Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

ACLU (Not EFF) NSA Case Dismissed

It seems that the ACLU case with Studs Terkel as a lead plaintiff has been dismissed for some combination of lack of standing and national security grounds:

JURIST – Paper Chase: Illinois lawsuit over NSA phone records turnover dismissed: A federal judge in Chicago on Tuesday dismissed [ACLU press release] a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Illinois [advocacy website] on behalf of state residents against AT&T [corporate website] for allegedly turning over phone records to the National Security Agency (NSA) [official website] as part of its domestic surveillance program [JURIST news archive]. US District Judge Matthew Kennelly [official profile] noted that the plaintiffs, including author Studs Terkel [JURIST report], lacked standing to bring the complaint since they had no evidence that their records were given to the NSA. Kennelly based his ruling on preventing the federal government’s intelligence procedures from being revealed to terrorists.

Don’t confuse this with the superficially similar case against the NSA brought by the EFF, which survived its first challenge and is still pending.

Posted in Civil Liberties | Comments Off on ACLU (Not EFF) NSA Case Dismissed

Learning to Love DRM

Ed Felton has a guest blogger who hasn’t wasted much time shaking things up. In Rethinking DRM Dystopia David Robinson points out that so far ‘the market’ (by which he seems to mean the actions of a Very Large Company with a dominant position in one market and a cunning plan to leverage itself into domination into a related one) blunts the effects of DRM in the downloadable music sector. Maybe, he muses, capitalism will correct for the worst excess of DRM as a more general matter?

I confess I’m not persuaded much by this argument since I don’t think this example would be generalizable without the existence of the Very Large Company backed by a huge pot of money. I think the iTunes etc. sector is an currently a DRM anomaly, and the fights over anti-consumer hardware HDTV and ‘trusted computing’ are more the usual case.

But it’s an interesting essay, and definitely food for thought.

Posted in Law: Copyright and DMCA | Comments Off on Learning to Love DRM

Intelligent Carpet

More from the Inq., but this time I’m hoping it’s April Fools come early,

Intelligent carpet can autodiscriminate: A NEW FORM OF automated prejudice is set to make business decision-making far more efficient.

The intelligent carpet, invented in Japan, can tell bosses the age, sex and weight of the person walking across it. Experts predict that in business recruitment … the process of snap decision-making could be streamlined to achieve faster judgements.

Will being called on the carpet ever be the same?

Posted in Sufficiently Advanced Technology | 1 Comment

AMD+ATI=?

My favorite chip maker bought my favorite graphics card company. In AMD has to buy ATI to survive, The Inquirer explains the strategic context of AMD’s acquisition of ATI and argues it’s all for the best:

The net effect is good for ATI, good for AMD, and good for everyone else, including all the current AMD partners. For all the analysts, deep breaths, think of your happy place. This is not bad, not bad at all, in fact it is very good. Breathe.

Posted in Sufficiently Advanced Technology | Comments Off on AMD+ATI=?

I’m Back

Major thanks to George for all the interesting posts while I was away on vacation. If I wrote that much meaty stuff relating to my work … this blog would be work.

While in one sense this break was a true vacation — I had lousy internet access and didn't even try to work except for the last couple days when I went to a meeting in Geneva — it was also more prone to minor disasters and discomforts than any family vacation in recent memory. These included a 24 hour airline delay, the airline losing my luggage, the airline computer choosing to delete my return reservation for no good reason (see a pattern yet?), unpleasant issues with our rented accommodations, and of course the biggest heat wave in modern British and Swiss history (“Genève n'en finit pas de cuire” said the hoardings, and they had it right.)

The highlights of the London part of the trip were meeting old friends and seeing the new Tom Stoppard play, Rock and Roll, a superb production of a very good play. I also enjoyed going to the reconstructed Globe Theater for the first time, although the production of Anthony and Cleopatra was too much of the 'declaiming Shakespeare' type instead of the more naturalistic RSC-style 'acting Shakespeare' which I like best. Then again, maybe that's what you have to do in a big outdoor space like the Globe.

I'm not sure how much I'll plunge straight into high-volume blogging this week, especially as I will be in DC Wednesday and some of Thursday. I have to work on syllabi, pay bills, fight with the city about a permit, and of course catch up on back emails.

But meanwhile, following up on a loose end: My brother's column from July 20 straightens out the confusion about which S. Baker is who. The “Director of Lessons Learned” is not the Stewart Baker I was defending, but Stuart Baker:

Much was made last week of Stuart G. Baker's job title: Director of Lessons Learned. But it turns out his job is neither some sort of namby-pamby new agey thing, nor a stealth White House inspector general position telling everyone what they're doing wrong.

Instead, the title is an outgrowth of the White House's ” Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned ” report. And Baker, a detailee from the Department of Homeland Security who worked on that report, is now charged with coordinating the response to the report's recommendations.

So, as Emily Lattella used to say, “never mind”….

Posted in Discourse.net | Comments Off on I’m Back

In Defense of Stewart Baker

Thanks to a recent speech by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) making fun of his (unofficial?) title at the Dept. of Homeland Security (“Director for Lessons Learned”) even my favorite bloggers are are piling on to attack Assistant Secretary for Policy Stewart Baker. I understand why it’s almost irresistible, but I think it’s wrong.

I am no close friend of Stewart Baker‘s, but I have had dealings with him over a period of years starting when he was the General Counsel of the NSA. I have a great respect for his intelligence, integrity and for his legal skill — three comments I would make about far too few members of the current administration. You want competence in government? This is your guy.

Stewart and I disagree on many many issues of substance, but unlike the man he currently serves, Stewart has always been willing to engage with his critics and indeed is a regular speaker at Computers, Freedom and Privacy — a place where his views regularly put him in a minority of little more than one.

There’s evidence for the proposition that the post-9/11 Baker is a lot more hard-line than the guy I got to know in the cryptography wars. I suspect our views today diverge even more than they did when I knew him better. Nevertheless, I would have far more confidence in this government, and sleep much better at night, if we had a government full of people of his caliber.

Leave off, guys.

UPDATE: Someone wrote in to say that the “director of lessons learned” is a Stuart Baker, who is not the Stewart Baker I know. Being in London with a very unreliable and slow wifi connection leeched off a nearby hotel, I lack the tools to verify/disprove this contention but thought I should mention it. Anyone who finds out more is invited to comment.

Posted in National Security | 3 Comments