Don't read me, read this

For up to date and informed information on what's happening across the pond with the Patriot Act check out Julian Sanchez' blog.. covering "the intersection of privacy, technology, and politics". 

Latest entries include this video fact check on Fox News reporting on Patriot reforms, and a great round-up of the state of play - which is not so great....

(Discovered through Privacy Digest)



Julian also blogs on this topic at Cato on Liberty.

Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party -  Putting Privacy first.

Immigrant abuse: Uncle Sam, shame on you

If you were living in a police state you might expect at anytime that knock on the door in the dead of night.. and to be dragged off without warning and without charge.. But you live in a democracy right? ...and we have the forces of the law to defend and protect our basic rights.

Not it seems if you live in the US.

Steve Lendman has a long and disturbing entry on how US Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) - part of the Department of  Homeland Security - are routinely using police state tactics to detain immigrants in violation of their rights.  (It's that fourth amendment again)
Quoting from a report on how the raids are conducted...

"..a team of heavily armed ICE agents approaching a private residence in the pre-dawn hours, purportedly seeking an individual believed to have committed some civil immigration violation. Agents, armed only with administrative warrants, which do not grant them legal authority to enter private dwellings, then push their way in when residents answer the door, enter through unlocked doors or windows or, in some cases, physically break into homes.
All occupants are then seized and interrogated with no legal authority, and often "no target is apprehended..."
York City Cardozo School of Law Immigration Justice Clinic (IJC)
 
Around 320 000 are put into detention each year highlighting the scale that this abuse can encompass - and yes, they may be illegal immigrants, but as this video explains - they have rights too....

Unwarranted Intrusion: On the Fourth Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I'm not a great scholar of history, or an expert in American constitutional law - but this last week I discovered the Fourth Amendment - and more sadly, how it is being bent and broken in American today (although I guess I kind of knew that already).

My starting point was Cory Doctorow's piece on Senator Al Franken, reading out the Fourth Amendment and questioning a Department of Justice official whether the Patriot Act provisions for roving wiretaps on unnamed individuals meet the terms of that amendment.  (You can watch the actual exchange on video at the MN Progressive Project).

The moot point here is do you need to name someone to be allowed to tap them - or more to the point to tap the broad spectrum of their friends, relatives and contacts?  This snippet of political theatre highlights how much weight is put on the exact wording of constitutional texts that were written well before the concept of wiretaps was ever thought of.- but texts that in any case establish essential principles.

To get at the spirit of the amendment though we can remember that it was - in part at least - a response to British use of writs of assistance in the 1760s - blanket warrants that gave power to search without needing cause and without even identifying who or where you wanted to search.  Which makes it unsurprising that, alongside the Patriot Act, the FISA Amendment Act - with it's support for warrentless wiretaps - is seen to clearly be in violation of citizens constitutional rights. Attempts to challenge it's constitutional legality have though been blocked (at least for now) because the plaintiffs have no evidence that they are actually being watched...  but as it's a secret government surveillance programme how would you ever know you were under surveillance?!
But that's in America....   we do things differently in Europe right???


EFF on roving wiretaps
Inspector General's report on thousands of abuses of the Patriot act by the FBI
American Civil Liberties Union on FISA Amendment Act
Liberty - death by a thousand cuts

Cutting surveillance: Justice for Patriots

The EFF reports on the prospects of changes to the USAs Patriot Act and the broad reaching FISA Amendments that permit warrantless surveillance.  Proposals have been tabled for a new Justice Act that would curb and constrain the powers in the Patriot Act to provide better protection of individuals' civil liberties.

It's a change that's to be welcomed - not just because it is a good thing for Americans - but also because the US set the tone for what is legitimate and acceptable for a government to impose on it's people.

Of course tabling legislation isn't the same as having it adopted so we can hope that there are plenty of libertarian Americans taking up the EFF's suggestion to contact their Senator....

Technorati:  surveillance, Patriot Act, Justice Act

Simple choices make a difference

I enjoyed the news today... The president of Russia and the USA sat down together today to talk about their differences. Not shout across the pond or wave sabres. Just talk - like they meant it.

We don't know what was said, or how seriously it was said - but communication is a HUGE step on the road to a better world. And there's significant symbolic value in the outcome of the talks. More nuclear disarmament - must be considered good - but things like allowing American transports to Afghanistan to overfly Russia and resumption of 'military co-operation' are both public signs of more positive relations.

Thank you..
..but don't stop there...

Milking the American filmgoer

In the Movie Picture Association of Americas "MPAA Theatrical market statistics" they make the statement
"Cinema ticket prices track consumer price index".

They then show statistics that show that in eight out of the last ten years cinema ticket prices rose by more than inflation. Taken over those last ten years they in fact rose by a total of 16,3% above the consumer pric index.
So yes... last year they rose by just 0,6% above inflation.. but seen as a whole that's hardly something to boast about.

Cinema attendances are static.. but revenues continue to rise by the simple fact that they keep putting the price up...

Piss-ups and breweries?! Film economics

The MPAA home page is full of interesting reading.....

"The average motion picture cost the MPAA member companies $96.2 million to make and market in 2005. Six out of ten movies never recoup their original investment."

That's an average of $60M 'negative cost' (I assume that's production) and $36M in marketing. (That's a lot of marketing!). Six out of ten is p*** poor.

There were 1,4billion theatre attendances in 2008 in the US - with over 500 new productions that's a little under 5 attendances per person -maybe a bit more if you exclude babes and the infirm.

"The US Motion Picture Industry employs over 750,000 people" or... "2,5million people"
...if you include 1,5 million handling things like dry cleaning and car rentals.

The average wage in the core production industry is 76% above the national average wage. Broadening this to include TV and film distribution the average is still 26% above the national average (telling us amongst other things that these latter groups earn less than the average wage).

The US industry is made up of 115 000 businesses. Over 80% employ less than 10 people. ... which means lot's of overhead cost on dealmaking, contracting, administration etc, etc, etc

So... to conclude...

• The majority of films run at a loss. Studios can't tell a good film from a bad one, or have no idea how to manage production costs to a budget.
• Core production teams get paid richly paid for delivering loss making films.
• Lots of other underpaid people rely on their loss making 'genius'.
• Over ten new films a week says there's lot's of competition
• Individual viewers only see around 1-2% of the films released.
• The industry is inefficiently structured - lot's of small firms happily paying each other over the odds to deliver the latest creative masterpiece...

And that's all without asking how much the stars took as their cut of proceedings???

Of course film makers do make money... Box office takings continue to rise, and a good film can takes between $100M and $500M - before it goes to DVD. But even so - with over 500 films in production in any year that's over 300 films a year that just don't cut the mustard - that's $18Bn in working capital tied up in projects that won't deliver a profit - even without looking at marketing costs (another $10Bn).

So here's some tips...

• Big budget films don't necessarily make good cinema - plan for a lower break even cost... it's creativity not money that makes good films.
• Scale makes for more efficient businesses - consolidate and amalgamate.
• There are lot's of suppliers to choose from... get them to compete on price (duh!)
• ...or outsource to Bollywood
• There are too many films in production... make fewer films and get better returns on those you do make...
• Get a better deal on scripts, music and other copyrights and IPRs
• Pay realistic wages.. fewer films means you can pick and choose.
• And give a fair deal for the lower paid!

Hot (green) air on the tube

So you want to keep up to date on the latest environmental news... and you don't want to fall asleep at the same time???

Checkout Zaproot on Youtube.



In this episode... how Swedes are getting hot under the collar...

Infiltrating the Vegan Underground

By a kind of circuitous route I ended up at an interesting blog post on Greenisthenewred with the interesting title "10 easy ways to be labelled a "Terrorist" by the government". ..meaning of course the American government.

I liked number 8 - attend Vegan Potlucks.......

..but ... the article gives a scary reminder that legislation aimed at stopping suicide bombers and plane hijacks gets pointed at a completely different scale of activity - including things that are explicitly legal (not least in constitutional America). Running a website reporting on activist activities for instance.

In a separate piece the same author - Will Potter - highlights the hypocracy in labelling activists as 'Eco-terrorists' when it is in fact big corporations that are actively polluting the environment - and at times breaking the law to do so.

Simply dumb

The Guardian reports that Amazon have caved in to demands by the Authors Guild to give authors controlling rights to remove the text to speech option on their Kindle 2 ebook service.  The service lets you listen to a compute generated voice reading the ebook -  but,  complains the Writers Guild, Amazon's agreements don't give it audio rights to the books.  All of which reads like copyright out of control...

And remember now... you can show this to your friends... but no reading it aloud!

Yes We Can

Today, as they say, is the first day of the rest of our lives...
..and it seems to me a day for optimism and hope.



It's hard to know what a new face in the White House will bring - but it's not hard to believe it will be better than the eight years just gone.

Good Luck Barack!

Going for broke?

Having looked at the numbers on past performance I've been interested to see the current debate on which candidate has an economic plan to turn the US around - an item of not academic interest to most of us out in the global economy...

I found an interesting article at the Washington Post that looks at their plans and their ability to deliver.. it included this quote:
"Austan Goolsbee, who advises Democratic candidate Barack Obama, said McCain had consistently called for balancing the budget without explaining how he would do so." ...which given the numbers seems a pretty fair criticism.

In the 12 years under Democratic presidents since Jimmy Carter the American gross national debt rose by an average 5.3% per year for a compounded increase of 87%(!) ...but in eighteen years with Republican predidents it rose an average of 11.2% per annum - compounding to a huge 679% increase...

So I ask you.. just how likely is it the McCain is your man to get a grip on US finances???

Spending your inheritance...

The economy has been big news of late - and not least as a topic of debate in the USA in the run up to the election. So I thought I'd have a look at at how things really are and dug up some numbers on the American national debt.

I was interested to see how things fared under the different political parties over there and the results were a bit of a surprise. Common rhetoric says the Democrats are wont to raise taxes and spend more - and that it's the Republicans that aim to cut cost and give money back to the taxpayer. What I found was that yes... Federal spending tends to rise faster under the Democrats - but the clearest trend was that the national debt almost always rises faster under a Republican president.

But hej, isn't it the Senate and the House of Representatives that agree those things? Check it out...



So what does it show?? It measures the increase in gross federal debt as a proportion of the increase in GDP.. and covers the period from 1979 to 2007. As the economy grows what part of that growth is mortgaged to meet current spending? The numbers at the bottom show who has control of the two houses - +2 is both Republican, -2 is both Democrat - and each point is a year - red for a Republican president, blue for a Democrat. All but two of the Democrat years lie below a limit of debt increasing by half the rise in GDP.. and all but one of the Republican years lie above that same limit.

Surprisingly it doesn't matter who runs the parliament - under a red president the debt just keeps on rising... In effect Republican presidents are giving tax cuts funded not by growth but by borrowing. If you need the money can't you just go and borrow it for yourself!!

If you read this report from the US Government Accountability Office you can see that escalating debt interest combined with increasing welfare and pension costs for the ageing population means America is facing a huge funding crisis in the coming decades.

My conclusion? America can't afford another Republican in the White House...

The American Dream?

I watched the last of the American Presidential Debates yesterday - not live you understand, but in replay. It was my first real chance to see the candidates presenting themselves...

It was shocked by the huge difference in how the candidates came across. McCain commented several times on Obama's rhetoric - but to my ears Obama stuck to lucidly explaining what he wanted to do and why it was important for America to do it.

McCain was the one I thought lacked substance, making fine claims and aiming at an emotional appeal - trying to demonise his opponent as a liberalist wanting to steal money from the people to waste on public programmes - spreading muck about Obamas links with terrorism - and painting himself as the champion of the American dream. He made more than one reference to Sarah Palins special understanding and interest in those poor families dealing with autistic children - which crudely put is trying to get sympathy votes out of her personal circumstances.

He also made a great play on his record of fighting against the establishment and vested interests - very laudable - but I was left with the impression that this meant would struggle to unite his own party under his leadership, never mind leading the nation.

At times he looked frail - and at times he reminded me of one of those wind up monkeys. Asked a specific question he'd reply with some stock sound bite he'd prepared beforehand - something completely off subject.

It was, to put not too fine a point on it, scary to think that this was someone that could end up sitting down to negotiate with leaders in China, Russia or Iran.

The sad part was that behind the guff it's clear that he actually has been active in pushing for what he sees as good for his country.. and not just toed the line.

Obama.... pretty much stuck to presenting his platform of policies and defending the flack launched from across the table... He was probably too kind.
McCains policies will put more money in the pockets of 30 million Americans - the other 270 million will be better off under the Democrats...

The American dream - means aspiring to be part of that rich clique of 30 million... and for that it seems that half the electorate are willing to ignore the fact that they are not part of that small minority that are taking the cream. The ironic part is that getting rich is about redistributing wealth to the small number that succeed. Does the personal avarice of the American dream really mean people don't want to see the rest of the population get a decent education and the security and reassurance of good health care?

And for me it is somewhat ironic that the party that stands proud of that avaricious dream is the same party so warmly supported by all those evangelical Christians.