Politics

I received an email from the ACLU yesterday, informing me that they’ve jumped in on the net neutrality debate. Unfortunately, they badly misrepresent the facts: FREE THE NET: WHY YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY The keys to the Internet have always been safely in public hands - until last year, when the FCC suddenly repealed longstanding Internet principles of “neutrality” and non-discrimination.The ACLU is going to make the erroneous claim that I’ve debunked repeatedly on my blog (see the Net Neutrality Index)–that the common carriage requirements on telcos constitute “net neutrality.” They will ignore the fact that cable companies–the main providers of consumer broadband Internet access in the U.S.–have never been common carriers and have never been bound by these requirements. With the blessing of the Supreme Court, a handful of profit-driven telecoms and cable companies now could effectively shut down the 21st Century marketplace of ideas by screening Internet e-mail traffic, blocking what they deem to be undesirable content, or pricing users out of the marketplace. The ACLU is going to argue that we need to create a new bureaucratic regulatory apparatus, giving sweeping new powers to the FCC to interfere with freedom of Internet providers to enter into voluntary contracts with each other and manage their own networks, and specifically prohibiting differential pricing on tiered levels of service and the ability for providers to enter into arrangements with content providers to subsidize consumer bandwidth. Historically, Net Neutrality protections filled the free speech gap. Since those protections were removed last year, nothing prevents network providers from discriminating against Internet users and application and service providers in terms of content, quality of access, and choice of equipment.This is doubly false–the common carriage requirements applied only to the last-mile consumer network connections, not to the ability of ISPs to filter; and it is false that “nothing prevents” ISPs from taking actions which would cause them to lose customers. If you’re like many people using the Internet, you don’t think about whether your Internet Service Provider is intentionally slowing down or speeding up your access to Yahoo! versus Google. Without Net Neutrality, your ISP could do just that. Imagine if your phone company was allowed to own restaurants and then provided good service and clear signals to customers who called Dominos and static and frequent busy signals for those calling Pizza Hut. It sounds outrageous, but it would be entirely possible if the telephone system wasn’t regulated under the “common carrier” framework. The telecoms and cable companies that provide Internet network services, including AT&T, BellSouth, Comcast, Qwest, Sprint, Time-Warner/AOL, and Verizon, have spent over $100 million lobbying Congress and the FCC to eliminate established Net Neutrality protections.Remember, cable companies have never been common carriers, yet this hasn’t been a problem. Why create new regulations and give more power to a government agency that has a history of not only working on behalf of the big incumbents (rather than promoting competition, which is what is needed) but of engaging in actions designed to cause discrimination against certain forms of content through censorship? It makes no sense. The assault on Internet freedom will only get worse. The FCC imposed Net Neutrality protections in merger agreements for certain network providers such as SBC/AT&T and Verizon/MCI, but those protections expire in 2007. And in July 2006, the FCC declined to include any Net Neutrality protections in Comcast and Time-Warner’s acquisition of Adelphia Cable. The pattern of the FCC opposing Net Neutrality is expected to continue, as network providers continue to consolidate into an even smaller pool of Internet gatekeepers. Without the vigorous non-discrimination principles in place before 2005, a few corporate conglomerates will control everything that you can say or do on the Internet. Net Neutrality is needed, and it is needed now.The above argument is a mish-mash of fear-mongering about things that haven’t been an issue, misrepresentation of what regulations have been in place, wild unsubstantiated claims (“a few corporate conglomerates will control everything that you can say or do on the Internet”?), and a failure to look at the actual substantive issues in the network neutrality debate. Their website contains further misinformation: ...

Sen. Jon Kyl, a strong supporter of banning Internet gambling, is a target of online poker players upset at the sleazy way the recent law prohibiting banks from engaging in financial transactions with online gaming sites was passed. That law was snuck into a port security bill in the night by Bill Frist, with no opportunity to vote on the amendment. The effect of that law has been to cause all of the largest legitimate online gaming sites (such as those publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange) to decline to permit Americans to use their sites, while those that are on the shadier side continue to take American business. In other words, the effect has been to make online gaming more dangerous for Americans, and to have less accountability about where the profits go. Kyl has seen his lead in the polls over Jim Pederson decline, though he is still, unfortunately, likely to win. ...

Security researcher Chris Soghoian, a graduate student at Indiana University’s School for Informatics and an intern at Google, set up a website that functions as a boarding pass generator for Northwest Airlines. The site contained a form that allowed you to fill in name, flight number, destination, and all of the other information on a boarding pass, and would display a boarding pass that would be indistinguishable from the real thing at the TSA security checkpoints. He pointed out that the identity check at the TSA checkpoint amounts to nothing more than a comparison between the name on a picture ID and the name on a boarding pass, and that this provides no security whatsoever. I’m not sure what threat this check is even supposed to be trying to mitigate. At best, it is an attempt to piggy-back on the check against the no-fly list (which is itself a complete joke) that is performed by the airlines when you purchase a ticket, but clearly that fails as his boarding pass generator is one of several ways to create a boarding pass in a name other than your own–including modifying the displayed text generated by any airline’s online site or even purchasing a ticket in any name you choose. The latter was displayed vividly by a couple of guys who purchased tickets in the names of “Al Kyder” and “Terry Wrist” (link includes video). In my opinion, the only actual purpose served by checking for a valid boarding pass at the TSA checkpoint is to reduce the number of people passing through the checkpoint in order to most efficiently make use of security resources. It does not otherwise have any effect on security; it provides no deterrent to an attacker. It is not effective in screening out those with malicious intent, and it is not even effective in verifying identity. Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) has called for Chris Soghoian to be arrested. He was visited and interrogated by the FBI, then went to stay at his parents’ house. Friday night, the FBI broke their way into his apartment, seized his computers, and generally trashed his place. Lesson: Point out U.S. security weaknesses, and you will be punished. Those responsible for the weaknesses and idiocy of U.S. “security theater,” however, will not be held accountable. This is one of the rare times when Michelle Malkin actually says something correct. Other coverage: Jim Harper, author of the excellent book Identity Crisis, at the Technology Liberation Front and at Cato@Liberty (this post does a good job of pointing out the problems with the TSA identity check). Bruce Schneier, at his blog. And there’s some rather good coverage in multiple posts at BoingBoing. The problem that Soghoian pointed out was previously described in February 2005 on Slate.com by Andy Bowers, and in 2003 by Bruce Schneier in his Crypt-o-Gram newsletter. So yes, Kip Hawley is still an idiot. UPDATE (November 2, 2006): Bruce Schneier has written a detailed description of the flaw in the security design of the TSA identity check, and makes the same point that even if the flaw is corrected it doesn’t add any real security because it’s just a check of the no-fly list.

I guess it shouldn’t have been surprising to find that the Bush administration appointed people to key positions in post-invasion Iraq on the basis of their loyalty to George W. Bush rather than their possession of any relevant skills or experience, as we saw with Michael Brown’s appointment to head FEMA and George Deutsch’s appointment as a press officer at NASA. But I didn’t imagine that things were actually as bad as they were. An article in the Washington Post derived from Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s new book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, describes the application process for jobs with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq: One former CPA employee who had an office near O’Beirne’s wrote an e-mail to a friend describing the recruitment process: “I watched résumés of immensely talented individuals who had sought out CPA to help the country thrown in the trash because their adherence to ’the President’s vision for Iraq’ (a frequently heard phrase at CPA) was ‘uncertain.’ I saw senior civil servants from agencies like Treasury, Energy . . . and Commerce denied advisory positions in Baghdad that were instead handed to prominent RNC (Republican National Committee) contributors." Loyalists with dubious experience also replaced highly competent and experienced people who were already in place: ...

Republican Vernon Robinson is running for the House of Representatives against Democrat Brad Miller with unbelievably sleazy tactics, such as accusing Miller of being gay because he is middle-aged and has no children. Miller responded by pointing out that he is married, but his wife is unable to have children due to a hysterectomy and she suffers from endometreiosis. The topper is Robinson’s attack ad (which has been recycled by Republican Paul Nelson against Democrat Ron Kind in Wisconsin’s third district). This ad accuses the Democrat (Miller or Kind) of spending “your tax dollars to pay teenage girls to watch pornographic movies with probes connected to their genitalia,” “to study the masturbation habits of old men,” and “to study the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes." Of course, there was no vote by either of these Democrats for any such thing. Rather, they voted against taking action to cancel five specific research studies by the National Institutes of Health, on the grounds that it is not Congress’ place to make specific decisions about what research the NIH funds. The first study referenced in the advertisement, regarding teenage girls and pornographic movies, is apparently designated by an incorrect grant number in the ad. The second study, NIH grant R03HD039206, was titled “Longitudinal Trends in the Sexual Behavior of Older Men,” which examined quality of life effects in older men–it was not specifically a study of the “masturbation habits of old men.” This grant was perhaps $50,000 per year over two years, out of the NIH’s $30 billion annual budget. The third study, NIH grant R01MH065871, was a proposed study of mental health risks in response to an announced program to do research on particular risk groups that have thus far not received attention from investigators. You can see both ads and read comments on them (some of the above is derived from comments by Phil T. Bastid) here. A response by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania which recounts the specifics of each of the studies in question may be found here. UPDATE (November 8, 2006): Both of these sleazy politicians, Vernon Robinson and Paul Nelson, got defeated by about a 2-to-1 margin.

The National Republican Congressional Committee is standing behind its ad attacking Democrat Michael Arcuri, who is running against Republican Ray Meier to replace retiring Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert in upstate New York. Here’s the content of the ad: Woman’s sultry voice: “Hi sexy. You’ve reached the live one-on-one fantasy line.” (Soft music plays in the background.) Announcer: “A phone number to an adult fantasy hot line appeared on Michael Arcuri’s New York City hotel room bill while he was there on official business. And the call was charged to Oneida County taxpayers. Arcuri has denied it, but the facts are there. Who calls a fantasy hot line and then bills taxpayers? Michael Arcuri." Woman’s sultry voice: “Bad call."The facts of the matter are that an Arcuri aide made a call to the number in question for less than a minute, which was in error. He then called a number with a different area code (instead of a toll-free number) but the rest of the digits the same, which is the number of the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. Arcuri is the district attorney in Oneida County. At least seven television stations have refused to run the GOP’s ad, for good reason–it’s unbelievably misleading. The NRCC, fully aware of the dishonesty of this advertisement, insists that their account is “totally true” (yes, but it uses true but incomplete information in a way specifically intended to mislead, which is a form of lying) and they say that they stand behind the message. Upstate New York newspapers have been doing a good job of exposing the facts. UPDATE (November 8, 2006): Arcuri defeated Meier in the election and will be the next Rep. from NY’s 24th District. ...

Kevin Tillman, the brother of Pat Tillman, who fought with him in the U.S. Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, has spoken out about the Bush administration, the war on terror, and the war in Iraq, in a piece titled “After Pat’s Birthday."

The above headline is justified to the same extent as Stop the ACLU’s headline, “Jailed Terror Suspect Helped ACLU Draft School Religion Rules," as the rules in question were drafted jointly and agreed to by 35 organizations which included the National Association of Evangelicals, the ACLU, the Christian Legal Society, the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, and numerous other religious groups. The “jailed terror suspect” in question was a member of the American Muslim Council, one of the 35 groups involved in creating these rules for the Department of Education under Clinton. This led another conservative blogger to headline this story with the even more deceptively dishonest “Terrorist Wrote Clinton’s School Religion Guidelines." (Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars, where Ed Brayton has been repeatedly responding to this same absurd charge for years.)

Gun rights advocate and “uninvited ombudsman” Alan Korwin has sent out a checklist of his recommendations on the Arizona ballot propositions. I disagree with him on several of the propositions, perhaps most significantly on his recommendation of a yes vote to amend the Arizona Constitution to ban same-sex marriage and any legal arrangements that are “similar to” marriage. Here’s his argument for 107: 107 YES Protect marriage amendment. If people want gay unions, polygamy, bestiality or whatever, I say let them, but not under government sanction and funding. I’d like to see us return to “holy matrimony” without any government involvement. Getting married for tax breaks is so wrong.But this argument presumes the effect of 107 is to get the government out of the marriage business, which it isn’t. Rather, 107 has the effect of enshrining existing statutory prohibitions on a form (or multiple forms) of legal contract between consenting adults into the Constitution, and going further to restrict any such arrangement “similar to” marriage. It isn’t pro-liberty, it’s anti-liberty. It isn’t eliminating special privileges, it is adding them to the Arizona Constitution. It’s perfectly reasonable to argue that nobody should have tax breaks or special privileges under the law, but it’s not reasonable to say that because such privileges are wrong we should restrict them to a particular set of people. That’s not only unfair, it’s unconstitutional–a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It’s like arguing that the government shouldn’t confer support on religion, so we should vote yes on an amendment that limits government support to the Christian religion, and keep it from supporting Islam or other religions. (No doubt there are many Americans who would, quite wrongly, support such a law.) Now, some advocates of Proposition 107 have argued that there is no violation of the equal protection clause because a gay man has the same right to marry a woman as a heterosexual man does. But this is just like arguing that a prohibition on interracial marriage doesn’t violate the equal protection clause because a black man has the same right to marry a black woman as a white man has to marry a white woman–the description of the right is being crafted to exclude the category of person who is being discriminated against. As Ed Brayton has pointed out on numerous occasions, the arguments for the unconstitutionality of a ban on same-sex marriage are of the same form as the arguments for the unconstitutionality of a ban on miscegenation, just replacing “different race” with “same sex.” If you think that the Supreme Court ruled correctly in Loving v. Virginia, you should also think that Arizona’s Proposition 107 violates the U.S. Constitution for the same reasons. See also my previous post on the Protect Marriage Arizona amendment. You may also find David Friedman’s economic analysis of marriage arrangements to be of interest. UPDATE (October 21, 2006): Just to make it clear, THeath has enumerated some specific examples of what opponents of gay marriage are actually endorsing (there are several more if you follow the link)–these aren’t hypotheticals, these are real people: There was the friend I wrote about recently who was turned away from from the emergency room, where his partner had been taken after suddenly collapsing at work, and told he could not be given any information because he was not next of kin. He had to leave the hospital and retrieve their legal documents before he could gain admittance to see his partner when a married spouse would have been waved through without question. My friend was luckier than Bill Flanigan. When his partner Robert Daniel was hospitalized in Baltimore, the couple had their legal documents with them, including durable power of attorney and documentation that they were registered as domestic partners in California. But those documents were ignored by hospital staff and Flanigan was kept from seeing his partner until Daniel’s mother and sister arrived and by then Daniel was unconscious, with his eyes taped shut and hooked to a breathing tube; something Daniel had not wanted. Even having a will didn’t help Sam Beaumont when his partner of 23 years, Earl, died. Oklahoma requires a will to have two witnesses, but Earl didn’t know that and his will leaving everything to Sam had only one. So Earl’s cousins, who disapproved of his relationship and most of whom never spoke to the couple or even came to Earl’s funeral, successfully sued to take away the home and ranch Sam an Earl had shared for 23 years. A married spouse, even in the event of a will lacking enough witnesses, would’ve had the right to automatically inherit at least some of the estate. Further Update (October 22, 2006): Ed Brayton takes apart the Alliance Defense Fund’s white paper on these marriage amendments here. ...

Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone has an excellent article on 9/11 conspiracy theorists, pointing out the absurdity of their claims in the form of a dialogue among the plotters: BUSH: So, what’s the plan again? CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we’ve decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they’re real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we’ll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down. ...