Left to chance

September 17 2009

Color-Coded Threat Level Advisory Under Attack

The often-spoofed, color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System may get an overhaul – moving from five colors to three in a bid to win the public trust.

The nation has been at Yellow, “an elevated significant risk of terrorist attacks” for three years. International and domestic flights have been at an Orange “high risk of terrorist attacks” for the same period.

A proposal by the Homeland Security Advisory Council, unveiled late Tuesday, recommends removing two of the five colors, with a standard state of affairs being a “guarded” Yellow. The Green “low risk of terrorist attacks” might get removed altogether, meaning stay prepared for your morning subway commute to turn deadly at any moment.

The Threat Level advisory system was set up in 2002 in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks and has changed 17 times — the last in 2006. It has never been lowered to Green “low risk of terrorist attacks” or the Blue “general risk of terrorist attacks.”

“There is currently indifference to the public Homeland Security Advisory System and, at worst, there is a disturbing lack of public confidence in the system,” the council wrote Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security secretary.

The 19-member panel’s recommendations are not binding. Panel membership ranges from Miami Mayor Manny Diaz to Joe Shirley, president of the Navajo Nation. Some members supported scrapping the color-coded system.

But the group said the public should feel confident in a new three-color rating system because, “for reasons of public credibility,” the scale won’t be politicized and instead the government “should elevate the threat status only when compelled to do so in the interest of public safety and security.”

That statement comes two weeks after Tom Ridge, the former Homeland Security secretary, wrote in a new book, the Test of Our Times, that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft unsuccessfully lobbied him to raise the threat level days before the 2004 elections, in a bid to seal President George W. Bush’s re-election.

“Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level, and was supported by Rumsfeld,” Ridge writes. “There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I wondered, ‘Is this about security or politics?’”

The new system, if approved by the agency, would consist solely of Yellow, Orange and Red.

Here are the new meanings:

Yellow = Guarded – “A constant state of vigilance to protect against a terrorist attack.”
Orange = Elevated – “Increased protective measures based on specific threat information regarding a known or suspected terrorist plot.”
Red = High Alert – “Maximum protective measures to protect against an imminent or ongoing terrorist attack.”

Don’t forget to stock up on duct tape.

See Also:

Original article at Threat Level

Tags: att, congress, dmca, government, security NO COMMENTS

September 17 2009

Once Again, DMCA Protects Online Video Sites

In dismissing an infringement lawsuit, a Los Angeles federal judge has ruled that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act protects California web-video host Veoh.

It is the second time that Veoh, a YouTube-style service, has won protection from the courts under the DMCA, which immunizes web hosts from liability if they remove infringing content at the owners request via a takedown notice.

Universal Universal Music Group, which brought the copyright case, claimed Veoh was a copyright scofflaw, allowing its users to post material that repeatedly infringed its copyrights.

The two rulings, (the first one was brought against Veoh by a gay porn site) are not binding on the appeals courts or the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the issue. The same legal spat is now before a New York judge in Viacom’s $1 billion suit against YouTube.

An interesting line from Friday’s Veoh decision says that web hosts do not have to enable copyright-filtering technology, even though many do, including Veoh and YouTube.

“UMG has not established that the DMCA imposed an obligation on a service provider to implement filtering technology at all, let alone technology from copyright holder’s preferred vendor or on the copyright holder’s desired timeline,” U.S. District Judge Howard Matz of Los Angeles ruled.

The ruling finalized a preliminary decision from January.

Universal vowed to appeal the latest order.

“The ruling today is wrong because it runs counter to established precedent and legislative intent, and to the express language of the DMCA. Because of this and our commitment to protecting the rights of our artists and songwriters who deserve to be compensated for the use of their music, we will appeal this ruling immediately,” the music company said in a statement.

See Also:

Original article at Threat Level

Tags: dmca, law, lawsuit, rights NO COMMENTS

September 14 2009

Geist On Copyright As Canada Consult Nears End

An anonymous reader writes “Canadian law professor Michael Geist, who has been leading the charge on the national copyright consultation with his SpeakOutOnCopyright.ca site, has posted his own submission to the consultation. Geist focuses on issues like fair use and circumvention, and warns against a Canadian DMCA, copyright term extension, and three-strikes program. ‘If copyright veers too far toward specific technologies by mandating new protection for specific business models or technological innovations, those rules risk being overtaken as the technologies and marketplace evolve. … It should only be a violation of the law to circumvent a technological protection measure if the underlying purpose is to infringe copyright.’ He also pointed out a few days ago that Bell Canada seems to be advising content owners to sue its own customers. The public consultation ends on September 13th.”