Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - December 4th, '10

[JackSpratts]

Since 2002


































"To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time ever a last-mile network has demanded compensation from another ISP for delivering traffic requested by a subscriber on the ‘terminating’ ISP's network." – Harold Feld



































December 4th, 2010




Supreme Court Won’t Hear RIAA File Sharing Case
David Kravets

The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear the first Recording Industry Association of America file sharing case to cross its desk, in a case that tested the so-called “innocent infringer” defense to copyright infringement.

The case, which one justice voted to hear (.pdf), leaves undisturbed a federal appeals court’s decision in February ordering a university student to pay the Recording Industry Association of America $27,750 for file-sharing 37 songs when she was a high school cheerleader.

The appeals court decision reversed a Texas federal judge who, after concluding the youngster was an innocent infringer, ordered defendant Whitney Harper to pay just $7,400, or $200 per song. That’s an amount well below the standard $750 fine required under the Copyright Act for each violation.

Harper is among the estimated 20,000 individuals the RIAA has sued for file-sharing music. The RIAA had decried Harper as “vexatious,” because of her relentless legal jockeying.

In September, the justices showed some interest in the case, asking the RIAA to respond to Harper’s appeal. But in the end, Monday’s action by the high court means, for the moment, the Supreme Court will not review any aspect of the RIAA’s five-year litigation campaign targeting individual music fire sharers.

Harper’s challenge weighed whether the innocent-infringer defense to the Copyright Act’s minimum $750-per-music-track fine may apply to online file sharing.

Generally, an innocent infringer is someone who does not know she or he is committing copyright infringement.

Attorneys for Harper told the justices (.pdf) that she should get the benefit of the $200 innocent-infringer fine, because the digital files in question contained no copyright notice.

A Texas federal judge had granted Harper the innocent-infringer exemption to the Copyright Act’s minimum fine, because the teen claimed she did not know she was violating copyrights. She said she thought file sharing was akin to internet radio streaming.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, said she was not eligible for such a defense, even though she was between 14 and 16 years old when the infringing activity occurred on LimeWire. The reason, the appeals court concluded, is that the Copyright Act precludes such a defense if the legitimate CDs of the music in question carry copyright notices.

In a lone dissent to hear the case, Justice Samuel Alito said the justices should clarify whether that appellate ruling reflects the digital age.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/innocent/





File Sharing Equals Distribution in Child Porn Case, Appeals Court Rules
Jerry DeMarco

File sharing is the equivalent of distribution, a New Jersey state appeals court has ruled, overturning a local judge's decision and finding a man who said he absently left kiddie porn images online guilty of trafficking, in what could be considered a landmark case.

By placing the images in a public LimeWire folder, where others could easily access them, Richard Lyons of Budd Lake was “offering” or “providing” -- in other words: distributing -- them, the appeals judges found. Distribution of child pornography is a serious offense under New Jersey law.

"This is a significant opinion for the prosecution of child pornography offenses, one that recognizes the technological opportunities and realities associated with the activities of those who harm children by sharing these images," said Lee Moore, a spokesperson for state Attorney General Paula Dow, whose office brought the case to the appeals court.

A New Jersey State Police investigator turned up the file through a simple online search. Armed with a search warrant, State Police found more than two dozen illegal videos at Lyons’s home.

A Morris County Superior Court judge kicked out the resulting offering and distributing indictments after Lyons said he forgot to change his LimeWire settings and didn’t intentionally distribute the files.

But the Appellate Division viewed the circumstances much differently. Judges Joseph Lisa, Susan Reisner and Jack Sabatino said the acts of installing LimeWire, downloading the kiddie porn files and then storing them in a place where others could find and download them equals distribution.

Federal courts have reached similar conclusions, the judges noted -- which would get the state Supreme Court’s immediate attention should Lyons appeal the decision.

The Appellate judges made a comparison: "The individual places the child pornographic materials on a display stand on the corner, with a sign stating what they are and that any passerby may take some."

In doing so, that person is “offering the materials to all who pass by and he is providing them to any takers."
http://www.cliffviewpilot.com/public...ls-court-rules





Jail Terms More Likely After Pirate Bay: Expert

The appeals court ruling to confirm the convictions and custodial sentences against the backers of The Pirate Bay could lead to more file sharers being imprisoned, according to a Swedish copyright law prosecutor.

The crime of file sharing is currently punished by fines or conditional sentences according to Swedish law, but the court ruling could lead to prosecutors calling for more prison time in copyright cases, according to Henrik Rasmusson, a senior public prosecutor, to Sveriges Radio's P3 news programme.

"The is relatively little precedent when it comes to illegal file sharing, but generally within copyright law there is a slew of judgements regarding conditional sentences."

The court stated in its ruling that file sharing has become a serious society problem and that could impact punishment, Rasmusson said.

"If we have more cases of unlawful file sharing then we will start to reason in the same way that it is a serious societal problem and thus should more often receive a prison sentence."

The court of appeal in November confirmed the sentences of three men behind the popular file sharing website The Pirate Bay.

Fredrik Neij was sentenced to 10 months in prison, Peter Sunde to eight months and financial banker Carl Lundström to four months. A fourth man, Gottfrid Svartholm Varg was absent due to illness and will have his case considered at a later date.

In addition, the court of appeal increased the compensation the defendants are required to pay up to 46 million kronor ($6.57 million). Lawyers for the entertainment industry had requested damages of 120 million kronor.

Lawyers for the three men are preparing an appeal of the ruling and legal experts expect the Swedish Supreme Court to take up the case.
http://www.thelocal.se/30594/20101203/





Copyright Lawyers Sue Lawyer Who Helped Copyright Defendants
Andy Chalk

Attorneys for the U.S. Copyright Group have filed a lawsuit against a lawyer who sold "self-help" documents to people who had been sued by the USCG, demanding that he pay the costs involved in dealing with the people who used the documents he sold.

Try to stick with me here, because this one gets weird. Back in August, an attorney by the name of Graham Syfert began selling documents that would allow defendants in lawsuits filed by the U.S. Copyright Group to respond in court without having to fork over the huge piles of money needed to hire an attorney. The USCG sued "thousands" of BitTorrent users who had downloaded films like The Hurt Locker, Far Cry and Call of the Wild, demanding a settlement of $2500 to avoid the much more expensive proposition of going to court.

"One of the major problems that people encounter when trying to hire me on these cases, is that a settlement is approximately what an attorney would need to even begin a defense," Syfert said at the time. His package of paperwork, on the other hand, cost just ten bucks.

19 people have thus far taken advantage of Syfert's offer and submitted responses to the court using his package, not a huge amount by any measure but 19 more than Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver, the law firm behind the USCG lawsuits, wants to put up with. The firm threatened Syfert with sanctions soon after he began selling his forms and also said it would double its settlement requests for anyone who used them; Syfert dismissed the threats with a "tongue in cheek" email and that was that, until earlier this week.

On November 22, Syfert received another email from attorney Jeff Weaver informing him that he had made a formal request for sanctions against him on behalf of the production company behind The Hurt Locker, one of the driving forces behind the USCG lawsuits. Weaver is apparently claiming that the 19 cases filed using the self-help package have cost his firm $5000 and he wants Syfert to pay.

Syfert has countered with his own claim for sanctions against Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver. "This is completely insane," he told TorrentFreak. "If 19 cases costs them $5000 in attorney time, I wonder how many cases it'd take before their business model crumbles. That is unless they are going to actually work for a living."

It's interesting to note, as the site points out, that the USCG is "upset for a reason." While all motions to quash and motions for protective order have so far been denied regardless of how they were filed, the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction have not. In other words, Syfert's package is allowing people to mount an effective defense against the claim and the USCG is faced with the very expensive possibility of having to re-file thousands of individual cases in order to get around it.

Syfert's package of forms, which includes a motion to quash, motion to dismiss, an affidavit in support of the motions and a motion for protective order, now sells for $19.95, which is still a great deal. Believe me, you can't get most lawyers to pick up their phone for twenty bucks.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...ght-Defendants





Torrent Users Sue US Copyright Group for Fraud and Extortion
Emil Protalinski

Dmitriy Shirokov is suing a Washington law firm that sent threatening letters to thousands of alleged movie downloaders, accusing the firm of fraud and extortion. He filed the 96-page lawsuit, which argues that lawyers at Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver made a business of threatening people with expensive litigation and fines unless they pay "settlement offers" of $1,500 to $2,500, in the US District Court of Massachusetts.

The firm was apparently never interested in actually litigating these claims. Although the legal firm threatened victims with expensive court action if they didn't cough up the cash, it neither had the resources nor the inclination to do so, meaning the letters in question were simply intended to frighten and get cash out of P2P users.

Shirokov wants to make the case a class action that represents him and 4,576 other people who received threatening letters for having allegedly downloaded copies of Far Cry. Despite being released in the summer of 2007 (Canada) and in December 2008 (US), the lawsuit says attorney Thomas Dunlap obtained a US copyright on the work by falsely asserting a date of "first publication" of November 24, 2009, allowing the law firm to claim that downloaders would be liable for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per download. Actual damages under the limited protection for works shown long before the copyright date would be a fraction of the retail DVD price of $27.

In short, Shirokov's lawsuit is accusing Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver of knowingly breaching copyright law to make money. The big picture is that it's alleging that the US Copyright Group is guilty of extortion, fraudulent omissions, mail fraud, wire fraud, computer fraud and abuse, racketeering, fraud upon the court, abuse of process, fraud on the Copyright Office, copyright misuse, unjust enrichment, and consumer protection violations.
http://www.techspot.com/news/41341-t...extortion.html





Limewire Says to Close December 31 After Legal Battle

LimeWire, the music file-sharing service embroiled in a lengthy legal challenge from the music industry, said on Friday it would be shutting down by the end of the year and closing its sole office in New York.

In October, a U.S. federal judge granted the music industry's request to shut down the popular LimeWire file-sharing service, which had been found liable for copyright infringement.

"As a result of our current legal situation, we have no choice but to wind down LimeWire Store operations," LimeWire said in a statement on Friday.

"Despite our dedication and efforts, December 31, 2010, will mark the day when LimeWire Store shuts its virtual doors."

LimeWire said its plan to bring a separate, legal music service to market had been canceled.

LimeWire is one of the world's biggest outlets for people to share music, movies and TV shows free of charge over the Internet.

Founded in 2000 by Mark Gorton, LimeWire has been a thorn in the side of record companies because millions of fans used it to download music for free.

The music industry blames online and physical piracy as the primary reasons for declining music sales.

LimeWire has also been criticized by Hollywood.

The case is Arista Records LLC et al v Lime Group et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 06-05936.

(Reporting by Soyoung Kim, Jonathan Stempel and Yinka Adegoke)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B304Y20101204





Illegal File-Sharing Complaints at MSU Quadruple from Last Year
Andrew Krietz

Complaints sent to MSU in regard to illegal file-sharing have increased fourfold from Sept. 1 to now compared to the same time period last year, according to officials.

In October, MSU officials passed 432 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, complaints on to students, said David Gift, MSU’s vice provost for libraries, computing and technology. From Sept. 1 to now, the university has received 722 complaints compared to 178 during the same period last year, said Sandy Brasington, who handles DMCA complaints at MSU’s Academic Technology Services.

The complaints come from organizations representing musicians, movie studios and software companies.

Gift said an organization’s complaint could be anything from illegally shared music to movies to computer software and there are occasional “bursts” of complaints received, not that actual file-sharing behaviors increase or decrease each month.

“They have a strong campaign (where) they send lots and lots of complaints to lots of lots of places,” he said.

It has been the responsibility of universities to respond to copyright infringement notices and pass along said notices to suspected faculty or students since the enactment of the DMCA in 1998, Gift said.

Most complaints are forwarded on to students, he said.

“All (the organization) knows is the IP address and the timestamp,” Gift said. “We don’t name the individual — we pass the complaint on.”

Although MSU, acting as an Internet Service Provider, or ISP, does not conduct any snooping on its campus network, organizations including the Recording Industry Association of America, or the RIAA, monitor popular file-sharing networks, Gift said.

If an IP address is caught participating in illegal file-sharing activities, it can be traced back to MSU and a complaint is filed, he said. MSU officials give a person 48 hours to respond to an e-mail notice and require them to pay $25 in “administrative fees” to the university if at fault, he said.

A second or third complaint results in additional fines of $50 and $75, respectively, Brasington said.

“The great majority of our complaint volumes are just initial complaints,” she said. “We have relatively few second complaints.”

Some students said using legal means of downloading music, such as through Amazon.com, MP3.com and the iTunes Store, is the best course of action to avoid getting into trouble.

“People like free things, but they need to understand it’s someone else’s work that supports them and their families,” said human biology junior Sam Weinberg.

Regardless, students might still continue to participate in illegal file-sharing knowingly.

“We’re poor college kids,” said journalism freshman Olivia Kinney.

“People think it’s hard to get caught.”

On Oct. 26, a U.S. federal court ordered LimeWire, a popular file-sharing application, to stop distributing its software, Gift said. A trial will be held next month to determine damages, he said.

About 70 percent of notices received can be attributed to the RIAA, Brasington said. The Motion Picture Association of America and corporations such as NBC Universal also send complaints, she said.

Liz Kennedy, a spokeswoman at the RIAA, said the technology to detect illegal file-sharing activities has improved and the number of complaints to universities has increased.

“Our process (of sending complaints) to college campuses has not changed besides ceasing of sending lawsuits in 2008,” she said.

Kennedy said schools have numerous ways of dealing with the problem, most through education. MSU uses the same tactic, Gift said.

“We try to make the first complaint be an educational opportunity (and) not get the student in too much trouble,” he said.
http://statenews.com/index.php/artic...om_last_ye ar





Google Promises Stricter Copyright Enforcement
Chloe Albanesius

Google on Thursday unveiled an updated copyright plan, pledging to respond to takedown requests in a more timely manner and focus more intensely on expelling infringing content from its products.

"As the Web has grown, we have seen a growing number of issues relating to infringing content. We respond expeditiously to requests to remove such content from our services, and have been improving our procedures over time," Kent Walker, Google general counsel, wrote in a blog post. "But as the Web grows, and the number of requests grows with it, we are working to develop new ways to better address the underlying problem."

As a result, Google pledged to make four changes to its policies, the first of which is to act on copyright takedown requests within 24 hours. As part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), content hosting sites like YouTube are generally not held responsible for infringing material on their sites if they respond promptly to takedown requests.

Starting with Blogger and Web search, Google said it will build tools to improve the submission process to make it easier for people to file these DMCA takedown requests. "And for copyright owners who use the tools responsibly, we'll reduce our average response time to 24 hours or less," Walker wrote. Google also pledged to improve its "counter notice" tools, for people who think their content was wrongly removed.

Google also said it will not include terms closely associated with piracy from appearing via autocomplete. The company acknowledged that it can be hard to know what terms are being used to find infringing content, but "we'll do our best to prevent Autocomplete from displaying the terms most frequently used for that purpose," Walker said.

The company will also improve its AdSense anti-piracy review. Walker said Google already bans AdSense on Web sites with pirated content, but will now step up its effort to identify violations.

Finally, Google said it will experiment with ways to make authorized content available in search results, like the music clips it currently provides. "Most users want to access legitimate content and are interested in sites that make that content available to them (even if only on a preview basis). We'll be looking at ways to make this content easier to index and find," Walker said.

The Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA) praised Google's announcement as "positive first steps towards a more sensible online experience for both users and the music community."

"Google deserves credit for proposing a constructive set of reforms and undertaking useful steps to better protect the rights of creators and encourage legal ways to enjoy music. While there is much more work to be done, this announcement is an important acknowledgement that everyone involved in the online ecosystem has a shared responsibility to constructively address the online piracy problem that is devastating the creative industries," Mitch Bainwol, chairman and CEO of the RIAA, wrote in a blog post. "Obviously, the details of implementation will be critical, and we look forward to working with Google on all the steps necessary to effectively combat infringement."

The Motion Picture Association of America had similar sentiments, also praising Google for changing its search algorithm yesterday to prevent bad actors from gaming the system.

""We are encouraged by Google's recognition of the responsibility of all participants in the online world to help combat online content theft," Bob Pisano, president and interim CEO of the MPAA, said in a statement. "These are important first steps toward helping protect the rights of content owners and the more than 2.4 million American jobs that depend on a healthy motion picture and television industry."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373766,00.asp





Has Google Jumped Sides in Copyright War?
Greg Sandoval

Among those who favor less restrictive copyright laws, Google once possessed undeniable street-cred.

When it came to standing up for the right of Internet users to freely exchange information online, the perception was Google would hold the line. The search engine sparred over copyright issues with newspapers, book publishers, recording companies, and big Hollywood studios--even fending off a $1 billion copyright complaint filed against it by Viacom, parent company of MTV. As for enforcement, Google made its position clear: the job of policing the Web for pirated content belonged to copyright owners.

But yesterday, Google's position began to blur. The search engine announced it would start booting alleged copyright violators off AdSense, the company's successful advertising program. Google said it would try to block terms associated with piracy from appearing in the search engine's Autocomplete function. In addition, CNET has learned that antipiracy software tools that Google once planned to offer to the Recording Industry Association of America for a fee will now be offered for free, according to a music industry source.

In announcing Google's plans, Kent Walker, the company's general counsel, wrote in a blog post that those who use the Internet to infringe content are "bad apples."

For file sharers, Google's antipiracy moves raise some questions, such as why now? Will Google do more piracy busting and if so where will it stop? Google could cause file sharers some pain if the company thrust a shoulder into antipiracy.

Content supply

As for what prompted Google to move now, Walker said little. He wrote that the company has seen a growing number of issues related to infringing content. Maybe so, but Google's timing is hard to ignore. The company's willingness to act as copyright enforcer comes as some of its most high-profile media initiatives are content starved.

Google TV, which launched in October, is off to a rocky start. Billed as a way for people to access Web video on a living-room TV, the software platform is unable to do that for a wide range of shows. The four broadcast networks and Viacom, which also owns Comedy Central, have chosen to block access to Google TV.

Over in music, Google is in negotiations with the major recording companies about launching a service that would compete with Apple's iTunes, multiple music-industry insiders told CNET.

The parties, however, haven't got much done, the sources said. While those overseeing Google's music initiative told their label counterparts that they hoped to launch this year, Google has yet to ink a licensing deal with any of the top four labels, according to the sources. Any launch will have to wait until the next year.

In the negotiations, the film and music sectors have made it clear that they wanted more assistance from Google on antipiracy, according to sources with knowledge of the talks. The movie studios and music labels each have their own antipiracy wish lists, but to both media sectors, nothing was more important than getting Google to cut off AdSense money to pirate sites.

Severing pirate ties

Google pays the people who post its ads on their sites. These ads are common at sites connected to file sharing or those that stream pirated movies to users. It was a big enough problem for the entertainment sector to complain to the U.S. government. Two months ago, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and senior Republican member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced a bill called Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. There was little doubt that part of the legislation was pointed directly at Google.

If passed, the bill would hand the Department of Justice the power to shut down alleged pirate sites as well as order ad companies like Google to stop doing business with the accused sites. Ellen Seidler, an independent filmmaker, has been very vocal about calling for Google to sever financial ties with pirates.

"It's never been realistic to expect Google to police every AdSense member," Seidler said. "But even when Google learns that a site is linked to piracy, they still don't stop doing business. All we're saying is that once it's proven these sites are involved in piracy, Google should disable their AdSense accounts."

That brings us to question 2, about whether Google will do more piracy fighting. While we can't say for certain what it will do, we do know the entertainment companies will keep asking for more cooperation.

Google's antipiracy plans don't go far enough to satisfy some in the entertainment business. One music industry insider complained that Google's promise to remove pirated material within 24 hours of being notified doesn't mean much when it comes to pre-released songs or films that are leaked to the Web.

Popular content spreads too fast to wait a full day for Google to act, according to the source. There's also no oversight in place to make sure Google fulfills its promises, the source said. One particular sore spot with content creators is one of the people influencing Google's copyright policies.

In July, Google hired attorney Fred von Lohmann as senior copyright counsel. Prior to that, von Lohmann crossed swords with the film studios and music labels in a host of big copyright cases as senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group for Internet users and tech companies. While von Lohmann is a hero to the file-sharing community, some entertainment execs believe he's linked too closely with anti-copyright positions to steer Google's course here.

That didn't stop Mitch Bainwol, RIAA CEO and Bob Pisano, interim CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, from applauding Google's antipiracy plans. Both men, however, signaled that they want more from Google. They defined the search engine's moves as "first steps."

"These are important first steps toward helping protect the rights of content owners," Pisano said. "We also look forward to working with Google to address other important issues, including Google's listings and rankings of notorious pirate sites as places to go to get movies that are still only in the cinema."

But these aren't really Google's first steps are they?

In 2007, Google created a sophisticated filtering system to help keep unauthorized clips from being posted to YouTube even though it wasn't required by law. Back then, Google claimed it wanted to be a good partner to copyright owners. It appears the company is willing once again to prove it.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20024510-261.html





Viacom Says YouTube Ruling Will ‘Completely Destroy’ Copyright
David Kravets

Viacom appealed Friday its unsuccessful $1 billion copyright lawsuit against Google’s YouTube in a case testing the depths of copyright-infringement protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.

Viacom, on behalf of its MTV, Comedy Central, Black Entertainment Television, Paramount Pictures and Nickelodeon units, is seeking to overturn a June ruling that, if it survives, is a boon for internet freedom — and a decision that would make it more difficult for rights holders to protect their works.

The media concern told the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday that, if the lower decision stands, “it would radically transform the functioning of the copyright system and severely impair, if not completely destroy, (.pdf) the value of many copyrighted creations.”

The June 23 decision at issue by U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton of New York said internet companies, even if they know they are hosting infringing material, are immune from copyright liability if they promptly remove works at a rights holder’s request — under what is known as a takedown notice.

Stanton disagreed with Viacom’s claims that YouTube had lost the so-called “safe harbor” protection of the DMCA. Viacom maintains Google does not qualify, because internal records showed Google was well aware its video-hosting site was riddled with infringing material posted by its users.

Stanton ruled that YouTube’s “mere knowledge” of infringing activity “is not enough.”

“To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users’ postings infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA,” the judge wrote.

Stanton ruled that YouTube, which Google purchased in 2006 for $1.8 billion, had no way of knowing whether a video was licensed by the owner, was a “fair use” of the material “or even whether its copyright owner or licensee objects to its posting.”

The DMCA, which was heavily lobbied into existence by the Hollywood studios, has been a boon for internet freedom. But it has been a bust in other areas.

Among its provisions, the DMCA prohibits the circumvention of encryption technology that protects copyrighted works. The law, adopted in 1998, makes it unlawful to market DVD copying devices, for example, and also paved the way for a Southern California man to be charged on allegations of modding Microsoft’s Xboxes.

Still, the DMCA’s “safe harbor” privilege comes with another price. The law demands intermediaries such as YouTube to take down content in response to a notice from rights holders, without evaluating the claim for reasonableness or accuracy, or considering the fair use rights of users. And on Thursday, Google said it would expedite the process of content removal.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...yright-youtube





EMI Uses Rapidshare, Says MP3tunes
Jon Newton

In the latest move in the continuing saga of Michael Robertson’s battle with EMI, the moribund UK member of the Big 4 organised music cartel, he says he’s found “great new evidence” of how EMI “directs people to download free MP3s they themselves uploaded to Rapidshare”.

EMI isn’t only continuing its attack against Robertson of earlier MP3.com and Linspire fame, p2pnet posted recently, it appears to have escalated it.

Robertson’s answer? “I’m working right now on video responses to EMI’s exhibits”, he told us. “It’s a battle of the videos!”

Now he’s filed filed opposition to EMI’s papers “about why the Sideload.com music search engine and MP3tunes’ personal cloud storage are allegedly copyright infringing”.

And today, “We turned up some great new evidence like how EMI itself directs people to download free MP3s they themselves uploaded to Rapidshare”, he says.

“They say Rapidshare is a known piracy haven and criticize Sideload.com for linking to it yet they use it in their own business. In another example we demonstrate to the court that a song they’re complaining about is actually hosted on a EMI owned and controlled server.

“”For the first time in a copyright legal battle videos were submitted and video responses were generated and they’re available for all to see on Youtube (links below) and viewers can decide if a music search engine and personal cloud music should be outlawed.”

Robertson continues >>>

When EMI filed their lawsuit more than three years ago they claimed to “never” release promotional MP3s — therefore every link in the Sideload.com music search engine was a copyright infringement. They also said that the MP3tunes secure personal cloud music service was making thousands, if not millions, of unauthorized copies of EMI songs.

Astonishingly, today EMI has done a flip turn and is now complaining about the exact opposite behavior which illustrates why DMCA protection is required for internet companies since they will never be able to build technology which appeases the major record labels. They’ll always be able to manufacture an argument about why a technology is infringing their works.

In our case they are now claiming that MP3tunes doesn’t make ENOUGH copies of their works — a complete reversal of their original claims and that Sideload makes links incorrectly or to undesirable places.

In defense of the Sideload.com music search engine MP3tunes told the court that EMI promoted bands by distributing free MP3s online. EMI told the Judge our position was “pure fantasy” claiming that EMI never distributes free MP3 songs online.

Thanks to our users we quickly amassed a list of more than 1400 such fantasy EMI songs that were available online and in depositions they finally admitted they put free songs online so they would spread “virally”.

Confronted with these facts EMI’s position changed and they’re now saying that Sideload is linking in the wrong manner or to suspect places. To illustrate this they point to several examples. They say we link to Rapidshare which they called a known haven of piracy.

However we uncovered internal emails where EMI themselves put songs on Rapidshare and sent email to others instructing them to download them from Rapidshare.

With EMI spreading files far and wide, their experts grudgingly admit that it’s impossible to tell which links are authorized and which are not.

Still EMI in their court papers select a few of the tens of thousands of links in Sideload.com to complain about. To illustrate they use video examples so MP3tunes made video responses to explain the situation.

First they complain about Hercules Theme, by retro-disco band Hercules & Love Affair.

Remarkably this MP3 is located on a server controlled by EMI so if they didn’t want anyone linking to it they could simply remove the file or add a robots.txt file, but instead they complain about how Sideload.com is linking to it. (Of course you don’t need a search engine to download the song – just click that link, it still works.)

(EMI Video Exhibit 1 – Part 2 – 1:20)

MP3tunes shows in our video response that Sideload is not linking to some clandestine location, but rather to a public location and that in fact Google offers links to stream and download the same song from the identical location.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_6-5N3HC9k
|Next EMI shows a video about how Sideload links to Buffalo Soldier by Bob Marley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aobnfWJHC8
In a video response MP3tunes shows how Microsoft’s Bing and Google’s search engine links to the same song in the same location.

http://www.youtube.com/mp3tunes#p/a/f/1/WJygYNpgkuA
Finally EMI shows a video of a link to Every Breathe You Take by the Police from Sugarbears.org.

http://www.youtube.com/mp3tunes#p/u/9/ieeooBWxoqw

Again, the video response shows that Google and Microsoft have links to the same song and offer both streaming and download links right from their own server.
http://www.youtube.com/mp3tunes#p/u/12/L4W6QaiFIOQ

These videos illustrate that Sideload is a search engine and thus eligible for protection under the DMCA. Because it focuses on music files does not mean it’s less qualifying for protection than a Google or Bing – which have links to music files as well.

Another argument less amenable to a video response is that MP3tunes because of our storage methodology is not making an optimum number of copies to satisfy the record labels. In this case, EMI is astonishingly complaining that MP3tunes doesn’t make or keep enough copies on servers. (Yes, this is a complete turnaround from their original complaint filed more than 3 years ago!) However Congress had the foresight to recognize that “in the ordinary course of their operations service providers must engage in all kinds of acts that expose them to potential copyright infringement liability.”

They authored and passed the DMCA “limiting the liability of service providers… ensuring that the efficiency of the Internet will continue to improve and that the variety and quality of services on the Internet will continue to expand.”

MP3tunes storage methodology is employed by every major internet company and probably most of the minor ones too. We do nothing exceptional and any complaint lodged against MP3tunes would have as much merit if lodged against Apple, Facebook, Google, Yahoo or any company offering online email or storage.

If you offer a service like MP3tunes which enables people to listen to their own music everywhere on any device, it will be impossible to appease the record labels. They’ll always be able to claim you’re making too many copies or too few simply because they don’t want such a service to exist. It’s as futile as trying to round pi – you’ll always be too low or too high.

“This is why you have courts and these latest papers are an important milestone”, says Robertson, adding:

“Later this month the final papers will be filed and then oral arguments in late January after which we expect the Judge to pass down a ruling on the legality of a music search engine and cloud music storage.”
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/46435





Xbox-Modding Judge Berates Prosecution, Puts Trial on Hold
David Kravets

Opening statements in the first-of-its kind Xbox 360 criminal hacking trial were delayed here Wednesday after a federal judge unleashed a 30-minute tirade at prosecutors in open court, saying he had “serious concerns about the government’s case.”

“I really don’t understand what we’re doing here,” U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez roared from the bench.

Gutierrez slammed the prosecution over everything from alleged unlawful behavior by government witnesses, to proposed jury instructions harmful to the defense. When the verbal assault finally subsided, federal prosecutors asked for a recess to determine whether they would offer the defendant a deal, dismiss or move forward with the case that was slated to become the first jury trial of its type. A jury was seated Tuesday.

Among the judge’s host of complaints against the government was his alarm that prosecutors would put on two witnesses who may have broken the law.

One is Entertainment Software Association investigator Tony Rosario, who secretly video-recorded defendant Matthew Crippen allegedly performing the Xbox mod in Crippen’s Los Angeles suburban house. The defense argues that making the recording violates California privacy law. The other witness is Microsoft security employee Ken McGrail, who analyzed the two consoles Crippen allegedly altered. McGrail admitted that he himself had modded Xboxes in college.

“Maybe two of the four government witnesses committed crimes,” the judge said from the bench. “I think it is relevant and the jury is going to hear about it –- both crimes.”

The government had fought to keep the witness conduct a secret from the jury.

Crippen is charged with two counts of violating the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and faces a maximum five years for each count if convicted. The government maintains Crippen, a hotel car-parking manager, ran a small business from his Anaheim home modifying the firmware on Xbox 360 optical drives to make them capable of running pirated copies of games.

The judge on Wednesday even backtracked on an earlier ruling that had prohibited Crippen, 28, from raising a “fair use” defense at trial.

Crippen was hoping to argue to jurors that it was legal to hack the consoles because the modification had non-infringing purposes, like allowing the machines to run homebrew software, or permitting limited fair use of copyright material such as backup copies of video games.

While the judge ruled last week that such a defense was not permitted by the DMCA, he seemingly changed course during his speech.

“The only way to be able to play copied games is to circumvent the technology,” Gutierrez said. “How about backup games and the homebrewed?”

The fair-use issue came up as the judge berated prosecutor Allen Chiu’s proposed jury instructions, which included the assertion that the government need not prove that Crippen “willfully” breached the law, in what is known as “mens rea” in legal parlance. The judge noted that the government’s own intellectual property crimes manual concerning the 1998 DMCA says the defendant has to have some knowledge that he was breaking the law.

“The first prosecution 12 years later, and you’re suggesting a mens rea that is akin to exactly contrary to the IP manual: that ignorance of the law is no excuse?” the judge barked.

“You didn’t even propose a middle ground,” Gutierrez continued. “What’s getting me more riled, it seems to me I cannot communicate the severity to you of what’s going on here.”

As the judge worked through his laundry list of complaints over the prosecution, word of the unusual judicial rebuke spread through the courthouse, drawing a trickle of about a dozen prosecutors and defense attorneys into the courtroom to watch from the gallery.

“I apologize to the court,” Chiu said at the end.

Court is recessed until 1:30 p.m.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...x-judge-riled/





Prosecutors Dismiss Xbox-Modding Case Mid-Trial
David Kravets

Federal authorities in the first-of-its-kind game-console–modding criminal trial abruptly dropped their prosecution here Thursday, “based on fairness and justice.”

“The government has decided to dismiss the indictment,” prosecutor Allen Chiu told the judge shortly before the jury was to be seated on the third day of trial.

The announcement came a day after a whirlwind of legal jockeying in the case against defendant Matthew Crippen, a 28-year-old Southern California man. The government charged that Crippen, a hotel car-parking manager, ran a small business from his Anaheim home modifying the firmware on Xbox 360 optical drives to make them capable of running pirated or unauthorized games.

It was the nation’s first jury trial to test the anti-circumvention provisions of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act as applied to game consoles. The law makes it a crime to offer a product or service that circumvents a technological measure designed to protect copyright material. Each of the two charges carried a maximum five years.

“It still has not hit me yet,” Crippen said outside court, moments after Chiu dismissed the indictment.

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez had blasted the prosecution’s case Wednesday, prompting a brief recess for prosecutors to decide whether they would forge ahead. The prosecution’s decision to continue would come back to haunt them as the government’s first witness ultimately unraveled their case.

Witness No. 1, Tony Rosario, was an undercover agent with the Entertainment Software Association. He told jurors Wednesday that he paid Crippen $60 in 2008 to modify an Xbox, and secretly videotaped the operation. Rosario had responded to Crippen’s advertisement on the internet and met Crippen at his Anaheim house.

All of that had been laid out in pretrial motions. But during his testimony, Rosario also said Crippen inserted a pirated video game into the console to verify that the hack worked. That was a new detail that helped the government meet an obligation imposed by the judge that very morning, when Gutierrez ruled that the government had to prove Crippen knew he was breaking the law by modding Xboxes.

But nowhere in Rosario’s reports or sworn declarations was it mentioned that Crippen put a pirated game into the console. During the opening statements shortly before Rosario’s testimony, defense attorney Koren Bell told jurors that there would be no evidence of that kind.

Defense attorney Callie Steele objected to the new testimony. And as court was to get underway here early Thursday, prosecutor Chiu told the judge that he first learned of Rosario’s newfound recollection days before trial. Chiu conceded he never forwarded that information to the defense.

“That fact was disclosed on Sunday,” Chiu told the judge. “We should have disclosed that to the defense right away.”

In light of that omission and “based on fairness and justice,” Chiu moved to dismiss the case, conceding that the government had made errors in its prosecution.

Jurors, who heard only one day of testimony, left the courthouse with mixed opinions on the case. “When we left yesterday, I was thinking, ‘What are we doing here?’” said juror Paul Dietz, a 27-year-old actor. He said he “probably would have” acquitted.

Another juror, Jerry Griffin, a 63-year-old trial attorney, said “I think Microsoft has a right to protect its proprietary information.”

Steele, one of Crippen’s three publicly appointed defense attorneys, said afterward that the government last year offered a plea deal in which the defendant would get probation and have his computer usage restricted in exchange for pleading to two felonies.

Rejecting that and going to trial, she said, “was a roll of the dice.”

“This was a risk that needed to be taken,” she added.

A felony conviction, she said, would have precluded Crippen from fulfilling his dream of becoming a high school special-education and math teacher.

Crippen said he has a year left of school before he gets a liberal arts degree from Cal State Fullerton. His studies have been on hold since he was indicted last year.

“I’m going back to school,” he said.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...pen-dismissed/





Why Microsoft Loves Homebrew and Hacking
Alex Wilhelm

When the Kinect came out around the world, excited hackers took to the high-powered gadget with glee, taking it apart, and recoding it to new purposes. Microsoft initially registered unhappiness with their work which it later fully recanted, coming out in favor of tinkering with the Kinect.

A similar cycle seems to have taken place with Windows Phone 7. When the ‘unlocking’ tool ChevronWP7 took to the internet, Microsoft condemned it, warning people that it could brick their phones. Then today the company reached out to the team behind ChevronWP7 and proffered a hand of peace, offering a chance to work together on the future of homebrew for the platform.

To demonstrate Microsoft’s sentiment, let’s quote the ChevronWP7 developers who said:

“Earlier today, we were contacted by Brandon Watson, Director of Developer Experience for Windows Phone 7, to discuss the ChevronWP7 unlocking tool.

Through this discussion, we established a mutual understanding of our intent to enable homebrew opportunities and to open the Windows Phone 7 platform for broader access to developers and users.
To pursue these goals with Microsoft’s support, Brandon Watson has agreed to engage in further discussions with us about officially facilitating homebrew development on WP7. To fast-track discussions, we are discontinuing the unlocking tool effective immediately.”

Microsoft did get what they wanted, the unlocking tool taken down, and the hackers got what they wanted, a chance to open the platform to new forms of development.

It should be noted that this willingness by Microsoft to praise and work with the very people who are buggering about with their products is not new. Back in 2006 Microsoft started to work on homebrew development for the Xbox, something that took many by surprise.

Is it then unexpected that Microsoft is smartly letting people play with the Kinect hardware and software (which will only drive sales through the mountains of free publicity their work will receive), or program in ways that are not ‘kosher’ for the WP7 platform (something that will bring more of the technological elite to the phones, a large net positive for the platform)?

No. It was a strategy that worked well for the Xbox: play into the hands of the trend-setters, taste-makers, bloggers, pundits, and experts, and by letting them do their own ‘thing,’ give the platform in question its own personality apart from the Microsoft brand. Admit it, you don’t immediately say ‘Microsoft’ when you hear the word ‘Xbox.’

This has led some smart, well positioned people inside of Microsoft to, instead of combating the situation with a knee-jerk reaction, tactfully let people break some of their house rules and open their gadgets. There are real people inside of the borg after all, and it seems like they are making smart decisions that will support all their hard work.

Microsoft was started by an upstart hacker, and the company will do well by supporting those same individuals today, tomorrow, and for all the future of Microsoft.
http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2010...w-and-hacking/





Japan: DVD Copy Software to be Prohibited in the Home

Copy DVD video software, such as commercial films and TV dramas such as have been recorded, and Blu-ray (clone) the act is likely to be illegal even in homes. The software is being secured using encryption technology, manufacturing and distribution are also forbidden to break the protection program. On the Net is full of "pirated" aims to suppress. Japan on March 3, sources said.

The team issued a report of a subcommittee of the Council working culture. The earliest to submit a copyright law revision next year's ordinary Diet session. Act provided for penalties for replication.

Protection technology that is more than one video software, according to the Agency for Cultural Affairs and is currently the information "encrypted" type of the mainstream. Been published on the Internet and technology program to break, and this teaching is also commercially available, some people have been replicated on a PC image software.

The current copyright law, manufacture or distribute such programs do not replicate or to regulate the home use program. Circulated on the Internet file-swapping software such as duplicated video, film industry has been seen as a problem.

In 1999, the same law, the "signal" to act to prevent breaking technology to give a copy was subject to regulation. At the time, "encryption" technology is not regarded as something to prevent duplication itself, not regulation.

Agency for Cultural Affairs, the subcommittee has considered, a device able to use pirated games, "Majikon" and set to ban the production of plans to revise the copyright law. (Akada Kazuyasu)
http://translate.google.com/translat...012030697.html





The Pirate Bay Co-Founder Starting A P2P Based DNS To Take On ICANN
Ricky

The Pirate Bay Co-Founder, Peter Sunde, has started a new project which will provide a decentralized p2p based DNS system. This is a direct result of the increasing control which the US government has over ICANN.

The recent seizures of around 80 domains by the US authorities only goes on to show the amount of influence the government have over the internet. There is a fear that if the US Senate passes the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, such instances will increase – becoming a threat to an open internet.

As long as there is a centralized root, there is always the possibility of interference from government and other agencies. To counter this threat what Peter Sunde is suggesting is a new Domain Name System based on peer to peer technology. Such a system will be completely decentralized and hence almost impossible for the government or any other agencies to control.

The P2P-DNS is the name of the project which aims to do this. According to the project’s wiki, this is how the project is described:

“P2P-DNS is a community project that will free internet users from imperial control of DNS by ICANN. In order to prevent unjust prosecution or denial of service, P2P-DNS will operate as a distributed and less centralized service hosted by the users of DNS. Temporary substitutes, (as Alpha and Beta developments), are being made ready for deployment. A network with no centralized points of failure, (per the original design of the internet), remains our goal. P2P-DNS is developing rapidly.”

This system will work only with a .p2p TDL, other TDLs will be passed through to be handled by the default DNS server. This is stated in the project’s goal as:

“Create an application that runs as a service and hooks into the host’s DNS system to catch all requests to the .p2p TLD while passing all other requests cleanly through. Requests for the .p2p TLD will be redirected to a locally hosted DNS database.”

While the idea of a completely decentralized internet free from the government’s interference is a very tempting one, it is not without its own sets of problems. One of them has to do with trust. With the current setup, we are putting our trust in the DNS servers like OpenDNS, Google DNS etc. to point us to the right direction when we want to access a website. With the scheme that P2P-DNS is proposing, we will have to rely on others in the network to direct us. It is one thing to trust OpenDNS, Google etc. but completely another thing to do the same with a random computer. Such a system is also harder to secure and tends to be slower.

This is not the first time that an alternative Domain Name System has been proposed. Starting with AlterNIC in 1997, alternative DNS has had a controversial history. Many have ceased to function now because of the lack of adoption from users. However, coming right after the controversial seizure of 80 domains by the US government, P2P-DNS might just get enough support to make it a success.
http://digitizor.com/2010/12/01/the-...take-on-icann/





Demonid Dumps Domain, Stays Ahead of ICE

From the site:

We are in the process of migrating the site to our new address, Demonoid.ME

Please update your torrents to the new tracker address, inferno.demonoid.me

Additionally, you can re download them and get them with the new address automatically Also, don't forget to update your bookmarks and RSS feeds
http://www.demonoid.com/





'Hacktivist' Claims Credit for WikiLeaks Attack

Perpetrator says DDOS strike was in retaliation for site's disclosure of sensitive U.S. government documents to media outlets.
Paul McDougall

A self-proclaimed "hacktivist" said Tuesday he's the computer expert who knocked rogue Web site WikiLeaks offline for several hours through a distributed denial of service attack.

The hacker, who calls himself The Jester and goes by the name th3j35t3r on Twitter, said he was motivated to take down WikiLeaks for patriotic reasons. He also said his other targets include Web sites used by Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups for recruiting purposes.

"www.wikileaks.org--TANGO DOWN--for attempting to endanger the lives of our troops, 'other assets' & foreign relations," the hacker said in a message on Twitter. "PS for me personally WL is a sideshow target. I am more interested in the big jihad recruiting and training sites," he said, according to ABC News.

Speculation about the source of the attack had ranged from the U.S. government, to foreign regimes embarrassed by the information WikiLeaks disclosed to The New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and other major newspapers.

Among other things, the documents revealed serious concerns within the U.S. diplomatic community about the resolve and trustworthiness of several key allies, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, in the war on terror.

They also disclosed Saudi Arabia's wish for a U.S. military strike against Iran, and painted unflattering pictures of Western leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

In the wake of the leak, the White House ordered a security clampdown.

The administration is telling agency heads to develop stricter criteria for determining which federal employees are given access to secured computer systems and networks that store classified data.

"Our national defense requires that sensitive information be maintained in confidence to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, and our homeland," said Office of Management and Budget director Jacob Lew, in a letter to agency heads.

"Any failure by agencies to safeguard classified information pursuant to relevant laws, including but not limited to Executive Order 13526 … is unacceptable and will not be tolerated," wrote Lew. President Obama signed Executive Order 13526 on Dec. 29, 2009. It mandates that federal agencies undertake a broad series of steps to protect information.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...SSfeed_IWK_All





WikiLeaks Using Amazon Servers After Attack
Jennifer Valentino-DeVries

WikiLeaks, the website that published a quarter-million sensitive diplomatic cables on Sunday, is using Amazon.com Inc. servers in the U.S. to help deliver its information. It sounds like an odd choice, but it could make sense.

The site cablegate.wikileaks.org, which WikiLeaks is using for the diplomatic documents, is linked to servers run by Amazon Web Services in Seattle, as well as to French company Octopuce. Wikileaks.org, the site’s front page, links back to Amazon servers in the U.S. and in Ireland. Several Internet watchers, including technologist Alex Norcliffe, reported earlier on WikiLeaks’ use of Amazon services.

Amazon and WikiLeaks did not return requests for comment.

The choice of Amazon, a U.S. company, seems strange given the amount of criticism WikiLeaks has received from the U.S. government. Rep. Peter King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Homeland Security, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder Sunday saying he supported charging WikiLeaks activist Julian Assange under the Espionage Act.

But experts said it was unlikely that Amazon would face legal action for selling services to WikiLeaks. For one thing, now that the information disclosed by the site is already public, it might not be considered contraband, said Jonathan Zittrain, a professor of law and computer science at Harvard University.

“If that data happens in the moment to be in the U.S., that’s really good because we have a First Amendment,” said Eben Moglen, a law professor at Columbia Law School.

Mr. Moglen added that, although where hardware is located can make a difference legally, there wouldn’t be much point in getting Amazon to stop providing services to WikiLeaks. “For all practical purposes … if the law is unfavorable, that Web server process will go somewhere else,” he said.

Using Amazon’s service also makes sense in one important respect: It provides stability when WikiLeaks is attacked, as it was hours before it published the diplomatic communications.

WikiLeaks was hit with a “mass distributed denial of service attack,” the organization said on its official Twitter account Sunday. In this sort of attack, many computers generally flood a server with requests or use other techniques to prevent the server from displaying a Web page.

Arbor Networks, a security-engineering firm, reported that after the attack started, WikiLeaks redirected traffic to its “Cablegate” site from a Swedish hosting provider to the “mirror” sites in France and the U.S., which provide exact copies.

A self-described “hacktivist” known as “th3j35t3r” — or the Jester — claimed responsibility for the attack and wrote on Twitter that WikiLeaks was “threatening the lives of our troops and ‘other assets,’” Andy Greenberg at Forbes reported. Later, the Jester tweeted that the attack was not made from many computers but was a “simple” denial of service hit. On the Jester’s blog, the hacker claims to be “obstructing the lines of communication for terrorists, sympathizers, fixers, facilitators, oppressive regimes and other general bad guys.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/11/...-after-attack/





Wikileaks Pushed off Amazon, but Files Persist on File-Sharing System

Removal of site from cloud computing site won't affect distribution of diplomatic cable files, which are now circulating on Bittorrent file-sharing service

The removal of Wikileaks from Amazon's cloud computing servers will have little effect on the distribution of the files containing the embarrassing diplomatic cables.

That is because the file is now being distributed as a Bittorrent download - meaning that it is distributed among hundreds or thousands of users who have already downloaded it, and can be retrieved by anyone using Bittorrent clients. The "cablegate" file containing the diplomatic files is already widely distributed via Bittorrent, the Guardian has established - meaning that they will be accessible, and downloadable, even if Wikileaks is not.

The main site itself is moving back to the Bahnhof ISP in Sweden, according to DNS checking. The move was spotted by Alex Norcliffe: "Moving to another host directly as a result of downtime would suggest unresolvable problems at Amazon. Considering no reports of outages at other Amazon-hosted sites are proliferating, you'd be forgiven for suspecting that this time it might just be personal."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog...-off-wikileaks





How Lieberman Got Amazon To Drop Wikileaks
Rachel Slajda

Early this week, after hacker attacks on its site, Wikileaks moved its operation, including all those diplomatic cables, to the greener pastures of Amazon.com's cloud servers. But today, it was down again and mid-afternoon we found out the reason: Amazon had axed Wikileaks from its servers.

The announcement came from Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Lieberman said in a statement that Amazon's "decision to cut off Wikileaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies Wikileaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material."

Committee staff had seen news reports yesterday that Wikileaks was being hosted on Amazon's servers, a committee spokeswoman told TPM. The service, we should note, is self-serve; as with services like YouTube, the company does not screen or pre-approve the content posted on its servers.

Staffers then, according to the spokeswoman, Leslie Phillips, called Amazon to ask about it, and left questions with a press secretary including, "Are there plans to take the site down?"

Amazon called them back this morning to say they had kicked Wikileaks off, Phillips said. Amazon said the site had violated unspecified terms of use.

Amazon has not responded to requests for comment. Its terms of acceptable use include a ban on illegal activities (it's not yet clear whether Wikileaks has broken any laws) and content "that may be harmful to our users, operations, or reputation." It also prohibits using Amazon's servers "to violate the security or integrity of any network, computer or communications system," although Wikileaks obviously obtained the cables long before hopping on Amazon's servers.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for Internet freedom of speech by defending court cases, said the axing certainly doesn't violate the First Amendment. But it is, according to senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston, "disappointing."

"This certainly implicates First Amendment rights to the extent that web hosts may, based on direct or informal pressure, limit the materials the American public has a First Amendment right to access," Bankston told TPM.

Wikileaks is reportedly back on servers based in Sweden. Lieberman, in his statement today, called on "any other company or organization that is hosting Wikileaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them."

Phillips said Lieberman has no plans to reach out to other web-hosting services that may host Wikileaks, and has not contacted the Swedish government to discuss servers in its country.

"Sen. Lieberman hopes that the Amazon case will send the message to other companies that might host Wikileaks that it would be irresponsible to host the site," she said.

Alex Sciuto contributed reporting.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem..._wikileaks.php





Lieberman Introduces Anti-WikiLeaks Legislation
Kevin Poulsen

Senator Joseph Lieberman and other lawmakers on Thursday introduced legislation that would make it a federal crime for anyone to publish the name of a U.S. intelligence source, in a direct swipe at the secret-spilling website WikiLeaks.

“The recent dissemination by Wikileaks of thousands of State Department cables and other documents is just the latest example of how our national security interests, the interests of our allies, and the safety of government employees and countless other individuals are jeopardized by the illegal release of classified and sensitive information,” said Lieberman in a written statement.

“This legislation will help hold people criminally accountable who endanger these sources of information that are vital to protecting our national security interests,” he continued.

The so-called SHIELD Act (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) would amend a section of the Espionage Act that already forbids publishing classified information on U.S. cryptographic secrets or overseas communications intelligence — i.e., wiretapping. The bill would extend that prohibition to information on HUMINT, human intelligence, making it a crime to publish information “concerning the identity of a classified source or informant of an element of the intelligence community of the United States,” or “concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government” if such publication is prejudicial to U.S. interests.

Leaking such information in the first place is already a crime, so the measure is aimed squarely at publishers.

Lieberman (ID-CT) has been going after WikiLeaks with a fury he once reserved for video-game zombies, pressuring first Amazon, and then data-visualization company Tableau, to blacklist the organization in the wake of this week’s State Department leak.

Lieberman’s proposed solution to WikiLeaks could have implications for journalists reporting on some of the more unsavory practices of the intelligence community. For example, former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega was once a paid CIA asset. Would reporting that now be a crime?

One thing the bill won’t do is put WikiLeaks, or founder Julian Assange, in any new legal jeopardy over the “Cablegate” database, the Afghan war logs, or the organization’s other recent high-profile leaks. That’s because the Constitution imposes a total ban on ex post facto criminal laws.

WikiLeaks first started getting heat over U.S. intelligence sources when it published a detailed and mostly classified log of 77,000 events in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan last July. Though it took some steps to keep informant’s names from the release, some of the published records nonetheless contained the names of Afghan informants, whom the Pentagon and various NGOs have said face potentially deadly reprisal from the Taliban. Months later, though, there have been no confirmed reports of anyone coming to harm from that leak.

WikiLeaks was more cautious with the 400,000 entry Iraq war logs it published in October, using an automated script to redact names from the data dump. And with the quarter-million State Department cables, WikiLeaks is trickling out the documents about 80 at a time, and apparently manually purging the names of U.S. sources as it goes.

But on Thursday a German politician admitted that he’d passed confidential information to U.S. diplomats, after a WikiLeaks cable describing an anonymous, well-placed U.S. informant in Germany set off a mole-hunt within that country’s Free Democratic Party.

The SHIELD Act is co-sponsored by senators John Ensign (R-NV) and Scott Brown (R-MA). The text of the bill is below.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/shield/





U.S. Military in Iraq Tries to Intimidate Soldiers Into Not Reading Wikileaks

U.S. soldiers in Iraq who try to read about the Wikileaks disclosures—or read coverage of them in mainstream news sites—on unclassified networks get a page warning them that they're about to break the law.

The federal government seems to have lost its mind in a manic game of internet whack-a-mole aimed at getting the Wikileaks State Department cables thrown down the memory hole: First, Sen. Joe Lieberman successfully nudged Amazon into kicking the site off its servers. Then the Library of Congress blocked the site for all employees and users of its computer terminals. Now we learn that the State Department is warning prospective hires that if they write about Wikileaks on Twitter or Facebook, they might not get that job. And now Gawker has learned that military installations in Iraq are trying to keep soldiers from reading about Wikileaks.

A tipster wrote to tell us that "the Army's unclassified, NIPRNET network in Iraq has blocked every major news website because of the Wikileaks issue," going on to say that Foxnews.com, CNN.com, MSNBC.com, the Huffington Post, and a variety of other sites are blocked on the Army's unclassified network. A spokesperson for U.S. forces in Iraq disputed that claim, saying that the web sites aren't actually blocked—it's just that attempts to access them on the unclassified network brings up a warning page saying that you're about to break the law:

“[U.S. forces in Iraq have] not blocked any news websites from being read. Because of the Wikileaks release of secret documents and their easy availability on the web, USF-I has posted a warning page NIPRNet computers go to first. This page simply warns the user that the website they are about to view may contain classified documents and that such documents should not be viewed, downloaded, or distributed on NIPR computers. There is a button at the bottom of this warning page that then allows the user to go to the website.”

The feds have clearly lost it. Many of those soldiers receiving the warnings have security clearances that would have granted them access to the State Department cables before they were leaked. It's not the first time the military has threatened servicemembers with sanctions if the view Wikileaks documents—back in August, the Department of the Navy issued guidance warning sailors and marines against looking at the Afghanistan documents leaked by the site—but it seems to be the first time it's tried to prevent them from reading news stories about leaked documents.

Not even Social Security Administration employees are safe from the intimidation: The Administration has reportedly sent an alert to all its employees claiming that the Wikileaks documents "remain classified and SSA employees should not access, download, or transmit them. Individuals may be subject to applicable federal criminal statutes for unlawful access to or transmission of classified information."

And the State Department has—informally, it seems—been putting out word that people who write about the Wikileaks cables on Twitter or Facebook shouldn't bother applying for State Department jobs in the future. According to the Arabist, a blog on Arab culture and politics, Columbia University's career services department sent an alert to students relating a call the office got from a Columbia alumnus and State Department employee:

“The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.”

To repeat: Do NOT make comments about Wikileaks on Twitter or mention them at all or you will be considered a security risk and never be good enough to work at the state department.U.S. Military in Iraq Tries to Intimidate Soldiers Into Not Reading Wikileaks

We contacted the State Department and Columbia University for comment, but haven't heard back. Likewise with the Social Security Administration.

Update:

State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson got back to us. She said that she's unaware of any State employees issuing any "directives" to any schools about what students should and shouldn't write on social networks. But would State look unfavorably upon a prospective employee who had written about the leaked cables on Facebook? "To talk about current events is one thing," she said. "Would talking about it make you ineligible for a job at the State Department? No. But to go into detail, and propagate information that was illegally obtained—I don't think that's a good move for anyone. Not Julian Assange, not Wikileaks, and not any U.S. citizen."
http://gawker.com/5705639/us-militar...ding-wikileaks





WikiLeaks Moves Domain to Switzerland

Just a few hours after having its DNS servers terminated by a US company, WikiLeaks has anounced a move to a Swiss domain: wikileaks.ch. The domain is registered by the Pirate Party of Switzerland and it currently points to a single IP address in Sweden.

This move increases the resilience of the WikiLeaks site. Unlike wikileaks.org, the wikileaks.ch domain is not registered with a US company and is thus less likely to bow to pressure from the US government.

WikiLeaks also points out that "Free speech has a number", referring to the Swedish IP address that can be entered into a browser's address bar (http://88.80.13.160). The Swedish website does not host any WikiLeaks content; instead, it redirects browsers to an IP address in France, which does host the content (http://213.251.145.96)

French company OVH has now delegated a block of 16 IP addresses to WikiLeaks, which suggests more than a temporary relationship between the two organisations:

inetnum: 213.251.145.96 - 213.251.145.111
netname: WIKILEAKS

Curiously, the wikileaks.ch domain is configured to use EveryDNS.net as a DNS provider. This is the same US company that terminated DNS services for the wikileaks.org domain earlier today. It could be interesting to see what happens next in this cat and mouse game.

Real-time performance graphs for wikileaks.ch can be viewed [url=http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/graph?site=wikileaks.chhere[/url].
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...itzerland.html





PayPal Suspends WikiLeaks Account
Robert Mackey

As the release of hundreds of thousands of United States diplomatic cables brings more attention to WikiLeaks, commercial entities on the Internet have come under increased scrutiny for their business relationships with the organization. The e-commerce Web site Amazon and the domain name company EasyDNS.Net both severed their ties to WikiLeaks during the course of this week. And now they are being joined by PayPal, the online payment service.

The termination of PayPal’s relationship with WikiLeaks was described in a blog post on the official PayPal blog:

“PayPal has permanently restricted the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity. We’ve notified the account holder of this action.”

Clicking on a PayPal donation link at the WikiLeaks website produces a warning that “This recipient is currently unable to receive money.” In a Twitter message shortly after 3 a.m., WikiLeaks claimed that PayPal had surrendered to “US government pressure.”

Another service, Datacell, which claims on its Web site to be under “Swiss/Icelandic control,” appears to continue to be accepting donations on behalf of WikiLeaks.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/201...leaks-account/





FCC to Take up Net Neutrality at December Meeting

U.S. telecommunications regulators plan to tackle at a December 21 meeting contentious Internet traffic rules intended to prohibit broadband providers from blocking or slowing some traffic.

The Federal Communications Commission announced on Wednesday a tentative agenda for its next meeting that included an order to adopt regulations "to preserve the open Internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition and free expression."

The agency said the rules would protect the transmission of lawful Internet traffic for consumers, while giving broadband providers the flexibility to manage their networks.

So-called net neutrality rules would determine whether high-speed Internet providers such as Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc should be allowed to block or slow content information, or charge for a "fast lane" to reach users more quickly.

At stake is how quickly consumers, particularly those using handheld devices such as Research in Motion Ltd's BlackBerry and Apple Inc's iPhone, can receive and download videos and other content.

Broadband providers say they should be able to manage networks, but some public interest groups and content providers argue that there should be a level playing field for all Internet users.

(Reporting by Jasmin Melvin and Emily Stephenson; Editing by David Holmes)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B028W20101201





FCC Chief Backs Some Rationing of Internet Traffic
Jasmin Melvin

Internet service providers would be allowed to ration web traffic on their networks under a strategy unveiled by the top U.S. communications regulator that no longer focuses solely on open access.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based on Internet usage.

The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in a speech on Wednesday, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of development than terrestrial Internet service.

Wireless carriers seem pleased with how they would fare under the regulations, but online content providers could struggle under the proposal.

"The outline proposed by Chairman Genachowski appears to be a fair and balanced approach to a difficult issue," said Vonya McCann, senior vice president of government affairs for Sprint Nextel, the No. 3 U.S. wireless carrier.

But analysts at Stifel Nicolaus said wireless carriers like No. 2-ranked AT&T Inc would not hesitate to "push back hard" if commissioners seek to toughen the rules' wireless elements.

The proposal has been placed on the agenda for a December 21 FCC open meeting.

Some analysts said usage-based pricing could benefit landline Internet providers like Comcast Corp and Time Warner Cable Inc, with them charging more for data-intensive activities like the downloading of movies.

"The tacit endorsement of (usage-based pricing) is, in our view, the biggest news of the day, and must be viewed as very positive for terrestrial broadband operators," Bernstein Research said in a note to investors.

A senior FCC official said usage-based pricing would bring added choice and flexibility to consumers while the agency would police against any arbitrary, anti-consumer or anti-competitive practices.

MF Global analyst Paul Gallant said new Internet access pricing could represent a blow to content providers like online movie rental site Netflix Inc.

"Depending on where the tiers were set, usage-based pricing on wireline broadband could end up deterring some people from dropping cable for over-the-top video," Gallant said in a research note.

Broadband providers say they should be able to freely manage their networks, but some public interest groups and content providers argue that there should be a level playing field for all Internet users.

Level 3 Communications, a company that helps Netflix stream videos online, accused Comcast this week of violating open Internet principles after the cable company levied fees at Level 3 for delivering content like movies to Comcast subscribers.

Comcast countered that the fees were in line with the increase in traffic that Level 3 would send over Comcast's network.

Shares of Netflix closed down 2.8 percent on Wednesday, while Comcast's stock rose 4 percent.

Legal Basis

The FCC's ability to regulate the Internet has been in doubt since an appeals court in April said the agency lacked the authority to stop Comcast from blocking bandwidth-hogging applications.

Genachowski's proposal will not seek to reclassify broadband services under existing telephone rules, referred to as Title II and generally considered to be a stricter regulatory regime.

A senior FCC official said the agency has "sufficient legal authority" to proceed without reclassification and will invoke legal arguments not pursued during the Comcast case.

But Republicans opposed to onerous Internet regulation are questioning the FCC's legal footing.

Representatives Joe Barton and Cliff Stearns demanded in a letter on Wednesday that the FCC spell out its legal authority to them by December 10, or else stand down on its rules.

Challenges Abound

"The proposed framework would prohibit the blocking of lawful content, apps, services, and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network," Genachowski said in his speech, streamed over the Internet.

It is unclear whether Genachowski's middle-ground approach will be sufficient to win over the five-member FCC.

Democrats hold a majority on the panel and have supported the concept of net neutrality, but could withhold support from any measure they view as too weak.

Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell issued a statement saying the proposed rules would upend three decades of consensus that the Internet is best able to thrive in the absence of regulation.

Lawmakers have also threatened to challenge the FCC.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, said she would work to halt any FCC rules governing the Internet.

Even Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell, a supporter of net neutrality, was skeptical of the proposal, albeit for different reasons.

"I am concerned that it is not as bold as it should be. We need a bold plan," she said in a statement.

Jeffrey Silva, a telecommunications policy analyst with Medley Global Advisors, warned that a decision to act without consensus in Congress "could play out in an animated -- if not downright hostile -- manner in congressional oversight and appropriations settings in 2011."

Even if the rules are adopted, the agency could also face further legal challenges.

"The open Internet debate has advanced in a tortured manner to a new stage, but it is likely far from over," Silva added.

(Additional reporting by Emily Stephenson; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B028W20101201





Netflix Partner Says Comcast ‘Toll’ Threatens Online Video Delivery
Brian Stelter

Level 3 Communications, a central partner in the Netflix online movie service, accused Comcast on Monday of charging a new fee that puts Internet video companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Level 3, which helps to deliver Netflix’s streaming movies, said Comcast had effectively erected a tollbooth that “threatens the open Internet,” and indicated that it would seek government intervention. Comcast quickly denied that the clash had anything to do with network neutrality, instead calling it “a simple commercial dispute.”

The dispute highlighted the growing importance of Internet video delivery — an area that some people say needs to be monitored more closely by regulators. Net neutrality, which posits that Internet traffic should be free of any interference from network operators like Comcast, is thought to be on the December agenda of the Federal Communications Commission.

“With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed’ Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content,” Thomas C. Stortz, the chief legal officer for Level 3, said in a statement Monday.

Those issues cut to the heart of Comcast’s imminent acquisition of NBC Universal, which is in the final stages of review by the F.C.C. and the Justice Department. The F.C.C. is considering attaching a condition to the merger that would aim to keep Comcast’s Internet network open to competitors, according to public filings this month.

In theory, without government action, Comcast could speed up streams of NBC programs and slow down streams of its rivals’ programs. “This may be one of those teaching moments for consumers to understand what’s at stake,” said Michael McGuire, a media analyst for Gartner.

There is no known case of Comcast ever slowing the traffic to one of its direct competitors, but it did delay some peer-to-peer file traffic in a much-litigated case several years ago. Comcast says it supports an open Internet — but also says that it needs to be able to manage its expensive and still-evolving networks, which are essentially on- and off-ramps to the Internet.

Level 3 in essence operates a highway that connects to those ramps and handles traffic to and from individual Web sites. Comcast customers rely on the company’s on- and off-ramps from that highway. With nearly 17 million broadband Internet customers, Comcast is the nation’s largest such service provider.

The scuffle between the two started on Nov. 19, when Level 3 says Comcast demanded a recurring fee to “transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content.”

Three days later, under pressure from Comcast, “Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions,” Mr. Stortz said.

Mr. Stortz did not cite Netflix in his statement. But just a week before Comcast’s demand, Level 3 announced a multiyear deal to support Netflix’s rapidly growing streaming service.

A recent study found that at peak times, Netflix represented 20 percent of Internet download traffic in the United States. That makes it a de facto competitor for incumbent distributors like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, which are eager to protect both the subscription television business and the emerging video-on-demand business.

Mr. Stortz implied that Comcast was taking the action to impair companies that compete with its own cable and Internet services.

A spokesman for Netflix declined to comment Monday. Netflix, which announced a new pricing structure last week, is gradually weaning its customers from DVDs by mail in favor of online streaming, making any new costs a serious concern.

Comcast on Monday rebuffed the notion that the new fees were related to Netflix by saying that the type of traffic distributed by Level 3 was irrelevant. Joe Waz, a senior vice president at Comcast, says it has had a peering agreement with Level 3 to swap traffic fairly evenly. Now Level 3 is sharply increasing its traffic, he said, while resisting a commercial agreement to pay for that.

Comcast is “already carrying huge amounts of video to our high-speed Internet customers every day through commercial arrangements, and it seems to be working for everybody else,” Mr. Waz said. “Level 3 is trying to change the rules of the game.”

If nothing else, the dispute demonstrates that consumers have little, if any, idea how convoluted it can be to transmit video to a computer or mobile phone.

Nonetheless, on Monday night, public interest groups that have steadfastly opposed the combination of Comcast and NBC Universal argued that the Level 3 case proved that Comcast would discriminate against competitors if it could.

“On its face, this is the sort of toll booth between residential subscribers and the content of their choice that a net neutrality rule is supposed to prohibit,” said Harold Feld, legal director of one such group, Public Knowledge, in a statement.

Mr. Stortz said Level 3 would be approaching government regulators this week and “asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by a few institutions with dominant market power that have the means, motive and opportunity to economically discriminate between favored and disfavored content.”

Mr. McGuire, of Gartner, said, “There is no law here. There are only guiding principles. F.C.C. clarity on this kind of thing is going to be required.”
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...video-delivery





How Comcast Became a Toll-Collecting, Nuke-Wielding Hydra
Nate Anderson

Wharton Business School professor Kevin Werbach dubs Comcast's actions this week a "turning point in US Internet policy." Law professor Susan Crawford calls Comcast a terrifying, hat-wearing hydra—and she's looking for a Hercules to cut it down to size. Harold Feld of Public Knowledge says that Comcast has set up a new "toll booth" on the 'Net and is now operating like Ed "use my pipes free" Whitacre. And broadband analyst Dave Burstein says Comcast has just deployed "the nuclear option."

Just what is going on here, why does it matter, and why is Comcast calling backbone operator Level 3 a big fat liar for starting the whole debate?

The facts as we know them

Comcast found itself in the middle of a renewed argument over its "evilness" yesterday afternoon as an interconnection dispute blew up into public view. Level 3 Communications, which runs a major Internet backbone along with a newer content delivery network (CDN), fired off a scathing press release accusing Comcast of (once again) threatening the "open Internet."

On November 11, Level 3 inked a deal with Netflix to serve as the streaming media company's new CDN starting January 1, 2011. In that capacity, Level 3 will cache and serve Netflix streaming video from sites across the country to avoid possible backbone congestion and to deploy streams from servers that are closer to end users.

Due to the size of the deal, Level 3 announced that it was doubling its own storage capacity and adding 2.9 terabits per second (Tbps) of CDN capacity, alongside the 1.65Tbps that it rolled out late this year. The entire Netflix streaming library, which consists of more than 20,000 titles, will be moved directly to Level 3 servers during November and December in preparation for the January rollout.

Coming to you via the Level 3 CDN

The deal also means, of course, that a huge new amount of traffic will soon be sent from Level 3 to various ISPs, and not all of them are happy at the prospect. A week after Level 3 announced the Netflix deal, Comcast told the company that it would “demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast customers who request such content,” in the words of yesterday's Level 3 press release.

Comcast says that this is standard practice (and that it's not singling out any particular kind of content). While it previously had a settlement-free (read: no charge) traffic peering agreement with Level 3, such agreements are typically made only between network operators who are roughly comparable in size and therefore exchange similar volumes of traffic with one another. According to Comcast, the Netflix deal means that Level 3 will soon more than double the amount of traffic it sends onto Comcast's network and that this will result in a 5:1 traffic ratio—at which point the relationship will be unbalanced, and fees will be required.

"We are happy to maintain a balance, no-cost traffic exchange with Level 3,” said Comcast senior vice president Joe Waz last night. “However, when one provider exploits this type of relationship by pushing the burden of massive traffic growth onto the other provider and its customers, we believe this is not fair.”

Level 3 thought it was entirely fair—in part because this is not traffic that is transiting through Comcast's network, but traffic that is headed for Comcast subscribers and was requested by them. Under this view, Comcast is trying to charge a content provider for the very access to content that it is selling to its own customers. And, of course, there's the issue that such fees could raise costs for Netflix and other Internet video providers, but won't affect Comcast's own video services such as cable TV.
"By taking this action,” said Level 3 Chief Legal Officer Thomas Stortz, "Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation's largest cable provider.”

And if that wasn't enough of an attack, Level 3 said that it was “approaching regulators and policymakers and asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by few institutions with dominant market power.”

While such sentiments tap into a fertile seedbed of hate that many people have for cable companies in general (routinely one of the most reviled industries in the US by consumers) and for Comcast in particular (thanks to its BitTorrent blocking/throttling and subsequent litigation), Level 3 is hardly a disinterested paladin working for Great Justice; the company wants to maintain its free peering arrangements with Comcast even as it grows into a large CDN operator.

This appears to be Comcast's view of the situation—it's a private peering dispute taken public in a bid for leverage. And Level 3, seeing no choice if it hoped to avoid a service interruption, has already agreed "under protest" to the new fees.

So is there something new here?

The details of peering and transit are notoriously tricky to unearth (though our comprehensive guide to the subject helps), since most are locked up behind private deals and nondisclosure agreements, but several people we spoke with believe this to be an unusual stance taken by Comcast.

"As far as I know, no primary backbone provider like Level 3 has ever been required to pay to deliver traffic to another major carrier,” says industry expert Dave Burstein. “Comcast's explanation why they should collect from Level 3 would also apply to every other backbone carrier and hence to essentially every bit carried over the Internet. Downstream traffic is about four times as high as user upstream, so even a company with a lot of users receiving packets from Comcast users would be asymmetrical."

Major last-mile ISPs, including AT&T and Verizon, also have these imbalances when connecting to major backbone providers, since (despite "Web 2.0" tech) users still download far more content than they upload. Indeed, Comcast's own statement makes clear that Level 3 has long been sending much more traffic to Comcast than the other way round.

To Burstein, Comcast's move is about shifting to a world where every bit is paid for. The problem, as he sees it, is that there's not enough competition and so the big last-mile ISPs would be in a perfect position to set unreasonably high rates, improving their own profits and blocking out competitors like online video. Why bother to block traffic, which would raise an outcry, when you can simply tax it to death in private?

"Flow through to consumer benefits would be plausible with strong competition,” Burstein tells Ars, “but with weak competition I follow almost all the money straight to carrier bottom lines."
Penn State telecom professor Rob Frieden

Rob Frieden, a Penn State telecoms prof and recent author of the book Winning the Silicon Sweepstakes, has studied such issues for years. He says that Comcast's argument about this being a mere peering traffic imbalance is plausible, but he notes that the company could do plenty to adjust its own routing strategies to send more off-network traffic through the Level 3 backbone in order to make the ratios more even. But Comcast might well have an incentive not to do this, "deliberately reducing the volume of ‘return’ traffic it hands off" in order to make the imbalance even larger.

The end goal, of course, would be getting Level 3 to pay up and move away from free peering.

"It strikes me as a little too easy and expedient for Comcast to resort to the Level 3 surcharge model,” says Frieden. "Bear in mind also that when Comcast charges $50+ for broadband—and recently raised its rates—a company has to expect that its subscribers expect payment to include access to Netflix and other sources of full-motion video. Why would it be okay to download hundreds of gigabytes per month, provided the upstream peer is not Level 3? This does not fully pass the smell test in light of Comcast's ulterior motive to raise the cost of a competitor, Netflix, and its preferred carrier.”

Due to the general secrecy around these kinds of deals, no one we spoke with could say exactly what was at stake in this case, but suspicion of Comcast is certainly widespread.

Susan Crawford, previously with the Obama administration and now back to teaching law at Cardozo Law School, says the entire battle shows Comcast's "existing overwhelming market power." In her view, there's simply not enough competition to create a functioning market for peering and transit. It's time for the FCC to act, she says, “as the looming cable monopoly stops looming and starts muscling levers into place.”

Not a peering dispute?

The DC group Public Knowledge blasted Comcast's stance as a net neutrality violation. Many others, even those who oppose the move, would not paint it quite in those terms, since Comcast is not actually discriminating against certain kinds of bits. As Wharton professor Kevin Werbach tweeted this morning, "The peering issue isn't net neutrality; it's whether market forces are failing for interconnection. Seems so." Werbach attacked the Comcast move instead as a "classic terminating access monopoly case."

In other words, Comcast is holding its users' eyeballs hostage, demanding payment for those who want to reach them because there's no other way to get data to those customers.

(Update: In a follow-up e-mail, Werbach expands on his tweet to note that "terminating access monopoly doesn't necessarily mean the action is harmful—it means this is a situation where Comcast has effective market power regardless of whether there is broadband competition. So the action should be scrutinized, but that's not the same as attacking it. We need all the facts to make that determination."

Though he's increasingly comfortable with Comcast's position here, he remains "troubled by the direction this could take the whole backbone market. Which is why it's appropriate for public policy concern. Most of the time everything will still work itself out best through private negotiation, but it's unrealistic to believe that will always be the case in the current situation of consolidation and integration across markets.")

Several Ars staffers have experience in maintaining peering and transit connections both in the US and Europe, and each agreed that the situation here is unusual. That's because most "transit" deals, the ones where money was exchanged, historically focused on data that was simply traversing one network on its way someplace else. Why should one network operator bear the costs of building and maintaining a network just so that some other network operator could route all of his traffic over it for free? Peering, or direct network interconnection, generally took place when each network sent similar amounts of traffic to the other and it wasn't worth the expense or hassle of trying to account for every bit.

But the CDN traffic from Level 3 isn't in "transit" anywhere; it's going to the Comcast customers who want to watch Netflix movies. Level 3 is, in one sense, doing Comcast a favor by making a key Internet service better; it's not simply taking advantage of Comcast's network to get its own traffic somewhere else. That's what Werbach means when he talks about a "terminating access monopoly"; Comcast has a lock on its customers and can try to extract rents from anyone trying to send them data, even if it's data they requested.

I spoke with Public Knowledge legal director Harold Feld, who makes the same points about peering and transit. “To the best of my knowledge,” he says, “this is the first time ever a last-mile network has demanded compensation from another ISP for delivering traffic requested by a subscriber on the ‘terminating’ ISP's network.”

Peering disputes have been around for years, and have sometimes resulted in slow Internet connections as one provider yanks its direct connection to another network, but Feld says that past disputes have "involved hand off of traffic through the middle-mile to transport it from one last-mile network to another.”

In the Level 3 case, “if a last-mile ISP can charge for ‘peering’ with an end-user subscriber that requests the data, how is that different from charging Netflix directly to deliver their traffic?”

Bottom line: this isn't a simple "peering" dispute. It is instead a “demand to a content provider's ISP to pay a new fee to deliver content requested by a Comcast subscriber.” In short, it is Ed Whitacre's dream Internet.

Everybody's doing it

In its defense, Comcast says that it has similar deals in place with other CDNs—apparently Limelight and Akamai—and that they have signed on to "mutually acceptable commercial agreements... In delivering the same types of traffic to our customers." (This is known as "paid peering," in which direct, nonsymmetrical interconnections are allowed for a fee. DrPeering has a nice overview of the practice.)

In fact, Level 3's choice to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war is "simply duplicitous," Comcast says. "When another network provider tried to pass traffic onto Level 3 this way, Level 3 said this is not the way settlement-free peering works in the Internet world. When traffic is way out of balance, Level 3 said, it will assist on a commercially negotiated solution."

This is in reference to Level 3's own dispute over peering with Cogent, in which Level 3 eventually discontinued peering with Cogent's network after reviewing the relationship and concluding that too much traffic was coming from Cogent.

"Cogent was sending far more traffic to the Level 3 network than Level 3 was sending to Cogent's network," said Level 3 at the time. "It is important to keep in mind that traffic received by Level 3 in a peering relationship must be moved across Level 3's network at considerable expense. Simply put, this means that, without paying, Cogent was using far more of Level 3's network, far more of the time, than the reverse. Following our review, we decided that it was unfair for us to be subsidizing Cogent's business.”

But note that this was traffic in transit, not traffic that was requested by Level 3 subscribers.

The issue comes at a delicate time for Comcast, something that Level 3 was no doubt aware of. Comcast is currently trying to wrap up its merger with television network NBC and hopes to avoid a host of onerous conditions on the deal. Charges of being an Internet bully won't go over well at the FCC, where Comcast has few friends after single-handedly gutting the agency's network neutrality authority by winning a major court case early this year.

Public Knowledge wants the FCC to exert oversight over these types of interconnection agreements, perhaps by setting up some ground rules and offering mediation where the negotiations go bad. Werbach envisions something similar, with more transparency to these negotiations and "perhaps an arbitration process" that would work much as TV retransmission disputes do now.

But if the Comcast/Level 3 dispute really is a turning point in US Internet policy, it's not yet clear that the government intends to do anything in response. The FCC has one open meeting left in December before the new Congress convenes in January, and if the agency decides to take on network neutrality, this would be the meeting at which it does so. We should know within the next few days if the FCC hopes to act, though it will take much longer to figure out if such hypothetical action would even address the Comcast/Level 3 situation or would focus instead only on traffic "discrimination."

Asked today if the FCC was examining Level 3's dispute, Chairman Julius Genachowski would only say the agency was "looking into it."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...ith-a-nuke.ars





Linking Pockets of Europe to High-Speed Internet
Eric Pfanner

Although France is one of the best-wired countries anywhere, residents of Ablis, a small town southwest of Paris, cannot get a decent broadband connection. The speediest link available is not even fast enough to watch YouTube videos.

Analysts estimate that for as many as 30 million households in Europe, in places from the forests of Thuringia in eastern Germany to the hills of the French Massif Central, broadband connections are unavailable or so sluggish as to be deemed obsolete in a modern, digital economy.

Those households are the target customers for two new services that aim to deliver broadband to European customers via satellite, a technology that until now has been a little-used alternative to cable and telephone lines.

A British start-up company called Avanti Communications launched a €120 million, or $159 million, satellite into orbit Friday, the first of two devices it plans to use to deliver broadband to as many as 1.2 million customers across Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Three weeks from now, Eutelsat, a French company that has its roots in a European intergovernmental agency, plans to launch a much bigger, €350 million satellite capable of providing broadband to two million households.

While tens of millions of people across Europe pay for television delivered by satellite, only about 150,000 consumers in the region get their Internet access in this way, according to Euroconsult, a research and advisory firm in Paris. Existing satellite-borne Internet services are considered slow, expensive and prone to glitches.

But Eutelsat and Avanti say their new spacecraft could change perceptions. Their services, which are expected to be commercially available early next year, are the first satellite broadband offerings outside the United States to operate on a new transmission frequency, providing true broadband speeds. Similar services from two American companies, WildBlue and HughesNet, have attracted more than a million customers.

“Now that satellite has new technology that can genuinely offer service quality that matches cable and DSL, you will see this become a viable third option,” said David Williams, the chief executive of Avanti, referring to telecommunications companies’ digital subscriber line connections.

Analysts say that may be ambitious. The fastest connections available from Avanti and Eutelsat will be 10 megabits a second, which is still only a fraction of the speeds available on the fastest cable networks and fiber-to-the-home links. Satellite broadband also suffers from some other problems, like stutter-step delays because of the distance the signals need to travel to space and back. Consumers need satellite dishes and modems, which can cost several hundred euros, though in some cases the cost is subsidized by the operators.

Though Avanti and Eutelsat will work through Internet service providers, rather than selling directly to consumers, Mr. Williams said he expected basic packages of his company’s service to start at about €25 a month. That is lower than prices for some of the existing, sluggish satellite services available in Europe, but still slightly higher than comparable land-based offerings.

“For consumer broadband, satellite has been a technology of last resort and it is likely to remain a technology of last resort,” said Ian Fogg, an analyst at Forrester Research. Even if fast fiber or cable never reach every home, he said, other technologies, like next-generation cellular networks, could be used to fill in the existing gaps in broadband coverage.

But Eutelsat and Avanti insist that the underserved market in Europe is big enough to exhaust the capacity of the satellites they are launching now, and perhaps more. The European Commission and a number of European governments have introduced programs aimed at closing the so-called digital divide; in some countries, like Ireland, satellite broadband subscriptions are being subsidized.

Michel de Rosen, chief executive of Eutelsat, said that rather than narrowing the market for satellite broadband, investments in land-based networks might actually increase demand. Rolling out fast fiber or cable nationwide may not be feasible in an age of budgetary austerity; satellite broadband at least helps close the gap. But once urban users grow accustomed to these connection speeds, he said, they will demand at least basic broadband everywhere — even when, say, they travel to vacation homes or branch offices in remote areas.

“The paradox is, the more that companies sell fiber technology in the middle of Paris or New York or London, the more that people who don’t get it are going to say, ‘why not me?”’ Mr. de Rosen said.

Pacôme Révillon, chief executive of Euroconsult, a consultant that specializes in digital broadcasting, predicts that there will be about one million satellite broadband customers across Europe by 2014, making it the second-largest market after that of the United States. Worldwide, the firm estimates that there could be 10 million subscribers by 2018.

While the U.S. operators are bullish, satellite services have been slow to catch on across Asia, too. Mr. Révillion said regulatory hurdles, with many governments in the region reluctant to license foreign operators, were a problem.

The leading operator in Asia is Ipstar, owned by Thaicom in Thailand, with about 250,000 customers for a service that uses the lower transmission frequency, called Ku-band. Another operator, Yahsat of Abu Dhabi, has announced plans to launch a satellite operating on the higher frequency, called Ka-band, to serve parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

Even in Europe, where regulatory issues are less of a challenge, some satellite companies are skeptical about the prospects for growth of the new Ka-band services.

SES Astra of Luxembourg, for example, is now the biggest provider of satellite Internet access in Europe, with about 65,000 customers for its Ku-band offering.

But the company has no immediate plans to offer an upgraded Ka-band service in competition with Avanti and Eutelsat, said Markus Payer, a spokesman.

“We took the prudent approach, and don’t want to have all our eggs in one basket,” he said. While the company could adapt some of its satellites to add a Ka-band service, the company’s main business will remain the transmission of television signals for customers like British Sky Broadcasting.

Mr. Williams at Avanti said skepticism about satellite broadband had been fueled by misinformation from cable and telecommunications companies. Once consumers see the new technology in action, he said, perceptions will change.

“We’re going to have to build some more satellites pretty quickly,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/te...tellite29.html





FCC Mulls Broadcast Airwaves for Wireless Use
Jasmin Melvin

U.S. telecommunications regulators will vote on proposals to free up more airwaves for commercial wireless use on Tuesday in a meeting that could be overshadowed if plans to act on contentious Internet traffic rules are circulated.

The Federal Communications Commission postponed its December meeting by a week to December 21, in a move industry insiders said gave the agency more time to consider whether they would take on net neutrality -- also known as open Internet principles.

An agenda for that meeting is expected to be issued on Tuesday, which will officially clear up whether the FCC will propose net neutrality rules this year.

At stake is how quickly consumers, particularly those using handheld devices, like Research in Motion Ltd's BlackBerry and Apple Inc's iPhone, can receive and download videos and other content.

Meanwhile, FCC commissioners will vote on Tuesday on ways to find spectrum to make available for wireless broadband use.

Rebecca Arbogast, managing director at Stifel Nicolaus research, said most of the "good spectrum" is already used by companies or federal agencies.

The challenge in meeting the Obama administration's goal of making 500 megahertz of spectrum available to meet the growing demand for wireless services will be finding innovative ways to better use spectrum already being used, Arbogast said.

Without more efficient use of the nation's spectrum, consumers will experience clogged networks, more dropped calls and slower connection speeds on wireless devices.

At its Tuesday meeting, the FCC will propose changes to regulations that would open spectrum reserved for broadcasters to mobile broadband use.

This is one of many steps the agency will have to take in order to complete its plan to repurpose 120 megahertz of spectrum from television stations for mobile broadband use.

The agency also needs legislative action from Congress to give it the authority to hold voluntary incentive auctions to encourage broadcasters to give up or share their airwaves.

Spectrum reform is among the few issues analysts say the FCC could move forward on with minimal backlash from Republicans, who will control the House of Representatives next year and shrank the Democrats majority in the Senate at elections early this month.

But Jeffrey Silva, a telecommunications policy analyst with Medley Global Advisors, said broadcasters may pose a hurdle, especially over how they should be reimbursed for the spectrum they give up.

"As long as broadcasters are not significantly on board, it could be difficult to assemble a critical mass of lawmakers willing to back legislation the FCC will need to transform its policy ambitions into tangible results in the market," Silva said.

The FCC will also propose loosening experimental licensing rules to give universities and research institutions more flexibility to develop new wireless devices, and will seek comment on accelerating the use of undeveloped airwaves through secondary markets and other means.

Looking To December

Many phone, cable and Internet companies will be looking ahead to the FCC's December meeting.

Key players like Verizon Communications Inc, AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Google are eager to find out whether the FCC will act on the controversial issue of net neutrality this year.

The agency typically releases its agenda and circulates proposals to commissioners three weeks ahead of its meeting dates. The agenda for December 21 would have to be issued by Tuesday.

Net neutrality rules would determine whether high-speed Internet providers should be allowed to block or slow information or charge websites for a "fast lane" to reach users more quickly.

Wireless carriers want to prioritize Internet traffic on congested wireless networks and have said they already do so to allow handsets to make and receive phone calls.

Some public interest groups fear that letting content providers pay to get their data out at faster speeds than others would hurt Internet users.

(Reporting by Jasmin Melvin; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AT0P220101130





Microsoft Eyes Leap Back Into TV: Sources
Yinka Adegoke

Microsoft Corp is about to jump back into the TV game. Only this time, it may aim at cable, satellite and phone companies.

The software powerhouse has held talks with TV networks to create a new subscription-based TV service on its Xbox gaming console that would rival efforts by Google Inc, Apple Inc and Netflix Inc, sources told Reuters.

Microsoft's latest explorations after investments in MSNBC and WebTV come as efforts to redefine living room entertainment have accelerated in the past year, with technology companies seeking to offer lower cost alternatives to pricey pay-TV subscriptions.

One scenario under consideration by Microsoft is to create a new TV service on its Xbox gaming console that would establish a "virtual cable operator." The service would charge a monthly fee for access through the Xbox to networks such as ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS, ESPN or CNN, according to two sources familiar with the plans.

Other options include allowing cable subscribers to use the Xbox to watch shows with more interactive functions. Viewers could, for instance, message with friends over the console while viewing their favorite shows.

Microsoft is also exploring the possibility of creating programing packages for customers, setting up a bundle of sports or children shows, for example, these people said.

In addition, it could sell more individual channels, such as an HBO or Showtime, directly to subscribers. It already has Walt Disney Co's ESPN on the Xbox Live online service.

These people said a service may not arrive for another 12 months, but early discussions have been productive.

Microsoft declined to comment. The people involved in the talks asked not to be identified as the discussions were confidential.

News of Microsoft's plans come as the pay-television industry are moving to allay investor concerns that consumers are fleeing expensive subscription packages for cheaper online services operated by companies such as Netflix Inc and Hulu, which both charge $7.99 per month for streamed shows and movies. The phenomenon is called "cord-cutting."

The worry is that so-called over-the-top services could undermine the lucrative cable TV industry, whose dual-revenue stream model has made pay-TV one of the most resilient sectors during the economic recession.

Cable networks such as ESPN are paid carriage fees by pay TV operators and also earn revenue from advertisers.

But programmers have said they would welcome new types of competition to the cable and satellite companies.

Speaking at the Reuters Global Media Summit on Monday, News Corp Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey said the arrival of alternative TV services gives cable and broadcast networks yet another way to reach fragmented audiences. News Corp is parent of Fox Broadcasting.

"The emergence of platforms like that -- from people like Microsoft which is really more a theory at this point, or Netflix -- increases the value of content and brands and those who create the content and channels that actually the business and drives consumer demand," Carey said.

Microsoft has long held ambitions to be a major player in the TV business and has previously invested in MSNBC and interactive television initiatives including Web TV and MSN TV set-top box software. Its latest plans include offering interactive features to engage viewers through social media, interactive advertising and "gesture" technology that lets viewers change channels and fast forward through shows by waving their arms or speaking instructions, say people who have seen early demonstrations.

The Redmond, Washington, company is mulling feedback it has received from programmers including the expense of such a plan, said one person.

Microsoft faces an increasingly crowded field. Google has already launched Google TV, an enhanced Web-TV service with partners including Sony Corp televisions and Logitech set-top boxes.

Apple has also held talks with programmers, but faced resistance industry-wide over its plans to offer a lower-cost subscription TV plan, people familiar with the talks have said. Apple has begun to offer 99-cent TV show rentals for a limited number shows through News Corp's Fox and Disney.

(Additional reporting by Bill Rigby in Seattle, editing by Matthew Lewis and Derek Caney)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS2E120101129





Kinect is Selling 2X as Fast as the iPad
Marshall Kirkpatrick

The iPad was crowned the fastest-adopted consumer electronic device ever last month, stealing the title from the once-coveted DVD player. Records are made to be broken, though, and the Microsoft Kinect has already come out of the gate twice as fast. Notably, Microsoft predicted back in September that it would sell more Kinects than Apple is selling iPads.

25 days after its launch, Microsoft said today that it has sold 2.5 million motion-detecting Kinect devices. Granted, that includes sales over the Black Friday shopping holiday, but reviews of the device have been positive. Apple took twice as long to sell its 2 millionth iPad. These seem to be the days of the radically new interface.

Kinect Sales
2.5m in 25 days = 100k per day
$150-$399 each

iPad Sales
2m in 60 days
3m in 80 days
4.5m every 90 days = 50k per day
$500-$830 each

In May of 2010, Apple announced that it sold 2 million iPads after two months of availability. At a base price of $500 each, that meant that Yankee Group analyst Carl Howe's prediction that the iPad would become the fastest consumer product to hit $1 billion in sales in history was proven correct.

ReadWriteWeb's Audrey Watters reported in October that the iPad kept up a torrid pace for months. "The iPad sold 3 million units in the first 80 days after its release in April, and its current sales rate is about 4.5 million units per quarter," she wrote. That pace of sales, according to analysts at Bernstein Research, made it the fastest growing consumer electronics device of all time.

Now this. The Kinect sells for substantially less than the iPad ($150-$399 at Best Buy vs. $500-$830 for the iPad) but more have been sold in the product's first 25 days than were sold in the first 60 days after the iPad launched.

Can the Kinect sustain that rate of sales? Only time will tell, but early adopters appear likely to spread positive word of mouth about the product - as will Microsoft's massive advertising machine. For context (and to put a grain of salt in play here), the Wii has sold 75 million units in 4 years. That's a little bit more than 50k per day, on average.

For now the Kinect is focused on game play, but some people believe it's only a matter of time until it becomes the interface for many other tasks, from browsing the web to controlling various devices around the home. If Microsoft learns as well from the nascent Kinect jailbreaking community as Apple has from the iPhone jailbreakers, the Kinect could soon gain official support for all kinds of different uses.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...s_the_ipad.php





One More Game Device (but This One’s Tiny)
Eric A. Taub

With Microsoft’s Xbox 360, Nintendo’s Wii and Sony’s PlayStation 3 duking it out for dominance of the video game console market, can there possibly be any room for yet another machine?

Steve Perlman, a well-known Silicon Valley inventor and entrepreneur, thinks there is. His strategy is to make a game system without game discs.

His OnLive game service works by keeping all of its games in the cloud. Consumers can stream the games to their PCs after installing a browser plug-in. Starting in December, users will be able to stream games to their televisions using a $99 box not much bigger than a cigarette package that taps a high-speed Internet connection, the company said two weeks ago.

OnLive faces considerable obstacles. Working against it are an initially limited inventory of games, a well-established console business run by corporations with deep pockets and a resistance among consumers to add one more box to their home entertainment systems.

“Being tied to physical media is gradually dying away,” Mr. Perlman said. “With OnLive, you can’t copy a game. This is piracy-free delivery for publishers.”

But Mr. Perlman, who was the head of the group that created Apple’s QuickTime video compression software and the developer of what would become Microsoft’s WebTV product, says he has some advantages.

A proprietary compression technology developed by OnLive shrinks the size of the game programs during transmission, which allows the games to stream quickly and still play in full high-definition resolution, Mr. Perlman said. The technology eliminates the stuttering, stalling or lowered resolution all too typical of users’ experiences when they try to stream a movie to a TV or PC.

“The low latency of the video compression scheme makes a game look like it’s appearing instantaneously,” Mr. Perlman said.

The box costs so little to make that “we could give it away,” Mr. Perlman said in a talk last year at Columbia. Indeed, he envisions TV makers incorporating his software right into their sets. As all games are held at the company’s data centers the service can be upgraded without the need for the consumer to buy new hardware.

Mr. Perlman, who was also behind the fabled Silicon Valley start-ups General Magic, Moxi and Rearden Steel, has attracted investments from an unusual set of powerful companies, including AT&T, British Telecom, Time Warner and Autodesk.

But his company still needs to prove itself with consumers. Since the service began in earnest in June, about two million gaming sessions have been logged, but Mr. Perlman would not say how many users the service has. OnLive hopes to attract gamers with titles like Borderlands, Mafia II and Shaun White Skateboarding. Coming titles include Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood, Red Faction: Armageddon, and Duke Nukem Forever. The company hopes to expand its offerings from 35 titles today to 50 by Christmas, with some available on the same day the disc is first sold for other consoles.

Consumers can preview a game free — “the publishers compensate us for that,” Mr. Perlman said — rent it for a few days or buy the right to use it for at least three years. Beginning next month, OnLive will offer a flat-rate plan similar to that used by Netflix.

Because games are streamed, the prices for owning them will be typically $10 less than the cost of a physical disc of the same game, Mr. Perlman said.

The $99 TV interface box comes with a game controller. Players can also use a standard U.S.B. keyboard or mouse to control games.

The company’s video game offerings may only be a stalking horse in an effort to offer other revenue-generating cloud-based services. “I think that there is a huge potential for many other value-added services, such as videoconferencing, secure computing and Internet TV,” said Michael Pachter, an analyst with Wedbush Morgan, which may explain the interest of its equity partners.

While OnLive will initially attract those who do not own a console game system, Mr. Pachter said that it was important for the service to begin now, before the next round of console upgrades from Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony.

“These guys have a first mover advantage, much like Netflix has,” Mr. Pachter said. “We’ll see if they can sustain the advantage.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/te.../29onlive.html





Netflix Scrambles Future of TV and Films
Sue Zeidler

Hollywood, which embraced Netflix Inc just a few years ago as a savior, is moving quickly to stanch the growth of one of the media's newest, biggest stars.

Senior executives at three of the big six television and movie studios said they were seeking ways to contain Netflix -- from delaying when Netflix can make new DVDs available to rent to raising the prices for digital programs.

"The problem is that Netflix is not the company we thought it was when we started doing these deals a few years ago. It has changed," said a studio executive who requested anonymity because the studio's discussions were confidential.

Netflix, whose stock has jumped nine-fold over the past two years, is a leader in U.S. DVD rentals with its service that sends movies and TV shows through the mail. Its streaming service is also growing quickly, and accounts for one-fifth of U.S. Web traffic in peak hours.

Studio executives have expressed disbelief over some of Netflix's Hollywood content coups, like its 2008 deal with Liberty Media Corp-owned Starz to offer films from Sony Corp and Walt Disney Co for $20 million to $30 million. That deal put Netflix's streaming service on the map for a fraction of what cable operators had paid Starz.

"The deal Starz did to give those movies away for $30 million obviously makes no sense. There's a day coming shortly when that deal expires. How do Starz and Netflix address the next deal?" News Corp Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey said this week at the Reuters Global Media Summit.

Not A Viable Window

Media executives also worry Netflix could bring on a re-run of what happened in the music business when Apple Inc, maker of the iPod, wound up dictating prices.

"Timing really matters," said Strauss Zelnick, chairman Take-Two Interactive at the Reuters Media Summit. Zelnick said studios, to protect profits, must be careful to maintain control over when movies and TV shows are released on DVD or to cable. This is commonly referred to as windowing.

"Windowing is just a fancy word for price discrimination," he said.

Netflix, with deep pockets and a willingness to pay heavily for content, is succeeding where Google Inc, Apple and studios have so far failed -- developing a viable business for digital movies and films.

Scenarios under review, according to executives, include curtailing Netflix's influence by delaying further the 28 days Netflix now waits to get newly released DVDs from some studios. Another is raising prices Netflix pays for digital rights.

"I don't think long-term the 28-day window is viable for the industry," said another senior studio executive who was also involved in confidential talks with Netflix and asked not to be named.

"Either push it out further or don't concede as much on price. We're looking at a better way to slice it."

Time Warner Inc Chief Executive Officer Jeffery Bewkes recently said extending the delay to Netflix was under consideration. "The question of whether we ought to go longer is very much under scrutiny. It may well be a good idea," he said on a recent call with analysts.

And a source familiar with Fox said that studio is also evaluating the 28-day window.

Pay TV operators, which spend heavily on studio fees, are also pressuring studios that offer cut rates for distribution on Netflix.

"Their deal with Netflix absolutely does affect our relationship," said an executive of one of Starz's largest pay TV partners, who asked not to be named because the source was not authorized to speak on behalf of the company.

"You can't sell your product to one distributor for pennies on the dollar and then expect other distributors to pay you dollars for your product."

The fear is that audiences will eventually dump cable or satellite service and simply stream TV shows and movies through Netflix -- if Netflix can offer enough content.

In today's terms, Netflix pays Starz less than 15 cents per month for each of its roughly 17 million subscribers, while TV operators pay Starz $2 per subscriber per month, or about $1.2 billion as of 2009.

Speaking at a recent conference, Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos dismissed the idea that his company is a threat to pay TV operators. "I think we're an absolutely complementary product to cable."

When it is time to renegotiate, Starz will likely need to extract "many multiples" of what Netflix paid for the 2008 deal or "risk making a pretty significant hit to their traditional business," the cable operator executive said.

Analysts said cable operators could either drop Starz entirely or pull back from promoting it to viewers in response to the Netflix threat.

Meanwhile, Netflix's streaming software is on more devices than that of any other company in digital media. And in August it paid $1 billion to license films from Epix, a movie channel formed by Viacom Inc and Metro Goldwyn Mayer.

(Additional reporting by Yinka Adegoke in New York and Alex Dobuzinskis in Los Angeles; Editing by Kenneth Li, Paul Thomasch and Richard Chang)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B060E20101201





A Casting Call for Hollywood’s Chief Lobbyist
Brooks Barnes

HOLLYWOOD is used to casting tricky roles, but one seems to have the industry stumped: chief lobbyist in Washington.

The job, as chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, is supposed to be one of the most coveted gigs around. Mingling with moviedom’s A-list. Hosting Champagne-soaked screenings for star politicians. A $1.2 million salary. What’s not to like? The late Jack Valenti held the position for nearly four decades, and he not only wielded incredible power but also found time to maintain a Malibu tan.

Yet three studio chairmen, aided by headhunting firms, have been trying for almost a year to find a new leader to replace Dan Glickman, the former nine-term congressman from Kansas who stepped down earlier this year after succeeding Mr. Valenti in 2004. (Mr. Valenti died in 2007.)

The search committee came close over the summer, zeroing in on Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic senator from Nebraska and president of the New School. But negotiations fell apart.

Now a new round of interviews is under way. According to a headhunter with knowledge of the search, but who asked for anonymity because the search is private, one candidate is Christopher J. Dodd, the powerful Democratic senator from Connecticut, who is retiring. Bill Richardson, the exiting governor of New Mexico, is also in the mix, this person said.

One of the more out-of-left-field names under consideration is Vickee Jordan Adams, a former executive at the communications firm Hill & Knowlton and daughter of Vernon Jordan, the senior adviser to former President Bill Clinton. (The candidate pool is filled with Democrats because it reflects the political leanings of Hollywood power players.)

Spokesmen for Senator Dodd and Governor Richardson did not return calls seeking comment. Efforts to reach Ms. Adams were unsuccessful. A spokesman for the Motion Picture Association declined to comment.

Studio executives say Bob Pisano, the association’s president who has been serving as interim chairman, is well liked in the movie capital and has done a stellar job. But Mr. Pisano, who formerly did stints as C.E.O. of the Screen Actors Guild and general counsel for Paramount Pictures, has signaled that he is not interested in the position long term.

The difficult job search underscores how much Hollywood has changed since the heyday of Mr. Valenti, who earned his political stripes by working as an adviser in the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson.

For starters, the job has become less fun. The association still holds screenings at its 80-person theater two blocks from the White House. But last year, the studios cut the group’s budget by 20 percent, or about $20 million, making lavish events harder to pull off. Stricter lobbying rules also restrict grandiosity.

And when it comes to influence, Hollywood has also been surpassed by Silicon Valley. Given a choice between meeting George Clooney or Google’s C.E.O., Eric Schmidt, the more coveted invitation for many Washington hands is the latter.

In Mr. Valenti’s era, studios were stand-alone entities whose interests in Washington were in lock step over issues like movie standards. Mr. Valenti fought back state and local efforts to censor content, for example. The association gave Hollywood moguls a government stage but also kept Washington out of the movie business by starting and running the movie rating system, which it continues to do.

But today the association’s six members — Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures, Walt Disney Studios and Warner Brothers — are all embedded deep within global media conglomerates. All employ their own lobbyists and often have competing interests.

For example, the News Corporation owns 20th Century Fox along with MySpace and newspapers, putting it at odds in many instances with the legislative needs of a Sony, which also owns a movie studio but is more concerned about its electronics business.

As a result, Mr. Glickman said, “it has become much more difficult for the film industry to speak with one clear voice.”

Consider what happened last year when the Motion Picture Association, addressing the issue of who controls the Internet released a statement to the news media saying that studios were “not proponents” of government regulation of the Web. The chairmen of two studios — Sony and Fox — hit the roof, worrying that the statement sent a message that they did not want the government help to fight piracy. The association ultimately released a more nuanced second statement.

Indeed, the delay in finding a new leader appears to stem in large part from an identity crisis at the association. Should the job go to a seasoned Washington hand, preferably with bipartisan support? Or is younger and hungrier the way to go? Do the studios want a hard-charging leader — somebody like Mr. Valenti, who would knock heads together from time to time to gain consensus — or do they want more of an errand runner?

The personality of the new chairman is more important than one might think, as evidenced by the troubles that greeted the affable and low-key Mr. Glickman, who was secretary of agriculture during the Clinton administration.

“I certainly was not Mr. Glamour,” he said. “The leader of the M.P.A.A. needs to have a fair amount of both sizzle and steak. Having one quality and not the other diminishes your effectiveness.”

WHICH handful of issues should the association put its muscle behind? Piracy is perhaps the industry’s No. 1 problem, highlighted earlier this month when about 25 percent of “Harry Potter and the Deathly-Hallows: Part 1” was stolen and put online before the movie’s release.

But lobbying could help the film industry deal with an array of challenges, including how to convince China to lift restrictions on the distribution of Hollywood pictures and how to maintain state and federal tax incentives for filming in places like Michigan and Louisiana.

One thing is clear, Mr. Glickman said: Pressure is building on the industry to make a hire. “In Washington, you can quickly get out of sight, out of mind,” he said. “This is too important of a job not to get filled very soon.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28steal.html





Those Undulating Swan Arms? Not So Easy to Do
Julie Bloom

TEN years of serious training and then five more toiling in the ranks. That’s how many years of dedicated study it takes on average to become a principal ballerina at a top company. But Hollywood isn’t willing to wait. So when several actresses signed up to portray professional dancers in new movies, they had to play a very intense game of catch-up.

Actors have impersonated dancers before to varying degrees of success. (See Jessica Alba’s laborious hip-hop moves in “Honey” and Neve Campbell’s elegant arabesques in “The Company” to get a sense of the range.) And some directors, like Bruce Beresford with his recent “Mao’s Last Dancer,” have bypassed actors altogether and cast dancers to achieve authenticity. When a single awkward move can change the tone of an entire scene, portraying a dancer is a serious challenge.

“It’s not the same as Mickey becoming a wrestler because that’s a craft you can learn in a few months,” the director Darren Aronofsky said, referring to Mickey Rourke, who starred in his film “The Wrestler.” “Ballet is something you have to be trained from a tiny age.”

Mr. Aronofsky’s latest movie, a rumored Oscar contender, “Black Swan,” due Dec. 3, is a psychological thriller centered on a fictional ballet company’s new version of “Swan Lake.” Natalie Portman plays the lead ballerina, and Mila Kunis is her rival. In George Nolfi’s “Adjustment Bureau,” out in March, Emily Blunt stars as a member of a real troupe, Cedar Lake Contemporary Ballet.

“At the beginning it was a big question because we didn’t know if any actor could pull it off,” Mr. Aronofsky said of the role of Nina, who turns into the Swan Queen onstage.

When Ms. Portman, 29, took the part, she said, “I really thought I was better than I was.” She wasn’t completely new to ballet, having studied as a child, but at 13 she had traded in her slippers to act.

“It was a rude awakening to get there, and to be, like, I don’t know what I’m doing,” Ms. Portman said by phone, “If I had known how not close to ready I was, I never would have tried it. I’m glad I was a little ignorant slash arrogant.”

Ms. Kunis, 27, described her experience as “ballet on crack.” At the end of her training, which includes three months of daily ballet practice, she said, she had probably lost 20 pounds. “For me it was kind of like: How do you fake it?”

Ms. Blunt, 27, who studied with Benoit-Swan Pouffer, artistic director of Cedar Lake, for her role, felt immense pressure to learn as much as she could from the company. “These dancers don’t want some actor misrepresenting the brilliance of what they do,” she said.

The effort to avoid that consumed Ms. Portman. In the film she performs choreography by Benjamin Millepied, the New York City Ballet principal with a side career as a choreographer, and Ms. Portman does indeed dance, about 10 sequences, with a lot of work for her upper body. The difficult point work and turns were performed by a body double, Sarah Lane, the American Ballet Theater soloist.

In the film Nina goes through a metamorphosis onstage, from sweet swan to thrashing, rabid, seething one, complete with feathers. Ms. Portman went through a kind of transformation as well. Before she could even tackle the choreography she had to prepare her body, starting more than a year in advance with Mary Helen Bowers, a former City Ballet dancer from North Carolina.

“The idea was, if you were going to look and move like a professional ballerina, you have to train like one, and professional ballerinas dance for 10 to 12 hours a day, six days a week, for years and years on end,” Ms. Bowers said. “So the idea with Natalie was, we have to get you as close to that mark as possible for as many months as possible leading up to the film.”

Ms. Bowers combined basic ballet technique and exercises to make Ms. Portman’s physique more like a dancer’s, with the sinewy, lean muscles, upright carriage, pressed-down shoulders and tell-tale elongated neck.

“There are such physical markers for ballet dancers,” Ms. Bowers said, “we thought that was as important as being able to move.”

Wherever Ms. Portman’s career took her, she trained at least five hours a day with Ms. Bowers, practicing chaînés turns in Bridgehampton or rond de jambes in Belfast. They often started at 5 a.m. and fit in barre exercises and workouts while Ms. Portman filmed other movies.

Ms. Bowers was part of an all-star crew of experts who helped to get the dancing right. The veteran dancers and teachers included Kurt Froman, Jock Soto and Marina Stavitskaya, the ballet mistress Olga Kostritzky and the beloved coach Georgina Parkinson, who died in December. They offered corrections to the actresses during shooting and told Mr. Aronofsky when movement looked false. Dancers, mostly from the Pennsylvania Ballet, performed as the fictional corps and also gave advice to Ms. Portman.

This level of attention was crucial, Ms. Portman said: “I think there is a credibility that lets you get lost in the story when you feel that all the details are right.”

For Mr. Millepied, who is also Ms. Portman’s off-screen beau, the challenge started with creating a fresh twist on the classic “Swan Lake” vocabulary. (Die-hards will notice changes to the four little swans variation in particular.) But he also had to tailor the choreography so that Ms. Portman looked believable. With both actresses he wanted, he said, to “use their qualities and avoid their weaknesses.”

Perfecting something as seemingly simple as the undulating swan arms was one of Ms. Portman’s greatest struggles. “The fluidity, trying to get those hands to move and the arms all the way to her fingers” was tough, Mr. Millepied said. She practiced for hours and watched YouTube clips of famous swan queens like Alicia Alonso and Natalia Makarova to master the move.

Even with all the preparation Ms. Parkinson helped adjust the choreography for the particular quirks of Ms. Portman’s body. “I have short arms,” Ms. Portman said. “She was just, like: ‘You don’t bend arms when you put your arms up. They’re straight. You don’t bend them.’ If I ever bent my elbows she’d be, like, ‘Straight arms, straight arms.’ ” Another challenge was getting Ms. Portman on point. “We would spend 30 minutes a day doing foot exercises,” Ms. Bowers said.

During shooting the process intensified, with Ms. Portman doing short barre exercises five to six times a day to warm up between takes. “I think my body was kind of in emergency mode,” Ms. Portman. “I’m not eating enough, I’m not getting enough sleep. I’m in complete physical distress.” Among the injuries Ms. Portman suffered, the worst was a dislocated rib. To keep going, the lifts were adjusted.

The physical extremes of the art form though were what most interested Ms. Portman and Mr. Aronofsky. “The contrast between what you see onstage and what is underneath is part of the resonance of this film,” Ms. Portman said. “That it’s supposed to look easy and painless and carefree and light and delicate and just pretty, and underneath it’s, like, really gruesome.”

Ms. Bowers recalled, for instance, when Mr. Aronofsky consulted her on the believability of a prosthetic toe. “He was, like, ‘Is this what your toe looks like when your toenail falls off?’ and I was, like, ‘Well maybe we should take a little more off.’ ” She added, “Actually when your toenail falls off, you’re kind of happy, because it’s not a stress fracture.”

Ms. Portman’s experience gave her a taste not only of the physical sacrifices, but also the mental ones. “It was very religious in my mind,” she said. “The ritual of, like, breaking in your point shoes and getting them soft, all of that, it’s almost like tefillin wrapping in Judaism, this thing you do every day, this ritual.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/ar...alletfilm.html





Connecticut Native Produces Web Film About Technology Changing Social Interactions
Vinti Singh

For twenty-somethings, it's a love story that has universal appeal: the unrelenting devotion to one's phone.

But it's the opposite of that other great love story -- the one between man and dog. Instead of receiving undying and unconditional devotion, the man gives it to his portable screen, getting excited every time he gets a ring or a beep.

Bindiya Patel, 24, a Danbury native, and her business partner Adrianna Merlucci, 24, created a 12-episode web series called "Square One" that explores people's relationships with their smart phones and other technology.

The first season is available online on websites like www.koldcast.tv, but "Square One" will have its first East Coast and first public screening on Sunday, Jan. 9, tentatively at The Palace Theater.

The screening will be a part of the Indian Association of Greater Danbury's Indian-themed film festival. Patel is the daughter of Pinakin Patel, one of the founders of IAGD.

Bindiya Patel said in a telephone interview this week that she struggles with a Blackberry and iPad addiction herself.

"I've tried to do the whole withdrawal thing; it's hard," Patel said.

That, and social observations, prompted her and Merlucci to create the web series.

"I noticed when I was out with friends at the bar, everyone was on their phone," Merlucci said. "There were no actual interactions with each other. We were all sending texts or checking Facebook.

"Five years ago, it was rude to answer your phone during dinner. Now it's commonplace that the first thing you do when you get to the restaurant is to put your phone next to the silverware."

The lesson to be learned from the series is that people should take time to look up from their screens and "enjoy what's in front of you," Patel said.

The pair want to be clear they're not anti-technology.

In fact, they were completely dependent on it when they produced the series.

Patel is in Los Angeles, where she works in the home entertainment division of Disney, and Merlucci is in Manhattan, where she works as a freelance editor.

They were able to send huge files of footage to each other over an FTP server almost instantaneously. And they are advertising the series using outlets like Facebook and Twitter.

Pinakin Patel said Bindiya isn't as addicted as his younger daughter, who attends the University of Connecticut.

The father said he and his wife had to change their phone's texting plan to unlimited after their college student exceeded the 1,000-monthly text limit. Unfettered, she sent 4,500 text messages the next month.

The generation right under theirs is even more dependent, Merlucci said, than she and her peers.

"I text when I can't make a call," she said. "Teenagers today text to replace conversation."

For an audience who wants it instantly, and just as instantly move on to the next thing, the 4- to 6-minute lengths of the episodes are considered long, Merlucci said.

But in those few minutes, they still pack story arcs that extend across the season.

The series was produced on a shoe-string budget of $5,000, with the pair splitting the costs. The women had about nine actors and two cameramen. They prided themselves on having a primarily female cast and crew in an industry that tends to be male dominated.

Pinakin Patel was hesitant when his daughter told him in high school she wanted to go into the film industry.

"I was concerned," the father said. "Being a first generation immigrant myself, I wanted to make sure she made the right choice. A physician seemed like a safe choice with a secure income."

But Bindiya was persistent, so Patel used his connections to score her a shadowing experience with American film producer Lawrence Bender in Los Angeles.

"After that, she said `Daddy, I want to do it,'" Patel said.

So he supported her when she went to Boston University to study film and television. (She met Merlucci through Facebook before freshman year and they became roommates, and eventually, cofounders of Limelight19, a full service entertainment production company.)

Patel watched his daughter on the set at a recent trip to Los Angeles.

"All the retakes, all the coordination, I was amazed how they handled it," the proud father said.

The women plan to submit the web series to film festivals and are already in pre-production for their next project, a short film about missed connections.
http://www.newstimes.com/news/articl...ogy-850498.php





Fruit Giant to Dole Out $200,000 Over Bananas!* Lawsuit
Vivian Tse

A Los Angeles judge has ruled that food giant Dole Foods must pay $200,000 (1.4 million kronor) to cover the lawyers' fees incurred by the Swedish filmmakers behind a controversial documentary criticising the company.

Dole originally sued Swedish director, Fredrik Gertten, producer Margareta Jangard, and production company WG Film in July 2009 for defamation after the documentary Bananas!* premiered at the Los Angeles Film Festival.

"I'm very happy. It's a huge relief for us after having such a huge weight on our shoulders and cool that a judge has thrown out the case. It also shows people and other filmmakers that big companies cannot get away with suing them to try to silence them," Gertten told The Local on Monday.

The film chronicles the efforts of Los Angeles lawyer Juan Dominguez in representing Nicaraguan fruit workers who allege they became sterile after Dole sprayed them with a banned pesticide.

After the lawsuit was filed, the filmmakers won the support of several Swedish MPs, burger chain Max, which stopped selling Dole fruit salad, and grocers ICA and Axfood, which demanded to meet with the Swedish subsidiary of Dole.

In addition to the financial penalty, Dole is prevented from suing Gertten, Jangard and WG Film again in the future.

"They have contacted me a few times before to ask me to agree to some ridiculous terms, which I refused," said Gertten.

The ruling clears the way for companies and broadcasters to screen the film with no legal worries, Gertten said. Oscilloscope Laboratories, helmed by Beastie Boy Adam Yauch, holds the theatrical and distribution rights to the film in the US.

The original defamation lawsuit was thrown out in October 2009, after which Gertten replied with a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) filed in Los Angeles.

These suits intend to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

California has a unique variant of anti-SLAPP legislation, making it a popular destination for such suits.

Gertten pointed out that he will not see a penny of the penalty. His lawyer, Lincoln Bandlow, has asked him for $250,000, but Gertten said that this is not the full costs. Gertten's insurance company will pay up to $300,000 in legal fees.

In addition, Gertten, Jangard and the production company have invested a significant amount of their own time and finances into the lawsuit. However, Gertten pointed out that Dole has spent considerably more fighting him, Jangard and their production company.

"They've spent about $1 million on the case. Their PR company has called all the journalists who have interviewed us and translated all the articles from Swedish. They have also made their lawyers available for interviews in Swedish media," he said.

Dole's penalty will be paid directly to the insurance company, but it can still appeal the ruling. However, an appeal would only cover the financial penalty, not the ruling on future lawsuits.

"I would be much happier if they contacted me and said, 'Sorry, here's the money,' but that's not going to happen," said Gertten.
http://www.thelocal.se/30500/20101129/





Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels
Scott Shane and Andrew W. Lehren

A cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years, provides an unprecedented look at backroom bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.

Some of the cables, made available to The New York Times and several other news organizations, were written as recently as late February, revealing the Obama administration’s exchanges over crises and conflicts. The material was originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to revealing secret documents. WikiLeaks intends to make the archive public on its Web site in batches, beginning Sunday.

The anticipated disclosure of the cables is already sending shudders through the diplomatic establishment, and could conceivably strain relations with some countries, influencing international affairs in ways that are impossible to predict.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and American ambassadors around the world have been contacting foreign officials in recent days to alert them to the expected disclosures. A statement from the White House on Sunday said: “We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.”

“President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal,” the statement said. “By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals.”

The cables, a huge sampling of the daily traffic between the State Department and some 270 embassies and consulates, amount to a secret chronicle of the United States’ relations with the world in an age of war and terrorism. Among their revelations, to be detailed in The Times in coming days:

¶ A dangerous standoff with Pakistan over nuclear fuel: Since 2007, the United States has mounted a highly secret effort, so far unsuccessful, to remove from a Pakistani research reactor highly enriched uranium that American officials fear could be diverted for use in an illicit nuclear device. In May 2009, Ambassador Anne W. Patterson reported that Pakistan was refusing to schedule a visit by American technical experts because, as a Pakistani official said, “if the local media got word of the fuel removal, ‘they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons,’ he argued.”

¶ Gaming out an eventual collapse of North Korea: American and South Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea, should the North’s economic troubles and political transition lead the state to implode. The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements to China, according to the American ambassador to Seoul. She told Washington in February that South Korean officials believe that the right business deals would “help salve” China’s “concerns about living with a reunified Korea” that is in a “benign alliance” with the United States.

¶ Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison: When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.” Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama, while the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in Chinese Muslim detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”

¶ Suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government: When Afghanistan’s vice president visited the United Arab Emirates last year, local authorities working with the Drug Enforcement Administration discovered that he was carrying $52 million in cash. With wry understatement, a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul called the money “a significant amount” that the official, Ahmed Zia Massoud, “was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.” (Mr. Massoud denies taking any money out of Afghanistan.)

¶ A global computer hacking effort: China’s Politburo directed the intrusion into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese contact told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable reported. The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese government. They have broken into American government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since 2002, cables said.

¶ Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said.

¶ An intriguing alliance: American diplomats in Rome reported in 2009 on what their Italian contacts described as an extraordinarily close relationship between Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian prime minister, and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister and business magnate, including “lavish gifts,” lucrative energy contracts and a “shadowy” Russian-speaking Italian go-between. They wrote that Mr. Berlusconi “appears increasingly to be the mouthpiece of Putin” in Europe. The diplomats also noted that while Mr. Putin enjoys supremacy over all other public figures in Russia, he is undermined by an unmanageable bureaucracy that often ignores his edicts.

¶ Arms deliveries to militants: Cables describe the United States’ failing struggle to prevent Syria from supplying arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has amassed a huge stockpile since its 2006 war with Israel. One week after President Bashar al-Assad promised a top State Department official that he would not send “new” arms to Hezbollah, the United States complained that it had information that Syria was providing increasingly sophisticated weapons to the group.

¶ Clashes with Europe over human rights: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official “that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.”

The 251,287 cables, first acquired by WikiLeaks, were provided to The Times by an intermediary on the condition of anonymity. Many are unclassified, and none are marked “top secret,” the government’s most secure communications status. But some 11,000 are classified “secret,” 9,000 are labeled “noforn,” shorthand for material considered too delicate to be shared with any foreign government, and 4,000 are designated both secret and noforn.

Many more cables name diplomats’ confidential sources, from foreign legislators and military officers to human rights activists and journalists, often with a warning to Washington: “Please protect” or “Strictly protect.”

The Times has withheld from articles and removed from documents it is posting online the names of some people who spoke privately to diplomats and might be at risk if they were publicly identified. The Times is also withholding some passages or entire cables whose disclosure could compromise American intelligence efforts.

Terrorism’s Shadow

The cables show that nearly a decade after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the dark shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States’ relations with the world. They depict the Obama administration struggling to sort out which Pakistanis are trustworthy partners against Al Qaeda, adding Australians who have disappeared in the Middle East to terrorist watch lists, and assessing whether a lurking rickshaw driver in Lahore, Pakistan, was awaiting fares or conducting surveillance of the road to the American Consulate.

They show American officials managing relations with a China on the rise and a Russia retreating from democracy. They document years of painstaking effort to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon — and of worry about a possible Israeli strike on Iran with the same goal.

Even when they recount events that are already known, the cables offer remarkable details.

For instance, it has been previously reported that the Yemeni government has sought to cover up the American role in missile strikes against the local branch of Al Qaeda. But a cable’s fly-on-the-wall account of a January meeting between the Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, then the American commander in the Middle East, is nonetheless breathtaking.

“We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” Mr. Saleh said, according to the cable sent by the American ambassador, prompting Yemen’s deputy prime minister to “joke that he had just ‘lied’ by telling Parliament” that Yemeni forces had carried out the strikes.

Mr. Saleh, who at other times resisted American counterterrorism requests, was in a lighthearted mood. The authoritarian ruler of a conservative Muslim country, Mr. Saleh complains of smuggling from nearby Djibouti, but tells General Petraeus that his concerns are drugs and weapons, not whiskey, “provided it’s good whiskey.”

Likewise, press reports detailed the unhappiness of the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, when he was not permitted to set up his tent in Manhattan or to visit ground zero during a United Nations session last year.

But the cables add to the tale a touch of scandal and alarm. They describe the volatile Libyan leader as rarely without the companionship of “his senior Ukrainian nurse,” described as “a voluptuous blonde.” They reveal that Colonel Qaddafi was so upset by his reception in New York that he balked at carrying out a promise to return dangerous enriched uranium to Russia. The American ambassador to Libya told Colonel Qaddafi’s son “that the Libyan government had chosen a very dangerous venue to express its pique,” a cable reported to Washington.

The cables also disclose frank comments behind closed doors. Dispatches from early this year, for instance, quote the aging monarch of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, as speaking scathingly about the leaders of Iraq and Pakistan.

Speaking to another Iraqi official about Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, King Abdullah said, “You and Iraq are in my heart, but that man is not.” The king called President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan the greatest obstacle to that country’s progress. “When the head is rotten,” he said, “it affects the whole body.”

The American ambassador to Eritrea reported last year that “Eritrean officials are ignorant or lying” in denying that they were supporting the Shabab, a militant Islamist group in Somalia. The cable then mused about which seemed more likely.

As he left Zimbabwe in 2007 after three years as ambassador, Christopher W. Dell wrote a sardonic account of Robert Mugabe, that country’s aging and erratic leader. The cable called Mr. Mugabe “a brilliant tactician” but mocked “his deep ignorance on economic issues (coupled with the belief that his 18 doctorates give him the authority to suspend the laws of economics).”

The possibility that a large number of diplomatic cables might become public has been discussed in government and media circles since May. That was when, in an online chat, an Army intelligence analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning, described having downloaded from a military computer system many classified documents, including “260,000 State Department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world.” In an online discussion with Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker, Private Manning said he had delivered the cables and other documents to WikiLeaks.

Mr. Lamo reported Private Manning’s disclosures to federal authorities, and Private Manning was arrested. He has been charged with illegally leaking classified information and faces a possible court-martial and, if convicted, a lengthy prison term.

In July and October, The Times, the British newspaper The Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel published articles based on documents about Afghanistan and Iraq. Those collections of dispatches were placed online by WikiLeaks, with selective redactions of the Afghan documents and much heavier redactions of the Iraq reports. The group has said it intends to post the documents in the current trove as well, after editing to remove the names of confidential sources and other details.

Fodder for Historians

Traditionally, most diplomatic cables remain secret for decades, providing fodder for historians only when the participants are long retired or dead. The State Department’s unclassified history series, entitled “Foreign Relations of the United States,” has reached only the year 1972.

While an overwhelming majority of the quarter-million cables provided to The Times are from the post-9/11 era, several hundred date from 1966 to the 1990s. Some show diplomats struggling to make sense of major events whose future course they could not guess.

In a 1979 cable to Washington, Bruce Laingen, an American diplomat in Teheran, mused with a knowing tone about the Iranian revolution that had just occurred: “Perhaps the single dominant aspect of the Persian psyche is an overriding egoism,” Mr. Laingen wrote, offering tips on exploiting this psyche in negotiations with the new government. Less than three months later, Mr. Laingen and his colleagues would be taken hostage by radical Iranian students, hurling the Carter administration into crisis and, perhaps, demonstrating the hazards of diplomatic hubris.

In 1989, an American diplomat in Panama City mulled over the options open to Gen. Manuel Noriega, the Panamanian leader, who was facing narcotics charges in the United States and intense domestic and international political pressure to step down. The cable called General Noriega “a master of survival”; its author appeared to have no inkling that one week later, the United States would invade Panama to unseat General Noriega and arrest him.

In 1990, an American diplomat sent an excited dispatch from Cape Town: he had just learned from a lawyer for Nelson Mandela that Mr. Mandela’s 27-year imprisonment was to end. The cable conveys the momentous changes about to begin for South Africa, even as it discusses preparations for an impending visit from the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson.

The voluminous traffic of more recent years — well over half of the quarter-million cables date from 2007 or later — show American officials struggling with events whose outcomes are far from sure. To read through them is to become a global voyeur, immersed in the jawboning, inducements and penalties the United States wields in trying to have its way with a recalcitrant world.

In an era of satellites and fiber-optic links, the diplomatic cable retains the archaic name of an earlier technological era. It has long been the tool for the secretary of state to dispatch orders to the field and for ambassadors and political officers to send their analyses back to Washington.

The cables come with their own lexicon: “codel,” for a visiting Congressional delegation; “visas viper,” for a report on a person considered dangerous; “démarche,” an official message to a foreign government, often a protest or warning.

Diplomatic Drama

But the drama in the cables often comes from diplomats’ narratives of meetings with foreign figures, games of diplomatic poker in which each side is sizing up the other and neither is showing all its cards.

Among the most fascinating examples recount American officials’ meetings in September 2009 and February 2010 with Ahmed Wali Karzai, the half brother of the Afghan president and a power broker in the Taliban’s home turf of Kandahar.

They describe Mr. Karzai, “dressed in a crisp white shalwar kameez,” the traditional dress of loose tunic and trousers, appearing “nervous, though eager to express his views on the international presence in Kandahar,” and trying to win over the Americans with nostalgic tales about his years running a Chicago restaurant near Wrigley Field.

But in midnarrative there is a stark alert for anyone reading the cable in Washington: “Note: While we must deal with AWK as the head of the Provincial Council, he is widely understood to be corrupt and a narcotics trafficker.” (Mr. Karzai has repeatedly denied such charges.) And the cables note statements by Mr. Karzai that the Americans, informed by a steady flow of eavesdropping and agents’ reports, believe to be false.

A cable written after the February meeting coolly took note of the deceit on both sides.

Mr. Karzai “demonstrated that he will dissemble when it suits his needs,” the cable said. “He appears not to understand the level of our knowledge of his activities. We will need to monitor his activity closely, and deliver a recurring, transparent message to him” about the limits of American tolerance.

Not all Business

Even in places far from war zones and international crises, where the stakes for the United States are not as high, curious diplomats can turn out to be accomplished reporters, sending vivid dispatches to deepen the government’s understanding of exotic places.

In a 2006 account, a wide-eyed American diplomat describes the lavish wedding of a well-connected couple in Dagestan, in Russia’s Caucasus, where one guest is the strongman who runs the war-ravaged Russian republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov.

The diplomat tells of drunken guests throwing $100 bills at child dancers, and nighttime water-scooter jaunts on the Caspian Sea.

“The dancers probably picked upwards of USD 5000 off the cobblestones,” the diplomat wrote. The host later tells him that Ramzan Kadyrov “had brought the happy couple ‘a five-kilo lump of gold’ as his wedding present.”

“After the dancing and a quick tour of the premises, Ramzan and his army drove off back to Chechnya,” the diplomat reported to Washington. “We asked why Ramzan did not spend the night in Makhachkala, and were told, ‘Ramzan never spends the night anywhere.’ ”

Scott Shane reported from Washington, and Andrew W. Lehren from New York. Reporting was contributed by Jo Becker, C. J. Chivers and James Glanz from New York; Eric Lichtblau, Michael R. Gordon, David E. Sanger, Charlie Savage, Eric Schmitt and Ginger Thompson from Washington; and Jane Perlez from Islamabad, Pakistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html





Few Smartphone Owners are Loyal to Their Brand: Survey

The booming smartphone market shows no sign of slowing but manufacturers will have to fight hard to keep their customers as smartphone owners show little loyalty to their current brands, a GfK survey shows.

The survey, to be published later on Monday, found that 56 percent of smartphone owners in key global markets were keeping their options open about which phone they would buy next, with only Apple commanding a significant degree of loyalty.

With features such as Wi-Fi, GPS and high-resolution cameras now commonplace, owners of Internet-enabled phones are increasingly concerned with the ease of accessing attractive services to enhance their devices, often through app stores.

"Loyalty with a handset is a lot more complicated these days in that people buy into experiences at the high-end level," Ryan Garner, the lead analyst on the survey, told Reuters.

"If a phone doesn't do what it says it will do or what the owner hopes it will do, the maker will lose loyalty."

The survey found that just 25 percent of smartphone owners planned to stay loyal to the operating system running their phone, with loyalty highest among Apple users at 59 percent, and lowest for Microsoft's phone software, at 21 percent.

Of users of Research in Motion's BlackBerrys, 35 percent said they would stay loyal. The figure was 28 percent for users of phones running Google's Android software, and 24 percent for users of Nokia Symbian phones.

Nokia, the world's biggest maker of cellphones, is revamping its software strategy under new Chief Executive Stephen Elop, and is due to release two new platforms next year.

GfK conducted the survey of 2,653 mobile phone users in Brazil, Germany, Spain, Britain, the United States and China online during October and November.

The German market-research company also found that 37 percent of cellphone owners in all those markets excluding China planned to upgrade to a smartphone on their next purchase. They did not ask the question in China for logistical reasons.

Sales of smartphones nearly doubled in the third quarter and are expected to be up more than 50 percent for 2010, according to IT research firm Gartner, outpacing growth seen at closer to 30 percent for the cellphone market as a whole.

Smartphones command far higher margins than regular mobile phones, although that profitability is being eroded by new competition from vendors who have been able to enter the market thanks to Google's open-source Android software.

(Reporting by Georgina Prodhan; Editing by Marguerita Choy)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS0XB20101129





Gartner Cuts PC Shipment Forecasts for 2010, 2011

Research firm Gartner has cut its forecasts for global computers shipments in 2010 and 2011, citing weaker demand as many customers choose a tablet computer over a PC, it said on Monday.

It said it expected PC shipments this year to rise 14.3 percent to 352 million units, year-on-year, and in 2011 by 15.9 percent. It had previously predicted the growth to be 17.9 percent in 2010 and 18.1 percent in 2011.

"These results reflect marked reductions in expected near-term unit growth based on expectations of weaker consumer demand, due in no small part to growing user interest in media tablets such as the iPad," Ranjit Atwal, research director at Gartner, said in a statement.

"Media tablets are expected to displace around 10 percent of PC units by 2014," he added.

(Reporting by Terhi Kinnunen; Editing by Hans Peters)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS27820101129





Top Papers to Charge Online, But How?
Jennifer Saba and Georgina Prodhan

Three of the world's most influential newspapers have finally come to terms with the notion that charging readers online is the only way to survive.

There is far less agreement on how to go about that, the publishers of The New York Times, The Times of London and the Financial Times made clear at this week's Reuters Global Media Summit.

The New York Times Co's launch of its long-awaited online payment system early next year will be the latest effort to convince readers to pay for what they have come to expect free.

It will join News Corp's Times of London, whose own tests have achieved mixed results.

"We create very valuable, important content and we are trying to ensure we get fairly compensated for it," said News Corp Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey.

Carey and other top executives speaking this week at the Reuters summit are trying to calibrate prices and bundles of products that will not alienate advertisers, fearful of steep drop-offs in readers, and consumers, who are accustomed to free access.

News Corp also owns the Wall Street Journal, which remains one of the few newspapers to have generated a healthy online business from subscriptions over the past decade.

But the strategy, which worked well for a business publication, has failed to yield similar results for News Corp's most recent attempt to charge readers of the Times.

News Corp put all the news from the Times' website behind a pay wall, charging 1 pound for a day or 2 pounds for a week's access. Its online readership dropped by almost 90 percent.

Success will be measured over years, not a quarter, Carey said. "The media always want to declare judgment in a quarter."

The New York Times, on the other hand, will employ a different tactic. It plans to announce as early as January prices for its "metered" model, which will charge readers after they access a limited number of articles for free on NYTimes.com.

Arthur Sulzberger Jr, publisher of the New York Times, took pains to make clear the stark differences between the two papers' approach.

"Please don't compare us to the Times of London," Sulzberger said. "They have a gate, a real wall. We aren't doing that. To compare us to them is just a false comparison."

He added: "We want to be part of the digital ecosystem."

It will be the second major attempt for the New York Times to convince readers to pay, mindful of the publishing industry's challenge.

"We're going to test it. We're going to learn. We are going to adapt," Sulzberger said.

The U.S. and UK newspaper industries suffered an unprecedented decline in advertising spending that pushed papers into bankruptcy and resulted in thousands of job losses. Print papers and magazines have also competed with free digital news and entertainment venues for readers as circulation revenue has plunged over this period.

The New York Times dallied with a pay strategy in 2005, but pulled the plug by 2007 in its attempt to extract fees for access to TimesSelect, featuring its award-winning columnists such as Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich.

New York Times Chief Executive Janet Robinson called TimesSelect a "success" but said they ended the service in order to maximize its online readership.

The New York Times has spent the past year studying its proposed new metered model, finding ideas from telecom and cable companies, and even WeightWatchers, which charges users for in-depth diet tips.

"We know that we have the opportunity, particularly with the metered model, to manage this process," said Robinson.

Robinson did not detail plans for the strategy, but made clear there were distinctions between it and the Financial Times, from which it drew inspiration. The Pearson Plc-owned newspaper has charged people to read its news online since 2001.

Although the FT initially blocked all content from non-subscribers, the site switched to a metered model by 2007 that allowed people to read a set number of articles each month before asking for a fee.

Now digital revenue at the FT -- which includes subscriptions and advertising -- represents 20 percent of total revenue.

Speaking at the London arm of the Reuters Global Media Summit, FT Chief Executive John Ridding said digital subscriptions are steady and strong. These subscriptions have helped it collect valuable data from its customers.

"We can understand where traffic is coming from on a regional basis," Ridding said. "So that naturally increases the efficiency of the advertising."

This "efficiency" has enabled the FT to charge up to 10 times more for online ads tailored for its readers, Ridding said.

The more newspapers that start charging for online news, the better, Ridding said. "We've always believed that quality in journalism is worth paying for."

(Reporting by Jennifer Saba in New York and Georgina Prodhan in London; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B264P20101203





In Magazine World, a New Crop of Chiefs
Jeremy W. Peters

For the magazine business, 2011 will be a year to watch — and not just because it could hold answers to lingering questions about the financial health of the industry.

Next year will be the first in a decade and a half that the four largest American magazine companies will all have new leaders, making it possible to judge whether the recent troubles in publishing can be addressed by changes in the executive suite. Or, if not, whether the problems run deeper than they now appear.

Over the summer, the magazine world’s own Velvet Revolution played out — a quick change of hands with relatively little discord: Ann Moore was out at Time Inc. after eight years as chief executive, replaced by Jack Griffin, who was poached from his job leading Meredith’s magazine division. Meredith, the publishing giant responsible for Better Homes and Gardens and Family Circle, promoted one of Mr. Griffin’s deputies, Tom Harty.

At Condé Nast, Charles H. Townsend, who had held the dual role of chief executive and president since 2004, agreed to hand over the job of president to a protégé, Robert A. Sauerberg. And David Carey, a longtime Condé Nast executive, departed to lead Hearst Magazines, displacing Cathleen P. Black, a publishing industry fixture for three decades and now the embattled choice of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to be the New York City schools chancellor.

Not since the mid-1990s have those jobs turned over in quick succession, and that time, the changes happened over two years. Strikingly, the economic picture then was similar to what is occurring today. The business had just begun to spring back from the devastating effects of a recession that drove away advertisers and forced publishers to close magazines.

The new cadre of executives at the time — Steven T. Florio at Condé Nast, Christopher M. Little at Meredith, Don Logan at Time Inc. and Ms. Black at Hearst — would steer their companies through periods of expansion and prosperity through the rest of the decade and beyond, an era when successful publications like O: The Oprah Magazine, Teen Vogue and Real Simple were born.

Whether the rebound from the economic collapse of 2008 and 2009 will prove as robust is an unsettled — and, to many, an unsettling — question. But there is little doubt that the next generation of magazine company executives is confronting a media landscape in which the margin for error is far smaller, and uncertainty about whether readers and advertisers will remain loyal is more palpable than ever.

“This is the changing of the guard from an older school to a newer school,” said Justin B. Smith, president of the Atlantic Media Company. The changes, he added, were part of an inevitable evolution in publishing that was perhaps long overdue. “It is quite remarkable that it took until 2010, 15 years after the arrival of the Internet, for a new generation of leaders to emerge.”

Indeed, the new generation is certainly more youthful, by corporate standards at least. Mr. Harty, 47, is the youngest. Mr. Carey and Mr. Sauerberg are both 49, and Mr. Griffin is 50.

They have either followed unconventional paths to the top or come from outside the companies they now help lead. Mr. Griffin was wooed from his job leading Meredith’s national media group to come to Time Inc.

Mr. Carey left Condé Nast to head Hearst Magazines, a crosstown rival. Mr. Sauerberg rose through the ranks at Condé Nast not through the more traditional publisher’s path but through the consumer marketing division.

Mr. Harty came to Meredith, which publishes female-oriented publications, from the Golf Digest Companies.

“You have to bring in someone who understands the magazine business, but you don’t want to bring in a virgin,” said Jack Kliger, the former chief executive of Hachette Filipacchi Media, publisher of magazines like Elle and Car and Driver (and which named a new chief executive itself in September). “I think the overwhelming message here is that these companies are looking for change agents.”

But Condé Nast, Hearst, Meredith and Time Inc. differ considerably in their approach to change — and the degree to which they feel that change is necessary. The one certainty they all seem to embrace is a once-bitten-twice-shy caution about advertising revenue.

“Through the ’90s when magazine advertising was growing at respectable rates year over year, the industry focused disproportionately on advertising,” Mr. Griffin, a hockey player and marathon runner who is known for an economical, to-the-point speaking style, said in a recent interview. “The laser focus on the consumer took a subsidiary seat for some period of time. What I’m doing at Time Inc. is making it pre-eminent again.”

At Time, the world’s largest magazine publisher, Mr. Griffin said he wanted to reintroduce the concept of “charging a fair price, and charging consumers who are interested in the product.”

In other words, consumers can expect to pay more. “We spent a tremendous amount of money creating original content, original journalism, fact-checking, sending reporters overseas to cover wars,” he said. “You name it. What we’ve got to do as a business is get fair value for that.”

Supplementing that approach, Mr. Griffin said, will be new partnerships within Time Warner, Time Inc.’s parent company, that allow magazines to take advantage of the vast film and visual resources at their disposal. One such partnership in the planning stages, he said, is a deal between a major cosmetics company and InStyle to broadcast from the red carpets of big Hollywood events like the Academy Awards and the Screen Actors Guild Awards.

These kinds of partnerships are central to Mr. Griffin’s vision, but some are not without impact on Time Inc.’s staff. The company recently eliminated a small number of positions in its business operations after consolidating resources with Time Warner.

Condé Nast, long the king of the $1-an-issue subscription, has also come to embrace a fair-value philosophy under Mr. Sauerberg. In an interview, Mr. Sauerberg said he and his staff had been working on creating what he called “12-course content meals” — package deals that would include access to multiple Condé Nast magazines delivered in multiple ways, like print, tablet, mobile and Internet, as well as invitations to magazine-sponsored events.

“Think about our magazines as, let’s say, a good content meal,” said Mr. Sauerberg, a man with a laconic demeanor who speaks in a soft, gravely tone. “What would a great meal be? What would a 12-course unbelievable meal be? Would it be a magazine? What’s the mobile experience? What kind of event does this person want to come to? What personal advice do I need to hear about something that’s really important to me?”

Higher prices seem to be an inevitable part of that package. “We have a group of people who are so committed to our brands that I could easily see them wanting to commit to a bigger monthly commitment for lots of things they get because they’re such junkies,” Mr. Sauerberg added.

At Hearst and Meredith, which were already fairly lean companies and were less affected than Time Inc. and Condé Nast when the advertising market collapsed, changes have been considered with less urgency.

One notable change Mr. Carey made quietly at Hearst this fall was to dissolve the longstanding divide that kept online sales operations separate from the magazines themselves. (Condé Nast made a similar move late last month.)

“It felt largely siloed between print and digital,” said Mr. Carey, who has a gentle, pensive affect and an eye for fashionable suits. “I think we felt the need to give publishers permission and give them the sense that they could bring ever-more complex print and digital packages to their clients.” He has now added the title “chief revenue officer” to the nameplate of every publisher.

“The way people perceive them, the way they are introduced to clients, the way they are written about in the press,” he added, should convey “a broad mandate to generate revenue.”

As for new business initiatives, Mr. Carey said Hearst was planning more joint ventures along the lines of its existing deals with Harpo, Oprah Winfrey’s production company, which publishes O with Hearst, and Food Network, which teamed up with Hearst to publish the Food Network Magazine.

“Stay tuned for more announcements on the partnership front,” he said, declining to elaborate.

Meredith, which of the four publishers is arguably the most diversified with its successful television and book publishing businesses and was the least affected by the recession, sees no need for wholesale change. “We don’t have to do these dramatic reorganizations or take drastic measures to get people in line,” Mr. Harty said. “We don’t have to tear down silos.”

But one thing Mr. Harty said the company was examining: expanding its licensed products. The company already pulls in more than a billion dollars a year selling products with a Better Homes and Gardens license at Wal-Mart stores. It is now planning to sell plants and bulbs with the magazine’s imprimatur directly to consumers.

“We have relationships with all these consumers,” Mr. Harty said. “How can we figure out how to sell them goods and services? We believe that’s a key.”

Mr. Harty, burly in build and quick with a self-deprecating joke, laughed when asked about any overarching strategy and remarked, “What I’ve attempted to do is not screw up what’s been going very well.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/bu...dia/29mag.html





Google Grows, and Works to Retain Nimble Minds
Claire Cain Miller

When a product manager at Google told his bosses this year that he was quitting to take a job at Facebook, they offered him a large raise. When he said it was not about the money, they told him he could have a promotion, work in a different area or even start his own company inside Google.

He turned down all the inducements and joined Google’s newest rival.

“Google’s gotten to be a lot bigger and slower-moving of a company,” said the former manager, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity to protect business relationships. “At Facebook, I could see how quickly I could get things done compared to Google.”

Google, which only 12 years ago was a scrappy start-up in a garage, now finds itself viewed in Silicon Valley as the big, lumbering incumbent. Inside the company some of its best engineers are chafing under the growing bureaucracy and are leaving to start or work at smaller, nimbler companies.

Recent departures include low-level engineers, product managers and prominent managers like Lars Rasmussen, who helped create Google Maps and Wave before he left for Facebook, and Omar Hamoui, the founder of AdMob who was vice president for mobile ads at Google and is now looking for his next project. At least 142 of Facebook’s employees came from Google.

Corporate sclerosis is a problem for all companies as they grow. But a hardening of the bureaucracy and a slower pace of work is even more perceptible in Silicon Valley, where companies grow at Internet speed and pride themselves on constant innovation — and where the most talented people are often those with the most entrepreneurial drive.

Much of Silicon Valley’s innovation comes about as engineers leave companies to start their own. For Google, which in five years has grown to 23,000 employees from 5,000 and to $23.7 billion in revenue from $3.2 billion, the risk is that it will miss the best people and the next great idea.

“It’s a short step from scale to sclerosis,” said Daniel H. Pink, an author and analyst on the workplace. “It becomes a more acute problem in Silicon Valley, where in a couple years, you could have some competitor in a garage ready to put you out entirely.”

Google’s chief executive, Eric E. Schmidt, says that people who think Google faces brain drain are “fundamentally wrong.” The company’s attrition rate for people it wished would stay has been constant for seven years, he said.

Nevertheless, Google’s maturation worries him. “There was a time when three people at Google could build a world-class product and deliver it, and it is gone,” Mr. Schmidt said. “So I think it’s absolutely harder to get things out the door. That’s probably our biggest strategic issue.”

As a result, Google is taking aggressive steps to retain employees, particularly those with start-up ambitions. Google has given several engineers who said they were leaving to start new companies the chance to start them within Google. They work independently and can recruit other engineers and use Google’s resources, like its code base and servers, according to half a dozen employees.

Google Wave, a way for people to work together online, was one example. The engineering team, based in Sydney, Australia, worked independently and got equity in the project, according to three people briefed on the agreement. But Google shut down Wave this year, and Mr. Rasmussen, who led the project, quit for Facebook soon after.

Google is considering opening a start-up incubator inside the company, according to two people briefed on the plans.

Other big companies have made similar attempts with varying success. Cisco Systems’s program has given birth to new businesses like TelePresence, a videoconferencing service, but Yahoo’s incubator was shut down in 2008, a year and a half after it started.

From the beginning, Google’s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, have tried to prevent atrophy. That is one reason Google gives everyone time — called 20 percent time at the company — to work on their own projects. The company tries to limit groups of engineers working on projects to 10.

But in reality, engineering groups quickly swell to 20 or even 40, several Google product managers said. And new products created during 20 percent time are less likely to get anywhere these days.

Popular Google products like Gmail grew out of 20 percent time, for instance. But engineers say they have been encouraged to build fewer new products and focus on building improvements to existing ones, like the terrain layer on Google Maps.

“There’s a lot of these cool features that are very hidden, and a lot of people worked very hard on them and they were kind of sad that they spent a year of their life on something that gets 0.1 percent usage,” said another product manager who is considering leaving for a start-up.

Part of Google’s problem is that the best engineers are often the ones with the most entrepreneurial thirst. Google loaded up on that type in its early hiring.

Some of those go-getters now want to leave as they become frustrated with the processes and procedures. Josh McFarland, a former Google product manager who left last year and started TellApart, which helps retailers advertise online, said he knew it was time to leave as the number of people he had to copy on e-mail messages ballooned.

“I think that there is a class of person who is able to walk away from this relatively easy, consistent money because they are so dissatisfied with the processes of a big company,” he said.

For others, it is about making more money elsewhere. Start-ups have a riskier and potentially more rewarding lure: shares in a company before an initial public offering.

Google, which has always been generous with salary, stock options and benefits like massages, dry cleaning and free food, is going a step further to keep employees happy. This month, Google gave every employee a raise of 10 percent or more. The motivation was, in part, the “war for talent,” Mr. Schmidt said. People who have other job offers have been persuaded to stay with seven-figure bonuses. Google says 80 percent of people who get a counteroffer stay put.

Of those who leave, employees going to Facebook get the most attention. According to résumés posted on LinkedIn, 142 of Facebook’s 1,700 employees came from Google. Mr. Schmidt dismissed the idea that Facebook was poaching Google’s best people, saying, “We hire more people in a week than go to Facebook in its lifetime.”

Despite Google’s growing pains, it remains remarkably innovative when it wants to be. Last month, for instance, it unveiled robotic cars that drive themselves. And like many big companies, Google has been acquiring new technologies, like Android, instead of inventing them.

While he worries about the consequences of becoming a big company, “People are dying to come here and they’re staying,” Mr. Schmidt said. “So I guess they’re putting up with the complexity.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/te.../29google.html





On an Innovative Device, Apps Lacking Imagination
Alice Rawsthorn

Imagine that you’re a designer and a dazzling new digital device comes along giving you the opportunity to reinvent some familiar products that the rest of us use every day. What could be more exciting?

Not much, you’d think, especially if that device is a soaring commercial success, and rich, powerful companies are eager to invest in your efforts to design new versions of their products to be used on it.

The device in question is the Apple iPad, and those products are the publishing applications (alias “apps”) that enable us to read books and magazines on it. With so much going for them why, eight months after the iPad’s release, is the design of so many of those apps so boring?

There are a few honorable exceptions, and I’ll come to them later. But having spent much of the past week downloading (or sometimes struggling to download) book and magazine apps in the search for design gems, I’ve come to the glum conclusion that most were designed with little or no imagination.

All the designers seem to have done is to have shunted the original printed products on to the screen. There’s nothing wrong with doing that for electronic readers, including the Amazon Kindle or Sony Touch, but not when it comes to more sophisticated devices such as the iPad and all of the rival products now flooding on to the market like Samsung’s Galaxy Tab. These devices offer thrilling possibilities for us to do much more than read words on a screen, and it is deeply disappointing that so few designers and publishers are embracing them.

(If you’re wondering why I haven’t mentioned newspaper apps yet, that’s because I don’t intend to. Thanks to their constantly changing content and shortish texts, newspapers made a more successful transition to the Internet than books or magazines, and it is less of a design challenge to reinvent their Web sites as applications.)

But lack of imagination isn’t the only problem when it comes to creating book and magazine apps. Some have messed up technically. Take “Vogue Stylist,” an app from “American Vogue” that promises to help you to “create personalized fashion and beauty looks based upon the top trends identified by Vogue Editors.” Sounds tempting, except that downloading the app seems to be infuriatingly tricky judging by the disgruntled cries of “Ugh!!,” “Fix it Vogue” and “Make it Work!!” in the Customer Reviews posted on Apple’s iTunes online store.

At this point, I should stress that, when it comes to the techno-politics of reading, I’m strictly neutral, neither technophile nor technophobe. I love reading, especially when it involves beautifully written words in a beautifully designed form, but don’t mind which medium they come in.

In the last week alone, three exquisitely crafted new books have landed on my desk: “Atlas of the Conflict: Israel-Palestine” designed by Joost Grootens; “Misfit,” a monograph of the designer Hella Jongerius by Irma Boom; and the sumptuous “Sinbad” by the artist Gerhard Richter. Each book was so thoughtfully conceived and executed that I can’t imagine it being more appealing in another medium. But my love of print doesn’t blind me to the benefits of publishing apps, if — and it’s a big if — their design is up to scratch.

In theory, those apps should combine the benefits of old and new media. They should be as compact, portable, legible and lusciously visual as print, while scoring eco-points by saving paper. Offering interactive features, moving images and links to alternative information sources also enables them to be as dynamic as Web sites. There are even reports that people with dyslexia find it easier to read words on apps than in print, though no one knows why.

Some designers and publishers, the “honorable exceptions,” have explored these possibilities. Among the magazine apps, both “Wired” and “The New Yorker” stand out for their efforts to do so.

“The New Yorker” has adopted a subtle approach by producing an app that looks just like the original magazine. Any new features are designed in the same witty, thoughtful spirit, including the “Cartoon Gallery” of the week’s cartoons and a soundtrack of the short story being read by its author. Reading the “New Yorker Digital Edition” on the Internet tends to make me feel queasy, but the app is easier on the eye and more playful than either that or the print issue.

The “Wired” app achieves a similar result, but more spectacularly by experimenting with new creative technologies in its extra features. The November app includes stunning data visualizations of the daily pattern of 311 complaint calls in New York, and the December one a high-definition film of a mouse’s brain.

As for books, children’s titles are leading the way with apps that include animated illustrations, often activated by the reader. My favorites are the fabulously surreal ones in “Alice for the iPad,” Atomic Antelope’s interactive version of Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland,” and Oceanhouse Media’s “Dr. Seuss” apps. Kids can “play” the Dr. Seuss stories like movies — saving you from reading the same one again and again. Each word is highlighted when it is spoken on the soundtrack.

There has been less experimentation for grown-ups. Though the British publishing house Fourth Estate has produced an intriguing app based on the mathematician Marcus du Sautoy’s book “The Num8er My5teries.” Rather than replicate the book, it complements it by enabling the reader to participate in animated mathematical puzzles featuring a cartoon version of Mr. Sautoy.

Not every book app lends itself to show-stopping design. With great novels, for instance, the text is often enough on its own. Though that doesn’t excuse designers from trying to be more inventive with other apps. If not, readers may resort to deploying iPad versions of apps like Instapaper and Readability with which they are already “redesigning” Web sites. Unless they can muster more imagination and ingenuity, publishing app designers may face another readers’ revolt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/ar...-design29.html





Try This: ge.tt. Simply a Better Option for Cloud-Based File Sharing
Brad McCarty

ge.tt is, to put it plainly, an incredibly simple way to share files. While we have had services such as Rapidshare and the like for years, the interface alone is ugly to the point of revolting and its usefulness is limited because of how the money is made.

With ge.tt, all you have to do is head to the site, select what files you want to upload, then you’re given a link by which you can share those files. Interestingly, ge.tt adds a few more features as well and everything appears to be free, at least for now.

First off, you don’t need an account to use ge.tt. If you choose to create one, though, you’ll get some nifty features such as live statistics, the ability to add and remove files from a share and your files will stay alive until they’ve been inactive for 3 months.

So once you’ve uploaded, you’ll be taken to a page that looks like this.

As you can see, I’ve shared multiple files (boring random images from PhotoBooth, if you care) and each of them can be viewed, downloaded or removed individually. This could be an extremely handy option for collaboration, to say the least. We also love the fact that, with a simple click of a button, you can share your url through Facebook, Twitter or email.

Another slick option about ge.tt is in how it shares files. As the co-founder puts it:

“As a test to what we do, try sharing 30 random audio and video files. Then immediately open the Ge.tt link in another browser (or another computer). You can choose any file you want and start streaming or downloading the file. It does not need to be uploaded first. Also, does not need flash or java.”

While our first blush of this “streaming” was that it would be over a peer-to-peer network, it actually works a bit differently. As a user selects a file, the site acts as a buffer and will begin streaming the content from the site itself, even as you’re uploading. There is no peer to peer process involved. While this clearly puts a small delay onto how quickly a file can be “streamed”, it does open the door for more people to access a file without killing your local bandwidth by trying to stream it to multiple clients.

What’s especially interesting is ge.tt’s priority system for uploading files. Say that you’re uploading 5 files. These are uploaded one by one, of course, but the priority of the upload can be changed. So if a colleague selects a file that’s not presently uploading, the upload priority will be change to allow it to start its upload and stream to the client who requested it.

For a service that, right now, is completely free, ge.tt is going to be hard to beat. Moving forward, we’d love to see a desktop application for it, and this is one way that ge.tt could make its money. Premium subscription options, of course, could open more doors.

While it might not overtake CloudApp for Mac users, it’s another service that’s going into our Bookmarks folder.
http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/11/2...-file-sharing/





What You Need to Know When Buying a Media Streamer
Reviewed by John Marrin

Media streamers bridge the gap between your TV and the web. Here are our favorites.

With all the video on the internet, you’re probably wondering: Why pay for TV when you can stream it for free? The trick is bridging the gap between your TV and the internet. Enter the media streamer.

These small, inexpensive boxes offer a tantalizing mix of form and function. Designed to be relatively dummy-proof to set up and use, they let you stream online content and access music and videos stored on your home’s other networked devices — all without the expense and hassle of setting up and maintaining yet another PC next to your TV.

The trouble is that none of them offer all the features, or work quite as seamlessly, as you are probably hoping.

Here’s a quick rundown of what to look for when you’re shopping for a media streamer, as well as some of their benefits and pitfalls.

Services Supported

If you’re a Netflix, Hulu, YouTube or Pandora junkie, make sure the devices you’re considering can connect to the services you use. Keep in mind that new online music and video services may be added to a specific media streamer in the future, but of course, there are no guarantees. Hulu in particular has been fairly finicky about allowing access to its services. Netflix, on the other hand, has struck partnerships with a wide range of device makers.

File-Type Support

Virtually all media streamers decode common formats like MP3, MPEG and AVI, but if you’ve archived your CD and DVD collection in more esoteric formats like ISO, MKV, FLAC and Ogg Vorbis, be sure the streamer handles them. Also, if your tastes tend to foreign movies, double check that the device can recognize SRT and other file formats for handling subtitles. Otherwise you will have to écoutez sans sous-titres. Several streamers do support subtitles, such as the Western Digital WDTV TV and the Popcorn Hour A200.

User Interface

Most media devices have pretty simple UIs — after all, they’re trying to replace a complex PC — but each has its own way of navigating between types of content. In addition, some fancier units will try to organize your media collection and/or fill in missing album or movie artwork and other file metadata, while others can’t. Try to take a device you’re thinking of purchasing for a test drive, or at least check out some videos of the UI experience on the company’s website or on YouTube.

Control

A streamer is only as strong as its remote. For example, the Apple TV can be commanded with your iPod or iPhone, and Google TV features an app that lets you take the reins with an Android device. Be wary of cheap, klutzy proprietary remotes that could make your experience a frustrating one. Our favorites so far include Logitech Revue with its full-QWERTY-keypad wireless remote and the WDTV Live Hub’s simple and intuitive controller.

Ethernet vs. Wi-Fi

A wired connection is almost always better than a wireless connection. A few models of media streamers have Wi-Fi only, but in today’s world of HD video, a wired ethernet connection is the ticket to consistently maintain the highest video quality. That’s because most streamers will downgrade your picture quality if the connection isn’t fast enough to keep up with a live stream.

If you plan on streaming HD video over Wi-Fi, look for the fastest 802.11 N support, and adjust your router settings (if possible) to give priority to your media-streaming devices.

Tip: Keep in mind that wireless signals have a pretty limited range, and that your video quality can degrade especially if your router is far away, or if someone else is sucking up bandwidth on your connection to play Call of Duty online while you’re trying to stream old episodes of Space Ghost.

If your house isn’t wired for ethernet and your Wi-Fi isn’t making the grade, look for power-line network adapters that can send a data signal through any standard electrical outlet. They’re available from a number of companies, but be sure that you get one that supports 200-Mbps throughput. That way you can easily stream large files — think feature length movies — without any hiccups.

USB

Many media streamers will let you attach an external drive that’s filled with your own media library, which can be incredibly convenient. Those without a USB port can only connect to other devices to stream content over your local network, or stream content from the web.

Web Browsing

You might want to check out “teh internets” between episodes of Simon and Simon. Look for a robust browser that can handle media-rich websites. Some streamers have a fairly limited web-browsing experience. Most have none at all.

HD Resolution

1080p-Full-HD support isn’t something you really need. After all, most of the content you’ll be streaming is probably compressed and is not full 1080p to begin with (unless you’re streaming from a Blu-ray disc somewhere on your network). Even so, it’s still something to look for to future-proof your system and ensure the best picture resolution and quality, especially if you have an HDTV larger than 42 inches.

Some streamers, like the Apple TV, can only deliver 720p. That’s not bad for most uses, and only the most discerning videophiles (or those with truly gigantic screens) are likely to notice a difference.

HDMI

Most, but not all, media streamers have this high-definition port for connecting to a TV. You should use it if possible to get the best HD video and digital surround-sound through one cable.

DVR Functionality

If you’re not quite ready to disconnect your cable or satellite TV service, having integrated video recording could be a plus. That’s especially true if you don’t have a DVR yet, or you simply hate the primitive video-recording built into your cable or satellite receiver. For DVR functions, check out Moxi, TiVo Premire and Logitech’s Revue.

The Scoop on Google TV

Google TV is Google’s platform for searching and viewing video, whether it’s on the internet or coming to you by cable, satellite or antenna. Currently this tech is only available in a few devices, such as Logitech’s Revue and the newest Sony web-enabled TV’s, as well as a Blu-ray player. But it will probably be embedded in more devices in the future.

Search is at the forefront of the Google-TV experience. Punch in “Mary Poppins,” and related content stored locally and on the web should pop up in the search results. The OS also features a slick browser that lets you watch content while simultaneously scanning the web.

Logitech’s Revue will come with a smattering of apps pre-installed (Twitter, Napster, etc.) but if you want to expand your Google TV’s functionality, there will be more apps available for download from the Android Market in the coming months. Like an Android phone, then, Google TV may continue to improve as the market for add-on applications grows, giving your TV capabilities that its makers didn’t dream of adding.
http://www.wired.com/reviews/2010/11..._mediastreamer





Which Shipping Company is Kindest to Your Packages?

We mailed a bunch of sensors on an epic journey to find out which shipping company is the most careful with your packages. Here's what we found.
Glenn Derene

We worked with National Instruments, an industrial test and measurement company, to create a data-logging device that could gauge and record vibration, temperature and orientation. Here's our package at the end of its journey.

A few years ago, Popular Mechanics shipped a custom-built gaming PC—a rather heavy and cumbersome beast—to a New Hampshire woman who'd won it in a sweepstakes. The computer arrived in pieces, delivering a crushing blow, so to speak, to the nice lady as well as to the PM staffers who'd built the computer. Even though we made good by reconstructing the PC and driving it to her doorstep, I still shudder at the memory of the gory photos she sent us of the shattered machine.

The overnight-shipping industry is a modern technological and logistical wonder, but it still can inflict medieval damage on parcels. Everyone has at one time or another received a dented, torn or otherwise mutilated package. And after our PC-shipping incident, I felt a sense of professional duty to find a way to get inside a package, as it were, and quantify the abuse it endures. Since my life insurance would become null and void if I attempted to ship myself, I needed a technological solution.

This sort of tech exists#. Last fall, FedEx introduced a service for critical packages called SenseAware, which tracks vibration, g-force, orientation, temperature and other factors. But I didn't want to use SenseAware for the test because it's unavailable to the general public—and besides, I had a covert mission in mind.

I called up a contact at National Instruments—an innovative manufacturer of industrial control equipment and software, based in Austin, Texas—and presented a challenge: Could the company help me disguise vibration sensors inside a package that I could secretly ship around the country? I soon got a call from National Instruments engineers Kelly Rink, Jamie Brettle and Rick Kuhlman, who agreed to build for me a self-powered data logger equipped with an ARM microcontroller evaluation board, a three-axis accelerometer and a massive Energizer Energi To Go XP18000 battery.

The device they created was capable of measuring acceleration, orientation and temperature. But the task wasn't a slam-dunk. "Having a processor constantly awake and writing to an SD card takes a toll on a battery," Brettle says. "But by modifying our LabVIEW code, we were able to put the processor to sleep and selectively write to the SD card. That got us 74 hours of battery life." That's enough juice to gather data from a three-day trip. We were in business.

The Plan

I mapped out for our package a tour of the United States, starting and ending at Popular Mechanics's home office, in New York City, with stops at our West Coast headquarters, in Santa Monica, Calif., and National Instruments', in Austin. At each stop, the data was uploaded from a micro SD card, the battery recharged and the package sent on its way. The parcel was shipped a dozen times (we had neither the time nor the budget to make the hundreds of trips necessary for statistical significance), a modest experiment to see how the device performed and gather enough data to draw broad conclusions. Our targets—FedEx, UPS and the U.S. Postal Service—were unaware of the test. As we went along, we changed up a few variables to see if the treatment of our package changed as well. Was overnight shipping more or less violent than three-day? Did marking the package "Fragile" or "This Side Up" ensure more careful treatment?

Before the first journey, the #National Instruments engineers collected baseline g-force readings. "We dropped the package from different heights, kicked it around our building, ran down the stairs with it in a backpack and took it on a car ride—giving real-world meaning to how many g's the package endured," says Kuhlman. The findings: A moderate jostle exerts 2 g's, while a 2.5-foot drop registers 6 g's; we set the latter as our limit for rough treatment. "Our co-workers thought we were a bit odd," says Brettle, "but we assured them it was all in the name of science."

The Results

So which company treats your packages with the most tender loving care? After crunching the data and averaging the number of spikes recorded by each carrier on each trip, we found that the USPS has the gentlest touch, with a per-trip average of 0.5 acceleration spikes over 6 g's. FedEx and UPS logged an average of three and two big drops per trip, respectively (see graph, next page).

Given those results, we were a little surprised to find that the USPS flipped over its Express Mail packages an awful lot, averaging 12.5 position changes per trip. Meanwhile, FedEx averaged seven position changes, and UPS had an average of four.

All three carriers did a good job at maintaining a stable temperature, but FedEx nabbed the top rating, with an average change of only 26.01 degrees, compared with 26.8 degrees for UPS and almost 32 degrees for the USPS. But the maximum temperatures our package experienced were within 2 degrees, and at no time did a temperature register above 80 degrees or below 47 degrees.

One disheartening result was that our package received more abuse when marked "Fragile" or "This Side Up." The carriers flipped the package more, and it registered above-average acceleration spikes during trips for which we requested careful treatment.

How the Carriers Performed

How does the data stack up? In our modest experiment—12 trips, three carriers, three cities—FedEx delivered the most big bumps, with an average of three acceleration spikes over 6 g's (equivalent to a 2.5-foot drop) per trip. The USPS was the gentlest yet also the most active handler, with an average 12.5 position changes per trip. UPS was tops at keeping our package upright.

Just Asking

When we were done, I called the carriers for comment. All described the shock-absorbing technologies used in their sorting facilities, and one spokesperson felt compelled to say that the shipping industry is an "industrial" environment. I was surprised to learn that, although the USPS uses its own sorting and delivery systems, Express Mail flies via FedEx. So our package experienced both the most and the least abuse while on the same airline. This raised an unanswerable question: Does the USPS have white-glove handling that offsets FedEx's turbulent planes, or did our package just happen to catch a few smooth rides?

One bright finding of our test was the reliability of the service. In fact, several of our three-day deliveries arrived early. Quick delivery is what you expect—and pay for—but is gentle treatment as well too much to ask for? Kuhlman said it best in an e-mail to me: "Shipping overnight is expensive. For the price you pay, I feel like they should be rushing the package on a silver platter in a little butler's tuxedo." Thanks to the test, I have an answer for Kuhlman: Dream on.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...-your-packages





The Men Who Stole the World
Lev Grossman

A decade ago, four young men changed the way the world works. They did this not with laws or guns or money but with software: they had radical, disruptive ideas, which they turned into code, which they released on the Internet for free. These four men, not one of whom finished college, laid the foundations for much of the digital-media environment we currently inhabit. Then, for all intents and purposes, they vanished.

In 1999 a Northeastern University freshman named Shawn Fanning wrote Napster, thereby pioneering peer-to-peer file sharing and a new paradigm for consuming media without the intermediary of a big studio or retailer. TIME put him on its cover, as did FORTUNE. He was 19 years old.

That same year, a Norwegian teenager named Jon Lech Johansen, working with two other programmers whose identities are still unknown, wrote a program that could decrypt commercial DVDs, and he became internationally infamous as "DVD Jon." He was 15.

In 1997, Justin Frankel, an 18-year-old hacker in Sedona, Ariz., wrote a free MP3 player called WinAmp, which became a fixture on Windows machines and helped mainstream the digital-music revolution. During its first 18 months in release, 15 million people downloaded it. Three years later, Frankel wrote Gnutella, a peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol so decentralized that, unlike Napster, it could not be shut down. Millions of people still use it.

In 2001, Bram Cohen, then 26, wrote a peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol called BitTorrent that featured an elegant new architecture optimized for handling large files. BitTorrent has become the standard for distributing big chunks of data over the Internet.

In the first half of the 2000s, TIME interviewed each of these programmers. At the time, it looked as if they were poised to dismantle the entire media-entertainment complex and bring about a digital apocalypse that would make it impossible to charge money for movies, music or TV ever again. Artists would no longer get paid for their work, and the huge entertainment conglomerates, Time Warner among them, would be bombed flat. The pirates were coming for corporate America.

"After all," we wrote in 2003, "you can't have an information economy in which all information is free." And if the apocalypse was coming, Fanning, Johansen, Frankel and Cohen were the four horsemen.

Apocalypse Not

So that didn't happen. Change has come to the entertainment industry, but it's been a lot more complicated and gradual than we expected. And the story of what did happen, and what the pirate kings have done since then, is highly instructive if you want to understand what's going on in the digital world right now. Fanning, Johansen, Frankel and Cohen are all running small, legal Silicon Valley software firms. They've gotten out of the pirate business — if they were ever really in it at all.

Fanning, the only one of the four who didn't respond to requests for an interview, quit the media-apocalypse business early. In 2001, Napster shut down under the weight of lawsuits that claimed it was aiding and abetting copyright infringement. And in 2002, Fanning founded a new service, Snocap — his attempt to take file sharing legit. With the cooperation of the record companies, Snocap was going to give consumers the power to compensate the artists whose work they downloaded.

But by then, free file-sharing programs were growing virally, and consumers were high on the rush of swapping music hard drive to hard drive for nothing. They traded more than 3 billion files in August 2001 alone. Attaching dollars to those transactions proved to be impossible. It's hard to compete with free. Fanning had created a monster even he couldn't beat. (See a video about the new music biz.)

So he stopped trying. Fanning's next project was a social network for gamers called Rupture, which he sold to Electronic Arts in 2008 for something on the order of $15 million — his first serious payday. His current start-up, Path, which launched in November, is an iPhone-based photo-sharing service.

And Napster? It still exists. The brand was sold at a bankruptcy auction and then sold again, but it has never been restored to anything approaching relevance. It's currently operated by Best Buy as an also-also-ran competitor to iTunes under the slogan "More than just a music store."

The Pirate Who Wasn't

As the author of Gnutella, Justin Frankel was Fanning's rightful successor. Unlike Fanning, he got his payday early in the game. In 1999, after WinAmp hit it big, AOL bought both it and Frankel's company, Nullsoft, for something in the neighborhood of $100 million. That made Frankel a very rich 20-year-old. It also made him an AOL employee.

It wasn't a great match. With Nullsoft, Frankel's modus operandi had been to write the best software he could, then give it away for nothing. At AOL the business of selling software threatened to overwhelm the software itself. "The products that I worked on, it was very much like, We want to make this money out of this. We're doing this deal with these other companies, and so the product is going to do this as a result," he remembers. "No one cared about how users actually experienced it."

Meanwhile, Frankel was writing Gnutella in his spare time. It was a brilliant hack: unlike Napster, it was genuinely distributed, with no central server and therefore no off button for the lawyers to push. He posted it online in March 2000 with a note: "See? AOL can bring you good things!" But reinventing Napster did not endear Frankel to AOL, a huge Internet company that was trying to merge with a major media company, Time Warner, that was in the middle of suing Napster. He left AOL in 2004.

Then he did something funny: instead of glorying in the success of his creations, he walked away. He doesn't use Gnutella, and he never made a dime off it, even though 10 years later, LimeWire — the most popular Gnutella client — still claims 50 million users. "When I wrote it, it was primarily as a sort of, This is proof of what is possible. Let's not all go profit from it," he says. "So it made sense to not even have anything to do with it. It was more of a concept."

Frankel, who recently moved from San Francisco to New York City, now works full time at his company, Cockos (don't ask), which is focused on an audio-production suite called Reaper. He constantly improves it, and he stays in close touch with his customers, who number in the tens of thousands rather than the millions. "There's no goal of growing a certain amount or having an exit strategy," he says. "It's just about enjoying the process and doing the right thing." He would certainly never describe himself as the world's most dangerous geek, as Rolling Stone did in 2004. "I don't see piracy as really being that dangerous," he says. "Ultimately, people who have business models that depend on strong controls for everything — those are flawed models. And I say that as a software developer, where there's a certain level of piracy." Gnutella is ancient history to him. "Digital piracy: Has it destroyed the music industry? No. Has the music industry had to adapt? Sure, and many would say for the better. You have people focusing more on quality, smaller bands, things like that."

"As far as the big business of hits and pop music, did that suffer?" he continues. He shrugs and laughs. "I hope so."

Four-Eyed Monsters

Of the four horsemen, Bram Cohen is the only one who still works on the same project he started 10 years ago. He is the co-founder and chief scientist of BitTorrent, a respectable San Francisco firm that pursues commercial applications for Cohen's stunningly effective content-distribution technology.

It's a curious company: a legitimate business built on a technology that is still used to violate copyright on a grand scale. Even though BitTorrent has an installed base of something like 80 million users, it functions a lot like a start-up. A relatively small slice of what goes on on BitTorrent is legal — one recent study put it at 11%. A relatively small slice of that small slice generates income for BitTorrent.

Just as Fanning did with Snocap, Cohen tried to move his creation out of the realm of mass piracy and into the legit world of trading bits for money. In 2007, in what was at the time a shocking development, BitTorrent partnered with 20th Century Fox, Paramount, Warner Bros. and MGM, among others, to form the Torrent Entertainment Network, offering movies, TV shows and video games for purchase and rental.

Like Fanning, Cohen learned that getting out of the piracy business is harder than it looks. "Everything about it was a disaster," he says. The Torrent Entertainment Network shut down at the end of 2008. In retrospect, you can see why it didn't work. BitTorrent isn't user-friendly enough for a mass audience, and on a deeper level it's just too efficient. It moves huge amounts of data quickly and virally. When you want to attach dollars to data, you have to slow the bit stream down, track it and control it using inelegant technologies like digital-rights management (DRM), which restricts what users can do with what they buy.

"I learned a lot of lessons from that failure," Cohen says ruefully. His strategy now is to work with people who want what he has to offer: rapid, viral digital distribution. "Instead of going to major content holders and paying them up front for the privilege of trying to leverage our channel, we're just taking the very large channel we have and going to people who are interested in doing things in a much more open manner."

So far, the interested parties include the makers of an indie film called Four Eyed Monsters and the creators of an independent TV show called Pioneer One, which to date consists of one episode, though there are a couple more on the way. It's frustrating: Cohen is sitting on a fire hose, the kind of runaway technological success story that coders dream of, and the big players don't want to play.

Why does he bother? As a coding legend, Cohen could easily find employment at a big corporation. But that's not his style. "I need a certain amount of freedom," he says. He's now working on something wholly new: a peer-to-peer system designed for streaming real-time data instead of discrete files. It's a project that could have enormous potential as a way to distribute live media, like news or sports, over the Net. He still maintains BitTorrent, but it doesn't take up that much of his time. "I kind of got it right when I first made it," he says.

The Easy Way Out

So what ever happened to the pirate apocalypse of yesteryear? In the U.S., piracy hasn't turned out to be quite as bad for content producers as everybody thought. A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office released last April labored mightily to establish a strong link between piracy and lost sales, but the results were inconclusive.

What's striking about the pirate kings is that they've been much less successful in the straight world than they were as pirates. An anarchic worldview coupled with brilliant code doesn't travel as well as you'd think in the bean-counting world of legitimate commerce. Good code empowers users by giving them choices and options, but empowered users aren't necessarily good for business. What you need to hit it really big in legitimate commerce is an authoritarian sensibility that limits users to doing what you want them to.

Which brings us to another important reason the media apocalypse never happened: Steve Jobs. On April 28, 2003, the very day TIME published a grand excursus on the explosive growth of file sharing, Apple unveiled the iTunes Music Store. At the time, it was difficult to see why iTunes would succeed where Snocap, among many others, had failed. Because, again, how do you compete with free?

But iTunes did succeed. Apple's relentless emphasis on simple, attractive user interfaces, backed by Jobs' steely negotiating power in dealing with music studios, produced a streamlined, curated service with which you could download and transfer music with a minimum of fuss. And we did — even though it cost us money and our purchases were bogged down with DRM that constrained what we could do with them.

It turns out that there is something that can compete with free: easy. Napster, Gnutella and BitTorrent never attained the user-friendliness that Apple products have, and nobody vets the content on file-sharing networks, so while the number of files on offer is enormous, the files are rotten with ads, porn, spyware and other garbage. When Jobs offered us the easy way out, we took it. Freedom is overrated, apparently — at least where digital media are concerned.

It's a lesson that the youngest of the pirate kings has studied very carefully. Like Fanning, Frankel and Cohen, Jon Lech Johansen was never really a pirate at all. He didn't help crack the encryption on DVDs because he wanted to crush Hollywood. He did it because he wanted to watch movies on his computer. His computer ran the Linux operating system, and in 1999 there was no DVD-playing program for Linux. So he and his partners decided to make one, and to do that, they had to figure out how to decrypt DVDs.

When the Motion Picture Association of America found out, it complained about Johansen to the Norwegian government, which duly arrested him. He stood trial in Oslo not once but twice on hacking charges. He was acquitted both times. It turns out it's not against the law to decrypt a DVD that you bought and paid for.

But Johansen was genuinely interested in preserving what he sees as the right of consumers to do whatever they want with the digital media they buy, the same way we do with, for example, a physical book — use it repeatedly or lend it out as we choose. In 2005, Johansen moved to California, where he reverse engineered FairPlay, the DRM software Apple was using to protect its media files. By then he'd noticed how attractive the Apple user experience was, and he thought it should be possible to bring that to the wider, more chaotic world of non-Apple products. "We saw there were a lot of devices out there, and none of them worked as well as they should," says Johansen, who at the ripe age of 26 is as good a pitchman as he is a coder. "So we set out to build a system that will allow these devices to interoperate and provide consumers with a great media experience."

By "we," Johansen means his company, doubleTwist, which he co-founded in 2007. The doubleTwist software, which is free, is a kind of Rosetta stone for digital-media files: it can translate, reconcile and organize files from about 500 different devices and bring them together into one elegant interface. In June, doubleTwist introduced an Android app, and some 500,000 people have since downloaded it. Last year, doubleTwist scored a piratical coup by taking out an ad that read: "The Cure for iPhone Envy. Your iTunes library on any device. In seconds." It ran on the side of the building that houses San Francisco's flagship Apple store.

Johansen rejects any attempt to associate him with piracy. "As far as I'm concerned, it has nothing to do with me," he says. "I support fair use, which means that when you actually legally acquire content, you should have the right to use that content on any of your devices, using any application." For Johansen as for all of the pirate kings, it was always about writing good code, and what good code does is give power to the people who use it. That's the real reason the pirate apocalypse never happened. The pirates never wanted music and movies and all the rest of it to be free — at least, not in the financial sense. They wanted it to be free as in freedom.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...032903,00.html





Eco-Driving? The Europeans Have Some Lessons to Learn
Jim Motavalli

In a recent study on the habits of European drivers, Fiat found that German drivers tend to accelerate too hard but maintain a steady speed, that British drivers have mastered manual transmissions and that Italians have a difficult time slowing down.
Fiat eco:Drive.

Hardly groundbreaking news, but the study of 5,700 drivers spanning 150 days highlights the type of information that can be obtained from Fiat’s eco:Drive software, which provides drivers with data meant to improve their driving habits.

First offered on 2009 Fiat models in Europe, eco:Drive is free from the Fiat site and can be imported to the car via a built-in U.S.B. input, said Candido Peterlini, a vice president of product innovation at the Fiat Group. Mr. Peterlini said eco:Drive had been downloaded 140,000 times.

He said the eco:Drive system records driver behavior related to acceleration and deceleration, braking, speed and gear changes. It measures that performance against eco-driving ideals, which include early gear changes, maintaining a steady speed, smooth acceleration and efficient deceleration.

Apparently, European drivers fail to reach the ideal, which Fiat said if fully realized across the European Union would save the equivalent of five times the annual production of the world’s biggest oil rig. Top eco-drivers recorded 16 percent fuel savings in the survey, but average savings using the tips was 6 percent.

American drivers will soon have the chance to be rated on eco-driving techniques because the software-based system will be available on the United States version of the Fiat 500, which will roll out in January, said Ariel Gavilan, a Fiat spokesman for North America.

British and German drivers got a “higher index,” Mr. Peterlini said, with the French, Italians and Spanish trailing. “Indeed, there is a difference in northern and southern Europe,” he said.

The Germans won the honors for best traffic system, which Mr. Peterlini defined as including such innovations as timed green lights to allow smooth flow and wide roads to deter tie-ups. In the survey, German drivers recorded an average speed of 21 miles per hour (with six minutes average stop time per day), compared to 19 miles per hour for Spain (with 10 minutes of stop time). According to Fiat, if London drivers could improve their average of 12 miles per hour to 15 miles per hour, it would save 11 percent in carbon dioxide emissions.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010...ssons-to-learn





Flickr Hack Makes 3D Model of Any City in a Day
Curt Hopkins

Scholars at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have developed a method for creating 3D models of pretty much anything in pretty much no time.

Using a sexy algorithm and the millions of photographs available from Flickr, the team can create a sophisticated three-dimensional model on a single personal computer in under a day.

The process was created by a team made of specialists from UNC and colleagues at Swiss university, ETH-Zurich, led by Jan-Michael Frahm. Their proof-of-concept was Rome, which was constructed out of 3 million images in under a day using over-the-counter graphics software, according to UNC.

"Our technique would be the equivalent of processing a stack of photos as high as the 828-meter Dubai Towers, using a single PC, versus the next best technique, which is the equivalent of processing a stack of photos 42 meters tall - as high as the ceiling of Notre Dame - using 62 PCs. This efficiency is essential if one is to fully utilize the billions of user-provided images continuously being uploaded to the Internet."

They follow-up Rome with the same process on Berlin.

The implications are interesting. Such a process could be, Frahm said, folded into consumer tools like Google Earth and Bing Maps. It could also help both disaster responders, who need a full picture of where they're headed, and tourists, who want to find out all they can about a location with a click.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...ouble-time.php





3D Porn Channel Launches in France
Raven Lovecraft

If you were waiting for a reason to get a 3D TV, here it is. If you live in France, that is. Prolific French pornographer Marc Dorcel has launched the world's first video-on-demand channel featuring adult films shot in the new stereoscopic 3D format.

Already, there are more than 60 adult video specially created for this channel. And, Dorcel plans to continuously update with a new video every week. The service is available now on the French cable channel "Free."

When it comes to regular 3D movies, filmmakers always toss in a scene in which they poke something toward the screen to emphasize the 3D effect. So, use your imagination as to how porn in 3D would be different than what you're used to.

"At a time when audiences are more and more in demand and want to be able to watch what they want, where they want, we are proud to launch this VOD service dedicated to 3D, with already more than 60 programs in which realism is really… impressive," said director at Marc Dorcel productions Gregory Dorcel.

As of yet, we don't know of any stereoscopic 3D porn available in the US. But stay tuned. You know it's coming.
http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-ent...ches-in-france





Playboy Magazine Releases Every Issue from 1953 to 2010 on a Hard Drive

Playboy Magazine is on magazine racks, on the Web, on iPad, and now it's also on a hard drive.

The iconic publication, which has struggled a bit as the world goes increasingly digital, is offering every issue of Playboy, from 1953 to 2010, on a 250-GB drive described as small enough to fit "inside a briefcase or jacket pocket."

"Why would you let more than 650 of your favorite Playmates celebrate the holidays in a damp garage, stashed under your bed or crowded together in the basement, when you can bring them all together beneath the mistletoe this year?" Playboy said in a statement.

The USB hard drive sells for about $300 and has more than 650 issues loaded on the device. The hard drive also has 200 GB worth of free space for those looking to save other files alongside the digital archive.

The drive is being released by Playboy and Bondi Digital Publishing, a company that makes the archives of print magazines available in digital formats.

Playboy isn't the first magazine to release its archive on a portable hard drive. Bondi, which was founded in 2004, has released digital archives of the New Yorker and Rolling Stone magazines.

And last year, a National Geographic hard drive was released with 120 years (from 1888 through 2008) worth of issues for about $200 -- $100 less than Playboy's asking price for 56 years worth of issues.

The move falls in line with products released as Playboy has seen a decline in sales of its monthly print magazine.

Since 2007, licensing of mostly retro-minded items has been Playboy's largest profit generator, company spokeswoman Martha Lindeman said in a recent L.A. Times story.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...ard-drive.html





News Corp Weighs MySpace Options
Yinka Adegoke and Jennifer Saba

News Corp is open to a sale of beleaguered MySpace after a relaunch of the social network as an entertainment site, Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey told Reuters.

A successful revamp of MySpace -- still visited by around 60 million people in October, according to comScore -- could possibly pave the way for a sale.

A sale or partnership are two of a number of options the company would consider for the once valuable social network site, which has suffered in the face of competition from new hot sites like Facebook, which is visited by about 151 million people monthly, and Twitter.

"There are opportunities here to do 20 things (with MySpace) but that doesn't mean you're going to do any of the 20. If there's something there that makes sense you ought to think about it," said Carey.

MySpace has been the subject of recent speculation that News Corp is seeking to sell the site or partner with other digital media companies such as Yahoo and AOL Inc.

Carey said that a potential merger "would have been largely a pretty tough sale process" before the revamp.

"I think those options would have been pretty limited and I think probably would have undervalued it against what we think it can be," Carey said on Monday during Reuters Global Media Summit.

But he refused to specify how long News Corp was willing to give MySpace to regain some of its former luster after previously stating he expects MySpace to become profitable within quarters rather than years.

"I'm not going to break down (the number of) quarters," he said. "It's not years ... We need to deal with this with urgency."

MySpace relaunched earlier this month as a social entertainment site rather than a direct social networking rival to market leader Facebook. It has even announced a new partnership with its one-time rival to allow users to merge their entertainment interests from MySpace on to Facebook.

"We have really overhauled the product and made it a very different experience and I think they did a very good job," Carey said.

News Corp acquired MySpace in 2005 for $580 million after Mews Corp Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch famously swooped in to beat rivals like Viacom in the bidding. And initially the deal paid for itself after Google Inc inked a three-year $900 million search advertising deal in 2006. But since then, the website became increasingly irrelevant as a social network for many users as they migrated to Facebook.

There have also been several management team overhauls in the last couple of years since the original founding CEO, Chris De Wolfe, stepped down in April 2009.

Most analysts on Wall Street do not figure the loss-making MySpace into their key valuation metrics.

"It's not been integrated much with anything at News Corp, that's why it's a free asset to divest easily," said Miller Tabak analyst David Joyce. "It's irrelevant as a valuation metric."

(Reporting by Yinka Adegoke and Jennifer Saba; Editing by Derek Caney, Phil Berlowitz)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS3R920101130





A Facebook Founder Begins a Social Network Focused on Charities
Jenna Wortham

Chris Hughes, one of the founders of Facebook and the chief digital organizer for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, knows a thing or two about building online communities.

Now he is applying his expertise to a new venture called Jumo, which aims to connect people with nonprofits and charitable organizations.

The site, which is being unveiled on Tuesday, aims to “do what Yelp did for restaurants,” Mr. Hughes said, indexing charities “to help people find and evaluate them.”

Individual charities, projects like building a school in rural Africa and broad issues like gay rights will all have dedicated pages on Jumo.

Relevant news articles, Twitter posts and YouTube videos will be added to the pages, and users can add their own feedback and comments. Users can also find their Facebook friends and follow their adopted projects and issues on the site.

The idea is to take the principles that helped Mr. Hughes organize a network of volunteers into a successful political force and apply them to a much broader universe of causes and issues.

Mr. Hughes is not the first entrepreneur to venture into this territory. Causes, a Facebook application, and the Web site Global Giving are among the many existing ways to find and support charities online.

But Mr. Hughes said Jumo would not be primarily about soliciting donations. Instead, he said, the site would first try to deepen ties between its users and their favorite causes.

“The more connected that individual is to an issue they care about, the higher probability there is they will stay involved over a longer period of time,” Mr. Hughes said.

To start, the Jumo site was seeded with more than 3,000 issues and groups. But “anyone with a social mission can create a page,” said Mr. Hughes, who thinks Jumo could become a simple way for smaller charities to establish a social media presence.

Jumo will allow only organizations that have been certified as tax exempt to solicit donations, as a way to discourage fraud.

Jumo is itself a nonprofit, and will rely on payments from users and sponsorships from organizations that want better promotion on the Web site.

One challenge for Jumo will be figuring out how willing are Internet users to share details about their donations, which they can choose to display on their Jumo profile pages, said Susan Etlinger, an analyst at the Altimeter Group, a consulting firm. “The same dynamics of other social networks may not transfer to this activity,” she said.

But Chris Bishko, director of investments at Omidyar Network, a philanthropic investment firm that contributed to the $3.5 million in grants that Jumo raised before its release, said that it was not such a long shot.

“One thing we’ve learned with Internet companies is that if you can lower the barrier and lower friction, then activity follows where it didn’t exist before,” he said. As an example, he pointed to the flood of donations via text message that followed the earthquake in Haiti last January: “We saw what people were willing to do.”

Another issue for Jumo is social network burnout. Will people who are spending time on Facebook and elsewhere be willing to add another site to their lineup?

Mr. Hughes said Jumo was not intended to compete with Facebook.

Instead, he predicts that Facebook will become a ubiquitous backbone for the social Web, and that people will also use niche sites focused on specific interests and communities. Jumo will send out e-mails and updates tailored to its users to help them stay engaged, he said.

It is not yet clear how much the Internet and social media can help push people to move beyond just “following” and “liking” things, but a social network like Jumo could be a crucial first step, said Steve MacLaughlin, director of Internet solutions at BlackBaud, a global provider of technology and services to nonprofits.

“It’s still not clear whether or not followers translate to volunteers and donors,” said Mr. MacLaughlin. “But people that are more engaged with nonprofits are most likely to become a donor or support them in another way.”

The financial impact could be tremendous, he said. Of the $300 billion that was donated to charities and nonprofits in 2009, only 6 percent was submitted online.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/te...gy/30jumo.html





Facebook's 'Like This' Button is Tracking You

Whether you click it or not
Stewart Meagher

A researcher from a Dutch university is warning that Facebook's 'Like This' button is watching your every move.

Arnold Roosendaal, who is a doctoral candidate at the Tilburg University for Law, Technology and Society, warns that Facebook is tracking and tracing everyone, whether they use the social networking site or not.

Roosendaal says that Facebook's tentacles reach way beyond the confines of its own web sites and subscriber base because more and more third party sites are using the 'Like This' button and Facebook Connect.

The researcher provides three examples of how the 'Like This' button on any web page can gather user browser data and send it back to Facebook.

The first scenario involves users who already have Facebook accounts:

"When the account is created, Facebook issues a cookie containing a unique user ID," writes Roosendaal. "This cookie facilitates the display of a username in the login field at returning visits. When accessing Facebook from another device, a temporary cookie is issued, which is replaced by a cookie with the same ID after logging into the account."

This allows different devices to be connected to one account carrying the same ID cookie. Every time the user visits Facebook, the cookie is sent together with the HTTP request for the site. As a result, Facebook knows who wants to log in before the login has taken place.

But the cookie is not only sent when a member wants to log on to Facebook, it is also sent every single time a web site which includes the 'Like' button is visited.

"Facebook receives the information concerning the user, including his unique ID, via the cookie. When the user actually clicks the button, he has to provide his Facebook login details and a message about the 'Like' is posted on his profile page," writes Roosendaal.

But data about the user is sent to Facebook regardless of whether the Like button is actually activated.

Which is all quite scary - but not too surprising, given Facebook's reputation for snooping on its registered users.

What becomes really scary is realising how Facebook can track your movements even if you haven't signed up to its fake-friend collection service for lonely teens and sad divorcees.

Even if you don't have a Facebook account, you are far from immune from prying eyes, as Roosendaal explains:

"When a user does not have a Facebook account, there is no cookie and no user ID available. In this case, an HTTP GET request for the 'Like' button doesn't issue a cookie.

"However, when a site is visited which includes Facebook Connect, this application issues a cookie. From that moment on, visits to other websites which display the 'Like' button result in a request for the Like button from the Facebook server including the cookie."

Which means Facebook has swiped another batch of valuable data without asking for permission.

When you consider that 40 million unique visitors ended up on a site using Facebook Connect in a single month in March 2009, and that these particular cookies have a two-year expiry date, that ads up to a lot of user data flying around looking for a home.
"Based on the cookie, the entire web behaviour of an individual user can be followed," says Roosendaal. "Every site that includes some kind of Facebook content will initiate an interaction with the Facebook servers, disclosing information about the visited web site together with the cookie."

So you find yourself dragging all of this invisible data round with you like a piece of toilet paper stuck to your shoe, even though you have never even been to Facebook, let alone signed up.

So what happens if you do eventually take the plunge and join the other half a billion lost souls with nothing better to do than describe the minutiae of their tedious lives to virtual strangers?

On signing up, the 'toilet paper' cookie, as we have now decided to name it, is sent to Facebook as part of the the request for the web page to be loaded. The server responds and issues some new session cookies and when the account is actually created, a unique ID number is issued and sent in another cookie.

"The connection between this ID cookie and the old cookie is made behind the scenes by Facebook's servers," explains Roosendaal. "This means that the entire historical information of the user can be connected to the newly-created Facebook account. From this moment on, all subsequent requests for Facebook content go accompanied with the cookie including the unique user ID."

We'll assume that, as you're reading this rather than laughing a Lolcat, that you know a thing or two about cookies. They are helpful to users and of immense value to marketeers, allowing them to bombard you with targeted advertising based on your browsing history.

But with an increasing proportion of sites turning to the likes of Facebook in order to increase traffic and revenue - and let's face it, 500 million people is a pretty attractive audience for anyone - isn't it time we started putting our collective foot down about the way in which our every move is monitored?

If every time you walked past a shop on your local High Street someone stuffed an advertising flyer into your pocket without asking your permission, there would soon be a trail of leaflet distributors clutching black eyes and broken noses.

So why do we keep letting Facebook get away with it?

We definitely don't Like This.
http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/11/30/fa...-tracking-you/





History Sniffing: How YouPorn Checks What Other Porn Sites You’ve Visited and Ad Networks Test The Quality of Their Data
Kashmir Hill

YouPorn is one of the most popular sites on the Web, with an Alexa ranking of 61. Those who visit the homemade-porn featuring site — essentially, a YouTube for porn enthusiasts — are subject to scrutiny, though, of the Web tracking variety. When a visitor surfs into the YouPorn homepage, a script running on the website checks to see what other porn sites that person has been to.

How does it work? It’s based on your browser changing the color of links you’ve already clicked on. A script on the site exploits a Web privacy leak to quickly check and see whether your browser reveals that the links to a host of other porn sites have been assigned the color “purple,” meaning you’ve clicked them before. YouPorn did not respond to an inquiry about why it collects this information, and tries to hide the practice by disguising the script with some easy-to-break cryptography.*

The porn site is not alone in its desire to know what other websites visitors have visited. A group of researchers from the University of California – San Diego trolled through the Web’s most popular sites to see which ones were collecting this information about visitors. They found it on 46 other news, finance, sports, and games sites, reporting their findings in a paper with the intimidating title, “An Empirical Study of Privacy-Violating Information Flows in JavaScript Web Applications.”

(The fascinating paper also has lists of sites that track their visitors’ clicking and mouse activity, including PerezHilton, Technorati, TheSun.co.uk, and Wired. CNet previously reported on how Wired uses a service called Tynt to track its visitors’ behavior.)

The popular finance website Morningstar was one of those that made the list of sites that run the script to check to see where else their visitors have been; its site checked to see if someone has been to Cars.com, Edmunds, and 46 others. I did some digging to find out why they were running the script and what was being done with the data…

List of websites that sniff history, with their Alexa ranks (source: An Empirical Study of Privacy-Violating Information Flows in JavaScript Web Applications)

Some of the sites identified by the researchers, such as YouPorn and photo site PixMac, had created the code themselves, but others appeared to be created by third parties, as they were uniform across a number of sites. Morningstar was surprised to discover its site was tracking users in this way. As these things often seem to do these days, the trail led back to an ad network. Interclick.com was one of three ad networks found to be deploying this tracking script on websites. “We were not aware of it and they ran the scripts without notifying us,” said a spokesperson from Morningstar.

So I checked in with Interclick. Interclick explained that it deployed the script on websites around the Web over a limited period, from March to October, to test the quality of data sets it had purchased. “Interclick purchases anonymous audience data from several vendors for the purpose of targeting advertising campaigns. Consequently, it has a number of quality control measures in place to understand the quality and effectiveness of this data. The code observed in the paper was a quality measure being tested,” said Interclick in a statement to me.

I asked Interclick to explain and got some interesting insight into how the data purchasing market works. Interclick buys user targeting data on websites such as BlueKai, Bizo, AlmondNet, Datalogix and Exelate. The data sets supposedly represent a group of particular users, like Sports Enthusiasts or Industrial Equipment Shoppers. But Interclick needs to know that it’s getting what it paid for, so that its ads are more effective, so it has a series of quality control measures. The researchers happened upon one of those quality control tests.

“In order to provide effective targeted campaigns for its clients, interclick has a number of proprietary processes in place to test its data for quality,” said Interclick in a statement to me. “The script identified by the paper’s researchers was an experimental process which attempted to use site visitations to predict the quality of the data segment bought, ‘quality’ meaning the data segment represented an actual interest in the marketing segment it represented.”

I have to assume that Interclick was checking a “Car Enthusiasts” data set with the script it was running on Morningstar and other sites. When visitors with the tag Interclick purchased surfed into Morningstar, it checked their browser to see whether they visited other sites that would indicate they were indeed interested in cars. Interclick said the test didn’t work though, so it stopped running the code in October. A spokesperson declined to tell me other ways the company checks the quality of its data, saying the tests are proprietary.

The researchers who wrote the paper identifying this practice call it “history hijacking” or “history sniffing.” Mozilla, the foundation behind Web browser Firefox, calls it the “CSS: visited history bug.” It’s a bug that’s been discussed in developer circles for over a decade. Some browsers have fixed the bug. If you’re surfing using Chrome or Safari, this script doesn’t work. Firefox has fixed it in its newest version (for a long explanation as to how, see this post on the Mozilla security blog.) Internet Explorer, the most popular browser out there, is vulnerable to the history sniffing (though you can prevent it by going through the slightly onerous step of activating InPrivate Browsing, according to a spokesperson. That feature also blocks ad networks’ cookies, reports Business Insider.)

Beyond the creepy factor, is there anything wrong with sites being able to see where you’ve been and what you like? Lawmakers in D.C. are trying to figure that one out. The FTC has proposed the creation of a Do Not Track option for Web surfers, which would regulate history sniffing as well as ad networks placing cookies on your computer to keep track of you. There’s a House subcommittee hearing on Thursday to discuss the proposal. If it moves forward, there could be financial penalties for companies that do this kind of tracking of people who have opted out.

If they don’t move forward, and this concerns you, start thinking about which browsers offer the best privacy options to you. The WSJ reported yesterday, for example, that Firefox is trying to come up with better ways to help people hide their footprints online.

—-

* The script on YouPorn’s site that checks a user’s history (which you can see for yourself by going to the site and checking out its html with “View Source”) looks like this:

<script type="text/javascript">
function ypol(){var k={0:"qpsoivc/dpn",1:"sfeuvcf/dpn",2:"bevmugsjfoegjoefs/dpn",3:"ywjefpt/dpn",4:"uvcf9/dpn",5:"yoyy/dpn",6:"nfhbqpso/dpn",7:"nfhbspujd/dpn",8:"yibntufs/dpn",9:"bxfnqjsf/dpn",10:"sfbmjuzljoht/dpn",11:"csb{{fst/dpn",12:"yuvcf/dpn",13:"cbohcspt2/dpn",14:"gmjoh/dpn",15:"gsffpoft/dpn",16:"nzgsffqbztjuf/dpn",17:"efcpobjscmph/dpn",18:"qbztfswf/dpn",19:"nbyqpso/dpn",20:"wjefpt{/dpn",21:"bfco/ofu",22:"qpsopsbnb/dpn"};var g=[];for(var m in k){var d=k[m];var a="";for(var f=0;f<d.length;f++){a+=String.fromCharCode(d.charCodeAt(f)-1)}var h=false;for(var j in {"http://":"","http://www.":""}){var l=document.createElement("a");l.href=j+a;document.getElementById("ol").appendChild(l);var e="";if(navigator.appName.indexOf("Microsoft")!=-1){e=l.currentStyle.color}else{e=document.defaultView.getComputedStyle(l,null).getPropertyValue("color")}if(e=="rgb(12, 34, 56)"||e=="rgb(12,34,56)"){h=true}}if(h){g.push(m)}}var b=(g instanceof Array)?g.join(","):"";var c=document.createElement("img");c.src="http://ol.youporn.com/blank.gif?id="+b;document.getElementById("ol").appendChild(c)}ypol();
</script>

That list of gibberish contains the sites that YouPorn is checking to see if you’ve visited, but disguises them with a bit o’ simple cryptography. Dial back each letter by one, so “qpsoivc/dpn”, for example, becomes “pornhub.com.”
http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/...of-their-data/





Microsoft Research Develops Zozzle JavaScript Malware Detection Tool
Dennis Fisher

As browser-based exploits and specifically JavaScript malware have shouldered their way to the top of the list of threats, browser vendors have been scrambling to find effective defenses to protect users. Few have been forthcoming, but Microsoft Research has developed a new tool called Zozzle that can be deployed in the browser and can detect JavaScript-based malware at a very high effectiveness rate.

Zozzle is designed to perform static analysis of JavaScript code on a given site and quickly determine whether the code is malicious and includes an exploit. In order to be effective, the tool must be trained to recognize the elements that are common to malicious JavaScript, and the researchers behind it stress that it works best on de-obfuscated code. In the paper, the researchers say that they trained Zozzle by crawling millions of Web sites and using a similar tool, called Nozzle, to process the URLs and see whether malware was present.

"ZOZZLE makes use of a statistical classifier to efficiently identify malicious JavaScript. The classifier needs training data to accurately classify JavaScript source, and we describe the process we use to get that training data here. We start by augmenting the JavaScript engine in a browser with a “deobfuscator” that extracts and collects individual fragments of JavaScript. As discussed above, exploits are frequently buried under multiple levels of JavaScript eval. Unlike Nozzle, which observes the behavior of running JavaScript code, ZOZZLE must be run on an unobfuscated exploit to reliably detect malicious code," the researchers wrote in a paper written on Zozzle by Benjamin Livshits and Benjamin Zorn of Microsoft Research, Christian Seifert of Microsoft and Charles Curtsinger of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

The researchers say that Zozzle is specifically designed to detect and defend against heap-spraying exploits launched by malicious JavaScript found on Web sites. In many cases these days, that kind of exploit is hosted on a legitimate site that's been compromised and is being used as part of a drive-by download attack. Often, the code is hosted on a specific page for a day or even a few hours and then is taken down, either by the attacker or the site owner. The Microsoft researchers say that this, along with the multiple layers of obfuscation that attackers use to cloak JavaScript exploits, can make it difficult for automated tools to identify such malware with a high degree of accuracy.

The approach that they take with Zozzle is a multi-stage one.

"Once we have labeled JavaScript contexts, we need to extract features from them that are predictive of malicious or benign intent. For ZOZZLE, we create features based on the hierarchical structure of the JavaScript abstract syntax tree (AST). Specifically, a feature consists of two parts: a context in which it appears (such as a loop, conditional, try/catch block, etc.) and the text (or some substring) of the AST node," the paper says. "For a given JavaScript context, we only track whether a feature appears or not, and not the number of occurrences. To efficiently extract features from the AST, we traverse the tree from the root, pushing AST contexts onto a stack as we descend and popping them as we ascend."

The new tool is still in the research phase and it's not clear when or if Microsoft Research might release Zozzle. But the researchers say that Zozzle has an extremely low overhead when deployed in a browser--on the order of 2-5 milliseconds per JavaScript file--and has a false-positive rate of less than one percent.

"Much of the novelty of ZOZZLE comes from its hooking into the JavaScript engine of a browser to get the final, expanded version of JavaScript code to address the issue of deobfuscation. Compared to other classifier-based tools, ZOZZLE uses contextual information available in the program Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) to perform fast, scalable, yet precise malware detection," the researchers write in the paper. "We see tools like ZOZZLE deployed both in the browser to provide “first response” for users affected by JavaScript malware and used for offline dynamic crawling, to contribute to the creation and maintenance of various blacklists."
https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/m...on-tool-120210





Govt Stays ISP Zombie Laws
Darren Pauli

A peak Australian technology body has welcomed the Federal Government's decision to not force internet service providers (ISPs) to disconnect the infected computers of its customers as part of its response to a Senate committee report into online security threats.

The Internet Industry Association (IIA) said moves to force ISPs to take responsibility for infected customer machines, which included disconnecting some users, would backfire.

Instead, it suggested that such responsibility be left to industry self-regulation under the IIA's much lauded iCode.

"It would be like forcing car manufacturers to take responsibility for bad drivers," IIA chief Peter Coroneos said. Some 91 ISPs have signed on to the iCode to help users resolve computer infections and quarantine some if needed.

"Legislation can't be modified as quickly as an industry code, which can be regularly updated ... and is a dynamic response to a dynamic problem," he said.

"We feel confident a regulatory solution won't be necessary based on the support of the iCode."

The moves are part of the Attorney-General's broad acceptance of 34 recommendations listed within a report into how agencies can better respond to online security threats.

The government has pledged to shore-up national coordination against cyber threats, including handing responsibility for building a common language for analysis of cyber threat statistics to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

By accepting the report's recommendations, ACMA is set to receive new powers to help identify infected user computers through bolstered access to online threat information from information security companies like Symantec and McAfee. It would also be charged with considering if legal protections for commercial, regulatory and privacy concerns are "desirable".

But ACMA will not direct ISPs to remove network security threats, as was originally recommended in the report. This will remain the responsibility of industry and the government's Computer Emergency Response Team better known as (CERT) Australia.

Requests for a national law enforcement training facility were accepted in principle by the government. The government referred to efforts by its National Cybercrime Working Group which is considering "how cybercrime capabilities could be improved across all jurisdictions, including technical capabilities and training", and said similarly that it is investigating a central crime reporting facility.

Moves to forge nationally consistent definitions of computer and identity crime offences is being considered by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.

The government accepted response to recommendations that federal, state and territory police forces establish an "e-crime managers group" to improve information-sharing and cross-jurisdiction cooperation, which would fall under the auspices of the Australia and New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency's e-Crime Committee.

Coroneos will head to Paris within a fortnight to pitch the iCode to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation (OECD) and push for its global adoption.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-stays-i...-339307564.htm





Republicans Cool to "Do Not Track" Web Plan
Diane Bartz

Republicans, who will control the House of Representatives in January, greeted the idea of Internet "do not track" legislation coolly on Thursday, expressing concern that hindering advertiser access to consumers web browsing habits would slow innovation.

Their opposition bodes badly for the Federal Trade Commission as it promotes a plan to allow consumers to bar data and advertising companies from monitoring what websites they view and what content they download.

Representative Ed Whitfield, the ranking Republican on the House consumer protection subcommittee, expressed concern that the free services now financed by advertising would be hurt, and that consumers would lose access to ads they want to see.

"We need to be mindful not to enact legislation that would hurt a recovering economy," he said at a hearing to discuss the plan.

Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, worried that "do not track" could stifle innovation. "We must first look to self-regulation," he told lawmakers.

David Vladeck, director of the FTC's Consumer Protection Bureau, argued that there was strong public support for allowing people to block tracking and that the idea was technically feasible.

If Congress authorized the FTC to rule in this area, Vladeck also asked that the FTC be allowed to slap violators with civil penalties.

Daniel Weitzner, who works on privacy issues with the Commerce Department, said that he disagreed with the notion that giving Internet users control over who collected their data was the death knell for online advertising.

"Internet users have been given more and more control ... and advertiser revenue has not gone down. It's a mistake to assume that giving people more control means a reduction in advertising revenue," he said at the hearing.

Separately, Massachusetts Democrat Senator John Kerry said on Wednesday that he planned to introduce privacy legislation, and that he believed that consumers should be allowed to opt out of having their data collected.

Democrats will retain control of the Senate next year, but with a reduced majority.

Representative Ed Markey, a Democrat who promoted a 1998 bill requiring parental consent before websites can collect data on children, said on Thursday that would he would introduce a bill next year that would include a do-not-track mechanism for children.

The FTC has urged that special care be taken with information about sensitive topics such as finances, health, children or an individual's location.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B16DT20101202





Former WikiLeaks Activists to Launch New Whistleblowing Site
DPA

A group of former members of WikiLeaks is planning to launch its own whistleblowing platform in mid-December, according to a German newspaper. The activists criticize WikiLeaks for concentrating too much on the US and want to take a broader approach.

Julian Assange is the public face of the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks, and Sunday's publication of the leaked US diplomatic cables will have raised his profile even higher. In fact, the former hacker is now a leading candidate for Time magazine's "2010 Person of the Year."

But former members of the organization have criticized his supposedly autocratic leadership style. "I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, piss off," Assange famously wrote to one internal critic.

Now a group of former WikiLeaks activists are planning to launch a whistleblowing platform of their own in mid-December, according to a report in the Wednesday edition of the German newspaper Die Tageszeitung. The group stresses that the as-yet-unnamed platform should not be seen as a competitor to WikiLeaks but as a different approach, the newspaper wrote.

"As many people as possible should have access to as many documents as possible," the former Germany spokesman for WikiLeaks, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, told the newspaper.

Domscheit-Berg criticized WikiLeaks for concentrating on publishing material about the US while other information was neglected. "There was a lack of transparency about how decisions had been reached," he told the newspaper. "That's why I trust this organization as little as I would trust another organization with similar problems."

Domscheit-Berg has written a tell-all book about his experiences with WikiLeaks, titled "Inside WikiLeaks," which will be published in German by the Berlin-based publisher Econ Verlag in January 2011. A spokeswoman for the publisher told SPIEGEL ONLINE that there were no immediate plans to publish an English version, but that it was "entirely possible" that the book might be translated.

'We Wish Them Luck'

Back in September, Domscheit-Berg, at the time the second-best known member of WikiLeaks, announced in a SPIEGEL interview that he was leaving the organization out of dissatisfaction with how Assange was running the project. "Unfortunately we've reached a dead end," he said. "Julian Assange reacted to any criticism with the allegation that I was disobedient to him and disloyal to the project."

For its part, WikiLeaks has said it would welcome rivals. "There is some indication that Daniel and some others are setting up a similar venue, and we wish them luck," said Kristinn Hrafnsson, a WikiLeaks spokesman, in an interview quoted by the Wall Street Journal in early November. "It would be good to have more organizations like WikiLeaks."

Meanwhile pressure is increasing on Julian Assange in relation to an alleged sex offence. Interpol announced early on Wednesday that it had issued a "Red Notice" asking people to contact the authorities if they had information on his location, which is currently unknown. Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden over the alleged crime, which he denies. Interpol stressed that the "Red Notice" is not an international arrest warrant.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...732212,00.html





US Lawyers Study Whether Espionage Act Can be Used Against WikiLeaks Document Releases
Pauline Jelinek

A senior defense official says lawyers from across government agencies are studying whether it might be possible to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange under the Espionage Act.

The official says lawyers from the departments of Justice, State and Defense are among those looking into how to handle the leaking of a massive number of national security and diplomatic documents to the WikiLeaks website and the site's action in then posting them on the Internet.

The defense official spoke on condition of anonymity Tuesday to be able to discuss internal deliberations. He said lawyers are trying to determine whether the Espionage Act applies in this case, what individuals it might apply to and whether it's possible to use it against the WikiLeaks organization.
http://www.courant.com/news/politics...,1003038.story





An Interview With WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange
Andy Greenberg

Admire him or revile him, WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange is the prophet of a coming age of involuntary transparency, the leader of an organization devoted to divulging the world’s secrets using technology unimagined a generation ago. Over the last year his information insurgency has dumped 76,000 secret Afghan war documents and another trove of 392,000 files from the Iraq war into the public domain–the largest classified military security breaches in history. Sunday, WikiLeaks made the first of 250,000 classified U.S. State Department cables public, offering an unprecedented view of how America’s top diplomats view enemies and friends alike.

But, as Assange explained to me earlier this month, the Pentagon and State Department leaks are just the start.

In a rare, two-hour interview conducted in London on November 11, Assange said that he’s still sitting on a trove of secret documents, about half of which relate to the private sector. And WikiLeaks’ next target will be a major American bank. “It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume,” he said, adding: “For this, there’s only one similar example. It’s like the Enron emails.”

Here is an edited transcript of that discussion:

Forbes: To start, is it true you’re sitting on trove of unpublished documents?

Julian Assange: Sure. That’s usually the case. As we’ve gotten more successful, there’s a gap between the speed of our publishing pipeline and the speed of our receiving submissions pipeline. Our pipeline of leaks has been increasing exponentially as our profile rises, and our ability to publish is increasing linearly.

You mean as your personal profile rises?

Yeah, the rising profile of the organization and my rising profile also. And there’s a network effect for anything to do with trust. Once something starts going around and being considered trustworthy in a particular arena, and you meet someone and they say “I heard this is trustworthy,” then all of a sudden it reconfirms your suspicion that the thing is trustworthy.

So that’s why brand is so important, just as it is with anything you have to trust.

And this gap between your publishing resources and your submissions is why the site’s submission function has been down since October?

We have too much.

Before you turned off submissions, how many leaks were you getting a day?

As I said, it was increasing exponentially. When we get lots of press, we can get a spike of hundreds or thousands. The quality is sometimes not as high. If the front page of the Pirate Bay links to us, as they have done on occasion, we can get a lot of submissions, but the quality is not as high.

How much of this trove of documents that you’re sitting on is related to the private sector?

About fifty percent.

You’ve been focused on the U.S. military mostly in the last year. Does that mean you have private sector-focused leaks in the works?

Yes. If you think about it, we have a publishing pipeline that’s increasing linearly, and an exponential number of leaks, so we’re in a position where we have to prioritize our resources so that the biggest impact stuff gets released first.

So do you have very high impact corporate stuff to release then?

Yes, but maybe not as high impact…I mean, it could take down a bank or two.

That sounds like high impact.

But not as big an impact as the history of a whole war. But it depends on how you measure these things.

When will WikiLeaks return to its older model of more frequent leaks of smaller amounts of material?

If you look at the average number of documents we’re releasing, we’re vastly exceeding what we did last year. These are huge datasets. So it’s actually very efficient for us to do that.

If you look at the number of packages, the number of packages has decreased. But if you look at the average number of documents, that’s tremendously increased.

So will you return to the model of higher number of targets and sources?

Yes. Though I do actually think…[pauses] These big package releases. There should be a cute name for them.

Megaleaks?

Megaleaks. That’s good. These megaleaks…They’re an important phenomenon, and they’re only going to increase. When there’s a tremendous dataset, covering a whole period of history or affecting a whole group of people, that’s worth specializing on and doing a unique production for each one, which is what we’ve done.

We’re totally source dependent. We get what we get. As our profile rises in a certain area, we get more in a particular area. People say, why don’t you release more leaks from the Taliban. So I say hey, help us, tell more Taliban dissidents about us.

These megaleaks, as you call them, we haven’t seen any of those from the private sector.

No, not at the same scale as for the military.

Will we?

Yes. We have one related to a bank coming up, that’s a megaleak. It’s not as big a scale as the Iraq material, but it’s either tens or hundreds of thousands of documents depending on how you define it.

Is it a U.S. bank?

Yes, it’s a U.S. bank.

One that still exists?

Yes, a big U.S. bank.

The biggest U.S. bank?

No comment.

When will it happen?

Early next year. I won’t say more.

What do you want to be the result of this release?

[Pauses] I’m not sure.

It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume.

Usually when you get leaks at this level, it’s about one particular case or one particular violation. For this, there’s only one similar example. It’s like the Enron emails. Why were these so valuable? When Enron collapsed, through court processes, thousands and thousands of emails came out that were internal, and it provided a window into how the whole company was managed. It was all the little decisions that supported the flagrant violations.

This will be like that. Yes, there will be some flagrant violations, unethical practices that will be revealed, but it will also be all the supporting decision-making structures and the internal executive ethos that cames out, and that’s tremendously valuable. Like the Iraq War Logs, yes there were mass casualty incidents that were very newsworthy, but the great value is seeing the full spectrum of the war.

You could call it the ecosystem of corruption. But it’s also all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and supports unethical practices: the oversight that’s not done, the priorities of executives, how they think they’re fulfilling their own self-interest. The way they talk about it.

How many dollars were at stake in this?

We’re still investigating. All I can say is it’s clear there were unethical practices, but it’s too early to suggest there’s criminality. We have to be careful about applying criminal labels to people until we’re very sure.

Can you tell me anything about what kind of unethical behavior we’re talking about?

No.

You once said to one of my colleagues that WikiLeaks has material on BP. What have you got?

We’ve got lots now, but we haven’t determined how much is original. There’s been a lot of press on the BP issue, and lawyers, and people are pulling out a lot of stuff. So I suspect the material we have on BP may not be that original. We’ll have to see whether our stuff is especially unique.

The Russian press has reported that you plan to target Russian companies and politicians. I’ve heard from other WikiLeaks sources that this was blown out of proportion.

It was blown out of proportion when the FSB reportedly said not to worry, that they could take us down. But yes, we have material on many business and governments, including in Russia. It’s not right to say there’s going to be a particular focus on Russia.

Let’s just walk through other industries. What about pharmaceutical companies?

Yes. To be clear, we have so much unprocessed stuff, I’m not even sure about all of it. These are just things I’ve briefly looked at or that one of our people have told me about.

How much stuff do you have? How many gigs or terabytes?

I’m not sure. I haven’t had time to calculate.

Continuing then: The tech industry?

We have some material on spying by a major government on the tech industry. Industrial espionage.

U.S.? China?

The U.S. is one of the victims.

What about the energy industry?

Yes.

Aside from BP?

Yes.

On environmental issues?


A whole range of issues.


Can you give me some examples?

One example: It began with something we released last year, quite an interesting case that wasn’t really picked up by anyone. There’s a Texas Canadian oil company whose name escapes me. And they had these wells in Albania that had been blowing. Quite serious. We got this report from a consultant engineer into what was happening, saying vans were turning up in the middle of the night doing something to them. They were being sabotaged. The Albanian government was involved with another company; There were two rival producers and one was government-owned and the other was privately owned.

So when we got this report; It didn’t have a header. It didn’t say the name of the firm, or even who the wells belonged to.

So it wasn’t picked up because it was missing key data.

At the time, yeah. So I said, what the hell do we do with this thing? It’s impossible to verify if we don’t even know who it came from. It could have been one company trying to frame the other one. So we did something very unusual, and published it and said “We’ve got this thing, looks like it could have been written by a rival company aiming to defame the other, but we can’t verify it. We want more information.” Whether it’s a fake document or real one, something was going on. Either one company is trying to frame the other, which is interesting, or it’s true, which is also very interesting.

That’s where the matter sat until we got a letter of inquiry from an engineering consulting company asking how to get rid of it. We demanded that they first prove that they were the owner.

It sounds like when Apple confirmed that the lost iPhone 4 was real, by demanding that Gizmodo return it.

Yes, like Apple and the iPhone. They sent us a screen capture with the missing header and other information.

What were they thinking?

I don’t know.

So the full publication is coming up?

Yes.

Do you have more on finance?

We have a lot of finance related things. Of the commercial sectors we’ve covered, finance is the most significant.

Before the banks went bust in Dubai, we put out a number of leaks showing they were unhealthy. They threatened to send us to prison in Dubai, which is a little serious, if we went there.

Just to review, what would you say are the biggest five private sector leaks in WikiLeaks’ history?

It depends on the importance of the material vs. the impact. Kaupthing was one of the most important, because of the chain of effects it set off, the scrutiny in Iceland and the rest of Scandinvia. The Bank Julius Baer case was also important.

The Kaupthing leak was a very good leak. The loanbook described in very frank terms the credit worthiness of all these big companies and billionaires and borrowers, not just internal to the bank, but a broad spectrum all over the world, an assessment of a whole bunch of businesses around the world. It was quite an interesting leak. It didn’t just expose Kaupthing, it exposed many companies.

The bank Julius Baer exposed high net worth individuals hiding assets in the Cayman Islands, and we went on to do a series that exposed bank Julius Baer’s own internal tax structure. It’s interesting that Swiss banks also hide their assets from the Swiss by using offshore bank structuring. We had some quite good stuff in there.

It set off a chain of regulatory investigations, possibly resulting in some changes. It triggered a lot of interesting scrutiny.

Regulation: Is that what you’re after?

I’m not a big fan of regulation: anyone who likes freedom of the press can’t be. But there are some abuses that should be regulated, and this is one.

With regard to these corporate leaks, I should say: There’s an overlap between corporate and government leaks. When we released the Kroll report on three to four billion smuggled out by the former Kenyan president Daniel arap Moi and his cronies, where did the money go? There’s no megacorruption–as they call it in Africa, it’s a bit sensational but you’re talking about billions–without support from Western banks and companies.

That money went into London properties, Swiss banks, property in New York, companies that had been set up to move this money.

We had another interesting one from the pharmaceutical industry: It was quite self-referential. The lobbyists had been getting leaks from the WHO. They were getting their own internal intelligence report affecting investment regulation. We were leaked a copy. It was a meta-leak. That was quite influential, though it was a relatively small leak–it was published in Nature and other pharma journals.

What do you think WikiLeaks mean for business? How do businesses need to adjust to a world where WikiLeaks exists?

WikiLeaks means it’s easier to run a good business and harder to run a bad business, and all CEOs should be encouraged by this. I think about the case in China where milk powder companies started cutting the protein in milk powder with plastics. That happened at a number of separate manufacturers.

Let’s say you want to run a good company. It’s nice to have an ethical workplace. Your employees are much less likely to screw you over if they’re not screwing other people over.

Then one company starts cutting their milk powder with melamine, and becomes more profitable. You can follow suit, or slowly go bankrupt and the one that’s cutting its milk powder will take you over. That’s the worst of all possible outcomes.

The other possibility is that the first one to cut its milk powder is exposed. Then you don’t have to cut your milk powder. There’s a threat of regulation that produces self-regulation.

It just means that it’s easier for honest CEOs to run an honest business, if the dishonest businesses are more effected negatively by leaks than honest businesses. That’s the whole idea. In the struggle between open and honest companies and dishonest and closed companies, we’re creating a tremendous reputational tax on the unethical companies.

No one wants to have their own things leaked. It pains us when we have internal leaks. But across any given industry, it is both good for the whole industry to have those leaks and it’s especially good for the good players.

But aside from the market as a whole, how should companies change their behavior understanding that leaks will increase?

Do things to encourage leaks from dishonest competitors. Be as open and honest as possible. Treat your employees well.

I think it’s extremely positive. You end up with a situation where honest companies producing quality products are more competitive than dishonest companies producing bad products. And companies that treat their employees well do better than those that treat them badly.

Would you call yourself a free market proponent?

Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector. In the U.S. everything is vertically integrated and sewn up, so you don’t have a free market. In Malaysia, you have a broad spectrum of players, and you can see the benefits for all as a result.

How do your leaks fit into that?

To put it simply, in order for there to be a market, there has to be information. A perfect market requires perfect information.

There’s the famous lemon example in the used car market. It’s hard for buyers to tell lemons from good cars, and sellers can’t get a good price, even when they have a good car.

By making it easier to see where the problems are inside of companies, we identify the lemons. That means there’s a better market for good companies. For a market to be free, people have to know who they’re dealing with.

You’ve developed a reputation as anti-establishment and anti-institution.

Not at all. Creating a well-run establishment is a difficult thing to do, and I’ve been in countries where institutions are in a state of collapse, so I understand the difficulty of running a company. Institutions don’t come from nowhere.

It’s not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I’ve learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I’m a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free.

WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical.

But in the meantime, there could be a lot of pain from these scandals, obviously.

Pain for the guilty.

Do you derive pleasure from these scandals that you expose and the companies you shame?

It’s tremendously satisfying work to see reforms being engaged in and stimulating those reforms. To see opportunists and abusers brought to account.

You were a traditional computer hacker. How did you find this new model of getting information out of companies?

It’s a bit annoying, actually. Because I cowrote a book about [being a hacker], there are documentaries about that, people talk about that a lot. They can cut and paste. But that was 20 years ago. It’s very annoying to see modern day articles calling me a computer hacker.

I’m not ashamed of it, I’m quite proud of it. But I understand the reason they suggest I’m a computer hacker now. There’s a very specific reason.

I started one of the first ISPs in Australia, known as Suburbia, in 1993. Since that time, I’ve been a publisher, and at various moments a journalist. There’s a deliberate attempt to redefine what we’re doing not as publishing, which is protected in many countries, or the journalist activities, which is protected in other ways, as something which doesn’t have a protection, like computer hacking, and to therefore split us off from the rest of the press and from these legal protections. It’s done quite deliberately by some of our opponents. It’s also done because of fear, from publishers like The New York Times that they’ll be regulated and investigated if they include our activities in publishing and journalism.

I’m not arguing you’re a hacker now. But if we say that both what you were doing then and now are both about gaining access to information, when did you change your strategy from going in and getting it to simply asking for it?

That hacker mindset was very valuable to me. But the insiders know where the bodies are. It’s much more efficient to have insiders. They know the problems, they understand how to expose them.

How did you start to approach your leak strategy?

When we started Suburbia in 1993, I knew that bringing information to the people was very important. We facilitated many groups: We were the electronic printer if you like for many companies and individuals who were using us to publish information. They were bringing us information, and some of them were activist groups, lawyers. And some bringing forth information about companies, like Telstra, the Australian telecommunications giant. We published information on them. That’s something I was doing in the 1990s.

We were the free speech ISP in Australia. An Australian Anti-church of Scientology website was hounded out of Victoria University by legal threats from California, and hounded out of a lot of places. Eventually they came to us.

People were fleeing from ISPs that would fold under legal threats, even from a cult in the U.S. That’s something I saw early on, without realizing it: potentiating people to reveal their information, creating a conduit. Without having any other robust publisher in the market, people came to us.

I wanted to ask you about [Peiter Zatko, a legendary hacker and security researcher who also goes by] “Mudge.”

Yeah, I know Mudge. He’s a very sharp guy.

Mudge is now leading a project at the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to find a technology that can stop leaks, which seems pretty relative to your organization. Can you tell me about your past relationship with Mudge?

Well, I…no comment.

Were you part of the same scene of hackers? When you were a computer hacker, you must have known him well.

We were in the same milieu. I spoke with everyone in that milieu.

What do you think of his current work to prevent digital leaks inside of organizations, a project called Cyber Insider Threat or Cinder?

I know nothing about it.

But what do you of the potential of any technology designed to prevent leaks?

Marginal.

What do you mean?

New formats and new ways of communicating are constantly cropping up. Stopping leaks is a new form of censorship. And in the same manner that very significant resources spent on China’s firewall, the result is that anyone who’s motivated can work around it. Not just the small fraction of users, but anyone who really wants to can work around it.

Censorship circumvention tools [like the program Tor] also focus on leaks. They facilitate leaking.

Airgapped networks are different. Where there’s literally no connection between the network and the internet. You may need a human being to carry something. But they don’t have to intentionally carry it. It could be a virus on a USB stick, as the Stuxnet worm showed, though it went in the other direction. You could pass the information out via someone who doesn’t know they’re a mule.

Back to Mudge and Cinder: Do you think, knowing his intelligence personally, that he can solve the problem of leaks?

No, but that doesn’t mean that the difficulty can’t be increased. But I think it’s a very difficult case, and the reason I suggest it’s an impossible case to solve completely is that most people do not leak. And the various threats and penalties already mean they have to be highly motivated to deal with those threats and penalties. These are highly motivated people. Censoring might work for the average person, but not for highly motivated people. And our people are highly motivated.

Mudge is a clever guy, and he’s also highly ethical. I suspect he would have concerns about creating a system to conceal genuine abuses.

But his goal of preventing leaks doesn’t differentiate among different types of content. It would stop whistleblowers just as much as it stops exfiltration of data by foreign hackers.

I’m sure he’ll tell you China spies on the U.S., Russia, France. There are genuine concerns about those powers exfiltrating data. And it’s possibly ethical to combat that process. But spying is also stabilizing to relationships. Your fears about where a country is or is not are always worse than the reality. If you only have a black box, you can put all your fears into it, particularly opportunists in government or private industry who want to address a problem that may not exist. If you know what a government is doing, that can reduce tensions.

There have been reports that Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a German who used to work with WikiLeaks, has left to create his own WikiLeaks-type organization. The Wall Street Journal described him as a “competitor” to WikiLeaks. Do you see him as competition?

The supply of leaks is very large. It’s helpful for us to have more people in this industry. It’s protective to us.

What do you think of the idea of WikiLeaks copycats and spinoffs?
There have been a few over time, and they’ve been very dangerous. It’s not something that’s easy to do right. That’s the problem. Recently we saw a Chinese WikiLeaks. We encouraged them to come to us to work with us. It would be nice to have more Chinese speakers working with us in a dedicated way. But what they’d set up had no meaningful security. They have no reputation you can trust. It’s very easy and very dangerous to do it wrong.

Do you think that the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative [a series of bills to make Iceland the most free-speech and whistleblower-protective country in the world] would make it easier to do this right if it passes?

Not at the highest level. We deal with organizations that do not obey the rule of law. So laws don’t matter.

Intelligence agencies keep things secret because they often violate the rule of law or of good behavior.

What about corporate leaks?

For corporate leaks, yes, free speech laws could make things easier. Not for military contractors, because they’re in bed with intelligence agencies. If a spy agency’s involved, IMMI won’t help you. Except it may increase the diplomatic cost a little, if they’re caught.

That’s why our primary defense isn’t law, but technology.

Are there any other leaking organizations that you do endorse?
No, there are none.

Do you hope that IMMI will foster a new generation of WikiLeaks-type organizations?

More than WikiLeaks: general publishing. We’re the canary in the coalmine. We’re at the vanguard. But the attacks against publishers in general are severe.

If you had a wishlist of what industries or governments, what are you looking for from leakers?

All governments, all industries. We accept all material of diplomatic, historical or ethical significance that hasn’t been released before and is under active suppression.

There’s a question about which industries have the greatest potential for reform. Those may be the ones we haven’t heard about yet. So what’s the big thing around the corner? The real answer is I don’t know. No one in the public knows. But someone on the inside does know.

But there are also industries that just have more secrecy, so you must know there are things you want that you haven’t gotten.

That’s right. Within the intelligence industry is one example. They have a higher level of secrecy. And that’s also true of the banking industry.

Other industries that are extremely well paid, say Goldman Sachs, might have higher incentives not to lose their jobs.

So it’s only the obvious things that we want: Things concerning intelligence and war, and mass financial fraud. Because they affect so many people so severely.

And they’re harder leaks to get.

Intelligence particularly, because the penalties are so severe. Although very few people have been caught, it’s worth noting. The penalties may be severe, but nearly everyone gets away with it.

To keep people in control, you only need to make them scared. The CIA is not scared as an institution of people leaking. It’s scared that people will know that people are leaking and getting away with it. If that happens, the management loses control.

And WikiLeaks has the opposite strategy?

That’s right. It’s summed up by the phrase “courage is contagious.” If you demonstrate that individuals can leak something and go on to live a good life, it’s tremendously incentivizing to people.
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenber...ulian-assange/





WikiLeaks Reveals More than Just Government Secrets
Glenn Greenwald

The WikiLeaks disclosure has revealed not only numerous government secrets, but also the driving mentality of major factions in our political and media class. Simply put, there are few countries in the world with citizenries and especially media outlets more devoted to serving, protecting and venerating government authorities than the U.S. Indeed, I don't quite recall any entity producing as much bipartisan contempt across the American political spectrum as WikiLeaks has: as usual, for authoritarian minds, those who expose secrets are far more hated than those in power who commit heinous acts using secrecy as their principal weapon.

First we have the group demanding that Julian Assange be murdered without any charges, trial or due process. There was Sarah Palin on on Twitter illiterately accusing WikiLeaks -- a stateless group run by an Australian citizen -- of "treason"; she thereafter took to her Facebook page to object that Julian Assange was "not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders" (she also lied by stating that he has "blood on his hands": a claim which even the Pentagon admits is untrue). Townhall's John Hawkins has a column this morning entitled "5 Reasons The CIA Should Have Already Killed Julian Assange." That Assange should be treated as a "traitor" and murdered with no due process has been strongly suggested if not outright urged by the likes of Marc Thiessen, Seth Lipsky (with Jeffrey Goldberg posting Lipsky's column and also illiterately accusing Assange of "treason"), Jonah Goldberg, Rep. Pete King, and, today, The Wall Street Journal.

The way in which so many political commentators so routinely and casually call for the eradication of human beings without a shred of due process is nothing short of demented. Recall Palin/McCain adviser Michael Goldfarb's recent complaint that the CIA failed to kill Ahmed Ghailani when he was in custody, or Glenn Reynolds' morning demand -- in between sips of coffee -- that North Korea be destroyed with nuclear weapons ("I say nuke ‘em. And not with just a few bombs"). Without exception, all of these people cheered on the attack on Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 innocent human beings, yet their thirst for slaughter is literally insatiable. After a decade's worth of American invasions, bombings, occupations, checkpoint shootings, drone attacks, assassinations and civilian slaughter, the notion that the U.S. Government can and should murder whomever it wants is more frequent and unrestrained than ever.

Those who demand that the U.S. Government take people's lives with no oversight or due process as though they're advocating changes in tax policy or mid-level personnel moves -- eradicate him!, they bellow from their seats in the Colosseum -- are just morally deranged barbarians. There's just no other accurate way to put it. These are usually the same people, of course, who brand themselves "pro-life" and Crusaders for the Sanctity of Human Life and/or who deride Islamic extremists for their disregard for human life. And the fact that this mindset is so widespread and mainstream is quite a reflection of how degraded America's political culture is. When WikiLeaks critics devote a fraction of their rage to this form of mainstream American thinking -- which, unlike anything WikiLeaks has done, has actually resulted in piles upon piles of corpses -- then their anti-WikiLeaks protestations should be taken more seriously, but not until then.

* * * * *

Then, with some exceptions, we have the group which -- so very revealingly -- is the angriest and most offended about the WikiLeaks disclosures: the American media, Our Watchdogs over the Powerful and Crusaders for Transparency. On CNN last night, Wolf Blitzer was beside himself with rage over the fact that the U.S. Government had failed to keep all these things secret from him:

“Are they doing anything at all to make sure if some 23-year-old guy, allegedly, starts downloading hundreds of thousands of cables, hundreds of thousands of copies of sensitive information, that no one pays attention to that, no one in the security system of the United States government bothers to see someone is downloading all these millions -- literally millions of documents? . . . at this point, you know, it -- it's amazing to me that the U.S. government security system is so lax that someone could allegedly do this kind of damage just by simply pretending to be listening to a Lady Gaga C.D. and at the same time downloading all these kinds of documents.”

Then -- like the Good Journalist he is -- Blitzer demanded assurances that the Government has taken the necessary steps to prevent him, the media generally and the citizenry from finding out any more secrets: "Do we know yet if they've [done] that fix? In other words, somebody right now who has top secret or secret security clearance can no longer download information onto a C.D. or a thumb drive? Has that been fixed already?" The central concern of Blitzer -- one of our nation's most honored "journalists" -- is making sure that nobody learns what the U.S. Government is up to.

Then there's the somewhat controversial claim that our major media stars are nothing more than Government spokespeople and major news outlets little more than glorified state-run media. Blitzer's CNN reporting provided the best illustration I've seen in awhile demonstrating how true that is. Shortly before bringing on David Gergen to rail against WikiLeaks' "contemptible behavior" (while, needless to say, not giving voice to any defenders of WikiLeaks), this is what was heard in the first several minutes of the CNN broadcast:

WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Brooke, thanks very much.

Happening now, a criminal investigation into the leak of U.S. diplomatic secrets. . . . The White House says it would be an understatement to say that President Obama is not pleased about these leaks. The Justice Department says a criminal investigation is ongoing and the State Department is leading attempts at international damage control right now.

Our foreign affairs correspondent, Jill Dougherty, is over at the State Department working the story for us.

And there's enormous potential damage for the United States in these -- in these leaks, Jill. I assume that's what officials there are telling you.

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: They are, Wolf. They're pretty overt about it. It could be very, very damaging. . . . The Secretary slammed the release of the cables, calling it an attack.

CLINTON: This is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community. . . .

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Let me be very clear, this is not saber rattling.

DOUGHERTY: The U.S. attorney general is not ruling out going after the WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange, even though he is not an American citizen.

HOLDER: To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law and who has put at risk the assets and the people that I have described, they will be held responsible.

That's CNN's journalism: uncritically passing on one government claim after the next -- without any contradiction, challenge, or scrutiny. Other than Blitzer's anger over the Government's failure to more effectively keep secrets from everyone, what would an overtly state-run media do differently? Absolutely nothing. It's just so revealing that the sole criticism of the Government allowed to be heard is that they haven't done enough to keep us all in the dark.

Then we have The New York Times, which was denied access to the documents by WikiLeaks this time but received them from The Guardian. That paper's Executive Editor, Bill Keller, appeared in a rather amazing BBC segment yesterday with Carne Ross, former British Ambassador to the U.N., who mocked and derided Keller for being guided by the U.S. Government's directions on what should and should not be published (video below):

KELLER: The charge the administration has made is directed at WikiLeaks: they've very carefully refrained from criticizing the press for the way we've handled this material . . . . We've redacted them to remove the names of confidential informants . . . and remove other material at the recommendation of the U.S. Government we were convinced could harm National Security . . .

HOST (incredulously): Just to be clear, Bill Keller, are you saying that you sort of go to the Government in advance and say: "What about this, that and the other, is it all right to do this and all right to do that," and you get clearance, then?

KELLER: We are serially taking all of the cables we intend to post on our website to the administration, asking for their advice. We haven't agreed with everything they suggested to us, but some of their recommendations we have agreed to: they convinced us that redacting certain information would be wise.

ROSS: One thing that Bill Keller just said makes me think that one shouldn't go to The New York Times for these telegrams -- one should go straight to the WikiLeaks site. It's extraordinary that the New York Times is clearing what it says about this with the U.S. Government, but that says a lot about the politics here, where Left and Right have lined up to attack WikiLeaks - some have called it a "terrorist organization."

It's one thing for the Government to shield its conduct from public disclosure, but it's another thing entirely for the U.S. media to be active participants in that concealment effort. As The Guardian's Simon Jenkins put it in a superb column that I can't recommend highly enough: "The job of the media is not to protect power from embarrassment. . . . Clearly, it is for governments, not journalists, to protect public secrets." But that's just it: the media does exactly what Jenkins says is not their job, which -- along with envy over WikiLeaks' superior access to confidential information -- is what accounts for so much media hostility toward that group. As the headline of John Kampfner's column in The Independent put it: "Wikileaks shows up our media for their docility at the feet of authority."

Most political journalists rely on their relationships with government officials and come to like them and both identify and empathize with them. By contrast, WikiLeaks is truly adversarial to those powerful factions in exactly the way that these media figures are not: hence, the widespread media hatred and contempt for what WikiLeaks does. Just look at how important it was for Bill Keller to emphasize that the Government is criticizing WikiLeaks but not The New York Times; having the Government pleased with his behavior is his metric for assessing how good his "journalism" is. If the Government is patting him on the head, then it's proof that he acted "responsibly." That servile-to-power mentality is what gets exposed by the contrast Wikileaks provides.

* * * * *

Then we have the Good Citizens who are furious that WikiLeaks has shown them what their Government is doing and, conversely, prevented the Government from keeping things from them. Joshua Foust -- who says "he’s spent the vast majority of his adult life doing defense and intelligence consulting for the U.S. government" -- has a private Twitter feed for various intelligence officials and reporters, behind which he's been bravely railing against WikiLeaks defenders (including me) and hysterically blaming WikiLeaks disclosures for everything from Chinese cyber warfare to the next terrorist attack. Plenty of other people are reciting anti-WikiLeaks condemnations from the same script.

It's hardly surprising that people like Foust who work for the Government and depend upon staying in its good graces are screeching all sorts of fear-mongering claims (he's apparently a DIA analyst under contract for Northrop Grumman, though he doesn't disclose that to his readers). That's what the Government, its enablers and royal court hangers-on do: you wind them up and they insist that any restraints on, or exposure of, the U.S. Government will help the Terrorists get us, and subject us to other scary dangers. But what's extraordinary is that these strident claims continue even after the U.S. Government's prior "blood-on-their-hands" warnings have been exposed as wildly exaggerated. As the pro-Obama, pro-National Security State New York Times Editorial Page put it today with great understatement: "The claim by [] Clinton that the leaks threaten national security seems exaggerated."

Before setting forth why these WikiLeaks disclosures produce vastly more good than harm, I'll state several caveats as clearly as I can. Unlike the prior leaks of war documents, there are reasonable concerns about this latest leak (most particularly that impeding diplomacy makes war more likely). Like all organizations, WikiLeaks has made mistakes in the past, including its failure to exercise enough care in redacting the names of Afghan informers. Moreover, some documents are legitimately classified, probably including some among the documents that were just disclosed.

Nonetheless, our government and political culture is so far toward the extreme pole of excessive, improper secrecy that that is clearly the far more significant threat. And few organizations besides WikiLeaks are doing anything to subvert that regime of secrecy, and none is close to its efficacy. It's staggering to watch anyone walk around acting as though the real threat is from excessive disclosures when the impenetrable, always-growing Wall of Secrecy is what has enabled virtually every abuse and transgression of the U.S. government over the last two decades at least.

In sum, I seriously question the judgment of anyone who -- in the face of the orgies of secrecy the U.S. Government enjoys and, more so, the abuses they have accomplished by operating behind it -- decides that the real threat is WikiLeaks for subverting that ability. That's why I said yesterday: one's reaction to WikiLeaks is largely shaped by whether or not one, on balance, supports what the U.S. has been covertly doing in the world by virtue of operating in the dark. I concur wholeheartedly with Digby's superb commentary on this point yesterday:

“My personal feeling is that any allegedly democratic government that is so hubristic that it will lie blatantly to the entire world in order to invade a country it has long wanted to invade probably needs a self-correcting mechanism. There are times when it's necessary that the powerful be shown that there are checks on its behavior, particularly when the systems normally designed to do that are breaking down. Now is one of those times. . . . .As for the substance of the revelations, I don't know what the results will be. But in the world of diplomacy, embarrassment is meaningful and I'm not sure that it's a bad thing for all these people to be embarrassed right now. Puncturing a certain kind of self-importance --- especially national self-importance --- may be the most worthwhile thing they do. A little humility is long overdue.”

The Economist's Democracy in America blog has an equally excellent analysis:

“The careerists scattered about the world in America's intelligence agencies, military, and consular offices largely operate behind a veil of secrecy executing policy which is itself largely secret. American citizens mostly have no idea what they are doing, or whether what they are doing is working out well. The actually-existing structure and strategy of the American empire remains a near-total mystery to those who foot the bill and whose children fight its wars. And that is the way the elite of America's unelected permanent state, perhaps the most powerful class of people on Earth, like it.

“As Scott Shane, the New York Times' national security reporter, puts it: "American taxpayers, American citizens pay for all these diplomatic operations overseas and you know, it is not a bad thing when Americans actually have a better understanding of those negotiations". Mr Shane goes on to suggest that "Perhaps if we had had more information on these secret internal deliberations of governments prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, we would have had a better understanding of the quality of the evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

“I'd say providing that information certainly would have been a socially worthy activity, even if it came as part of a more-or-less indiscriminate dump of illegally obtained documents. I'm glad to see that the quality of discussion over possible US efforts to stymie Iran's nuclear ambitions has already become more sophisticated and, well, better-informed due to the information provided by WikiLeaks.

“If secrecy is necessary for national security and effective diplomacy, it is also inevitable that the prerogative of secrecy will be used to hide the misdeeds of the permanent state and its privileged agents. I suspect that there is no scheme of government oversight that will not eventually come under the indirect control of the generals, spies, and foreign-service officers it is meant to oversee. Organisations such as WikiLeaks, which are philosophically opposed to state secrecy and which operate as much as is possible outside the global nation-state system, may be the best we can hope for in the way of promoting the climate of transparency and accountability necessary for authentically liberal democracy.”

The central goal of WikiLeaks is to prevent the world's most powerful factions -- including the sprawling, imperial U.S. Government -- from continuing to operate in the dark and without restraints. Most of the institutions which are supposed to perform that function -- beginning with the U.S. Congress and the American media -- not only fail to do so, but are active participants in maintaining the veil of secrecy. WikiLeaks, whatever its flaws, is one of the very few entities shining a vitally needed light on all of this. It's hardly surprising, then, that those factions -- and their hordes of spokespeople, followers and enablers -- see WikiLeaks as a force for evil. That's evidence of how much good they are doing.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...aks/index.html




Wikileaks and State Department Correspondence
28 Nov 2010

Index on Censorship has obtained copies of correspondence between whistleblowing website Wikileaks and the US embassy in the United Kingdom, which took place between Friday and Sunday. They reveal Wikileaks editor in chiefs last-minute attempt to seek the cooperation of the United States government in redacting information from the latest controversial release of documents.

Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent, who represents Julian Assange in the UK, is a trustee of Index of Censorship.

26 November
Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks
to
US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman

Subject to the general objective of ensuring maximum disclosure of information in the public interest, WikiLeaks would be grateful for the United States Government to privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed. PDF

27 November
Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, United States Department of State
to
Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks

We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials. PDF

28 November
Julian Assange, Editor in Chief, WikiLeaks
to
US Ambassador to London, Louis Susman

I understand that the United States government would prefer not to have the information that will be published in the public domain and is not in favour of openness. That said, either there is a risk or there is not. You have chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal behaviour. PDF
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/201...orrespondence/

















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

November 27th, November 20th, November 13th, November 6th

Jack Spratts' Week In Review is published every Friday. Submit letters, articles, press releases, comments, questions etc. in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Submission deadlines are Thursdays @ 1400 UTC. Please include contact info. The right to publish all remarks is reserved.


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." - Hugo Black