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

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:48:42 PST</pubDate>
<title>Former Tunisian Regime Goes Beyond Spying On Internet Traffic... To Rewriting Emails &#038; More</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/11181117066/former-tunisian-regime-goes-beyond-spying-internet-traffic-to-rewriting-emails-more.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/11181117066/former-tunisian-regime-goes-beyond-spying-internet-traffic-to-rewriting-emails-more.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Most people instinctively appreciate the dangers of government surveillance.  But at least it's possible to be on your guard when you suspect such surveillance may be present by taking care what you write and send. You might even use some industrial-grade encryption for the important stuff. 
</p><p>
The problem with that is it's simply not practical to expect all of your contacts &ndash; to say nothing of your grandparents &ndash; to do the same, which means that at least some of your emails are going to be exchanged in the clear.  And as this fascinating Bloomberg report about <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-12/tunisia-after-revolt-can-alter-e-mails-with-big-brother-software.html">the surveillance activities of the former Tunisian regime</a> reveals, that creates another kind of vulnerability that concerns not only what you send, but also <b>what you receive</b>:

<i><blockquote>Asma Hedi Nairi, a former Amnesty International youth coordinator, says e-mails she and her friends exchanged <b>were replaced by messages</b> ranging from random symbols to ads for rental cars. Opponents of the regime toppled in January&rsquo;s revolution received threatening messages such as &ldquo;you can run but you can&rsquo;t hide,&rdquo; while people with no role in politics found their correspondence snagged if it inadvertently included words flagged as critical of the government. Ammar 404 even damaged reputations <b>by inserting pornographic images in work e- mails and routing intimate photos onto Facebook</b>, Nairi, 23, says.</blockquote></i>

It's a clever approach, whereby people start to attribute a deep, possibly troubling meaning to what is in fact nonsense, or begin to doubt the trustworthiness of their online contacts.
</p><p>
What makes this story particularly disturbing is that practically all the technology used to carry out this disinformation campaign in Tunisia was provided by Western companies, who seemed to view it as a test run:

<i><blockquote>Western suppliers used the country as a testing ground. Moez Chakchouk, the post-revolution head of the Tunisian Internet Agency, says he&rsquo;s discovered that the monitoring industry gave discounts to the government-controlled agency, known by its French acronym ATI, to gain access.</blockquote></i>

That's yet another reason to resist Net surveillance for any reason (hello, copyright industries): once surveillance equipment manufacturers have their foot in the door it can only be a matter of time before they start extolling the virtues of Tunisia's more thoroughgoing approach to online spying.
</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/20111213/11181117066/former-tunisian-regime-goes-beyond-spying-internet-traffic-to-rewriting-emails-more.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/11181117066/former-tunisian-regime-goes-beyond-spying-internet-traffic-to-rewriting-emails-more.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/11181117066/former-tunisian-regime-goes-beyond-spying-internet-traffic-to-rewriting-emails-more.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>they-wrote-what???</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111213/11181117066</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:54:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Rewriting An AP Story Just To Show We Can</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090810/0343265825.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090810/0343265825.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=sclath">Kevin Stapp</a> writes <i>&quot;As I was browsing some news this morning I actually read one story all the way to the bottom (a rare thing nowadays). The story itself wasn't nearly as interesting as the Associated Press' Copyright notice at the very bottom:<br />
<br />
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.<br />
<br />
It is the next to the last claim I found troubling.  The AP apparently believes copyright allows it to claim that a news story can't be rewritten. That claim strikes me as rather far reaching because the majority of the story is simply restated facts. I reviewed each paragraph of the story (I'll simply number them here) to see which parts of the story are 'unique expressions' and which are simply statements of fact that are not subject to copyright.<br />
<br />
<a href='http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-08-07-kennedy-shriver_N.htm' target="_new">http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-08-07-kennedy-shriver_N.htm</a><br />
<br />
1. Fact. Simple biographical data<br />
<br />
2. Fact. Quote from a family spokeperson<br />
<br />
3. Fact. Information provided by spokesperson for California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger<br />
<br />
4. Fact. News of strokes previously reported.  Kennedy compound location is widely known.<br />
<br />
5. Observation by the reporter so not a fact.<br />
<br />
6. Fact. Simple biographical data <br />
<br />
7 &#038; 8. Quote from another news source so AP has no claim to it.  If anything the quote is the copyright of eunicekennedyshriver.org, <br />
<br />
8 &#038; 9 Fact.  Multiple sources can be found regarding Shriver's involvement with the Special Olympics.<br />
<br />
<br />
Eight of the nine paragraphs of this story are factual information that could be obtained from multiple sources and yet the Associated Press claims copyright prohibits anyone from rewriting this story.<br />
<br />
So here's my version of the story rewritten without the Associated Press' permission:<br />
<br />
According to a press release from eunicekennedyshriver.org, Eunice Kennedy Shriver is critical but stable condition at a Cape Cod Hospital.  Ms. Shriver is attended by her husband, children and grandchildren.  (http://www.eunicekennedyshriver.org/press).  <br />
<br />
Eunice Mary Kennedy Shriver was born July 10, 1921 and is a member of the Kennedy family.  She is the fifth of nine children of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. and Rose Kennedy.  Senator Edward Kennedy and Jean Kennedy Smith are her only surviving siblings. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Kennedy_Shriver" target="_new">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Kennedy_Shriver</a>)<br />
<br />
Senator Kennedy remarked in a video interview that his sister Eunice always "strived to be the best" in a very competitive family.  "She in many respects has made such an extraordinary difference in the lives of so many people...", he said. <a href='http://www.eunicekennedyshriver.org/videos/video/15'>http://www.eunicekennedyshriver.org/videos/video/15</a><br />
<br />
Ms Shriver is known for her efforts on behalf of the disabled and founded the Special Olympics which she serves as an honorary chairperson.  <a href='http://www.eunicekennedyshriver.org/bios/eks'>http://www.eunicekennedyshriver.org/bios/eks</a><br />
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Kennedy_Shriver'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Kennedy_Shriver</a><br />
<br />
You can't copyright facts nor can you claim copyright limits anyone's right to restate the facts.&quot;</i>
<br /><br />
We await the AP's response.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090810/0343265825.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090810/0343265825.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090810/0343265825.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>come-and-get-us</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090810/0343265825</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:53:46 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is The BBC An AP Parasite?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090722/0126305618.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090722/0126305618.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the last few months we've been hearing all these claims about how various "aggregators" and internet sites that simply rewrite articles from "mainstream" publications are somehow "parasites."  But, of course, that ignores the fact that many of those mainstream publications do the exact same thing themselves.  So, for example, earlier this week, there was a cute AP article getting passed around about a girl by the name of Kelly Hildebrandt who was bored one night and looked on Facebook for anyone else with her name, and found that the only other one was actually a guy.  One thing led to another, and <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/20/national/a120446D30.DTL&#038;tsp=1" target="_new">now they're getting married to each other</a> (awwwww.)  Anyway, not long after that, I saw that <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8161184.stm" target="_new">the BBC appears to have a very similar article</a>, and it's quite clear that all they did was rewrite the AP's article.  At one point, they do credit the AP, but the article is almost a direct paraphrase of the AP's.  So does the AP start calling the BBC a parasite, too?  Or does it finally realize that no one owns the news, and lots of publications often rewrite the news and have for ages?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090722/0126305618.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090722/0126305618.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090722/0126305618.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-wondering...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090722/0126305618</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>