Stand up with Haiti. On Friday January 29th at 4 p.m. come gather at Kandum
Plaza in Brooklyn to show your support with the Haitian people devastated by
the January 12th earthquake. A candlelight march across the Brooklyn
Bridge will start at 4 53 p.m. the time of the earthquake. We will then rally at
Foley Square behind the Federal Building in Manhattan. For more information call
the coalition to stand with Haiti at 718-421-0162. That's 718-421-0162.
And you're listening to WBAI New York. The time is 7 o'clock time for Off the Hook.
So I ripped it off the wall. I cut myself while shaving. Now I can't make a cough.
We couldn't get much worse. But if they could they would. Bon Diddley Bon for the best, expect the worst.
I hope that's understood. Bon Diddley Bon!
Bon Diddley Bon!
And good evening to everybody. The program is Off the Hook. Emmanuel Goldstein here with you joined this week by Mike, Gus, Jim, Rob, Dorette, Voltaire, down in Philadelphia, Bernie S.
Greetings from Philadelphia.
And it's been a fun week. It's been an interesting week. We're going to have the State of the Union address coming up shortly after this program.
I think 9 o'clock is when our coverage starts. But we have other things to talk about this week. Things going on in the world.
Let's start off with what's going on in the rest of the world because we do spend a lot of time talking about things here in this country.
And this is a story that actually we kind of missed last week because, well, we had a couple of really great guests and only an hour to fit everything in.
So we do have some things to catch up on. Hopefully we'll be able to take some phone calls later on in the hour.
But this, this story comes out of the country known as Italy. You may have heard of it.
Listen to this. New rules to be introduced by government decree will require people who upload video onto the Internet to obtain authorization from the communications ministry,
similar to that required by television broadcasters, drastically reducing freedom to communicate over the web.
That's according to opposition lawmakers. The decree is ostensibly an enactment of a European Union directive on product placement and is due to go into effect at the end of January after being subjected to a non-binding appraisal by Parliament.
Well, my assessment of this, WTF? What in God's name? Is this science fiction? Is this real?
Are there any more details on product placement and what they mean there? So they – because normally people like to have product placement. They like to have –
I think you have to get permission before you can air a product or show something.
And possibly pay money.
Yeah.
And it would be really hard to not air a product because there's basically ads everywhere and everything is branded all around you so you're –
Well, this isn't about product placement. This is about any video. It's about uploading anything to the Internet.
You have to get permission from the government in Italy according to this, according to what we're reading here. And does anyone have any further – Rob, do you have anything else on this?
So this basically amounts to a mandatory video uploading license.
It would seem that way.
Yeah. And now have they put forth standards as to what constitutes video? If I put up an animated GIF with an embedded WAV file or embedded MP3 file –
You really need to go over to Italy because –
Well, this is part of the –
Well, can we use YTMND in Italy? That's what I meant.
Yeah. Interesting. Yes, .red.
Part of the problem is some of the wording in this decree, as they're calling it, is a little vague and people aren't sure exactly how they plan on enforcing this or –
I'm sorry. We were distracted by learning how to use a microphone. Sorry. Ask your question again.
I was simply saying how there's some questions on how exactly this is going to be implemented. For instance, who's going to implement it? As far as I understand, the decree simply says this is going to be done by some authority.
Well, I mean, that's the fact that there's a decree, period.
I don't understand that.
Throws me the wrong way.
How in any country that calls itself a democracy is able to have an executive branch that can just pass a decree that is non-bindingly evaluated by their legislature? Makes no sense.
Well, calling Italy a democracy may be overstating the case, but the problem to me seems that this is completely unenforceable.
Unless every internet provider is going to install special filters that detect you uploading a video and can somehow circumvent encryption and all this stuff, it seems to me just completely unenforceable, especially if your videos are being hosted outside of Italy.
How many other unenforceable things have we seen come down the road and hopefully be turned away? But it doesn't mean they're not going to try.
One worrying thing, though, is that they will enforce this only against people who they otherwise dislike. Berlusconi, the head of Italy, as you know, owns most of the media in Italy.
So if he is able to use this to repress his critics while not caring about people who post videos of their cats, that is where trouble could start.
I'm sure Hugo Chavez is going to be interested in this as well. I think the two of them would really get along. Go ahead, Voltaire.
If you've been to Italy...
I'm sorry, your mic's not working at all. Hang on, let's try this button here. Go ahead.
Hello.
No, it doesn't. You're going to have to share with Dottred. I'm sorry.
Cooties.
Sorry.
Well, if you've been to Italy, you know that the problem is not that people are uploading videos. It's because the internet speeds there are so slow that...
Is that the problem? That clogging up the bandwidth by uploading? Is that what this is about?
No, it's not. It's just that they have very little bandwidth penetration there.
There is the idea that the reason this was actually passed was...
It hasn't been passed yet.
Well, I mean, pushed to get passed is because of Berlusconi's position as being this media tycoon.
First of all, if it's a decree, it doesn't have to be passed. They say it's going into effect at the end of January.
Yeah, so as far as we know, it's going to...
Okay, guys, don't fight over the microphone. Go ahead. One at a time.
It's Italian way.
One at a time.
Anyway, this started getting drawn up around the same time that Berlusconi's media company, whatever the heck it's called, was getting into a lawsuit with Google.
They were suing Google for damages for their content being used in ways they don't like.
Okay, Voltaire, one final comment from you and then we're moving on to another story.
I kind of doubt this will be passed.
And if it is passed, it'll go to the European Court of Human Rights and they'll reject it.
Well, let's keep an eye on this one.
Yeah, I don't disagree.
It's an interesting story.
Now, okay, let's move over to China now.
China is launching an ID-based rail ticket system.
Yeah, this basically allows them to issue railway tickets based on passengers' identity.
They're doing this, they say, to curb illegal ticket sales during the peak travel season of Chinese New Year coming up really soon.
The scheme to sell railway tickets based on proven IDs began last Thursday in South China.
The first real name ticket was booked by phone.
Sources with the ticket booking system of Gangzhou Railway Group said the system was initially adopted for trains between Gandang and inland provinces of Hunan, Sichuan, and Guizhou.
Home to millions of migrant workers who were rushed back for the spring festival holiday.
Remember last year they had all kinds of problems with weather conditions.
I mean, is there more to this story than just simply wanting to control traffic?
Is there a way of tracking people's locations easily with this?
Sure. If you have to give your name to buy a railway ticket, then it's a good bet that after the train runs, you're going to be at the destination of your ticket.
Don't we have the same system here? You have to give your name to get a train ticket?
Yeah, but it doesn't work.
But you have to give your name, ID-based. You have to show ID on the train, they say.
They say. I've never once been asked.
What constitutes an illegal ticket sale? What's going on that they have to curb?
People, I don't know in China specifically, but in some countries in that part of the world, people make fake tickets and sell them and stuff like that.
Now this just seems to make no sense to me because if they were having trouble with fake tickets being used, all they're simply going to do is have a better authentication for what tickets are real.
Like some sort of a code on each of the tickets that can be checked.
Go ahead, Bernie.
I think the Chinese government is using this whole concern about scalpers for the New Year's tickets as a subterfuge to basically track where everybody goes in the country.
Just a few weeks ago, I was in China and I purchased a railway ticket from Shanghai to Beijing.
I hope you're not the reason they're doing this.
Oh, no. Well, maybe they're sharing information with Amtrak when I got deported from Canada. I'm not sure about that.
In any case, because Amtrak ratted me out then.
It was about a seven-hour trip from Shanghai to Beijing, and apparently now it'd have to show ID if I were to purchase such a ticket.
If the authorities were looking for me in China, as apparently they were in Canada when Amtrak ratted me out to them, they would be waiting for me at the other end.
I could probably be a very unwelcome greeting, even though I wasn't moving from one country to another.
Obviously, China is very interested in control of their political dissidents.
I believe that this move will be used to see where their political dissidents are traveling so that they can follow them and see who they're talking to.
We say that about this, but this is common practice in the West as well.
I bought a train ticket in Germany. I had to show my passport in order to buy it.
It doesn't seem like it's that unusual for other countries to insist on ID when buying these tickets.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that why is it getting so much attention simply because it's China.
Now, when you had to show your passport, was it a train that would run outside Germany's borders?
No. No, it was not.
Because I know of some train systems that can.
I mean, they ask for passports for all kinds. You want to get change. You want to get a phone card.
I mean, I imagine you don't have to show a passport. You can show some other form of ID.
But in Germany, it is required to carry an ID card at all times.
So it's a little different.
Okay. And then we have this story, which is more related to us.
Citizens from 35 countries could be barred from boarding U.S.-bound flights starting in March if they don't register online before flying.
That's according to Homeland Security Department.
The government hopes that registration will flag visitors with criminal records or immigration problems before they enter the USA.
So this is something that particularly affects people coming to Hope in July.
And we just opened pre-registration for that, www.hope.net.
We hope to see a lot of Europeans there.
But, you know, increasingly, I get people saying, I'm scared to go to your country.
All this registration and questioning is really putting me off.
What's different about what's being introduced here?
Well, this is something that has been in the works for a while.
I think we've mentioned it on the show before.
Currently, if you're from one of these 35 countries, they're called the visa waiver countries.
You don't have to get advance permission to come to the United States.
You can just show up with your passport at the gate and fly here.
And then when you get to the United States, the border agent will decide usually to let you in, sometimes not.
So what they're changing is that you're going to have to tell the U.S. government a couple days in advance that you're thinking of coming.
What about spur-of-the-moment trips to the U.S.? Are those out now?
They may make some hoops for that, or they may not.
I mean, it takes six hours to fly here anyway, so if you have 24 hours notice, you know, it's only so much extra.
Can you just get permanent permission to come here whenever you feel like?
I believe it lasts for 10 years.
I don't know if it says in the article you're looking at.
It lasts for some period of time.
It's not just for one trip.
This system is currently used in Australia, but it's designed to keep people out, of course.
And it does affect 35 countries.
Now, you have to fill out all kinds of information.
But just to be clear, people are saying it's 35 countries, but these are the only 30, except for Canada, which is a special case because it's right next door.
But these are the only 35 countries where you don't have to jump through even more hoops.
From the rest of the world, you have to get a visa.
You have to show up at an embassy or a consulate and get interviewed, and it's way more hoops than this one.
So saying they're adding restrictions for 35 countries is really sort of misleading.
They're now having restrictions for the whole world except Canada.
It's just that these 35 countries used to not have quite so many.
So what they're doing is simply removing some of the restriction waivers, if you will, that originally were in place for these countries.
Well, it's a new system.
It's sort of midway between having to get a visa and not having to get a visa.
Okay.
Well, let me just go over some of the things that you got to fill out on the form.
Standard things like birth date, country where you live.
Email address is on here, but it's optional, as is a phone number.
But you have to give, obviously, your name and your sex and your passport expiration date, things like that.
Do they ask you if you're a communist?
Well, I'm going to get to the good stuff here.
There is some interesting questions.
Let's see.
You put in information about what flight you're taking.
That's optional, too, because you might not know that.
Okay.
Here are some questions, though, that you need to answer.
Do you have a communicable disease, physical or mental disorder, or are you a drug abuser or addict?
Now, I think you have to fill this out anyway on those little cards you get when you come to this thing.
This is the card, but in advance.
Well, it's a little bit bigger than the card.
But, yeah, it's pretty much that part, at least, was asked.
Are these all just yes or no questions?
Or if you say yes to having a mental disorder or some disease, can you tell them what it is?
I'm sure they'll want to know.
Cold or, you know, autism.
Mm-hmm.
They give you all kinds of information as to when you should answer yes and when you should answer no, which seems pretty simple to me.
But they go into some detail on the dhs.gov web page.
Here's another question.
Who would answer yes to that?
What kind of criminal would answer yes?
I'm entering the country to embark upon a life of crime.
Moral turpitude, doesn't that usually consider to include homosexuality?
Like, that's a really dubious thing to be putting in there.
I don't think we define it as such anymore.
It's not a crime.
Was that one big long question, or were you just saying or for several questions?
No, that's question B.
That's one big long question.
That kind of worries me right there because if, for instance, they have being convicted of one minor crime along with drug trafficking, then all of a sudden saying yes to any of those things could get you barred from coming in.
Yeah, it could get you put on some lists.
A little more on the moral turpitude.
Such offenses generally involve conduct which is inherently base, vile, or depraved according to half my friends and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed to persons or society in general.
Somebody please send that one out for translation because I want to know what they mean by that.
So if I don't call my mom next week, am I going to get barred from entering the United States?
No, you're not.
You might get barred from entering her house.
I don't know.
I guess it depends on how you define society.
In my opinion, that doesn't really seem to work because if you get convicted for some sort of a crime that is morally bad in that country, it may not translate properly here, yet you might have to check yes either way.
Well, I think they're talking about this kind.
These are the exact same questions that they already ask.
Like, they don't ask Americans because Americans with U.S. passports are allowed to enter the U.S. whether they're morally, whatever the adjective is.
Which is my point.
These questions are asked.
But these are not new questions.
If you're going to think it's a stupidly worded question, you could have been thinking that for the past 20 years.
Exactly.
Yes.
Now, Bernie, go ahead.
Bernie?
Excuse me?
Go ahead.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
I didn't say you said Bernie.
I was just, as I think Doug just pointed out, the mores of one country are different than the mores of another country.
It doesn't specify whose mores they're grading you on.
And likewise, apparently, if you've been evicted for even the most minor drug offense, like smoking marijuana and having a quantity, an extremely small quantity of it, that could disqualify you from entering the United States now.
I'm not sure if that's a new question.
Is it, Mike?
I mean, I'm a U.S. citizen, so I don't have to answer these questions when I enter the U.S., but no, it's not a new question.
But don't you get the card when they come down the aisle on the plane and they say, are you a citizen?
Don't you always say no so you get the interesting card?
I do.
I mean, I've read it, but I don't get it every time.
I don't memorize it.
Well, but if being caught with like an eighth of a gram of marijuana is you have to answer yes to, and that's part of the same question that asks you if you're a drug trafficker, then, you know, that right there poses a big problem.
Let's continue with these questions because we do want to get through this.
By the way, question C is missing on their website.
It goes from B to D.
So if anyone knows what question C is all about, I think that might be the interesting one.
D, are you seeking to work in the U.S. or have you ever been excluded and deported or been previously removed from the United States or procured or attempted to procure a visa or entry into the U.S. by fraud or misrepresentation?
Well, that is a valid question.
If you've been caught or kicked out.
It's a stupid question.
Who's going to answer that?
If you've been kicked out of the country and you try to enter the country, I'm sure they're going to be like, yeah, they should know.
They would know this already.
Are they going to give you points for honesty?
I doubt it.
Did I hear that right?
Was that just a question asking you if you're into shady things added to are you seeking work in the U.S.?
Yeah, it's part of the same question.
Here's E. Have you ever detained, retained or withheld custody of a child from a U.S. citizen granted custody of the child?
That's a lot of people that do that.
So that's going to be an interesting question to answer right there.
Question F is also missing.
Question G. Have you ever asserted immunity from prosecution?
Yeah.
Have you ever done that?
I haven't.
It's fun.
I mean, it's rarely successful.
Voltaire, have you?
I'd like to assert immunity from prosecution right now.
Yeah.
Well, I'd like to do that, too.
It'd be nice if we all had immunity from prosecution.
Well, if you weren't U.S. citizens, you wouldn't be allowed in the country.
Listen, the thing is for people who want to travel to this country, it's yeah, you got to jump with some hoops.
But if you're coming to see us in July, it's worth the hoops.
And you'll get through them and you'll have some interesting stories to tell.
And isn't that what hacking is all about, going through the challenges?
It's a challenge, yeah.
But it's a worthwhile challenge because the end result is going to be cool.
Yes, guys.
Sorry.
Quick thought about the immunity from prosecution thing.
It seems like that might be – would that be related to Guantanamo and the detainees there?
No.
No?
They're not being prosecuted.
If you're, say, a foreign diplomat and you come to the United States and shoot someone,
you may not be able to be prosecuted for that, but they don't want you back.
That's what we're talking about.
Okay.
Go ahead, Bernie, and then move on.
I forgot what I was going to say.
But I will say the immunity from prosecution thing, that could be any diplomat or former diplomat
or law enforcement officer or former law enforcement officer.
They're immune from prosecution from certain things.
So this really is a cast of broad net.
I'm hoping this doesn't – the U.S. travel industry is up in arms about this because
they're worried about losing travelers who are afraid to provide all this personal information
to the U.S. government.
I think the much bigger risk is that people will not know about this and will not do it.
The net is – these questions, as I said, are the same questions they've always asked.
The morally turpitude people have always been forbidden from entering the U.S.
But what is worrying is that people who are morally upright and forget to fill out this form
may not be allowed in.
All right.
Well, we'll see what people do in the months ahead.
This goes into effect, I believe, in March.
So we'll keep people updated on that.
Okay.
Back to this country now.
On Tuesday, yesterday, the federal government formally barred truckers and bus drivers
from sending text messages while behind the wheel.
Yeah.
We want the drivers of big rigs and buses and those who share the roads with them to be safe,
said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
This is an important safety step, and we will be taking more to eliminate the threat of
distracted driving.
Well, I mean, is anybody really surprised that they're doing this?
No.
But weren't taxis also on there?
I don't see taxis listed here.
We were hoping they would be.
I remember on one of the other articles I read yesterday that's seeing taxis.
Bernie, do you know something about taxis?
It's a different law.
As of this Friday, the New York City Taxicab Commission, Taxicab and Limousine Commission,
is banning taxicab drivers from using their cell phones in a car for any kind of talking
or texting while they're driving a passenger.
And they can't even have an earpiece, like a Bluetooth headset.
They can't even be wearing it while they're driving around.
I know, Gus, you've had some really scary experiences with cabbies driving around and
almost running people over because they're not paying attention to the road while they're
yapping on their phone.
Well, as of this coming Friday, if your cabbie is doing that and you fear that they are going
to harm other people, you can call the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission.
Their phone number is 212-676-1013.
That's excellent, because it was actually not in New York City.
I was in San Francisco on Pride Night when everybody is sort of stumbling through the streets.
And there was a taxi driver who was texting and nearly ran some people over.
And I was just like, I'm going to get out of your cab now.
I do not wish to pay you.
You're running people over.
On the taxicab note, I just want to say I don't remember taxicab drivers being any better
at driving before cell phones became popular.
Well, what were they doing to get distracted then?
I just, I think that...
Yelling at the radio maybe?
Who knows.
Really enjoying those beaded seat cushions a lot.
Well, you know, I think I could see the rationale behind not wanting people who are transporting
other people, bus drivers, train conductors, things like that, texting.
But, you know, speaking personally, I'm able to text while I drive without even looking
at my phone.
So how is that a distraction?
You know, it's predictive text.
You know what you're typing.
Just by pressing a button a certain number of times.
It's not the hardest thing in the world to do.
And going back to the truckers, haven't they been using CB radios for the past however
many decades?
Well, yes, another thing.
Yes, go ahead, Bernie.
Not only CBs, as Rob pointed out, but virtually all commercial truckers now that work for
a company, they have these computers in their cabs.
They're like satellite terminals for the dispatcher to send them new instructions, like if they
have to reroute their load or pick up another load, that sort of thing.
And I've talked to truckers about this.
Truck stops, just making conversation.
And these are frequent messages that are sent to them they have to reply on.
Reply to.
So there's a screen and a keyboard.
But the trucking industry managed to lobby Congress to provide an exemption for that.
So texting on a computer terminal belonging to the trucking companies is not forbidden.
But texting on a phone is.
So this is obviously a safety loophole.
And someone pointed out that if you're going just a legal speed limit, like 55 miles an
hour, the time it takes you to send one text, you've already gone, the average text, you've
already gone the length of a football field.
And if you're driving an 18-wheeler or one of these passenger buses, you're hurtling
a huge amount of kinetic energy and you could cause a whole lot of damage.
Okay, well, Bernie, let me ask you then.
Obviously, this is a bad thing, this loophole that the trucking industry was able to lobby
for.
But how is it any different than the ham radio lobbyists who got handheld ham radios to be
exempt from being banned?
They can use them hands-free.
And this law apparently prevents truckers or commercial bus line drivers from using
their phone even with a hands-free.
So that's a very good question.
But the ham radio operators do not have to enter text messages on a screen.
They don't have to be looking at their device.
Ham radio operators are not transporting huge amounts of heavy cargo.
Well, they could be.
When we drive to ham benches, I know we are, so it's entirely possible.
They're typically not driving 18-wheelers and they're not driving a busload of passengers.
So apparently the damage that would be caused by someone talking on a ham radio or CB radio
would be less.
But I just thought it was an interesting example of corporate special interests modifying
federal safety regulations for their own benefit.
And this goes to show you now that the Department of Transportation has said that they're going
to try to change the law in the future to outlaw using these satellite terminals where
they have to text back to their dispatcher in the future.
But we'll see how that goes.
My understanding of the DARPA Grand Challenge, which we were talking about last week, that
creates cars that can sort of drive themselves, was that ultimately this would also have commercial
and civilian applications.
So I don't understand if the government really cares, why don't they just really begin to
start developing automated car technology in order to make it so that we can all text
all the time and just use our computers and the cars take us where we need to go?
Oh, joy.
Nonstop Twitter feeds.
Great.
Go ahead.
So I have an answer for you, Emanuel, about why maybe they can't even use hands-free cell
phones while driving.
And if you've ever been on a New York City bus, you might notice that there's a little
sign saying, stand behind the line, another one saying, don't talk to the bus driver while
the bus is in operation, which implies they're not even supposed to have any conversation,
at least with these bus drivers in New York City, while they're driving with passengers
and all that.
So a hands-free cell phone would basically still be a conversation, a distraction, and
maybe they're not supposed to have any distractions.
I don't think I asked that, though, did I?
Well, you mentioned about them not being able to use hands-free cell phones.
Meanwhile, CB radio and the ham radio stuff, the exemptions.
Anyway, let's move on to another very interesting story, which actually we reported this last
night on Off the Wall, and the way the story read on CNN, there was obviously something
missing.
A story about these people that were somehow trying to mess with the phone system in a
Senate office in Louisiana.
It's getting weirder and weirder.
Alleging a plot to tamper with phones in Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu's office in the
Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans, the FBI arrested four people Monday,
including James O'Keefe, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at Acorn field offices
severely damaged the advocacy group's credibility.
Aha!
So now we have a reason why these people were allegedly doing this, so we're not quite sure
what they were doing yet.
But basically, four people were arrested in total.
They were all charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent
of committing a felony.
One of the four was arrested with a listening device in a car blocks from the Senator's
offices.
He spoke on condition of anonymity because the official actually that revealed this information,
that information was not included in official arresting documents.
Now, according to the FBI affidavit, two of these guys entered the federal building dressed
as telephone company employees wearing jeans, fluorescent green vests, tool belts, and hard
hats.
When they arrived at Landrieu's 10th floor office, O'Keefe was already in the office
and had told the staffer he was waiting for someone to arrive.
When the other two entered the office, they told the staffer they were there to fix phone
problems.
And at that time, the staffer referred to only as witness one.
Isn't this great?
They already have it all written out, paperwork and all.
Witness one in the affidavit observed O'Keefe positioning his cell phone in his hand to
videotape the operation.
And O'Keefe later admitted to agents that yes, he recorded the event.
After being asked, the staffer gave one of these guys access to the main phone at the
reception desk.
The staffer told investigators that that person manipulated the handset.
He also tried to call the main office phone using his cell phone and said the main line
wasn't working.
They then told the staffer they needed to perform repair work on the main phone system
and asked where the telephone closet was located.
The staffer showed the men to the main general services administration office on the 10th
floor and two of them went in.
And there, a GSA employee asked for the men's credentials.
They said they left them in their vehicle.
Classic social engineering ploy here.
That's when the U.S. Marshal Service stepped in and apprehended all four of them.
According to the senator, she said this is a very unusual situation and somewhat unsettling
for me and my staff.
Grammar.
Oh my goodness.
The individuals responsible have been charged with entering federal property under false
pretenses for the purposes of committing a felony.
I am as interested as everyone else about their motives and purpose, which I hope will
become clear as the investigation moves forward.
Well, it turns out at least one of these guys was involved in the ACORN videos.
If you haven't heard of them, it's pretty fascinating to watch and see some really interesting
developments.
I'll just put it that way as far as hurting the reputation of that organization.
And apparently, this was an attempt to hurt reputations of more people.
I'm not exactly sure.
Anybody have any theories as to what was going on here?
Go ahead, Voltaire.
I think basically they were trying to...
You've got to speak louder.
The mic is shot.
I think they were trying to splice a broadcast, a transmitter, a transmitting device onto
the phone lines at the office.
Yeah.
And then have the person in the van pick up, listen to...
Well, that's pretty obvious because they had a listening device in a car down the road.
Maybe they were looking for something.
Maybe they thought this politician or politicians were corrupt in whatever way.
Or maybe they just were trying to stick out a broad net and just see what they picked up.
Well, you can't just walk into a Senate office and tap the telephones or plant listening
devices.
I mean, I give them credit for having guts to do that, to pull that off.
But you really can't expect to get away with it.
Well, they could have just had a conversation saying, you know, these kinds of people have
backdoor stuff going all the time.
I wonder what we'd hear if we got a bug on the phone lines.
Rob?
If this guy was some kind of conservative filmmaker, could he have just been pulling
it as a stunt to try and show how lax the security is that his guys could get in and do this?
Well, it seems like a ridiculous way of doing it.
So I'd have to give that theory some credence because I can't imagine how they thought they'd
ever get away with something like this.
I have a point where I'd really like to see this guy's, the other films that he's done
because it sort of sounds like he's like the anti-Michael Moore in a way.
Well, what he did was he walked into some Acorn offices and pretended to be a pimp with
a prostitute saying that they needed to claim all kinds of exemptions in the form of all
these children from El Salvador that were going to be working as prostitutes.
It's like, you know, they really found some incompetent employees that actually played
along with this.
They did, but I mean, it sounded like from the articles that I've been reading about
this, it sounded like it wasn't just that the employees played along, but they really
pushed the employees.
Like, it sounds like the employees initially were sort of like, what's going on here?
This seems kind of dubious.
So it's not, that's my understanding.
When I say play along, I don't mean that they actually were a part of the gag.
I think there was one in California that seemed to be sort of playing along, but if you watch
the one in Baltimore, they really are very bad as far as what they're doing.
I mean, Acorn has done a lot of really good things, don't get me wrong, but their reputation
has been tarnished by all kinds of ineptness and some shadiness as well, which needs to
be-
As well as political opposition to the work they do.
Of course, yeah.
But you can't turn a blind eye when something's obviously wrong.
I mean, they had a million dollar embezzlement scandal.
It's another possible $5 million embezzlement scandal.
So you got to look at these things as possibly worthy of attention.
But yeah, there's also, you got to look at the motivations of the people behind it.
And yesterday, I think we found out something interesting about the motivations.
And this is a really old trick that shouldn't have gotten this far.
This one just reminds us that this is very similar to a story about how Kevin Mitnick
and who else was it?
I can't remember.
Basically dressed up in uniforms and walked into a place.
And he told this story during one or another of his Hope speeches.
And they walked into a place posing as employees and carted out a bunch of equipment.
And that was how many years ago?
And the government office is still not wise to the gag?
Well, it is.
They got caught.
Not for that, they didn't.
But not for that.
But they got much farther than they should have been able to, I think.
Bernie, go ahead.
In a related story, this same organization, ACORN, was one of the office in Philadelphia,
the ACORN office here, was one of those targeted by O'Keefe in his videos last year.
And the day after the story broke, I was really curious about that.
I looked on their website.
There wasn't much about it.
So I called the ACORN office.
I emailed them as well.
And I said, hey, this guy, if he covertly recorded you in Pennsylvania, which is a two-party
state as far as electronic surveillance, like you can't record somebody speaking to
you in a relatively private setting without telling them you're recording them.
I said, this guy probably violated state and maybe federal law by recording your conversation
covertly in this video.
And they were not aware that this was illegal, that there was criminal or civil damages possible.
And just within the past week, the ACORN employee in Philadelphia that this person, this O'Keefe
guy videotaped last year, has filed a lawsuit against O'Keefe.
Now, apparently, the lawsuit was filed just a couple days before he was arrested in Louisiana
by U.S. Marshals and charged by the FBI.
But it looks like this guy has his hands full.
I'd like to think that it had something to do with this guy being sued.
Well, hold on.
Hold on.
Hold on one second, Bernie.
Now, we spent a lot of time in this program talking about cases where people are recording
the police and the police try to prosecute them for recording them or various other instances
where somebody is caught doing something wrong through surreptitious means of videotaping
them and things like that.
So how can we support people like that and then at the same time turn around and use
this, what I think is a very bad law where you can get prosecuted for recording somebody
without their knowledge?
How can we justify using that?
Videotaping someone and recording their speech covertly are different.
In Pennsylvania, there's a handful of states.
Right.
It's not like that in New York.
That's right.
I can walk into a 7-Eleven and try to get some guy to sell me something he's not supposed
to sell me or whatever, have some kind of conversation, and that's within my rights.
And in fact, I think you'll find many undercover reporters, that's what they do all the time.
So I just don't get how using what is a bad...
It's like using the DMCA against somebody.
Could we live with that?
Well, I just think if the law is going to be used against people, if the law is being
used against private citizens for recording the audio from a cell phone video audio recorder,
then people who are engaging in political activities trying to entrap civil rights organizations
like ACORN trying to get people registered to vote, it's fair game.
So anyhow, I just brought the law to the ACORN's office's attention here in Philadelphia, and
apparently the attorney they hired is the same one who defended our layout artist, Shape Shifter,
back in 2000 when he was arrested for free speech activities during the Republican National Convention.
So it's kind of interesting.
We'll see how this plays out, but it looks like James O'Keefe has his hands full right now.
Okay.
Do you at least agree that it's a bad law?
I don't really know.
I personally don't want my speech to be recorded covertly.
It's one of the few benefits of living in Pennsylvania that my speech cannot be covertly recorded
without the person committing a felony.
Yeah, but there's ways of looking at this.
If you do an undercover investigation of, say, a public official or anybody who is serving the public in some form,
how many times do you use covert means to do that, and this law can be used to thwart something like that?
I've actually recorded calls I've made to people in Pennsylvania, and I've crossed the border.
I've gone to Delaware, which is a one-party state, and I've recorded a call from there.
It's only half an hour away, just to stay legal.
And I didn't have to prove that later on, but it's just the way the law is.
Whether you like it or not, it's how it is, and if it's going to be used against one set of people possessing one ideology,
it should be returned in kind to the other.
Oh, boy. Go ahead.
I believe that the thing about this is isn't that they're just, say, revealing some sort of injustice,
but that they're biased in some way, that they're trying to entrap whoever they're speaking with,
they're asking questions in such a manner, trying to get an incriminating answer out of them repeatedly until they get the answer they want.
Yeah, they weren't really a hooker and a pimp trying to get tax information,
but the fact that somebody was stupid enough to try and help these people get around the law, that deserves to be known.
I think that was totally valid, what they did there,
and if people are stupid enough to actually fall into that kind of a thing, that should be known.
The weird thing about the Philadelphia person is that she kicked them out,
so I'm not sure why she's even suing them because apparently she looks fine doing this.
She did the right thing.
Well, no, but she still might have been recorded without our knowledge.
Right.
But like some others who have watched the video in here said,
a lot of the employees who did eventually give some sort of information were confused and hesitant at first,
and who knows what was going through their minds.
But I think the idea is that people are saying these people are right-wing activists or whatever,
and they're just simply going after left-wing people until they can find something incriminating.
Right.
But I don't agree with them, but what they're doing by trying to figure out ways to make people do stupid things,
I think the shoe was reversed.
If it was on the other side, I think we'd be laughing.
See, I do have to agree with you.
I did think it was a little odd.
Okay.
Voltaire?
I think it is very important, as you mentioned, that we do have single-party laws
where only one person in a conversation has to be aware that they're recording it.
Because whatever alternative there is, the police and the law enforcement and the government always has access to surveillance methods.
Sometimes they'll need a warrant, sometimes they won't.
But as citizens, we never have the right to a warrant to record a conversation.
Yeah, we're not talking about government surveillance here.
We're talking about one person going out and filming an organization or another person.
Or a government or a citizen filming a government.
Like filming a cop doing something, making an arrest.
I think people should have that right to do that.
Go ahead, Gus.
I mean, like the argument that people don't—that it's problematic that they might be pressured into things,
I think it's mostly a matter of sort of most of the time acting as if you might be recorded.
Because I think more and more often it's likely that you will be recorded.
Yeah.
You know, at your job you should be acting responsibly, especially if you're helping people.
And I thought it was fascinating to find out these things.
Anyway, so it's an interesting story.
It's continuing to unfold.
They're calling it the Watergate of New Orleans.
And I imagine we'll find out more about all this in weeks ahead.
Here's an interesting sort of semi-similar type story.
A Russian police officer who posted a video on the Internet alleging the police force in his hometown was corrupt has been arrested.
Yes.
Alexei Demovsky, who became widely known after speaking out on video sharing site YouTube back in November, has been charged with fraud and corruption.
Yeah.
Mr. Demovsky, who is from southern Russia, had already been fired from his job after posting videos.
He had earlier said the authorities wanted to silence him and get revenge for what he had done.
Now, in this video, he made allegations of corruption and illegal activities within the police force in his hometown,
saying he could no longer tolerate being told to arrest innocent people to meet monthly targets.
He went on to make a direct appeal to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to clean up the law enforcement agencies.
It caused a sensation in a country where challenging the authorities is not only highly unusual, but can also prove to be extremely dangerous.
The video registered more than a million hits.
Police said an investigation showed there was no evidence for any of his claims.
A spokesman said he was sacked for libel and acts that stain the honor of the security forces.
But few in Russia will be surprised that he has now been arrested on charges which carry a maximum of six years in prison.
And, yeah, I can't say I'm surprised either.
But that's what happens when you reveal corruption in some places.
Yeah.
And this is one of those places too sometimes.
Go ahead, Mike.
If he had lived in a country that required a video uploading license, he wouldn't have been able to speak out.
He wouldn't have had this problem because he wouldn't have ever been able to do it in the first place.
And that's why this will spread like wildfire.
Yeah.
All right.
Our phone number is 212-209-2900.
We'd like to hear from our listeners with any comments or feedback.
There's an update on the situation with the hackerspace in Sweden.
Reading from their website over at blog.hackerspaces.org.
Actually, not their website, but it's a website that's talking about this.
The recent history of what has happened at the Forsk, which is a hackerspace in Malmö, Sweden, before and after the police raids.
Here's a little bit of that history.
On the 21st of November, Forsk was featured in a local newspaper.
One week later on the 28th, the police made a raid against the entire hackerspace.
This is the one that was like inside a club and they pretended to be raiding the club.
I think so.
They say the people conducting the raid didn't have a search warrant.
The next day, the hackerspace people made statements in various newspapers and blogs.
Of course, if you go to blog.hackerspaces.org and look for this story, you'll see those statements.
At the same time, police made statements about the club below our space, in their words.
On the 9th of December, the prosecutor gave a statement that said the computers could be returned to the hackerspace since all data had been, quote-unquote, secured.
At this point, there are still no allegations concerning the hackerspace.
But in statements to the press, the following terms were said by the prosecutors.
Preparation for grand theft.
Computer intrusion.
Breaking of the special knife law.
Special knife law?
Fencing.
I'm not sure what kind of fencing.
Is this the kind involving swords?
It could be swords, though.
It might be more of the special knife law.
And breaking alcohol laws.
When asked about these allegations, the prosecutor claimed that there is nothing there that they were pressed charges on or something along those lines.
On the 10th of December, they asked the police to return the equipment.
They said no, as they haven't been able to use or understand any of the data they copied off the disks.
How much computers do you need to violate alcohol laws?
Sweden has very strict alcohol laws, but you don't need a computer to violate them.
They're not saying they needed the computer for that.
They're saying that's why they raided the space.
For this reason, they decided to keep the machines to apparently bargain with.
One laptop unrelated to the hackerspace was given back, but was totally wrecked.
One disk overwritten with garbage data, a DVD player on it was broken.
On the 18th of December, police contacted employers and relatives of the people belonging to the hackerspace to try and push them to give up information on the people, what passwords they might have used.
On the 4th of January of this year, the police decided to hand back ink that they seized.
Why would you seize ink?
A Wi-Fi antenna, a Linksys router, and 3 out of 10 bus cards.
I'm not sure if they mean bus cards that you plug into a computer or bus short for business cards.
Or transit.
Bus passes.
Passes, yeah.
On the 19th of January, police raided the founders of the hackerspace, Grillbit, in the Swedish city of Umeå.
And I'm sorry if I'm pronouncing that wrong, which I probably am.
During this raid, the police confiscated four servers, one laptop, and one external USB drive.
And the website, the blog that was being run by the first hackerspace was being hosted at the second hackerspace, so now their blog is offline.
Their blog being forksningsavd, which I can spell for you, F-O-R-S-K-N-I-N-G-S-A-V-D-D-O-T-S-E.
So if you can't read that, that's why you can't reach it, because it's been taken down.
On the 20th of January, the police accused MMNO, which is the Grillbit hackerspace, of computer intrusion.
Prosecutors disagree on the charges but continue to pursue the case.
The charges are based on the hackerspace using the internet connection at the rented office to set up a VPN.
According to the ISP, this VPN disturbed the service for other customers since it was complex to limit its bandwidth.
And this type of connection was not agreed upon.
So basically, we're talking about a term of service violation here, a possible term of service violation resulting in a hackerspace raid.
Furthermore, the ISP refused to contact the hackerspace since this would give them a chance to remove something illegal before the raid.
That's what they're saying there.
So basically, that's where this whole thing stands right now.
And basically, if you want more information, I suggest going to blog.hackerspaces.org and looking for information on the Swedish hackerspace raid.
It's an ongoing story.
It's kind of scary and I think the first of its kind where hackerspaces are being targeted.
Go ahead, Voltaire.
I could be totally wrong about this, but just a thought I had.
I was wondering how closely associated this hackerspace is with the pirate party movement in Sweden, which is the country where it's strongest in.
I was wondering if maybe this could be a form of political intimidation.
People that are better versed in this might want to email us at oth at 2600.com.
Yeah, please let us know because we'd like to know more about that.
Maybe there's some kind of a connection because, yeah, you could have something there.
It could definitely be a correlation.
They were democratically elected, the people in the pirate party, right, in Sweden.
But this could be another instance of political harassment.
Now, what I find somewhat sad about the story is that at least the timeline is implying that their media attention is what spurred the police interest into these raids in the first place.
And then now they also seem to be treating it as if they're trying to take down some sort of a crime network or something.
They're attacking one space, then another space, or possibly just attacking the other hackerspace because they hosted the blog that was criticizing them.
Well, we'll find out more.
We'll pass it on.
All right.
212-209-2900 is our telephone number.
Listening to Off the Hook.
If you have any comments or questions, give us a call.
Let's see who's out there.
Good evening.
Good evening.
You're on Off the Hook.
Do you call every week?
I mean, you sit around your house or whatever it is that you're allowed into, and you just simply dial the phone over and over again to say the same stupid words every single week on every single show?
Do you ever sleep?
Do you have a life?
Does he need a computer?
No, it could be a computer that calls and says those words when we answer the phone.
I don't think he's a computer.
Could be.
That would be nice, but I don't think it's true.
Good evening.
You're on Off the Hook.
Hi.
I wanted to call in and kind of comment on what you were saying about two-party recording.
I think what's really needed here is more of a better definition of when we're in a public space, when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and who has a reasonable expectation of privacy more so than simply going to a one-party recording system.
That's all I got to say.
Okay.
Thanks for your comment.
Take another phone call, if this button will work.
I'm sorry.
Good evening.
You're on Off the Hook.
Yes.
When shall I start getting my 2600 magazine, which was a pledge in August?
This was in August, the summer drive.
Those are actually going out over the next week or so.
We had a big delay getting things from overseas, but the other packages are going out most certainly within the next week, so you should be seeing something.
All right.
Thanks.
Sorry for the delay.
Those of you for the autumn fundraiser, your premiums are also going out, so we're really catching up here.
Don't forget, next week, we start the winter fundraiser.
Oh, yeah.
Thank goodness we're catching up.
We are catching up.
We're definitely catching up.
People here are working very hard.
Good evening.
You're on Off the Hook.
Hey, how are you?
I just want to pass something along, get your opinion on something I noticed with the cable TV and the emergency broadcast that comes on.
One day it came on.
I have cable and cable vision.
It came on.
I said, oh, I don't want to hear this beeping and chirping, so I changed the channel.
It was on every channel, wasn't it?
No.
Well, it follows you.
I think it's on every channel.
It doesn't really follow you?
No, it follows you.
I changed the channel, and then it came up there.
Then I said, I shut it off.
I said, you know what?
Something came to me.
I said, let me turn it off and see what happens when I turn it back on.
They knocked on your door.
No.
I turned the TV back on, and then nothing happens.
Then after about 30 seconds, it appears again.
It comes out.
This happened.
I tried it again just about maybe two weeks ago.
I've been dying to call you guys and tell you this.
Now, on this occasion, I turned it off several times, but on the third time I did it, the cable box flashes three times.
Then I just left the TV off and didn't bother with it.
I don't know how that cable box would know you're turning your TV off.
They're not really connected.
Is it possible there was an actual emergency going on?
No, but you should look into this.
It's pretty interesting.
I've seen it happen.
I've seen it happen.
My understanding is that it simply is broadcast over all channels at once, and it doesn't know if you're watching or not watching.
No, no.
I changed the station, and it wasn't on there, and then it follows.
I turned it off, and sometimes even for like a minute or two, turned it back on, and it appears again.
Well, they really wanted to hear those beeps, I guess.
I think as long as the resolution is that you turn the television off, I think it worked out well.
Yeah, Mitch Altman would certainly approve of that.
All right, guys.
Thanks.
Thanks for that info.
Rob?
One thing I could say about the Cablevision cable boxes is that they can get very laggy at times.
Oh, yeah.
It could be a matter of changing the channel, and then the box has to catch up to what it's doing before it reinstates the emergency signal.
And they can send weird messages, too.
Once I looked at my box, and it said, turn on.
It was like sending me a message saying, turn me on, because somehow I got turned off.
But if you can send that message, then you can also turn yourself on.
So I didn't understand what that was all about.
To all of us old enough, it might seem strange with the analog logic that, you know, if there's an alert on one channel, you shouldn't find it on another.
But with, say, a digital box, if the TV channel sends an alert, it might be going to the cable box, and the cable box has to display this alert.
So even if you change the channel, the cable box needs to finish.
There's another possibility, too.
First of all, what we're describing is a Cablevision or a cable company of your choice EAS test, which goes across their cable system.
But then there are also local TV channel tests.
So what this person might have done inadvertently is go from one local channel to another, and they both happen to be running the EAS test on the same night, and one started a few minutes after the other one.
I think that's definitely a possibility.
All right.
But, you know, I would like to hear the little beeps and tones that get sent across and see what they can trigger if you broadcast them or if you send them someplace else.
Yeah, please send us your beeps, and we'll see what we can do with them.
Good evening.
You're on off the hook.
All right.
I guess he's not a computer.
He could be.
He could call back.
Good evening.
You're on off the hook.
Yeah, hi.
Hi.
Last week, a lady over in New York in the Daily News, she used her MetroCard for her son, and so she used her son's MetroCard for herself.
He ran ahead when she had swiped her card before she could go through.
So just to even it out, she used her son's card for her, and she got a $100 ticket.
Well, was her son a student?
I assume she was taking him to school or something.
She and the son were going, and I guess just to keep the accounts balanced, you know, because I know from looking at the past train also that they say you're not to use the card for anyone else.
Well, that's not true.
Of course you can use a MetroCard for somebody else.
Well, you can't use someone else's card or something like that, but it was in the Daily News.
All right.
Listen, we're out of time, but I'd like to focus on this some more because that's a really interesting story.
There's got to be a little bit more to it.
We had a letter from a listener, Jeroen, I believe, from Holland.
I hope I'm pronouncing that right.
I have a suggestion for a computer-related song from a rather unexpected source, Kate Bush, and a song called Deeper Understanding.
This song is a rather gloomy mood compared to most of the songs I've heard so far.
The music is less electronic, but there are electronic sounds, so it touches a rather serious topic.
That's why we're playing this song tonight as our outro.
We'll see you next week when the Winter Fundraiser begins, so please keep that in mind.
And stay tuned to WBAI for more fascinating programming and the State of the Union coming up later.
Good night.
I don't know why this isn't working.
I hit the button and it was moving.
Hold on. Let's try that again.
You see, it's moving.
There it is.
Okay.
I turned to my computer
And spent my evenings with it like a friend
I was loading a new program
I had ordered from a magazine
Are you lonely? Are you lost?
This voice console is a must
I press execute
Hello
I know that you've been feeling tired
I bring you along
And take the understanding
Hello
I know that you're unhappy
I bring you along
And take the understanding
I've never felt such pleasure
Nothing else seemed to matter
I neglected my bodily needs
I did not eat, I did not sleep
The intensity increased
Till my family found me and intervened
But I was lonely, I was lost
I held my little black box
I pick up the phone
And go execute
Hello
I know that you've been feeling tired
I bring you along
And take the understanding
Hello
I know that you're unhappy
I bring you along
And take the understanding
Hello
I know that you're unhappy
I bring you along
And take the understanding
Hello
I know that you're unhappy
I bring you along