dangerroom Danger Room
In the middle of a recession, Pentagon gives a $35B deal to US firm. Only in Washington would this be called a "surprise".
Saturday 26 February 2011
Outlawing 'Legal Highs': Can Emergency Bans Hinder Drug Development?
As states race to outlaw synthetic drugs sold as "bath salts" or "fake marijuana," there would seem to be little downside to banning these untested and possibly dangerous chemicals. But prohibiting "legal" intoxicants — many of which have exploded in popularity via the Internet — could have the unintended effect of keeping potential cures for diseases like Alzheimer's out of the pharmaceutical pipeline.
Many of the drugs marketed as bath salts and available under brand names like Cloud Nine, Ivory Wave and Blue Silk contain stimulants such as mephedrone and MDPV (methylenedioxypyrovalerone); neither is approved for medical use in the U.S. These chemicals have not been scientifically tested in humans, but users report effects similar to cocaine and methamphetamine. Media accounts have linked the drugs to serious, even possibly fatal, side effects.
(In case you're wondering, no, Calgon and Origins Soothing Sea Salts cannot "take you away" to get you high: legitimate bath salts sold in the soap aisle do not contain psychoactive substances. The "bath salts" with amphetamine-like qualities are sold in head shops and other places that sell drug paraphernalia and are labeled in ways that imply their true purpose.)
So far, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has not banned these substances, but if their popularity continues to increase, they are unlikely to stay legal for long. It's not even certain that any "legal high" is actually entirely legal — a 1986 law bars the use or sale of analogues of prohibited drugs for human consumption, but it's unclear whether it can be enforced against these substances and under what circumstances...
Many of the drugs marketed as bath salts and available under brand names like Cloud Nine, Ivory Wave and Blue Silk contain stimulants such as mephedrone and MDPV (methylenedioxypyrovalerone); neither is approved for medical use in the U.S. These chemicals have not been scientifically tested in humans, but users report effects similar to cocaine and methamphetamine. Media accounts have linked the drugs to serious, even possibly fatal, side effects.
(In case you're wondering, no, Calgon and Origins Soothing Sea Salts cannot "take you away" to get you high: legitimate bath salts sold in the soap aisle do not contain psychoactive substances. The "bath salts" with amphetamine-like qualities are sold in head shops and other places that sell drug paraphernalia and are labeled in ways that imply their true purpose.)
So far, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has not banned these substances, but if their popularity continues to increase, they are unlikely to stay legal for long. It's not even certain that any "legal high" is actually entirely legal — a 1986 law bars the use or sale of analogues of prohibited drugs for human consumption, but it's unclear whether it can be enforced against these substances and under what circumstances...
Continue reading
Maia Szalavitz @'Time'
Friday 25 February 2011
Dirk57 Dirk Hanson
RT @neurobonkers: Fun fact: UN rates three largest global industries to be oil, arms and illegal drugs, respectively http://is.gd/K5LHEj
In The Realm of the Hackers
Via
In 1989, two Melbourne teenage hackers known as Electron and Phoenix stole a restricted computer security list and used it to break into some of the world's most classified and supposedly secure computer systems. So fast and widespread was the attack, no-one could work out how it had happened - until one of the hackers called The New York Times to brag. Ten years after their arrest, this dramatised documentary uncovers not only how they did it but why. It takes us headlong into the clandestine, risky but intoxicating world of the computer underground.
Summary:
http://www.filmaust.com.au/programs/d...
Breaking into The Realm:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/200...
Zardoz 'Security Digest':
http://securitydigest.org/zardoz/
Peter Biskind: The Rude Warrior
Until five years ago, Mel Gibson was one of the best-loved and best-paid talents in Hollywood, not to mention one of the town’s few real family men. How to explain the foulmouthed, violent bigotry that has since burst into public view, making him an industry pariah, even as his 26-year marriage imploded? With the help of Gibson’s friends—and his movies—Peter Biskind delves into the roots of a star’s divided life.@'Vanity Fair'
The freedom to be who you want to be…
Peter Steiner’s iconic “on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog” cartoon may have been drawn in jest--but his point was deadly serious, as recent events in the Middle East and North Africa have shown. In reality, as the web has developed--with users anywhere able to post a blog, share photos with friends and family or “broadcast” events they witness online--the issue of identity has become increasingly important.
So, we’ve been thinking about the different ways people choose to identify themselves (or not) when they’re using Google--in particular how identification can be helpful or even necessary for certain services, while optional or unnecessary for others. Attribution can be very important, but pseudonyms and anonymity are also an established part of many cultures -- for good reason.
When it comes to Google services, we support three types of use: unidentified, pseudonymous and identified. And each mode has its own particular user benefits.
We’re also looking at other ways to make this more transparent for users. While some of our products will be better suited to just one or two of those modes, depending on what they’re designed to do, we believe all three modes have a home at Google.
Alma Whitten @'Google Public Policy Blog'
So, we’ve been thinking about the different ways people choose to identify themselves (or not) when they’re using Google--in particular how identification can be helpful or even necessary for certain services, while optional or unnecessary for others. Attribution can be very important, but pseudonyms and anonymity are also an established part of many cultures -- for good reason.
When it comes to Google services, we support three types of use: unidentified, pseudonymous and identified. And each mode has its own particular user benefits.
Unidentified. Sometimes you want to use the web without having your online activity tied to your identity, or even a pseudonym—for example, when you’re researching a medical condition or searching for that perfect gift for a special someone. When you’re not logged into your Google Account (or if you never signed up for one), that’s how you’ll be using our services. While we need to keep information like IP addresses and cookies to provide the service, we don’t link that information to an individual account when you are logged out.
Pseudonymous. Using a pseudonym has been one of the great benefits of the Internet, because it has enabled people to express themselves freely—they may be in physical danger, looking for help, or have a condition they don’t want people to know about. People in these circumstances may need a consistent identity, but one that is not linked to their offline self. You can use pseudonyms to upload videos in YouTube or post to Blogger.
Identified. There are many times you want to share information with people and have them know who you really are. Some products such as Google Checkout rely on this type of identity assurance and require that you identify yourself to use the service. There may be other times when it’s more desirable to be identified than not, for example if you want to be part of a community action project you may ask, “How do I know these other people I see online really are community members?”Equally as important as giving users the freedom to be who they want to be is ensuring they know exactly what mode they’re in when using Google’s services. So recently we updated the top navigation bar on many of our Google services to make this even clearer. In the upper right hand corner of these Google pages, you will see an indicator of which account, if any, you are signed into.
We’re also looking at other ways to make this more transparent for users. While some of our products will be better suited to just one or two of those modes, depending on what they’re designed to do, we believe all three modes have a home at Google.
Alma Whitten @'Google Public Policy Blog'
Live chat w/ Julian Assange (moderated by Aftonbladet)
[Kommentar från OlofOlof: ] Do you see yourself as a modern-day freedom fighter?
@'Aftonbladet'
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 22:45 Olof
22:46 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 22:46 Julian Assange |
22:50 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 22:50 Julian Assange |
22:50 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 22:50 John |
22:54 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 22:54 Julian Assange |
22:54 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 22:54 Maria |
23:04 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:04 Julian Assange |
23:04 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:04 Maja |
23:06 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:06 Julian Assange |
23:06 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:06 cleo |
23:13 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:13 Julian Assange |
23:13 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:13 BJ |
23:23 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:23 Julian Assange |
23:23 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:23 TheAmazingHanna |
23:28 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:28 Julian Assange |
23:29 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:29 Andreas_A |
23:32 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:32 Julian Assange |
23:33 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:33 Annika |
23:37 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:37 Julian Assange |
23:37 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:37 Peter |
23:39 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:39 Julian Assange |
23:39 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:39 Gustav F |
23:41 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:41 Julian Assange |
23:42 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:42 Anneli |
23:44 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:44 Julian Assange |
23:44 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:44 Martijn |
23:45 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:45 Julian Assange |
23:46 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:46 Gabriel |
23:47 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:47 Julian Assange |
23:48 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:48 Julian Assange |
23:48 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:48 Julian Assange |
23:50 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:50 Julian Assange |
23:50 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:50 Julian Assange |
23:50 |
torsdag 24 februari, 2011 23:50 Moderator |
23:51 |
|
Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators
The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in "psychological operations" to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war, Rolling Stone has learned – and when an officer tried to stop the operation, he was railroaded by military investigators.
The orders came from the command of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star general in charge of training Afghan troops – the linchpin of U.S. strategy in the war. Over a four-month period last year, a military cell devoted to what is known as "information operations" at Camp Eggers in Kabul was repeatedly pressured to target visiting senators and other VIPs who met with Caldwell. When the unit resisted the order, arguing that it violated U.S. laws prohibiting the use of propaganda against American citizens, it was subjected to a campaign of retaliation.
"My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. "I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line."
The list of targeted visitors was long, according to interviews with members of the IO team and internal documents obtained by Rolling Stone. Those singled out in the campaign included senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Jack Reed, Al Franken and Carl Levin; Rep. Steve Israel of the House Appropriations Committee; Adm. Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Czech ambassador to Afghanistan; the German interior minister, and a host of influential think-tank analysts.
The incident offers an indication of just how desperate the U.S. command in Afghanistan is to spin American civilian leaders into supporting an increasingly unpopular war. According to the Defense Department’s own definition, psy-ops – the use of propaganda and psychological tactics to influence emotions and behaviors – are supposed to be used exclusively on "hostile foreign groups." Federal law forbids the military from practicing psy-ops on Americans, and each defense authorization bill comes with a "propaganda rider" that also prohibits such manipulation. "Everyone in the psy-ops, intel, and IO community knows you’re not supposed to target Americans," says a veteran member of another psy-ops team who has run operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It’s what you learn on day one..."
The orders came from the command of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star general in charge of training Afghan troops – the linchpin of U.S. strategy in the war. Over a four-month period last year, a military cell devoted to what is known as "information operations" at Camp Eggers in Kabul was repeatedly pressured to target visiting senators and other VIPs who met with Caldwell. When the unit resisted the order, arguing that it violated U.S. laws prohibiting the use of propaganda against American citizens, it was subjected to a campaign of retaliation.
"My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. "I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line."
The list of targeted visitors was long, according to interviews with members of the IO team and internal documents obtained by Rolling Stone. Those singled out in the campaign included senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Jack Reed, Al Franken and Carl Levin; Rep. Steve Israel of the House Appropriations Committee; Adm. Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Czech ambassador to Afghanistan; the German interior minister, and a host of influential think-tank analysts.
The incident offers an indication of just how desperate the U.S. command in Afghanistan is to spin American civilian leaders into supporting an increasingly unpopular war. According to the Defense Department’s own definition, psy-ops – the use of propaganda and psychological tactics to influence emotions and behaviors – are supposed to be used exclusively on "hostile foreign groups." Federal law forbids the military from practicing psy-ops on Americans, and each defense authorization bill comes with a "propaganda rider" that also prohibits such manipulation. "Everyone in the psy-ops, intel, and IO community knows you’re not supposed to target Americans," says a veteran member of another psy-ops team who has run operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It’s what you learn on day one..."
Continue reading
Michael Hastings @'Rolling Stone'
Julian Assange attacks 'rubber-stamp' warrant as he loses extradition battle
Julian Assange speaks to the media outside Belmarsh magistrates court after a judge ruled he can be extradited to Sweden. Photograph: Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA
The WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. Assange will appeal, his legal team has confirmed. If they lose he will be sent to Sweden in 10 days.Speaking outside Belmarsh magistrates court in south-east London after the judgment, Assange attacked the European arrest warrant system.
He dismissed the decision to extradite him as a "rubber-stamping process". He said: "It comes as no surprise but is nevertheless wrong. It comes as the result of a European arrest warrant system amok."
There had been no consideration of the allegations against him, Assange said. His extradition would thrust him into a legal system he did not understand using a language he did not speak.
Assange said the US government by its own admission had been waiting to see the British court verdict before determining what action it could take against him.
"What does the US have to do with a Swedish extradition process?" he asked. "Why is it that I am subject, a non-profit free speech activist, to a $360,000 (£223,000) bail? Why is it that I am kept under electronic house arrest when I have not even been charged in any country, when I have never been a fugitive?" Assange had earlier heard the chief magistrate, Howard Riddle, dismiss each of the defence's arguments.
Assange's legal team had contended that the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny did not have the authority to issue a European arrest warrant. The magistrate ruled that she did possess this authority and the warrant was valid.
Ny's credibility had been questioned by the defence team but Riddle said those doubts amounted to "very little". A retired judge who had criticised her, Brita Sundberg-Weitman, had no firsthand knowledge or evidence to back up her opinion, he said.
The defence had argued that the allegations against Assange were not offences in English law and therefore not grounds for extradition. But Riddle said the alleged offences against Miss A of sexual assault and molestation met the criteria for extradition, and an allegation made by Miss B if proven "would amount to rape" in this country.
In his summary Riddle accused Assange's Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig, of making a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. Assange had clearly attempted to avoid the Swedish justice system before he left the country, Riddle said. "It would be a reasonable assumption from the facts that Mr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation before he left Sweden."
The judge was severely critical of Hurtig, who had said in his statement that it was "astonishing" Ny had made no effort to interview his client before he left Sweden. "In fact this is untrue," said Riddle. Hurtig had realised his mistake the night before he gave evidence and corrected his evidence in chief, said the judge. But it had been done in a manner that was "very low key". "Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of ... his proof when he submitted it," Riddle said. "I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court."
Riddle acknowledged there had been "considerable adverse publicity against Mr Assange in Sweden", including statements by the prime minister. But if there had been any irregularities in the Swedish system the best place to examine them was in a Swedish trial.
Outside the court Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, said the ruling had not come as a surprise and reaffirmed the Assange team's concerns that adhering to the European arrest warrant (EAW) amounted to "tick box justice".
"We are still hopeful that the matter can be resolved in this country," he said. "We remain optimistic of our chances on appeal."
The possibility of a secret trial – which Assange's lawyers argue he could face if extradited – was "anathema to this country and to most civilised countries in the world", Stephens said. During Assange's extradition hearing Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities, said trial evidence would be heard in private but the arguments would be made in public. This did not amount to a secret trial.
Stephens suggested Riddle had been "hamstrung" by the EAW. "We're pretty sure the secrecy and the way [the case] has been conducted so far have registered with this judge. He's just hamstrung," he told reporters.
Assange had already paid large amounts to defend himself, with the cost of translating material alone amounting to more than £30,000, Stephens said. "That's a cost the prosecution should be bearing. The prosecution should be translating everything into a language he understands."
Assange has been fighting extradition since he was arrested and bailed in December. He has consistently denied the allegations, made by two women in August last year.
At a two-day hearing this month his legal team argued that Assange would not receive a fair trial in Sweden. They said the EAW issued by Sweden was invalid because the Australian had not been charged with any offence and the alleged assaults were not grounds for extradition.
Assange fears that being taken to Sweden will make it easier for Washington to extradite him to the US on possible charges relating to WikiLeaks's release of the US embassy cables.
Sweden would have to ask permission from the UK for any onward extradition. No charges have been laid by the US, though it is investigating the website's activities.
The most serious of the four allegations relates to an accusation that Assange, during a visit to Stockholm in August, had sex with a woman, Miss B, while she was sleeping, without a condom and without her consent. Three counts of sexual assault are alleged by another woman, Miss A. If found guilty of the rape charge he could face up to four years in prison.
Assange will be held in custody because there is no system of bail in Sweden until a possible trial or release.
The Australian ambassador to Sweden, Paul Stephens, wrote to the country's justice minister last week to insist that if extradited, any possible case against Assange must "proceed in accordance with due process and the provisions prescribed under Swedish law, as well as applicable European and international laws, including relevant human rights norms".
European arrest warrants were introduced in 2003 with the aim of making the process swifter and easier between European member states. But campaigners have raised concerns about their application, arguing they are sometimes used before a case is ready to prosecute and have been extended far beyond their original purpose of fighting terrorism. Last year 700 people were extradited from the UK under the system.
Esther Addley and Alexandra Topping @'The Guardian'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)