Ron Paul in last night's GOP debate

My buyer's remorse about contributing to his campaign has been greatly reduced, if not eliminated.

MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Notice that Giuliani misrepresented Paul's statement by quoting Goler's phrase about "inviting" the attacks of 9/11, and is lying when he says he's never heard the idea that the U.S. was attacked by al-Qaeda because of U.S. actions in the Middle East, such as having troops in Islam's holy cities. Paul later clarified on The Situation Room that he's not defending a position any different from that in the 9/11 Commission Report, that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is a significant factor in why the terrorists have attacked us. That's not blaming the American public or saying that they "invited" the attacks--leave that argument to Dinesh D'Souza and George W. Bush, who say they attacked us because they "hate our freedom," therefore let's do everything we can to take away that freedom.

(Transcript from Sheldon Richman's blog. More sophisticated analysis of Paul's position may be found from Tim Lee and Brian Moore at Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Blog, Jeff's Thoughts blog, and Andrew Sullivan--who also points out that Ron Paul and John McCain were the only two GOP candidates to condemn torture.)

McCain proposes an unfunded mandate for ISPs

Declan McCullagh at News.com reports that Sen. John McCain is preparing to hold a press conference with John Walsh of America's Most Wanted and Miss America 2007 to announce a bill that will create a new mandate for Internet Service Providers to eavesdrop on all of their customers email and web traffic in search of child porn images. The act apparently requires ISPs to implement new technology to compare all images transmitted or received by their customers to a federal database of images (presumably via some one-way hash function, so that the database is not itself distributing child pornography), and to report any that are detected to John Walsh's National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a nonprofit, non-governmental organization that operates as a clearinghouse/proxy for federal and state law enforcement with Congressional mandate and federal funding.

The new bill is known as the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation Online or SAFE Act, and is not to be confused with the 2003 SAFE Act (Security and Freedom Ensured), the 1997 SAFE Act (Security and Freedom through Encryption), or the 1998 SAFE Act (Safety Advancement For Employees).

John McCain the inconsistent flip-flopper

This video of John McCain shows video clips of him saying one thing and then the opposite on a number of subjects including the war in Iraq, the Confederate flag, the religious right, and gay marriage. Some of these are a bit misleadingly edited, such as the gay marriage item, where it doesn't look like he actually contradicted himself to me.



Hat tip to Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Bush administration's suppression of information it didn't like

Talking Points Memo has been collecting examples of information (website content, reports, studies, etc.) that the Bush administration has suppressed because they were somehow contrary to the administration's positions.

The list has become fairly lengthy. Here's what they've got so far:

* In March, the administration announced it would no longer produce the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, which identifies which programs best assist low-income families, while also tracking health insurance coverage and child support.

* In 2005, after a government report showed an increase in terrorism around the world, the administration announced it would stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism.

* After the Bureau of Labor Statistics uncovered discouraging data about factory closings in the U.S., the administration announced it would stop publishing information about factory closings.

* When an annual report called “Budget Information for States” showed the federal government shortchanging states in the midst of fiscal crises, Bush’s Office of Management and Budget announced it was discontinuing the report, which some said was the only source for comprehensive data on state funding from the federal government.

* When Bush’s Department of Education found that charter schools were underperforming, the administration said it would sharply cut back on the information it collects about charter schools.

* The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has to date failed to produce a congressionally-mandated report on climate change that was due in 2004. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has called the failure an "obfuscation."

* The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced plans to close several libraries which were used by researchers and scientists. The agency called its decision a cost-cutting measure, but a 2004 report showed that the facilities actually brought the EPA a $7.5 million surplus annually. (Thanks to Mark B. below.)

* On November 1st, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order limiting the public's access to presidential records. The order undermined the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which required the release of those records after 12 years. Bush's order prevented the release of "68,000 pages of confidential communications between President Ronald Reagan and his advisers," some of whom had positions in the Bush Administration. More here. (Thanks to Roger A. and nitpicker below.) Update: TPMm Reader JP writes in to point out that Bush did the same thing with his papers from the Texas governorship.

* A rule change at the U.S. Geological Survey restricts agency scientists from publishing or discussing research without that information first being screened by higher-ups at the agency. Special screening will be given to "findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed." The scientists at the USGS cover such controversial topics as global warming. Before, studies were released after an anonymous peer review of the research. (Thanks to Alison below.)

* A new policy at the The U.S. Forest Service means the agency no longer will generate environmental impact statements for "its long-term plans for America's national forests and grasslands." It also "no longer will allow the public to appeal on long-term plans for those forests, but instead will invite participation in planning from the outset." (Thanks to libra below.)

* In March 2006, the Department of Health and Human Services took down a six-year-old Web site devoted to substance abuse and treatment information for gays and lesbians, after members of the conservative Family Research Council complained.

* In 2002, HHS removed information from its Web site pertaining to risky sexual behavior among adolescents, condom use and HIV.

* Also in 2002, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission removed from its Web site a document showing that officials found large gaps in a portion of an aging Montana dam. A FERC official said the deletion was for "national security."

* In 2004, the FBI attempted to retroactively classify public information regarding the case of bureau whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, including a series of letters between the Justice Department and several senators.

* In October 2003, the Bush administration banned photographs depicting servicemembers' coffins returning from overseas.

* In December 2002, the administration curtailed funding to the Mass-Layoffs Statistics program, which released monthly data on the number and size of layoffs by U.S. companies. His father attempted to kill the same program in 1992, but Clinton revived it when he assumed the presidency.

* In 2004, the Internal Revenue Service stopped providing data demonstrating the level of its job performance. In 2006, a judge forced the IRS to provide the information.

* Also in 2004, the Federal Communications Commission blocked access to a once-public database of network outages affecting telecommunications service providers. The FCC removed public copies and exempted the information from Freedom of Information Act requests, saying it would "jeopardize national security efforts." Experts ridiculed that notion.

* In 2002, Bush officials intervened to derail the publication of an EPA report on mercury and children's health, which contradicted the administration's position on lowering regulations on certain power plants. The report was eventually leaked by a "frustrated EPA official."

* In 2003, the EPA bowed to White House pressure and deleted the global warming section in its annual "Report on the Environment." The move drew condemnations from Democrats and Republicans alike.

* Also in 2003, the EPA withheld for months key findings from an air pollution report that undercut the White House's "Clear Skies" initiative. Leaked copies were reported in the Washington Post.

* For more than a year, the Interior Department refused to release a 2005 study showing a government subsidy for oil companies was not effective.

* The White House Office of National Drug Policy paid for a 5-year, $43 million study which concluded their anti-drug ad campaigns did not work -- but it refused to release those findings to Congress. (Thanks to skeptic below.)

* In 2006, the Federal Communications Commission ordered destroyed all copies of an unreleased 2004 draft report concluding that media consolidation hurt local TV news coverage, which runs counter to the administration's pro-consolidation stance. (Thanks to Jim Tobias below.)

* After Bush assumed power in 2001, the Department of Labor removed from its Web site "Don't Work in the Dark -- Know Your Rights," a publication informing women of their workplace rights. (via the National Council for Research on Women)

* The Department of Labor also removed from its Web site roughly two dozen fact sheets on women's workplace issues such as women in management, earning differences between men and women, child care concerns, and minority women in the workplace. (via the National Council for Research on Women)

* In February 2004, the appointed head of the Office of Special Counsel -- created to protect government employees' rights -- ordered removed from a government Web site information on the rights of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals in the public workplace. (via the National Council for Research on Women)

* In early 2001, the Treasury Department stopped producing reports showing how the benefits of tax cuts were distributed by income class. (via the Tax Policy Center, from Paul Krugman)

McCain wrong about North Korea

Sen. John McCain has attempted to blame President Clinton for North Korea's development of nuclear weapons:

"I would remind Senator [Hillary] Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure," McCain said at a news conference after a campaign appearance for Republican Senate candidate Mike Bouchard.

"The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military," he said.

But McCain is wrong. In 1994, the North Koreans were producing weapons-grade plutonium. The Clinton Administration negotiated the Agreed Framework, under which they halted their program and allowed inspections of the plutonium they had produced. The North Korean plutonium program remained halted until 2002. In 2000, George W. Bush came into office wanting to terminate the agreement over plutonium, and in 2002 he did so on the basis of evidence that the North Koreans were trying to enrich uranium. As a result of U.S. withdrawal from the agreement, the North Koreans again began producing weapons-grade plutonium, which was used in their bomb test.

The evidence is that the Clinton Administration agreement kept North Korea from developing plutonium-based nuclear weapons from 1994 to 2002, and that the Bush Administration's withdrawal from that agreement and failure to replace it led to North Korea detonating a plutonium-based nuclear weapon on October 9, 2006.

Now, of course I place the blame for developing a nuclear weapon on North Korea rather than the United States--but if we're looking for who in the United States is most responsible for allowing them to do so, I don't see anyone with greater responsibility than President George W. Bush. McCain's attempt to divert blame to Clinton is ridiculous.

If Clinton's posture is criticized as all carrots but no sticks (which is itself in error, since war was threatened to get North Korea to the bargaining table in 1994), the accurate criticism of Bush's posture is no carrots and no sticks.

UPDATE: Condi Rice has made the same criticism as McCain.

Specter and McCain voted for a bill they believed to be unconstitutional

Both Arlen Specter and John McCain have publicly stated that they thought there were unconstitutional provisions in the Military Commissions Act which they voted for.

That's an admission of acting contrary to their oath of office. Neither of these men is fit to serve.

(A previous post on the Military Commissions Act and Arizona Representatives' votes on it is here.)

Congress grants president the right to torture, indefinitely detain

Today the Senate, following the House, voted to legalize the right for the government to engage in physical interrogation techniques that most people would consider to be torture and to detain individuals permanently without criminal charges by designating them "unlawful enemy combatants," even if they are U.S. citizens who have never left the country. As Glenn Greenwald puts it, Congress has legalized tyranny.

Both of Arizona's Senators (John McCain and Jon Kyl) voted for the bill, S. 3930.

Arizona's Representatives voted as follows on the detainment bill, H.R. 6166 (the Senate bill is S. 3930):

In favor:

Jeff Flake (R-District 6)
Trent Franks (R-District 2)
J.D. Hayworth (R-District 5)
Jim Kolbe (R-District 8)
Rick Renzi (R-District 1)
John Shadegg (R-District 3)

Against:

Raul Grijalva (D-District 7)
Ed Pastor (D-District 4)

Once again, a completely partisan vote in which the Republicans demonstrate their disregard for this constitutional republic. You can find the complete House vote results here.

UPDATE September 29, 2006: Ed Brayton has more at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

The founders of this country would have found this grounds for revolution.

UPDATE October 1, 2006: I fully expect the courts to overturn this, since the U.S. Constitution allows only two conditions for the temporary suspension of habeas corpus in Article I, Section 9 ("when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it").

It is also worth noting that there is some simplification, above. The designation of "unlawful enemy combatant" (UEC) in the bill is made by "a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

Also see Richard Epstein's testimony to the Senate (PDF) urging them to kill this bill, which they disregarded.

John McCain's reason for voting for a flag desecration amendment

From a letter to me dated August 11, 2006, in response to a letter I sent him criticizing his vote:

Thank you for expressing your views about the issue of flag desecration. I share your concern in this matter.

I believe we have an inviolable duty to protect the right of free speech--one of our most precious inalienable rights and the linchpin of a healthy democracy. I do not believe, however, that guaranteeing respect for our national symbol by prohibiting "acts" of desecration impinges on political "speech."

As long as citizens are free to speak out on any matter and from whatever point of view they wish, as our forefathers intended, it does not seem burdensome to me that we accord some modicum of respect to the symbol of those precious freedoms for which so many of our countrymen have laid down their lives.

Some view these efforts to protect the flag as political demogoguery or empty symbolism, unworthy of the attention it receives. I see the issue differently. The flag represents each and every one of us, regardless of race, religion or political point of view. It is a point of unity in the midst of our great diversity. Tolerating desecration of the flag is silent acquiescence to the degeneration of the broader values which sustain us as a free and democratic nation--the ramifications of which are far more profound than mere symbolism.

For these reasons, I have support [sic] a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. I voted for such language in previous Congresses, but unfortunately, the tally has always fallen short of the 67 affirmative votes necessary for approval. Additionally, I have cosponsored legislation to statutorily provide protection for the flag in a manner that will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Again, thank you for your interest in this important issue. I hope you will continue to share your views with me on this or any other matter of concern to you and our nation.

Sincerely,
/s/
John McCain
United States Senator

Senator McCain states that "Tolerating desecration of the flag is silent acquiescence to the degeneration of the broader values which sustain us as a free and democratic nation." But this completely ignores the fact that it is not only possible but certain that voices will loudly speak out in criticism of flag desecration--that's not silent acquiescence, that's fighting bad speech with good speech, which is the whole point of the First Amendment.

McCain explicitly recognizes that the flag is a symbol. It's a symbol that can be represented in art, language, binary data, and a Penn and Teller illusion. (Penn & Teller's illusion raises the question of whether the symbolic desecration of a symbol is any different from an actual desecration of a symbol.) To place limits on the contexts that symbol can be placed in or on transformations of that symbol is to place limits on free expression, and to place limits on the principle of freedom of speech that lies behind the First Amendment.

By his willingness to make a special exception for this symbol, McCain is doing damage to a constitutional principle. His position on this issue is just as wrong as his position on trying to protect government from the consequences of violating the First Amendment in his vote for the PERA Act, and just as contrary to his oath of office.

McCain endorses religious right theocrat candidate Len Munsil

John McCain continues his pandering to the religious right by endorsing Republican candidate for Governor of Arizona, Len Munsil. Munsil, who attended Arizona State University at the same time I did, was editor of the ASU newspaper, the State Press. Now he runs an extremist religious right policy organization, the Center for Arizona Policy, which opposed the removal of Arizona's laws banning cohabitation and oral sex. (They were removed anyway, by a moderate female Republican Governor, Jane Dee Hull.) Munsil drafted Arizona's law on marriage (which defines marriage to preclude gay marriage) and is behind Proposition 107, the Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment, which amends the Arizona Constitution to prohibit the creation of civil unions or the granting of any legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to marriage.

I've previously written about Munsil here, where I describe how he refused to print a letter to the editor I wrote criticizing factual errors in an editorial he wrote in the State Press.

You can find out more about Munsil and his supporters and detractors at this Arizona Republic blog entry, "Munsil: I'm a Reagan, Kyl-style Republican." I've left a number of comments there.

Bush's veto of the stem cell bill

As everyone knows, Bush's first veto ever was of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, to authorize federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, on the ridiculous basis that this research involves killing "boys and girls."

As Scott Rosenberg points out at Salon:

Here is why Bush's position is a joke: Thousands and thousands of embryos are destroyed every year in fertility clinics. They are created in petri dishes as part of fertility treatments like IVF; then they are discarded. If Bush and his administration truly believe that destroying an embryo is a kind of murder, they shouldn't be wasting their time arguing about research funding: They should immediately shut down every fertility clinic in the country, arrest the doctors and staff who operate them, and charge all the wannabe parents who have been wantonly slaughtering legions of the unborn. But of course they'll never do such a thing. (Nor, to be absolutely clear, do I think they should.) Bush could not care less about this issue except as far as it helps burnish his pro-life credentials among his "base."
...

If Bush believes destroying embryos is murder, let him take a real stand against it. If he doesn't, he shouldn't make it harder for the thousands of embryos that are being discarded anyway to be used for a valuable purpose that could improve real lives.

That's why Bush's stem cell position isn't Solomonic -- it's craven. His upcoming veto is an act not of moral leadership but of hypocrisy. And the cost of this hypocrisy, assuming Congress can't muster the votes for an override, will be borne by everyone who dreams of new cures for awful illnesses.

The House vote to override the veto failed by 51 votes, 235-193. Arizona's Representatives did not follow partisan lines on this--voting to override the veto were Flake (R), Grijalva (D), Kolbe (R), and Pastor (D). Voting against were Franks (R), Hayworth (R), Renzi (R), and Shadegg (R).

Back in May of last year when the House passed the bill, Grijalva, Kolbe, and Pastor voted for it, while Flake, Franks, Hayworth, Renzi, and Shadegg voted against it as the Eagle Forum insisted.

In the Senate, where it passed yesterday on a vote after sitting there for over a year, Kyl voted against the bill and McCain voted for it. No surprise there.

(Thanks to John Lynch at stranger fruit for the voting info and the reference to Rosenberg.)

UPDATE July 19, 2006: I've corrected the above to put Franks' vote back on the expected side and remove my comments of surprise about his vote. I'm still surprised by Flake's vote to override the veto.

U.S. House votes to place limits on judiciary

Yahoo headlined this story "House votes to keep 'under God' in pledge," but that's not accurate. The House passed a bill (H.R. 2389, the "Pledge Protection Act of 2005," on a vote of 260-167) which prohibits the courts from hearing challenges to the presence of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, which strikes me as an unconstitutional action by the Congress. (Congress does have the power in Article I, Section 8 "To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court" and "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," which gives them at least some powers of regulation (to the extent that it is "necessary and proper") over the courts. But circumscribing the topics which the Supreme Court can address would seem to me to be something only the Constitution can do. Any constitutional scholars care to comment?

Missouri Rep. Todd Akin is quoted in the story saying, "We're creating a fence. The fence goes around the federal judiciary. We're doing that because we don't trust them."

Yet it's Congress, more than the courts, that can't be trusted to be remotely responsible, rational, respectful of the Constitution, or of the people. We'd be much better off putting a fence around the Congress, such as by ending the First Amendment after the fifth word.

"Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance by act of Congress in 1954 for explicitly religious reasons (to distinguish the U.S. from the godless communists in the Soviet Union), and the U.S. Supreme Court avoided making a ruling on the issue in Michael Newdow's case by throwing the case out on a technicality--the issue of standing, since he didn't have custody of his daughter. He's currently pursuing the case through the courts again with other plaintiffs.

All but one of Arizona's Republican Representatives signed on as sponsors of the House bill: Trent Franks, Jeff Flake, J.D. Hayworth, Rick Renzi, John Shadegg. The one Republican exception was Jim Kolbe (R); the two Arizona Democrats, Raul Grijalva and Ed Pastor, did not. I suspect their voting went along these same lines.

The Senate version of this bill is S. 1046, introduced by Arizona Senator Jon Kyl. While the House bill attracted 197 sponsors, the Senate bill has only attracted 16 and Senator John McCain is not among them. The Senate bill is stalled out in the Judiciary Committee.

Arizona Senators on the Flag Desecration Amendment

Both John McCain and Jon Kyl voted in favor of the desecration of the Constitution, but it failed by just one vote.

We have an opportunity this year to get rid of Kyl. We should take it.

(Arizona's Representatives voted much more honorably.)

Broadcast and audio flags, learn from history

The recording and movie industries want to force a "broadcast flag" and "audio flag" into TV and radio transmissions, and require all electronic manufacturers to enforce these flags to prohibit unauthorized copying and redistribution of such content. These flags have been entered into Sen. Stevens' telecom reform bill, and Sen. Sununu has a proposed amendment to take them out. This issue is being discussed in committee today, so if you've got a Senator on this list, call them today and ask them to support the Sununu amendment to remove both flags from the bill (there's a separate Sununu amendment that only removes the audio flag):

Chairman Ted Stevens (AK), (202) 224-3004                                
John McCain (AZ), (202) 224-2235                                         
Conrad Burns (MT), Main: 202-224-2644                                    
Trent Lott (MS), (202) 224-6253                                          
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), (202) 224-5922                                
Gordon H. Smith (OR), (202) 224 3753
John Ensign (NV), (202) 224-6244                                         
George Allen (VA), (202) 224-4024                                        
John E. Sununu (NH), (202) 224-2841                                      
Jim DeMint (SC), (202) 224-6121                                          
David Vitter (LA),(202) 224-4623                                         
Co-Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (HI), (202) 224-3934                        
John D. Rockefeller (WV), (202) 224-6472                                 
John F. Kerry (MA), (202) 224-2742                                       
Barbara Boxer (CA), (202) 224-3553                                       
Bill Nelson (FL), (202) 224-5274                                         
Maria Cantwell (WA), (202) 224-3441                                      
Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ), (202) 224-3224                                 
E. Benjamin Nelson (NE), (202) 224-6551                                  
Mark Pryor (AR), (202) 224-2353

The Consumer Electronics Association has a new advertisement out that shows the lunacy of the arguments for these flags based on the past record of these industries crying wolf about the dangers of new technology:

“I forsee a marked deterioration in American music…and a host of other injuries to music in its artistic manifestations, by virtue—or rather by vice—of the multiplication of the various music-reproducing machines…” -John Philip Sousa on the Player Piano (1906)

“The public will not buy songs that it can hear almost at will by a brief manipulation of the radio dials.” -Record Label Executive on FM Radio (1925)

“But now we are faced with a new and very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the videocassette recorder.” -MPAA on the VCR (1982)

“When the manufacturers hand the public a license to record at home…not only will the songwriter tie a noose around his neck, not only will there be no more records to tape [but] the innocent public will be made an accessory to the destruction of four industries.” -ASCAP on the Cassette Tape (1982)

Information Security Index

This post is an index to posts at The Lippard Blog on the subject of information security. This is probably not a complete list; I've tended to exclude posts labeled "security" that don't specifically touch on information security and may have over-excluded.

"Richard Bejtlich reviews Extreme Exploits" (August 16, 2005) Link to Richard Bejtlich review of Extreme Exploits, a book I was the technical editor on.

"Sony's DRM--not much different from criminal hacking" (November 2, 2005) Summary and link to Mark Russinovich's exposure of the Sony rootkit DRM.

"Defending Against Botnets" (November 3, 2005) Link to my presentation on this subject at Arizona State University.

"Sony DRM class action lawsuits" (November 10, 2005) Comment on the Sony rootkit class action lawsuits.

"Another Botnet Talk" (December 11, 2005) Comment on my December botnet talk for Phoenix InfraGard, with links to past botnet presentations.

"Major flaw in Diebold voting machines" (December 23, 2005) A flaw that allows preloading votes on a memory card for Diebold voting machines in an undetectible way.

"The Windows Meta File (WMF) exploit" (January 3, 2006) Description of an at-the-time unresolved Windows vulnerability.

"New Internet consumer protection tool--SiteAdvisor.com" (January 25, 2006) Report on SiteAdvisor.com tool (now a McAfee product).

"Pushing Spyware through Search" (January 28, 2006) Ben Edelman's work on how Google is connected to spyware by accepting paid advertising from companies that distribute it.

"Database error causes unbalanced budget" (February 17, 2006) How a house in Indiana was incorrectly valued at $400 million due to a single-keystroke error, leading to wrongly increased budgets and distribution of funds on the expectation of property tax revenue.

"The Security Catalyst podcast" (February 18, 2006) Announcement of Michael Santarcangelo's security podcast.

"Controversial hacker publishes cover story in Skeptical Inquirer" (February 19, 2006) Critique of Carolyn Meinel's article about information warfare.

"Even more serious Diebold voting machine flaws" (May 14, 2006) Hurst report on new major flaws found in Diebold voting machines.

"Botnet interview on the Security Catalyst podcast" (May 23, 2006) Link to part I of my interview on botnets with Michael Santarcangelo.

"Part II of Botnets Interview" (June 4, 2006) Link to part II of my botnets interview.

"'Banner farms' and spyware" (June 12, 2006) Ben Edelman's exposure of Hula Direct's "banner farms" used to deliver ads via spyware.

"When private property becomes the commons" (June 12, 2006) Consumer PCs as Internet "commons," economics and information security.

"Network security panel in Boston area" (June 12, 2006) Announcement of a public speaking gig.

"Identity Crisis: How Identification is Overused and Misunderstood" (July 6, 2006) Quotation from Tim Lee review of book by Jim Harper with this title.

"9th Circuit approves random warrantless searches and seizures of laptops" (July 28, 2006) Bad decision granting border police the right to perform full forensic examination of the hard drives of laptops carried by people wanting to cross the U.S. border.

"Is it worth shutting down botnet controllers?" (August 18, 2006) A response to remarks by Gadi Evron and Paul Vixie that it is no longer worth shutting down botnet controllers.

"The ineffectiveness of TRUSTe" (September 29, 2006) A larger proportion of sites with TRUSTe certification are marked as untrustworthy in SiteAdvisor's database than of those that don't have TRUSTe certification.

"The U.S. no-fly list is a joke" (October 5, 2006) The no-fly list has major flaws, listing people who aren't a threat and not listing people who are--and presuming that terrorists will be identifiable by their names.

"How planespotting uncovered CIA torture flights" (October 20, 2006) How an unusual hobby allowed for traffic analysis to uncover CIA torture flights.

"Point out the obvious, get raided by the FBI" (October 29, 2006) Chris Soghoian gets raided by the FBI after putting up a web page that allows generation of Northwest Airlines boarding passes.

"Electronic voting machines in Florida having problems in early voting" (October 31, 2006) A report on voting machines registering votes for the wrong candidate due to touch screen calibration issues.

"The Two Faces of Diebold" (November 5, 2006) The difference between the public and private versions of SAIC's report on Diebold voting machine vulnerabilities.

"FBI eavesdropping via cell phones and OnStar" (December 4, 2006) Reports of vulnerabilities in newer cell phones that allow them to be used as listening devices even when powered off.

"Time to Stop Using Microsoft Word" (December 7, 2006) New unpatched malicious code execution vulnerability in most versions of Word.

"Staffer for Congressman tries to hire hacker to change grades" (December 22, 2006) Todd Shriber's failed attempt to retroactively improve his college career.

"My bank is on the ball" (January 6, 2007) My bank prevents theft of my money.

"Skeptical information and security information links" (January 23, 2007) Promotion of my security links and skeptical links sites.

"Schoolteacher convicted on bogus charges due to malware" (February 4, 2007) Connecticut teacher Julie Amero successfully prosecuted for showing porn to kids, when in fact it was the result of malware on a machine the school district refused to pay for antivirus software on.

"McCain proposes an unfunded mandate for ISPs" (February 7, 2007) McCain sponsors a bill to force ISPs to scan all traffic for and report child porn images they find.

"Warner Music: We'd rather go out of business than give customers what they want" (February 9, 2007) Warner Music says no way to DRM-free music.

"The economics of information security" (February 13, 2007) Ross Anderson and Tyler Moore paper on the economics of infosec.

"How IPv6 is already creating security problems" (February 19, 2007) Apple AirPort allows bypass of firewall rules via IPv6.

"Windows, Mac, and BSD Security" (March 8, 2007) Amusing video parody comparing the OSes.

"Bob Hagen on botnet evolution" (March 9, 2007) My former colleague on trends in botnets.

"The rsync.net warrant canary" (March 25, 2007) How rsync.net will communicate whether it receives a National Security Letter without breaking the law.

"FBI focus on counterterrorism leads to increase in unprosecuted fraud and identity theft" (April 11, 2007) The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

"Banning the distribution of AACS keys is futile" (May 3, 2007) You can't stop the communication of a 128-bit number as though it's proprietary.

"CALEA compliance day" (May 14, 2007) Commemoration of the day that VoIP providers have to be CALEA-compliant.

"Spying on the homefront" (May 14, 2007) PBS Frontline on FBI misuse of National Security Letters and NSA eavesdropping.

"The bots of summer" (June 6, 2007) Report on some media coverage of my botnet interview with the Security Catalyst from 2006.

"Microsoft's new Turing Test" (June 12, 2007) It's not often I get to combine animal rescue and information security topics, but this is one--using animal pictures to authenticate.

"Operation Bot Roast" (June 14, 2007) FBI prosecution of some botnet people.

"Google thinks I'm malware" (July 13, 2007) Google stops returning results to me in some cases because my behavior looks like malware activity.

"Asking printer manufacturers to stop spying results in Secret Service visit?" (July 14, 2007) MIT Media Lab project to get people to complain to printer manufacturers about their secret coding of serial numbers, which got one person a visit from the USSS.

"A marketplace for software vulnerabilities" (July 29, 2007) WabiSabiLabi's abortive attempt to create a market for the sale and purchase of vulnerability information.

"Another Sony rootkit" (September 5, 2007) F-Secure finds another Sony product that installs a rootkit--the Sony MicroVault USM-F memory stick (now off the market).

"Anti-P2P company suffers major security breach" (September 16, 2007) Media Defender gets hacked.

"Microsoft updates Windows XP and Vista without user permission or notification" (September 17, 2007) Nine executables get pushed to everybody even if Windows update is turned off--except for corporate SMS users.

"Lessons for information security from Multics" (September 19, 2007) Paul Karger and Roger Schell's paper on Multics gets attention from Bruce Schneier.

"Hacker finds vulnerability in Adobe Reader" (September 24, 2007) The era of attacks on applications rather than OS's gets a boost.

"Break-in at CI Host colo facility" (November 4, 2007) The role of physical security for websites.

"Spammers and criminals for Ron Paul" (November 6, 2007) Botnets used to send spam promoting Ron Paul.

"Macintosh security lags behind Windows and BSD" (November 8, 2007) Rundown on new Mac security features, some of which are negative in effect.

"Multics source code released" (November 13, 2007) Multics becomes open source.

"Untraceable looks unwatchable" (December 18, 2007) A post that generated a huge amount of response, about the Diane Lane movie that flopped at the box office, before it came out.

"Notorious major spammer indicted" (January 3, 2008) Alan Ralsky may actually get what he deserves.

"Boeing 787 potentially vulnerable to passenger software-based hijacking" (January 8, 2008) Passenger Internet access for the Boeing 787 is physically connected to the network for communication and navigation.

"'Anonymous' launches 'war' against Scientology" (January 22, 2008) Denial of service attacks and other pranks against Scientology.

"Tinfoil hat brigade generates fear about Infragard" (February 8, 2008) Response to Matt Rothschild's article in The Progressive claiming that InfraGard members have the right to "shoot to kill" when martial law is declared.

"FBI responds to 'shoot to kill' claims about InfraGard" (February 15, 2008) Commentary and link to the FBI's response to Rothschild.

"Malware in digital photo frames" (February 17, 2008) Viruses in unusual digital storage locations.

"Canada busts 17 in botnet ring" (February 21, 2008) News about law enforcement action against criminals in Canada.

"More InfraGard FUD and misinformation" (February 23, 2008) Response to Gary Barnett's InfraGard article at the Future of Freedom Foundation website.

"New Mexico InfraGard conference" (February 24, 2008) Summary of the New Mexico InfraGard's "Dollar-Gard 2008" conference.

"Pakistan takes out YouTube, gets taken out in return" (February 25, 2008) Yesterday's events of political and/or religious censorship gone awry in Pakistan.

"Jeremy Jaynes loses appeal on spamming case" (March 1, 2008) The Virginia Supreme Court upholds Virginia's anti-spam law.

"Software awards scam" (March 25, 2008) Many software download sites give out bogus awards.

"Scammers scamming scammers" (April 7, 2008) Marco Cova looks at what some phishing kits really do.

"Bad military botnet proposal" (May 13, 2008) A response to Col. Charles Williamson's proposal to build a military botnet.

"MediaDefender launches denial of service attack against Revision3" (May 29, 2008) Anti-P2P piracy firm crosses the line and attacks a legitimate company.

"San Francisco's city network held hostage" (July 19, 2008) Some actual facts behind the hyped charges against the city's network administrator.

"Did Diebold tamper with Georgia's 2002 elections?" (July 20, 2008) Some troubling information about Diebold's last-minute patching on Georgia election machines.

"Expert tells China visitors to encrypt data as U.S. announces policy of laptop seizure" (August 1, 2008) Concerns about privacy in both China and the U.S.

"Military botnets article" (August 28, 2008) Peter Buxbaum's article on "Battling Botnets" in Military Information Technology magazine.

"Virginia Supreme Court strikes down anti-spam law" (September 12, 2008) Julian Jaynes goes free as Virginia's anti-spam law goes away.

"Sarah Palin's Yahoo account hacked" (September 17, 2008) Palin's Yahoo account is hacked, and the contents published.

"TSA airport security is a waste of time and money" (October 18, 2008) Link to Jeffrey Goldberg's article in The Atlantic.

"Behind the scenes during the election process" (November 6, 2008) Both major party presidential nominees suffered computer compromises.

"White House may be forced to recover 'lost' emails" (November 14, 2008) Lawsuit may require recovery from backups.

"Criminal activity by air marshals" (November 14, 2008) Multiple cases.

"PATRIOT Act NSL gag order unconstitutional" (December 19, 2008) Recipients of National Security Letters now can't be gagged without court order.

"The U.S. Nazi dirty bomb plot" (March 15, 2009) A little-covered story about a real terrorist plot.

"The Cybersecurity Act of 2009" (April 4, 2009) It's not as bad as it appears.

"Tracking cyberspies through the web wilderness" (May 12, 2009) How University of Toronto researchers have tracked online spying activity.

"Bad military botnet proposal still being pushed" (June 26, 2009) Col. Williamson's proposal to build an offensive U.S. military botnet is still being promoted by him.

"DHS still a mess, five years on" (July 16, 2009) Center for Public Integrity review of DHS.

"How Twitter got compromised" (July 23, 2009) TechCrunch gives the anatomy of the attack on Twitter.

Jerry Falwell's cat-killing story

This story got some coverage a little over a year ago when Ian Frazier quoted this passage from Jerry Falwell's autobiography in a humor piece in The New Yorker and Jonathan Schwarz covered it in his blog. I found it so twisted that I had to validate its reality by purchasing a used copy of Falwell's book on Amazon.com Marketplace (for about $0.50). I think it's worth bringing up again now that Sen. John McCain has agreed to give a commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University ("crazy base world"), since it shows Falwell's lack of empathy--I think the attribute "bordered on" here is not cruelty but sociopathy.

From Strength for the Journey: An Autobiography by Jerry Falwell (1987, Simon and Schuster), pp. 49-50:

There were times that Dad's pranks bordered on cruelty. One of his oil company workers, a one-legged man he nicknamed "Crip" Smith, complained about everything. Dad and Crip's co-workers got tired of the old man's bellyaching and decided to take revenge. One morning Crip called in sick and Dad volunteered to send by lunch to his grateful but suspicious employee. Dad and his chums caught Crip's old black tomcat, killed it, skinned it, and cooked it in the kitchen of one of Dad's little restaurants. They called it squirrel meat and delivered it to Crip on a linen-covered tray. When Crip returned to work the next morning, Dad and his co-conspirators asked him how he liked his meal. They knew he would complain even about a free home-cooked lunch, and when Crip called it "the toughest squirrel meat" he had ever eaten, they were glad to tell him why.

This story immediately follows another story in which Falwell invites his young friend William from the neighborhood, who is afraid of his father, into the house for milk and cookies, after telling his father that William is afraid (p. 49):

William hesitated at the door. He knew my father carried a gun, and there were too many stories circulating about that gun to leave William feeling easy about entering our home. Quickly I pushed my friend inside and closed the door behind us. Dad was sitting at the kitchen table reading a newspaper. Suddenly he looked directly at us and shouted.
"Both of you, stop!" William froze in his tracks, and I leaned forward eagerly to see what Dad was up to. William's eyes opened wide as Dad drew his gun and pointed it at the floor just in front of my friend's trembling legs.
"Don't move," he said quietly. Then he took careful aim and pulled the trigger. The shot from the .38 Remington pistol blew a fairly impressive hole in the kitchen floor. Calmly, Dad blew smoke from the barrel and placed the pistol back on the table.
"I've been trying to get that fly all day," he said, looking back down at his paper. "And finally I got it."
There was a moment of silence. Then, with a gasp, William bolted out the door. I never got him back inside our house again, and the legend about my father continued to spread throughout the neighborhood. Later Dad and I laughed ourselves hoarse just remembering William's startled look and sudden exit.

For additional context, Falwell reports that his father killed his own brother with a shotgun (in self-defense, pp. 22-24), and attributes part of his father's problem to the fact that "After all, Dad grew up in the home of an atheist" (p. 17), even though he had a Christian mother. His book says that his father had a deathbed conversion to Christianity (p. 83).

Dirty Politician: John McCain

John McCain hired Terry Nelson as a senior advisor. Nelson was deeply involved in Tom DeLay's money laundering of corporate contributions scandal, but the mainstream media was lax about even asking McCain questions about this issue until after a Seattle radio show caller asked him about it:

CALLER: Thanks, I had a question for the senator. For a reformer, I'm kind of curious why he would hire a guy like Terry Nelson as a senior advisor. Here's a guy who was actually in the indictment of DeLay on his money laundering charges. When he was at the RNC, he agreed to take the corporate contributions from DeLay's PAC and then recycle them back into the Republican congressional races.

And he was also, this guy Nelson was also the supervisor of James Tobin, who was the guy convicted last year for helping jam the Democratic get-out-the-vote lines in New England a couple years ago.

So I'm curious why would you hire someone with such a shady background?

MCCAIN: None of those charges are true.

CALLER: You don't believe what was actually written in the indictment from Texas?

MCCAIN: No.

CARLSON: All right.

[nervous laughter]

MCCAIN: I will check it out. But I've never heard of such a thing. I know that he was a grassroots organizer for President Bush year 2000 and 2004, and had a very important job in the Bush campaign as late as 2004, but the other charges I will go and look and see if any of them are true, but I've never heard of them before.

If McCain had heard of this, he's a liar. If he really hadn't heard of it, he hasn't been properly backgrounding people he hires. Contrary to McCain's claim that none of the charges are true, the caller had it right (also see here).

If McCain doesn't fire Nelson, it's clear that he's a dirty politician.

Congress approves renewal of expiring PATRIOT Act provisions

After months of wrangling, Congress has approved the renewal the 16 expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act by making 14 of them permanent and extending the other two by four years. The renewal also includes things like fighting methamphetamine abuse. This version of the bill is the last one passed by the House on December 14 of last year, so none of the delay accomplished anything to improve it.

A few reforms were included--libraries can't be subpoenaed without a court approval, recipients of subpoenas don't have to provide the names of their attorneys, and individuals subject to gag orders can challenge the orders--after waiting a year.

The Senate is considering passing an additional requirement that targets of "sneak-and-peek" searches be notified within seven days.

The bill, HR 3199, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act, was passed by an 89-10 vote in the Senate. Both of Arizona's Senators, Kyl and McCain, voted in favor of it. The ten no votes were from Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Byrd (D-WV), Feingold (D-WI), Harkin (D-IA), Jeffords (I-VT), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Murray (D-WA), and Wyden (D-WA). Sen. Inouye (D-HI) did not vote.

The House passed the bill on December 14, 2005 with a 251-174 vote, the details of which are here. Arizona's Representatives voted along party lines: For: Flake (R-6th), Franks (R-2nd), Hayworth (R-5th), Kolbe (R-8th), Renzi (R-1st), Shadegg (R-3rd), Against: Grijalva (D-7th), Pastor (D-4th).

Standards on evidence obtained by torture

In the UK, the Law Lords ruled early this month that evidence obtained by torture is inadmissible in court, including evidence obtained by foreign governments (such as the United States) through the use of torture--and the burden of proof that the evidence was not obtained by torture falls upon the government. Lord Bingham stated, "The English common law has regarded torture and its fruits with abhorrence for over 500 years ... I am startled, even a little dismayed, at the suggestion...that this deeply rooted tradition and an international obligation solemnly and explicitly undertaken can be overridden by a statute." The panel of seven judges was unanimous in its ruling that the evidence of torture was inadmissible, but divided on the standard the government must overcome to demonstrate the evidence was not admitted by torture once a defendant produces a "plausible reason" to think that it was. Three of the judges (including Lord Bingham) argued for a standard that the government show "no real risk" of basis on torture, the other four that the government show it "on the balance of probabilities."

In the United States, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have argued strongly against any restrictions on the use of torture by the United States, while at the same time claiming that the United States does not use torture. While Bush has recently and reluctantly agreed to support the McCain amendment on torture, that amendment states that "No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation." Ten classified pages have just been added to that manual, leading some to suggest that this has created a way around the McCain amendment.

Fortunately, however, the McCain amendment goes on to say that "No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." It defines "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" as "the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984."

But there seems little question that Bush and Cheney want to push the limits as far as they possibly can.

And some good news: the PATRIOT Act reauthorization has failed

The Senate roll call vote is here. Unless a reauthorization passes, various provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act set to expire after three years will expire on December 31, 2005. These provisions include roving wiretaps, the ability to obtain certain kinds of business records without a court order, expansion of wiretap capabilities, certain kinds of sharing between agencies of information obtained via wiretap, etc. The specific details of what was in the Senate bill and the corresponding House bill may be found here (PDF).

Some of the pieces of these bills were beneficial, e.g., placing a sunset provision on the use of National Security Letters, which predated USA PATRIOT and which do not currently have an expiration date. Others extended provisions due to sunset on December 31, 2005 to 2006 or later years. (The ACLU has a lawsuit against the constitutionality of National Security Letters.)

The vote was 52-47; 60 votes were needed to end the filibuster. 2 Democrats and 50 Republicans voted yes, 41 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and one independent voted no.

Arizona: McCain and Kyl both voted yes.

UPDATE (March 25, 2007): The link for the ACLU's lawsuit on National Security Letters is stale, you can now find that information here.