Archive for March, 2007

The study of garbage

Thursday, March 29th, 2007

Don Hazen interviews Heather Roger on her book On Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage

I wrote the book because I wanted to know what happened to my garbage. I knew that it disappeared — and I knew that it didn’t. I also was interested in this system that, if it failed to work, whole cities could be brought to a grinding halt. I wanted to know more about what garbage collecting looked like and how it really worked — something so integral to the way a city functions.

Is [recycling and reusing] happening better in other parts of the world, in Europe or … ?

Yes. For example, one really simple thing that we could do is switch back to refillable bottles for beverages. It would accomplish a number of things. They use this system in Germany, and 72 percent of all their beverage containers have to be refillable. That’s the law. The beverage makers in that country continuously try to break that law, and the government has enforced it. They penalize the beverage producers and enforce the law, and it works. It’s profitable and people like it.

[German people force consciencious trash handling]

Posted as a comment on this article by: usmail4matt@….net on Nov 1, 2005, the following:

The main reason for such a progress in trash recycling is not the only law but the conciousness of the people.

Simply think of how many plastic bags you get when buying something from the supermarket. In Germany all Markets I know do not even give you a single bag without demanding extra money. You simply have to reuse your bags or to pay for their recycling implicitly.

I’ve seen that even McDonalds tries to be most efficient not producing too much trash. Everything is already-recycled paper carrying the green point, you don’t get napkins by default but have to take them yourself reading the hint “only take as much napkins as you really need”, etc.

This behaviour is necessary to please the german consumers. Jump to article.

Buy this book.

My National Security Letter Gag Order

Tuesday, March 27th, 2007

Article published in the Washington Post 2007 03 23

It is the policy of The Washington Post not to publish anonymous pieces. In this case, an exception has been made . . . The Post confirmed the legitimacy of this submission by verifying it with the author’s attorney and by reviewing publicly available court documents.

The Justice Department’s inspector general revealed on March 9 that the FBI has been systematically abusing one of the most controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act: the expanded power to issue “national security letters.” It no doubt surprised most Americans to learn that between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision — demands issued without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval — to obtain potentially sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents. It did not, however, come as any surprise to me.

Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information.

I found it particularly difficult to be silent about my concerns while Congress was debating the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2005 and early 2006. If I hadn’t been under a gag order, I would have contacted members of Congress to discuss my experiences and to advocate changes in the law . . . Congress lacked a complete picture of the problem during a critical time . . .

Presenting the car that runs on air . . .

Monday, March 26th, 2007

Indians are going to have a treat that as a USan, I would love to have, and really need too: a car which drives at speeds up to 135 mph, has a body designed with aerospace technology, costs only $8000 and causes absolutely no pollution. $2.00 fills up the CityCAT’s tanks and lets you drive for 185 miles. Yowzer!

What fuel do you fill the car up with? Air! “Impossible, you might say, but no,” Guy Negre, who heads Moteur Development International of France [the MDI Group] is a fuel specialist and he has discovered the method for allowing compressed air to entirely run this baby at speeds under 30 mph.

Outside of the city the CityCAT’s engines switch to fuel mode. Which fuel is needed then? Just take your pick. The CityCAT handles each of these well: gasoline, gas oil, bio diesel, gas, liquidized gas, ecological fuel, alcohol, etc. The CityCAT comfortably seats 6 people and conforms to over the road safety and driving standards and regulations.

How cool can you get?

Well, So, I’ll tell ya. Cool is another thing this car does with minimal energy outlay. The air conditioning system is boosted by recycling the compressed air which it expels. The air is cool and completely free of pollutants. Instead of exploding in the engine, fuel expands, so the engine is much quieter than a gasoline engine. The engine is lubricated by vegetable oil and need changing only once in 30,000 miles.

Is there more?

You betcha. Engines come in 2, 4 and 6 cylinder sizes. Vehicle models in development are MiniCATS for city-only driving with three seats, as well as pickup trucks, taxis and sectionable buses to which more sections can be added during peak traffic hours and removed at other times. MDI vehicle bodies receive safety reinforcement from their tubular construction.

Moteur Development International of France - the MDI Group, has signed an agreement with Tata Motors, India’s largest car auto maker, to begin production for the India marketplace. MDI is a family owned business headed by Guy Negre and is located near Nice. The company is currently looking for investors to assist with their development plans.

Apple attacks researchers

Monday, March 26th, 2007

How Apple orchestrated web attack on researchers

Apple is a mega corporation that nearly smashed the reputation of two individuals with bogus claims of fraud. It didn’t matter that they weren’t the ones pulling the trigger because they were pulling all the strings. . . .

So what was the end result of all this? Apple continued to claim that there were no vulnerabilities in Mac OS X, but came a month later and patched its wireless drivers (presumably for vulnerabilities that didn’t actually exist). Apple patched these “nonexistent vulnerabilities” but then refused to give any credit to David Maynor and Jon Ellch. Since Apple was going to take research, not give proper attribution, and smear security researchers, the security research community responded to Apple’s behavior with the MoAB (Month of Apple Bugs) and released a flood of zero-day exploits without giving Apple any notification. The result was that Apple was forced to patch 62 vulnerabilities in just the first three months of 2007, including last week’s megapatch of 45 vulnerabilities.

Example of corporate abuse

: Apple misleads the public about a vulnerability in their operating system. Apple blames the researcher community, which revealed the vulnerability but did not cause it. Apple carefully orchestrates a smear campaign to make the public believe that the Mac OS is not vulnerable and that the researchers are malicious.

Example of public repercussions

: The larger researcher community strikes back by demonstrating other ways the Apple OS is vulnerable. Apple needs to release 62 patches from January to March 2007 before the demonstration is over. But, the greater public still believes the researchers who identified the vulnerability, caused it.

Conclusion

: If a being or organization is willing to lie to the public and also to launch a full-out public relations campaign selling that lie to the public, the likelihood that the public will believe the lie is great. There exist plenty of historical examples where the public has been misled by sophisticated public relations campaigns.

Kelly Ripa’s Mets radio ad. Loaded, but with what?

Saturday, March 24th, 2007

1010 WINS, the New York metro area news radio program, has a commercial with Kelly Riper woman doing ads for the Mets. She names Mets forum members by name and town and speaks to one concern or question raised by each person. Manages to mention 3 or 4 people in a 1-minute commercial. Then encourages all of them to go right out and “Get (their) Mets tickets now!”

Kinda makes me want to login and be a member of that forum. Oh wait . . . . . . Yeah? That’s right. Darn. Almost forgot, I’m a Yankees fan.

About that Mets forum - the one that Kelly Riper calls a “blog”. Say, where is that darned forum anyway? Blogger Dana Brand can’t find it either. Here’s what Dana says about it:

“Kelly says, on the commercial, that she’s been looking at the blogs on mets.com. Where are they? I’ve been all over that site and I can’t find any blogs. She gives the names of some bloggers and they have “Somebody from Somewhere” names like people who call into sports talk shows. Bloggers don’t have names like that. Does Kelly know what a blog is? Does the writer of the commercial know what a blog is? This Kelly, right here, is a blog. Not whatever it is you’ve been looking at. I hope she hasn’t been looking at the fan forum. She doesn’t want to go there. What people might say about her there is a lot worse than that she’s not a real Mets fan because she doesn’t know that David Wright’s favorite color is acquamarine. David, is that really your favorite color?”

Dana, when you find out what are the blogs or forum Kelly’s referring to, give me a holler, will you?

Get free phone conferencing! Free, as in no money.

Saturday, March 17th, 2007

Free phone conferencing is well, free. So obviously the telcos would like to take it away from you.

The reason you are still paying huge sums of money for phone conferencing is because you didn’t know you could have this service for free. Go to freephoneconference.com, and you will be free phone conferencing in the few minutes it takes to set up your account.

The free phone conferencing service is available any time you want. UNLESS, that is, you’re a customer of AT&T/Cingular, Sprint or Qwest. Why is that?

These companies block calls to numbers used for the free service and are lobbying for laws which will cut you off from ever having free conferencing service. Phone companies sell their own branded conferencing services. Free service eats into their sales, so they want to cut you from accessing it. Then you’ll have to pay them more money.

It’s been scientifically proven that telcos love possessing your money as much, or more, as you do!

You can save Free Phone Conferencing!

Fight back to save free phone conferencing so it will be yours to use when you need it.

  1. First of all, freeconference.com will give you alternate numbers which aren’t blocked by your telco. Call their customer service department for those numbers.
  2. Refer to the freeconference.com FAQ for more information.
  3. Write to the FCC and the attorney general’s office of your state. Individualized letters are more effective than form letters. “Include special points about free phone conferencing, and the continuation of it, which are of specific interest to you.”

Use this sample letter as a guideline

I object to the recent actions by AT&T/Cingular, Qwest, and Sprint to block calls to selected conference call providers and rural telephone companies. I do not believe they are operating within the law, the public interest or the terms of my existing telephone contract with them. I demand the right to:

  1. access all legal long distance numbers from my land line or cell phone
  2. use the conference calling service of my choice from my land line or cell phone
  3. choose and have access to legitimate, publicly available services via my land line or cell phone

My business will be severely impacted if I do not have access to conferencing services that are free with the normal cost of a long distance call (which already compensates these carriers for my call). I cannot/refuse to pay the exorbitant rates charged for conferencing services by large conference service providers such as AT&T.

Please take immediate action to stop this attack on my speech, my wallet and my right to use the provider of my choice.

Does your email belong to you?

Friday, March 16th, 2007

The Facts
Steven Warshak is an apparent no-good guy. He publicly sells “natural male enhancement” products of questionable value via TV commercials and he’s being prosecuted for it. But Warshak does seem to have the right idea about how important the issue of privacy is to US citizens.

John Reinan of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune lays out the principle issues of Warshak’s lawsuit. Warshak claims that a “search of his e-mail violated,” his 4th Amendment rights to be protected, “against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Was the government right to examine Steven Warshak’s private emails without a search warrant? Although prosecutors are appealing that decision, one US district judge has already ruled in Warshak’s favor.

Email privacy is an enormous issue. The EFF [Electronic Frontier Foundation] cautions that companies offering both internet search and email storage collect a massive amount of personal information about users. Yahoo, MSN, Google and Amazon save information about you based on the searches you make on their sites. Other personal details about you comes from scanning your private emails.

A New York Times article offers this quote from the owner of a Massachussetts PR firm. ”Privacy is critical to me. We’re losing more and more of it slowly — daily, monthly, annually. Pretty soon we’ll be so accustomed to having our privacy invaded, it will no longer feel like invasion and we’ll get used to a new way of living without privacy altogether. I’m not sure I want that. ”

Google Watch reports that Google scans the contents of all of its users emails and reserves the right to “give this information to whomever they wish.” They also caution that, “email messages lose their status as a protected communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,” after only 6 months!, at which time they become the public property. And that Google discards none of your emails – not even the ones that you trash. In other words, all of your gmail ends up as publicly accessible information which may be stored indefinitely without your knowledge or consent, on Google’s internal servers.

My opinion
I don’t love criminal activity, but I also believe that the privacy rights of the great, law-abiding public merits absolute protection. It obviously would be quite easy for law officials to build cases for prosecution if they could stroll into any person’s life, log into anyone’s personal email account, and spend as much time as they wished to spend, figuring out how to use findings as evidence for prosecuting that person for criminal activity. If nothing prosecutable were found, on to the next potential candidate. This would be an easy way for law enforcers to prosecute US citizens. But, it happens that in the US, the private lives of citizens are not supposed to be opened up to inspection by people looking to call judgment down upon us, curtail our freedom of movement or speech, or inhibit our happiness.

How to Protect Yourself
Here’s a checklist in simple language of the steps to take to protect yourself against your email-plus-search provider stockpiling a big fat database file on you with intimate details about each one of your lifestyle and shopping preferences. Take steps to limit your exposure before your private life is offered for sale to the highest bidder.

More Reading
More on the subject of Google’s email privacy policy at EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Cease and Desist Letters

Wednesday, March 7th, 2007

If someone misuses your name and wrongfully uses it to promote their product or service, you probably ought to send a “cease and desist” letter naming every entity and person associated with this misleading bit of information. Include in it a threat to take every possible legal action in order to “protect my privacy and protect me from the misleading insinuation that I am in any wise associated with or endorsing your product, which it is specifically not my intention to do.”

On the flip side of the coin, what if you’ve received one of these letters and want to know how you are legally obliged to respond?

The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse covers the other end of the spectrum – this organization offers free help for those who have received cease and desist letters demanding that information be removed from individual websites. The site is managed by some extremely heavy hitters [A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics].

It is arguably the best reference out there on the topic of “cease and desist” and moreover, offers a database of cease and desist letters. Included along with actual letters are annotations written by Chilling Effects contributors explaining what certain legal terms mean in plain English.

Other references
Sample letter from U Texas General Counsel
Wikipedia definition

Blog post causes change in policy

Tuesday, March 6th, 2007

Linda Rogers was battling with her mother’s insurance company over their policy to cancel home insurance coverage for seniors who temporarily transfer domicile to a care facility. Here’s how Linda used the internet to nudge the insurance company into providing the level of care they advertise as providing:

“After blogging about my experience with CUIS, I forwarded a link to the entry to a communications person with a note about my disappointment.

Within an hour or two I received an email and then a phone call from a CUIS contact person reversing the decision to cancel my mother’s home insurance. Did my blog entry make a difference? Who knows. But, this blog’s stats show three log ins from the insurance provider in that time period.”