<?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;nyc&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 07:18:46 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NYPD Chief Ray Kelly And Mayor Bloomberg Still Think Privacy Is A Good Thing -- Just Not YOUR Privacy</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130508/18044323015/nypd-chief-ray-kelly-mayor-bloomberg-still-think-privacy-is-good-thing-just-not-your-privacy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130508/18044323015/nypd-chief-ray-kelly-mayor-bloomberg-still-think-privacy-is-good-thing-just-not-your-privacy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
When NYPD Chief Ray Kelly said "<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130428/18232822866/ny-police-chief-ray-kelly-says-boston-bombing-takes-privacy-off-table.shtml" target="_blank">privacy was off the table</a>" following the Boston bombing, we all knew this was a one-way "exchange." It was always going to be average citizens losing out on their privacy. The NYPD would remain unaffected and continue to operate the way it has for years: behind the <strike>thin</strike> thick blue line of opacity.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/08/why_is_ray_kellys_schedule_more_secret_than_president_obamas/" target="_blank">Salon's CJ Ciaramella takes a detailed look at the NYPD's track record on Freedom of Information requests</a>. The results are unsurprising. The public entities that demand the most from their constituents are often the most reluctant to give anything back.
<blockquote>
<i>The city&rsquo;s Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, who is running for mayor, recently released a <a href="http://pubadvocate.nyc.gov/foil/report" target="_blank">report</a> asserting that a third of all Freedom of Information records requests to the police department were ignored. The numbers are no surprise to journalists who cover the department, such as Leonard Levitt, a veteran cops reporter who now writes at <a href="http://nypdconfidential.com/" target="_blank">NYPD Confidential</a>.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>&ldquo;All I can tell you is that the NYPD does whatever it wants to regarding FOI requests,&rdquo; Levitt said. &ldquo;Which means they never turn anything over, at least not to me. The only time they did respond was after I got the NY Civil Liberties Union involved.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
Levitt's case isn't unique. Others have run into the same officious stonewalling and found it often takes a lawsuit (or the threat of one) to shake anything loose. All Levitt was looking for was Ray Kelly's daily calendar. The department cited "security reasons" when rejecting his request. By this logic, protecting Ray Kelly is more important than protecting the President of the United States, whose calendar is public.
<br /><br />
What isn't rejected outright is simply ignored. Those making the requests are left to decide whether the requested information is worth the time and expense of a lawsuit. The NYCLU has found itself in court time and time again in attempts to pry info loose from the NYPD's grip.
<br /><br />
Ciaramella had his own experience with the NYPD's FOI recalcitrance when he sought access to gun discharge reports that might shed some light on the "hail of gunfire" unleashed by the NYPD in the course of bringing down the Empire State Building shooter.
<blockquote>
<i>Back in October 2012, this reporter submitted a public records request for the discharge reports filed by NYPD officers over the previous year.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>I filed the public records request on Oct. 1. And then waited. On Jan. 11, I received this response:</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>In regard to your request, for all weapons discharge reports filled [sic] by officers between January 1, 2012 and September 26, 2012, I must deny access to these records on the basis of Public Officers Law section 87 (2)(g) and 87 (2)(e) as such records/information, if disclosed would reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, and or are intra-agency materials. Furthermore, these records are also exempt from disclosure as these records on the basis of Public Officers Law section 87 (2)(e) and Public Officers Law 87 (2)(a) in that such records consist of personell records of a Police Officer and are therefore exempt from disclosure under the provisions of Civil Rights Law section 50-a.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>Now, stop and consider this for a second. The NYPD said the public interest of how, when and why its officers use deadly force against the citizens it&rsquo;s sworn to protect is outweighed by the need to protect the privacy of those same officers. Not only that, the public interest was outweighed by the need to protect its investigative techniques.</i></blockquote>
This is par for the course and not unique to the NYPD. Police forces all over the nation (and the word, for that matter) are notorious for protecting their own. This insular attitude tends to result in the sort of ridiculous arguments detailed above. Protecting officers from public scrutiny <i>always</i> outweighs the public interest because it's the "home team" making the call.
<br /><br />
But this reflexive "cops-first" rejection of Ciaramella's request was particularly brash, seeing as it completely contradicted a previous judicial ruling.
<blockquote>
<i>A New York judge <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23shootings.html" target="_blank">ruled</a> two years ago &mdash; in response to a NYCLU lawsuit, naturally &mdash; that discharge reports are subject to disclosure, do not violate officers&rsquo; privacy and do not compromise the department&rsquo;s investigative techniques.</i></blockquote>
The NYPD at least tried a different tack with Ciaramella's next discharge report request, denying it because it was insufficiently descriptive of the files requested -- even though it was nearly identical to the previous filing.
<br /><br />
This is a systemic problem. FOI requests are ignored, rejected or put on the back burner until someone gets a lawyer involved. If any answer arrives, it's usually months or years down the road and, in many cases, redacted to the point of uselessness.
<br /><br />
New York's FOI problem goes all the way to the top. Bloomberg's office has spent significant amounts of time and money battling FOI requests as well.
<br /><br />
ProPublica's Sergio Hernandez <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/intern-vs-mayor-battle-bares-bloombergs-argument-for-secrecy" target="_blank">spent nearly two years trying to obtain emails related to the 2010 appointment of Cathie Black as School Chancellor</a>. (Black was a controversial pick who stepped into the position with no relevant experience after her predecessor suddenly resigned his post.)
<blockquote>
<i>When the <a href="http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/695715-cathie-black-emails" target="_blank">emails</a> were finally released last week, after a two-year legal battle, they <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/nyregion/e-mails-show-rush-to-quell-furor-over-cathleen-black.html" target="_blank">revealed a desperate public relations campaign</a> in which city officials tried to rally support from prominent women &mdash; including Oprah Winfrey, Gloria Steinem, Caroline Kennedy, and Bette Midler &mdash; to champion Black's appointment. (I'll admit: never in a million years did I expect my work to result in stories containing the sentence, "Ms. Winfrey couldn't be reached for comment.") In the end, the emails were amusing, slightly enlightening, but largely innocuous.</i></blockquote>
Hernandez points out that much has been made about the last-minute attempt to persuade female celebrities to show their support for the new chancellor, but much less ink has been spilled questioning why the city fought this request for so long, <a href="http://cerealcommas.com/?p=382" target="_blank">racking up a total of 180 staff hours and costs of over $25,000</a>.
<br /><br />
In the very limited defense of the NYPD, all FOI requests are funneled through a single office. This inefficient design can partially be blamed for the extensive delays. But it doesn't excuse the general attitude that citizens need to be an open book while those in charge continue to operate in near opacity. And the inequity keeps getting worse, according to Robert Freeman, executive director of the NY State Commission on Open Government.
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;I&rsquo;ve been here since 1974,&rdquo; Freeman said. &ldquo;The track record of the police department, particularly in the last decade, indicates in so many instances a failure to give effect to the spirit and letter of the freedom of information law."</i>
<br /><br />
<i>&ldquo;I look back at various mayoral administrations, and my feeling is that there was more of an intent to comply with the law in the era of Mayor [Ed] Koch than there has been since,&rdquo; Freeman continued. &ldquo;My sense has been that the downward slope began in Giuliani&rsquo;s administration.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
There's little hope of any immediate change. Entities like the two discussed are naturally resistant to transparency and sudden movement. The fact that the NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg have formed a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130430/19460622895/bloomberg-defends-stop-and-frisk-decries-critics-pointing-fingers-city-hall-pointing-fingers-nypd-headquarters.shtml" target="_blank">mutual admiration society</a> over the years indicates that it will remain "business as usual" until a mayor willing to stand up to the police department (and stand up <i>for</i> his constituents) is elected. The last two office holders have been more than happy to indulge the PD's excesses, all the while further isolating themselves from the demands of transparency laws and the people they're supposed to be serving.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130508/18044323015/nypd-chief-ray-kelly-mayor-bloomberg-still-think-privacy-is-good-thing-just-not-your-privacy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130508/18044323015/nypd-chief-ray-kelly-mayor-bloomberg-still-think-privacy-is-good-thing-just-not-your-privacy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130508/18044323015/nypd-chief-ray-kelly-mayor-bloomberg-still-think-privacy-is-good-thing-just-not-your-privacy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>reaching-hypocritical-mass</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130508/18044323015</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:07:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NYC Mayor Bloomberg Thinks Boston Bombing Renders The Constitution Obsolete</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130422/21100822804/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-thinks-boston-bombing-renders-constitution-obsolete.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130422/21100822804/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-thinks-boston-bombing-renders-constitution-obsolete.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>
Good news, everyone. The terrorists will win and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to help. Of course, his speech is all about <i>not</i> letting the terrorists win. <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/22/mayor-bloomberg-on-boston-bombing-our-la" target="_blank">But he's giving them exactly what they want</a>.
<br /><br />
The Boston Marathon bombing was bound to generate this sort of reaction. It's a forgone conclusion that a tragic event like this will lead to political grandstanding and expansions of policies and plans deleterious to privacy and individual freedom. It's been twisted to argue for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/11521022726/rep-steve-king-because-boston-bombing-may-have-been-done-immigrant-we-should-block-immigration-reform.shtml" target="_blank">harsher immigration policies</a> and held up as evidence that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130421/18080722793/rep-peter-king-mayor-bloomberg-agree-boston-bombing-shows-we-desperately-need-more-surveillance.shtml" target="_blank">surveillance efforts</a> need to be expanded.
<br /><br />
But Bloomberg sees something else, something much more malignant than more cameras and fewer immigrants. He sees this attack as an indication that our country <a href="http://politicker.com/2013/04/bloomberg-says-post-boston-interpretation-of-the-constitution-will-have-to-change/" target="_blank">has outgrown its founding principles and that we can't be truly "safe" without altering the fabric of the nation</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry,&rdquo; Mr. Bloomberg said during a press conference in Midtown. &ldquo;But we live in a complex word where you&rsquo;re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
You hear that, citizens? You have a "legitimate worry" and it's followed by a magnificent "but" that leads directly to a call to alter our current laws and the Constitution itself, in order to make us more "secure" than the "olden days." As these two are changed to Bloomberg's liking, I would imagine our "legitimate worries" will be slowly stripped of their legitimacy as Constitutional protections are altered to better fit today's (imagined) realities.
<br /><br />
Bloomberg also conjures up the 9/11 attacks to assist in his burial of these pesky formative documents from "olden days."
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,&rdquo; he said.</i></blockquote>
Yes, we know there are people who want to "take away our freedoms." The problem is that, increasingly, these people are politicians and legislators -- politicians and legislators who enact laws that enable agencies like the NSA and the DHS to strip away our rights. The terrorists? They only "take away our freedoms" if we let them. And people like Bloomberg seem more than willing to capitulate to the implied demand.
<br /><br />
Oh, but Bloomberg <i>is</i> worried that one aspect of the post-Boston bombing might result in curtailed rights. His one concern? That <i>we</i>, the people who "need" more "security" than rights, might take this recent attack to paint the Muslim religion as a hotbed of terrorism.
<blockquote>
&ldquo;<i>What we can't do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That&rsquo;s not true &hellip; That would let the terrorists win. That&rsquo;s what they want us to do.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
When we add this all up, this is what we get. Bloomberg is concerned about branding a certain religion as a terrorist breeding ground, something his police department <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml" target="_blank">has been doing for years</a>. That's what's troubling to Bloomberg: some sort of lazy racism taking root. Reconfiguring the Constitution to fit his conception of the modern age? Rewriting current laws and drafting new ones to meet an exaggerated threat? Curtailing freedom and privacy in the name of "security?" This doesn't phase Bloomberg at all.
<br /><br />
As Benjamin Franklin famously said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Bloomberg is in a hurry to give up your liberties. Many other politicians and legislators are more than willing to do the same. After all, these changes won't affect them nearly as much as they'll affect their constituents. But they'll be able to coattail-ride any foiled terrorist plots or relatively smooth post-attack investigations as "victories" and hold them up as "evidence" that they were right to carve up the Constitution in the name of safety and security.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130422/21100822804/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-thinks-boston-bombing-renders-constitution-obsolete.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130422/21100822804/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-thinks-boston-bombing-renders-constitution-obsolete.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130422/21100822804/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-thinks-boston-bombing-renders-constitution-obsolete.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>probably-need-to-hit-CTRL-Z-on-the-Amendments-to,-I-suppose</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130422/21100822804</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:49:51 PST</pubDate>
<title>NYC Artist Satirizes Law Enforcement Drone Program; Gets Book Thrown At Him By NYPD</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-artists-satirizes-law-enforcement-drone-program-gets-book-thrown-him-nypd.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-artists-satirizes-law-enforcement-drone-program-gets-book-thrown-him-nypd.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ If there&#39;s one thing authority figures hate, it&#39;s anything that goes counter to the narrative and/or puts their pet projects in an unfavorable light. A New York City artist is learning this the hard way after he and some friends took aim at the police department&#39;s drone program, <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/30/drones-invade-new-york-city">plastering the city with satirical ads touting the "safety" provided by the new eyes in the sky</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>On September 16, 29-year-old &ldquo;Essam&rdquo; and a group of friends blanketed lower Manhattan with posters designed to look like official New York Police Department signage. &ldquo;Drones: Protection When You Least Expect It,&rdquo; read the slogan below simple ideograms of families running from unmanned aerial vehicles. Essam and his team disguised themselves as employees of the outdoor advertising firm Van Wagner, which manages the advertising space on bus stations and kiosks throughout the city. All told, they swapped out about 100 ads.</i><br />
<br />
<i>&ldquo;We see this trend throughout history of military technology always coming to the civilian world,&rdquo; the Army veteran told Animal New York. He says his goal is for the conversation about domestic police use of drones &ldquo;to reach a mainstream level where we are talking about this at the dinner table.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
<center><img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/mVN03.jpg" style="width: 500px; height: 378px;" /></center>
<br />
Needless to say, the PD was highly unamused. <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/03/drone-poster-artist-arrested-nypd-does-n" target="_blank">Its "weeks-long manhunt" for the artist finally culminated in an arrest</a>... and a handful of trumped up charges.
<blockquote>
<i>Essam Attia, 29, was hit with 56 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument, grand larceny possession of stolen property and weapons possession after allegedly having an unloaded .22-caliber revolver under his bed at his Manhattan apartment when he was arrested early Wednesday.</i><br />
<br />
<i>He posted bail, which was set at $10,000 bond or $2,500 cash, and is due back in Manhattan Criminal Court on Dec. 3.</i></blockquote>
Attia hoped to generate some awareness and kickstart discussion about the increasing prevalence of law enforcement drone usage. Unfortunately, it looks as though the NYPD is only interested in providing its narrative, one that is free from criticism or transparency. It also seems to be particularly bad at actual "police work." Essam signed many of the posters with his artist signature ("ESSAM") and participated in a barely-anonymous interview and yet it took a "weeks-long manhunt" to track him dow.<br />
<br />
Calling his lookalike posters "forged" is stretching the truth to fit a hefty criminal charge, one that appears to have been levied solely out of spite. Perhaps if Essam had just placed his posters <i>over</i> the NYPD&#39;s, he wouldn&#39;t also be facing the grand larceny charge, but that&#39;s just quibbling over theoretical outcomes. The larger issue is the First Amendment. No one ever guaranteed free speech <i>without</i> consequences, but it does seem like this pursuit of an artist who honestly did nothing more than make more New Yorkers more aware of their PD&#39;s tactics has very little to do with bringing a criminal to justice, and everything to do with harshly shutting down criticism in order to deter further critiques of the NYPD.&nbsp;<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-artists-satirizes-law-enforcement-drone-program-gets-book-thrown-him-nypd.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-artists-satirizes-law-enforcement-drone-program-gets-book-thrown-him-nypd.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-artists-satirizes-law-enforcement-drone-program-gets-book-thrown-him-nypd.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>for-all-the-tough-talk,-the-skin-is-surprisingly-thin</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121205/21484221251</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:36:03 PST</pubDate>
<title>If You Eat Something, Say Something: DHS Sounds The Alarm On The 'Terrorist Implications' Of Food Trucks</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121111/18355921009/if-you-eat-something-say-something-dhs-sounds-alarm-terrorist-implications-food-trucks.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121111/18355921009/if-you-eat-something-say-something-dhs-sounds-alarm-terrorist-implications-food-trucks.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It&#39;s interesting (or maybe just kind of sad) that various government agencies see <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/18363620090/fbi-created-terrorist-plot-fails-to-produce-single-terrorist-does-plenty-damage-to-individual-liberties.shtml" target="_blank">possible terrorists</a> everywhere but rarely, if ever, catch one. Despite the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml" target="_blank">large number</a> of personnel being thrown at the problem (along with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110429/23582414094/homeland-security-doesnt-do-costbenefit-analysis-they-just-do-fear-bluster.shtml" target="_blank">lots of money</a>), actual terrorists seem to be in limited supply.<br />
<br />
But these agencies haven&#39;t let their lack of success temper their vision of a nation under constant imminent attack. Public Intelligence <a href="http://publicintelligence.net/fdny-food-trucks/" target="_blank">recently posted a Powerpoint presentation from the NYC fire department (FDNY)</a> discussing the unique safety issues mobile food trucks present. Along with some actual concerns (many food trucks use propane and/or gasoline-powered generators to cook; some *gasp* aren&#39;t properly licensed food vendors), the presenter decided to toss in some DHS speculation on yet another way terrorists might be killing us in the near future.<br />
<br />
That&#39;s right. Instead of serving up a quick hot meal, these food trucks will be serving up death, and lots of it!&nbsp;Under the heading "Terrorist Implications," the FDNY lists the exact reasons we should be concerned, most of which begin with the word "high."
<center>
<img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/HvUWr.png" style="width: 500px; height: 375px;" /></center>
While any terrorist organization worth its twisted ideology would do well to nail down as much of this list as possible, so would any vendor who wished to stay in business. The question is: how do you differentiate between the two? One answer might be to sort through the data collected by all the food truck terrorism incidents up to this point. (American&#39;s <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">fusion centers</a> would like to remind you that zero incidents only means we&#39;re <i>due</i>, rather than indicating a terrorist-free trend.)<br />
<br />
But there&#39;s more! The next slide continues to lay out the "Terrorism Implications," this time reminding first responders that food trucks have large quantities of deadly liquids (propane, gasoline) and are "easily concealed" (which I assume refers to the potential explosives, rather than the truck itself... but you can never be TOO sure). Also, food bombers will usually be in the proximity of "crowds" (gasp!) and "sidewalks" (wha...?).
<center>
<img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/GqGby.png" style="width: 500px; height: 375px;" /></center>
Dammit, now the terrorists have gone too far! It&#39;s one thing to blow up our crowds. It&#39;s quite another to ruthlessly attack our infrastructure, the very thing that keeps our precious crowds from milling about on the lawn and/or street!<br />
<br />
But (dear lord) there&#39;s even more! According to the DHS, food carts make "excellent surveillance platforms" because of all the "high" stuff they can park next to for long periods of time. (Has anyone considered knocking on the door and having a quick look around, especially during business hours?) And I&#39;m pretty sure they&#39;re <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/05/04/151967202/food-trucks-seek-that-mystical-spot" target="_blank">not allowed</a> to just park wherever they want for indefinite periods of time, at least not in New York City. There are 8 million laws in the Naked City, none of which are accommodating to the small businessman/woman "stealing" customers away from established restaurants paying exorbitant amounts per square foot every month.<br />
<br />
But beyond that, why go through the expense of constructing a food truck when you can just rent a U-Haul, fill it full of explosives and ram it into the nearest high-rise/government building? Unless the DHS figures these terrorists are in it for the long haul, suckering people in with weeks or months of delicious ethnic food before parking across the nearest heavily-trafficked sidewalk and blowing everything up in an explosion of propane and proprietary blends of herbs and spices.  Also, does it not occur to them that if you want to keep your terrorist activities hidden, it's probably not the smartest thing to set yourself up as a vehicle that people line up to <i>look inside?</i><br />
<br />
The DHS&#39; unfocused "terrorvision" continues to see a threat in every situation and the department seems to be busying itself crafting a response to every conceivable "threat." The problem with this "method" is that it turns any slight variation of "everyday activity" into something suspicious. The number of "terrorist implications" grows exponentially while the number of solutions remains the same. This Powerpoint is another example of good, old-fashioned fear mongering, utilizing public servants to spread the message.<br />
<br />
At no point does this presentation offer anything resembling preemptive action or deterrents. All it does is paint a picture of food trucks as potential threats before concluding with, of all things, common sense safety tips aimed at dealing with food truck fires. The final slide paints the picture in the clearest terms, letting the viewer know <i>exactly</i> whose agenda is being pushed:
<blockquote>
<i>Prepared by Lt. Timothy Carroll<br />
FDNY Center for Terrorism and Disaster Preparedness</i></blockquote>
The priorities are all screwed up. Terrorism is the first concern. Everything else is secondary. Considering this is an FDNY presentation, you&#39;d think that "Disaster Preparedness" would be the priority. After all, they are the first response. But instead that honor goes to the vague menace of terrorism, a constant battle with no winners and, for the most part, no combatants. Every day without a terrorist act is a "win" that perpetuates the "need" for more counter-terrorist "efforts."<br />
<br />
All that being said, the easiest way to tell that this "Center for Terrorism and Disaster Preparedness" is all bluster and FUD is to <a href="http://www.jpl112.be/scannen0009.jpg-for-web-normal-1308902039.jpg" target="_blank">take a look at its logo</a>. Yep: <a href="http://rtb.techdirt.com/products/seized-tee/#foxyshop_gallery[fs_gall]/0/" target="_blank">MF EAGLE</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121111/18355921009/if-you-eat-something-say-something-dhs-sounds-alarm-terrorist-implications-food-trucks.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121111/18355921009/if-you-eat-something-say-something-dhs-sounds-alarm-terrorist-implications-food-trucks.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121111/18355921009/if-you-eat-something-say-something-dhs-sounds-alarm-terrorist-implications-food-trucks.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>basically-any-form-of-transportation-is-a-threat----start-walking,-citizen</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121111/18355921009</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:33:52 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NYPD Spent Years Spying On Muslims, Generated Exactly Zero Leads</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We just wrote about yet another (in a long line) of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/18363620090/fbi-created-terrorist-plot-fails-to-produce-single-arrest-does-plenty-damage-to-individual-liberties.shtml">manufactured</a> terrorist plots, in which the FBI creates its own terrorist plot to arrest anyone who can be coaxed into going along for the ride, even if they had no interest or ability to push the plot forward on their own.  In that case, it was even more ridiculous, because they couldn't even find anyone willing to go along with the plot -- and the main "suspect" actually <i>alerted the FBI</i> to the informant who was trying to coax him into taking part in a plot (which didn't stop him from being arrested, even if the case was eventually dropped).
<br /><br />
Of course, the FBI is not alone in its incredibly ham-fisted anti-terrorism efforts in which the focus seems to be much more about someone's religious leanings, rather than any actual interest in creating terror.  The NY Police Department got plenty of attention for deciding to <a href="http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_8286/" target="_blank">build their own local versions</a> of the FBI and CIA to try to catch terrorists.  That link describes the NYPD as a sort of new "elite" intelligence agency, hiring people out of other intelligence agencies and then placing agents around the globe to try to beat the FBI and CIA at their own game.
<br /><br />
Back at home, apparently this included following on the FBI's tactic of assuming that "brown skin = terrorist."  As such, they've spent the past few years <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_21360607/nypd-muslim-spying-led-no-leads-terror-cases" target="_blank">spying on "Muslim neighbrhoods" throughout New York</a> (with help from the CIA), sending undercover agents and informants into Muslim groups and organizations:
<blockquote><i>
The Demographics Unit is at the heart of a police spying program, built with help from the CIA, which assembled databases on where Muslims lived, shopped, worked and prayed. Police infiltrated Muslim student groups, put informants in mosques, monitored sermons and catalogued every Muslim in New York who adopted new, Americanized surnames.
<br /><br />
Police hoped the Demographics Unit would serve as an early warning system for terrorism. And if police ever got a tip about, say, an Afghan terrorist in the city, they'd know where he was likely to rent a room, buy groceries and watch sports. 
</i></blockquote>
How useful has it been?  Apparently not at all.  <a href="http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/08/21/nypds-spying-program-not-a-single-lead/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nypds-spying-program-not-a-single-lead" target="_blank">Not a single lead has come out of the program</a>.  Not one. 
<br /><br />
I know this is a crazy thought, but perhaps violating the privacy of tons of people just because of the color of their skin or their religion, isn't the best (or even "a") way to stop terrorists.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/09094820113/nypd-spent-years-spying-muslims-generated-exactly-zero-leads.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>security-theater</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120821/09094820113</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:26:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Couple Arrested For Dancing On NYC Subway Platform</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/08455719645/couple-arrested-dancing-nyc-subway-platform.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/08455719645/couple-arrested-dancing-nyc-subway-platform.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Perhaps some day, if I manage to live long enough, somebody somewhere will be able to explain to me why the seemingly benign combination of dancing, cameras, and police tends to result in threats, beatdowns, and arrests. Recall a year ago when I had the privilege to write about protestors getting bodyslammed at the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110602/04271714524/do-little-dance-make-little-loveget-bodyslammed-tonight-jefferson-memorial.shtml">Jefferson Memorial</a> for the horrific crime of silently dancing on the premises? <br /><br />
Well, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=yakkowarner">Yakko Warner</a> writes in with the story of two nefarious characters, code named George Hess and Caroline Stern, who had the gall to dance on a New York City subway platform and <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/waltz_the_charge_officer_8jQ7kbvZwVhaU4PxNi917K#ixzz20DitOgl0">were taken to the ground and arrested for their trouble</a>. As that New York Post piece explains, the couple found themselves near a musician playing on steel drums: <blockquote><p><i>&ldquo;We were doing the Charleston,&rdquo; Stern said. That&rsquo;s when two police officers approached and pulled a &ldquo;Footloose.&rdquo;<br />&ldquo;They said, &lsquo;What are you doing?&rsquo; and we said, &lsquo;We&rsquo;re dancing,&rsquo; &rdquo; she recalled. &ldquo;And they said, &lsquo;You can&rsquo;t do that on the platform.&rsquo; &rdquo; <br /></i>
</p></blockquote><p>And so, as their training manuals surely instructed them to do, the officers demanded to see their IDs. Because they were dancing. Where someone was playing the drums. In the most cosmopolitan and culturally-rich city in America. In any case, when Hess could only produce a credit card (which had his name and photo on it), this happened:
<blockquote><p><i>"The officers ordered the couple to go with them &mdash; even though the credit card had the dentist&rsquo;s picture and signature. When Hess began trying to film the encounter, things got ugly, Stern said.&ldquo;We brought out the camera, and that&rsquo;s when they called backup,&rdquo; she said. &ldquo;That&rsquo;s when eight ninja cops came from out of nowhere.&rdquo;<br /></i>
</p></blockquote></p><p>The ninja cops then alledgedly tackled Hess to the floor, cuffed both of them, and detained the pair for twenty-three hours. The initial charge was apparently impeding the flow of traffic of what is reported to have been three other people on the platform. The police then added other charges, such as resisting arrest. </p><p>All charges were subsequently dropped when the paperwork was finally reviewed by the NYPD's Not Crazy Department. The couple are now suing in Manhattan courts, but maybe it's time a national memo went out to law enforcement agencies reminding them that dancing people with cameras don't necessarily need to be tackled?</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/08455719645/couple-arrested-dancing-nyc-subway-platform.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/08455719645/couple-arrested-dancing-nyc-subway-platform.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/08455719645/couple-arrested-dancing-nyc-subway-platform.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>waltz-the-problem-with-dancing?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120710/08455719645</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Standing In The Alpha-Beta Parking Lot....</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100614/1406149808/dailydirt-standing-alpha-beta-parking-lot.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100614/1406149808/dailydirt-standing-alpha-beta-parking-lot.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ City planning in the future might have to take into account some technologies that sound like science fiction from the 1960s. Probably no flying cars, but there could be autonomous vehicles and less sprawl. Owning a car might not even be practical. In any case, parking lots will likely be long gone, and here are just a few links on some interesting parking situations.

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/the_million_parking_space_AjkgazGpILpNDaRLPm1iyK" href="http://nyp.st/MbJLId">What goes well with a liveried chauffeur? Perhaps a parking spot that costs a million bucks.</a> The first parking spot in NYC listed for $1 million is in a private garage at 66 E. 11th St. [<a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/the_million_parking_space_AjkgazGpILpNDaRLPm1iyK">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/realestate/commercial/06park.html" href="http://nyti.ms/KsFqPx">One of the first automated parking garages opened in NYC in 2002 -- and it dropped a few cars before working out its bugs.</a> But now, car owners don't have to worry about parking attendants (like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Edson">Richard Edson</a>) taking cars out for joyrides... [<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/realestate/commercial/06park.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/38965/" href="http://bit.ly/K4NoyT">When cars can drive themselves, they'll just drop us off, circle the block and/or park themselves somewhere (hopefully in a good neighborhood).</a> They could also meet up with their other robot-car friends at the automated parking garage and waste time chatting about power converters.... [<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/38965/">url</a>]</li>

<li><b>To find some more bizarre/crazy stuff, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:426" href="http://bit.ly/rghIeN">check out some things that other StumbleUpon users have found.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:426">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100614/1406149808/dailydirt-standing-alpha-beta-parking-lot.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100614/1406149808/dailydirt-standing-alpha-beta-parking-lot.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100614/1406149808/dailydirt-standing-alpha-beta-parking-lot.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100614/1406149808</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 09:57:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Can You Understand How Technology Works Without Understanding Code?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120515/17215018932/can-you-understand-how-technology-works-without-understanding-code.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120515/17215018932/can-you-understand-how-technology-works-without-understanding-code.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's an interesting debate that's broken out in the tech world, kicked off by tech/coding superstar Jeff Atwood arguing that <a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/05/please-dont-learn-to-code.html" target="_blank">people shouldn't learn to code</a>.  He was mostly responding to an announcement by NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg that he <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/MikeBloomberg/status/154999795159805952" target="_blank">wanted to learn how to code</a>:
<center>
<a href="https://twitter.com/#!/MikeBloomberg/status/154999795159805952" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/OyXyK.png" alt="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" /></a>
</center>
Jeff found this to be a misuse of Bloomberg's skills:
<blockquote><i>
A noble gesture to garner the NYC tech community vote, for sure, but if the mayor of New York City actually needs to sling JavaScript code to do his job, something is deeply, horribly, terribly wrong with politics in the state of New York.
</i></blockquote>
He goes on to explain why he thinks this is a bad idea, even as he's a fan of programming himself.  I won't go through his full list of points.  You can read them on his site yourself, but it does feel like a lot of his complaint isn't so much about people learning to code, but the idea that people learning to code will mean more people coding for a living.  For example, there are these two points:
<ul>
<i>
<li>It assumes that adding naive, novice, not-even-sure-they-like-this-whole-programming-thing coders to the workforce is a net positive for the world. I guess that's true if you consider that <a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/07/nobody-hates-software-more-than-software-developers.html">one bad programmer can easily create two new jobs a year</a>. And for that matter, <a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2010/02/the-nonprogramming-programmer.html">most people who already call themselves programmers can't even code</a>, so please pardon my skepticism of the sentiment that "everyone can learn to code".<br /><br /></li>
<li>It implies that there's a thin, easily permeable membrane between learning to program and getting paid to program professionally. Just look at these new programmers who got offered jobs at an average salary of <b>$79k/year</b> after <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/10/dev-boot-camp-is-a-ruby-success/">attending a mere two and a half month bootcamp!</a> Maybe you too can <a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/04/teach-yourself-asp-net-2-0-in-23-hours.html">teach yourself Perl in 24 hours!</a> While I love that programming is an egalitarian field where degrees and certifications are irrelevant in the face of experience, you still gotta <a href="http://www.norvig.com/21-days.html">put in your ten thousand hours like the rest of us</a>.
</li></i>
</ul>
While I understand the points he's raising in both of these cases, it feels like he's taking the "everyone should learn to code" argument way beyond what is generally meant in that discussion.  I don't think anyone is saying that people should learn to code <i>for a living</i>.  Lots of people learn math, but don't become mathemeticians or even use math in their daily jobs -- but it doesn't mean it hurts to understand math.
<br /><br />
In fact, I think that Jeff recognizes this.  He notes that a better focus would be:
<blockquote><i>
The general populace (and its political leadership) could probably benefit most of all from a basic understanding of how computers, and the Internet, work. Being able to get around on the Internet is becoming a basic life skill, and we should be worried about fixing that first and most of all, before we start jumping all the way into code. 
</i></blockquote>
And that's something I think everyone agrees on.  It's just that some folks are suggesting that <i>the way</i> to better understand computers and the internet is if they have some familiarity with code.  And thus, I actually think that Jeff and those arguing against him, may actually be in agreement.  It's just that some people think that understanding code is a good way to understand computers and the internet.
<br /><br />
One of the better <a href="https://gist.github.com/0f61db65bbd2d2cb681a" target="_blank">responses to Jeff</a> points out that learning to code is different than preparing for a job as a coder.  As that post notes:
<blockquote><i>
Learning to program is not the same thing as training for a programming career. Learning new skills opens up new perceptual avenues and cognitive spaces. I'm learning to sew right now, not because the world needs another tailor but because I want to be able to recognize quality in clothing and create pieces that I can't find. Novice coders feel the same way about their digital goods and should be encouraged to continue. Learn to program.
</i></blockquote>
Perhaps where the major difference comes in is that Jeff believes that learning to code is not a stage in understanding computers and the internet, and he compares it to plumbing:
<blockquote><i>
I can also recognize plumbing problems when I see them without any particular training in the area.
</i></blockquote>
However, as esmoov writes in his response, Jeff may have just internalized what he has learned about plumbing:
<blockquote><i>
He may not have had formal training (the professional/personal equivocation again) but he has been trained by an unruly digestive movement, a low water tank and the horrible things 18-22 year-olds do to and around toilets. My dad showed me how to fix a broken chain in the tank. Before I learned that, toilets had three states: working, clogged and broken. After learning to fix the chain, I added a new state to which my toilet-perception could resolve: loose or broken chain. Again, the ability to take in, cut up and categorize the world is a product of the things learned.
</i></blockquote>
Indeed.  I don't think that learning the basics of programming solves all internet/technology illiteracy, but it certainly helps people to understand the lay of the land better.  It's not necessary, but it can help them better understand the problems and potential solutions when they come up -- even if they don't intend on programming themselves.  It can lead them to recognize, for example, how bizarre it might seem to copyright an API or patent software itself.  That's a concept that's a little harder to comprehend if you don't understand programming at all.  That isn't to say that understanding programming is completely necessary, but it certainly can help in getting people to a point of digital literacy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120515/17215018932/can-you-understand-how-technology-works-without-understanding-code.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120515/17215018932/can-you-understand-how-technology-works-without-understanding-code.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120515/17215018932/can-you-understand-how-technology-works-without-understanding-code.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yes-and-no</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120515/17215018932</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 3 Apr 2012 05:30:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>New York City Cooks Up Annoying Plan That Will Pressure NYC Businesses To Buy .nyc Domains They Don't Want Or Need</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120327/21132118266/new-york-city-cooks-up-annoying-plan-that-will-pressure-nyc-businesses-to-buy-nyc-domains-they-dont-want-need.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120327/21132118266/new-york-city-cooks-up-annoying-plan-that-will-pressure-nyc-businesses-to-buy-nyc-domains-they-dont-want-need.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ New York City officials are apparently all excited about a guaranteed <a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-new-york-promised-at-least-3.6-million-for-sale-of-.nyc-domain-names/" target="_blank">$3.6 million "risk free to taxpayers"</a> after signing a deal with a Virginia company to offer .nyc domains.  This is one of those things that sounds good until you think it through, and then you realize it's effectively a hidden business tax.  NYC gets to promote it as a way for more companies in NYC to have domains, and to identify themselves as NYC-based companies.  But for companies already based there, they now need to buy up these domains they don't want or need, just to keep others from buying them up.
<blockquote><i>
To businesses, which only need one website address, new domain names are often a tax they must pay to protect their brand. It&#8217;s as if someone printed an alternate copy of the White Pages and asked companies to buy a listing before it was sold to someone else.
<br /><br />
In this case, a New York City company like Bloomberg would have to buy Bloomberg.nyc or face having to buy it back at a higher price. Other iconic New York City brands will likely watch nervously to see what becomes names like of &#8220;gossipgirl.nyc&#8221; or &#8220;magnoliabakery.nyc&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
The company behind this is asking people to pre-register "for free," but (tellingly) does not share how much the .nyc domains will actually cost once registration opens for real.  So while NYC officials can pretend that they've "found" money here, the reality is that they're creating a totally wasteful business tax and a true nuisance for NYC businesses.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120327/21132118266/new-york-city-cooks-up-annoying-plan-that-will-pressure-nyc-businesses-to-buy-nyc-domains-they-dont-want-need.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120327/21132118266/new-york-city-cooks-up-annoying-plan-that-will-pressure-nyc-businesses-to-buy-nyc-domains-they-dont-want-need.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120327/21132118266/new-york-city-cooks-up-annoying-plan-that-will-pressure-nyc-businesses-to-buy-nyc-domains-they-dont-want-need.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but...-money</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120327/21132118266</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 07:30:35 PDT</pubDate>
<title>If Phishing Email Can Kill NY Power Grid, Lack Of Cybersecurity Legislation Is Not The Problem</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/16470618060/if-phishing-email-can-kill-ny-power-grid-lack-cybersecurity-legislation-is-not-problem.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/16470618060/if-phishing-email-can-kill-ny-power-grid-lack-cybersecurity-legislation-is-not-problem.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been talking about the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120308/12180318040/slow-down-homeland-security-does-everyone-really-agree-that-we-need-cybersecurity-legislation-now.shtml">faux urgency</a> to pass some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120214/15002817761/cybersecurity-bill-backers-insist-this-isnt-sopa-is-it-needed.shtml">cybersecurity legislation</a> coming from the federal government, with plenty of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120221/23433317835/nsa-anonymous-might-one-day-hack-power-grids-anonymous-huh.shtml">fear mongering</a> from politicians who never seem to want to point out any <i>factual</i> basis for why we need such new laws.  Instead, it's all been about Hollywood movie script-style scenarios about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120216/17430217786/senators-ramp-up-fear-mongering-to-try-to-rush-through-cybersecurity-bill.shtml">planes falling from the skies</a>.  It appears that the White House is heavily involved in this bogus fear mongering as well, having recently <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=BCEC37C2-ABCD-4973-9858-569B77D9EFA5" target="_blank">set up a "simulated cyberattack on New York City's power supply"</a> to convince elected officials to move forward on the legislation.
<blockquote><i>
During a classified briefing in the Office of Senate Security, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan showed lawmakers how a hacker could breach control systems of the city&#8217;s electric system and trigger a ripple effect throughout the population and private sector, according to a source familiar with the scenario.
<br /><br />
&#8220;The fact that we could be subject to a catastrophic attack under the right circumstances and we now know some of the things that would help us to protect against such an attack, that&#8217;s why it&#8217;s important now for the Congress to take this up,&#8221; Napolitano said in an interview with POLITICO.
</i></blockquote>
Now that's interesting.  Just <i><b>how</b></i> could a hacker breach control systems of the power grid?  Apparently with <b>an email phishing attack</b>:
<blockquote><i>
During the simulation, the hacker gains access to the electric supply&#8217;s control system through a simple &#8220;spearphishing&#8221; attack, in which a worker merely clicks on a link in an email that appears to be from someone they know.
</i></blockquote>
Um, there's your problem.  If the NYC power grid is attached to the public internet in such a way that it can be taken down, then um, <i>shouldn't we take it off the internet</i>?  This isn't about cybersecurity, this is about common sense, where things like the power grid should not be accessible via the internet -- and I'm pretty sure <i>they're not</i> (back here in reality).  But in the world where we need fear, uncertainty, doubt and the ability for the federal government to spy on private networks, we have to pretend such a scenario is likely.
<br /><br />
Of course, I also question why the White House chose NYC as the showcase for the simulation and suggested that there would be deaths and other massive harm from such a power grid takedown.  After all, it was just about a decade ago that the power grid in the Northeast <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003" target="_blank">did, in fact, fail</a>.  It was an inconvenience for many people, certainly, but it was hardly damaging in the way the White House seems to have implied with this scare tactic.
<br /><br />
So, once again, can we take a step back and ask some simple questions: what's the <i><b>real</b></i> threat and the <i><b>real</b></i> risk here?  If it's that the NYC power grid is accessible by a simple password over the public internet, then the problem isn't cybersecurity, it's whoever was stupid enough to connect the power grid to the internet.  Let's fix that.  But let's not regulate and spy on large segments of the public internet to cover for a few bad decisions.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/16470618060/if-phishing-email-can-kill-ny-power-grid-lack-cybersecurity-legislation-is-not-problem.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/16470618060/if-phishing-email-can-kill-ny-power-grid-lack-cybersecurity-legislation-is-not-problem.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/16470618060/if-phishing-email-can-kill-ny-power-grid-lack-cybersecurity-legislation-is-not-problem.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-come-on</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120309/16470618060</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:38:08 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Reminder: Create A PSA About The Impact Of Technology On Creativity And You Can Win $1,000</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/03024116427/reminder-create-psa-about-impact-technology-creativity-you-can-win-1000.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/03024116427/reminder-create-psa-about-impact-technology-creativity-you-can-win-1000.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As you may remember, NBC Universal via New York City, is running a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110917/01472315992/nycnbcuniversal-pro-copyright-propaganda-contest-school-kids-facts-not-allowed-your-rights-dont-count.shtml">contest</a> trying to get NYC school children to create anti-piracy public service announcement (PSA) propaganda videos.  In exchange for that, they're giving the "winner" $500... but also taking their copyright.  We think it's a bit ironic that a contest where you're forced to only talk about how great copyright is also forces you to give up your copyright.
<br /><br />
Anyway, thanks to some generous Techdirt readers (and a matching grant from us directly), we're offering <a href="https://www.insightcommunity.com/case.php?iid=1379" target="_blank">our own contest</a> and the deadline is rapidly approaching.  You've basically got a week left.  We're looking for the PSAs to be about the impact of technology on creativity.  We're not giving you talking points, or even a specific view you have to take.  Unlike NBC Universal and New York City, we trust you to make your own arguments, not regurgitate what you've been handed.  We're also offering twice the amount of money they are... and we don't force you to give up your copyright.  So, step on up.  Details of how to enter can be found <a href="https://www.insightcommunity.com/case.php?iid=1379">here</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/03024116427/reminder-create-psa-about-impact-technology-creativity-you-can-win-1000.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/03024116427/reminder-create-psa-about-impact-technology-creativity-you-can-win-1000.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/03024116427/reminder-create-psa-about-impact-technology-creativity-you-can-win-1000.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>step-on-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111020/03024116427</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:07:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110925/22081916084/who-do-you-believe-nypd-video-evidence-concerning-cop-pepper-spraying-women.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110925/22081916084/who-do-you-believe-nypd-video-evidence-concerning-cop-pepper-spraying-women.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Before I get into the details of this post, I will say that I don't quite get the purpose of the whole "Occupy Wall Street" protests.  I mean, I guess that they're supposed to be some sort of American version of the Arab Spring protests or the riots in London, but, honestly -- like many of these things in the US -- they strike me as people protesting for the sake of protesting.  I just don't quite see the point.  The folks in the Middle East had real problems with their government.  Protesting against a "financial system"?  What does that do?
<br /><br />
That said, since we've been writing so much about law enforcement and videotaping their actions, one story coming out of the ongoing protests is worth looking at in more detail.  On Saturday, there were a bunch of arrests, but the story getting a lot of attention was the decision by one officer (according to <a href="http://davidscameracraft.blogspot.com/2011/09/occupy-wall-street-march-violence.html" target="_blank">this blog, his badge says "Bologna"</a>) to <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/an-important-video-to-watch-pepper-spray-by-a-cruel-and-cowardly-nyc-cop/245629/" target="_blank">walk up to a group of protesting women and spray their eyes, point blank, with pepper spray</a>.  You can see the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ05rWx1pig&feature=player_embedded#at=74" target="_blank">slow motion video</a>, which highlights the officer's actions:
<center>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TZ05rWx1pig" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
From that video, it seems pretty clear that the guy just walks up to a group of the protesters, sprays them, and walks away.  So here's where it gets more interesting.  The NY Police Department have insisted to the NY Times that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/nyregion/videos-show-police-using-pepper-spray-at-protest.html" target="_blank">the pepper spraying was appropriate</a>, even as they admit they only use pepper spray in extraordinary circumstances:
<blockquote><i>
The Police Department&rsquo;s chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, said the police had used the pepper spray &ldquo;appropriately.&rdquo;
<br /><br />
&ldquo;Pepper spray was used once,&rdquo; he added, &ldquo;after individuals confronted officers and tried to prevent them from deploying a mesh barrier &mdash; something that was edited out or otherwise not captured in the video.&rdquo; 
</i></blockquote>
Of course, accounts in that same article from one of the women who was sprayed (who wasn't arrested) suggests a different story.  While admitting there were some "rough" people there, she says that she and the folks around her had done nothing to cause the police to single them out with pepper spray.  Furthermore, the folks at USLaw.com have <a href="http://www.uslaw.com/us_law_blawgs.php?action=page&page=occupywallstreet" target="_blank">more information</a> including an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMoKsZp5iao&feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">additional video</a> taken <i>by one of the pepper-sprayed women</i>.  While right as the pepper spraying happens the camera is facing away from the action, and there was a lot of screaming and activity a bit earlier, it's hard to see how anything anyone did in that area provoked the sudden spraying:
<center>
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nMoKsZp5iao" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
On the YouTube page for that video, the woman states that, for the most part, she <i>supports the police force</i> and believes they're good and honorable people.  Right before she was sprayed in the video, she appears to be asking police politely where they want her to go.
<br /><br />
Yes, this was a chaotic situation with lots of people yelling and lots of movement.  But the evidence from the two videos (and two of the women sprayed) certainly suggests that the police spokesperson is lying in saying that the use here was "appropriate."  I find this interesting not because of anything to do with the protest itself, but because of the way the ability to record and upload videos like this is really able to impact and change the debate.  In the past, it would have been the police's word against the protesters, and lots of people would have simply believed the police.  But, as chaotic as the situation may be, law enforcement around the world is going to have to learn that they can't hide behind false claims of acting appropriately if they didn't, in fact, act appropriately.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110925/22081916084/who-do-you-believe-nypd-video-evidence-concerning-cop-pepper-spraying-women.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110925/22081916084/who-do-you-believe-nypd-video-evidence-concerning-cop-pepper-spraying-women.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110925/22081916084/who-do-you-believe-nypd-video-evidence-concerning-cop-pepper-spraying-women.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>why-videotaping-police-is-important</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110925/22081916084</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:50:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Mayor Bloomberg Demands SAIC Pay Back $600 Million In Cost Overruns For NYC Computer System</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110630/17425614926/mayor-bloomberg-demands-saic-pay-back-600-million-cost-overruns-nyc-computer-system.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110630/17425614926/mayor-bloomberg-demands-saic-pay-back-600-million-cost-overruns-nyc-computer-system.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the years, we've chronicled a number of absolutely ridiculous over-budget computer systems for government agencies.  My favorite still remains the FBI computer system -- which was over budget by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061205/102850.shtml">hundreds of millions of dollars</a>, was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040512/098203_F.shtml">useless at finding terrorists</a>, was so bad that a contractor had to use some free internet tools to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060706/114254.shtml">hack into the system</a> just to get his work done, and was so confusing that a computer science professor who reviewed the system said he and some others thought of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060818/1613226.shtml">going on a crime spree</a> the day the FBI switched over.  That system was built by SAIC, and the FBI ended up <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050113/0954214_F.shtml">scrapping it</a> and starting from scratch.  But, as far as I know, the FBI never asked SAIC for the $600 or so million in taxpayer money it spent on the system back.
<br /><br />
Apparently, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has had a similar experience with SAIC and the new computer system for NYC it's been building.  But, Bloomberg is a businessman by trade, rather than a politician, so when a company charges you $600 million (way overbudget from the original $63 million), he knows that you <i>ask for your money back</i>.  So that's what he's doing.  He's <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/063011-nyc-mayor-demands-600m-refund.html" target="_blank">demanding a $600 million refund from SAIC</a>.  Part of the issue is that, as with many of these type of projects, there appears to have been significant fraud involved:
<blockquote><i>
The recent indictment of SAIC's leader project manager on the CityTime job, Gerard Denault, as well as the guilty plea to criminal charges made by SAIC systems engineer Carl Bell, who designed the software, are "extremely troubling and raise questions about SAIC's corporate responsibility and internal controls to prevent and combat fraud," he added. Denault and Bell were charged with were charged with taking kickbacks, wire fraud and money laundering.
<br /><br />
Also recently indicted were Reddy and Padma Allen, a couple who head up New Jersey systems integrator TechnoDyne, which was SAIC's primary subcontractor on the CityTime project. Federal authorities allege that the Allens and others conducted an elaborate overbilling and kickback scheme that siphoned millions of dollars from the project.
<br /><br />
Federal authorities have also contended that SAIC had received a whistleblower complaint about the project as far back as 2005, Bloomberg said in the letter. "It is unclear what SAIC did at that time to investigate these serious allegations." 
</i></blockquote>
I would imagine that SAIC has no interest in paying back $600 million, but it could make for an interesting lawsuit if Bloomberg decides to press the matter.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110630/17425614926/mayor-bloomberg-demands-saic-pay-back-600-million-cost-overruns-nyc-computer-system.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110630/17425614926/mayor-bloomberg-demands-saic-pay-back-600-million-cost-overruns-nyc-computer-system.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110630/17425614926/mayor-bloomberg-demands-saic-pay-back-600-million-cost-overruns-nyc-computer-system.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-for-him</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110630/17425614926</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:20:51 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Instead Of Hiring Film Crew To Make PSA About Out Of Work Film Crews, ICE Just Reruns Someone Else's Video</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/17131514046/instead-hiring-film-crew-to-make-psa-about-out-work-film-crews-ice-just-reruns-someone-elses-video.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/17131514046/instead-hiring-film-crew-to-make-psa-about-out-work-film-crews-ice-just-reruns-someone-elses-video.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, this is just bizarre.  You may recall that late last year, NBC Universal worked with New York City to create a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/15111112387/nbc-universal-mpaa-get-nyc-mayor-bloomberg-to-run-propaganda-anti-piracy-ad-campaign.shtml">silly "anti-piracy" propaganda video</a> that was not even close to accurate.  It amusingly claimed that there is "no such thing as a free movie," while <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110109/21070112580/irony-alert-nycs-anti-piracy-propaganda-campaign-using-free-youtube.shtml">using YouTube</a>, a free video platform... for free.  We were left scratching our heads, a few weeks back, when pointing out that Homeland Security's ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) was now <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110405/03430213788/did-ice-pirate-anti-piracy-video-nyc.shtml">using the same video</a> on its YouTube account -- stripped of all references to New York City.
<br /><br />
Well, as part of World Intellectual Property Day, ICE has flat out lied and is pretending that this video <a href="http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/USDHSICE-69a9e" target="_blank">is a "new" PSA that it's put together</a>, and which it will now be <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20057613-261.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20&#038;dlvrit=142337" target="_blank">placing on the domains it illegally forfeits</a>, without any sort of adversarial hearing.
<br /><br />
Shouldn't we be just a bit concerned that Homeland Security's ICE group is placing a video, financed by NBC Universal, which makes blatantly false statements concerning copyright law and the impact of copyright infringement, on domains that it has seized illegally?   Even worse, the press, who should know better, are simply <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/world-intellectual-property-day-psa-182333" target="_blank">parroting the claims</a> from ICE that this is a <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/157847-ice-releases-antipiracy-psa-?utm_campaign=HilliconValley&#038;utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">new PSA from ICE</a>.  It's not.  It's from NY City at the urging of NBC Universal.  It's also not accurate.
<br /><br />
Of course, what would be funny, if it weren't so sad, is that ICE's John Morton thinks that this video will "educate the general public about the real consequence of IP theft."  That's doubtful.  As has been explained over and over again -- including in the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/02354213395/massive-research-report-piracy-emerging-economies-released-debunks-entire-foundation-us-foreign-ip-policy.shtml">recent SSRC report</a> -- the issue is not education at all, but better business models.  This kind of propaganda is simply laughable and its insulting that Morton thinks the American public is so stupid as to be fooled by false statements about intellectual property.
<br /><br />
In the meantime, though, can we point out the serious irony here: ICE and the feds are apparently <i>too freaking cheap</i> to pay for the creation of their own anti-piracy PSA about putting video crew people out of work.  Yes, ICE <i>could have</i> hired a nice film crew, like the one in the video that will be put out of work due to "piracy."  But, instead, it just used a video that was already made... meaning it didn't actually help put anyone to work.  The film crew that the <a href="http://stoppiracyinnyc.com/" target="_blank">Stop Piracy in NYC</a> site originally highlighted as being at risk due to piracy... are they getting any money from ICE?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/17131514046/instead-hiring-film-crew-to-make-psa-about-out-work-film-crews-ice-just-reruns-someone-elses-video.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/17131514046/instead-hiring-film-crew-to-make-psa-about-out-work-film-crews-ice-just-reruns-someone-elses-video.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/17131514046/instead-hiring-film-crew-to-make-psa-about-out-work-film-crews-ice-just-reruns-someone-elses-video.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wow.</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110426/17131514046</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:28:14 PST</pubDate>
<title>Irony Alert: NYC's Anti-Piracy Propaganda Campaign Using 'Free' YouTube</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110109/21070112580/irony-alert-nycs-anti-piracy-propaganda-campaign-using-free-youtube.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110109/21070112580/irony-alert-nycs-anti-piracy-propaganda-campaign-using-free-youtube.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few weeks back, we wrote about the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/15111112387/nbc-universal-mpaa-get-nyc-mayor-bloomberg-to-run-propaganda-anti-piracy-ad-campaign.shtml">anti-piracy propaganda campaign</a> that NYC has been running, paid for by taxpayer dollars, which spreads typical MPAA FUD, and concludes with the line: "There's no such thing as a free movie."  However, in looking over the campaign, I just realized that the videos <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUABOIe5SWo&#038;feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">are hosted on YouTube... for free</a>.  In other words, while NYC and its Hollywood friends are claiming that if you get something for free, it must be illegal, they're making use of free online services themselves.  Without YouTube, they'd have to pay for the hosting, bandwidth, streaming software, etc. themselves.  But this way, they get it for free.
<br /><br />
Now, it's absolutely true that YouTube could monetize the videos with ads (though, I don't see any on that video right now), but that sort of reinforces the point.  There are all sorts of business models that allow you to offer something for "free" to the end user, but are monetized elsewhere.  YouTube does exactly that.  It offers what would otherwise be quite expensive (hosting, bandwidth, streaming software, etc.) and gives it all away for free, and has built a whole business around that.  There's nothing saying that the movie industry can't do the same thing.  Rather than falsely stating that there's no such thing as a "free" (to the consumer) movie, there are certainly plenty of ways  that the movie industry could monetize movies that were offered free to consumers.  It's just that the legacy players choose not to.  And then complain.  And get politicians to waste taxpayer money...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110109/21070112580/irony-alert-nycs-anti-piracy-propaganda-campaign-using-free-youtube.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110109/21070112580/irony-alert-nycs-anti-piracy-propaganda-campaign-using-free-youtube.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110109/21070112580/irony-alert-nycs-anti-piracy-propaganda-campaign-using-free-youtube.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>free-free-free</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110109/21070112580</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Mar 2010 18:55:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>NYC (Finally) Creates System For Giving Press Passes To Online Journalists</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1302438367.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1302438367.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A year and a half ago, we wrote about some online/alternative journalists who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081113/1552202830.shtml">sued the NYC Police Department</a> because of a refusal to give those journalists press passes.  As we noted at the time, it was difficult to see the legal justification for the lawsuit.  Just because you are a reporter (alternative, online or traditional) it doesn't mean that the city has to grant you press access.  This upset some folks in the comments who thought I was supporting the idea that "bloggers aren't journalists" or that this was somehow a free speech issue.  It was not.  The reporters were absolutely free to report on whatever they wanted and say whatever they wanted, but that <i>did not mean</i> that anyone <i>had to grant them access</i>.   Hell, I even thought that the NYC police were <i>wrong</i> in not granting these journalists access -- but that didn't mean it was <i>illegal</i>.
<br /><br />
Soon after that lawsuit was filed, the police backed down anyway and granted those journalists access, making the lawsuit somewhat meaningless, though it continued.  Separately, however, a lawsuit in California proved the point that being a journalist <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090606/1319345158.shtml">does not give you the right</a> to unfettered access, such as at crime scenes.
<br /><br />
So, when one of the journalists involved in the original lawsuit, <a href="http://www.featurewell.com/">David Wallis</a>, sent in a submission this week declaring <i>Masnick was wrong!!!!</i>, I thought I'd check it out -- since everything had indicated that I was not wrong.  However, it appears that Wallis also seems confused about the difference between what the NYC Police <i>should</i> do and what they're <i>legally</i> required to do.  The reason for the email is that NYC has <i>smartly</i> <a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/in-the-belly-of-the-information-beast/" target="_blank">put in place rules and procedures for credentialing online journalists</a> as part of the agreement to settle the lawsuit.
<br /><br />
I think this is an absolute good thing -- and a smart move.  If anything, I'm sort of surprised that such a policy didn't already exist.  But, unlike Wallis' claim, this does not change my stance on the original lawsuit.  While it may have pressured NYC into putting in place a policy, that doesn't mean there was any legal leg to stand on in the lawsuit.  As I said, I always thought that the police <i>should</i> have given credentials to these journalists -- and <i>should</i> have had a policy in place for giving credentials to journalists who meet certain criteria, even if they're not employed by the traditional media.  But that does not mean that the police <i>have to</i> give access to anyone who declares themselves a journalist.  So I'm happy for Wallis and the other journalists that NY has changed its policy and made it more reasonable in response to the lawsuit, but that doesn't change the likelihood that the original lawsuit was not going anywhere on a legal basis.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1302438367.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1302438367.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1302438367.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-separate-from-the-lawsuit</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100302/1302438367</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:33:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>NYC Cabbies Who Resisted Credit Card Machines... Now Making More Money Because Of Them</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091108/0829116847.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091108/0829116847.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A rather common theme around here is how often various industries resist the use of new technologies, fearing that those technologies will somehow harm or even destroy the industry.  And yet, before too long, the opposite turns out to be true.  Remember how Jack Valenti declared the VCR to be the "Boston Strangler" to the movie industry?  Just a few years later, revenue from VCR rentals and sales represented a massive part of the movie business's yearly income.  It happens over and over again.  The NY Times has a different kind of example of the same basic thing.  Two years ago, Mayor Bloomberg in NY pushed for taxis to be required to take credit cards.  The cabbies <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/nyregion/15cab.html" target="_blank">resisted</a>, complaining that it would cause all sorts of problems.  They even <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/nyregion/06taxi.html" target="_blank">went on strike</a> over the issue.
<br /><br />
And yet, two years later, having easy to use credit card readers in the back of every cab means that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/nyregion/08taxi.html?_r=1" target="_blank">more people are taking cabs, because it's easier</a>, and they tend to tip more as well.  Part of that is because the machines have "preset" tip suggestions that many riders use, which often result in higher tips than average.  While the article still quotes a few angry cab drivers who insist that higher tips aren't true, the reporter was able to review the receipts from a few cabs and found that the average tip was 18%, with the preset tip suggestions being used more than half the time.  While it's still early, it certainly seems like this was yet another overreaction to new technology that has actually ended up helping, rather than hurting.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091108/0829116847.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091108/0829116847.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091108/0829116847.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>resisting-technology</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091108/0829116847</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:59:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>NY MTA The Latest Public Transportation Group To Declare It Owns Facts</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090814/0354395880.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090814/0354395880.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ What is it with public transportation groups?  Over the past year or so we've seen time and time again that these companies seem to think they <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090326/1211254264.shtml">own</a> the data on their schedules, and have come down hard on anyone who supplies an iPhone app that gives people good schedule info.  The reason many public transportation groups do this is they think they can make some money licensing the data, but this is silly.  If an individual or a hobbyist can provide better data in a better format to users, that just encourages more people to actually <i>buy tickets</i> for the train ride, which is what you would think these train operators would want.
<br /><br />
The latest example of this battle, sent in by <a href="http://www.iftf.org">Anthony Townsend</a>, is the MTA in NY <a href="http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/new_haven_cty/news_wtnh_mta_blogger_defends_iphone_app_200908131200" target="_new"> making life difficult for a guy who created a scheduling app</a> for the Metro North train line.  The guy also happens to have a blog about Metro North, that he's used to draw attention to problems with the service.  That seems to have upset the MTA people, who claimed his site was "pretending to be an official MTA website."  He pointed out how ridiculous that was, since most of the blog posts were highly critical of the MTA.  Any reader would quickly recognize that it was not an official site.
<br /><br />
Soon after that, though, the MTA threatened him over the scheduling app, claiming that it violates the MTA's copyright on its data.  Except... you can't copyright facts.  The MTA argues that if someone misses a train due to the guy's info, they'll get mad at the MTA.  I'd argue that's overblown.  First, so long as the app is clear that it's not official, there shouldn't be much of an issue.  And, honestly, how often would that sort of problem occur?  The real thing is that the MTA wants to squeeze money out of the guy, and sent him a <a href="http://www.stationstops.com/2009/08/13/the-latest-on-stationstops-vs-mta-legal/" target="_blank">licensing agreement demanding a share of any revenue he makes</a>, but wants him to back pay for the past year or so, plus a non-refundable $5,000 fee.  It also refuses to give him any notice as to when the schedule changes.  Given the MTA's claims that they're against the app because people might miss the train, the fact that they're fighting him over being alerted to scheduling changes seems to make clear that the MTA is lying.
<br /><br />
It's difficult to see how the MTA has much of a legal leg to stand on here, but they don't seem to have a problem being a bully against a developer who's actually helping riders have a better experience.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090814/0354395880.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090814/0354395880.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090814/0354395880.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sigh</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090814/0354395880</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 Jan 2009 15:49:40 PST</pubDate>
<title>NYC Parks Lose Free WiFi Deal</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090108/1426143337.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090108/1426143337.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ An ambitious effort to provide free WiFi in a large number of New York City parks -- including the massive Central Park -- <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/nyregion/08wifi.html" target="_new">has collapsed</a>, after the company behind it couldn't raise the funds to build out the networks and keep them operating. The company was unable to round up corporate sponsors willing to back the project, and it couldn't afford the concession fee it had agreed to pay to the city. It also suffered from a difficult buildout, in particular getting backhaul for its WiFi nodes into the parks. The shutdown highlights, yet again, the problems providers can face in trying to set up large-area WiFi networks. It's far more complex than a coffee shop plugging in a router, and requires a committed and deep-pocketed benefactor. For a coffee shop or business district, the benefits of sponsoring or backing WiFi is easy to envision, but for a public space like a park, it's more difficult to sell sponsors (particularly companies) on the benefits. Local governments are likely losing some of their interest in paying, too, given the budget shortfalls many are experiencing. The big push for muni WiFi lost a lot of its steam in 2008, and it continues to look like the <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20071115/144345.shtml">sponsored hotzone</a> will continue to be the way forward for larger-scale free WiFi.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090108/1426143337.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090108/1426143337.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090108/1426143337.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>signal-lost</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090108/1426143337</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>