Tag: news

BitTorrent is shifting the
emphasis of its business to BitTorrent Sync,
a transformative file-sharing service that boasts NSA
resistance.

Last year, Belarussian Konstantin Lissounov threw together a
crude version of Sync at a BitTorrent hackathon. It allowed him to
“quickly and easily send encrypted photos of his three children
across dodgy Eastern European network lines to the rest of his
family.” Now, the peer-to-peer file synchronization tool boasts two
million users a month and is developing into BitTorrent’s
primary product. Wired shines
some light on the motivation for the move around:

A big part of the commercial opportunity for the tool,
BitTorrent executives believe, lies in the reality that large
corporations are aggressively reining in data following Snowden’s
revelations.

Like Dropbox, BitTorrent Sync enables easy transfer of music,
documents, and other files. But Sync’s decentralized structure
distinguishes it. Sync replaces data-storage centers, which the NSA
can easily
tap, with a peer-to-peer network. Like the BitTorrent
protocol, users can share files directly, from one device to
another. This leaves absolutely no opportunity for an agency like
the NSA to harvest bulk data, because it cannot penetrate a central
server. This method of file-sharing is somewhat less convenient
because, Wired explains,
“in order to synchronize files across multiple systems, all must be
online at the same time.” But CEO Eric Klinker believes that the
pros outweigh the cons for many consumers.

Sync has also been used as a platform for other exciting
projects. Wired reports:

Two open source programmers, one in Texas and one in South
Africa, have launched vole.cc, a
distributed social network built on Sync. Last month, an engineer
who works for Harvard University
unveiled SyncNet, a parallel version of the world wide web that
runs on Sync.

Decentralized technologies are stirring a productive excitement.
Bitcoin, the cryptocurrency, similarly relies on a peer-to-peer
protocol. Projects like BitCloud, which aims to
“decentralize the internet,” are popping up. The sharing economy is
nurturing disruptive technologies that grant increased privacy,
cheaper access, and a decentralized protocol. The “Dropbox
killer” is embedded in that trend.

• The Senate voted to
  raise the debt ceiling this afternoon. Before the vote, Sen.
  
  Harry Reid (D-Nev.) urged Republican senators to reject their
  “Tea Party overlords.”
• Sen.
  Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has filed a suit against President Obama and
  administration officials over NSA surveillance.
• Former New Orleans Mayor
  C. Ray Nagin has been found guilty on corruption charges and is
  facing up to 20 years behind bars.
• President Obama signed an executive order
  raising the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10 an
  hour.
• 
  Killing in Syria has accelerated amid faltering peace talks in
  Switzerland. Over 230 people a day have been killed in Syria since
  Jan. 22.  
• The trial of
  Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will begin on
  Nov. 3.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on
Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You
can also get the top stories mailed to
you—sign
up here. 

Are the police allowed to use deadly force to end
a high-speed car chase? The U.S. Supreme Court will grapple with
that question next month when it hears oral arguments in the case
of Plumhoff v. Rickard. As Senior Editor Damon Root
explains, at issue is a 2004 incident that began with a traffic
stop for a busted headlight and ended some 10 minutes later with
multiple police officers firing a total of 15 rounds into the
fleeing vehicle, killing the driver and his passenger, both of whom
were unarmed.

View this article.

Earlier this month, I
pointed to a 2011 Connecticut legislative report to make the
point that registration of “assault weapons” and high-capacity
magazines under a particularly stupid new state law demonstrated
that gun owners were continuing a long and proud tradition of
defying restrictions on weapons ownership. Now lawmakers and
journalists in the state acknowledge the same phenomenon, and the
mass scofflawry it represents, and wonder just what corner they’ve
backed themselves into.

Three years ago, the Connecticut legislature estimated
there were 372,000 rifles in the state of the sort that might be
classified as “assault weapons,” and two million plus high-capacity
magazines. Many more have been sold in the gun-buying boom since
then. But by the close of registration at the end of 2013, state
officials received around 50,000 applications for “assault weapon”
registrations, and 38,000 applications for magazines.

Ummm. Errr.

As Dan Haar writes for the
Hartford Courant:

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created
tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000
people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other
laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all
of them are committing Class D felonies.

“I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast
majority would register,” said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the
ranking GOP senator on the legislature’s public safety committee.
“If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t
follow them, then you have a real problem.”

From a politicians’ perspective, this is a problem. The
sheep are refusing to be herded. But this was a completely
predictable “problem.” These laws
always experience more defiance than compliance, in
the United States and around the world. The reasons people resist
restrictions on their ability to own weapons probably vary, but the
empowerment that comes with owning arms probably plays a role, and

government officials’ eternal and consistent lying about why they
want to know who is armed certainly does, too.

Of course, if you value liberty over government officials’
whims, and consider government to be little more than a protection
racket with better PR, this is hardly a problem at all.

Mike Lawlor, an undersecretary in the state Office of Policy and
Management and leading mouthpiece for this legislative disaster,
pretends the “problem” could be solved by … writing letters.

The problem could explode if Connecticut officials decide to
compare the list of people who underwent background checks to buy
military-style rifles in the past, to the list of those who
registered in 2013. Do they still own those guns? The state might
want to know.

“A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms
unit would be looking at it,” said Mike Lawlor, the state’s top
official in criminal justice. “They could send them a letter.”

But those letters are unlikely to be terribly intimidating,
because a background check isn’t proof that somebody owns a
forbidden rifle. They might have moved it out of state, destroyed
it, lost it, or sold it privately in a transaction that won’t be
regulated under state law until April 2014.

Ultimately, Lawlor compares the defiance of registration to that
of speed restrictions on the roads. “Like anything else, people who
violate the law face consequences. … that’s their decision.”

Nice spin, Mike. But speeding doesn’t leave scofflaws under
threat of felony charges, armed, and pissed off at control freak
government officials. You really should have seen this coming.

Earlier this month, I
pointed to a 2011 Connecticut legislative report to make the
point that registration of “assault weapons” and high-capacity
magazines under a particularly stupid new state law demonstrated
that gun owners were continuing a long and proud tradition of
defying restrictions on weapons ownership. Now lawmakers and
journalists in the state acknowledge the same phenomenon, and the
mass scofflawry it represents, and wonder just what corner they’ve
backed themselves into.

Three years ago, the Connecticut legislature estimated
there were 372,000 rifles in the state of the sort that might be
classified as “assault weapons,” and two million plus high-capacity
magazines. Many more have been sold in the gun-buying boom since
then. But by the close of registration at the end of 2013, state
officials received around 50,000 applications for “assault weapon”
registrations, and 38,000 applications for magazines.

Ummm. Errr.

As Dan Haar writes for the
Hartford Courant:

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created
tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000
people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other
laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all
of them are committing Class D felonies.

“I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast
majority would register,” said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the
ranking GOP senator on the legislature’s public safety committee.
“If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don’t
follow them, then you have a real problem.”

From a politicians’ perspective, this is a problem. The
sheep are refusing to be herded. But this was a completely
predictable “problem.” These laws
always experience more defiance than compliance, in
the United States and around the world. The reasons people resist
restrictions on their ability to own weapons probably vary, but the
empowerment that comes with owning arms probably plays a role, and

government officials’ eternal and consistent lying about why they
want to know who is armed certainly does, too.

Of course, if you value liberty over government officials’
whims, and consider government to be little more than a protection
racket with better PR, this is hardly a problem at all.

Mike Lawlor, an undersecretary in the state Office of Policy and
Management and leading mouthpiece for this legislative disaster,
pretends the “problem” could be solved by … writing letters.

The problem could explode if Connecticut officials decide to
compare the list of people who underwent background checks to buy
military-style rifles in the past, to the list of those who
registered in 2013. Do they still own those guns? The state might
want to know.

“A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms
unit would be looking at it,” said Mike Lawlor, the state’s top
official in criminal justice. “They could send them a letter.”

But those letters are unlikely to be terribly intimidating,
because a background check isn’t proof that somebody owns a
forbidden rifle. They might have moved it out of state, destroyed
it, lost it, or sold it privately in a transaction that won’t be
regulated under state law until April 2014.

Ultimately, Lawlor compares the defiance of registration to that
of speed restrictions on the roads. “Like anything else, people who
violate the law face consequences. … that’s their decision.”

Nice spin, Mike. But speeding doesn’t leave scofflaws under
threat of felony charges, armed, and pissed off at control freak
government officials. You really should have seen this coming.

Yesterday, “The
Day We Fight Back” rallies took place in 24 cities around the
world in rejection of National Security Adminstration’s (NSA)
surveillance. I attended the San Francisco event in order to
witness the freedom fighters converge. Despite its inspiring title,
the protest quickly went limp.

The event took place outside the AT&T building where
whistleblower Mark Klein in 2006
exposed Room 614A, one of the NSA’s
telecommunications interception sites. One group showed up early
with an impressive one-to-five scale model of a predator drone and
plenty of picket signs. Mentions of surveillance cheerleader Sen.
Diane Feinstein (D-CA) elicited universal boos. All the pieces of a
good protest were accumulating.

Klein himself and the Electronic
Frontier Foundation‘s (EFF) Rainey Reitman addressed the crowd
over loudspeakers.

“This is our internet. We’re going to fight for it. We’re going
to defend it. We’re going to make sure you can’t constantly
surveill us… and chill our free speech,” said Reitman, who
detailed the EFF’s legislative action against the NSA.

A Navy veteran who wished to remain anonymous shared his
feelings. “I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all
enemies, foreign or domestic. When I see the government spying on
the people, it tells me that the government has declared that I and
the American people are an enemy.”

Unfortunately, organizers compromised the gravity and sincerity
of these messages. Not once but twice they played The Police’s
“Every Breath You Take” (“Every move you make… I’ll be watching
you.” Do you get it? It’s a joke about surveillance. You get it,
right?) and projected a Miley Cyrus parody titled “Party at the NSA”
on the side of the AT&T building. These seemed particularly
tone-deaf, since they aired before a memorial video for the late
internet activist Aaron Schwartz.

Some participants also eventually repurposed an
enormous circular protest sign about constitutional rights by
playing parachute-type games
reminiscent of grade school gym class. Guy Fawkes masks and
meme-covered t-shirts added to hokiness. After about an hour, the
protest’s momentum drained.

The San Francisco Projection Department, which co-hosted the
event, estimates
that it had the highest turnout in the US with 300 participants,
which is underwhelming for such a tech-centric city and not a good
indication of how the others fared.

“The Day We Fight Back” was far more impressive online than it
was on the streets. 

Over 6,000 websites and organizations, from Reddit to the
American Civil Liberties Union, expressed solidarity. Google and
other internet giants
signed a letter to the president calling for reform. Supporters
have placed over 87,800
calls and sent 181,900 emails to their
representatives. For all the “slacktivism”
gibes web-based initiatives get, they do seem to have a real home
field advantange when it comes to invigorating people about
internet issues.

Yesterday, “The
Day We Fight Back” rallies took place in 24 cities around the
world in rejection of National Security Adminstration’s (NSA)
surveillance. I attended the San Francisco event in order to
witness the freedom fighters converge. Despite its inspiring title,
the protest quickly went limp.

The event took place outside the AT&T building where
whistleblower Mark Klein in 2006
exposed Room 614A, one of the NSA’s
telecommunications interception sites. One group showed up early
with an impressive one-to-five scale model of a predator drone and
plenty of picket signs. Mentions of surveillance cheerleader Sen.
Diane Feinstein (D-CA) elicited universal boos. All the pieces of a
good protest were accumulating.

Klein himself and the Electronic
Frontier Foundation‘s (EFF) Rainey Reitman addressed the crowd
over loudspeakers.

“This is our internet. We’re going to fight for it. We’re going
to defend it. We’re going to make sure you can’t constantly
surveill us… and chill our free speech,” said Reitman, who
detailed the EFF’s legislative action against the NSA.

A Navy veteran who wished to remain anonymous shared his
feelings. “I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all
enemies, foreign or domestic. When I see the government spying on
the people, it tells me that the government has declared that I and
the American people are an enemy.”

Unfortunately, organizers compromised the gravity and sincerity
of these messages. Not once but twice they played The Police’s
“Every Breath You Take” (“Every move you make… I’ll be watching
you.” Do you get it? It’s a joke about surveillance. You get it,
right?) and projected a Miley Cyrus parody titled “Party at the NSA”
on the side of the AT&T building. These seemed particularly
tone-deaf, since they aired before a memorial video for the late
internet activist Aaron Schwartz.

Some participants also eventually repurposed an
enormous circular protest sign about constitutional rights by
playing parachute-type games
reminiscent of grade school gym class. Guy Fawkes masks and
meme-covered t-shirts added to hokiness. After about an hour, the
protest’s momentum drained.

The San Francisco Projection Department, which co-hosted the
event, estimates
that it had the highest turnout in the US with 300 participants,
which is underwhelming for such a tech-centric city and not a good
indication of how the others fared.

“The Day We Fight Back” was far more impressive online than it
was on the streets. 

Over 6,000 websites and organizations, from Reddit to the
American Civil Liberties Union, expressed solidarity. Google and
other internet giants
signed a letter to the president calling for reform. Supporters
have placed over 87,800
calls and sent 181,900 emails to their
representatives. For all the “slacktivism”
gibes web-based initiatives get, they do seem to have a real home
field advantange when it comes to invigorating people about
internet issues.