April 30, 2003

Digital Freedom: Stop the Mini-DMCA

If you're here from the link at Instapundit, and looking for how to help stop the mini-DMCA in Tennessee, please be sure to visit the website of the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network as well as reading the rest of this post and following my links. The TDFN is leading the fight. I've got more on that at the end of this post.

If you're from Tennessee, PublicKnowledge.org has provided the text of a letter that you should send to your legislator to urge them to vote against HB 457 and SB 213, which is being misleadingly sold by special-interest lobbyists as a simple law to strengthen efforts agains the theft of telecommunications services. An except:

The legislation is cast as a communications service theft bill; however, its reach is far greater. The proposed bills limit citizens' rights, limit legal uses of commonplace consumer electronics (such as VCRs and computers) and stifle technological innovation and research. ... Proponents of these bills assert that the proposed language updates the terms of the current laws to better prevent the theft of communications services and Internet piracy. Existing state and federal laws, however, already address these concerns. The proposed bills, in contrast, broaden statutory definitions, reaching into the home to control what kinds of devices consumers may use in conjunction with services for which they have legitimately paid. Consumers have never needed the "express authorization" of their cable or phone company before buying a new TV, VCR or PC - there is no reason to change that rule today. ... The potential impact of this legislation is significant. The terms of these bills are so broadly and ambiguously defined that legal activities and technologies are threatened. For example, without express permission from the "service provider," everyday lawful activities could be outlawed or prohibited, such as:

- viewing paid-for television on multiple home TVs
- recording television on a VCR to view at a later time
- sharing a broadband connection among multiple home computers
- working from home by securely connecting to the office over the Internet

The ramifications also extend beyond citizens to manufactures, distributors and retailers because the use, distribution and sale of many consumer electronic devices and computer hardware and software could become illegal. In addition, these bills implicate privacy and anonymous speech. For example, under House Bill 457 and Senate Bill 213, making anonymous communications to voice political views or report corporate misdeeds is a criminal offense. These bills would also make many encrypted business transactions illegal.

In addition, you can email Gov. Bredesen to encourage him to speak out against HB 457 and SB 213.

For more on this issue, scroll down for yesterday's posts and also go here. Also, PublicKnowledge.org has web page of resources. And the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network is fighting the good fight, and has produced two excellent one-page flyers explaining in simple terms how bad the legislation is. You can download those here and here.

April 29, 2003

Tennessee Digital Freedom Network

I've mentioned before the really lousy legislation making its way through the Tennessee state legislature that would establish a state version of the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The legislation is being pushed by the Motion Picture Association of America. Sen. Curtis Person and Rep. Rob Briley are carrying the industry's water (and I'd sure like to know how much Hollywood PAC money they're gonna get in their campaign coffers for doing so.)

Good news: there is a grassroots organization fighting it! They need your help.

Some excerpts from the website of the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network:

HB457 and SB213 are the Tennessee House and Senate versions of the "Super-DMCA" bill, proposed by the MPAA and already passed in eight states (and counting). If passed here, this bill will have a very negative impact on citizens' freedom of speech, access to secure communications, and use of many networking technologies. It would give Internet service providers (ISP's) unprecedented control over what types of devices and software Tennesseeans can use while connected to their systems, and give them power to sue users for thousands of dollars per day if they infringe on that control in any way. If this bill is enacted, Tennesseeans will have far fewer freedoms in their electronic interactions; as the Internet and pervasive computing becomes more a part of our lives, this will translate into control by a few corporations over almost everything that you do electronically.

Do you have more than one computer? Do you use Linux? Do you use any kind of Internet security hardware or software (called a "firewall"), or does your company use networking equipment to share Internet access using network address translation (NAT), or allow employees to connect from home using a virtual private network (VPN)? Do you cryptographically sign or encrypt your email? SB213/HB457 threatens your access to all of these. And if you don't understand some of these terms, you may already be using these technologies and simply be unaware of it. That's unimportant, though, because you can still go to jail for it.

This legislation is being presented to the Judiciary Committees as a "Theft of Service" bill, which simply "update[s] state law so that it comprehensively protects new broadband communication services from piracy and sabotage." In reality, it is much broader and more insidious. In its current form this law would make even a minor violation of your Internet agreement a Class-D felony, and levy excessive fines of $1,500 or more per device or software program, per day. Imagine, hooking your laptop up improperly at home for a year could cost you more than half a million dollars. Compliance will cost Tennessee businesses a bundle as well.

Who is the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network?

We are a group of IT professionals, students and concerned citizens who have dedicated ourselves to protecting the right of Tennesseans to freely use digital technology in their lives. For that reason, we are using all our resources to oppose the new "Super-DMCA" bills proposed by the MPAA. In Tennessee this legislation has been proposed in the House and Senate as HB457 and SB213. Our organization is still very young and still organizing to meet this threat effectively. We need your help if we are going to be successful!

Our objections to these bills include:

- The misrepresentation of this bill as something that merely updates existing law.
- The overly broad language that would give unreasonable powers to any ISP over their customers.
- The fact that this legislation criminalizes reasonable and otherwise lawful conduct by ordinary citizens.
- Unreasonable penalties. Sell a gram of cocaine, pay $2000. Run a home network, and risk a judgment of millions of dollars, even if your service provider suffers no damages whatsoever.
- Ordinary citizens do not benefit in any way from this law. No rights are defined or protected, only taken away.

Many of us only became aware of this issue due to a Slashdot article posted on Monday, April 21st. The bill was to be reviewed by the judiciary committee at 3:30pm the next day. On little more than 24 hours notice, almost 20 people were able to show up at the judiciary committee hearing in opposition to SB213. Some came from Nashville and nearby Clarksville, while others came from as far away as Knoxville. Several people spoke out against the bill, and we were able to delay almost certain committee approval of SB213. Afterwards, a senator in attendance remarked that the committee had probably given us the two weeks because they did not expect us to return to continue our opposition. If that's what they thought, they were wrong.

Copyfight.org, an excellent weblog covering digital rights issues, mentioned the work of the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network in a larger post about efforts to defeat similar legislation in other states. The Copyfight stuff actually comes from The Filter, an e-newsletter published by the Center for the Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.

Also, here's a story on growing opposition to a similar law in Massachusetts. It notes that the Massachusetts legislation - like the Tennessee legislation - is based on MPAA draft legislation.

Initially perceived by the telecommunications industry as a communications theft bill, the MPAA-sponsored legislation at first received little attention ... however, industry organizations are increasingly alarmed about some of the broad implications of the MPAA-sponsored bills. Among other things, the MPAA legislation broadens the definition of the term "communications service" to include both the content transmitted - for example, downloaded song files - and the medium over which they were transmitted.

Audio-Blogging from Everest

The BBC has a story today about a mountain climber who is using a satellite phone to audio-blog his ascent up Mount Everest. On a practice climb of the Matterhorn in the Alps, climber Lorenzo Gariano used a Nokia picture phone and filed audio and images via a blog service developed at Open University Knowledge Media Institute in Britain. The blog, reports the BBC, "proved immensely popular with the climbing world and Mr Gariano's latest blog is also attracting interest." You can find Gariano's audio reports from Everest here.

So... what does it take to "audio-blog" from high on Mount Everest? Some satellite phones and other rather cool technology...

We'll have 2 or 3 sat phones. 2 of the Iridiums and 1 Thuraya, which works a bit better there. Also a BGAN high speed internet terminal at base camp on the Thuraya satellite. And we will have a very new Pocket PC to Thuraya (or Iridium) phone connection for data. It will allow instant photos/video/sound to go direct to our web page. An amazing system. There has not been anything like this yet on Everest. The Thuraya phone is very small, offers good data speed, it connects direct to the Compaq iPAQ which we can pop in the Sony memory stick with photos and video on, scribble a short message and hit send and it appears that moment on our web page! It really should be very cool. We will have 2 laptops also with data connections at base camp for email and reports between trips up high.

Very Special Forces Update

Here's another story revealing what some U.S. Special Forces were doing in Iraq. Turns out, some where operating in a Baghdad suburb eight months ago, or more than six months before the war started. What were they doing? Planting the seeds of democracy right under Saddam's nose:

In a news release from Baghdad, Central Command officials described the role of the 5th Special Forces Group in helping the people of Abu Ghurayb elect a city council last week, which Central Command said was the first free election in recent Iraqi history. "Soldiers from the 5th Special Forces Group who have been working with the townspeople for over eight months helped them with the elections," the statement said without elaborating on the timeline. That statement suggested that Special Forces soldiers have been in Abu Ghurayb since at least August or September. That was long before President Bush announced his decision to go to war.

A spokesman at Army Special Operations Command headquarters at Fort Bragg, N.C., Maj. Gary Kolb, said he had no information on the activities of the 5th Special Forces Group inside Iraq. The Army normally does not reveal information about the clandestine side of its work. The 5th Special Forces Group is based at Fort Campbell, Ky., and focuses on the countries of the Middle East and Central Asia. Soldiers from the group were involved in the Afghanistan war in 2001.

The Central Command statement Monday said a conventional Army force, the 1st Battalion of the 3rd Air Defense Artillery Regiment, assumed control of Abu Ghurayb on April 13 and immediately began contacting Iraqi officials in charge of various public services. "It helped considerably that Special Forces soldiers had been in the area before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom," the statement said, quoting the Special Forces team leader, identified only as Capt. Mike. Operation Iraqi Freedom is the Pentagon's name for the Iraq war. The statement said the Special Forces soldiers "developed a rapport with the townspeople before being accepted by the town's elders. As the relationship between the Iraqis and the Americans developed, the Special Forces team helped them set up an election without American influence."

"We were sent here to help win the hearts and minds of the people," Capt. Mike was quoted as saying. "We were sincere, and they responded to us. As time passed, they realized we were here to help."

Weblog Audience: 5 Million and Growing

Here are some quotes and notes from the PBS NewsHour story on weblogs, which aired last night:

"Weblogs have been dismissed by some as little more than soapboxes for the self-absorbed, while other see them as a new interactive form of participatory journalism." – Terence Smith, The NewsHour

"Narcissism, creativity and a desire to connect with like-minded people." – Joan Connell, blog editor for MSNBC.com, on what drives webloggers

"It is the opinion journalism weblogs, like Instapundit and AndrewSullivan.com that can and have made a difference in the public policy arena." – Terence Smith, The NewsHour

"When I first started writing my goal was actually to get myself to write, to try to become a better writer. I figured I could do it on the web and no one would see it. But over the years all of the sudden people started coming to the website." - John Irons, Assistant professor of economics at Amherst College, who writes a blog on economics at Argmax.com.

"I like weblogs because you get sophisticated political commentary in bite-sized chunks, and together with that you get the opportunity to correspond, in real time, with the writers. The whole process is just terrific. It's an absolute conversation between political and cultural commentators and their readers." – Washington DC attorney Dick Marshall, a regular reader of weblogs.

The number of weblog readers is estimated at 5 million people per day, and is growing. – Terence Smith, The NewsHour

April 25, 2003

State DMCA Update

Today's Tennessean has a good op-ed by the operator of a local Internet cafe/coffee shop regarding the truly horrible legislation moving through the state legislature that would create a state version of the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Finally, opposition to the legislation appears to be getting some traction in the press.

Writes Joe Dougherty:

Do you enjoy taping Tennessee-Florida football? Under this law, your cable company could decide you may not do that unless you use their specified device. You know, the one that doesn't let you skip the commercials. Do you log in to your office VPN network from home? It might be illegal under the terms of the Super DMCA. Need to send an encrypted email to your attorney? Might be illegal. Want to instant message with an AOL buddy using your software? Gee, that might land you in jail too.

Did you buy one of the new wireless computer routers and cards so your child could do his Internet research on the laptop in his bedroom while you read email in the kitchen? The Super DMCA could make that illegal. Want to remain anonymous and notify the legal authorities of crimes and misdeeds? Don't blow that whistle. That, too, might be illegal under the terms of the Super DMCA.

The intent of the bill is to control how you use your televisions, telephones, computers, personal digital assistants, audio/video recorders - in short, any modern communication device. It would be illegal for you to use your God-given right to tinker and try new inventions without the approval of your provider.

This law makes it a crime to do many types of university level research. Consequently, if it is passed, when professors and companies decide where to locate and work, they may not come to Tennessee. They'll go to states that had the foresight and wisdom to refuse to do the bidding of the entertainment and telecom lobbies.

Dougherty's piece assumes Gov. Phil Bredesen has "the knowledge and intelligence to understand the unnecessary and harmful effects this bill may have on Tennesseans." But perhaps we shouldn't assume Bredesen is already opposed to this horribly bad legislation. You can send him email. If you don't want to write an email, just send him a short note urging him to veto the legislation if it reaches his desk, and send him links to Doughtery's op-ed and my April 23 posting.

April 24, 2003

Stop the state DMCA!

Rich Hailey has some comments on my post yesterday about efforts to pass a state version of the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Says Hailey: If you use a firewall, if you archive music, if you listen to CD's on your computer, if you time shift shows off cable or satellite, if you think you have the right to watch what you want, when you want, and that it is nobody's business what you watch, then you have a stake in stopping this legislation.

Well said.

April 23, 2003

Assaulting Your Digital Rights

Here's an update on some truly lousy legislation making its way through the Tennessee legislature. The legislation - which I wrote about here and here in the last month - would create a state version of the controversial federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Unfortunately, this bad legislation is moving rapidly through the legislature without press scrutiny or the public outcry it deserves. The Tennessean finally covered the legislation today, in a story that seems to favor the legislation and accept the Tennessee Cable Television Association's view favoring the legislation. But at least the paper acknowledged the other side of the story - that the law will "jeopardize the privacy and civil liberties of those who use the devices" encompassed by the legislation.

The proposal originally made it a crime to knowingly use an "'unlawful communication device'" to receive "any communication service without the express consent" of the company providing the service, which could be an Internet service provider, cable company or telephone company. That would have let those companies "effectively control what you can connect in your living room," said Fred Von Lohmann, a senior attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco advocacy group that opposes the bill. Opponents, including Von Lohmann's group, say the original bill would outlaw commonly used computer-security software such as firewalls, citing wording that outlaws use of an "unlawful communication device" to conceal the origin or destination of a communication.

The legislation is backed by the powerful Motion Picture Association of America, which is, no doubt, greasing the campaign warchests of legislators who sponsor and support it. The legislation calls for criminal charges against individuals who provide or employ devices "with the intent to defraud a communication service provider." But opponents say the law's too-broad definitions could outlaw useful devices merely on the basis that they might be used for illicit purposes. The baby DMCA laws have already passed in Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wyoming, and are working their way through legislatures in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Texas as well as in Tennessee, where the judiciary committee of the state Senate has recommended the passage, with amendments, of the proposed legislation. Sen. Curtis Person is pushing the bad legislation in the state Senate. In the state House, the legislation is being pushed by Rep. Rob Briley.

It's lousy law. For a better understanding of why, please read this piece examining the virtually identical legislation under consideration in Florida.

Feel free to email Person and Briley and tell them to stop the mini-DMCA. You should also email your state representatives and state senators to urge them to vote against House Bill 457 and Senate Bill 213 when it comes to their committee or to the floor.

For more, see Copyfight.org and blogger Aaron Schwartz, Princeton professor Edward Felton's blog, this roundup from John Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, as well as this Electronic Frontier Foundation round-up of information, and this recent story from the Boston Globe.

And please remind your legislators they work for you, not for the Motion Picture Association of America.

April 15, 2003

Like a Bad Penny

The small band of people pushing for a state income tax plan on harassing folks as they drop off their federal tax returns today. Lovely. TFT - Tennesseans for Far Higher Taxation - says Tennessee needs an income tax on top of its nearly 2 dozen other taxes and fees, plus a small reduction in the sales tax on a very small and arbitrary list of food items, because we Tennesseans can't deduct our state taxes from our federal taxes.

TFT has always played fast and loose with the truth on that issue, by using foggy language that makes it sound as if Tennesseans would see a dollar-for-dollar exchange under such a system.

TFT wants you to think that if you paid $100 in state income taxes, you would see your federal income tax bill fall by $100. But the truth is, you would only deduct the $100 from your adjusted gross income, which might change your tax bill by a few dollars. TFT also makes it sound as if every Tennessean would save money this way, but that's patently untrue. Most Tennesseans don't have enough possible deductions to itemize, and just take the standard deduction. Being able to deduct a state income tax wouldn't benefit them. And the notion that every Tennessean would save money is patently false - after all, one of TFT's goals for "tax reform" is for the state to have increased revenue. Can't be more money if everyone is paying less.

TFT - and the story I linked to above in the Memphis paper - also don't bother to tell you that there's another way to solve the deductibility problem: restore federal deductibility of state sales taxes. U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., has sponsored legislation that aims to do exactly that.

UPDATE: Devereaux C. writes to say the following:

I just did a little ciphering on this using the current IRS tax tables. Assuming married taxpayers filing jointly, with adjusted gross income of $50,000.00. A 3.5% Tennessee income tax on that, according to the TFT tax tables (the evil TFT that is) = $700.00.

Assuming that the taxpayers had itemized deductions equal to the standard deduction ($7,850.00) for the State income tax, adding the $700 State tax to the deduction equals an itemized deduction of $8,550.00. If they have one child, they are entitled to deduct $9,000.00 on line 40.

The resulting taxable income is $32,450.00 with a State income tax, and $33,150.00 without a State income tax deduction. The federal income tax on $32,450 for a married couple filing jointly is $5,666.00. The federal income tax on $33,150 for a married couple filing jointly is $5,303.00.

So, if my calculations are correct (and I make no warranties of correctness), paying $700 in State income tax would reduce this family's federal tax by $363.00, a net loss to them of $337.00.

April 13, 2003

The Sundquist Legacy

The FBI is investigating for possible criminal wrongdoing yet another lucrative state contract awarded during the Sundquist administration to a company that hired a key Sundquist political ally and wound up getting millions of taxpayer dollars. Reports The Tennessean:

Robert Wendell Moore, former chief of staff, campaign manager and a business partner to Gov. Don Sundquist, was working last year as a lobbyist for a computer consulting company under contract with the state when the administration decided to scale back a plan to put scores of computer consultants on the state payroll. Neither Sundquist nor Moore could be reached for comment.

Putting the consultants, some charging $100 an hour, on the state payroll would have resulted in a loss of millions of dollars to the six computer companies under contract with the state to do the consulting work. The contracts, first awarded in 1997, totaled about $30 million annually.

Questions about the computer consulting contracts arose in a report issued by the state comptroller this week. According to the report, a plan to convert contracted workers to state employees was abruptly changed last fall. It also found overbillings by two computer consultants who worked for a company under contract with the state.

The comptroller's report estimates moving more than 100 computer consultants working under contract onto the state's payroll could save taxpayers $4 million to $5 million annually. But the plan was later "dramatically scaled back,
says The Tennessean.

Former Finance Commissioner Warren Neel told The Tennessean one reason the cost-saving transition was delayed was because Sundquist was concerned about financially damaging the consulting companies. In other words, a company that employed a Sundquist crony in an important position was protected by the governor.

That company, Memphis-based SCB Computer Technology, was paid some $62.4 million under the contract between March 1998 and December 2002. The contract is just the latest in a series of state contracts awarded during the Sundquist years - in which companies with key executives who are allies of the Sundquist administration landed lucrative business deals - are being probed for possible criminal wronging.

Sundquist allies continue to pooh-pooh the whole thing, but the steady drip-drip-drip of contract scandal stories is looking more and more like a real flood. Biggest beneficiary: new Gov. Phil Bredesen, who campaigned on a theme of managerial competence. Biggest loser: The Sundquist legacy, which was already one of limited accomplishment and massive political and fiscal failure.

CNN: Complicity News Network

Here's an update of the CNN admission that it covered for the Saddam Hussein terror regime numerous times while operating its bureau in Baghdad, a journalistic ethics scandal I first covered here extensively last week.

Over at the excellent Winds of Change blog, C. Blake Powers wonders if CNN news executive Eason Jordan's lame attempt to explain away CNN's failure to expose numerous instances of torture committed by Saddam's regime isn't really an attempt to divert attention from a more horrible truth. Writes Powers:

There is something buried here. There is something that someone is trying to keep hidden, or deflect. Every bit of the Chicago school that remains in me just hit the end of the chain with a snarl. Somebody is hiding something. Somebody is scared that something really bad is going to come out. Let's find out what it is.

Everyone and their pet dog are going to go after the obvious and justifiably castigate CNN for doing what they did. I will limit my shots to the following: You can't cut it in Chicago. With what you knew, you should have pulled out, protected what you could, and gone in with everything you had to expose the regime. From the first time one of yours was hit, you should have hit back twice as hard. The hell with your obligations to your viewers that you trashed, you owed it to your people, including your sources. You look after your own. That is one thing the Chicago school and good militaries have in common. CNN failed their viewers, their stockholders, the American public, and most of all - their people. An organization that fails on any of these fronts, but particularly the last, is beneath contempt.

That off my chest, let's get to the real meat of this. What are they hiding? It is clear that they are hiding something. What is going to come out from Iraq about CNN that caused this form of pre-emptive strike in such a high profile manner? Now, it could possibly be that this really is the self-aggrandizing conscience clearing that the outer surface shows. But, I know my history. I know my history of journalism. I know what this means in Chicago, and to any reporter with half a brain and a nose for a story.

INTERESTING: The Society of Professional Journalists has seen fit to publish zero stories about the CNN ethics scandal on its website. Now why would SPJ be covering for CNN?

April 11, 2003

CNN: Cowardly News Network

Some truly shocking admissions from CNN's "chief news executive" responsible for keeping its bureau open in Baghdad. No, not the stuff about how Saddam Hussein and his regime tortured people. The shocking thing is that CNN aided and abetted such maniacal behavior for years, by keeping its Baghdad bureau open, keeping Iraqis on its staff, and presenting to the world a far more benign view of Saddam - a view that CNN knew was not true. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. CNN did worse than nothing. It provided PR services for a mass murderer. CNN has blood on its hands.

CNN's Eason Jordan admits:

In the mid-1990's one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government's ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency's Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk. Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers.

What should CNN have done? Stopped hiring locals, for one. And if that wasn't possible, CNN should have closed its Baghdad bureau and stopped putting Iraqis at risk by being there. But mostly, CNN should have told the world what is going on. CNN Iraqi staffers were tortured while CNN stayed silent. It's ludicrous after-the-fact corporate ass-covering to suggest the speaking out would have put its Iraqi staffers in danger. They already were in danger. Reporting that to the world might well have pressured the regime to change its ways. But we'll never know because CNN was more interested in keeping its prestigious Baghdad bureau open than in fully reporting the horrors of the regime that hosted them there.

Some will whine and prattle on about the need for journalistic neutrality, but journalists are not exempt from the responsibility to make moral choices, and neutrality in the face of evil isn't neutrality at all. At best, it is cowardice. At worst, it is aid and comfort to the evil. I can't watch CNN anymore.

UPDATE: CNN plays the victim card. Sorry, guys. You still look like collaborators.

UPDATE: Stan writes: Even more shocking about CNN is that the CNN executive wrote the story for the New York Times. He blew the whistle on himself without even recognizing it. I think the fact that they don't even understand the enormity of their actions is worse than what they did. It shows that their moral compass has completely broken down. If their moral judgment is skewed this badly, it has to have an impact on their coverage of everything else. People who are so completely clueless in this particular case are very likely to be similarly clueless in most other stories, too.

UPDATE: The comments on CNN's cowardly collaboration posted over at Command-Post are rather brutal to CNN. One writer says, "I am finally realizing the appropriateness of the claim that Al Jazeera is the Middle East's equivalent of CNN." Another says, "This pretty much gives the lie to the 'brave journalists in Baghdad to bring the world the truth' claim. In fact, CNN now admits that A) they have routinely suppressed the hideous truth about the Baghdad regime precisely because there were CNN people in Iraq, and B) their presence routinely got Iraqis tortured and killed. One wonders why they were willing to risk Iraqi lives and prostitute themselves to Saddam's regime just to be able to say, 'We have people in Baghdad.' I wish I could believe they would engage in some soul-searching about this, but their arrogance and self-righteousness is such that I cannot imagine it happening." And another writes, simply, the truth: "CNN made a deal with the devil in exchange for 'access'."

UPDATE: Blaster's Blog has a good commentary on CNN's cowardice/complicity.

UPDATE: Little Green Footballs discusses CNN's collaborationist stance and has tons of great comments from readers.

UPDATE: James Taranto weighs in on the controversy.

UPDATE: Instapundit has some damning follow-up on Jordan, revealing the crass motivation behind CNN's decision to suck-up to Saddam. It had more to do with being No. 1 than with protecting anyone's life. Instapundit also has this reader reaction, which is pretty good. And Instapundit posted these links and comments later in the day.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg says it's a "journalistic Enron scandal."

UPDATE: Matt Welch says CNN's bureaus in the capitals of the world's dictators are really "propaganda huts."

UPDATE: Several bloggers are linking now to this piece from Oct. 28, 2002, in Slate, by Franklin Foer, which details the compromises CNN and other Western news media made in order to broadcast report from Baghdad. Here's just one of the damning factoids that make CNN and the others look really bad: They worked in, and broadcast from, the Iraqi Ministry of Information. They were housed in the heart of the Saddam terror regime's propaganda machine.

Foer also offers this passage that serves as an incredible damning of the way CNN and the rest pandered to Saddam's regime in order to maintain access:

There are alternatives to mindlessly reciting Baghdad's spin. Instead of desperately trying to keep their Baghdad offices open, the networks could scour Kurdistan and Jordan, where there are many recently arrived Iraqis who can talk freely. It's a method used by [French documentary filmmaker Joel] Soler in his documentary Uncle Saddam. After spending a month ingratiating himself with Saddam's entourage, Soler convinced the Iraqis to grant him camera time with His Excellency's inner circle. His film shows Saddam to be a lunatic, devoid of morality or humanity. It captures images of Saddam's unique style of fishing - hurling grenades into a pond and then sending aides to retrieve the kill. It documents Saddam's megalomania: Iraq's biggest paper features Saddam in a new pose on the cover each day. "I don't need a relationship with Iraq," he explains of his decision to bare all. "It was my one shot. Every day it was how can I push the limits."

To be sure, after screening his documentary for film festivals and Iraqi opposition groups in the U.S., Soler found red paint splattered on his Los Angeles home, his trash can set on fire, and a death threat in his mailbox. But with the film he smuggled out of Iraq via courier, Soler gives more psychological insight into Saddam than ten years of American TV reportage.

CNN put "access" and being No. 1 ahead of the welfare of 24 million Iraqis.

UPDATE: My very good long-time friend Roger L. Simon says CNN's "late-to-the-table apologia is despicable." Simon, a mystery novelist and screenwriter, continues: "CNN is arguably the most influential news organ in the world today. By obscuring or not reporting what was going on they jeopardized the lives of Iraqis all right - millions of them. They also helped keep the world misinformed by giving the impression that while the Saddam Regime was bad, it couldn't be that bad because, after all, CNN was still there. And, in so doing, they got to stay there, cementing their place as number one in all-news on one of the biggest international stories of the last several decades - greed at its purest."

Greed at its impurest, I'd say.

UPDATE: The New Republic, which carried the Franklin Foer piece mentioned above, is slamming CNN:

Tthe more you think about the piece, the more it starts to look like a pretty pathetic attempt by the network to preemptively cover its ass. After all, once all the details about Saddam's sadistic reign of terror start trickling out, people are inevitably going to wonder why CNN wasn't reporting this stuff all along. Far better to get the mea culpa over with sooner rather than later.

April 10, 2003

Just the Spin

It's Journalism 101: a one-source story is a no-no. But today's Tennessean has one, providing former state Finance Commissioner Warren Neel an uncontested forum to cover his tail on a computer services contract that is now the subject of a criminal probe. Neel, who it appears may have knowingly allowed two computer services companies to continue grossly overbilling the state (at a cost to taxpayers of millions of dollars) has long been a Tennessean favorite because he was tireless champion of the income tax while a member of the Sundquist administration. The paper printed op-eds by Neel, and rarely if ever challenged his heavily-spun and often outright deceptive revenue data press releases. Now they're violating a basic rule of journalism and letting Neel, in essence, dictate a story in his own defense. There's no evidence in the story that the reporter fact-checked Neel's claims. How pathetic.

The Knoxville News Sentinel today has a better story on the probe.

April 09, 2003

What War is Good For

What War is Good For
Every morning, my commute to work takes me from the politically conservative suburb of Franklin, where you'll see plenty of yellow ribbons and American flags, to the liberal heart of Nashville - the old neighborhoods around Vanderbilt University - where many of the front yards are dotted with signs that say "Why War? Wage Peace". The signs are provided by the Nashville Peace & Justice Center, an organization with communist ties.

Why war? The answer is simple. Because sometimes war is the only way to open the doors and set free the children locked in a fascist regime's child jails, shut down a regime's torture centers, and liberate the people of an oppressed nation.

April 02, 2003

More on Warblogs

Michael Silence, a reporter for the Knoxville News Sentinel, get it when it comes to blogging. He's got a nice story today on "warblogs" by members of the military who are blogging the Iraq war. With good comments from Knoxville uber-blogger Glenn Reynolds, a/k/a/ Instapundit.

April 01, 2003

Update on Legislature's Attack on Internet Privacy

Respected technology journalist Declan McCullagh, who writes for CNET News, has been following the troubling trend of legislation proposed in several states that would criminalize key privacy tools now embedded in and and a key foundation of the operation of the Internet. I wrote about Tennessee's version of that legislation here on Monday. McCullagh says the proposed legislation is, essentially, a state version of the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and is being pushed by Hollywood. Here's another good story on it from McCullagh. Also see this. And there's much more here at LawMeme, a blog connected to Yale Law School. The legislation would make it illegal to, among many other things, encrypt your email.

I've also written about this issue over at PolState.com

UPDATE: Blogger Larry Kestenbaum reports at PolState.com that Michigan has already passed this ridiculous legislation. A version of that report also appears on Kestenbaum's blog.

UPDATE #2. According to Declan McCullagh's invaluable Politech blog, the Colorado senate has delayed action on final passage of similar legislation there:

Thanks to the publicity on the politech list over the weekend, a couple of state senators heard from their constituents yesterday, and the Colorado version of the legislation (HB1303) was laid over for a week. It had been scheduled for final passage in the State Senate today. Of course now the folks who raised the issue in the first place have to finish the job. It isn't dead, merely delayed.