Well gosh, how could they ever have seen that coming?

Anyway, Schneier covers the story and links to the TSA's response as well as taking a moment to denounce the program again along with most of what the TSA is doing for airport security. Since I've met the privacy officer for the TSA and know he knows what he's doing, the only reason I can come up with for this is that they're not listening to him when he's telling them not to put this kind of data on laptops unencrypted.

Best of all, he's of the same philosophy that the President can do whatever he damn well pleases during a "time of war" which is funny since we're conveniently in a "War on Terror" that's sure to end as quickly and decisively as the "War on Drugs".

The Article II citation is key, since it refers to President Bush's longstanding arguments that the president has nearly unlimited powers during a time of war. The administration's analysis went so far as to say the Fourth Amendment did not apply inside the United States in the fight against terrorism, in one legal opinion from 2001.

That would be just great. Yeah… Let's have a president that continues the vicious downward spiral of American stability, freedom, and public opinion… Let's do that.

Fact: Most (if not all) in-store computers are pre-installed with Windows Vista
Fact: Most standard consumers don't build their own computers

Therefore, if a normal person goes to a store to buy a computer, and all of their options are Windows Vista, Windows Vista, or, gosh maybe I'll take, Windows Vista, it follows that they'll "choose" Windows Vista. Dur…

Last I checked, lack of options doesn't mean that they made any choice at all. Besides, most normal computer users would automatically assume that the newest version of an operating system is the best option because they normally are. Unless they've studied the news and/or read site like this one, they wouldn't know to steer clear.

So… My point is that the Ars article says absolutely nothing of value. Even if it were true that people were "choosing" Vista, it wouldn't mean anything.

Why not just ask for an anonymous card? Exchanging means that you'll get a bunch of ads for stuff that has no relation to you. What if you exchange with a guy who buys ingredients for a bomb or a meth lab? that might come back on you.

Even if the store won't give you an anonymous card, just use fake data.

If you're curious why store value cards and such are a bad idea, see Nocards.org for details.

(H/T to Consumerist.com for the link)

“In Manhunt 2, players can mutilate their enemies with an axe; saw their skulls in half castrate them with a pair of pliers; or kill them by bashing their head into an electrical box, where a power surges eventually blows their head apart,?? the letter charges. “On the Nintendo Wii, players will actually act out the violence. One review of the game describes using a saw blade to "cut upward into a foe's groin and buttocks, motioning forward and backward with the Wii remote as you go.??

Wow, you couldn't make it more real if you tried. Parental groups in the US aren't necessarily determined to ban it and would be satisfied with just giving it an Adult rating. While this is a completely reasonable request and, as far as I'm concerned, a blatantly obvious decision, Take-Two (the game's producer) is fighting this for purely monetary reasons:

An Adults Only rating, however, could be a death blow to the game, since Nintendo and Sony, maker of the PlayStation platform, currently have policies that bar AO-rated games for their systems. That would limit sales for use only on personal computers.

Now that the inevitible abuses have come to light, it would be nice if someone would face some consequences for a change. Like maybe Alberto Gonzales who lied to congress saying that there were no abuses during the hearing for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

(H/T to Slashdot for the link)

Fortunately, there's no chance this will work for long. First there's the SET technology for filesharing that uses generic chunks from files unrelated to copyrighted material to speed up sharing. If this gets implemented, not only will it improve filesharing speeds and allow people to finish files that have lost their seeders/sources, but it will prevent AT&T from filtering copyrighted material without blocking legitimate shares as well.

Secondly, it won't be long until filesharing networks introduce a quick encryption to packets that scramble them randomly using an IP address so the chunks of data won't be recognized by AT&T filters. I'm sure there are plenty of other techniques as well, but one thing's for certain: even honest non-hackers and non-sharers are still rooting against the copyright holders and AT&T.

I mean, come on! The article says the copyright companies lost billions of dollars due to filesharing? All they're doing is talking about the value of the files they know have been shared without taking into account that many of the people who are downloading these files would never have bought them in the first place! They're not losing money they would have had, they're losing money they never would have had.

As the article itself says, the RIAA and MPAA should just focus their money and resources in finding ways to turn downloaders into honest customers (perhaps cutting prices? Offering slick downloadable options? Removing all DRM so people can do what they want with it?)

(H/T to Slashdot for the link)

"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians . . . would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country," U.S. Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the majority.

Let me say this again, no one cares about terrorists and whether they're held forever, tortured or whatever to protect innocent people. The problem is that Bush has declared that he alone gets to decide who the terrorists are and what laws to follow and which to ignore.

Fortunately, even though congress won't stand up to him, the courts are little by little. Thank the founders for coming up with three branches instead of just two.

He doesn't assail any Democrats by name. Bush, however, he names. Over and over.

…

While Gore stops short of flatly calling for the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, he certainly gives the impression that in his view such a move would be well deserved. He calls the president a lawbreaker, a liar and a man with the blood of thousands of innocent lives on his hands.

Wow. If Gore had appeared to have this kind of independent thought long ago, the election might have gone differently. I do fault him for being a coward like every other politicican in not calling for impeachment.

How exactly are you being a responsible non-politician if you call him a lawbreaker but don't flat out say he needs to be impeached and NOW?

(H/T to Digg.com for the link)

Here are some of the provisions and what I think they mean:

Summary

That's most of the really important stuff anyway. The Consumerist has a link to an online form that will help you tell your congressmembers to support this so be sure to head over there for it.