The Army says it was a crime. When Private First Class Bradley Manning downloaded tens of thousands of diplomatic cables to a CD-RW disc at an Army outpost in Iraq from November 2009 to April 2010, he broke 18 U.S. Code Section 1030(a)(1) — which criminalizes unauthorized computer downloads. But this was no ordinary crime. When Manning allegedly passed those electronic records on to self-described freedom-of-information activist Julian Assange and his revolutionary website, WikiLeaks, he did something much more far-reaching: he caused governments to ask what is really a secret and to assess how their behavior should change in an age when supposedly private communications can be whizzed around the world at the stroke of a key.
WikiLeaks' publication starting Nov. 28 of more than 250,000 diplomatic cables was the largest unauthorized release of contemporary classified information in history. It contained 11,000 documents marked secret; the release of any one of them, by the U.S. government's definition, would cause "serious damage to national security." In the U.S., the leak forced a clampdown on intelligence sharing between agencies and new measures to control electronically stored secrets. And diplomats from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the lowest political officers worked to diminish the disclosures' impact on foreign counterparts.
The repercussions of the WikiDump are only beginning to play out. In Korea, the nuclear-armed regime of Kim Jong Il learned that its longtime protector, China, may be turning on it and is willing to contemplate unification of the peninsula under the leadership of the South Korean government in Seoul. In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad discovered through the leak that while his Arab neighbors were publicly making nice, privately they were pleading with the U.S. to launch an attack against Tehran's nuclear program. Whether that revelation weakens Iran's bargaining position or whether it will encourage Iran's leaders to hunker down and be even less cooperative in negotiations remains to be seen. What is plain is that in Iran and elsewhere, the WikiLeaks revelations could change history.
But not all the secrets now laid bare are as consequential. It is interesting — amusing, even — to know that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi keeps a cadre of four blond Ukrainian nurses, that a U.S. diplomat considers Kim Jong Il "flabby" and that junior members of the British royal family have maintained their unerring ability to stick a foot in their mouth. But none of this can seriously be considered a threat to national security. As it turns out, spuriously classified items like those are part of what has made WikiLeaks possible. Treat them the way they deserve to be treated, and it might be easier to keep the real stuff under wraps.
(Watch TIME's video "WikiLeaks' Assange on China's 'Reform Potential.' ")
As the shades of leaders long dead would surely say. For governments have been trying to keep their intentions secret since the Greeks left a horse stuffed with soldiers outside the gates of Troy, and they have been plagued by leaks of information for about as long. Some information really should be secret, and some leaks really do have consequences: the Civil War battle of Antietam might not have gone the way it did had Confederate General Robert E. Lee's orders not been found wrapped around cigars by Union troops a few days before. But in the past few years, governments have designated so much information secret that you wonder whether they intend the time of day to be classified. The number of new secrets designated as such by the U.S. government has risen 75%, from 105,163 in 1996 to 183,224 in 2009, according to the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office. At the same time, the number of documents and other communications created using those secrets has skyrocketed nearly 10 times, from 5,685,462 in 1996 to 54,651,765 in 2009. Not surprisingly, the number of people with access to that Everest of information has grown too. In 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found, the Pentagon alone gave clearances to some 630,000 people.
As more individuals handle more secrets in more places around the world, it naturally becomes harder to keep track of them. But more than that, it diminishes the credibility of the government's judgment about what should be secret. "When everything is classified, then nothing is classified," said Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in his judgment in the Pentagon papers case in 1971, when documents detailing the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam were leaked to the Washington Post and New York Times. Then, said Potter, "the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless, and to be manipulated by those intent on self-protection or self-promotion."
Nor is it just that governments are calling more things secret when they are really not. That development has happened at the same time as the information-technology revolution, which has made the dissemination of data, views, memos and gossip easier than it has ever been in human history. Put that together, and you have the potential for the sort of shattering event that has just happened — especially when a figure like Assange is around, determined to turn potential into reality.
Some questions to think about:
1. Is WikiLeaks a good thing or bad thing for a democracy? Why?
2. What is the "best" leak? the "worst"? (you define)
3. Should news outlets be prevented from publishing them?
4. Is the phenomenon - that this happened - surprising.
5. Should Assange be prosecuted for WikiLeaks?
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034276,00.html#ixzz1AMqpZ07D
Friday, January 7, 2011
Friday, November 19, 2010
Airport Security: Too Much or Too Little (Tom's post)
Los Angeles, California (CNN, Nov 16, 2010) -- In response to a video of a California man's dispute with airport security officials, the Transportation Security Administration said Monday it tries to be sensitive to individuals, but everyone getting on a flight must be screened.
The video, in which software engineer John Tyner refuses an X-ray scan at the San Diego, California, airport, has sparked a debate over screening procedures.
Tyner told CNN on Sunday that he was surprised to see so many people take an interest in his refusal and the dispute with airport screeners that followed it. But he said he hoped the video will focus attention on what he calls a government invasion of privacy.
"Obviously, everybody has their own perspective about their personal screening," TSA administrator John Pistole told CNN. "The question is, how do we best address those issues ... while providing the best possible security?"
Tyner, 31, said his hunting trip to South Dakota was cut short before it even started Saturday morning -- when TSA agents asked him to go through an X-ray machine.
"I don't think that the government has any business seeing me naked as a condition of traveling about the country," Tyner said.
Pistole said the agency is "trying to be sensitive to individuals issues and concerns," but added, "the bottom line is, everybody who gets on that flight has been properly screened."
The cell phone video Tyner recorded of his arguments with security screeners over the scan and pat-down they proposed had garnered than 200,000 hits on YouTube by Monday afternoon.
Tyner said that after he declined the body scan, a TSA agent told him he could have a pat-down instead. Once the procedure was described, Tyner said he responded, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."
The dispute that followed, Tyner said, included police escorting him from the screening area and a supervisor saying he could face a civil lawsuit for leaving the airport before security had finished screening him.
In fact, Tyner could face a civil penalty as high as $11,000, according to Michael Aguilar, the TSA's federal security director in San Diego, who defended the behavior of his officers during the confrontation.
"He's violated federal law and federal regulations, which states once you enter and start the process you have to complete it," he said.
Tyner called the whole incident ridiculous and said he will not fly "until these machines go away."
"Advanced imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers," the TSA said in a statement released Monday. "Passengers who opt out of [advanced imaging] screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down."
But anyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to airport secure areas and could be subject to civil penalties, the administration said, citing a federal appeals court ruling in support of the rule.
The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that "requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found."
The TSA's advanced imaging technology machines use two separate means of creating images of passengers -- backscatter X-ray technology and millimeter-wave technology.
At the end of October, 189 backscatter units and 152 millimeter-wave machines were in use in more than 65 airports. The total number of imaging machines is expected to be near 1,000 by the end of 2011, according to the TSA.
The agency has previously said that the new technology is safe and protects passenger privacy.
"Strict privacy safeguards are built into the foundation of TSA's use of advanced imaging technology to protect passenger privacy and ensure anonymity," the agency says in a statement on its website.
Images from the scans cannot be saved or printed, according to the agency. Facial features are blurred. And agents who directly interact with passengers do not see the scans.
But Tyner isn't the only one with concerns about the new security procedures.
Grass-roots groups are urging travelers either not to fly or to protest by opting out of the full-body scanners and undergoing time-consuming pat-downs instead.
Industry leaders are worried about the backlash. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano met with leaders of travel industry groups to discuss the concerns.
"We certainly understand the challenges that DHS confronts, but the question remains, where do we draw the line? Our country desperately needs a long-term vision for aviation security screening, rather than an endless reaction to yesterday's threat," the U.S. Travel Association said in a statement after the meeting. "At the same time, fundamental American values must be protected."
During a press conference in which Napolitano announced the expansion of a security awareness campaign, she also reiterated the need for hand searches should a passenger decline electronic screening.
"If you refuse the [Advanced Imaging Technology] altogether, then you can go to a separate area for a same-gender pat down," she told reporters on Monday. "If there are adjustments we need to make as we move forward, we have an open ear," she said. "We will listen."
QUESTIONS to consider (some/all/none; #3 might be most important):
1. Do we need this security, or more?
2. Can we do with less security?
3. Where would YOU draw the line between what is necessary/appropriate?
4. Are you worried about flying?
5. Who should make these security decisions?
The video, in which software engineer John Tyner refuses an X-ray scan at the San Diego, California, airport, has sparked a debate over screening procedures.
Tyner told CNN on Sunday that he was surprised to see so many people take an interest in his refusal and the dispute with airport screeners that followed it. But he said he hoped the video will focus attention on what he calls a government invasion of privacy.
"Obviously, everybody has their own perspective about their personal screening," TSA administrator John Pistole told CNN. "The question is, how do we best address those issues ... while providing the best possible security?"
Tyner, 31, said his hunting trip to South Dakota was cut short before it even started Saturday morning -- when TSA agents asked him to go through an X-ray machine.
"I don't think that the government has any business seeing me naked as a condition of traveling about the country," Tyner said.
Pistole said the agency is "trying to be sensitive to individuals issues and concerns," but added, "the bottom line is, everybody who gets on that flight has been properly screened."
The cell phone video Tyner recorded of his arguments with security screeners over the scan and pat-down they proposed had garnered than 200,000 hits on YouTube by Monday afternoon.
Tyner said that after he declined the body scan, a TSA agent told him he could have a pat-down instead. Once the procedure was described, Tyner said he responded, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."
The dispute that followed, Tyner said, included police escorting him from the screening area and a supervisor saying he could face a civil lawsuit for leaving the airport before security had finished screening him.
In fact, Tyner could face a civil penalty as high as $11,000, according to Michael Aguilar, the TSA's federal security director in San Diego, who defended the behavior of his officers during the confrontation.
"He's violated federal law and federal regulations, which states once you enter and start the process you have to complete it," he said.
Tyner called the whole incident ridiculous and said he will not fly "until these machines go away."
"Advanced imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers," the TSA said in a statement released Monday. "Passengers who opt out of [advanced imaging] screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down."
But anyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to airport secure areas and could be subject to civil penalties, the administration said, citing a federal appeals court ruling in support of the rule.
The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that "requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found."
The TSA's advanced imaging technology machines use two separate means of creating images of passengers -- backscatter X-ray technology and millimeter-wave technology.
At the end of October, 189 backscatter units and 152 millimeter-wave machines were in use in more than 65 airports. The total number of imaging machines is expected to be near 1,000 by the end of 2011, according to the TSA.
The agency has previously said that the new technology is safe and protects passenger privacy.
"Strict privacy safeguards are built into the foundation of TSA's use of advanced imaging technology to protect passenger privacy and ensure anonymity," the agency says in a statement on its website.
Images from the scans cannot be saved or printed, according to the agency. Facial features are blurred. And agents who directly interact with passengers do not see the scans.
But Tyner isn't the only one with concerns about the new security procedures.
Grass-roots groups are urging travelers either not to fly or to protest by opting out of the full-body scanners and undergoing time-consuming pat-downs instead.
Industry leaders are worried about the backlash. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano met with leaders of travel industry groups to discuss the concerns.
"We certainly understand the challenges that DHS confronts, but the question remains, where do we draw the line? Our country desperately needs a long-term vision for aviation security screening, rather than an endless reaction to yesterday's threat," the U.S. Travel Association said in a statement after the meeting. "At the same time, fundamental American values must be protected."
During a press conference in which Napolitano announced the expansion of a security awareness campaign, she also reiterated the need for hand searches should a passenger decline electronic screening.
"If you refuse the [Advanced Imaging Technology] altogether, then you can go to a separate area for a same-gender pat down," she told reporters on Monday. "If there are adjustments we need to make as we move forward, we have an open ear," she said. "We will listen."
QUESTIONS to consider (some/all/none; #3 might be most important):
1. Do we need this security, or more?
2. Can we do with less security?
3. Where would YOU draw the line between what is necessary/appropriate?
4. Are you worried about flying?
5. Who should make these security decisions?
Friday, November 12, 2010
OBAMA SAYS VOTE TURNED ON ECONOMY (Amanda's post)
New York Times
By PETER BAKER
Published: November 7, 2010
WASHINGTON – President Obama said in an interview broadcast Sunday night that he views last week’s mid-term Congressional elections as “a referendum on the economy” rather than a referendum on him, his policies or the Democratic Party.
While he said he should be held accountable for the economy as the nation’s leader, he did not accept the suggestion that he pursued the wrong agenda over the last two years, and he focused blame on his failure to build public support for what he was doing or to change the way Washington works.
In a session taped for CBS’s “60 Minutes” before Mr. Obama left for Asia, the correspondent Steve Kroft pointed out to the president that Republicans view the election as a referendum on him and the Democrats, and asked if he agreed. “I think first and foremost it was a referendum on the economy,” Mr. Obama said. “And the party in power was held responsible for an economy that is still underperforming.”
The interview was Mr. Obama’s first since the election and largely tracked the sentiments he expressed at his news conference the day after the vote.
The president’s interpretation of the election underscored the contrasting messages the two parties have taken from the elections. Republicans won at least 60 more seats in the House to take control, the largest such gain by either party since 1948, and picked up six more seats in the Senate, putting them close to parity with the Democrats, who maintained a much slimmer majority. Republicans also scored significant victories in governor’s and state legislative races.
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader slated to become speaker, and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican minority leader, have said the election was a clear verdict on Mr. Obama’s policies. Mr. Boehner told ABC News last week that the president is experiencing “some denial” and Mr. McConnell repeated Sunday that the issue was not the message but the substance.
“I think the president believes that somehow he didn’t – his product was good but he just didn’t sell it well,” Mr. McConnell said on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “I think he’s a good salesman. I think his problem was not his sales job. It was the product. The American people simply did not like what the president and this Congress were doing substantively.”
Surveys of voters at polling places showed that 37 percent said last Tuesday they were casting their votes to express opposition to Mr. Obama’s policies, while 24 percent said they were supporting his policies. The rest said he was not the impetus for their vote. Those numbers are almost identical to those in 2006 when voters cast judgment on President George W. Bush’s policies and Democrats seized control of Congress in a mid-term election they cast as a referendum on the incumbent president.
Mr. Obama made clear in his interview that he sees the economy as the main source of voter frustration. With unemployment stuck for months at 9.6 percent, no other president in decades has gone into a mid-term election with the jobless rate as high for as long. Nearly 9 in 10 voters last week expressed worry about the direction of the economy; four in 10 said reducing deficits should be the first priority while 4 in 10 said job creation should be a priority.
In his interview, Mr. Obama focused on the latter group, which tended to vote more Democratic than those concerned about deficits. To the notion that voters may have sent a message for smaller, less costly, more accountable government, Mr. Obama responded, “First and foremost, they want jobs and economic growth in this country.”
Pressed by Mr. Kroft, he then added that voters also care about spending. “There is no doubt that folks are concerned about debt and deficits,” he said. “I think that is absolutely a priority. And by the way, that’s a concern that I had before I was even sworn in.”
Echoing comments from his news conference, the president expressed his willingness to negotiate with Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell on tax cuts and other issues but gave no specific examples of where he would change his position to build consensus.
The president offered praise for the Republican leaders and expressed regret that at times he had gone too far in his campaign rhetoric attacking the opposition. “Both John and Mitch are very smart,” he said. “They’re capable. They have been able to, I think, organize the Republican caucus very effectively in opposition to a lot of the things that we tried to do over the last two years. And that takes real political skill.”
Without mentioning any examples, he said he bore responsibility for some of the tenor of political discourse lately. “I’ve been guilty of that. It’s not just them,” he said. “Part of my promise to the American people when I was elected was to maintain the kind of tone that says we can disagree without being disagreeable. And I think over the course of two years, there have been times where I’ve slipped on that commitment.”
Some questions to consider:
1. Has Obama's policies generally benefitted the country, or have they not been helpful?
2. Why do you think more voters are against Obama's policies than for them?
3. Why do you think Republicans gained more seats in the House of Reps. and Senate?
4. Is there anything specifically that is encouraging about Republican gains?
5. Who or what should be blamed for the "economic mess"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/us/politics/08obama.html?scp=1&sq=are%20democrats%20to%20blame%20for%20economy&st=cse
By PETER BAKER
Published: November 7, 2010
WASHINGTON – President Obama said in an interview broadcast Sunday night that he views last week’s mid-term Congressional elections as “a referendum on the economy” rather than a referendum on him, his policies or the Democratic Party.
While he said he should be held accountable for the economy as the nation’s leader, he did not accept the suggestion that he pursued the wrong agenda over the last two years, and he focused blame on his failure to build public support for what he was doing or to change the way Washington works.
In a session taped for CBS’s “60 Minutes” before Mr. Obama left for Asia, the correspondent Steve Kroft pointed out to the president that Republicans view the election as a referendum on him and the Democrats, and asked if he agreed. “I think first and foremost it was a referendum on the economy,” Mr. Obama said. “And the party in power was held responsible for an economy that is still underperforming.”
The interview was Mr. Obama’s first since the election and largely tracked the sentiments he expressed at his news conference the day after the vote.
The president’s interpretation of the election underscored the contrasting messages the two parties have taken from the elections. Republicans won at least 60 more seats in the House to take control, the largest such gain by either party since 1948, and picked up six more seats in the Senate, putting them close to parity with the Democrats, who maintained a much slimmer majority. Republicans also scored significant victories in governor’s and state legislative races.
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader slated to become speaker, and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican minority leader, have said the election was a clear verdict on Mr. Obama’s policies. Mr. Boehner told ABC News last week that the president is experiencing “some denial” and Mr. McConnell repeated Sunday that the issue was not the message but the substance.
“I think the president believes that somehow he didn’t – his product was good but he just didn’t sell it well,” Mr. McConnell said on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “I think he’s a good salesman. I think his problem was not his sales job. It was the product. The American people simply did not like what the president and this Congress were doing substantively.”
Surveys of voters at polling places showed that 37 percent said last Tuesday they were casting their votes to express opposition to Mr. Obama’s policies, while 24 percent said they were supporting his policies. The rest said he was not the impetus for their vote. Those numbers are almost identical to those in 2006 when voters cast judgment on President George W. Bush’s policies and Democrats seized control of Congress in a mid-term election they cast as a referendum on the incumbent president.
Mr. Obama made clear in his interview that he sees the economy as the main source of voter frustration. With unemployment stuck for months at 9.6 percent, no other president in decades has gone into a mid-term election with the jobless rate as high for as long. Nearly 9 in 10 voters last week expressed worry about the direction of the economy; four in 10 said reducing deficits should be the first priority while 4 in 10 said job creation should be a priority.
In his interview, Mr. Obama focused on the latter group, which tended to vote more Democratic than those concerned about deficits. To the notion that voters may have sent a message for smaller, less costly, more accountable government, Mr. Obama responded, “First and foremost, they want jobs and economic growth in this country.”
Pressed by Mr. Kroft, he then added that voters also care about spending. “There is no doubt that folks are concerned about debt and deficits,” he said. “I think that is absolutely a priority. And by the way, that’s a concern that I had before I was even sworn in.”
Echoing comments from his news conference, the president expressed his willingness to negotiate with Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell on tax cuts and other issues but gave no specific examples of where he would change his position to build consensus.
The president offered praise for the Republican leaders and expressed regret that at times he had gone too far in his campaign rhetoric attacking the opposition. “Both John and Mitch are very smart,” he said. “They’re capable. They have been able to, I think, organize the Republican caucus very effectively in opposition to a lot of the things that we tried to do over the last two years. And that takes real political skill.”
Without mentioning any examples, he said he bore responsibility for some of the tenor of political discourse lately. “I’ve been guilty of that. It’s not just them,” he said. “Part of my promise to the American people when I was elected was to maintain the kind of tone that says we can disagree without being disagreeable. And I think over the course of two years, there have been times where I’ve slipped on that commitment.”
Some questions to consider:
1. Has Obama's policies generally benefitted the country, or have they not been helpful?
2. Why do you think more voters are against Obama's policies than for them?
3. Why do you think Republicans gained more seats in the House of Reps. and Senate?
4. Is there anything specifically that is encouraging about Republican gains?
5. Who or what should be blamed for the "economic mess"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/us/politics/08obama.html?scp=1&sq=are%20democrats%20to%20blame%20for%20economy&st=cse
Friday, November 5, 2010
ANIMALS USED FOR EXPERIMENTATION (Becky's Post)
Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness and long to roam free and use their minds.
Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them. The stress, sterility and boredom causes some animals to develop neurotic behaviors such incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth and even pulling out their own hair and biting their own skin. They shake and cower in fear whenever someone walks past their cages and their blood pressure spikes drastically. After enduring lives of pain, loneliness and terror, almost all of them will be killed.
More than 100 million animals every year suffer and die in cruel chemical, drug, food and cosmetic tests, biology lessons, medical training exercises, and curiosity-driven medical experiments. Exact numbers aren't available because mice, rats, birds and cold-blooded animals—who make up more than 95 percent of animals used in experiments—are not covered by even the minimal protections of the Animal Welfare Act and therefore go uncounted. To test cosmetics, household cleaners, and other consumer products, hundreds of thousands of animals are poisoned, blinded, and killed every year by cruel corporations. Mice and rats are forced to inhale toxic fumes, dogs are force-fed pesticides, and rabbits have corrosive chemicals rubbed onto their skin and eyes. Many of these tests are not even required by law, and they often produce inaccurate or misleading results; even if a product harms animals, it can still be marketed to you. Cruel and deadly toxicity tests are also conducted as part of massive regulatory testing programs that are often funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Toxicology Program, and the Department of Agriculture are just a few of the government agencies that subject animals to painful and crude tests.
The federal government and many health charities waste precious dollars from taxpayers and generous donors on cruel and misleading animal experiments at universities and private laboratories instead of spending them on promising clinical, in vitro and epidemiological studies that are actually relevant to humans.
Millions of animals also suffer and die for classroom biology experiments and dissections, even though modern alternatives have repeatedly been shown to teach students better, save teachers time and save schools money.
Each of us can help save animals from suffering and death in experiments by demanding that our alma maters stop experimenting on animals, by buying cruelty-free products, by donating only to charities that don't experiment on animals, by requesting alternatives to animal dissection and by demanding the immediate implementation of humane, effective non-animal tests by government agencies and corporations.
Some questions to consider (but not limited to.) Please do indicate where YOU stand.
1. Should animals be used in this way? Only some animals?
2. Are there some exceptions (either way) and why?
3. Is this kind of question suitable for this blog?
4. Can you add something to the discussion?
5. Should courts, voters, or congress decide this kind of issue?
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/default.aspx
Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them. The stress, sterility and boredom causes some animals to develop neurotic behaviors such incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth and even pulling out their own hair and biting their own skin. They shake and cower in fear whenever someone walks past their cages and their blood pressure spikes drastically. After enduring lives of pain, loneliness and terror, almost all of them will be killed.
More than 100 million animals every year suffer and die in cruel chemical, drug, food and cosmetic tests, biology lessons, medical training exercises, and curiosity-driven medical experiments. Exact numbers aren't available because mice, rats, birds and cold-blooded animals—who make up more than 95 percent of animals used in experiments—are not covered by even the minimal protections of the Animal Welfare Act and therefore go uncounted. To test cosmetics, household cleaners, and other consumer products, hundreds of thousands of animals are poisoned, blinded, and killed every year by cruel corporations. Mice and rats are forced to inhale toxic fumes, dogs are force-fed pesticides, and rabbits have corrosive chemicals rubbed onto their skin and eyes. Many of these tests are not even required by law, and they often produce inaccurate or misleading results; even if a product harms animals, it can still be marketed to you. Cruel and deadly toxicity tests are also conducted as part of massive regulatory testing programs that are often funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Toxicology Program, and the Department of Agriculture are just a few of the government agencies that subject animals to painful and crude tests.
The federal government and many health charities waste precious dollars from taxpayers and generous donors on cruel and misleading animal experiments at universities and private laboratories instead of spending them on promising clinical, in vitro and epidemiological studies that are actually relevant to humans.
Millions of animals also suffer and die for classroom biology experiments and dissections, even though modern alternatives have repeatedly been shown to teach students better, save teachers time and save schools money.
Each of us can help save animals from suffering and death in experiments by demanding that our alma maters stop experimenting on animals, by buying cruelty-free products, by donating only to charities that don't experiment on animals, by requesting alternatives to animal dissection and by demanding the immediate implementation of humane, effective non-animal tests by government agencies and corporations.
Some questions to consider (but not limited to.) Please do indicate where YOU stand.
1. Should animals be used in this way? Only some animals?
2. Are there some exceptions (either way) and why?
3. Is this kind of question suitable for this blog?
4. Can you add something to the discussion?
5. Should courts, voters, or congress decide this kind of issue?
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/default.aspx
Thursday, October 28, 2010
It was like a scene out of 
Friday, October 22, 2010
Facebook Abuse a Concern: Peter's post
Facebook is failing to prevent child predators from posting suggestive and potentially illegal photographs of children on its website, a weeks-long investigation by FoxNews.com reveals, despite its claim that it's doing all it can to keep pedophile materials from being displayed.
The world's largest social network employs content filters that automatically scan for basic keywords that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) identifies as being commonly associated with child exploitive material. Those filters, if they are properly employed, should flag much of the offensive material found on the site, cybersecurity experts say.
But in a lengthy telephone interview on Oct. 6, FoxNews.com took two Facebook executives on a click-by-click tour of their own website, bringing them face-to-face with some of its vile contents and forcing them to admit that their efforts to block child predators were not working.
During a 90-minute phone interview with Facebook spokesman Simon Axten and the company's chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, the two executives were guided by FoxNews.com through the site’s seamy subculture – an encounter that left Sullivan sounding dumbfounded, unaware of and unable to explain the extremely graphic content on the site.
In the interview, FoxNews.com told the executives to enter "PTHC" in the website's search box. The term “PTHC” — short for “Pre-Teen Hard Core” — is frequently found in connection with child sexual exploitation activity and materials, law enforcement officials say. Multiple sources confirmed that “PTHC” is on the NCMEC list of keywords.
Then, when asked to click on the profile of any of the group’s members, the executives were ushered into a subculture dedicated to using Facebook to traffic child pornography and to target and interact with children.
At this point, there was silence for nearly a full minute, except for the sound of furious, rapid typing. Axten and Sullivan sounded stunned, unable to explain why this happened and how their filters could have failed.
Facebook later said it had launched an investigation into the pages, profiles and video links they had found during the interview. That same day, the “PTHC page” and others were removed from the website.
But much of what FoxNews.com found in its investigation remains active.
During the interview, the Facebook executives emphasized that identifying and removing content that may exploit children is a top priority. They said material flagged by the NCMEC keywords filter is evaluated and, if merited, promptly removed.
“We’re constantly looking to improve our filter system. As we get more information and tactics, we’ll use that to inform our system to make it even better,” Sullivan said.
“Believe me, it’s incredibly frustrating to all of us that they’re trying to share this, I’m so repulsed by the fact — I have three daughters — we have a large number of people who care greatly about these issues throwing a lot of money and technology at them.”
But despite their efforts, FoxNews.com found an entire underworld of widely recognized terms, code words and abbreviations on Facebook -- hundreds of pages with “PTHC” and “Incest” in their titles, and many others that are unprintable. Both terms are on the NCMEC keywords list, sources said, and they were found on Facebook's public, private, group and profile pages. Many of those pages purported to host video links to child pornography, and many had been active for months.
(Excerpt from Fox News.com/scitech/1010/10/21exclusive-facebook-filters-fall-short-in blocking)
QUESTIONS you might address in your comment (100-200 words). These are just some suggestions.
1. Is anything here surprising?
2. Should the rules for who uses Facebook be changed? Is Facebook safe?
3. Does this change how you think about cyber communication in any way?
4. Do you think that you are ever taking any risks when you are online?
5. Should Facebook be punished in some way?
The world's largest social network employs content filters that automatically scan for basic keywords that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) identifies as being commonly associated with child exploitive material. Those filters, if they are properly employed, should flag much of the offensive material found on the site, cybersecurity experts say.
But in a lengthy telephone interview on Oct. 6, FoxNews.com took two Facebook executives on a click-by-click tour of their own website, bringing them face-to-face with some of its vile contents and forcing them to admit that their efforts to block child predators were not working.
During a 90-minute phone interview with Facebook spokesman Simon Axten and the company's chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, the two executives were guided by FoxNews.com through the site’s seamy subculture – an encounter that left Sullivan sounding dumbfounded, unaware of and unable to explain the extremely graphic content on the site.
In the interview, FoxNews.com told the executives to enter "PTHC" in the website's search box. The term “PTHC” — short for “Pre-Teen Hard Core” — is frequently found in connection with child sexual exploitation activity and materials, law enforcement officials say. Multiple sources confirmed that “PTHC” is on the NCMEC list of keywords.
Then, when asked to click on the profile of any of the group’s members, the executives were ushered into a subculture dedicated to using Facebook to traffic child pornography and to target and interact with children.
At this point, there was silence for nearly a full minute, except for the sound of furious, rapid typing. Axten and Sullivan sounded stunned, unable to explain why this happened and how their filters could have failed.
Facebook later said it had launched an investigation into the pages, profiles and video links they had found during the interview. That same day, the “PTHC page” and others were removed from the website.
But much of what FoxNews.com found in its investigation remains active.
During the interview, the Facebook executives emphasized that identifying and removing content that may exploit children is a top priority. They said material flagged by the NCMEC keywords filter is evaluated and, if merited, promptly removed.
“We’re constantly looking to improve our filter system. As we get more information and tactics, we’ll use that to inform our system to make it even better,” Sullivan said.
“Believe me, it’s incredibly frustrating to all of us that they’re trying to share this, I’m so repulsed by the fact — I have three daughters — we have a large number of people who care greatly about these issues throwing a lot of money and technology at them.”
But despite their efforts, FoxNews.com found an entire underworld of widely recognized terms, code words and abbreviations on Facebook -- hundreds of pages with “PTHC” and “Incest” in their titles, and many others that are unprintable. Both terms are on the NCMEC keywords list, sources said, and they were found on Facebook's public, private, group and profile pages. Many of those pages purported to host video links to child pornography, and many had been active for months.
(Excerpt from Fox News.com/scitech/1010/10/21exclusive-facebook-filters-fall-short-in blocking)
QUESTIONS you might address in your comment (100-200 words). These are just some suggestions.
1. Is anything here surprising?
2. Should the rules for who uses Facebook be changed? Is Facebook safe?
3. Does this change how you think about cyber communication in any way?
4. Do you think that you are ever taking any risks when you are online?
5. Should Facebook be punished in some way?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)