The march attracted protesters from both ends of the political spectrum as liberal privacy advocates walked alongside members of the conservative Tea Party movement in opposition to what they say is unlawful government spying on Americans.

What a weird image.

That’s a shame. This image alone illustrates the design strides made by the Next team (the cancelled redesign is on the right). 

The Reuters iOS app is better than that of Associated Press, for what it’s worth.

This guy is in charge of a country. 

Crazy.

John Shiffman and Kristina Cooke, reporting for Reuters Washington bureau:

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to “recreate” the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant’s Constitutional right to a fair trial.

This goes well beyond spying. This is, I would argue, exactly why people object to such domestic spying.

The logic is that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear. However, the “Special Operations Division” probably isn’t infallible, since, well, no one is, and that means that you may have nothing to hide, and think you have nothing to fear, and be completely wrong.

Innocent people may have been convicted as a result of what appear on their face to be unconstitutional, extrajudicial practices.

Those arguing that the price for protection from terrorists and other would-be evil doers is letting the National Security Agency have a peak at our Gmail will have a much more difficult time making the same case for falsifying an evidence trail.

The defense was often held in the dark and, apparently, at least in some cases, investigators misled both the prosecution and judicial evidentiary discretion.

Oh, and as a cherry on top, here’s a gem from near the end of the Reuters story:

A DEA spokesman declined to comment on the unit’s annual budget. A recent LinkedIn posting on the personal page of a senior SOD official estimated it to be $125 million.

The monitoring of internet communications for sensitive information, it would seem, goes both ways.

I wrote yesterday about Ms. Dalelv’s 16-month sentence for sex outside marriage, among other absurd charges to levy against a victim of rape, in the city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. I’m happy to report that, according to Reuters, the 24-year-old has been “pardoned” and will be able to go back to Norway.

The fact that UAE called it a “pardon” is as unconscionable as the sentence itself, but freedom by any name is better than being jailed in the kind of nation that would punish a rape victim.

This is progress, although MG Siegler is right to doubt whether cable companies, many of whom are also internet service providers, would even consider such a deal.

At least HBO recognizes that the math won’t hold up against a la carte models forever.

Joseph Menn, quoting an anonymous source for Reuters:

We knew certain parts of government really wanted” evidence of active spying, said one of the people, who requested anonymity. “We would have found it if it were there.

I don’t know enough about this specific issue and the problem of cyberwarfare threats generally. My time in International Law this semester and previous courses like Cyberlaw and Cyberprivacy are coalescing in my mind into a strong area of interest, though, so I expect to follow this and similar issues closely and (hopefully) develop more substantive opinions about them over the next two months.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prohibits, among other things, accessing a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization. Employers have been known to use it against employees where the latter has used a company database to poach clients for a new venture or otherwise used proprietary company information for personal benefit and to the employer’s detriment.

The Reuters article correctly points out that many jurists look at such issues as employer/employee matters undeserving of criminal prosecution, at least to the extent that they don’t violate other laws pertaining to trade secrets, securities law, and other potentially-applicable law.

I agree: an employee’s exceeding authorized access to further goals contrary to the company’s interests, unless the information retrieved is properly considered a trade secret or otherwise is protected, should be a firing offense but not a prosecuting one.