hpr_transcripts/hpr1020.txt

Episode: 1020
Title: HPR1020: TGTM Newscast for 2012/6/27 DeepGeek
Source: https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr1020/hpr1020.mp3
Transcribed: 2025-10-17 17:29:49

---

You are listening to TGTM News, number 70, record for Wednesday, June 27, 2012.
You are listening to the Tech Only Hacker Public Radio Edition to get the full podcast,
including political, commentary, and other controversial topics.
Please visit www.toolgeektme.us.
Here are the vials statistics for this program.
Your feedback matters to me.
Please send your comments to dgatdeepgeek.us.
The webpage for this program is www.toolgeektme.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 a DeepGeek Talk Geek to me.
Hey, it's DeepGeek.
I'll be on sabbatical month of July.
This is my second one month installment of sabbaticals for the year.
Got several projects planned.
Enhancements to the webpage.
As you remember, I redesigned it.
Attending the Hope, the Hackers on Plant Earth Conference 13th to 15th of July.
In downtown Manhattan, if you're going to be an attendee,
I would love to break bread with you.
Drop me an email.
And we'll arrange that.
I just might try to take the unscheduled slot and get a document called a docnet get together.
I'm considering doing this because I'm one of the things I want to do with the sabbatical
besides this conference and a family vacation experiment with docnet cryptographic network
software, you know, subnets within the internet.
If you're interested in such stuff, send me an email.
Maybe you can fool around with it together.
Otherwise, if you're going to be at the Hope Conference and if I do manage to put something
together, maybe you'll see me at the unscheduled track.
That, yeah, that about wraps it up.
Here's to the end of the sabbatical, you know, it's going to get a lot done.
But it's nice.
This system seems to be working for me.
I couldn't have redesigned the webpage and bear mended with the update the web servers
without one month sabbatical and this is going to be it for the year.
After that, I come back in August, resuming the newscast schedule with full force, strength,
and vigor.
It's an exciting thing.
Okay, thanks for listening.
And now the tech roundup.
From EFF.org, day June 22, 2012, by Rebecca Boe, Global Telecom Governance Debated
at European Parliament Workshop.
In recent weeks, the corner of the blogosphere that concerns itself with internet-related
policy has come alive with posts.
Comments and op-eds addressing the theory that a little-known United Nations Telecom
Agency, the International Telecommunication Union, the ITU, is gearing up for an internet
power grab.
Concerns about this possibility spurred the U.S. Congressional hearing last month and
across the Atlantic, a June 19th workshop hosted at the European Parliament in Brussels
provided a forum to sort out, quote, challenges to the internet governance regime, unquote,
as they relate to the ITU.
The UN Agency, which is made up of 193 member states and specializes in information
communication technologies, is in the midst of preparing for a December conference where
it will renegotiate an important treaty establishing the international telecommunications regulations,
the ITAs.
These regulations lay the ground rules for how big telecoms interact with one another
in an international context, setting up systems for things like revenue sharing, and have
historically only dealt with telephony and never reached into the realm of internet
architecture.
At Tuesday's workshop, representatives from the European Commission, civil society organizations,
Google and other organizations, were on hand to share their insights about how this treaty
revision may affect internet governance.
William Drake, an international fellow of the University of Zurich, an expert on internet
policy, challenged the framework that has been debated so far, quote, it isn't in fact
the case that the UN will send in black helicopters to take over the internet, end of
quote, he assured participants, waiting a slim green booklet, totaling fewer than 30 pages
he declared, this is what all the fuss is about.
It was the latest compilation of the ITRs, the telecom rules that ITU member states last
agreed upon in 1988, long before mobile devices with internet connectivity revolutionized,
with telecommunications industry.
William Drake said he thought some discussion around the revisions could be discounted because
they seemed driven by various political agendas.
He was nevertheless very clear that he viewed certain proposals as highly problematic since
they would indeed result in a restrictive effect on the internet if approved.
To read the rest of this article, follow links in the show notes.
From eff.org, Dei June 21, 2012, by Jillian York, can Apple refuse to sell a laptop to an
Iranian citizen?
Maybe.
No iPod for you, the sentiment may have evoked the fictional soup Nazi, but the salesperson
was completely serious.
After hearing 19-year-old Sahar Sabet speaking in Persian with her uncle, an Apple Store
employee refused to sell Sabet an iPad, stating, according to Sabet, quote, I just can't
sell it to you.
Our countries have bad relations.
While the Apple employee was wrong here and other not two different circumstances that
employee may have been right, restrictions placed upon U.S. persons by the Department of
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC, State, Block Quote.
In general, a person may not export from the U.S. in a good technology or services if
that person knows or has reason to know, such items are intended specifically for supply,
transmit or re-exportation to Iran.
Further, such exportation is prohibited if the exporter knows or has reason to know, the
U.S. items are intended specifically for use in the production of, for commingling with,
or for incorporation into goods, technology or services to be directly or indirectly
supplied, transcript or re-export exclusively, or predominantly to Iran or the government
of Iran and Block Quote.
While Sabet told a reporter that she had mentioned nothing about traveling back to Iran, companies
fearing the high penalties placed upon violations of the OFAC regulations often restrict
sales or services on the fear that an Iranian citizen could take the products to Iran.
For example, Google reportedly blocks Persian language advertisements because of the prohibition
on financial transactions targeting Iranians, given that there are only small pockets of Persian
speakers outside of Iran, it would be difficult for Google to argue they are not talking
iranians with ads in Persian.
Therefore, blocking the advertisements entirely ensures that they are in compliance with
the regulations.
In this case, however, Apple was wrong.
A statement Wednesday by the Department of State spokesperson Victoria Nuland in response
to the incident clarified that, there is no U.S. policy or law that prohibits Apple
or any other company from selling products in the United States to anybody who is intending
to use the product in the United States, including somebody of Iranian descent or an Iranian
citizen or any of that stuff.
If you do want to take high technology goods to Iran, you need a license, but that is a separate
issue.
A statement was also issued on the U.S. virtual embassy to Iran's Facebook page, given
that exports to Iran are strictly controlled, where does the U.S. government draw the line?
Not at the borders one might expect.
A rule of the Department of Commerce, both Commerce and Treasury, are involved in export
controls, dubbed the deemed export rule, states that the Department's Bureau of Industry
and Security, the BIS, has jurisdiction for the export or release of control technology
and slother to a foreign national in the United States.
A BIS policy document on Iran clarifies, however, that the deemed export rule does not apply
to persons who are permanent residents in the United States or are protected individuals
under the Immigration or Naturalization Act.
So what does this mean for Iranians and other individuals from sanctioned countries, basically,
and Iranian student temporarily residing in the U.S. with intent to go back to Iran may
legitimately be denied purchase of an Apple product under export regulations, but a U.S. permanent
resident, whilst someone with Iranian dual citizenship cannot be, furthermore, a company
or individual that wishes to export to Iran must apply for a license through the Department
of Treasury's OFAC.
Additionally, it is unlawful for anyone traveling to Iran to bring controlled items such as
laptops or satellite cell phones into Iran even temporarily without authorization from OFAC.
To read the rest of the article, follow links in the show notes.
From torrentfreak.com, by Ernesto de June 14, 2012, U.S. government equates mega-upload
to bank robbers.
Two weeks ago, mega-upload lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the criminal case on the basis
that the company was never properly served.
This issue was previously acknowledged by Judge O'Grady, who had doubts that the case would
ever go to trial due to this procedural matter.
However, the government believes that the case should continue, in a response file today,
U.S. attorney Neil McBride argues that the notion that a non-U.S. company can't be served
should be rejected by the court.
This line of reasoning leads to incredible conclusion that foreign corporations can commit
crimes in the United States without risk of being brought to justice here, McBride writes
adding that it would be unprecedented to dismiss the case at this time.
According to the government, the federal rule shouldn't be interpreted so narrowly.
A company should only be served on the U.S. address if they have one is argued.
The provisions shall be interpreted to require mailing a copy of the summons to the organization's
address, or to its principal place of business in the United States only were such an address
or place of business exists.
Moving to the money side, the U.S. asks the court to reject a mega-upload request to
return seized funds, so these can be used to aid the company's defense.
Previously, the company pointed out that the government's argument that all revenue
that site ever made came from infringement is flawed.
However, the U.S. stands by this assertion and tells the court that returning mega-uploads
assets is no different from handing back stolen money to a bank robber.
The government's interest in forfeiture is virtually indistinguishable from its interest
in returning to a bank, the proceeds of a bank robbery, and a forfeiture-definite claim
of right to use such assets to hire an attorney instead of having them return to their rightful
owners is no more persuasive than a bank robber's similar claim, McBride writes.
In addition to the above, the government points out that mega-uploads' motions should
be rejected because the court hasn't yet decided whether defense lawyer Andrew Shapiro
of Quinn, Emanuel, Ergohart, and Sullivan is subject to conflicts of interest.
Shapiro's law firm previously defended media companies that may be called in as witnesses
in this case.
Attorney John McBride concludes by asking the court to strike mega-uploads' requests
is now up to Judge O'Grady to come to a decision on the first issues that were raised.
It's clear that the mega-upload case is heating up even before getting into the factual
allegations of the indictment, while it's too early to conclude anything, the above
suggests that the government is uneasy with the strength of mega-uploads' defense.
From torrentfreak.com, near June 12, 2012, by Ernesto, Comcast protests shake down of
alleged batorn pirates.
United States citizens who download and share copyright files through batorn risk being monitored
and in some cases subject to legal action.
In recent years more than a quarter million alleged batorn users have been sued in federal
courts.
Most of the lawsuits are initiated by adult entertainment companies, but mainstream movie studios
and book publisher John Wiley and Sons have also joined in.
These copyright holders request a subpoena from the court to order ISPs to identify alleged
batorn users through an IP address.
They then contact the account holder with a request to settle the case and return for
a sum of money.
Initially, Comcast complied with these subpoenas, but an ongoing battle in the Illinois
District Court shows that the company changed its tune recently.
Instead of handing over subscriber info, Comcast asked the court to quash the subpoenas,
among other things the ISP argued, that the court doesn't have jurisdiction over all
defendants because many don't live in the district in which they are being sued.
The company also argues that the copyright holders have no grounds to join this many defense
to one lawsuit.
The real kicker, however, comes from the third argument here, Comcast accuses the copyright
holders of a copyright's shakedown exploiting the court to coerce defendants into paying
settlements.
Plaintiffs should not be allowed to profit from unfair litigation tactics whereby they
use the offices of the court as an inexpensive means to gain Joe defendants personal information
and coerce settlements from them, Comcast lawyers write.
It is evident that these cases and the multitude of cases filed by plaintiffs and other pornographers
represented by their counsel that plaintiffs have no interest in actually litigating their
claims against the Doe defendants, but simply seek to use the court and its subpoena powers
to obtain sufficient information to shakedown the Doe defendants.
Comcast cites several previous cases to back up their claims and points out that federal
rules require courts to deny discovery to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense.
The attorney for adult publisher AF Holdings is furious at Comcast refusal to comply.
He asks the court to disregard the ISP's arguments entirely and accuses Comcast of denying
copyright holds the opportunity to protect their works.
Comcast delay and objecting to the plaintiffs subpoenas is part of a wider campaign to deny
and delay the plaintiffs and other similar copyright holders ability to protect their copyright
works.
Comcast routinely objects to subpoenas issued to it by producers of adult content AF Holdings
writes.
The article concludes with the paragraph and if you want to read the small amount of material
in between, you may follow links in the show notes.
Over the outcome, Comcast protest is part of a growing trend in which internet providers
object to handing over subscriber data in mass-bit torrent cases, previously Verizon did
the same successfully auguring that it has an obligation to protect the privacy of its
customers.
Lastly, from torrentfreak.com by Ernesto de June 16, 2012, Kim.com theory on corporate
cyberlock out use supported by survey.
After the shutdown of mega-upload, Hollywood was quick to point its finger at other rogue
sites, such as US-based cloud storage service media fire.
The irony is that while the movie companies claim these sites are destroying their business,
a majority of corporate employees depend on them.
This widespread legitimate use also applied to mega-upload.
Founder Kim.com told us last year that movie industry insiders and employees at the world's
top corporations were all using the service.
Among our 180 million users is a large number of celebrities, musicians, filmmakers, actors
etc., and they love mega.
We have hundreds of premium accounts from employees of the companies.
The RAAA and MPAA represent, in fact, 87% of the Fortune 500 companies have premium
accounts with us.com said.
While the numbers above say little about legitimacy of the files being shared by these users,
a new survey reveals that it is common for employees today to use file-sharing sites,
e.g. cyberlockers, to share and store work-related documents.
The survey, conducted by SkyDocs, pulled the use of free file-sharing sites among 4,119
workers at companies in the US and UK.
Two-thirds of the employees admitted to using free file-sharing sites for work.
Among these shares, 45% said their ID departments are aware of their usage of these services.
A breakdown of the result in different work sectors shows that file-sharing services are
most used among employees in professional services, a certain percent, closely followed
by financial services, 84%, health care, 57%, the creative sectors, 55%, and government
employees, 54%, score below average.
The above doesn't only emphasize the huge, legitimate potential of cyberlockers.
The widespread use of these services in the work-setting also sheds a new light on the
ongoing fight of mega upload users to get their files back.
This week, the EFF argued in court that the US government disadvantaged many former
mega upload users by shutting the site down without warning.
By seizing the service, they deprived millions of users access to their files.
The EFF is supported by retired Judge Abraham David Sofahir, who is very critical of the
government's actions.
It's really quite outrageous, frankly, so far as that told threat level in an interview
this week.
I was thinking the government had learned to be discreet in its conduct in the digital
world.
This is a perfect example on how they are failing to apply to additional standards in the
new context.
Ignorance might play a role here.
Judging from previous criminal investigations, the US government is relying heavily on how
the copyright holders portray certain websites.
It wouldn't be a surprise if the investigators were simply unaware of the many legitimate
users including thousands of government workers.
Other headlines in the news to read these stories, follow links in the show notes.
Internet threat to press freedom.
How long before VPNs become illegal?
News from Maggie McNeil.wordpress.com and olgov.com used under a range permission.
News from torrentfreak.com and EFF.org used under permission of the Creative Commons by
Attribution License.
News from democracynow.org used under permission of the Creative Commons by Attribution, non-commercial
no derivatives license.
News from PacificFreePress.com used under permission of the Creative Commons by Attribution
non-commercial license.
News sources retain the respective copyrights.
Thank you for listening to this episode of Talk Geek To Me.
Here are the vials statistics for this program.
Your feedback matters to me.
Please send your comments to dg at deepgeek.us.
The webpage for this program is at www.talkgeektoMe.us.
You can subscribe to me on Identica as the username DeepGeek or you could follow me on Twitter.
My username there is dggtm as in DeepGeek Talk Geek To Me.
This episode of Talk Geek To Me is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share
like 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 like 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 on day-to-day.
Today's show, like all our shows, was contributed by a HBR listener by 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 Dark Pound and the Infonomicom Computer
Club.
We are as funded by the binary revolution at binref.com, all binref projects are crowd
sponsored by LUNA pages.
From shared hosting to custom private clouds, go to LUNA pages.com for all your hosting
needs.
Unless otherwise stasis, today's show is released under a Creative Commons Attribution Share
and Like.
He does own license.