<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>shdwmnky_rss</title>
        <description><![CDATA[Feed of all ShadowMonkey.net content<br />
]]></description>
        <link>http://www.shadowmonkey.net</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:54:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.2</generator>
        <item>
            <title>NSA Email Surveillance Pervasive and Ongoing</title>
            <link>http://www.shadowmonkey.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=649&amp;Itemid=99999999</link>
            <description><![CDATA[<p>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
dkleinsc writes <i><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/17/1323207/NSA-Email-Surveillance-Pervasive-and-Ongoing?from=rss" target="_blank">on Slashdot</a> :</i>
</p>
<p>
<i>&quot;The NY Times has a piece about work being done by Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) and others to curb NSA efforts to read email and Internet traffic.
Here's an excerpt: 'Since April, when it was disclosed that the
intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond
legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional
committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to
concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read
domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials
said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former NSA analyst
who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a
program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of
Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence
officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.'&quot;</i>
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/17/1323207/NSA-Email-Surveillance-Pervasive-and-Ongoing?from=rss" target="_blank"><b>Visit Slashdot for the original post, links, and comments </b></a> 
</p>
]]></description>
            <author>ShadowMonkey</author>
            <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:03:15 +0000</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Another brick in the wall</title>
            <link>http://www.shadowmonkey.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=648&amp;Itemid=99999999</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The US Department of Homeland Security is set to kickstart a controversial new pilot to scan the fingerprints of travellers departing the United States...including U.S. citizens.<br />
<br />
]]></description>
            <author>ShadowMonkey</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 23:44:16 +0000</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>WTF?! Obama proposes Indefinite Preventive Detention</title>
            <link>http://www.shadowmonkey.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=647&amp;Itemid=99999999</link>
            <description><![CDATA[<p>
&quot;President Obama proposed a new system of Indefinite Preventive Detention yesterday in his National Security speech that is stunning in its illegality.<br />
<br />
He is proposing we keep people locked up not for the crimes they have committed and we prove they committed in a court of law, but on the chance that they might commit crimes in the future.&nbsp; There will be no trial, for no crime exists to be charged.&nbsp; There is only the nebulous threat of &quot;future acts&quot; to justify depriving people of their liberty potentially indefinitely.<br />
<br />
Is this justice?&quot;<br />
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://open.salon.com/blog/behind_blue_eyes/2009/05/22/obama_proposes_indefinite_preventive_detention_without_trial" target="_blank"><b>Read the full story and see related video on salon.com</b></a>
</p>
<p>
<br />
(...didn't we get enough of this from the Bush admnistration? What's that old saying about power corrupting....?&nbsp; -sm) 
</p>
<p>
<b>From an article on the same topic in The New York TImes:</b>
</p>
<p>
&quot; Mr. Obama has so far provided few details of his proposed system beyond saying it would be subject to oversight by Congress and the courts. Whether it would be constitutional, several of the legal experts said in interviews, would most likely depend on the fairness of any such review procedures.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, they suggested, the question of constitutionality would involve a national look in the mirror: Is this what America does?&quot;
</p>
<p>
<b><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/politics/23detain.html?partner=rss&amp;emc=rss" target="_blank">Read the full article </a></b> 
</p>
]]></description>
            <author>ShadowMonkey</author>
            <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 13:19:51 +0000</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009</title>
            <link>http://www.shadowmonkey.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=646&amp;Itemid=99999999</link>
            <description><![CDATA[...our thanks to HR 45's sponsor, Rep. Bobby Rush,&nbsp; who through this idiotic piece of legislation has reminded us that misguided, anti-freedom persons who would undermine our rights do sometimes (and somehow) find themselves in position of power, and that we must remain ever vigilant against their encroachments on our rights, our personal responsibilities, and our choices. 
]]></description>
            <author>ShadowMonkey</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:40:49 +0000</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Surveillance Self-Defense</title>
            <link>http://www.shadowmonkey.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=645&amp;Itemid=99999999</link>
            <description><![CDATA[<p>
<br />
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has created the Surveillance Self-Defense site to educate the American public about the law and technology of government surveillance in the United States, providing the information and tools necessary to evaluate the threat of surveillance and take appropriate steps to defend against it.<br />
<br />
Surveillance Self-Defense (SSD) exists to answer two main questions: What can the government legally do to spy on your computer data and communications? And what can you legally do to protect yourself against such spying?
</p>
<p>
<a href="https://ssd.eff.org/" target="_blank"><b>Visit EFF's Surveillance Self-Defense site</b></a> 
</p>
]]></description>
            <author>ShadowMonkey</author>
            <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:35:45 +0000</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Special 'fair use' copyright rules for VIPs?</title>
            <link>http://www.shadowmonkey.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=644&amp;Itemid=99999999</link>
            <description><![CDATA[<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10066570-46.html">McCain seeks special 'fair use' copyright rules for VIPs | Surveillance State - CNET News</a><br />
<blockquote>
	John McCain's presidential campaign has discovered the remix-unfriendly aspects of American copyright law, after several of the candidate's campaign videos were pulled from YouTube.<br />
	<br />
	McCain has now discovered the rights holder friendly nature of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which forces remixers to fight an uphill battle to prove that their work is a &quot;fair use.&quot;<br />
	<br />
	However, instead of calling for an overhaul of the much hated law, McCain is calling for VIP treatment for the remixes made by political campaigns.<br />
	<br />
	McCain's proposal: complaints about videos uploaded by a political campaign would be manually reviewed by a human YouTube employee before any possible removal of the remix. The process for complaints against videos uploaded by millions of other Americans would stay the same: instant removal by a computer program, and then possible reinstatement a week or two later after the video sharing site has received and manually processed a formal counter-notice.<br />
	<br />
	With 11 homes and 13 cars, it's not terribly surprising that McCain is calling for special treatment for the YouTube videos of politicians. As for the &quot;fair use&quot; claims of the poor starving masses: Let them eat cake.
</blockquote>
<br />
<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10066570-46.html">Read the full story on Surveillance State</a>
]]></description>
            <author>ShadowMonkey</author>
            <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Inside Account of U.S. Eavesdropping on Americans</title>
            <link>http://www.shadowmonkey.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=643&amp;Itemid=99999999</link>
            <description><![CDATA[<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&amp;page=1">ABC News: Exclusive: Inside Account of U.S. Eavesdropping on Americans</a>
<blockquote>
	Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia.
	Intercept operators allege the NSA is listening to citizens' phone calls.
	&quot;These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones,&quot; said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003.
	Kinne described the contents of the calls as &quot;personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism.&quot;
	She said US military officers, American journalists and American aid workers were routinely intercepted and &quot;collected on&quot; as they called their offices or homes in the United States. 
</blockquote>
Visit <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&amp;page=1">ABC News</a> for the full video story.
]]></description>
            <author>ShadowMonkey</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:01:40 +0000</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Activists Placed on Terror Lists in Maryland</title>
            <link>http://www.shadowmonkey.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=641&amp;Itemid=99999999</link>
            <description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245.html?hpid=topnews">Md. Police Put Activists' Names On Terror Lists - washingtonpost.com</a><br />
<blockquote>
	The Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track terrorism suspects, the state police chief acknowledged yesterday.<br />
	<br />
	Police Superintendent Terrence B. Sheridan revealed at a legislative hearing that the surveillance operation, which targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war, was far more extensive than was known when its existence was disclosed in July.<br />
	<br />
	The department started sending letters of notification Saturday to the activists, inviting them to review their files before they are purged from the databases, Sheridan said.<br />
	<br />
	&quot;The names don't belong in there,&quot; he told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. &quot;It's as simple as that.&quot;<br />
	<br />
	The surveillance took place over 14 months in 2005 and 2006, under the administration of former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). The former state police superintendent who authorized the operation, Thomas E. Hutchins, defended the program in testimony yesterday. Hutchins said the program was a bulwark against potential violence and called the activists &quot;fringe people.&quot; 
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Read the full story at <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245.html?hpid=topnews">washingtonpost.com</a>
]]></description>
            <author>ShadowMonkey</author>
            <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:39:16 +0000</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Data-Mining for Terrorists Not 'Feasible,' DHS-Funded Study Finds</title>
            <link>http://www.shadowmonkey.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=642&amp;Itemid=99999999</link>
            <description><![CDATA[<a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/data-mining-for.html">Data-Mining for Terrorists Not 'Feasible,' DHS-Funded Study Finds | Threat Level from Wired.com</a><br />
<blockquote>
	The government should not be building predictive data-mining programs systems that attempt to figure out who among millions is a terrorist, a privacy and terrorism commission funded by Homeland Security reported Tuesday. The commission found that the technology would not work and the inevitable mistakes would be un-American.<br />
	<br />
	The committee, created by the National Research Council in 2005, also expressed doubts about the effectiveness of technology designed to decide from afar whether a person had terrorist intents, saying false positives could quickly lead to privacy invasions.<br />
	<br />
	&quot;Automated identification of terrorists through data mining (or any other known methodology) is neither feasible as an objective nor desirable as a goal of technology development efforts,&quot; the report found. &quot;Even in well-managed programs, such tools are likely to return significant rates of false positives, especially if the tools are highly automated.&quot;<br />
	<br />
	The 376-page report -- entitled &quot;Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists&quot; -- comes as a rebuke to the Bush administration's attempts to use high-tech surveillance and data-sifting tools to prevent another terrorist attack inside the United States. 
</blockquote>
<br />
Read the full story on <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/data-mining-for.html">Wired.com</a>
]]></description>
            <author>ShadowMonkey</author>
            <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:32:40 +0000</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy</title>
            <link>http://www.shadowmonkey.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=640&amp;Itemid=99999999</link>
            <description><![CDATA[<span style="font-size: 10pt"> In this
short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review,
Professor Daniel Solove examines the nothing to hide argument. When
asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people
respond by declaring: &quot;I've got nothing to hide.&quot; According to the
nothing to hide argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the
government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no
legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The nothing
to hide argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are
worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the nothing to hide
argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565" target="_blank">Visit the abstract page</a> and click on &quot;Choose Download Location&quot; at the top. Click on one of the download organizations to obtain a PDF of the full essay.
<br />
</span>
]]></description>
            <author>ShadowMonkey</author>
            <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:03:22 +0000</pubDate>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
