through its expanding relationship with many organizations around the world, GNN gathers reports of signs, wonders and miracles and makes that information available to the world at large.
Grace News Network: Our Purpose
The purpose of Grace News Network is to proclaim the Good News about what God is doing today across the globe in signs and wonders and in addition, proclaiming the Rhema (prophetic) Word of the Lord. Grace News will be reporting the current secular news, along with aggressive proclamations that will “change the news” to reflect the Kingdom of God and His purposes. GNN will also train and equip the Saints with the necessary tools to sharpen their individual anointing and gifting.
Grace News Network will be a unique tool in the Lord’s ministry plan for the world. Grace News Network provides networking links and portals to various ministries and news services that will be of benefit to every Christian believer and seeker of truth. Our international community of reporters, missionaries, pastors and leaders work together, encouraging and assisting believers and seekers worldwide. Our service to the world community takes many forms, including an international prayer network, book publishing, musical recordings, seminars, teaching materials in print and audio form and Internet news and views.
Please check our web site in the near future as we build it with a firm foundation.
Grace News Network 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Ph: 202.419.6045 Fax: 202.419.6046 E-Mail Us! http://www.gracenewsnetwork.com/
About Grace Digital Media
At GRACE Digital Media ("Grace DM"), we have one focus - to transform your content into manageable, deliverable and more profitable assets, enabling you to reach all of your audiences, effectively and reliably.
We truly are a “one stop shop” with state of the art technology and a team of professionals with extensive experience in the industry.
Our single-source solutions enable our clients to produce, edit and deliver their content via satellite, fiber optics, web streaming or simply to tape or CD Rom. Saving time otherwise spent in having to manage multiple vendors and juggling multiple format requirements. We have the talent and technology to do whatever you need to do. Grace Digital Media’s experience in news production, entertainment, and sports is the foundation of our business.
GRACE Digital Media Production Services 1919 M Street NW | Washington, D.C. 20036 | 202.775.0894 c 2003 GRACE Digital Media. All rights reserved. Legal Policies
http://www.europemedia.net/shownews.asp?ArticleID=16009
Pro-US Arabic-language news network to be launched in Middle East 18/04/2003 TV Meets the Web Editor: Leigh Phillips
Infuriated by al-Jazeera’s independent coverage of the US-led invasion of Iraq and its footage broadcast daily from Ramallah to Reikjavik of daisy-cuttered Baghdad markets and bullet-ridden buses, the US government is to compete with the notorious satellite news channel on its home pitch: Not so well hidden within the Bush administration’s published E68.5bn (US$74.7bn) supplemental appropriations request to pay for the war and homeland security is a E28m (US$30.5m) request for a new broadcast news network in the Middle East - the Middle East Television Network.
The money is to provide start-up costs for such a network, which will broadcast news and information with a pro-American spin in Arabic via satellite to televisions across the region.
It is also the second request for funding for the project in the last two months. Last month, President Bush’s international affairs budget included another E27.5m (US$30m) request for the network under its controlling authority, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which manages non-military international US broadcasting. The new funds will pay for remaining start-up costs and the network’s first year of operations.
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the BBG’s chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, described the venture as “the most important public-diplomacy initiative of our time.”
“Al-Jazeera should not go unanswered in the Middle East,” said Tomlinson.
Having bombed the offices of Al-Jazeera in both Afghanistan and Iraq - as well as those of rival Abu Dhabi television - and still the network doesn’t learn its lesson, the US seems now to be attempting a more softly, softly approach to counteracting the broadcast of objective news in the Middle East.
____________________________________________________________________
Jewish Peace News (JPN) is an edited news-clipping and commentary service provided by A Jewish Voice for Peace. JPN’s editors are Adam Gutride, Amichai Kronfeld, Rela Mazali, Sarah Anne Minkin, Judith Norman, Mitchell Plitnick, Lincoln Shlensky, and Alistair Welchman. The opinions expressed by the editors and presented in the articles sent to this list are solely those of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of A Jewish Voice for Peace.
A Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is a San Francisco Bay Area grassroots organization dedicated to the human, civil and economic rights of Jews, Palestinians, and all peoples in the Middle East.
Donating to A Jewish Voice for Peace is easy. Just go to our website at [url=http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org]http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org[/url] There, you can either donate online using your credit card or you can find our mailing address to send us a check. All contributions are tax-deductible. Your support is greatly appreciated.
For more information about JVP, please visit our web site at http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org
To SUBSCRIBE to Jewish Peace News, our daily news and information service, please send an email message to:
To JOIN the Jewish Voice for Peace community mailing list (no more than one message per week), which features Middle East peace information and local Jewish community activist updates, please send an email message to:
-Military-Industrial Complex, Nike, Water privatization….more from Corporate Watch
MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
Bechtel wins Iraq War Contracts
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6532
IN THE NEWS
http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PNR.jsp
*USA: Bush Top Gun vs. Nike Activist
*USA: Global Warming Activists Claim Big Victory
*South Africa: Union Congress Losing Members
*World: Factory Farms Grow in Developing Nations
*UK: Shell Oil Accused of Harming Communities
*USA: Bechtel to Rebuild Iraq
What’s New on the India Resource Center (formerly CorpWatch India)?
WATER
Private Water, Public Misery
http://www.corpwatchindia.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=3623
The first privatized river in India Sheonath river is becoming public again. Perhaps the same logic can be used to scrutinize and turn back the Tirupur water project, where, as Ann Ninan reports, the privatization scheme benefits industry at the expense of the people
Thursday, May 01, 2003
-Terror BY the Government and Police
A Terrifying Story—Police State Emerging under Cloak of Patriot Act?
Patriot Raid By Jason Halperin, AlterNet—April 29, 2003 http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15770
Two weeks ago I experienced a very small taste of what hundreds of South Asian immigrants and U.S. citizens of South Asian descent have gone through since 9/11, and what thousands of others have come to fear. I was held, against my will and without warrant or cause, under the USA PATRIOT Act. While I understand the need for some measure of security and precaution in times such as these, the manner in which this detention and interrogation took place raises serious questions about police tactics and the safeguarding of civil liberties in times of war.
That night, March 20th, my roommate Asher and I were on our way to see the Broadway show “Rent.” We had an hour to spare before curtain time so we stopped into an Indian restaurant just off of Times Square in the heart of midtown. I have omitted the name of the restaurant so as not to subject the owners to any further harassment or humiliation.
We helped ourselves to the buffet and then sat down to begin eating our dinner. I was just about to tell Asher how I’d eaten there before and how delicious the vegetable curry was, but I never got a chance. All of a sudden, there was a terrible commotion and five NYPD in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us.
“Go to the back, go to the back of the restaurant,” they yelled. I hesitated, lost in my own panic.
“Did you not hear me, go to the back and sit down,” they demanded.
I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging in age from late-teens to senior citizen. One of the policemen pointed his gun point-blank in the face of the waiter and shouted: “Is there anyone else in the restaurant?” The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen.
The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors. Shouts emanated from the kitchen and a few seconds later five Hispanic men were made to crawl out on their hands and knees, guns pointed at them.
After patting us all down, the five officers seated us at two tables. As they continued to kick open doors to closets and bathrooms with their fingers glued to their triggers, no less than ten officers in suits emerged from the stairwell. Most of them sat in the back of the restaurant typing on their laptop computers. Two of them walked over to our table and identified themselves as officers of the INS and Homeland Security Department. I explained that we were just eating dinner and asked why we were being held.
We were told by the INS agent that we would be released once they had confirmation that we had no outstanding warrants and our immigration status was OK’d.
In pre-9/11 America, the legality of this would have been questionable. After all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
“You have no right to hold us,” Asher insisted.
“Yes, we have every right,” responded one of the agents. “You are being held under the Patriot Act following suspicion under an internal Homeland Security investigation.”
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed into law on October 26, 2001 in order to facilitate the post 9/11 crackdown on terrorism (the name is actually an acronym: “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.") Like most Americans, I did not recognize the extent to which this bill foregoes our civil liberties.
Among the unprecedented rights it grants to the federal government are the right to wiretap without warrant, and the right to detain without warrant. As I quickly discovered, the right to an attorney has been seemingly fudged as well.
When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official informed me that I do have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be brought down to the station and await security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: “Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month.”
We insisted that we had every right to leave and were going to do so.
One of the policemen walked over with his hand on his gun and taunted: “Go ahead and leave, just go ahead.”
We remained seated. Our IDs were taken, and brought to the officers with laptops. I was questioned over the fact that my license was out of state, and asked if I had “something to hide.” The police continued to hassle the kitchen workers, demanding licenses and dates of birth. One of the kitchen workers was shaking hysterically and kept providing the day’s date - March 20, 2003, over and over.
As I continued to press for legal counsel, a female officer who had been busy typing on her laptop in the front of the restaurant, walked over and put her finger in my face. “We are at war, we are at war and this is for your safety,” she exclaimed. As she walked away from the table, she continued to repeat it to herself: “We are at war, we are at war. How can they not understand this.”
I most certainly understand that we are at war. I also understand that the freedoms afforded to all of us in the Constitution were meant specifically for times like these. Our freedoms were carved out during times of strife by people who were facing brutal injustices, and were intended specifically so that this nation would behave differently in such times. If our freedoms crumble exactly when they are needed most, then they were really never freedoms at all.
After an hour and a half the INS agent walked back over and handed Asher and me our licenses. A policeman took us by the arm and escorted us out of the building. Before stepping out to the street, the INS agent apologized. He explained, in a low voice, that they did not think the two of us were in the restaurant. Several of the other patrons, though of South Asian descent, were in fact U.S. citizens. There were four taxi drivers, two students, one newspaper salesman - unwitting customers, just like Asher and me. I doubt, though, they received any apologies from the INS or the Department of Homeland Security.
Nor have the over 600 people of South Asian descent currently being held without charge by the Federal government. Apparently, this type of treatment is acceptable. One of the taxi drivers, a U.S. citizen, spoke to me during the interrogation. “Please stop talking to them,” he urged. “I have been through this before. Please do whatever they say. Please for our sake.”
Three days later I phoned the restaurant to discover what happened. The owner was nervous and embarrassed and obviously did not want to talk about it. But I managed to ascertain that the whole thing had been one giant mistake. A mistake. Loaded guns pointed in faces, people made to crawl on their hands and knees, police officers clearly exacerbating a tense situation by kicking in doors, taunting, keeping their fingers on the trigger even after the situation was under control. A mistake. And, according to the ACLU a perfectly legal one, thanks to the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act is just the first phase of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. From the Justice Department has emerged a draft of the Domestic Securities Enhancement Act, also known as Patriot II. Among other things, this act would allow the Justice Department to detain anyone, anytime, secretly and indefinitely. It would also make it a crime to reveal the identity or even existence of such a detainee.
Every American citizen, whether they support the current war or not, should be alarmed by the speed and facility with which these changes to our fundamental rights are taking place. And all of those who thought that these laws would never affect them, who thought that the Patriot Act only applied to the guilty, should heed this story as a wake-up call. Please learn from my experience.
We are all vulnerable so speak out and organize, our Fourth Amendment rights depend upon it.
[Jason Halperin lives in New York City and works at Doctors Without Borders/Medicins San Frontieres. If you are moved by this account, he asks that you consider donating to your local ACLU chapter.]
===========
Hawai’i Renounces Patriot Act
From: [mailto:Rockrap@aol.com]
This week, Hawai`i became the first state to pass a resolution - http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/bills/scr18_.htm - supporting our Bill of Rights and our civil liberties. In part it reads,
“Whereas the residents of Hawaii during World War II experienced first hand the dangers of unbalanced pursuit of security without appropriate checks and balances for the protection of basic liberties...”
Hawai’i resolves that “to the extent legally possible, no state resources—including law enforcement funds and educational administrative resources—may be used for unconstitutional activities, including but not limited to the following under the USA Patriot Act:
(1) Monitoring political and religious gatherings exercising their First
Amendment Rights;
(2) Obtaining library records, bookstore records and website activities without proper authorization and without notification;
(3) Issuing subpoenas through the United States Attorney’s Office without a court’s approval or knowledge;
(4) Requesting nonconsensual releases of students and faculty records from public schools and institutions of higher learning; and
(5) Eavesdropping on confidential communication between lawyers and their clients.”
The resolution was adopted by Hawai`i’s House of Representatives on Friday, April 25. It inspires all of us to work for equivalent and even stronger measures in our own states!
-TV News Reporter Criticizes Corporate Media
“NBC News correspondent Ashleigh Banfield has ripped television
news networks, including her own, for their “glorious” coverage of
the Iraqi war and a lack of focus on international news overall.”
By Andrew Grossman—Apr 28, 2:32 am ET
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/va/20030428/105152224100.html
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - NBC News correspondent Ashleigh Banfield has ripped television news networks, including her own, for their “glorious” coverage of the Iraqi war and a lack of focus on international news overall.
In a speech Thursday at Kansas State University, she also attacked NBC News for hiring right-wing radio talk-show host Michael Savage to do a show on MSNBC. Savage recently called Banfield a “slut” after her reports portraying the radical Arab point of view.
Banfield, who won her first notoriety for her coverage from the World Trade Center on 9/11, might be in some trouble for her comments. In a statement issued on Friday, NBC News said, “Ms. Banfield does not speak for NBC News. We are deeply disappointed and troubled by her remarks, and will review her comments with her. In the meantime, we want to emphasize how proud we are of the journalism produced by NBC News and of the men and women who worked around the clock, even risking their lives, to bring this story to the American public.”
War coverage is an especially sensitive subject inside NBC News, whose embedded reporter David Bloom died in Iraq.
Her comments, coincidentally, came on the same day that Greg Dyke, director general of the BBC, ripped American radio and TV networks for their “shocking,” and “gung-ho” coverage of the Iraqi war, according to British newspaper reports.
Banfield, who hosted an unsuccessful talk show on MSNBC las