We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
A pal close to our hearts (and purses) comes into conflict with the authorities. More specifically, on-line auction company eBay said its PayPal auction payment unit is being investigated for possible violations of the USA Patriot Act. Shock! Horror!
Last month eBay received a letter from the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Missouri about the alleged violations. The letter states that PayPal’s earlier practice of providing payment services to online gambling merchants violated provisions in the Patriot Act that “prohibit the transmission of funds that are known to have been derived from a criminal offense or are intended to be used to promote or support unlawful activity.”
Sound dangereous. I am so glad Americans are now protected by the Patriot Act against PayPal wretched practices. Apparently, the ‘crime’ happened almost 2 years ago, before eBay acquired PayPal. Part of the transaction was a committment to stop using the PayPal unit for gambling business. You can breath out now, it is not as if they were secretly raising funds for terrorists.
The authorities offered to “rescind the allegations if PayPal pays the amount of money it earned by handling online gambling transactions from October 2001, through July, 2002, plus interest.” So justice will be done and the American public can sleep safely again.
If I remember correctly, the Patriot Act, passed after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., was to give law enforcement authorities “expanded tools for investigating and deterring future terrorist acts”. We live in dangerous times, when on-line auction payment units can commit crimes under anti-terrorist legislation at will…!
An interesting debate has been going on about one warblogger’s reporting in particular and about bloggers and source attribution in general. Apparently, Stratfor accused Sean-Paul, the Agonist warblogger providing minute by minute coverage, of plagiarising their news that are available by subscription only. There are various threads to this discussion. Here is the Agonist one, here Metafilter is asking some pertinent questions about blogs and copyright, and here is the latest from Strategic Armchair Command.
Most comments on the Agonist are adoringly supportive of Sean-Paul, encouraging him to carry on providing what they see as an invaluable service to them. Most comments on Strategic Armchair Command who positioned themselves against the Agonist are sufficiently abusive to make someone stop blogging. There are a few comments that break the rank and this one comes from a supporter who sees beyond the gung-ho attitute of some parts of blogosphere in taking on the mainstream media.
Actually, I am an attorney. There isn’t a problem if SP is just reprinting headlines that Stratfor provides on its site for free. But if he was republishing wire reports that Stratfor sells by subscription, that’s a serious problem and SP should have known better.
This all reminds me of littlegreenfootball’s assertion that his site broke a story of WMD suits found in Iraq, when all he did was link to the newspaper that actually did break the story. Bloggers are confusing what work belongs to someone else and what is their own.
And another reasonable sounding voice:
I can understand why alarms have been raised. *If* a lot of content is being posted from a subscription site without mentioning the source, some might be lead to believe the author of this site was trying to infer he had unique or personal sources that don’t exist.
In plain terms: anyone can scour sites and post links to the material he finds, but if that’s what you’re doing you should provide sources. Otherwise, when the curtain is pulled aside, folks may be disappointed to find the little man working the levers. If you do have your own unique sources, highlight those somehow, so no confusion can arise.
People post an awful lot of value-less material out on the net; this site has provided some interesting material though. Understand though, that when a site like this grows in popularity, it’s likely to be scrutinized by many who are well-equipped to discover any cracks in its integrity.
Perhaps there are better or more illustrative comments in the threads I link to above, but I have not had the time to go through the hundreds of comments on the Agonist alone. Some are quite surreal in attacking the very idea of copyright from angles that boggle the mind, invoking anything from Dark Ages to free ideas for all.
My view on the controversy is straightforward. For me, good blogging is one based on credibility. Audience is, for most part, discerning and it does not make for good practise to make yourself look bigger & better than you really are. If you can’t come up with new interesting ideas, there is nothing wrong with using someone else’s as long as it’s clear. In fairness, Sean-Paul posts were not meant to be creative, but to be on the ‘breaking edge’ of news.
Another essential feature of blogosphere is linkage. Not linking to sources is a cardinal sin for a blogger, in my opinion, and I am often annoyed by the pseudo-blogs that have started to emerge, namely the BBC Reporters’ Log or ComputerWorld blog that do not link and individual posts cannot be linked to.
Also, when something as controversial as the war in Iraq becomes the focus of the news, objective reporting and information are not the only factors at play. People’s allegiances, emotions and self-interest often outshout voices of reason and objectivity. And as the commenter in the first quote points out “cracks in integrity” become more apparent. On the other hand, I can understand the race to breaking news as I share the bloggers’ desire to become more influential vis-a-vis the maintream media.
We have a few simple rules here on Samizdata.net. A very lenient editor whose occassional editorial spankings are a gentle reminder that minarchy rather than anarchy is the game… Links to and/or attritbution of any quotes and text lifted from elsewhere and although we occassionaly nick a picture or two, we try not to make a habit of it. I would certainly consider it good practise to be careful about using paid subscribtion sources, let alone not crediting their material. And I would certainly not want to see a backlash against bloggers from the traditional media, especially if it is triggered by careless rather than bad practice.
I am sure this is not the first or last controversy about copyright and blogs and I will welcome any contributions to the debate.
A tough secession clause in the new European constitution would make it illegal for Britain to leave the European Union without permission.
Article 46 of the secret draft text, obtained by The Telegraph, says the terms of departure for any country wanting to leave must be approved by two thirds of member states.
The draft is to be presented this week to the 105-strong Convention on the Future of Europe by the praesidium, headed by the former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing. It is releasing the Europe’s first constitution piece by piece over the next few months.
The text, still subject to last-minute changes today, would allow a minority bloc of states to impose conditions, offering no guarantee that a departing country could keep its trading rights or reclaim currency reserves held by the European Central Bank.
David Heathcoat-Amory, a Tory MP on the convention, called the text outrageous.
It’s a prison clause, not a secession clause. We thought we could repeal the 1972 European Communities Act if the worst came to the worst, but this shows we’re no longer talking about a voluntary union you can leave whenever you want. It is the final extinction of parliamentary sovereignty.
Mr Heathcoat-Amory said the two European commissioners on the praesidium, France’s Michel Barnier and Portugal’s Antonio Vitorino, had pushed through a highly integrationist text.
Addendum:
for Matt Owen
British troops are getting fed up with ‘blue on blue’ fire by the trigger happy ‘cowboys’ in the USAF.
There does not seem to be anything about this in the US media and some threads on US forums are noting that. I have a problem with the way this incident has been handled and responded to by the US audience. Most apologies are suffixed with mumble mumble “fog of war”, “fighting conditions”, “it’s war, shit happens” mumble, mumble. And then there is the abusive variety of commenters or warbloggers who will assault anyone suggesting that the US military is anything short of orgasmic. Most ‘attacks’ on British frustration with FF by the US reach the same level of intelligence the media have about Iraq. And that’s pretty low.
Given the absence of the debate in the US media (and I do not care how many official channel it has to go through before the various spokepersons are allowed to comment), I checked the situation on a military forum which was linked on ARRSE (Army Rumour Service). Here are a few comments that put the point better than I could:
To our US collegues. I have served many times with the US but one thing you lack is your ability to look at how you do things. You think its your way or the highway! Do not take this as an insult but you do have a terrible history of blue on blue and it needs addressing. My dad was in Korea as a Brit Soldier he said that the Brits were terrified of US Artillery. An old Sgt Maj of mine who is Australian said that his unit also lost more to US “friendly” fire than enemy during Vietnam.
Again in GW1, more Brits lost to US forces than Iraqi, then the Canadians in Afghanistan, now its happening again! My dad is genuinely more concerned about me being hit by US Forces than Iraqi when I deploy as are most of the UK public about our servicemen. These occurences can change public opinion and the consequences of this can be terrible. What gets us is that you appear to just say “Fog of war” or something similar, which just piss*es us of even more.
PS – when I go, I will be the one with the giant UK flag flying above my head
And another one:
A really pissed Brit. Firstly, I’m amazed that I can’t find reference ONE to this incident in the American Press. Who says your media is free. Let me make this plain, we are ALL very angry, and the standard American reply of “It’s war, sh1t happens, is NOT good enough” The fact this story hasn’t even run in the American press, as far as I can see, speaks volumes.
I remember vividly, the last time an A10 killed a British AFV. It was from my Regiments battlegroup in GW1. 2 Warriors killed, in spite of the fact, both IFV’s were displaying Big Union Jacks and Orange recognition panels. Were the pilots court-martialled? Bullsh1t were they.
This is the early report, which as you can imagine, has circulated the British Armed Forces very fast indeed: - The AFVs were in the location they were supposed to be in at the time they were supposed to be there.
- They were flying the Union Flag
- They had orange ID markers
- They displayed Allied Cheverons
- The pilot took 2 passes, shooting on both with civilians close by
- After the 1st pass British soldiers in British uniforms waved and tried to warn the pilot
- The optical scope on an A10 can id a target at 1500m. The pilot was flying at no more than 50m on each pass. Visibility has been described as “excellent”.
- The tank crews adjacent fired the colour of the day smoke marker to warn the A10 pilot
- The pilot had not been engaged or shot at by either British forces, or Iraqis.
- The pilot was out of his designated Limits of Exploitation.
In spite of all of this, the pilot still engaged, not once, but twice. There is a stong feeling amongst us, that he won’t get prosecuted, there won’t be any action taken, there never is. He gunned that column down, because as he dived in, he had the soundtrack going in his head, and he wanted a kill
Could I have recognised a Scimitar or a BMP2 at 200 knots, in broad daylight? Yes I could…
And just to make matters worse, I remember one RAF veteran telling me about how during the WWII when the Germans were firing, the British and the Americans ducked, when the British were firing the Germans ducked and when the Americans were firing, everybody ducked…
Come on, guys, we are supposed to be on the same side, so don’t get uppity when we start asking questions why are our soldiers being killed by yours…
During my search for breaking news for fast & furious warblogging on the Command Post, I came across this precious announcement:
The fledgling Euro-army launched its first military operation yesterday, picking the Balkan state of Macedonia as a trial run for future missions in Bosnia, Africa and the Caucasus.
A force of 320 soldiers wearing “Eufor” badges with the European Union’s blue and gold stars on their right shoulders took over peacekeeping duties at a ceremony in Skopje, replacing Nato troops who have already done the hard work of pacifying Macedonia over the past two years.
EU officials cite the mission as proof that joint defence plans agreed by France and Britain in 1998, and further honed by the EU a year later, remain on track despite the bitter differences over Iraq. While volleys of insults go back and forth across the Channel, British and French officials are meeting twice a week to lay the groundwork for a joint aircraft carrier battle group designed to project EU power around the world.
“You might not believe it, but Franco-British defence is going great guns”, said a senior diplomat. The general assumption in Brussels is that Tony Blair will commit Britain deeper to EU defence once the Iraq conflict is over.
Somebody please tell me that this is a joke…
Also posted on the Command Post
This has been posted on the Command Post:
British backtrack over general
We had a misidentification of the rank of the officer concerned,” Group Capt. Al Lockwood said on Monday. “What I can say today is – and can confirm – that we have five senior Iraqi officers as prisoners of war.
And this on the Inn of the Last Home
British Backtrack Over General
In related news, a Moroccan troop transport backed over a colonel today, leaving him with multiple injuries and contusions. It was believed monkeys were at the wheel of the transport which was last seen heading to the sea to pick up some errant dolphins. A visiting foreign ambassador was quoted as saying, “When will monkeys ever learn to use rear-view mirrors?”.
France has lodged a protest with the UN.
I just love the blogosphere…
There is an old Arab saying I’m hearing more and more from Iraqis, I will side with my brother against my cousin, but with my cousin against the foreigners.
– Paul Wood on BBC Reporters’ Log, 11:51GMT
A true story about Little Bobby Fisk that deserves extensive spreading across the blogosphere.
Many years ago, in the mists of pre-history, or as they say here in Australia, back when the blacks were bad, a little boy called Robert Fisk thought he’d become a journalist and tell the truth to the world. You and I know that never happened, and time is running out for him to repent his sins. To show that he’s always been an arrogant, self-opinionated prick, I present the following – Robert Fisk and the Magic Roadblock.
Full story here, thanks to Tom Paine of Silent Running.
So while the war in Iraq might only be beginning, the pundits of the Blogosphere can already register a victory. It’s a bloggers’ world. We only link to it.
– Steven Levy in his article Bloggers’ Delight, MSNBC
Getting shot at was not that bad, just the getting shot part sucked.
– Sgt. Villafane, via The Command Post
While we are furiously warblogging over at The Command Post, the statists at home have not been resting either. Two articles in the Telegraph, drawned by the Iraq war noises, report most worrying news. First about bailiffs allowed to break into homes.
Licensed enforcement agents will be authorised to break into people’s homes and seize property from debtors under new Government plans announced yesterday. They will also be given powers of arrest.
The article quotes a rather disturbing statement by Baroness Scotland, a minister at the Lord Chancellor’s Department:
Society wants those who owe money judgments to pay their dues but also wants to protect the vulnerable. So the system we propose will utilise the full weight of the law on those who won’t pay while at the same time safeguarding vulnerable individuals who simply can’t pay.
The second article reports on extension of police powers to keep DNA files:
Police powers to retain DNA samples and fingerprints taken from innocent people are to be extended, the Home Office announced yesterday. For the first time, they will be able to test people they arrest but do not charge and keep the DNA and the prints indefinitely.
It’s true what they say – the devil government never sleeps…
John Keegan asks whether trying to avoid civilian casualties may cause more deaths:
How much more difficult are the allies making this war for themselves by their determination to spare the Iraqi civilian population as much suffering as is humanly possible? That is certainly a condition of the strategy being pursued.
…is the effort to minimise civilian mortality counter-productive? Do slow and careful operational procedures actually increase the number of civilian deaths and the amount of suffering, when a less precautionary and more peremptory approach might achieve the same, or even a better effect, by hastening the end?
A good analysis of the classic military dilemma. Also, an important reminder that it is Saddam’s ba’athists who are using civilians as a proxy:
Saddam and his apparatchiks have absolutely no compunction about employing violence to keep themselves in power. They will shoot anyone who looks like changing sides or trying to escape from the regime’s control. They benefit from the indisputably powerful effect of displaying force. They equally benefit from the reluctance of the allies to display any more force than they believe to be necessary.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
