-
Archives
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
-
Meta
Monthly Archives: August 2003
Edwards: one step closer to the blog
EdCone has a brief and interesting interview with Senator Edwards. With one more step, he’d be in blog land. I’m not quite sure what’s holding him back. For a man who has defended affirmative action across North Carolina, this would be easy. Continue reading
Posted in presidential politics
1 Comment
now this is getting interesting: Red Hat vs. SCO
Red Hat has apparently filed suit against SCO, and promised a fund to protect GNU/Linux. Continue reading
Posted in good law
14 Comments
Moglen on SCO’s FUD
Eben has written a wonderful (and short) piece mapping the possible claims SCO might be making against GNU/Linux, and why these claims have likely no basis in the law. Read the essay here. Continue reading
Posted in good law
5 Comments
on gilmore’s protest
I have the pleasure of serving with John Gillmore on EFF’s board. While there are many things we disagree about, we share many values, and this one in particular: At a time of terror, we should demand reasonableness of those with authority � even more strongly than in times of peace. I view BA’s behavior here to be unreasonable. I don’t doubt they have the “right” to do what they did — such is the nature of law in a time of terror. That’s not, in my view, the point. They have the responsibility to behave reasonably in the face of possible threats. Gillmore’s behavior was not a threat. If it was a threat, removing the button would not have eliminated the threat. Demanding he remove the button as a condition of flying therefore serves no good end, except the end of showing who’s in charge. Reason, not power, should be in charge always, but especially now. Continue reading
Posted in heroes
108 Comments
john gilmore replies
John has sent me the following response to the comments on the post about his BA experience. I have posted my view here.
From John Gilmore:
It’s been interesting reading. I’d like to respond. I suppose the obvious place to start is with Seth Finkelstein’s trolls. (Of course he is doing what he accuses me of — making outrageous statements and then chuckling when people take them seriously).
I flew to London on Virgin Atlantic two days after the BA incident. I am happy to report that I wore the button, and that neither their passengers, cabin stewards, nor pilots were hysterical. I wore the button in London. I crossed the Channel where the crew gave the shorted possible glance at my passport. I wore it yesterday in Paris.
The button is not a joke. It’s a serious statement which one may agree or disagree with. The point that people seem to be missing is that a “suspected terrorist” is not the same as a “terrorist”. Yet, that’s exactly the conflation that has occurred: treat every citizen like a suspect, and every suspect like a terrorist.
In London and Paris the newspapers are taking Guantanamo seriously — because their own citizens are imprisoned there without trials. The corrupt US government was careful to remove the one US citizen they found — but the citizens of other sovereign countries, even those of very close war allies, are in prison. Without trial and without lawyers, and with intent to try them in front of judges sworn to take orders from the President. I have no doubt that American citizens, such as myself, would be treated in the same way if the public and the courts would let our fascist leader get away with it.
On the BA flight, in my carry-on bag, I had brought the current issue of Reason magazine, which has a cover story with my picture and the label “Suspected Terrorist”. (It didn’t even occur to me to censor my reading material on the flight; I must need political retraining. I hadn’t read most of the issue, including Declan’s piece in it, plus I wanted to show it to Europeans I met on my vacation.) During the British Airways incident I never removed the magazine from my bag, but supposing I had done so, and merely sat in my seat and read it, would that have been grounds to remove me from the flight (button or no button)?
I am not a lawyer (lucky me!) but I do follow legal issues. The carriage of passengers by common carriers is governed by their tariffs, filed with the government. Common carriers are NOT permitted to refuse service to anybody for any reason. In return they are not held liable for the acts of their customers (e.g. transporting dangerous substances, purloined intellectual property, etc). BA’s “Conditions of Carriage” are part of their tariffs (other parts include their prices, etc). You will note paragraph 7: they can refuse passage…7) If you have not obeyed the instructions of our ground staff or a member of the crew of the aircraft relating to safety or security. The crew ONLY has the authority to order passengers around when the orders relate to safety or security. An order to cease reading a book would not qualify.
Some people here (including Mr. Troll) think that the minor risk that someone on the plane will have a panic attack after reading a tiny button, makes the button a “safety” issue, as if I had falsely cried “fire” and risked starting a stampede. Such people seem to be holding me responsible for the actions of others. Were I on such a plane, whether or not I was wearing a button, the person I’d ask them to remove is the one having a panic attack, not the one sitting quietly in their seat.
(Similarly, some people hold me responsible for the inconvenience to passengers. As Virgin Atlantic demonstrated, the airline were in complete control of whether or not to inconvenience the passengers.)
Let me also say in my defense that I seldom fly these days, so I am not used to life in a gulag. I had zero expectation that my refusal to doff a button would result in the captain returning the plane to the gate. But even if I did fly often, my response would be the same: to constantly push back against the rules that turn a free people into the slaves of a totalitarian regime. I push back using the rights granted me by the constitutional structure of the country, plus my own intelligence and resources. Way too many of you readers are like the Poles who, under orders from swaggering bullies, built the brick wall around their own ghetto, as shown in the award-winning movie “The Pianist” (which I watched on the Virgin Atlantic flight). The US is currently filling the swaggering bully role at home, in Iraq, and in the rest of the world. (Come out to free countries and ask around, if you disagree.)
Here are some interesting incidents relating to these issues:
- Dr. Bob Rajcoomar gets a settlement and formal apology from TSA — only after suing with help from ACLU. Dr. Rajcoomar, a U.S. citizen and Lt. Colonel in the United States Army Reserve, is of Indian descent. After an in-flight incident involving an unruly passenger, Air marshals handcuffed Dr. Rajcoomar without explanation and took him into the custody of Philadelphia police. His wife Dorothy, who was also on the flight, was given no information on what had happened to her husband. Because the authorities confiscated Dr. Rajcoomar’s cellular phone, she had no way to contact him. After four hours of detention, TSA personnel told him that he had been detained because air marshals on board the flight did not “like the way he looked.” The agency’s official explanation for Dr. Rajcoomar’s treatment is that while on board, Dr. Rajcoomar had been observing the actions of the air marshals “too closely”!
- ACLU sues four airlines over ejecting passengers because of their race. Subsequent news in these lawsuits is that at least three of them have survived the airlines’ “motion to dismiss”, i.e. the court thinks there is a real injury to these peoples’ rights.
- Passenger detained for speaking with journalist about a NASA nuclear rocket project, while waiting for his airplane.
- TSA’s CAPPS 2 will track every passenger by their date of birth, home address, home phone, and full name — and stop or search anyone based on secret criteria. The TSA’s August 1 announcement makes every airport a “law enforcement checkpoint” which you cannot pass through without having your “papers in order”.
- TSA publishes rules demanding ID on passenger boats. (TSA and cruise lines have already been requiring these IDs, but under unpublished regulations. Ditto for Amtrak trains and long-haul bus lines.)
Above, Floyd McWilliams posted a perfect example of what’s wrong with this debate:
Gilmore is insulted by being labeled a “suspected terrorist.” Okay, but then how would an airline figure out that he’s a peaceable fellow except by, well, identifying him? Did he expect to be labeled a low security risk because he wasn’t swarthy?
No. I expected to be treated as peaceable because I had not breached the peace. I expected to be treated as innocent because I was not guilty of any crime. Continue reading
Posted in heroes
46 Comments
senator coleman dares question
Jon Gordon has an interesting interview with Senator Coleman about the RIAA lawsuits. The stream is here, but wasn’t working last I checked. Here’s the mp3. Continue reading
Posted in free culture
8 Comments
open source yoga
So here’s an interesting struggle in a corner of creative space you might not expect it: Open Source Yoga. The attempt to resist the control of copyright over Yoga (yes, really) is described here.
Apparently these yoga people don’t realize that if yoga could only be propertized, and then sold to the highest bidder, it would be cared for, and protected. As Mr. Valenti has observed, without copyright protection, yoga is an orphan. But with perfect and perpetual copyright protection, it could be auctioned to the entity that could develop it best, and support its growth most strongly. Maybe Gold Gym could buy it, or MTV. Or maybe Mickey could take up yoga, after Disney bought yoga. See [a very interesting story in the LA Times from July 23 about the revival of Mickey’s image that I can’t link to because it is in a paid archive and Dave Winer hasn’t solved this problem yet]. The possibilities are endless. Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
16 Comments