hpr-knowledge-base/hpr_transcripts/hpr1212.txt

Episode: 1212
Title: HPR1212: TGTM Newscast for 3/22/2013 Rebecca "Bobobex" Newborough
Source: https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr1212/hpr1212.mp3
Transcribed: 2025-10-17 21:43:21

---

You're listening to TGT News, number 91, record for March 22, 2013.
You're listening to the Tech Only Hacker Public Radio Edition, to get the full podcast
including political, commentary, and other controversial topics.
Please visit www.toggeektme.us.
Here are the vials statistics for this program.
Your feedback matters to me.
Please send your comments to dg at deepgeek.us.
The web page for this program is at www.toggeektme.us.
You can subscribe to me on Identica as the username DeepGeek or you could follow me on Twitter.
My username there is dgtgtm, as an deepgeek talk geek to me.
Hello, Becky Nubra, aka Boba Bex, now here for the Tech Roundup.
From EFF.org dated March the 13th, 2013, by Hany Fakori, finally some limit to electronic searches at the border.
In an important new decision, the ninth circuit court of appeals created the first explicit limits
on the government's ability to search electronic devices at the border.
The court's decision in United States versus Cotterman, establishes the government agents must
have reasonable suspicion before conducting a forensic examination of a computer at the border.
In 2007, Howard Cotterman attempted to enter the United States from Mexico through the
Lukeville Port of Entry in Arizona.
Border agents detained Cotterman for eight hours while they searched without a warrant
two laptops in a digital camera that he was carrying.
Ultimately, wanting to do a more invasive examination of the devices, the agents let Cotterman
enter the US but held onto his electronic devices and took them 170 miles away to Tucson
where they continued their warrantless search for two days.
Ultimately, the agents found trial pornography on the computers and Cotterman was arrested
and indicted.
The trial court suppressed the evidence finding the warrantless search violated the Fourth
Amendment.
The government appealed to a three-judge panel of the ninth circuit who reversed, finding
the search valid under the government's broad authority to search at the border without
a warrant or any individualized suspicion.
Cotterman asked for the entire ninth circuit to review the case on bank.
Together with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, we filed an amicus brief asking
the court to review this dangerous precedent to which it agreed to do last summer.
To read the rest of the story, please follow the link in the show notes.
In other story from EFF.org, this time dated March 14th and by Peter Eckersley.
Google takes the dark path, Census Adblock Plus on Android.
In a shocking move, Google has recently deleted Adblock Plus from the Android Play Store.
This is hugely disappointing because it demonstrates that Google is willing to censor
the software and abandon its support for open platforms as soon as there's an ad-related
business reason for doing so.
Until now, the internet and the software development communities have relied on Google
to be safely on their side when it comes to building open platforms, encouraging innovation
and giving users a maximum choice about how their computers will function.
But with today's news, that commitment to openness suddenly looks much, much weaker.
Google clearly has a vested interest in preventing people from installing ad-blocking software
like Adblock Plus.
But until recently, the company did an admirable job of leaving that matter aside and letting
users make their own choices about whether they wanted to hide ads on their phones and
in their browsers.
Google established a reputation for building tools that put the interests of their users
first.
This new form of censorship is the exact opposite.
It is not only a betrayal of the principle of openness, but a betrayal of the trust that
people put in Google when they decide to buy an Android phone.
Please follow the link in the show notes to read the remainder of this story.
Our next story is from democracynow.org, dated March 13.
Cyberattacks are more of a threat to the US than al-Qaeda.
The nation's top intelligence officials are warning cyberattacks from abroad now pose
a greater threat to national security than al-Qaeda and other militant groups.
For the first time ever, an annual review of threats to the United States lists the risk
of foreign computer attacks on the network of US infrastructure and institutions higher
than terrorism, organized crime and weapons of mass destruction.
Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, discussed the finding in testimony before
the Senate Intelligence Committee.
James Clapper said, when it comes to distinct threat areas, our statement this year leads
with cyber, and it's hard to overemphasize its significance.
Increasingly, state and non-state actors are gaining and using cyber expertise.
They apply cyber techniques and capabilities to achieve strategic objectives by gathering
sensitive information from public and private sector entities, controlling the content and
flow of information and challenging perceived adversaries in cyberspace.
These capabilities put all sectors of our country at risk.
In response, the Pentagon's new cyber command has unveiled plans to create 13 offensive teams
to counter computer attacks from overseas by the fall of 2015.
The teams would be used for cyber operations against foreign countries linked to computer
attacks on the United States.
From TechDirt.com dated the March the 14th by Mike Masnick.
Details come out on US attorneys withholding the evidence in the Air and Schwartz case.
Last week we wrote about Air and Schwartz's girlfriend, Taran Strinebrick-Nakalfman,
releasing a statement accusing the Department of Justice of a variety of things that hadn't
really been covered before, including lying, seizing evidence without a warrant, and with
holding its copulatory evidence.
That resulted in an interesting discussion in the comments in which a few Department
of Justice defenders suggested that since there were no details we were probably making
this up, as if we don't have better things to do.
Now however, the details have come out.
In a letter that was sent at the end of January, but just now leaked to the press, Schwartz's
lawyers have highlighted how assistant US attorney Steve Heyman was responsible for the charges
above.
The key issue is the search of Aaron's laptop.
Cambridge Police seized the laptop on January 6, 2011.
The Secret Service did not obtain a warrant until February 9, 2011, even though it had
clearly been involved since before the arrest and was leading the investigation.
Schwartz's legal team, quite reasonably, argued that the evidence from the laptop should
be suppressed due to the massive delay in obtaining the necessary warrant.
Heyman hit back that it was the Cambridge Police who had the laptop, so the Secret Service
had nothing to do with it until it got the warrant.
There was a court hearing about all of this, and Heyman again insisted that the Secret
Service had no responsibility until after the warrant.
However, right after that hearing, Heyman apparently approached Schwartz's lawyers to reveal
a key email from the lead Secret Service agent on the case, Michael Pickett, to Heyman
himself.
The email had been sent on January 7, 2011, in which he noted that he was prepared to
take custody of the laptop any time, or whenever you feel is appropriate.
In other words, the Secret Service clearly had de facto control over the laptop, directly
contrasting Heyman's claims.
Furthermore, withholding that bit of evidence, which would have raised serious questions about
Heyman's claims to the court until after the hearing just makes the whole thing even
more sketchy.
To read the rest of this story, please follow the link in the show notes.
Our final story is also from TechDirt.com dated March 14 and is by Mike Maznick.
Kickstarter projects that don't meet their goal are not failures, they help people avoid
failures.
A little while back on one of our funniest most insightful comments of the week posts,
we featured a comment that someone had made anonymously in response to a story about
Bjork's Kickstarter project that was taken down before it ended after it did not look
like it was going to get anywhere near the required threshold.
However, the comment has stuck with me and I think it deserves a post.
In particular, the commenter called us out for saying that her project failed.
This was not a failure, said the post.
Platforms like Kickstarter have changed the way the market is functioning, and our ways
of thinking about it even here on TechDirt have to catch up.
Bjork's campaign did not fail even though the results were not what she was hoping for.
She successfully learned that the market was not interested in this product.
Spending £375,000 of her own money, now that would have been a failure.
Using Kickstarter is more like running a science experiment than it is like selling a product.
It increases the efficiency of the market by orders of magnitude and apparently beyond
our ability to think about it clearly.
This point, even if it was calling us out, is so true and it's so important for people
to understand.
It's easy to use the word failure for those projects that don't meet their goal.
Hell, just in writing this post, I repeatedly had to consciously stock myself from using
the words fail or failure in describing projects that don't reach their goal.
But the commenter is right, those projects are not failed projects once you realise what
Kickstarter really is, i.e. a platform to judge the market for products and to build
commitments and funding around them.
If a project doesn't reach the goal, that's actually valuable market research, suggesting
that if they had gone ahead without going through the experience, they likely would have failed.
So in actuality, it makes sense to look at such projects and recognise that they were
saved from a dismal failure in which large sums of money may have been spent but at the
same time clarifying the market's reaction to a product before it's even been introduced.
With so many people thinking of Kickstarter more of a store than as a platform for supporting
people trying to turn cool ideas into reality, it's important to be careful in how we choose
our language.
Putting up a Kickstarter project that doesn't reach its goal shouldn't be seen as a failure.
It should be seen as a useful bit of data which helps one avoid failure and also to, hopefully,
sharpen up their product and pitch so that the next time, it's more likely to be funded.
Staff to produce by the Talk Geek to Me News team, editorial selection by DeepGeek, views
of the story authors reflect their own opinions and not necessarily those of the Talk Geek
to Me News.
News from TechDirt.com, EmptyWheel.net, in these times.com and Maggy McNeil.WordPress.com are
used under a range permission.
News from EFF.org is used under permission of the Creative Commons by Attribution License.
News from RH RealityCheck.org is used under permission of the Creative Commons by Attribution
Share-Relike License.
News from Venezuelanalysis.com and DemocracyNow.org are used under permission of the Creative
Commons by Attribution Non-Commercial No-Drivatives License.
New sources retain their respective copyrights.
That's the end of the Tech Roundup for this week.
Thank you for listening.
Talk to you soon.
This episode of Talk Geek to Me is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Relike
3.0 on Port License.
This license allows commercial reuse of the work as well as allowing you to modify the
work as long as you share alike the same rights you have received under this license.
Thank you for listening to this episode of Talk Geek to Me.
You have been listening to Hacker Public Radio at Hacker Public Radio.
We are a community podcast network that releases shows every weekday Monday through Friday.
Today's show, like all our shows, was contributed by a HBR listener like yourself.
If you ever consider recording a podcast, then visit our website to find out how easy it really is.
Hacker Public Radio was founded by the Digital Dog Pound and the Infonomicom Computer Club.
HBR is funded by the Binary Revolution at binwreff.com or binwreff projects are crowd-responsive by Lina Pages.
From shared hosting to custom private clouds, go to LinaPages.com for all your hosting needs.
Unless otherwise stasis, today's show is released under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Relike 3.0 license.