Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The Most Subtle Intrusions...
One of the most common sayings in legal circles has often been, "Everybody hates lawyers until they need one." Heard of that one before? Your rights are still important and they do matter. Especially in an age where the Federal government will play a more active role in our lives for sometime to come. But technology never moves as fast as the law. Often when the law does try to catch up the result is often an overreach where laws end up unleashing a whole host of unintended consequences.
But still it does seem that we do have fundamental rights. But the right that was never expressly articulated in the constitution but we always assumed to be there before us happens to be our right to privacy. Do we have a right to privacy?
That's becoming a more powerful question now that the government has been embracing the full power of computers. That clash of technology and law is also starting to make a lot of people nervous and angry. In particular one guy who recently took offense. Why was that guy important? Because he sits on the Supreme Court...
In January of this year Justice Antonin Scalia...
http://www.oyez.org/justices/antonin_scalia/
Gave a speech to the Institute of American and Talmudic Law...
http://www.iatlaw.org/
And in that speech...a full text isn't available online...he was quoted about the issue of privacy. Here were some of his remarks that the media zeroed in on which I will paraphrase and then link,
"In the digital age privacy rights should be distinguished between confidential data such as medical records and information that might be personal but isn't hard to know"
...
http://www.privacylives.com/associated-press-scalia-speaks-on-digital-privacy-at-nyc-conference/2009/01/28/
Now this is important when it comes to the Internet because this guy could decide who has access to what the public or government can learn about you. In particular Justice Scalia was not concerned about such intrusions as Internet tracking, knowing what groceries he buys saying,
"I don't think it is a secret what I buy, unless it's shameful."
Concurring Opinions had an overview of his vision of privacy...
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/justice_scalias_1.html
Now that is an extraordinary position. Because technology today is driving a boom regarding to privacy. A bunch of groups have been offering services that use databases. Databases with information about me and you. And they gather this information to like a jigsaw puzzle piece together a detailed profile of who you are. Most of these companies buy and process information from bank transactions, phone records or from credit cards. All of this information available for sale to be compiled.
Sit back and think about what those databases could tell someone. All of your buying choices. What movies do you buy. Where do you go to eat dinner? Do you buy flowers for your significant other? How many text messages a month do you send? What service do you use to upload photo albums? Did you rent a porn movie from online? As an example one of the most prominent of these companies is ChoicePoint...
http://www.choicepoint.com/
Who actually had to publicly admit that they had a data breach and in the uproar admitted that over 160,000 records were accessed in 2004...
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/choicepoint.shtm
Guess who is the biggest user of their services? The US Government...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/20/170209.shtml
Now the reason I brought up Justice Scalia's view on this...is because he was forced to swallow a little bitter pill over his speech. After he gave his speech, a law professor at Fordham University gave his students an assignment for their Information Privacy Law Class. What was the assignment? Compile and build a dossier on Justice Scalia...
In four months for his class they got the value of his home, his home phone number, his wife's email address, pictures of his nine grandchildren and where they live, his taste in movies, where and what he buys when he shops for groceries, where he likes to eat out for dinner and a whole other trove of goodies...
Now of course this got Scalia so upset that he actually responded to this project which I should paste in his response:
"I stand by my remark at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law conference that it is silly to think that every single datum about my life is private. I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life deserves privacy protection in law. It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any."
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/justice_scalia_responds_to_for.php
Guess he may be rethinking his idea of privacy.
This was a class of lawyers with very little experience. If they could do it to Justice Scalia, they can do it to you too. And these guys weren't even professionals. This was what they dug up on amateur hour.
This is the future we are going to face. This is where the law is going to have to get a grip on the fact that as much as the Internet is a blessing...the net and these companies with their databases could be gathering everything about you right now. And you might never know it and you have no control. The question is: what basic protection and control should you have over your information?
Do we need a privacy law or amendment to control our information? What should be your rights?
But still it does seem that we do have fundamental rights. But the right that was never expressly articulated in the constitution but we always assumed to be there before us happens to be our right to privacy. Do we have a right to privacy?
That's becoming a more powerful question now that the government has been embracing the full power of computers. That clash of technology and law is also starting to make a lot of people nervous and angry. In particular one guy who recently took offense. Why was that guy important? Because he sits on the Supreme Court...
In January of this year Justice Antonin Scalia...
http://www.oyez.org/justices/antonin_scalia/
Gave a speech to the Institute of American and Talmudic Law...
http://www.iatlaw.org/
And in that speech...a full text isn't available online...he was quoted about the issue of privacy. Here were some of his remarks that the media zeroed in on which I will paraphrase and then link,
"In the digital age privacy rights should be distinguished between confidential data such as medical records and information that might be personal but isn't hard to know"
...
http://www.privacylives.com/associated-press-scalia-speaks-on-digital-privacy-at-nyc-conference/2009/01/28/
Now this is important when it comes to the Internet because this guy could decide who has access to what the public or government can learn about you. In particular Justice Scalia was not concerned about such intrusions as Internet tracking, knowing what groceries he buys saying,
"I don't think it is a secret what I buy, unless it's shameful."
Concurring Opinions had an overview of his vision of privacy...
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/justice_scalias_1.html
Now that is an extraordinary position. Because technology today is driving a boom regarding to privacy. A bunch of groups have been offering services that use databases. Databases with information about me and you. And they gather this information to like a jigsaw puzzle piece together a detailed profile of who you are. Most of these companies buy and process information from bank transactions, phone records or from credit cards. All of this information available for sale to be compiled.
Sit back and think about what those databases could tell someone. All of your buying choices. What movies do you buy. Where do you go to eat dinner? Do you buy flowers for your significant other? How many text messages a month do you send? What service do you use to upload photo albums? Did you rent a porn movie from online? As an example one of the most prominent of these companies is ChoicePoint...
http://www.choicepoint.com/
Who actually had to publicly admit that they had a data breach and in the uproar admitted that over 160,000 records were accessed in 2004...
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/choicepoint.shtm
Guess who is the biggest user of their services? The US Government...
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/20/170209.shtml
Now the reason I brought up Justice Scalia's view on this...is because he was forced to swallow a little bitter pill over his speech. After he gave his speech, a law professor at Fordham University gave his students an assignment for their Information Privacy Law Class. What was the assignment? Compile and build a dossier on Justice Scalia...
In four months for his class they got the value of his home, his home phone number, his wife's email address, pictures of his nine grandchildren and where they live, his taste in movies, where and what he buys when he shops for groceries, where he likes to eat out for dinner and a whole other trove of goodies...
Now of course this got Scalia so upset that he actually responded to this project which I should paste in his response:
"I stand by my remark at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law conference that it is silly to think that every single datum about my life is private. I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life deserves privacy protection in law. It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any."
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/justice_scalia_responds_to_for.php
Guess he may be rethinking his idea of privacy.
This was a class of lawyers with very little experience. If they could do it to Justice Scalia, they can do it to you too. And these guys weren't even professionals. This was what they dug up on amateur hour.
This is the future we are going to face. This is where the law is going to have to get a grip on the fact that as much as the Internet is a blessing...the net and these companies with their databases could be gathering everything about you right now. And you might never know it and you have no control. The question is: what basic protection and control should you have over your information?
Do we need a privacy law or amendment to control our information? What should be your rights?
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
The General's Incest
I have really been buried in a lot of reading this week on a variety of subjects. But in the news this week it should have been noted that the Pulitzer prizes were handed out on Monday...
http://www.pulitzer.org/
I really am worried about what will happen when many of the newspapers and magazines that we rely upon to shape our views of the world and those people who investigate independently what will happen when they are no longer paid for the great work that they do. With newspapers and magazines I don't know what the new business model should be to keep them going, I just hope someone invents it soon. Because we truly do need and there is a place for good, solid journalism.
Now I saw the announcement of the Pulitzer Prize winners on Monday during the National news. But I also found myself chuckling. Because if you had watched the new shows that night and their coverage of the Pulitzer Prizes being handed! out, you might have noticed something. CNN when they covered the Pulitzer Prizes for its article online spent 900 words on the subject...
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/04/20/pulitzer.prizes.winners/index.html
So why was I laughing? Because if you look at that article above or if you watched any of the news shows from Monday when the awards were announced, a reporters name was omitted from the list of the winners. This reporter for the NY Times, David Barstow...
http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/david-barstow/230565
Now all these TV networks and cable organizations are supposed to bring you the news unfiltered right? Yet David Barstow's name was omitted from their coverage. His name was nowhere to be found. And from their perspective (the networks) it was for good ! reason. Because the reason why he won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism is the same reason that each and every TV network that you tune into was absolutely humiliated for and caused them all to issue small worded apologies. And unless you read the article he won the prize for...you might never known why they were so embarrassed.
You see David Barstow was investigating something that many of us took for granted. The backgrounds of Experts and Analysts. In particular...Retired Generals. Now if you recall all the way back when the Iraq war started, every single network to bring more comprehensive coverage for their new divisions went out and hired these retired military officers. These were all guys who had seen or who had been in combat. Many of them were highly regarded for their extensive knowledge on war and its impact on units that they commanded or the armed forces. Most of them had retired in Washington or Virginia and they were very well respected by the! establishment for their service.
Once the Iraq war started these guys were sometimes on TV for hours. And for many people viewing from their TV's at home these generals and field officers gave an added sense of gravitas to the reporting that we were seeing as the war unfolded. They made people, especially those who may have had loved ones in the field of battle, more comfortable with their views.
Now just like any other analyst these generals were hired by the networks as consultants (or as analysts on yearly contracts). They were brought onto the shows to give their personal perspectives and also their straight talking views about what it was like in combat because many of them had commanded soldiers or had themselves been in the line of fire. But the networks were missing some information about many of these generals who were analysts:
Many of them were also being paid as consultants for defense and military contractors.
So in other words, these generals are hired by the news networks to be independent analysts. Except when they are going on TV they are not mentioning that they are also being paid by defense contractors. Now if you are going to give a commentary on the Iraq War and you are asked about what the military has or needs more of in the field...the newscaster is asking an analyst who has a financial stake in whatever company he represents to put forward in his expertise what should be on the battlefield.
Let's just take one of these guys and follow his route. General Barry McCaffrey. Hands down one the most educated generals out there. This guy served everywhere...NATO, was in Vietnam and Desert Storm, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, South American Command, Drug Czar, etc, etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_McCaffrey
Now the general on his own is a very powerful voice. Now he comes on TV as an analyst. But as he is doing that he is also being paid by defense contractors who have purchased his services through his little consulting business he set up...
http://www.mccaffreyassociates.com/
So the maker of the Bradley Fighting vehicle hires him on a consulting contract. Now he goes on TV. What does he say? In paraphrase, "The Bradley Fighting vehicle is the greatest weapon for our men and women serving in combat. We should be proud our boys are in those." Now do you see the problem? Now good old Barry is getting paid to say that. But the network doesn't tell you that he was a consultant for these defense contractors. You don't know that. So if the only thing you saw in the coverage of the war was TV then why not trust the good general. He has 40 years of experience and he knows what he is talking about. See how the relationship is tainted?
Now one of these Defense Contractors hired Barry McCaffrey to lobby for them. Four days later in Iraq General Petraeus had in his hand a 15 page briefing packet on what Defense Solutions could do for his soldiers in Iraq and also a personal note from McCaffrey. Guess who taught Petraeus at West Point? General Barry McCaffrey...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/washington/30general.html?hp
Who was awarded over $15 billion dollars in defense contracts? Defense Solutions.
Now it gets worse. Why? Because the Bush Administration gets involved.
And from three months after the Iraq war started, Each and every one of these military analysts for the networks...ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC are personally invited to the White House and the Pentagon for private off the record weekly briefings. These generals are also given direct command level access to any field commander provided that the Pentagon approves. Now these are not journalists remember they are analysts. Now for any of the networks this would be a clear violation of ethics. But for the military contractors who are also paying these generals this is a fucking goldmine.
Each of these generals that they have hired are being briefed by some of the most senior officials in the Pentagon. Also because of this access they are getting direct access to the people who make buying decisions for military gear. The defense contractors are thrilled. What greater access could they get?
I mean you can imagine the conversations going on. Now each of these generals will make their case but many of these generals who are retired either directly trained by the people they are talking to or they have personal relationships with the generals or their families. Would you deny good old General McCaffrey more fighting vehicles? Who the hell do you think taught them how to be generals themselves? If your teacher came to you and asked you how you could help them what are you going to do tell them to go screw themselves? Are you serious?
Now the Bush administration has Pentagon officials giving these briefings. And in these briefings they start pointing out things they want to highlight. Take a look at this old interview between Chris Matthews and Barry McCaffrey where they almost get into a full blown argument...
Now what's the problem with the interview? General McCaffrey is highlighted what he was told to highlight. The Pentagon and White House talking points. Now he has to highlight these talking points for a reason. If he doesn't highlight what the Pentagon and White House want highlighted...he loses his access to all these Pentagon officials who make buying decisions for his defense contractors that he works for. With bonuses into the millions at stake would YOU deviate from the talking points? But at the same time he's not really being objective either is he?
David Barstow's article that won the Pulitzer, "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand", you can read here...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html
Now here's the funny part. These analysts all worked for the networks and their NEWS divisions. Would you believe it if I told you that none of these networks...zero...knew of their analysts connections to defense contractors? None of the networks knew. They were all as dumb as you ever could be. These were the networks news divisions. Each and every one of them was caught with their pants down.
Now they knew that they were being invited to the White House and the Pentagon for briefings. But none of the networks even knew that they were working as consultants for these military contractors. The article when it came out brought forward some serious back peddling from the networks. One of these networks (NBC) was dumb enough where emails between NBC and Barry McCaffrey emerged where they were coordinating their responses...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/01/mccaffrey/index1.html
But General McCaffrey still remains an analyst on NBC despite his ties. And these networks released statements on this story but I never saw them acknowledge how badly they were deceived or how badly they were embarrassed by their news divisions. This was a story that triggered Congressional hearings. Did you even know that? If you were only watching TV how would you have known?
Do you think these humiliated news divisions would have called themselves to account? No way. The Politico commented on this and the 'deafening silence' of the story...
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=C91CC155-3048-5C12-00ECB0E24C6D97E7
But in no way does that diminish its power.
If newspapers disappear what will investigative journalism look like in the future?
http://www.pulitzer.org/
I really am worried about what will happen when many of the newspapers and magazines that we rely upon to shape our views of the world and those people who investigate independently what will happen when they are no longer paid for the great work that they do. With newspapers and magazines I don't know what the new business model should be to keep them going, I just hope someone invents it soon. Because we truly do need and there is a place for good, solid journalism.
Now I saw the announcement of the Pulitzer Prize winners on Monday during the National news. But I also found myself chuckling. Because if you had watched the new shows that night and their coverage of the Pulitzer Prizes being handed! out, you might have noticed something. CNN when they covered the Pulitzer Prizes for its article online spent 900 words on the subject...
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/04/20/pulitzer.prizes.winners/index.html
So why was I laughing? Because if you look at that article above or if you watched any of the news shows from Monday when the awards were announced, a reporters name was omitted from the list of the winners. This reporter for the NY Times, David Barstow...
http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/david-barstow/230565
Now all these TV networks and cable organizations are supposed to bring you the news unfiltered right? Yet David Barstow's name was omitted from their coverage. His name was nowhere to be found. And from their perspective (the networks) it was for good ! reason. Because the reason why he won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism is the same reason that each and every TV network that you tune into was absolutely humiliated for and caused them all to issue small worded apologies. And unless you read the article he won the prize for...you might never known why they were so embarrassed.
You see David Barstow was investigating something that many of us took for granted. The backgrounds of Experts and Analysts. In particular...Retired Generals. Now if you recall all the way back when the Iraq war started, every single network to bring more comprehensive coverage for their new divisions went out and hired these retired military officers. These were all guys who had seen or who had been in combat. Many of them were highly regarded for their extensive knowledge on war and its impact on units that they commanded or the armed forces. Most of them had retired in Washington or Virginia and they were very well respected by the! establishment for their service.
Once the Iraq war started these guys were sometimes on TV for hours. And for many people viewing from their TV's at home these generals and field officers gave an added sense of gravitas to the reporting that we were seeing as the war unfolded. They made people, especially those who may have had loved ones in the field of battle, more comfortable with their views.
Now just like any other analyst these generals were hired by the networks as consultants (or as analysts on yearly contracts). They were brought onto the shows to give their personal perspectives and also their straight talking views about what it was like in combat because many of them had commanded soldiers or had themselves been in the line of fire. But the networks were missing some information about many of these generals who were analysts:
Many of them were also being paid as consultants for defense and military contractors.
So in other words, these generals are hired by the news networks to be independent analysts. Except when they are going on TV they are not mentioning that they are also being paid by defense contractors. Now if you are going to give a commentary on the Iraq War and you are asked about what the military has or needs more of in the field...the newscaster is asking an analyst who has a financial stake in whatever company he represents to put forward in his expertise what should be on the battlefield.
Let's just take one of these guys and follow his route. General Barry McCaffrey. Hands down one the most educated generals out there. This guy served everywhere...NATO, was in Vietnam and Desert Storm, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, South American Command, Drug Czar, etc, etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_McCaffrey
Now the general on his own is a very powerful voice. Now he comes on TV as an analyst. But as he is doing that he is also being paid by defense contractors who have purchased his services through his little consulting business he set up...
http://www.mccaffreyassociates.com/
So the maker of the Bradley Fighting vehicle hires him on a consulting contract. Now he goes on TV. What does he say? In paraphrase, "The Bradley Fighting vehicle is the greatest weapon for our men and women serving in combat. We should be proud our boys are in those." Now do you see the problem? Now good old Barry is getting paid to say that. But the network doesn't tell you that he was a consultant for these defense contractors. You don't know that. So if the only thing you saw in the coverage of the war was TV then why not trust the good general. He has 40 years of experience and he knows what he is talking about. See how the relationship is tainted?
Now one of these Defense Contractors hired Barry McCaffrey to lobby for them. Four days later in Iraq General Petraeus had in his hand a 15 page briefing packet on what Defense Solutions could do for his soldiers in Iraq and also a personal note from McCaffrey. Guess who taught Petraeus at West Point? General Barry McCaffrey...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/washington/30general.html?hp
Who was awarded over $15 billion dollars in defense contracts? Defense Solutions.
Now it gets worse. Why? Because the Bush Administration gets involved.
And from three months after the Iraq war started, Each and every one of these military analysts for the networks...ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC are personally invited to the White House and the Pentagon for private off the record weekly briefings. These generals are also given direct command level access to any field commander provided that the Pentagon approves. Now these are not journalists remember they are analysts. Now for any of the networks this would be a clear violation of ethics. But for the military contractors who are also paying these generals this is a fucking goldmine.
Each of these generals that they have hired are being briefed by some of the most senior officials in the Pentagon. Also because of this access they are getting direct access to the people who make buying decisions for military gear. The defense contractors are thrilled. What greater access could they get?
I mean you can imagine the conversations going on. Now each of these generals will make their case but many of these generals who are retired either directly trained by the people they are talking to or they have personal relationships with the generals or their families. Would you deny good old General McCaffrey more fighting vehicles? Who the hell do you think taught them how to be generals themselves? If your teacher came to you and asked you how you could help them what are you going to do tell them to go screw themselves? Are you serious?
Now the Bush administration has Pentagon officials giving these briefings. And in these briefings they start pointing out things they want to highlight. Take a look at this old interview between Chris Matthews and Barry McCaffrey where they almost get into a full blown argument...
Now what's the problem with the interview? General McCaffrey is highlighted what he was told to highlight. The Pentagon and White House talking points. Now he has to highlight these talking points for a reason. If he doesn't highlight what the Pentagon and White House want highlighted...he loses his access to all these Pentagon officials who make buying decisions for his defense contractors that he works for. With bonuses into the millions at stake would YOU deviate from the talking points? But at the same time he's not really being objective either is he?
David Barstow's article that won the Pulitzer, "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand", you can read here...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html
Now here's the funny part. These analysts all worked for the networks and their NEWS divisions. Would you believe it if I told you that none of these networks...zero...knew of their analysts connections to defense contractors? None of the networks knew. They were all as dumb as you ever could be. These were the networks news divisions. Each and every one of them was caught with their pants down.
Now they knew that they were being invited to the White House and the Pentagon for briefings. But none of the networks even knew that they were working as consultants for these military contractors. The article when it came out brought forward some serious back peddling from the networks. One of these networks (NBC) was dumb enough where emails between NBC and Barry McCaffrey emerged where they were coordinating their responses...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/01/mccaffrey/index1.html
But General McCaffrey still remains an analyst on NBC despite his ties. And these networks released statements on this story but I never saw them acknowledge how badly they were deceived or how badly they were embarrassed by their news divisions. This was a story that triggered Congressional hearings. Did you even know that? If you were only watching TV how would you have known?
Do you think these humiliated news divisions would have called themselves to account? No way. The Politico commented on this and the 'deafening silence' of the story...
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=C91CC155-3048-5C12-00ECB0E24C6D97E7
But in no way does that diminish its power.
If newspapers disappear what will investigative journalism look like in the future?
