lee/hpr-knowledge-base
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial commit: HPR Knowledge Base MCP Server

Browse Source 
- MCP server with stdio transport for local use
- Search episodes, transcripts, hosts, and series
- 4,511 episodes with metadata and transcripts
- Data loader with in-memory JSON storage

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Lee Hanken
2025-10-26 10:54:13 +00:00
commit 7c8efd2228
4494 changed files with 1705541 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

406
hpr_transcripts/hpr0965.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,406 @@
Episode: 965
Title: HPR0965: TGTM Newscast for 2012/4/4
Source: https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr0965/hpr0965.mp3
Transcribed: 2025-10-08 05:42:29
---
Five minutes later..
You're listening to TalkEakTV News No. 66, because for Wednesday, April 11, 2012, 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.TalkEakTV.us.
Here are the vials to six 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.TalkEakTV.us.
You can subscribe to me on Identica as the username DeepGeek or you could follow me on Twitter.
My username there is DGTGM as a deepgeek talk geek to me.
And now the tech roundup from torrentfreak.com by Rick Falkfinge, May 8, 4, 2012.
The fight against copyright enforcement and the fight for civil liberties are the same.
With the ongoing success of the world's pirate parties, I've seen the copyright industries
start to push back, claiming that copyright enforcement can't be tied to civil liberties.
But they are two separate issues that's not a true statement from the copyright industry.
The whole point of the fight for net liberties is that the copyright monopoly cannot be enforced
without cutting down civil liberties.
Here's why.
Before the net, if you want to send a copy of something that was protected under the copyright
monopoly, it was absolutely given that you could do so.
You would send that copy in the mail without a single thought of repercussion.
You could send copies of drawings.
You could send mixed tapes of music.
You could send copied movies.
The reason for this was simple.
The right to communicate in private is a fundamental human right, and the copyright monopoly
is a commercial distribution monopoly that carries significantly less weight.
The problem recently is that civil servants, not politicians, have been tasked with upholding
the copyright monopoly.
These people are not only unaccountable, but also easily accessible to copyright industry
lobbyists, and these civil servants provide background material to the actual decision-making
politicians.
And if you control the background material, you also control decisions outcome.
Long story short, these civil servants don't care about the course up to society of enforcing
the copyright monopoly in a changed communications environment.
It's literally not their job.
If the issue had been properly politicized, then politicians would be forced to look
at more than just the necessary methods for enforcing today's monopoly laws.
They would also have to look at the overall course of society to using those methods,
and simply question if those laws are really worth the sacrifices required to uphold them.
This is the discussion that needs to happen on the political level, and which the pirate
parties are trying to make happen.
But when I send a piece of music in an email to somebody, I typically violate the copyright
monopoly.
When I drop a video clip in a private chat channel, same thing.
If I use some other protocol, maybe Bitcoin, same thing.
If you are to enforce the copyright monopoly in the connected environment, then you cannot
do that without abolishing the right to private communications as a concept, and that's
exactly what the copyright industry is trying to do.
Let me explain.
If there is a list of bit patterns that are illegal to transmit, and such a list could
indeed be constructed through today's laws, then the only way to find those bit patterns
is to eavesdrop on all the ones and zeros that leave my computer.
Assemble them by protocol to analyze my communications in the clear, and then sort my transactions
into legal and illegal.
But you can't do this without breaking and abolishing the postal secret.
There is no way to tell one from the other about looking at them in the first place.
So out goes the postal secret, the right to communicate in private.
At this point in the discussion, the copyright industry will complain that they only take
action for the illegal bit patterns found, and that there is no infraction on the right
to legal communications.
And in doing so, they put themselves in the exact same spot as the old East German Stasi,
which also steamed open all letters sent in the mail, but only took action on those with
illegal content, just like the copyright industry describes as their preferred scenario.
Stasi, too, sorted legal from illegal, and left the legal alone.
With the loss of the right to communicate in private, we also lose several other important
to the rights.
We lose reports right to protect their sources, since such communication happens in the same
digitalized private space.
We lose a large portion of the ability for attorneys to communicate with private, with
their clients.
These are considered cornerstones in the construction of checks and balances in the powers of our society,
and yet an industry of entertainment middlemen expect to strike them out with a pen in order
to uphold a crumbling distribution monopoly?
It goes even further, with the loss of private communications you lose the ability to safely
confide in people, the mere suspicion somebody else eavesdropping on your communications
will lead you to stay silent.
In case the communication would later be used against you, this effect has already been
observed on a large scale over half of the population, and now thinking twice whether
to communicate in ways that could later be used against them by a third party regarding
everything from contacting suicide help ones to divorce counseling.
So without the ability to confide in people, you even lose your variability to form an
identity.
How are you going to come out of the closet, for example, if you can't talk to a trusted
friend first?
The bottom line is that the fight for basic civil liberties and the fight against the
copyright monopoly are one and the same.
They are not two identical fights.
They are one and the same fight.
When our parents sent a letter in the mail, they alone determined whether they wanted
to be identified as a center, and nobody had the right to open the letter and transit
just to check that the contents were legal.
When our parents sent a letter in the mail or placed a phone call, they had an expectation
of privacy, considered a fundamental human right.
It is entirely reasonable that our children get the same rights, completely regardless
of what that means that an absolutely distribution industry will go out of business or not.
Perhaps the policy of Freenet, the dognet project, were most clearly how copyright monopoly
on today's level simply cannot coexist with freedom of speech, my highlights.
Quote.
You cannot guarantee free speech and enforce the copyright monopoly, therefore any technology
designed to guarantee free speech was also prevent enforcement of copyright monopoly.
From torrentfreak.com, date April 4, 2012 by EnigmaX, Spanish Sopa, 79th site takedown
requests in first month.
After being threatened with a place on a United States trade blacklist, the Spanish government
passed the so-called Sint Law, legislation that allows for the blocking of allegedly infringing
sites based on reports from copyright holders.
On March 1, the Sint Law went into effect and now a month on the Spanish Ministry of
Culture has revealed that in total almost 300 official complaints have been received.
The Copyright Commission has received 213 copyright complaints plus 79 closure requests from
rights holders against specific websites accused of online piracy.
The Commission will investigate all allegations and has the power to dismiss claims or set
the ball rolling for further action, including the removal of links set to infring on copyright,
food to the court or closure or ISP blockade of entire websites.
Although the process between complaint and site shutdown can theory be completed about
one of the Ministry of Culture reports that no punitive action has yet been taken in
respect to the 300 complaints.
It is not clear how many of the complaints being processed if any are the result of a
HACTIVICE sabotage campaign launched on the day the Sint Law came into effect.
The group HACTIVISTIS encouraged sites to link to a copyright track from artist Im Navarro,
a member of the music rights group SGAE but also an outspoken critic of the Sint Law.
Hundreds of websites reportedly linking to Navarro's song without permission.
The Navarro's subsequently reporting them to the Ministry of Culture.
While the initial aim of the campaign was to overload the Commission, it was also designed
to discover more about the uncertain takedown process, current thinking suggests that
Spanish hosting companies will be asked to shut down non-compliant websites and ISPs
will be asked to block those hosted outside Spain.
In theory, it is possible to shut down sites within a month, which could mean that the
first closures from the first batch report by the Ministry of Culture will be seen in April.
From TechDub.com by Mike Mansnig, they had April 6, 2012.
Mega Upload points out that the feds want to destroy relevant evidence in its case.
There are all sorts of problems with the federal government's arguments against Mega Upload.
Even if the site and its founders are guilty of breaking the law, it's amazingly troubling
to look at the details of how the government has gone about proving this.
The most immediate situation as we've been discussing involves the handling of the data
on Mega Upload servers.
Very soon after the rates, the feds told the hosting company that Mega Upload used
Kapatia that it no longer needed the data and that it could be destroyed.
As we pointed out at the time, this made no sense at all.
After all, the government is alleging that this content is the center of a criminal conspiracy
ring.
So why would it want evidence destroyed?
Furthermore, it seems likely that there could be plenty of evidence on those servers that
support Mega Upload's case.
Perhaps that's why the government wants to destroy it.
Of course, since then a bunch of parties, including Mega Upload, EFF, Mega Upload users
and oddly, the MPAA, have gotten involved in trying to preserve the data while the hosting
firm Kapatia has asked the court for permission to delete it, get paid for it, or have
someone take it off their hands.
Mega Upload has specifically offered to pay Kapatia to get the servers, but since the
government seized all its assets, it can't do that.
Plus, the government has objected to this plan, Furthermore, the MPAA, which still wants
the data preserved, has claimed that if the content goes to any third party, it's infringement,
and could lead to the revival of Mega Upload.
The whole thing is a bit of a mess, and now Mega Upload has pointed out that the government's
argument would result in the destruction of key evidence it needs for its case.
The filing is very compelling, quote, The United States has seized and frozen all of Mega
Upload's assets, which together with those seized from the other defendants include
more than $60 million in cash, and well over 100 million all told.
In taking this extraordinary step, the government must necessarily be alleging that every dollar
of these assets is the proceeds of illegal activity.
The basis of this allegation are the government's self-selected copies of a tiny fraction of
Kapatia's 1100 plus servers, even as to that fraction, the court is asked to assume that
every scrap of information on those servers amounts to criminal copyright infringement,
or perhaps some other illegal activity.
If there is logic to the government's actions, there is nothing lawful to be found across
Mega Upload's business as reflected on those 1100 plus servers.
Only thus might the government forbid Kapatia, from so much as transferring to Mega Upload
the Mega servers, housing Mega Upload content.
Notably, the government is further forbidding Mega Upload from using any of its assets to
pay Kapatia for continued preservation of the Mega Service content, and it has in the
face of Kapatia's earnest submission that it will cease preserving the service absent
the requested relief urged the court to deny such relief because the government has already
completed its acquisition of data from Kapatia, service authorized by the warrant.
In essence, the government has taken what it wants from the scene of the alleged crime
and is content that the remaining evidence, even if it is a sculptor or otherwise relevant
to the defense, be destroyed.
And by refusing to permit Mega Upload to use its assets to mount a defense, the government
is effectively making sure that Mega Upload has no practical way to preserve the evidence
itself.
Such a course proceeding by the government would be troubling in any circumstance, but this
is of course a criminal case.
It is in fact what the government has called the law to such a case that is ever bought
in the history of alleged copyright infringement.
If the government's position now wins the day, the integrity of what ensues will be lost.
The Mega Service will have been wiped, and potentially sculptatory or relevant evidence
will have been spoilated.
In mass, before being properly surveyed by the parties, not to mention the court.
The government's case may be advantaged by this course of action, but much else will
suffer, and due process will not permit it.
The filing also rips to shreds the Justice Department's claim that the content should
be destroyed because some of it may contain child pornography, noting that it appears
the U.S. government is advocating the destruction of evidence of child porn, rather than using
it to capture those responsible quote.
Such reasoning then becomes altogether mystifying when it is searched without any substantiation.
That copatias service may contain child pornography rendering the copatias service contraband.
To take the government at its word, therefore it at best is greeting with equanimity, and
at worst is advocating the imminent destruction of evidence of child pornography.
It is passing strange for the government to express preference for the destruction
of evidence of criminal misconduct over the preservation of it for criminal investigation
and a quote.
The filing is worth reading as it goes on in great detail about the ridiculousness of the
government's position and how it is clearly destroying important evidence in this case,
hoping to set it up so that Mega Upload can only use the sliver of evidence that the
government chooses to make available to it.
And it's doing this before the actual case begins where Mega Upload doesn't even know
the full details about what evidence is being presented and how it can defend itself
without that it's highly questionable and almost certainly a violation of due process
to support the destruction of evidence when Mega Upload doesn't even know what evidence
it needs to defend itself.
This dimly writes at the link above about this filing, this whole situation looks really
bad for the government and seems completely contrary to our basic concepts of due process
and innocent until proven guilty.
Quote.
The government's intransicans on the preservation of evidence is the latest example of the
government's scorched earth approach to the Mega Upload prosecution, theoretically criminal
descendants are innocent until proven guilty, yet the seizure of Mega Upload's service
freezing of its assets and arrest of its top executives did immense damage to the company
long before they had a chance to tell their side of the story to the jury.
Now the government seems to be trying to deny Mega Upload the opportunity to fully defend
itself in court, Mega Upload may be found guilty but like everyone else it has the right
to a fair trial.
Indeed, Mega Upload may not be a sympathetic defendant at all and may very well have
violated the law, but if the government truly believes it has a strong case, why is
it trying so hard to destroy so much evidence?
If the case is as strong as the Justice Department makes it out to be, then surely it can withstand
Mega Upload and have access to all of the evidence.
The Justice Department is fighting so hard to destroy evidence and the case seems
like a clear admission that it knows its case is incredibly weak.
From EFF.log, date April 5, 2012 by Corinne McSherry, Viacom versus Google, a decision at
last and it's mostly good for the internet and innovation.
The internet can breathe a sigh of relief today in the latest twist in the long-running
Viacom versus YouTube litigation.
The second circuit court of appeals revived the entertainment giant suit against Google
what simultaneously eviscerated most of the legal theories on which the lawsuit was
based.
Here's the quick and dirty.
Back in 2010, a district court threw out Viacom suit against YouTube, finding that the
safe harbors outlined in the DMCA protected YouTube from all copyright liability, Viacom
appealed based on unprecedented legal theories that if adopted would have rendered the DMCA safe
harbors a dead letter.
Today's decision largely affirms that earlier ruling, finding that YouTube is protected
from liability, except where the company actually knew of, or was willfully blind to, specific
instances of infringement of material at issue in the case, or facts of circumstances
indicating such specific infringement.
The appellate court also held that YouTube could be on the hook if it was willfully blind
to specific infringement, but stressed that YouTube did not have a duty to monitor user
activities.
In other words, the company can't have made a deliberate effort to avoid guilty knowledge,
but that doesn't mean it had an affirmative duty to seek out infringing activity.
And in a bit of technical point, the court said it was unclear whether syndicating clips
might be the kind of activity contemplated by the safe harbors, but that it needed more
facts as to whether any of the clips at issue were actually syndicated.
Finally, the court also suggests that YouTube might be liable if it had exerted substantial
influence on the infringing activities of users.
The court sent the case back to District Court for more fact-finding on the unresolved
issues, which means the case will linger on.
But now the sleeves are a few questions that the District Court will have to address
on this case finally settles.
What's that all that up to?
A loss for YouTube, probably a small one.
It is likely that only a small subset of clips remain in play and YouTube's current practices
are not at issue.
But on balance, a win for internet users and innovation, indeed, while some have declared
it a Viacom victory, it has to be a parake one at best, given the decision firmly and
correctly rejected most of Viacom's litigation agenda, and the agenda that would have up
ended the DMCA safe harbors on which so much internet expression relies.
To read the rest of this story, including the details of the point of the litigation,
follow links in the show notes.
From EFF.org, David April 5, 2012, by Rainey Wrightman, April 2012, the state of DunaTrak
lead up to tracking protecting working group negotiations in Washington, DC.
Things are heating up in the DunaTrak campaign.
Next week, EFF Technology Project Director Peter Eckersley will be joining internet engineers
privacy advocates and industry groups in Washington, DC for the intense negotiations
around the future of online tracking.
Here's our overview of the latest developments likely to influence the DunaTrak campaign during
the crucial upcoming weeks.
W3C Tracking Protection Working Group convenes in DC.
On April the 10th, the World Wide Web Consortium, the W3C, tracking protection working group
will be convening in Washington, DC.
The W3C is an international community that develops protocols and guidelines that ensure
the long-term growth of the web.
Among other things, the tracking protection working group is charged with defining internet
standards for the DunaTrak flag, thereby a user concerned with protecting personal privacy
can use a one-click setting in her browser to set up an HTTP header that will tell websites
she does not want to be tracked.
The W3C group is engaged in an intricate series of negotiations to achieve consensus
around how websites should respond when they receive the DunaTrak header.
The April meeting may see some of the most difficult decisions, according to the public
schedule, the group will be tackling issues such as a definitional distinction between
first and third-party websites, the types of tracking exemptions necessary for forp detection
and defense and data usage by first-party websites.
Consumer advocates will be pushing to get meaningful standards in place so that individuals
can maintain their privacy when they use the web.
While some industry participants will likely attempt to include exceptions and loopholes that
allow retention and use of large amounts of linkable data from opted-out users.
The W3C process is a multi-stake-holded form, bringing in industry figures and advocacy
groups and the details of meetings and draft documents posted online for public discussion.
This stands in sharp contrast to the decision-making process of groups like the Digital Advertising
Alliance, which is also concocting standards around the DunaTrak flag.
The DAA is an industry-only coalition of the biggest internet advertisers and is not engaging
users.
The DAA does not post its draft documents, meetings, notes and other discussion points
on the internet for transparency and discussion.
EFF strongly believes that discussions around the DunaTrak flag need to be kept in the open
format of the W3C Working Group.
Yahoo's DunaTrak leaves much to be desired.
This week, Yahoo committed to supporting the DunaTrak on its sites by early summer,
but unfortunately, Yahoo's conception of DunaTrak is pretty weak when it comes to respecting
user privacy.
While we appreciate Yahoo's announcement as a step in the right direction, the commitment
similar to the vague statement put forth by the industry group DAA did not promise to
actually reduce the tracking of individuals.
Yahoo really promised a DunaTagot, not a DunaTrak.
According to the press release, Yahoo promised to provide a simple step for consumers to
express their ad targeting preferences to Yahoo, but DunaTrak isn't about expressing
a preference about viewing targeted advertisements.
It's designed to combat the issue of rampant data collection, as we've noted before online
tracking companies are embedding pieces of tracking code on websites around the web
and using increasingly sophisticated mechanisms for tracking our online reading habits.
Human sophisticated users may find it difficult or impossible to defend off these online
trackers, and the industry has thus far failed to provide a tenable solution for dealing with
this problem.
That's why DunaTrak was invented to give users a meaningful choice when it comes to
fending off online tracking.
It's not merely a mechanism of adjusting the types of ads that are displayed when a
user loads a web page.
IAB President lashes out at DunaTrak.
The Interactive Advertising Bureau is the IAB, and your leadership meeting President
CEO Randall Rothenberg lashed out against the work of internet engineers and privacy advocates
who are working to support DunaTrak.
The Interactive Advertising Bureau is a consortium of media and technology companies that,
according to their website, are responsible for selling 86 percent of online advertising
in the United States.
This missing the concerns of advocates and civil libertarians, Rothenberg attacked
the W3C process, and the DunaTrak flag warning member companies it could kill their business.
Rothenberg opened up the conference with a speech encouraging members to educate themselves
in the multi-stakeholder process because political activists have infiltrated internet-stats bodies
like the World Wide Web Consortium, the W3C, and the internet cooperation for assigned
names and numbers the I can.
By political activists, Rothenberg is likely referring to nonprofits working for a free
privacy protective internet like EFF, Center for Digital Democracy, and Mozilla.
Rothenberg described this infiltration as a disastrous occurrence.
For those that do not educate themselves about the meetings, Rothenberg warned what you
don't know can hurt you and kill your company.
Rothenberg also said that DunaTrak will, quote, create the potential for the global
blacklisting of legitimate news, end of quote.
He went on to compare efforts to create strong privacy protections for individual users as
quote, even more threatening to interactive media and commerce than SOPA and PEPA, end
of quote.
Let's get real.
Heavy-headed copyright enforcement regimes supported by the MPAA and IAA are bad for
internet users.
Similarly, ubiquitous uncontrollable data collection programs by online tracking companies
are bad for internet users.
Whether EFFs is championing meaningful privacy protections or combating lopsided anti-piracy
bills, we're working to create an internet for the future generations that upholds values
of free expression, individual privacy, and innovation.
And this long-time internet champion Professor Lawrence Lessig articulates quite well, while
there are plethora of laws and technological protections that enforce copyright to the
detriment of user experience, there are scant protections for individuals trying to protect
their privacy on the internet.
That's why negotiations around DunaTrak are so vital.
Users are ready for real solution when it comes to online tracking.
A 2012 telephone poll by Pew Research found that 68% of response are not okay with behavioral
advertising, as EFF joins advocates, internet engineers, and industry groups in discussions
next week.
We'll be looking to move the ball forward on meaningful privacy protection so that future
generations of internet users will have the choice to browse the internet free from
electronic trackers.
News from tech.com, audio of moment of clarity number 129, Maggie McNeil.wordpress.com,
in these times.com and all.com used under arranged permissions.
News from eff.org and torrentfreak.com used under permission of the creative comments by
attribution license.
News from Wisconsingreenpoori.org is a press release.
News sources retain their 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 DGTGM as in DeepGeek Talk Geek To Me.
This episode of Talk Geek To Me is licensed under the creative comments attribution share
like 3.0 on board 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 where Hacker Public Radio does our work.
We are a community podcast network that releases shows every weekday Monday through Friday.
Today's show, like all our shows, was contributed by an 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.Pound and the Emponometrum Computer Club.
HBR is funded by the Binary Revolution at binref.com.
All binref projects are crowd-responsive by linear pages.
From shared hosting to custom private clouds, go to lunarpages.com for all your hosting
needs.
Unless otherwise stasis, today's show is released on the creative comments, attribution,
share alike, 3.0 license.