You've been listening to Free Speech Radio News.
Our newscast is produced at Pacifica Station's
WBAI in New York, KPFA in Berkeley,
and KPFK in Los Angeles.
The newscast is produced by Monica Lopez and Zimba Russo.
Our headlines editor is Leanne Caldwell.
Mitch Jeserich is our Washington editor.
Our technical production team is
Jade Padgett-Seekins, Pauline Bartolone,
Mick Millen, and Eric Klein.
For archives of this or other newscasts or documentaries,
please visit our website at www.fsrn.org.
That's f-s-r-n dot o-r-g.
In Los Angeles, I'm Aura Bogado.
You're listening to 99.5 FM WBAI New York.
It's 7 PM, time for Off The Hook.
A very good evening to everybody.
The program is Off The Hook.
Emmanuel Goldstein here with you on this Wednesday night.
And if things sound a little different,
it's because we're training our engineer, Red Hecht.
Say hi, Red Hecht.
Hey.
He sounds much better than I do with that microphone.
That's true.
Wow, I sound very tinny.
It might be your headphones.
How are my levels?
I can't see, I'm over here.
They're fine.
All right.
We're doing this because this summer is going to be so crazy,
and I'm going to be away for a very long time.
We need somebody here who can handle things,
and Red Hecht has been elected that person.
And so far, he's doing a great job.
You haven't really messed anything up yet.
No disasters.
Okay.
Boy, you sound so bassy.
I sound so tinny.
But I'm over here on the other side of the studio,
which I've never actually done before, and I'm impressed, you know,
what you usually get when you're over on this side of the room.
A lot of things that I don't have.
You have a lot more space.
You have this cough button.
So let me try that.
Did that work?
Yeah.
Okay, good.
Wow.
Okay.
I never pressed a cough button before.
All right.
This is Off the Hook,
and we're here every Wednesday night from 7 to 8
talking about various forms of technology.
And I guess playing with the WBAI board is one way of talking about technology.
Who's with us today?
Well, obviously, Red Hecht is there over on that side of the board.
Jim is –
Oh, hello.
No, I think everybody's mic is not on.
Oh, yeah.
So you have to turn everybody's mic on.
Got it.
All right.
Jim, let's say hello.
Hello again.
Mike is here.
Hi.
Me.
I'm over here.
And Red Bird.
Good evening.
And Bernie S joins us from down there in Philadelphia.
My mic is on here.
Oh, good.
That's important.
Well, we've had all kinds of fun things happen this week.
It's been kind of a historical week insofar as court rulings.
And I believe, Mike, you have a few things that you want to say about that.
Now, remember, keep it clean.
Do I have to?
It's all bad news, I know.
But, you know, bad news is what energizes the world.
Well, I guess the first one that we could talk about is the case MGM versus Grokster,
in which Grokster, which is, I guess, one of the file sharing networks.
I never heard about it before they got sued, but I guess they're popular, was being sued.
And the Supreme Court ruled, I think unanimously, that this file sharing software is probably illegal.
Now, they haven't yet ruled that it's illegal.
They've just ruled that there's, like, enough evidence to go to trial.
But things do not look good for them.
And all the usual people are, of course, upset.
The EFF, which ran the defense in the case for Grokster, issued all kinds of press releases.
But basically what the Supreme Court is saying, that if you have this software,
which might be used to violate copyright, then you better not turn off my microphone,
but you better not distribute the software either.
And this really can have a chilling effect on all kinds of technological innovations,
because, you know, these companies that will try new things,
which is the normal way that new things come up, but they won't be allowed to,
because they, you know, if the software has substantial illegal uses,
then they might be sued and they might not be allowed to distribute it.
This is, of course, it's almost a reversal of what the Supreme Court decided in the famous Betamax case,
which was an unusual case because Sony Corporation was one of the good guys.
And the rule then was that the VCR had what they called substantial non-infringing uses,
which means in English that there's like a lot of legal things you can do with the VCR,
so the fact there are some illegal things you might be able to do with the VCR,
you could still sell the VCR.
However, in the case of Grokster, they seem to have changed their mind
and said that this software is not allowed.
You know, I think one of the reasons for that is because nothing is being sold.
It's all being given away, so that sort of gives the impression that it's all for free.
There's no commerce going on, so therefore it has to be evil, you know?
There must be something not trustworthy about this.
That's what I think is going through their heads.
I don't really know what's going through their heads.
It was a shutout, 9-10-0. That doesn't happen very often.
Well, at least they've united the Supreme Court. Something good has come of it.
They didn't rule Grokster was illegal.
They ruled that the recording industry essentially could sue these people.
And I think it was someone from the EFF who said essentially that
as long as you don't advertise this as being a conduit for illegal acts,
you can develop this sort of software.
But I looked at this decision, and I looked at the idea behind it,
and I was thinking if you're trying to spread files legally, legal files in a legal manner,
you just essentially FTP them to a public FTP site,
or you email them as an attachment to a friend.
Grokster and others, most of the uses I can think of are illegal.
You start searching for Alanis Morissette dot sound files, WAV or whatever.
You don't do that unless you're looking for an illegal file.
It's not like you're looking for...
Jim, what makes the file illegal? If you already own the album, is it an illegal file then?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. No, you're not necessarily the owner of the album.
Yeah, those are theoretical situations that could come up.
You have the Alanis Morissette CD.
You don't have it on your computer.
You don't have a CD player on your computer.
So you want to listen to it on your computer for whatever reason,
or get it onto your iPod somehow.
Yes, I could see you then searching for it.
Yes, I could actually see that as being a legal activity.
I think there are plenty of legal uses.
I think what the problem is, is the media and a lot of people as well
have only been focusing on the illegal uses
and just using it to download music for free and not buying the CD.
Give me some more legal uses.
I mean, that's really the only one I could think of.
I got one for you, all right?
Now, recently, a lot of albums are being released.
I don't know if you're aware of this.
A lot of albums are being released with copy protection attached to the CD.
And what that means is lots of times you buy an album in the store
and you're not able to play it on iTunes.
It's not compatible.
I think there's been a flurry of that recently.
And people buy these albums and it doesn't work.
It even says on the album it's not compatible with certain computers
and things like that.
Now, if I buy an album, all right,
and I can't even play it on my player, which is what I use.
I happen to use iTunes.
Assuming I still want to listen to the music, they're forcing me.
They're forcing me to get it off the internet
because there's no way I can buy it.
Well, I think you should get around that by suing them
for selling you a defective product for you.
Well, downloading is quicker.
Also, Jim, if someone has an album that they've produced
and they don't have a record deal with a major label
and they want to get it out there so people can hear it,
what better way to get it out there than to put it on a file sharing network?
If it gets popular, other people might find it,
other people might listen to it.
So that's another legal use.
Okay, that's the first really good example I've heard here.
Well, another issue is that the P2P networks
also take huge loads off of the main distribution servers.
You said, you know, just stick it up on an FTP somewhere.
Well, if you have like 500,000 people downloading this,
you really can't support that.
And BitTorrent and a lot of P2P services really help improve that.
So where do we see this?
Sorry, Bernie, go ahead.
I was going to say it's worth noting that there's a lot of artists
and there's an awful lot of recorded material out there
that is public domain or copyrighted from a standpoint of that it's okay,
whether it's creative commons or whatever, to share.
And this is a huge body of information that's out there.
If I were the musician, but not a professional one,
and I just wanted people to listen to my art,
I could share it through Grokster, and it would just circulate.
And there's nothing illegal about that at all.
And this effectively prevents or is going to, as Mike pointed out,
have a chilling effect on that sort of activity,
which I think is going to really sort of limit people's options
to recorded material to only stuff that they can buy outright
as opposed to stuff that really is intended to be free by the original artist
and plenty of stuff out there that's public domain or otherwise.
So this really is not a consumer-friendly decision.
Most definitely not.
And it's not the only one this week also.
We have the cable decision.
Who would like to explain that?
Well, the decision—
You want to do it, Bernie?
Go ahead.
Either of us could.
But effectively the Supreme Court also decided this week,
they really hit a home run of bad decisions this week,
ruled that cable companies do not have to share their network to a competitive provider,
as do telephone companies, for instance, are still required.
For instance, Verizon is required under federal law
to provide access to third-party ISPs, COVAD.
There's a bunch of them out there.
And they have to sell that network access to third-party providers at a wholesale rate,
according to the federal government, to encourage competition.
And for some reason the Supreme Court, in its wisdom,
decided that cable companies didn't have to share their network
or didn't have to sell it at a wholesale rate to third-party providers.
The problem is it's not like a lot of different companies can effectively compete
in a marketplace where cable modem access is available.
Like in Philadelphia, there's one cable company.
There's Comcast.
That's it.
You don't have another choice if you want high-speed Internet through your cable system.
And this effectively prevents competition in the cable television market
because there's already monopolies in all these markets.
So this is a really bad decision.
It's very strange because it's inconsistent with existing precedents in a very similar market,
which is broadband over telephone lines or DSL.
It doesn't make any sense.
Well, what I've heard some experts saying is that now the phone companies are going to try
and get their Internet services classified as information.
I guess they're classifying cable Internet as an information service
for which competition is not required instead of a telecommunication service
for which competition is required.
And so I guess the phone companies are going to try and get DSL classified similarly
as an information service and destroy Covad
and all these other competitive DSL providers.
So if they succeed in that, then there will basically be two options
for people to get broadband, the telephone company or the cable company.
And this runs totally counter to all this capitalism that these companies allegedly want.
Free market.
Yeah.
Now, I don't disagree with you that this is bad,
but I think it could be interesting to see if companies are forced to find new ways
to provide Internet access to people, it could lead to different technologies,
more Wi-Fi access, et cetera, et cetera, that are open.
It could also lead to really bad technologies like broadband over power lines,
which is something that they tried to push for a while.
I just feel like it might open the door to more innovation, of course,
shutting a lot more on the web.
How would it open the door, though, by closing the door?
Are you closing the door to competition?
And that somehow opens the door to what?
Well, just different ways of providing Internet.
I mean, if you can't do it through the cable and you can't do it through the phone,
well, maybe there's a different way we can do it.
And these lines and these infrastructures are there,
so actually it would be bad because maybe someone could develop a better technology
to go over the phone line.
They're trying to shut down, as we've mentioned on the show before,
a municipal broadband project.
Verizon and others have tried to and have succeeded in many cases
to make it illegal for cities to provide Internet wirelessly
because they want to protect their own DSL and cable Internet markets.
So they're really trying to shut out any competition so they can charge what they want,
they can provide the terrible levels of service
that most of these monopoly providers give.
I mean, Verizon DSL, everyone I know is complaining about it
in ways that people who have other DSL companies aren't complaining.
And they want to protect their right,
their self-defined right to sell bad service for high prices
and have people with no option but to buy it.
I've got to make a point here.
I'm sorry.
The point I want to make is that these different companies,
like the cable company in a given market and a telephone company in a given market,
are government-granted monopolies already.
They are guaranteed to not have competition.
And in exchange for that government-granted monopoly,
they should, in my opinion and a lot of other people's opinions,
be required to at least provide access to competitors at a wholesale rate.
It's not like the cable company or the telephone company lose money
when they sell off some access to their network at a wholesale rate.
They're still making a profit.
They're just being required to sell it at a lower price as a wholesaler
to third-party providers like COVAD.
And I think that they should be required to do that
in exchange for being given a government-granted monopoly.
So that's my two cents.
Well, anyone who has used DSL with a company that is not, say, Verizon in this area
has probably experienced firsthand, I certainly have a number of times,
the fact that they do not cooperate.
They give that access very grudgingly.
We've had many instances where Verizon has, I would have to assume deliberately,
interfered with the service, such as cutting wires,
such as taking a very long time to show up for a repair that was on Verizon's side.
So that leads the customer to say, You know what, COVAD?
I am sick of you.
I'm going to go with Verizon since they keep sending me all these pamphlets.
And I've talked to so many people in the DSL business, so many providers.
They say this kind of thing happens all the time.
I think there's some kind of unwritten rule, if they're smart, it's unwritten,
where they basically just try and interfere as much as possible with the competitors
who are forced to use their line, so they have the power to interfere.
Just a couple of weeks ago, we had an appointment with Verizon
to install DSL for another company.
And they never showed up, and they lied.
They said, We were there at a certain time,
and we know they weren't there because we were there.
And this kind of thing happens all the time.
If you talk to any provider, they will tell you horror stories.
So I can only imagine how much worse it will be
now that companies don't have to even provide that.
I mean, obviously DSL, they still do.
But I think if they stop doing that, then you don't even have the semblance
of an alternative.
You're stuck with them.
And we're back in the days of the phone company,
one company providing everything.
And it's a very dangerous thing.
They can set the prices that way.
They can have a lot of power that's very unhealthy.
All right, the victory was 6-3 for the cable companies.
And it's considered to be a victory not only for the cable companies
but for the FCC and various telecommunications companies too,
like SBC and, of course, Time Warner and Charter Communications,
people like that.
On the losing side, though, are small Internet service providers,
including Earthlink, which I didn't really consider to be very small,
but they're on the losing side here,
consumer rights groups, and a host of local governments.
So interesting case, interesting ruling there.
Okay, what else do we have?
The Internet crashed in Pakistan yesterday.
Everybody heard about this.
It was a lot of fun.
And the underseas cable carrying data between Pakistan and the world.
Where's the other end of this cable?
Oh, I don't know.
But I'm saying it's between Pakistan and the world.
Where's the other end?
In the world.
Yeah.
Apparently Pakistan's not in the world, so they weren't yesterday anyway.
The cable developed a serious fault, virtually crippling data feeds,
including the Internet and all kinds of other things, apparently.
It crashed late on Monday and was still down Tuesday evening.
Interesting because I got the story yesterday,
but I guess that's because they were a day ahead of us.
Many offices across the country ground to a halt
as people realized it was not one of Pakistan's regular technical hitches.
It's a worst-case scenario.
I love this quote.
We are literally blank, said a senior foreign banker
who really didn't want to be identified.
So I don't know.
Is Pakistan back?
I'm surprised to hear that there's only one cable.
Yeah, you'd think that they'd have more.
That was my reaction, too, when I first read the article.
I said, there's no backup line?
For a long time, there was the transatlantic cable
that we used for telecommunications, and that was it.
That was the only way to get across the Atlantic Ocean.
Yeah, you could use a short wave,
but satellite was virtually unheard of back in the 60s and 70s.
Yeah, you cut that cable.
Actually, there were multiple cables after the 1900s.
But didn't they all run in pretty much the same area?
Yeah, a serious earthquake could have taken, theoretically, all of them out.
Thinking about Pakistan, where would this cable go?
The only place I could think of would be India.
So yeah, maybe there is only one cable.
Maybe Australia, maybe it goes over there.
Pakistan isn't an island either.
It is landlocked somewhat, Pakistan.
Yeah, it's to the northwest of India.
India juts down into the Indian Ocean, and Pakistan's in the northwest.
All right, well, that's a geography lesson for today.
Okay, other interesting things going on.
You might have heard in the news locally that they just issued a scaled-down version of the Freedom Tower.
Apparently, the Freedom Tower, according to the New York City police,
was deemed too close to the street.
It was only 25 feet away.
And so they had to redo the design because they were worried about truck bombs.
And if they were 25 feet, I guess isn't that far.
So the new one is 90 feet away from the street.
I'm kind of worried.
Yeah, before the show, Redbird and I did a little measurement here at 120 Wall Street.
And we found something rather troubling and disturbing.
We could be in trouble.
We are in trouble.
We're only 12 feet from the street.
We're 12 feet from the west side highway.
No, the east side, whatever that road is.
Not the FDR Drive, but the road that's underneath the FDR Drive.
South Street.
No, South Street is on, is that South Street?
I thought so.
Okay, South Street, or whatever street it is.
We're only 12 feet away from it.
The truck could come pretty close.
We're going to have to shave some feet off this building, too.
Are we a serious target, though?
Well, I mean, look, here's the thing, all right?
If a truck bomb can't hit the Freedom Tower, that means every other building in Manhattan is at risk.
Well, yeah, but are they going to drive, you know, it's a good what, six blocks, eight blocks away?
I think they're going to, if they can't do it at the Freedom Tower, they're not going to drive that far.
Truck bombers are very dedicated.
They may be dedicated.
My point is, look, if the Freedom Tower is going to be protected by 90 feet,
why isn't every building in the city, you know, under the same scrutiny?
Don't forget about all the freedom we have in this building.
We have WBAI, which is a beacon of freedom.
We have an organization called Freedom House.
You know, they could easily.
Are you sure we have more freedom in here than they can stuff into the Freedom Tower?
I don't know.
It's hard to say.
We're going to have to shave 78 feet off the building, so we're going to lose a lot of that.
I think we're going to lose all the building.
All the managerial offices at BAI are going to be gone because we're going to have to.
Did you measure the radio station?
I don't think it's 78 feet from here to that side of the building.
Emmanuel.
We'd lose the whole building then, wouldn't we?
Yeah.
Oh, that's a little good.
So we don't have to bother.
Wait for the truck bomb to do it.
It seems like a lose-lose situation.
Emmanuel.
Yes, Bernie.
I think you're making a good point because, as President Bush has said on many occasions,
the terrorists are against freedom.
I would argue that 120 Wall Street, home of WBAI and other organizations, is much more
about freedom than the World Trade Center ever was or its replacement will be.
I just wanted to ask, is it going to be 90 feet on every side or just on one side?
I mean, are they really going to shrink it by that much?
I think it's going to be 90 feet from any street.
It's ridiculous because they're putting all this protection into this one building.
And is that going to somehow defeat terrorism?
No.
A terrorist is going to go somewhere.
He'll go to the Empire State Building.
That's right on the street, isn't it?
I'd like to note they came by plane last time, not truck.
And that, too.
That, too.
Well, the Bush administration really is into shrinking freedom, so maybe this fits in with
the plan.
Ah, metaphor.
And you can say that after seeing his speech last night.
I didn't see his speech.
If you see his speech, you will feel completely differently.
I guarantee that.
Because then you will understand why all this is so important.
Is that so?
Yes.
He did mention 9-11 six times as rationale for invading Iraq.
That's right.
And he gave the speech in front of a military crowd.
I thought it was a speech to the country where he's going to explain himself, but instead
he positions himself in front of a bunch of soldiers.
Who have to do what he says.
Yeah.
Applaud on cue.
Well, they only applauded once.
I mean, they were too disciplined.
Because he told them not to applaud any more times because he didn't want it to seem like
he was speaking to a bunch of soldiers.
He's a smart guy.
Okay.
So, continuing here.
Speaking of crazy rules and things like that, New York City Transit has some crazy rules
that they...
First of all, I've been asked to pass along an announcement from the MTA.
They're going to be needing a lot of help in the next week, actually.
And if you have some time, we ask that you help them out.
If you've noticed, if you take the subway, every single subway car has those stickers
for the New York City Olympics in 2012.
Well, they're going to all have to be taken down.
And someone has to peel all those stickers off because we're not going to get the Olympics.
So, what we're asking people to do is everybody just, you know, if you want to wait till the
announcement comes next Wednesday, fine.
Wait till then.
But, you know, give them a break.
It's a lot of peeling.
And peeling, you know, when it's hot and muggy out is one of the most thankless jobs I can
think of.
So, help out and peel those damn stickers off.
Other than peeling, because peeling is a lot of work, why don't you just get, you know,
a can of spray paint and put an X through it.
I mean, it's effectively doing the same thing.
Spray paint doesn't hold on the trains anymore.
They messed it up big time.
Okay.
That was our War of the Worlds moment, I guess.
Does it hold on the stickers, the spray paint?
It might hold on the stickers.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Yeah.
You know, you're causing a lot of havoc by making this announcement, right?
You could add another star to the flag, too, I guess, while you're at it.
Yeah.
Well, they are going to have to come down.
I mean, I'm telling the truth.
Those things aren't going to be up next week.
What if we do get it, though?
Because it's going to make people feel bad.
If we get it, then they'll have to be up until 2012.
They don't want to have to get a whole other round of stickers.
They're not going to get it.
But never mind.
That's not part of the crazy rules I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the things that they almost passed today.
I guess at the last minute they decided not to do that.
But they're actually going to be making it illegal to walk from one car to another.
Yeah.
What happens when you have to do such a thing?
Well, then you might have to get a ticket as well because they're making all these rules.
You cannot have a beverage in a subway car.
You cannot put your feet on a chair.
Well, that's a good rule.
Yeah.
I can see not putting your feet on a chair.
I mean, you know, it's not your living room.
I know.
But, you know, sipping on a Coke or something.
Well, you know, that's interesting because I was reading something on those rules.
And what they want to discourage is open containers, cups and such, not bottles.
They said they're not really going to enforce it on bottles because it doesn't apply.
It's open containers of coffee that they want to discourage because those things spill.
Bottles you can bring to your mouth and generally guard against it.
Officials are also clarifying the rules to prohibit turnstile jumping even in cases where you bought a MetroCard but the turnstile won't read it.
When people see other people jumping the turnstile, it inevitably gives a rise to a sense that there's no control of the system.
That's according to New York City Transit General Counsel Martin Schnabel.
So what this rule is intended to do is make clear if the turnstile is not working, you try to swipe.
Your remedy is not to jump the turnstile.
He ended his sentence there without telling you what your remedy was.
You go to the guy in the booth.
There is no guy in the booth.
They're taking them away.
Well, look, there's a flaw with everything.
But there are still guys in the booths except for about four stations.
I went to the L train the other day just to look at the L train.
It no longer has the conductor in it.
It was so sad.
You see the little booth in the middle of the train and there's nobody there.
And also it's kind of scary because you see the train pull in and the door closes and there's nobody looking out to see if anyone's being dragged or it still has their hand caught in the door or anything like that.
The train just starts moving.
And I wonder how exactly are they making sure that nobody is being dragged?
Do you know the system?
I was thinking we should get a side of beef and some wire and, like, attach the side of beef to the side of the train and see what happens when it hits.
Side of tofu, please.
Well, okay, that's interesting.
We won't have the same thud that will scare the motorman half to death.
Is it the thud?
Is that what they're listening for, the thud?
I don't know.
But face it, if I was a motorman and I suddenly heard my train make a thud as it pulled out of the station, I'd wonder what the heck was going on.
Well, I suspect they're using some sort of camera technology to look up and down.
They do have new monitors down there.
We should go look at the motorman's cabins if they do that.
But the driver is on the other side of the train, though.
He can't see those.
He's on the right side.
If there are cameras and he has a monitor.
He pulls up, and he's able to see a bunch of monitors.
I think there are three or four of them.
But either way, I have a feeling that the people who are making these rules and coming up with these ideas really aren't the ones who are riding the subway.
But here's what I noticed.
I was standing on one of the stops on the L train, and the platform was in the middle.
Both trains use the same platform.
The driver is on the other side.
He's not on the platform side.
So what's he looking at then?
Okay, one-person train operation, which has been on the shuttle trains in Brooklyn.
Yeah, three cars.
Three cars on the shuttle.
No, no, no.
But here's the point on that.
It's always with cab through motorman's cabs.
In other words, the motorman's cab extends the entire width of the train.
So the motorman is supposed to get up from his seat, which is on the right-hand side of the train, as you face forward, and go to the left-hand side, if that's the side of the platform.
Really?
Yes.
I didn't see him do that.
I was looking in that window.
I didn't see any activity up there.
You were at the front of the train?
No, I was towards the front.
So maybe I didn't see it.
Maybe I didn't see it.
Maybe he did do that.
That's what it's always been on shuttle trains in the past.
Oh, just wait.
Just wait until the first accident happens.
They have not yet automated the L train, which is what we're all paranoid about here, those of you in Kansas who are wondering.
I just want to return briefly to this rule against walking from one car to the next.
And if you read all the news articles about this, all the MTA board members, even those who are voting for this legislation, say, yeah, I sometimes do it.
And then the police are saying, yeah, well, we're only going to enforce this law sometimes.
What we're only going to enforce this law sometimes means, when the police say it, is that people that they don't like based on their skin color or whatever are going to be the ones that get targeted by this law.
MTA board members walking from cab to cab are not going to get arrested.
It's going to be people that the police just decide not to like are going to get arrested and ticketed and fined.
And this is just another tool in the toolbox for the cops who want to be racist or whatever they want to be.
Selective enforcement is akin to favoritism.
That's right.
I read, I forget what city it was, but I read in some city that the Patriot Act was being used to keep people out of train stations.
That's somewhere in New Jersey.
Someone is suing, I believe, New Jersey Transit for a homeless man is suing New Jersey Transit for being evicted from various train stations over the course of several years.
And they're saying, oh, no, the Patriot Act protects us from being sued.
So this case should be dismissed.
And he, of course, has been charging harassment and selective enforcement of the rules.
Even in cases, I believe he had a ticket so he could enable himself to take a nap in the train station.
And they threw him out citing the Patriot Act then.
And now they're citing it now that he's suing them.
Now, speaking of craziness, we have the newest Orwellian adventure from England.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke has said that ID cards will help counter, not create, a Big Brother society.
And this is very true.
You know, England is about to get ID cards, mandatory ID cards.
Now, these cards will allow people to show, the sentence doesn't make any sense, to show who they were using one secure piece of identification rather than the other.
No, to show who they were with the use of one.
Oh, okay.
To show who they were using one secure piece of identification rather than the multiple forms of ID proof now needed.
Yeah.
MPs are debating ID cards.
I believe a vote was due a day or so ago.
Did they vote?
I think they accepted it.
But it's not quite law yet.
It still has to be.
But there are no roadblocks to this.
There are no roadblocks to this.
The only debate at this point is who's going to pay for it.
But they actually see this as something that's going to make society more secure.
Well, the ruling party does.
People seem to be supporting it, too.
And that's what scares me.
They must not know the right people.
Well, the majority, unfortunately.
They're the ones that tend to speak the loudest.
And in England, it's different than here.
But, you know, things can change very quickly.
You just have to, you know, see what the news brings, you know.
I have more news from the United Kingdom.
And that is that I guess they like seizing IndyMedia servers in the UK.
Bristol IndyMedia, which is one of the independent media centers,
had its server taken away by the police.
They arrested an IndyMedia volunteer.
I guess what happened is that the police asked for the...
They wanted to know the IP address of someone who posted some stupid article
about throwing bricks or whatever.
And the Bristol IndyMedia said,
We don't keep IP logs. We don't know who posted it.
Please leave us alone.
And the police, rather than saying,
Oh, well, we'll have to find the answer some other way,
say an actual police investigation,
decided to see the server and look for themselves
to see if they could see this information, which is not kept.
And so they shut down this open posting site
just because they didn't like this policy of not keeping IPs.
So it's very, very frightening legal development.
Well, now, I read somewhere about this particular case
that an informant, I guess, or somebody who sicked the police
onto Bristol IndyMedia said that they did in fact keep IPs.
Now, is that definitely not true?
I mean, I have no information in that regard
more than their public statements that they don't keep IPs.
I know that most IndyMedia sites are telling the truth
when they say they don't keep IPs.
And this is a good reason why you shouldn't keep IPs
because all it takes is one clown posting something
on an open publishing website that the authorities don't like
or that might actually be a threat of some sort.
And you're held liable and your machines are taken
and they do all this investigation.
If, in fact, you are truly an open publishing site,
you won't really be interested in tracking down these people.
Of course, you want to maintain some kind of journalistic integrity,
but that doesn't mean tracking down people to their computers.
Well, now, regular reporters don't have to reveal their sources
if they're asked, right?
Well, that's an interesting point.
Ask the Supreme Court that.
They don't want to give an answer.
Bernie, what did you hear about this one?
Well, the Supreme Court basically decided
that the reporters now have a choice.
They're all about more choices.
Your choice is you can give up your confidential sources
when asked by the government, or you can go to jail.
And that's the choice journalists now have.
I thought the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case.
Well, they didn't say anything,
but they said something by not saying something.
They let a lower court ruling stand,
which basically said that that's how it's going to be.
And it was billed to the Supreme Court,
and the Supreme Court's decision, deliberate decision,
to not hear that case effectively means
that some journalists are now going to go to jail,
specifically in this Valerie Plame case
where a CIA agent's wife was outed
by someone on the White House staff,
according to media pundit Mr. Novak.
Now, how come Mr. Novak is never questioned
or threatened like this?
He's not revealing who told him.
Well, maybe he is.
Well, we don't know that.
He was called before the grand jury,
and apparently he testified before the grand jury,
and he's not talking to anybody else.
And grand jury testimony is a secret, as we all know,
which is an inherent unfairness in our system.
But in any case,
some journalists are very likely going to jail,
one of whom didn't even write anything about the case.
Neither of them wrote anything.
The only one who did write anything was Novak.
Right, that's true.
So it's a very bizarre situation now
where it really puts a chilling effect on anyone,
such as a deep-throat type of character,
no matter who they are,
who has insider knowledge
about some wrongdoing in the government
or where a corporation or whatever.
They know now that if they get a reporter confidential
and say, listen, I'll tell you this,
but you can't reveal who gave you this factual information,
a reporter can't say,
I'm not going to tell you who this person is
without the person taking it with a grain of salt
because the government can't compel reporters
to give up their confidential sources
or lock that reporter up in jail
for a significant amount of time.
And I think a lot of reporters, as anyone,
would think twice about whether they really want to go to jail
for a serious amount of time
or give someone up.
It really sets up a very Orwellian system here
where reporting now cannot be done in good faith
by reporters who are going to get their word
that they're not going to give up their sources.
Now, basically, it doesn't just apply to The New York Times,
doesn't just apply to Newsweek and The Washington Post.
It applies to journalists in all different levels.
From Indymedia to 2600.
And this is something that we have felt
since the first days of publishing The Hacker Magazine.
People submit things to us.
They don't want to be identified.
They're talking about security holes in their own companies.
They're leaking information to us
from various governmental agencies.
And it's very important that we keep that confidence,
and we always have kept that confidence.
Occasionally, we get threatening letters from lawyers
saying, you must tell us who this is,
and we don't do that.
And we might have to make that choice,
that difficult choice between keeping that promise
and paying a penalty.
It's a lot easier to pay a penalty
than to break that kind of a promise
because who knows what's going to happen to those people.
That's why it's important for you
not to have this information.
If you don't keep the logs,
if you don't know who sent it to you in the first place.
Yeah, but in the case of actual reporters
that are talking to people and getting things in the mail,
yeah, I could probably figure out who gave me something.
It's not that difficult to do,
but I'm not going to tell people that
because I'd be breaking that oath.
Also, if you don't keep logs,
or if someone communicates to you anonymously,
you have no way to verify
that what they're telling you is true.
If you know, well, okay, they work in the White House
with this person and that person, fine.
Then you can publish it in good conscience.
But if it's just someone who said, oh, I heard this,
you don't know if they are who they say they are.
Right, right.
It's just different for different levels of reporting.
Right.
2,600 would be completely different
than a magazine or a newspaper.
If someone wanted to publish something in 2,600
that was about a security hole or something,
they could do that anonymously.
But if it's someone revealing information,
insider information or something,
then it's more difficult because you want to verify that.
Changes some types of journalism into gossip.
Right.
Well, let's reveal some information now
as an example of this kind of thing.
This reader writes in,
says he's been a faithful listener
since he got his first dialed connection back in 1993.
I'm writing you because I have an absolutely hilarious find
that I know you would find amusing.
For years, I got spammed by the buttload.
I would delete it, clear the deleted bin and move on.
Well, upon clearing my deleted items bin this weekend,
I decided to find out where a ton of files
I would randomly get were coming from.
Lo and behold, I found out.
For months, I kept getting files such as employee reprimands,
notices to managers, procedural manuals,
letters to vendors, people's social security numbers,
credit reports, billing reports,
visa and MasterCard letters,
and utility statements from MassElectric,
that's Massachusetts Electric,
for various clients and tons of other crap.
Well, I would, of course, ignore any file
if it came in from an email address I didn't know.
When I began to look in my deleted items bin
and read the files after I disinfected them,
it apparently came from a credit card clearinghouse.
I was amazed.
I tried calling up the parent company and informing them,
but they are just as oblivious and couldn't care less.
They accused me of stealing the information
and wanted to know who I was.
I guess no good deed goes unpunished.
Luckily, I was calling from a prepaid card from a pay phone,
or I would disappear by a couple of black-suited
government monkeys by now.
I live in Massachusetts, and we,
unlike Arizona, California, and a few other states,
do not have a disclosure law
notifying people of a breach of their personal information.
I don't think this company even knows
there is a virus loose in their system.
I tried contacting them.
Unlisted number, their internet provider,
LightShip Telecom with absolutely no care
in the world about their problem.
So I am just letting it slide.
However, I am including one of the IP addresses
of the company for your review.
I find it absolutely hilarious that a credit card clearinghouse
does not care about plugging their breach
and their provider cares even less.
Signed, Psychopath.
And the IP number is 216.204.209.37.
P.S. I just got another file as I was finishing this message.
These people just don't care.
But I'll tell you what, these people would care
about who this guy was because they think
that he's the problem.
He's the guy that noticed the problem.
He's telling people about the problem,
and often that's enough.
But we won't tell you who he is.
We will tell you the information, though.
All right.
216.209.2900, if you have information for us,
you'd like to be on the air and give some opinions,
then feel free to give us a call.
Our email address is oth at 2600.com,
or you can write to us, snail mail, off the hook,
care of WBAI, 120 Wall Street, New York.
Oh, wait, sorry, 120 Wall Street, 10th floor,
New York, New York.
1-0-0-0-5.
One other piece of information.
This Friday is the 2600 meeting day.
It's the first Friday of the month.
Really?
What goes on at 2600 meetings?
Oh, the free exchange of information.
Sounds dangerous.
If you want to know, you can just read the minutes.
There are no minutes.
That's one of the reasons why we have them.
The Supreme Court can't put us into jail,
directly or indirectly.
We don't keep logs.
Redbird, here's a question for you.
A guy is offering me, not me saying this,
it's a reader saying this, or a listener.
A guy is offering me a MetroCard that doesn't expire
until February 1st, 2006.
Is there any legit MetroCard that would work that way?
If so, any idea what it is?
An MTA employee, etc.?
I have a feeling they're confusing the expiration date
with the expiration date that's printed on the back of the card.
Yeah.
Which is not really the date that you, you know,
it's the date that you can't refill or use the card any longer,
but it has nothing to do with whether or not
you're actually going to be able to pay your fare with it.
Well, I don't think anybody gets so excited
over the expiration date on the back of a card.
Obviously, this person thinks that this is a free card until that day.
But do employee cards have expiration dates
as to when they stop working?
An employee card, yes, they do.
But, yes, it's a, two and a half years, I think,
was the maximum I ever saw on an employee card.
Uh-huh.
So it's possible to have a card that would last that long?
It is possible.
I would, I would check it out.
Well, you know, no, first of all, it's illegal, so don't do it.
But, you know, if you just want to know
if it's actually an employee card,
if you swipe it at one of those little, like, things,
it says something like employee card, right?
It would tell you.
An employee card at one of the freestanding,
I forget what these things are called,
the card reader would tell you that it's an employee card
and it would tell you what the expiration date is.
Well, if it does work and you do end up getting this card,
we'd like to know.
Well, you know, again,
getting the card is probably a bad idea
because, first of all,
when you go through a turnstile as an employee,
doesn't it beep differently?
It beeps the same, but a different light lights up.
Yes.
So anybody would know who is watching
and they see, you know, a 13-year-old kid go through
and the employee light lights up,
you know, they're going to know.
Right.
I don't know if you're 13, I'm just making an assumption.
Employee cards also have the photo of the employee on them.
So if this thing has, say, been copied to another card,
a police officer, a zealous police officer
might notice that there's no photo on it,
as would almost anyone else.
It'll be very obvious if you're using it as,
if you're using an employee card
because there are cops monitoring and they're not...
Sporadically.
Well, I've seen a lot and they're not in uniform at all.
You'd never know.
Crime is down in the city,
so cops have to monitor all kinds of other things,
like people talking on cell phones in cars
and people walking through subway cars
and people going through turnstiles
with their own lights lighting up.
So be careful.
Try it out in the card reader, not the turnstile,
I think is the moral of this.
That's a good idea.
At 2 in the morning when no one's around.
Here's another letter.
I've been listening to Off the Hook and Off the Wall
since about February once I discovered podcasting.
I like the shows even when I don't agree
with everything you discuss.
But I just wanted to share an interesting tidbit with you.
On Monday night, my wife and I were on a flight
on Alaska Airlines from Anchorage.
Before we pushed back from the gate,
one of the flight attendants made the following announcement.
Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to get going.
However, my cell phone detector is indicating
that there are still seven cell phones powered on.
We need those turned off before we can go anywhere.
At first I thought he was joking
because cell phone detector sounds like a made-up device to me.
However, this wasn't a very jovial crew
and they didn't joke about anything else.
So perhaps he was serious.
Are you aware of a device that could not only detect
activated cell phones but also indicate
how many there are? Signed, Mark.
I think it's a good idea to scare people to shut them off.
I mean, as far as just saying that,
someone would think, oh, well, I guess my cell phone's one of those.
I better shut it off.
Yeah, theoretically it's possible,
but that does sound like a good bluff.
Well, if such a thing were possible,
I think we'd be hearing about it a lot more.
I mean, all the airlines would have it
and we'd know how many people had cell phones on
and I think we'd be playing with this technology a lot more.
They don't have to buy it because they're going to have
cell phones on airplanes soon anyway.
That's true, too.
Bernie, what do you think is possible?
You think it's possible, Bernie?
I said it is impossible.
It's not feasible to build something to do that.
Basically, cell phones aren't always...
Cell phones are not always transmitting a signal.
So you can't always tell how many...
You can't say there are seven cell phones on in this airplane.
You couldn't do that.
There'd be no way because there are some of them
just could be waiting, listening for a signal.
If you had a device that could specify how many really were still on,
would require a transmission of cell phone signals
on a lot of different frequency bands
and a lot of different protocols,
GSM, CDMA, TDMA, IDEN, blah, blah, blah, blah,
on different frequency bands,
and it would cause far more interference
than any number of cell phones on a plane.
So it would be self-defeating and really expensive
to have a device that would do that
because the only device I know of that could do all those things
is something called a Harris Triggerfish,
which is a very high-end piece of surveillance equipment
only available to intelligence agencies and FBI and folks like that.
And it can do all kinds of interesting things
besides surveil cell phones.
It can do man-in-the-middle attacks, et cetera.
But it's extremely unlikely.
It's impossible to believe that an Alaska Airlines flight crew
would have one of these things.
So it's really social engineering, in my opinion.
It was definitely social engineering by the flight crew,
and I bet it was pretty effective
in getting people to turn their cell phones off.
Well, I wouldn't really say social engineering.
I think it's just flat-out lying.
They weren't really trying to get information.
They were just trying to manipulate people in a way, I suppose.
So it's related.
But it's just kind of abusing authority.
All right, let's take some phone calls.
212-209-2900.
RedHack, pick a line.
Good evening. You're on the air.
Hello. Oh, I got to turn it off.
You got to bring them up on the board.
Hi, I'm sorry. I'm calling from Detroit.
I was listening to your Off the Wall show.
Is this Emanuel?
This is Emanuel here, yes.
Oh, wow. I'm the guy with that crazy DVD request
that had you sign it all.
Oh, you had all the off-the-hook people sign it.
Yes, well, we all signed it.
Thank you very much. I want to say thank you.
My question is, I have a laptop, a Macintosh to be exact,
and I was curious, what would be the best solution
for picking up faraway, like, routers, wireless routers?
Like, I was reading about the Pringles cans
and other things like that,
and I was wondering what the best solution for that,
and I guess legality-wise as well.
Well, as far as picking up wireless networks,
just all wireless networks around you,
you'd want to get an antenna with a good gain,
you know, specifically for that frequency range,
and you can buy those.
I think you can build them using, like, washers and pipe
if you look around on the Internet.
You'd want an omnidirectional antenna.
That would be for, you know, finding networks.
As far as connecting to actual networks, specific networks,
something like the cantenna is directional, so...
Did you just say cantenna?
You did say cantenna.
It's an antenna made out of a Pringles can.
Did you just make up that word?
No, no, it's a common term.
Go to Wikipedia and see if that word exists.
I believe they sell that at CompUSA as well.
They've marketed it now.
Some people have been making commercial versions.
They sell Pringle cans in CompUSA?
Well, the shape is right, so...
Well, the shape is the same.
It's metal instead of cardboard on the outside,
I believe, as well, too.
Yeah, there are a lot of commercially available antennas,
but as far as connecting to a network that was far away
or very weak, if you knew what direction it was in,
you could point it in the right direction.
That would give you a better connection to it.
And that's also good for if you don't know where a network is
and you want to find out where it's coming from,
you point the antenna around until it gets stronger,
and that gives you an idea of what bearing it's coming from.
Okay, for omni-direction, which one would you recommend
that has the highest gain, you were saying?
Well, a higher gain would be better.
I don't have a specific one that I'd recommend.
I'd shop around, or you could build one if you want.
Okay, well, thank you.
Yeah, no problem.
And I love your show.
I unfortunately can't listen to it live,
but I podcast it all the time.
Well, you're listening live now.
Well, I guess I am.
But I podcast now, and I was happy to see
that you guys were on the iTunes directory yesterday
when iTunes 4.9 came out, or the day before.
Yeah.
I looked you guys up, and I found you no problem.
You were listed on everything.
I was happy.
The new iTunes has support for podcasting.
Can we stop using that word?
Well, just for the sake of at least, you know,
coming up with this story here, what does that mean to us?
That means that people, what, they subscribe to it
so that it downloads when it's posted on the web,
and then it goes to their iCloud.
Well, I know the podcast,
but the fact that iTunes now supports this, I mean...
It means more and more people
are going to be saying that word in my presence.
Well, that's true, too, I guess.
But I think it also means that more and more people
will be introduced to Off the Hook.
True.
Well, if you're in the directory.
Yeah, we're in the directory, so that's great to know.
And please spread the word.
Spread the word about our podcasts,
and maybe we can come up with a better word for it.
We can be famous, make fortunes, have groupies.
All right, let's take another phone call.
And...
Good evening, you're on the air.
Hi, I just had a question about, like,
frequency scanners and stuff.
Okay, go ahead.
I bought a scanner at Radio Shack,
which was probably my first mistake.
But, um...
And then the guy at Radio Shack told me
that if I was listening into, like,
police frequencies or something,
they could actually find out where I was,
even though I wasn't transmitting,
I was just, like, receiving.
Do you know if it's true for that or anything?
That's not correct.
There's really no way for them to track you.
Technically, your local oscillator in the scanner
is maybe, you know,
transmitting an incredibly small signal
that there's just no way they would be able to detect.
And it's really not a concern at all.
There's really no way for them to find out about that.
Now, in England,
where it is illegal to listen to police frequencies...
It's not illegal to listen to police frequencies, by the way.
That's one thing to point out right now.
It's illegal to listen to 800 megahertz cell calls
and things like that, but not police frequencies.
In England, though, it is.
And years ago, what they did was
they broadcast some kind of a...
some kind of an announcement
or a report on a police frequency
saying that some UFO had just landed on top of a hill,
and they arrested all the people who ran up the hill
to look for the UFO,
because the only way they could have heard that
was by listening to the frequency.
So, you know, that's not really tracing somebody.
That's just, you know, tricking somebody.
You have to be careful, though.
There are some instances where
listening to police frequencies is illegal.
In New York...
In New York City, it's definitely illegal
to listen to police frequencies when you're portable.
So you can do it...
When you're portable, what does that mean?
When you're driving around in your car or walking around.
If you're driving around with a scanner on,
yes, it's frowned upon.
It's a different law that applies then.
No, no, no.
It's a law that specifically says you can't use scanners.
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
I have friends who take news photos,
and they listen to the police scanner
in order to know where to go.
As far as I know, it's illegal in New York City.
I thought it was illegal in the state of...
in most states
to use it in the commission aiding in a crime.
No, but there's also an additional law
that says you can't use it portably.
Now, the idea behind that law
is so that you could run away from...
I mean, you couldn't run away from the police
if you knew they were coming?
Is that the plan?
I don't really know.
Portably also can be interpreted many different ways.
Does that mean I can't...
Well, I'm not sure of the exact wording, but it's...
If there's any lawyer out there who knows this, please.
Well, it's just...
I just want to make it clear, though,
that you can walk around the street
listening to the police on a scanner.
There's no law against that.
That's not what you're suggesting.
I'm not sure about that.
I'm sure about that.
That's...
Because we were doing it all the time
in the city during various demonstrations.
We've done plenty of things.
Well, yeah, that's true.
And I know the illegal things,
and I know the legal things,
and listening to police scanners is completely legal.
But driving around with a police scanner in your car,
I know that's a violation of something.
I don't know what the exact law is,
but because you could, like Redhack said,
be committing some kind of a crime
and keeping ahead of the police, yeah.
One thing that is not legal
is rebroadcasting the police scanner,
and it's...
There's some interesting questions
about what exactly rebroadcasting means
if you do this over the Internet or whatever.
All right, let's take another phone call.
And good evening, you're on the air.
Oh, another note.
That's a down-to-earth.
Good evening, you're on the air.
What the...
We just spoke to you.
Look, I...
I'll try one more.
Good evening, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hello.
Hello.
Hi.
Go ahead, you're on the air.
Oh, wonderful.
I love your show, guys.
Thank you.
I had a comment regarding last week, I think it was.
You guys had a problem
with somebody getting fax calls on the cell phone?
Yes, Arseny, who actually is in Paris right now,
and he might be trying to reach us.
So far, hasn't.
Basically, what he can do is just forward the fax calls.
When you forward a phone call,
it gives you an option, like, for fax and other stuff.
He could have just forwarded to a different number.
Well, you have to have call forwarding to do that.
Oh, everybody has that nowadays.
On cell phones, yes, but not on home phones.
He was getting it on a home phone?
Yes, I think he was getting it on a landline.
Oh, I see.
Okay.
I agree, call forwarding is a great feature.
I use it all the time.
Yes.
Yes, good idea there.
Thank you.
All right, let's take another call.
Good evening, you're on the air.
Yes, hello.
Hi.
Yes, go ahead.
Yes, regard to the police scanner thing,
what's the guy named Goldstein?
Yes, he's correct.
The only law I've heard of is if you have the police scanner
only in your car because you could, let's say, rob a bank
and use it in the getaway car.
That's what that law is probably all about.
Isn't bank robbery, though, already illegal?
No, no, I know, but I'm saying if you have the scanner in the car.
You could be planning a bank robbery.
That's their thinking.
No, no, no, see what it is, when you rob the bank, right,
you have the scanner in there and you're in the getaway car
and you can know where the cops always are.
But if you have the scanner in your car and you haven't yet robbed the bank,
you can still be found guilty of a crime, right?
You wouldn't be charged with using it in a crime.
You'd be just charged with having, I guess there is something illegal
with having police frequency.
I think you actually have to be listening.
Right, you have to be listening.
Hold on.
God.
You have to be listening.
You have to have the scanner in your car and mobile.
Now, the other thing I want to ask is this.
I was told that there was some kind of something called Voice over ID
or something that somebody could actually make calls anywhere around the world,
locally through the internet only, and it would just play a flat rate.
What is that called?
I think Red Hat has an answer for you.
Voice over IP, IP being internet protocol.
Yeah, I mean there are different providers that will do that also.
Which ones?
Do you know any good ones?
Skype, S-K-Y-P-E.com.
Yeah, I heard of Skype.
I got Skype, but what do you do?
The best way would be to do it through your cable as opposed to DSL.
Yeah, I mean any kind of broadband.
What?
Any kind of broadband, DSL cable, should be able to handle it quite well.
Right, but you still have to go through the telephone company with that
because you've got to do it through the phone line.
But let's say if you do it through the cable, through the TV cable,
you know like when people have cable.
Right.
Can it be done that way?
No, it goes through your internet connection.
So however you have internet provided would be how you'd get that connection.
Right.
It doesn't change the price of it at all.
Yeah.
You still have to pay for whatever service, DSL or cable that you have already.
It just affects, you know, whatever speed you might use
depending on what kind of connection you have.
Also, certain cable companies that offer internet, I know that in my house,
they have a system where, you know, they hook it up to your phone line
and you can make phone calls from a regular phone call
and it goes through their internet line.
I know that Cablevision does that.
It's called Optimum Voice.
Right.
But the technology, the thing is called Voice over IP.
IP.
Oh, IP.
Yeah.
Okay, Voice over International Call.
Well, Internet Protocol.
Internet Protocol, okay.
But, yeah.
All right.
All right.
One last thing.
As far as the police scanner stuff goes, also,
that law doesn't really stop anything because what somebody could,
I could mention this over the air,
what somebody could do is they could have somebody at a home or stable
at a stationary place where it's not illegal, right,
have a CB in the car of the getaway car.
You're thinking like a criminal and that's healthy.
But we're out of time, so we've got to sign off for tonight.
But I want to thank everybody for calling in.
I want to thank RedHack for operating the board.
Good job, RedHack.
No problem.
Your voice sounded so much better than mine all throughout, though.
Oh, well.
We'll see you all next week.
Good night.