<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;activists&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:48:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>States Continue To Make Photographing Or Taping Farms A Crime</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130410/01513722653/states-continue-to-make-photographing-taping-farms-crime.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130410/01513722653/states-continue-to-make-photographing-taping-farms-crime.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over two years ago, we wrote about an absolutely insane proposal in Florida that sought to make it a felony to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110226/12463213279/new-legislation-to-protect-farmer-ip-would-make-it-felony-to-photograph-farms.shtml">photograph farms</a> without permission.  The bill tried to position it as "protecting farm intellectual property," but everyone knew the real reason: farmers were upset about animal rights activists photographing and videotaping animal cruelty and revealing it to the world.   We hadn't heard much more about that until just recently.  A month and a half ago, <i>On the Media</i> had a segment about how these kinds of bills were <a href="http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/mar/01/states-consider-so-called-ag-gag-bills/" target="_blank">showing up in more states</a>, and now the NY Times has done a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/us/taping-of-farm-cruelty-is-becoming-the-crime.html?hp&#038;_r=1&#038;pagewanted=all&#038;" target="_blank">big article on how these "ag-gag" laws are being pushed</a> by lobbyists heavily influenced by big farm groups.
<br /><br />
It appears that the positioning of these bills has moved away from "protecting farmer IP" and over to claiming that animal rights activists are involved in <i>terrorism</i> for exposing animal cruelty.  Now, we certainly believe that some animal rights groups go <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130306/16443022231/peta-goes-after-assassins-creed-its-depiction-whaling-ubisoft-responds-with-heaping-dose-sarcasm.shtml">way overboard</a> in their campaigns, though they often just make themselves look silly when they do so.  But these laws just seem crazy, and a clear restriction on First Amendment rights.
<blockquote><i>
But a dozen or so state legislatures have had a different reaction: They proposed or enacted bills that would make it illegal to covertly videotape livestock farms, or apply for a job at one without disclosing ties to animal rights groups. They have also drafted measures to require such videos to be given to the authorities almost immediately, which activists say would thwart any meaningful undercover investigation of large factory farms.
</i></blockquote>
ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council), a group famous for writing legislation for members of Congress, has a "draft bill" along these lines, which argues that the effort is to prevent attempts to use images and video to "defame the facility or its owner."  That's insulting.  First off, we already have defamation laws.  If farm owners are defamed, let them use those laws.  Second, truth is an absolute defense to defamation, and if they're taking a picture that accurately represents what's going on, it's difficult to see how that could, in any way, be any form of defamation.  Third, and most importantly, just because one <i>might</i> use some tactic to defame someone (even if it's highly unlikely) that's no excuse, at all, for seeking to ban the activity entirely.
<br /><br />
In the end, it's legal efforts like this that make people especially cynical about the political process.  It's pretty clear that there's no <i>good</i> reason for such laws.  Rather, the entire purpose is to protect some farmers who don't want their practices exposed.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130410/01513722653/states-continue-to-make-photographing-taping-farms-crime.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130410/01513722653/states-continue-to-make-photographing-taping-farms-crime.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130410/01513722653/states-continue-to-make-photographing-taping-farms-crime.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>because-farmers</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130410/01513722653</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Apr 2013 04:51:17 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Homeland Security 'Fusion' Center Director: We're Not Spying On Americans... Just Anti-Government Americans</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130402/02150622543/homeland-security-fusion-center-director-were-not-spying-americans-just-anti-government-americans.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130402/02150622543/homeland-security-fusion-center-director-were-not-spying-americans-just-anti-government-americans.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall that, last fall, a Congressional investigation completely <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121002/22020120576/congressional-investigation-slams-dhs-anti-terror-centers-wasted-taxpayer-funds-created-no-useful-intelligence-violated-civil.shtml">slammed</a> Homeland Security's "Fusion Centers" -- noting that despite DHS insisting that they were critical to "fighting terrorism," the actual evidence showed that they had done nothing helpful in the fight against terrorism, but were instead chock full of wasteful (possibly fraudulent) spending... and with an added dose of civil liberties violations (just for fun).
<br /><br />
Apparently, the Fusion Centers are trying to rehabilitate their own image, but they might want to send their officials to press training a bit more before sending them out into the wild.  <a href="http://reason.com/24-7/2013/04/01/fusion-centers-spy-on-anti-government-am" target="_blank">Reason</a> alerts us to an interview that the director of the Arkansas State Fusion Center <a href="http://nwahomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=415892" target="_blank">did with some local TV stations</a> in which he appears to completely contradict himself -- first arguing that the Fusion Centers don't spy on Americans... and then saying they spy on "anti-government" Americans.  First, there was this:
<blockquote><i>
"There's misconceptions on what fusion centers are," he says. "The misconceptions are that we are conducting spying operations on US citizens, which is of course not the fact. <b>That is absolutely not what we do</b>."
</i></blockquote>
Okay then.  We've established won't you don't do.  So, tell us, what <i>do</i> you do?
<blockquote><i>
Davis says Arkansas hasn't collected much information about international plots, but they do focus on groups closer to home.
<br /><br />
"We focus a little more on that, domestic terrorism and certain groups that are anti-government," he says. "We want to kind of take a look at that and receive that information."
</i></blockquote>
Okay, hold on a second here.  It would seem that his first statement is completely proven untrue by that second statement.  Unless he's arguing that if someone classifies you as "anti-government" then you're no longer a US citizen, which would be a rather unique (and wrong) interpretation of the Constitution.
<br /><br />
Elsewhere in the article, Davis defends what he does by playing the patriotism card, in which he can't actually explain what good he's doing, but just the fact that he's "doing something" after 9/11 is important.
<blockquote><i>
"I do what I do because of what happened on 9/11," Davis says. "There's this urge and this feeling inside that you want to do something, and this is a perfect opportunity for me." 
</i></blockquote>
This line of argument is such ridiculously lazy and dangerous thinking.  People who feel they need to "do something!" without caring as to what that something is or (more importantly) if it actually helps (or hurts) are not doing anyone any favors.  They're just bound to cause more trouble.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130402/02150622543/homeland-security-fusion-center-director-were-not-spying-americans-just-anti-government-americans.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130402/02150622543/homeland-security-fusion-center-director-were-not-spying-americans-just-anti-government-americans.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130402/02150622543/homeland-security-fusion-center-director-were-not-spying-americans-just-anti-government-americans.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>uh-that's-not-how-this-works</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130402/02150622543</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 03:06:26 PST</pubDate>
<title>EU's Advisor On Supporting Net Activists Previously Forced From German Government...By Net Activists</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/11022617048/eus-adviser-supporting-net-activists-previously-forced-german-governmentby-net-activists.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/11022617048/eus-adviser-supporting-net-activists-previously-forced-german-governmentby-net-activists.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>The Vice President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda for Europe, Neelie Kroes, recently made quite a stir when she dubbed copyright "<a href=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111121/07305616860/eu-commissioner-kroes-copyright-is-tool-to-punish-withhold-new-business-models-not-more-enforcement-needed.shtml>a tool to punish and withhold</a>".  Now she's back with two major projects: a <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1524&#038;format=HTML&#038;aged=0&#038;language=EN&#038;guiLanguage=en">pan-European open data stategy</a> and the "<a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1525&#038;format=HTML&#038;aged=0&#038;language=EN&#038;guiLanguage=en">No Disconnect Strategy</a>":

<i><blockquote>European Commission Vice-President Neelie Kroes has invited Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, a former Federal Minister of Defence, and of Economics and Technology, in Germany, to advise on how to provide ongoing support to Internet users, bloggers and cyber-activists living under authoritarian regimes. This appointment forms a key element of a new "No Disconnect Strategy" to uphold the EU's commitment to ensure human rights and fundamental freedoms are respected both online and off-line, and that internet and other information and communication technology (ICT) can remain a driver of political freedom, democratic development and economic growth.</blockquote></i>

Of course, that's rather rich coming from a region where France already allows disconnections as punishments (HADOPI), and where the UK has legislation in place that will allow it to do the same (Digital Economy Act).  But it turns out that the ironies are even deeper.
</p><p>
The reason that Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg -- once seen as a likely successor to Germany's current Chancellor, Angela Merkel -- is no longer the Federal Minister of Defence, and of Economics and Technology, is that he resigned when it emerged that he had plagiarized significant parts of his doctorate.
</p><p>
After initial <a href=http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/17/us-germany-minister-plagiarism-idUSTRE71G6C720110217>denials</a>, Guttenberg was forced to admit the extent of his plagiarism thanks largely to a crowdsourced wiki called GutenPlag (<a href="http://de.guttenplag.wikia.com/wiki/GuttenPlag_Wiki">original German</a>) offering "collaborative documentation of plagiarism", which went through his thesis searching for passages taken from elsewhere without acknowledgement.   In total, it claims to have found "1218 plagiarized fragments from 135 sources, on 371 out of 393 pages (94.4%), in 10421 plagiarized lines (63.8%)."  There's even <a href="http://gut.greasingwheels.org/">an interactive, color-coded visualization</a> of what happened where.
</p><p>
Certainly, Guttenberg has been punished: as well as losing his position in the German government, he was also stripped of his doctorate.  But his appointment as (unpaid) advisor to the "No Disconnect Strategy" raises a question.  Is somebody whose downfall was mostly brought about by a website and its crowdsourced revelations really the right person to lead a project that aims to support online activists?
</p><p>
There is also the issue of Guttenberg's multiple copyright infringements.  This was investigated with a view to charges being brought, but then, as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg#Doctorate_plagiarism">Wikipedia explains</a>:  

<i><blockquote>In November 2011, the prosecution dropped the charges, having found 23 relevant copyright violations but only marginal economic damage. Guttenberg had to make a payment of 20,000 Euros to a charitable foundation, the court ruled.</blockquote></i>

In jurisdictions with extreme copyright laws, that "marginal economic damage" argument wouldn't be enough to protect those accused of infringement from prosecution or from being disconnected.  So again the question has to be: is Guttenberg really going to understand what "No Disconnect" means to human rights activists living under authoritarian regimes when he got off so lightly himself?
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/11022617048/eus-adviser-supporting-net-activists-previously-forced-german-governmentby-net-activists.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/11022617048/eus-adviser-supporting-net-activists-previously-forced-german-governmentby-net-activists.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/11022617048/eus-adviser-supporting-net-activists-previously-forced-german-governmentby-net-activists.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>really-the-right-person?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111212/11022617048</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:07:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Return To The Days Of Hoover's Enemy List? FBI Raiding Activists As Terrorists</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/23440114745/return-to-days-hoovers-enemy-list-fbi-raiding-activists-as-terrorists.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/23440114745/return-to-days-hoovers-enemy-list-fbi-raiding-activists-as-terrorists.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Back in the days of J. Edgar Hoover running the FBI and Senator Joseph McCarthy accusing all sorts of people of various "un-American" activities, you ran the risk of being accused of all sorts of things just for disagreeing with the government.  It seemed like those days were over, and I'd love to believe those days really are over, but <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=picklemonger">Pickle Monger</a> points us to the unfortunate news that the FBI has been <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/activists-cry-foul-over-fbi-probe/2011/06/09/AGPRskTH_story.html" target="_blank">raiding homes of various political activists</a>, claiming that it's part of a terrorism investigation. Many of the targets of the raids seem like unlikely "terrorists," as they include peace/anti-war activists and union organizers.  Whatever you think of their politics, we should certainly be worried when there's any sense that political viewpoints are getting wrapped up in any claims of a "terrorism" investigation.  It seems like it's so easy to abuse that word to go after anyone who law enforcement doesn't like.  You would hope that America would have learned from its past to avoid moves like this, so it's a shame to hear that it may still be ongoing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/23440114745/return-to-days-hoovers-enemy-list-fbi-raiding-activists-as-terrorists.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/23440114745/return-to-days-hoovers-enemy-list-fbi-raiding-activists-as-terrorists.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110619/23440114745/return-to-days-hoovers-enemy-list-fbi-raiding-activists-as-terrorists.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>shameful</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110619/23440114745</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:20:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>EFF And ACLU Sue FBI Over Seizure Of Activists' Computers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090114/2158173418.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090114/2158173418.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The EFF and the ACLU has filed yet another lawsuit against the government, highlighting another scary abuse of power that feels straight out of a police state, rather than the free society we supposedly live in.  Specifically, the FBI and other law enforcement officials <a href="http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/01/14" target="_new">raided the offices of two different activist organizations and seized all of their computers</a>.  There are two issues here that are important.  First, if the FBI was concerned about the computers being used in commission of a crime, they easily could have followed the same policies used to get records off of computers at libraries (part of the issue is that these organizations offer public access computers to folks visiting their offices).  The second issue is that both organizations act as publishers, and <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000aa.html" target="_new">federal law</a> makes it clear that the government can't just seize computers of publishers except in extremely narrow circumstances.  So, in either circumstance, the Feds should not have seized the computers.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090114/2158173418.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090114/2158173418.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090114/2158173418.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>4th-amendment-anyone?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090114/2158173418</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:36:24 PST</pubDate>
<title>YouTube Suspends Egyptian Anti-Torture Activist's Account</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Lee</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071129/105357.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071129/105357.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ YouTube is catching a lot of flack for <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/egypt/story/0,,2217931,00.html">suspending the account</a> of an Egyptian activist who had captured evidence of police brutality on video and uploaded it to the site. YouTube&#39;s &quot;community guidelines&quot; state that <a href="http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines">&quot;graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed&quot;</a> on YouTube. Apparently, that includes graphic or gratuitous violence perpetrated by governments against innocent civilians. I have to say I don&#39;t understand why YouTube goes to so much trouble to censor &quot;objectionable&quot; content. If the goal is to keep such materials away from children, there are  effective ways to do that without censoring the material altogether. Flickr, for example, permits pornographic photographs to be uploaded to its site, but it restricts access to them in various ways that helps prevent children from inadvertently stumbling across them. YouTube should be able to implement a similar system. Instead of deleting objectionable content, it should flag it as objectionable. Objectionable content might not show up on the home page or in the default search results. It might also require clicking through a warning page before viewing it. But it&#39;s hard to see what purpose is served by deleting the content entirely. The content will be posted somewhere else, where someone else will derive advertising revenue from it. And in the process, YouTube is inadvertently giving the impression that it is helping oppressive governments squelch criticism of their regimes.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071129/105357.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071129/105357.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071129/105357.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>unintended-consequences</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071129/105357</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>