For today's children, an education is not complete unless it comes with some form of computer interaction. In order to become fully functioning adults, these kids need to learn basic computer skills. Unfortunately for many schools, this goal runs in opposition to slashed budgets and bureaucratic apathy. What is an educator to do when he realizes that the computers that kids need are not going to be part of any budget the school has to offer?

Thanks to I Love Ubuntu, we have at least one answer answer. Robert Litt, a 6th grade teacher from Alameda County, faced just such a predicament. He needed to provide his students with computers but had no money and little support from the administration. So he set about building the computer lab his students needed using donated computers and the Ubuntu Linux operating system.

Why go with Ubuntu over the much more common Windows? Cost.

Most of the computers’ problems could be fixed by wiping the disks and reinstalling the operating system—but buying new software for every donated computer would be prohibitively expensive. So Robert began to research more affordable options. An acquaintance at the Alameda County Computer Recyclers suggested he use a free operating system, such as GNU/Linux.

This is one of the key issues of those hit with budget constraints. Computers can be expensive and having a proprietary operating system such as Windows can add to the cost. By going the Linux route, Robert was able to stick to his $0 budget and still provide the neccesary computers for the students. His early success in bringing in 18 computers led to additional excitement from both students and staff. He was then able to expand the computer lab to 70 computers through these means.

This success in building a quality lab has expanded the ability of the teachers at the school to teach meaningful computer skills to the students.

“The digital divide is growing in a hidden statistic,” Robert says, “the actual teaching of technology in a meaningful way.” He shows students how to do math on spreadsheets, how to make simple websites, how to put together slide presentations, all on free software. These are the computer skills that, students tell him, they are later expected simply to know.

By going this route, Robert was party to keeping the cost of education down, something that many people are trying to accomplish. It also brings in a fresh approach to teaching in the digital age. By stepping outside of his comfort zone when it comes to computers, Robert was able to expand his skill set. He now has an opportunity to share that new knowledge and skill with the students and hopefully expand the way in which they interact with technology. Something these kids and and future kids will be doing far more frequently.

Sometimes remembering things isn't as easy as we'd like, and sometimes it'd be nice to be able to conveniently forget some memories. Plenty of folks are researching how memory works, but it's still a pretty big mystery exactly how our brains store so much information -- and which information to forget. Here are just a few interesting links on making (and un-making) some memories.

• People with superior autobiographical memory can remember an amazing amount, but they're not savants, nor do they have photographic memories or use common memory tricks. Many of them also exhibit obsessive-compulsive tendencies, but researchers have only extensively studied about a dozen subjects with this ability so far. [url]
• Currently, implanting false memories in lab mice involves some combination of genetic engineering, boxes, electrical shocks, brain implants and drug injections, and these procedures aren't recommended for humans (yet). Ten points for re-writing that sentence as a Tom Swifty. [url]
• Erasing painful memories could be helpful for some people, but if reliable techniques are developed to make people forget certain events, what would people choose to remove? Therapeutic forgetting has some obvious benefits, but there could be unintended consequences for criminal trials and witness testimonies. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

There have been a few instances lately of various mass killings around the world (though certainly not all of them) where those responsible have either left strong hints via their online presence, or have even been pretty direct about their intentions. Of course, at the same time, you have stories like Paul Chambers', where a joke was over-inflated by some law enforcement officials to pretend that it was a threat. Ditto the story of Joe Lipari, who quoted a line from Fight Club on Facebook, and got arrested for his trouble.

So, I find it somewhat troubling that police in Canada seem to think that any threat online or off is a criminal offense. There's been an increase in people charged in Canada for merely making a threat, and some are reasonably concerned that many of those threats are idle chatter on social networks. The article seems to think that there's no good way of dealing with this other than to change the law so that online threats are treated differently than offline threats:

Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code says a person who knowingly utters, conveys or causes another person to receive a threat of death or bodily harm can receive a prison term of up to five years. A person who threatens to damage property, or kill or injure an animal, can receive a prison sentence of up to two years.

Cpl. De Jong said under the Criminal Code “a threat is a threat is a threat,” regardless of how it’s made.

But Bentley Doyle, of the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C., said some sort of distinction should be drawn between online threats and those made in person.

“The more specific you get, the easier it is to actually follow through and charge somebody specifically,” he said.

Of course, rather than separating out online and in-person speech, what's wrong with just looking at the details of the situation, and making a reasonable assessment as to whether the threat is legitimate or just someone saying something stupid? In the cases of Chambers and Lipari above, law enforcement should have quickly realized that neither individual was likely to do anything violent. But if someone is legitimately planning to shoot at a group of people and talking about it online, it seems that, at the very least, that could be worth investigating. The problem is criminalizing the statement, rather than using it as evidence to see if there's actually any real intent to follow through.

We've been writing about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement for a while now, so hopefully you're already aware and concerned about it. However, the good folks over at the EFF have now put together an infographic highlighting the problems of the TPP and what you can do about it. Check it out:

Sadly, we talk way too often about police arresting people for doing nothing other than taking a picture or filming them. The police officers being filmed and photographed make these arrests using various excuses, but frequently the charges get dropped for lack of merit. The reason charges rarely stick when an officer is filmed is because filming police, or anyone in a public space, is not illegal. Some people may not like it, but it is a fact.

The New York Times is waking up to this fact that photography is not a crime. In an interview with Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counselor for the National Press Photographers Association, they get down to the nitty gritty of the legalities surrounding this age old tradition. They also talk a bit about just why such arrests are happening more frequently.

Since 9/11, there’s been an incredible number of incidents where photographers are being interfered with and arrested for doing nothing other than taking pictures or recording video in public places.

It’s not just news photographers who should be concerned with this. I think every citizen should be concerned. Tourists taking pictures are being told by police, security guards and sometimes other citizens, “Sorry, you can’t take a picture here.” When asked why, they say, “Well, don’t you remember 9/11?”

I haven't really thought of criminalizing photography as something to do with 9/11 before. I know that a lot of our rights have been eroded since that day, but the photography aspect never really clicked until now. Just as Mickey can't make heads nor tails of this argument, I am struggling to find a connection here. I don't recall cameras being a part of the plots to destroy the Twin Towers, Pentagon or White House.

Of course there could be more reasons for this increase in arresting photographers. Mickey suspects that part of the reason is the proliferation of the camera. Pretty much everyone with a smart phone has a camera capable of taking some very high quality pictures. Prior to this boom, the police had some modicum of control over the press. They knew the press wasn't going to be everywhere and were used to not being under constant recordable surveillance by the public. Now that anyone could be filming them or taking their picture, they are more on edge and more prone to lashing out.

When this happens, it is important for those accused to know their rights. However, it is also important for the police to know the public's rights as well. While you, as a photographer, may know that you have the right to take pictures or film in a public space, some officers may not know or may have forgotten that fact. That is why the Mickey and others have been working with police to keep officers reminded of that right.

Q. After photographers were stopped from photographing the police clearing Occupy Wall Street protestors from Zuccotti Park, you and representatives of a media coalition including The Times, met with the police commissioner Ray Kelly. What happened at that meeting?

A. It was on Nov. 23. I asked the commissioner if he would reissue the “finest message” from 1999 that dealt with the police cooperating with the press. He did that. It was read at 10 consecutive roll calls in every single station house and precinct.

The finest message is a policy statement on police interactions with the press. It states that officers are not to interfere with videotaping and photographing in public places. It also reminds officers that they have an obligation to assist the press whenever possible. This is very similar to the recent news when the DC police chief laid down the law on filming of officers.

Hopefully, continually repeating this message will help slow down this barrage of arrests for photographing the police. As more officers are reminded of the rights of the cameras-wielding public, we will hopefully start to see fewer future incidents. It would be great if other police departments across the nation follow the lead of NY and DC police in proactively spreading the word about the rights of the public to record and photograph the police.

I'm still not convinced the FCC really has the mandate to put in place net neutrality rules, but even so, it's quite amazing to watch AT&T try to tap dance around them, while clearly violating both the spirit and the letter of the policies. The latest issue has to do with Apple's Facetime video chat. While earlier rumors that AT&T would charge for using the app proved untrue, it did announce that the app would only be available for those paying for a higher level of service (which may effectively be the same thing). The usual parties quickly raised a stink, highlighting how AT&T appears to be violating the rules: AT&T has now hit back, claiming that the complaints are "knee jerk" and they're not doing anything wrong.

As far as I can tell, AT&T's defense is two-fold:

1. It believes that there is a loophole in the net neutrality rules in that it does not apply to preloaded apps, and they can set whatever access rules for such apps that they want:

   The FCC’s net neutrality rules do not regulate the availability to customers of applications that are preloaded on phones. Indeed, the rules do not require that providers make available any preloaded apps. Rather, they address whether customers are able to download apps that compete with our voice or video telephony services.



2. It believes that as long as some other competing apps are available, they can restrict the apps they want to restrict.

   AT&T does not restrict customers from downloading any such lawful applications, and there are several video chat apps available in the various app stores serving particular operating systems. (I won’t name any of them for fear that I will be accused by these same groups of discriminating in favor of those apps. But just go to your app store on your device and type “video chat.”) Therefore, there is no net neutrality violation.

That's a very interesting interpretation of these things, but doesn't just create a loophole, it creates a giant vortex through which AT&T could restrict a huge number of apps just by pointing out that other such apps exist -- even if they're awful and no one uses them.

Of course, all of this is why we've argued for nearly a decade that the whole "net neutrality" fight is a red herring, anyway. The telcos are always going to find their own loopholes and ways around the rules (which they helped create anyway). The whole fight over net neutrality is not the problem. It's a symptom of the real problem: a lack of serious competition in the marketplace. Get more competitors out there, and increase the fight over customers, and AT&T can't get away with such moves.

As we were just talking about the appeals court ruling that isolated genes are still patentable, we will have to begin thinking about how such a ruling will impact our lives. Some groups have decided to go the property rights route to assign ownership of DNA. Others wring their hands over how this will impact medicine. But, now that testing for genetic markers in embryos is in vogue, we can finally ask "what about the children?"

The Telegraph put that question to Professor Julian Savulescu, expert in practical ethics at Oxford, and he states, unequivocally, that not only should the genetic testing of embryos for physical illnesses be allowed, but applying those same tests for behavioral genetic markers is mankind's ethical obligation. It should be noted that, currently, outside of a few accepted tests these screenings are illegal, but Savulescu thinks that needs to change.

"Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?" wrote Prof Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor in practical ethics. "So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice."

There is a word for this kind of mass-screening, one which you won't hear Savulescu utter, and it is called eugenics. The reason many advocates of this kind of screening won't use that word is because it long ago became associated with Nazi philosophy, even though (as you can read in the Wiki article) many other nations did and still do some flavor of eugenics. The United States, for example, has some jurisdictions where testing for diseases (mostly STDs) that could be passed along to children is a requirement prior to attaining a marriage license. Israel has a program called Dor Yeshorim that tests for a multitude of hereditary diseases like Tay-Sachs and Cystic fibrosis. In China, eugenics has taken a more prominent role, with the PRC's Marriage Law requiring a doctor's approval prior to marriage (harsher language against specific illnesses found in previous iterations of the law have been removed over the years).

But what is different about Savulescu's argument is that we are no longer talking about genetic illnesses in the traditional sense, but instead behavioral genetic markers.

"Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children. They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others."

This seems to me to be a gross-oversimplification of the role genetics plays in behavior. While we can all spend the next few weeks in a long-form discussion of whether nature or nurture plays the predominant role in behavioral outcomes of children, I think few would disagree that both are aspects that do in fact play some role. And, while Savulescu seems to make his argument matter-of-factly, other bioethicists disagree. Predictably, many of these criticisms focus on Nazi eugenics to extrapolate the entire field, but not all of them.

Biologists, for instance, point to what occurs in small, isolated populations (i.e. the Dodo bird) when a lack of genetic diversity leads directly to a species extinction. They then point out that the combination of allowing for "designer babies" based on widely accepted culturally preferred traits and the perhaps inevitable monoculture that would result would breed a scenario in which mankind was ripe for massive exposure to a single disease.

Add to all of this the potential for inherent socio-economic lines to be drawn in the sand in terms of health, between those that can afford the testing for what are now patentable isolated genes and those that cannot, and you can see where potential abuse and negative consequences loom around every corner.

That said, I refuse to take a luddite approach to genetic testing in general, or even eugenics as a whole. I admit that I write this entire piece without fully understanding where I stand on the issue, aside from what I think is the rather common sense position of advocating caution. Instead, I open the topic to you, the reader, for the comments section.

We've written many times about the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), of which there is a secret interpretation that certainly appears to allow the NSA to spy on all sorts of email communications without a warrant -- something that is not at all obvious upfront (and, in fact, which many in Congress apparently do not know about). While Senators Wyden and Udall have been working hard to try to force the government to reveal either the secret interpretation or how many Americans have been spied on, the rest of Congress appears to not want to know, while rubber stamping the renewals to let the effort continue.

There have been some questions about how all of this came about, and just why law enforcement officials keep insisting the FAA is so vital. Julian Sanchez may have worked out some key details, and provides a very compelling explanation. Seven years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in the Brand X case (the same day the Grokster ruling came out), basically saying that cable networks did not qualify for "common carrier" status, because they were "information services" rather than telco services. The direct end result was that broadband providers no longer had to share lines with service providers. But, as Sanchez notes, there may have been an unrelated indirect impact: by removing the common carrier designation, the NSA may have lost its legal authority to "tap" live communications on such networks without a warrant. Sanchez explains the nitty gritty:

“If FISA’s reference to ‘common carrier’ were interpreted in accord with the Communications Act,” Kris and Wilson explain, explicitly citing the Brand X decision, “information (such as e-mail) being carried on a cable owned and offered by a cable modem service provider would not be a ‘wire communication’ under FISA, and acquisition of such information would not be ‘electronic surveillance’ under” the definition that applies to traditional phone calls.

Sanchez provides a lot more detail, which is worth reading in full, because it's quite complex. However, it suggests that the Bush administration's focus on "deregulating" cable may have undercut the NSA's "spy on everyone" program through a simple definition change. The FAA, then, was put in place (partly) to once again enable the NSA to get access to a bunch of live communications legally, whereas it's quite possible that the FISA court had found, in light of Brand X, that the efforts had been against the law. Now, you can argue that the change due to the Brand X decision is no big deal, because it was just clarifying some rules, and dealing with antiquated language in the statute. But, again, since so much of this happened in secret, if Sanchez's story is accurate, it more or less allowed the government to write very broad rules, such as those now allowing such broad surveillance.

So the FISA Amendments Act allows the government to target foreigners and capture conversations with Americans — with no warrant required, so long as they aren’t actually trying to wiretap the American via a technical loophole.

But if the government’s problem is an inability to reliably determine the location of parties to a communication, it’s not clear why we should be confident that interception under this broad new authority can reliably avoid acquiring many purely domestic communications. Even if it can, blanket authority to acquire the international communications of Americans — with no requirement that the foreign side of the conversation be suspected of any connection to terrorism or espionage‹seems like an incredibly broad way of addressing the issue.

Perhaps Kris and Wilson are correct that a narrower solution to the problem would have been unworkable. On the other hand, perhaps legislators would have tried a bit harder to craft a viable narrow solution if they, and the general public, had clearly understood exactly what the problem was.

Sanchez goes on to point out that if this story is accurate, and if the FISA court had basically upended the feds' spying program becuase of some definitional issues, a more reasonable and transparent approach would simply be to work together with lawmakers and civil liberties experts to actually focus in on the specific problem. Instead, it appears they may have used this loophole to massively expand spying capabilities, with no public oversight at all.

Every time a major player in the content industry does something obtuse or flat-out malevolent in an effort to preserve whatever "market share" or "positioning" it feels is more important than actually serving customers the way they prefer to be served, the discussion turns to the benefits of piracy. Pirated content is usually free of DRM, regional restrictions, limited installs, etc. Why is it free of this? Because piracy is efficient. Not needing to serve hundreds of masters with licensing/royalty fiefdoms, pirated goods are streamlined to deliver what potential customers actually want: content. The price is just icing on the cake.

Whenever this pro-piracy argument is broached, usually in the form of "This is why I pirate," or "Pirated x doesn't have this problem," it is responded to with shocked gasps of "I can't believe you feel entitled to just take something if it's not available/at the right price point/otherwise nonexistent." The person pushing this take generally starts telling those talking up piracy that they could "just go without." To do otherwise means the commenter (or post author) is nothing more than a child with an outsized sense of entitlement.

Here's a stellar example, as provided by TD resident sideshow, bob:

Let me get this straight. I can write an open letter asking the food companies to do better on calories/taste/freshness/whatever and until they do, I'll feel free to just shoplift whatever I want. They need to earn my money.

Maybe the editors of Maxim or Playboy could write an open letter asking the women to "do better" at satisfying them and until then, they'll act like rakes or cads.

Or maybe I can just write an open letter to cancer and ask cancer to do better or else I'll refuse to die. Yeah. That will work.

So I can just write my own open letter and ask Bobbi Smith to "do better" and cough up more cash for my work. After all, that's the mechanism that's supposed to work. It's like a magic wand, only with text.

What is fascinating is that there's little acknowledgement that there are living, breathing humans on the other side of the transaction. There's no acknowledgement that the creators need to eat, pay the rent, and purchase health insurance. Nope. It's all a focus on the consumer who is supposedly allowed to simply stamp his/her feet and if the hard working creators don't snap to it, the consumer will feel free to simply take it. Wow, that's a model of one spoiled brat.

Well, of course they could "go without." Everyone has that option. Do without. That's the "honorable" way.

But let's look at this in a more realistic way. What exactly does "doing without" do for the content creator? How does "not purchasing" (or not having the option to purchase) the disputed content do anything for the creators? Because the bottom line in both scenarios is that $0 has made its way from the potential customers to the people desiring the income.

If everyone just "does without," how does this improve the situation for either the content creator or the customers? Once you've taken the piracy out of it, all you've got left is a set of lousy options that do nothing for everyone involved. If rights holders are happier merely saddling up their high horse and riding to the nearest moral peak, so be it. Riding that horse won't make you any richer, though. All it does is further separate you from your potential income.

A bit of the old infringement, on the other hand, gets your work into the eyes, ears, brains, etc. of potential customers. Sure, not all of them would buy if they had the chance, but at least in this scenario, you're building a bit of a fanbase that may decide to reward you whenever the distributor finally pulls their head out of their legacy and starts meeting customers, at minimum, halfway.

Then there's the infringement itself. It takes many forms. Some of it is just watching uploads on YouTube. I've caught some BBC series I can't purchase here in the US via the 'Tube. Or there are shadier streaming sites that serve a ton of ads along with even rarer uploaded video or stuff YouTube has content-matched right off its servers.

Streaming video is infringement? (Or was, pre-Posner.) Or somehow morally wrong? That's a position I can't even fathom. I realize that ad revenue or DVD sales are "lost" when this happens but I have a hard time believing a temporary video stream represents a true loss to the creators. It's not as though it's residing on my hard drive and being transported to and fro by portable devices. It's not a replacement for an actual product I can use in a more versatile fashion.

To me, streaming video is about as "infringing" as going over to a friend's house to watch their TV. True, the internet gives me a bigger selection of "friends" and a bottomless DVD selection. Other than that, when I'm done with the stream I "leave my friend's house" and the "DVD" stays with "him." If I want to watch it again, I can't do it from my TV. I have to visit him again.

Even if it does somehow do "irreparable damage" to the rights holders, what's stopping them from just erecting a streaming site of their own? Or at least something much better than what exists now in various crippled forms? The attempts to shut these sites down seem to indicate that massive amounts of potential earnings are being siphoned away. If so, why put up with it? Build your own and collect the ad revenue, just like the operators of these sites do.

Oh, now you say ad revenue is minimal and unsustainable? If the content industries do it, it has to be gated and pre-paid because no one can make a living on ad revenue. If the helpful pirates do it, they need to be shut down because they're profiting off the backs of the creative industry. Which is it? No money or plenty of money? My guess is: not enough money. Ad-supported streaming sites can't match the licensing fees these companies can extract from other services. So we're right back where we started: money being left on the table.

How about all these file lockers that are such a threat to the American Way of Life™ that we need to send the combined forces of the local SWAT team and FBI in order to show that We Are Indeed Serious About Pirates? Aren't they making a killing? Christ, look at Dotcom. Virtually swimming in opulence and personal tanks. He's a multi-millionaire. Do what he does. Throw all your stuff onto some servers, get the links passed around the internet, sell faster access for monthly rates and start re-living the life you always thought you'd be living.

Can't figure out how to do any of the above without dealing with a nightmarish tangle of royalties, licensing and release windows? Don't look at me. I never thought any of those things were good ideas. Here's a suggestion: create a blanket licensing group for this new venture a la ASCAP. Dump it all into a big pool and trickle the monies down on the usual suspects. Or, you know, go one better and use all this precise info you'll be gathering to actually pay the creators appropriately.

I don't know what's more annoying: the moral ground cowboys who would rather the creators made no money than fix their broken delivery systems or the industry "titans" who are constantly being outdone by any techie who can set up a decent file locker.

Bottom line: the real entitlement belongs to industries that feel the public should be grateful for whatever half-assed digital "services" they throw our way. Honestly, if you'd rather get piracy shut down completely (will never happen) just so the only other option is "do without," you'll have accomplished nothing more than swapping out your high horseshoes for platform boots. $0 is still $0, no matter how "honestly" this big pile of nothing is "acquired."

P.S. This argument also bugs me: "X is an asshole so I'm going to pirate the shit out him." Really? I don't know how someone can argue "piracy's effect is overstated" or "piracy is a convenient scapegoat for the content industries" and then make a grand statement that you're going to punish someone by doing something ineffectual, only ANGRIER. Vindictive piracy makes absolutely no sense.

While we've written plenty about the US Justice Department and US Homeland Security (via ICE) seizing various websites on questionable legal authority by claiming they were tools used for criminal copyright infringement, a series of pretty massive screwups seemed to have them, at least temporarily, shying away from such seizures around copyright claims. Huge errors like seizing Dajaz1 for over a year and then having to admit they had no evidence and give it back seemed to at least make them a little less cowboyish about the websites they chose to shut down and censor.

But, of course, this is the federal government we're talking about, and they sure loved the ability to shut down speech without any sort of adversarial hearing or, you know, due process. So you just knew it wouldn't last. The latest is that the feds have seized three more domains (applanet.net, appbucket.net and snappzmarket.com), claiming that they were "engaged in the illegal distribution of copies of copyrighted Android cell phone apps." Indeed, a quick look at the internet archive certainly suggests that these sites advertised that you could get "paid" apps for free if you joined. But does that warrant a criminal investigation and seizure? Perhaps there are more details, but given the sketchy details of earlier seizures, I'd wonder.

But, more to the point, if these sites were really engaged in such things, why wouldn't a civil copyright infringement lawsuit suffice? Why should the government get involved, when it involves completely pulling down a website with no warning, no adversarial hearing and no due process for those accused?

The Justice Department seems to indicate that this sort of thing is now a "top priority," because (apparently) they have way too much free time on their hands:

“Cracking down on piracy of copyrighted works – including popular apps – is a top priority of the Criminal Division,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “Software apps have become an increasingly essential part of our nation’s economy and creative culture, and the Criminal Division is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to protect the creators of these apps and other forms of intellectual property from those who seek to steal it.”

“Criminal copyright laws apply to apps for cell phones and tablets, just as they do to other software, music and writings. These laws protect and encourage the hard work and ingenuity of software developers entering this growing and important part of our economy. We will continue to seize and shut down websites that market pirated apps, and to pursue those responsible for criminal charges if appropriate,” said U.S. Attorney Yates.

“The theft of intellectual property, particularly within the cyber arena, is a growing problem and one that cannot be ignored by the U.S government’s law enforcement community. These thefts cost companies millions of dollars and can even inhibit the development and implementation of new ideas and applications. The FBI, in working with its various corporate and government partners, is not only committed to combating such thefts but is well poised to coordinate with the many jurisdictions that are impacted by such activities,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Lamkin.

One other tidbit of interest. Unlike the previous seizure disasters, this one appears not to have been led by ICE, but directly by the Justice Department (via the FBI). The announcement doesn't name this as a part of "Operation in our Sites" which seems to be a term specific to ICE's controversial program. Either way, they're still certainly using the eagle-heavy "seized" graphic they love to throw around, so, of course, we'd be remiss if we did not remind folks that they can purchase their very own "seized tee," to show what you think of the government's efforts.

A few years ago, we wrote about a horrifying ruling in which a blogger who was sued for libel was told he had to pay $60,000, even though it was shown that what he had said was entirely truthful. It's an oft-repeated statement that truth is an absolute defense against defamation claims, but in this case, things got weird (and troubling). The ruling found that even though the statements were truthful, they represented "tortious interference" with employment. The case involved a blogger named John Hoff who blogged, truthfully, about Jerry Moore's involvement in a high-profile mortgage fraud situation. Moore had been hired by the University of Minnesota, but was apparently let go soon after Hoff's post. It seemed absolutely ridiculous that providing truthful information about someone should ever be seen as illegal, but that seemed to be the case here. The original ruling was a jury verdict and we had hoped that the court would set aside that verdict, but it chose not to, going against a rather large collection of case law (and common sense).

Thankfully, Hoff appealed, and the appeals court has now reversed the original ruling. The appeals court made the point clearly and concisely:

Because truth is an absolute defense to a claim for defamation, truth should also be a defense to a claim for tortious interference with a contract arising out of an allegedly defamatory statement.

The court goes into much more detail over its decision to reverse and send it back to the lower court, but it all comes back to the basics. If the content is truthful, then there's no issue:

Moore argues that Hoff is not shielded from tort liability simply because Moore could not prove the falsity of Hoff’s statement. Rather, Moore urges us to rely instead on Hoff’s motivation for making the allegedly defamatory statements. Moore asserts that because Hoff had an ulterior motive of getting Moore fired, he can be liable for the tortious-interference claims. We disagree.

When a person conveys unflattering and possibly damaging information to another person’s employer, it is unlikely that the motivation for conveying that information is borne out of affection. It is much more likely that the intent is for the employer to take responsive action -- up to and including termination -- based on the content of that information. Regardless of the motivation of the messenger, if the information conveyed is true, it is not appropriate for liability to attach.

It's good that the courts seem to have fixed the earlier decision, but it's still crazy that it even got this far.

It's one thing for governments to make use of license plate scanning equipment to catalog what cars are crossing their borders. But it takes it to a whole different level to then share that data with insurance firms. However, it appears that's exactly what the US government is doing. A Freedom of Information Act request by privacy group EPIC, discovered that US Customs (part of Homeland Security) is sharing license plate scans with the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), which is actually an organization made up of just about every insurance company.

The reasons for such sharing of info may appear to be noble. It's technically to try to spot stolen vehicles.

The purpose of furnishing LPR information is to verify that vehicles departing from and arriving into the United States are not stolen vehicles. NICB has access to unique information regarding stolen vehicles, as well as the means of exchanging information regarding stolen vehicles with member insurance company Special Investigative Units and Federal and State law enforcement authorities.

The memorandum of understanding insists that the data can only be used for these purposes, but it's unclear if there's any real way to police that, and it certainly means that the uses by NICB are not subject to a FOIA request, since they're not a part of the government. The only "remedy" presented for a firm that uses the information otherwise is to be stricken from the "shared" list. There are also some concerns that even the sharing of the info may be in violation of existing laws.

While some schools and teachers are looking for ways to make education, and especially textbooks, cheaper for students, others seem bent on doing everything possible to keep prices artificially high. Because colleges essentially have the textbook market cornered, they can require students to purchase just about anything in order to bring in more revenue. Unfortunately for the students, this can mean increased costs and and annoyance with the process itself.

Enter Luke Thomas, who had a very annoying textbook situation in an English class. All Luke and his wife wanted to do was take an English class together. They figured that they could get by with a single textbook between the two of them, but things in college are never that easy. You see, the professor for their class required a specific book, which he had authored, as well as an one time use access code to an online discussion board. However, the only way to get that code was to buy a brand new textbook.

My wife and I were taking that same class, and we were unable to purchase an access code without purchasing two copies of the book, which was very upsetting. I asked the individuals working at the bookstore if they sold unbundled copies of the access code, and to my dismay, they did not.

Because buying two books for two people who lived together and took the class together was a pointless endeavor, Luke decided to take matters into his own hands. He contacted the service provider of the discussion board and was able to buy the code directly through them for $20 plus shipping. Yes, the code had to be physically shipped to him. Of course, this was an option that neither the professor nor the book store offered him to begin with.

As a former college student in this internet connected world, I am also aware of such shady textbook deals. One Trigonometry class I took required the purchase of a $75 access code to the online textbook and quizzes. While my course wasn't tied to a physical book, it did limit the end of semester cash that most students are used to getting as they sell off their books -- something that schemes like this do not allow.

Of course Luke didn't let it end with him just buying his code and getting through the course. He also spoke to the head of the bookstore as well as researched the law behind such bundles. What he found was a treat for any school or professor that would attempt to do something like this in the future:

After researching this issue, there’s a federal law which requires the unbundling of textbooks. How often is this law enforced? I have no idea…

UNBUNDLING OF COLLEGE TEXTBOOKS FROM SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS.—A publisher that sells a college textbook and any supplemental material accompanying such college textbook as a single bundle shall also make available the college textbook and each supplemental material as separate and unbundled items, each separately priced.

Wow! Wouldn't that be something to bring up to that professor and his supervisors? That is, if they will actually listen. However, there is also another path that might serve a student in getting a quick resolution to the matter of being forced to buy a new book to get such online materials: patent law. Perhaps this professor is unaware that his method of forcing students to buy a new book and prevent sharing has been patented. Wouldn't that patent showdown be a joy to watch unfold?

Lucky for us, there are plenty of people out there looking after the plight of the poor college student. Luke takes the time to highlight a few notables out there.

It looks like there’s light at the end of the tunnel, companies like Boundless Learning, Lore, and the plethora of ed-tech startups are seeking to disrupt these greedy giants. Go get em guys!

With all the attention that high college tuition prices get in the media, one would think that the textbook industry would be a prime target for an area to reduce the cost of an education for students. Sadly, the textbook industry gets a pass by most budget hawks as they tend to focus the majority of their attention on the sticker price of college. If they would expand their focus they could probably see a lot of room for improvement in additional costs outside tuition. Until then, good luck paying for all those books you may or may not need.

It's no secret that it's possible to "buy" Twitter followers. This has always seemed to be a particularly pointless activity, but apparently it's common among some people who seem to feel the size of their Twitter following means something. That said, according to a Saudi Cleric, such activity is an out and out "sin" (hat tip to Will for sending over this story)

Senior scholar Sheikh Abdullah told Saudi online news site Sabq that it was “a lie and slander” to pay money to companies to create Twitter followers – thought to be a common practice among celebrities and religious figures in the kingdom.

Another person quoted in the same article, a Saudi clinical psychologist, suggested that such practices go beyond even ethical questions. According to Dr. Talal Thaqafi: "a person who pays money for the sake of increasing the number of followers has a weak and disturbed personality, and is unable to achieve that feat by any other means."

I'm just marveling that such a topic even warrants such scrutiny, but it is a sign of the pervasiveness of Twitter these days.