Old Fucking Punk @lwriemen@librem.one

Credit Where it’s Due

Hitler chimes in on Trump’s desire to shoot migrants and build a moat and border wall topped with spikes.

Donald the Boy President Gets Impeached

A parody of the beloved Calvin and Hobbes featuring the much less beloved Donald Trump.

Leading by Example

Representation isn’t everything

Adversarial Interoperability

“Interoperability” is the act of making a new product or service work with an existing product or service: modern civilization depends on the standards and practices that allow you to put any dish into a dishwasher or any USB charger into any car’s cigarette lighter.

But interoperability is just the ante. For a really competitive, innovative, dynamic marketplace, you need adversarial interoperability: that’s when you create a new product or service that plugs into the existing ones without the permission of the companies that make them. Think of third-party printer ink, alternative app stores, or independent repair shops that use compatible parts from rival manufacturers to fix your car or your phone or your tractor.

Adversarial interoperability was once the driver of tech’s dynamic marketplace, where the biggest firms could go from top of the heap to scrap metal in an eyeblink, where tiny startups could topple dominant companies before they even knew what hit them.

But the current crop of Big Tech companies has secured laws, regulations, and court decisions that have dramatically restricted adversarial interoperability. From the flurry of absurd software patents that the US Patent and Trademark Office granted in the dark years between the first software patents and the Alice decision to the growing use of "digital rights management" to create legal obligations to use the products you purchase in ways that benefit shareholders at your expense, Big Tech climbed the adversarial ladder and then pulled it up behind them.

That can and should change. As Big Tech grows ever more concentrated, restoring adversarial interoperability must be a piece of the solution to that concentration: making big companies smaller makes their mistakes less consequential, and it deprives them of the monopoly profits they rely on to lobby for rules that make competing with them even harder.

For months, we have written about the history, theory, and practice of adversarial interoperability. This page rounds up our writing on the subject in one convenient resource that you can send your friends, Members of Congress, teachers, investors, and bosses as we all struggle to figure out how to re-decentralize the Internet and spread decision-making power around to millions of individuals and firms, rather than the executives of a handful of tech giants.

Interoperability: Fix the Internet, Not the Tech Companies: a taxonomy of different kinds of interoperability, from “indifferent interoperability” (I don't care if you plug your thing into my product) to “cooperative interoperability” (please plug your thing into my product) to “adversarial interoperability” (dang it, stop plugging your thing into my product!).
Adversarial Interoperability: Reviving an Elegant Weapon From a More Civilized Age to Slay Today’s Monopolies: The history of adversarial interoperability and how it drove the tech revolutions of the past four decades, and what we can do to restore it.
Interoperability and Privacy: Squaring the Circle: Big Tech companies created a privacy dumpster fire on the Internet, but now they say they can’t fix it unless we use the law to ban competitors from plugging new services into their flaming dumpsters. That’s awfully convenient, don't you think?
A Cycle of Renewal, Broken: How Big Tech and Big Media Abuse Copyright Law to Slay Competition: Cable TV exists because of adversarial interoperability, which gave it the power to disrupt the broadcasters. Today, Big Cable is doing everything it can to stop anyone from disrupting it.
‘IBM PC Compatible’: How Adversarial Interoperability Saved PCs From Monopolization: IBM spent more than a decade on the wrong end of an antitrust action over its mainframe monopoly, but when it created its first PCs, scrappy upstarts like Phoenix and Compaq were able to clone its ROM chips and create a vibrant, fast-moving marketplace.
SAMBA versus SMB: Adversarial Interoperability is Judo for Network Effects: Microsoft came this close to owning the modern office by locking up the intranet in a proprietary network protocol called SMB...That is, until a PhD candidate released SAMBA, a free/open product that adversarially interoperated with SMB and allows Macs, Unix systems, and other rivals to live on the same LANs as Windows machines.
Felony Contempt of Business Model: Lexmark’s Anti-Competitive Legacy: Printer companies are notorious for abusive practices, but Lexmark reached a new low in 2002, when it argued that copyright gave it the right to decide who could put carbon powder into empty toner cartridges. Even though Lexmark failed, it blazed a trail that other companies have enthusiastically followed, successfully distorting copyright to cover everything from tractor parts to browser plugins.
Adblocking: How About Nah?: The early Web was infested with intrusive pop-up ads, and adversarial interoperability rendered them invisible. Today, adblocking is the largest boycott in history, doing more to curb bad ads and the surveillance that goes with them than any regulator.

Aspirin may halve air pollution harms

A new study is the first to report evidence that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like aspirin may lessen the adverse effects of air pollution exposure on lung function. The researchers found that the use of any NSAID nearly halved of the effect of PM on lung function, with the association consistent across all four weekly air pollution measurements from same-day to 28 days prior to the lung function test.

After Largest Workplace Raid in a Decade, Immigrant Workers Are Organizing

On August 7 the poultry towns of central Mississippi suffered the largest workplace raid in the U.S. since 2006. Some 680 chicken-processing workers from seven factories were detained and incarcerated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

#coop fact of the day!

Socialists are better at running businesses than capitalists?

These daily facts are part of a marketing campaign for #CoopExchange, consider subscribing to our email list in our website here: https://coop.exchange/.

Black Workers Are the Heartbeat of the GM Strike

The news she had been anticipating finally arrived, and Leatrice Strong, a 33-year-old Black woman and mother of four, felt a wave of nervous energy wash over her. Not because she doubted that striking against General Motors was the right thing to do. “We’re just all standing for what’s right,” she told me. But the […]

33% of Parents Went Into Debt to Pay for Summer Childcare in 2018

Kids don’t necessarily look forward to the end of summer break, but for working parents in America, the start of a new school year can mean relief from the months of uncertainty, stress and financial cost that comes with having few viable childcare options when school’s out. A lack of childcare infrastructure in the United States leaves many working families scrambling to find someone to watch their children, desperately trying to keep their kids safe while they’re at work.

But it’s not just a summer problem. For working families, especially single-parent households, finding quality, affordable and accessible day care can be a year-round struggle—one that more hot-button issues like healthcare and jobs often take priority over when elections come around. Some 2020 Democratic candidates want to change that: Elizabeth Warren has made government-funded universal childcare a tenet of her campaign strategy, a concept several other candidates also support. 

These 11 statistics show why childcare is such a source of anxiety for American families:

$9,600 - Average annual cost of childcare nationwide, per child, in 2017

55% - People who said childcare costs were a significant financial challenge in 2018

33% - Parents who went into debt to pay for summer childcare in 2018

51% - People living in “childcare deserts” (areas with three times more children than licensed childcare slots) in 2017

19 - States whose childcare assistance programs had waitlists or frozen intake in 2018

67% - Children who have all available parents working outside the industry home as of 2017

16% - Private-industry employees who had access to paid family leave in 2018

37% - Average portion of annual income that single parents spend on childcare

7% - Recommended portion of annual income to be spent on childcare, according to the Department of Health and Human Services

18.3% - Mothers with children ages 3 and younger working outside the home for a median wage of $10.50 or less in 2016

$23,240 - Median annual income for childcare workers in 2018

Pompeo Admits to Being on Trump’s Ukraine Call

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed his participation in the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The admission on Wednesday came on the heels of a Wall Street Journal report revealing that Pompeo had listened in on the call—an explosive detail he went to extraordinary lengths to avoid […]

Susan Collins Feted as “Hero of Kavanaugh Confirmation” at High-Dollar California Fundraiser

“As you know, her actions during the Kavanaugh hearings have made her a #1 target among the radical left,” the invitation from the Lincoln Women’s Leadership Committee reads.

The post Susan Collins Feted as “Hero of Kavanaugh Confirmation” at High-Dollar California Fundraiser appeared first on The Intercept.

Civilian Deaths in U.S. Wars Are Skyrocketing Under Trump. It May Not Be Impeachable, but It’s a Crime.

There are so many reasons why Trump should be the object of our moral outrage, not least his role in the violent deaths of thousands of innocent people.

The post Civilian Deaths in U.S. Wars Are Skyrocketing Under Trump. It May Not Be Impeachable, but It’s a Crime. appeared first on The Intercept.

A Third of Voters Who Oppose Impeachment Are Worried About Backlash for Democrats, New Poll Suggests

Voters in the new poll also supported broad and decisive impeachment proceedings, not limited to the Ukraine phone call.

The post A Third of Voters Who Oppose Impeachment Are Worried About Backlash for Democrats, New Poll Suggests appeared first on The Intercept.

Nobody Asked You

What if all justice was dependent on opinion polling?

DC Circuit Offers Bad News, Good News on Net Neutrality: FCC Repeal Upheld, But States Can Fill the Gap

Users, advocates, and service providers have been waiting for months to find out whether an appellate court will bless the Federal Communications Commission’s effort to repeal net neutrality protections, and whether the FCC can simultaneously force the states to follow suit. The answer: yes, and no.  Bound by its interpretation of Supreme Court precedent, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the FCC’s repeal wasn’t sufficiently irrational to be struck down (many internet engineers might disagree) but, having abandoned the field, the FCC can’t prevent states from stepping in to protect their own users.

We’re disappointed. The FCC is supposed to be the expert agency on telecommunications, but in the case of the so-called “Save the Internet Order,” it ignored expertise and issued an order based on a wrong interpretation of the technical realities of the Internet. But we’re very pleased that the court’s ruling gives states a chance to limit the damage.

What Happened

In 2017, the FCC voted to repeal the 2015 Open Internet Order, issuing in its place the so-called “Restoring Internet Freedom Order.” In doing so, the FCC declared that it would no longer oversee broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) and removed strong net neutrality protections.

Net neutrality is a foundational principle of the Internet. It is the idea that all data online be treated in a nondiscriminatory way. In other words, the company providing your Internet access won’t get to determine what you see or how you experience the Internet once you are online. Blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization are famous examples of how companies have violated net neutrality in the past.

Americans overwhelmingly support net neutrality, so the FCC’s decision was not a response to consumer demand but rather a giveaway service providers that complained, without a shred of evidence, that net neutrality rules would impede broadband investment. That lack of evidence has been a theme of the repeal process. In addition to misrepresenting the economics, the FCC misrepresented how the Internet works, in spite of information given to them by Internet engineers, pioneers, and technologists.

The Case

After the FCC’s action in 2017, a number of groups filed a lawsuit arguing that the FCC had no right to repeal the 2015 Open Internet Order in that manner. In particular, in light of the facts listed above and more, the FCC’s action is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law [pdf].

The FCC was backed by the largest ISPs—the only ones who stand to gain from the lack of net neutrality protections and oversight. Standing up to the FCC was a large number of public interest groups, local governments, and Internet companies large and small.

On behalf of technologists who helped develop Internet technologies, EFF filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioners. We made clear that the FCC’s ruling is based on an incorrect understanding of how a broadband internet access service (BIAS) work, issuing an order that mischaracterizes a number of functions BIAS providers can offer. We also pointed out that the 2017 repeal order completely ignores the negative consequences for speech and innovation that lifting net neutrality protections would have.

In February 2019, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in this case, Mozilla v FCC. The arguments lasted for four hours, highlighting not just the conditions that existed in 2017 when the order was issued, but also touching on harms that the order itself causes.

In attempting to clear a path for ISPs to avoid complying with net neutrality rules, the FCC also included language attempting to prevent states from enacting their own net neutrality protections. In other words, the FCC issued an order saying that it no longer had authority over ISPs except, apparently, the authority to prevent states from stepping into the vacuum the FCC itself created. That portion of the order, if upheld, could have undermined California’s recently passed net neutrality law.

Since the repeal, the effects of the FCC’s repeal on public safety has also taken center stage, including during oral argument. In 2018, Santa Clara County firefighters found their Verizon Internet service throttled during a state emergency, and when they complained, Verizon told them to buy a more expensive plan. Santa Clara County’s lawyer Danielle Goldstein argued in February that the FCC has a duty to ensure public safety before problems like this occur, rather than just receiving complaints after a disaster happens. While the FCC argued that there was no evidence of concrete harms, Goldstein put it clearly, “The burden is not on us to show that someone has already died.”

The Decision

In short, the D.C. Circuit upheld the FCC’s ability to repeal net neutrality rules but sent it back to the agency the resolve three major issues the FCC failed to address: public safety, pole attachment rights, and the subsidy program Lifeline.

The court found that the FCC’s factually incorrect assessment of the way that the Internet and its related technologies worked was a “reasonable policy choice.” In other words, whatever outside experts might say about the realities of the Internet, agency the court had to defer to the FCC ’s alternative interpretation of that reality. This is the end-result of an “expert” agency deciding not to listen to experts.

But the biggest news, at least in the short term, is that the court unequivocally rejected the FCC’s effort to do a favor for the big ISPs and preempt state net neutrality laws. The court didn’t mince words on preemption, stating that the “Commission ignored binding precedent by failing to ground its sweeping Preemption Directive—which goes far beyond conflict preemption—in a lawful source of statutory authority. That failure is fatal.”

This means that states can pass their own net neutrality laws without fear that the FCC’s 2017 order stops them from doing so. While there might be other challenges to state laws, there is no FCC ban on them anymore. In particular, California’s S.B. 822—which the state has delayed enforcement of until this case is completely resolved—is in a strong position going forward. In the absence of the FCC standing up for Internet users and in the wake of this decision, other states can and should be following California’s lead.

Finally, the court sent the case back to the FCC to address three issues. On public safety, the court expressed deep concern that the FCC failed to account for the effects of its decision on the life and safety of its citizens.

On pole attachments, the court explained that the FCC’s decision harmed stand-alone broadband providers' ability to get access to the right of way to deploy broadband. This is because the 2018 Order allowed legacy companies like Comcast and Verizon to keep their special federal rights to infrastructure to deploy their services as cable television companies and telephone companies, but fiber broadband companies were out of luck. Prior to the 2015 Open Internet Order that resolved this issue (by declaring all broadband as Title II, thus giving all ISPs equal rights) we witnessed efforts by AT&T to block Google Fiber from deploying in Austin, Texas because they owned the poles. This issue was also raised by dozens of ISPs across the country in opposition to the FCC’s 2018 Order, so it is a good thing the court is requiring the FCC to grapple with this reality.

For the Lifeline program, which many low-income users depend on for communications access, the court notes that the “2018 Order . . . facially disqualifies broadband from inclusion in the Lifeline Program.” In other words, only Title II services are eligible for federal financial support to help low-income users afford communications services and so long as broadband is not a telecom service, low-income users will not receive financial assistance in obtaining access to broadband.

What Happens Now

The FCC must now grapple with the implications of its decisions,, which could result in further litigation. More litigation could continue to prove just how far out on a limb the FCC is going for big ISPs and how much it is leaving the public in the lurch.

Congress also has a responsibility to bring this debate to an end and reflect the super-majority opinion of the public that net neutrality should be the law of the land. The House of Representatives has already done its job with the passage of the Save the Net Act but it remains blocked by the Senate’s inaction, effectively doing the work big ISPs like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast want. Congress and the states should both be acting to protect the Internet and its users.

EFF will continue to fight for the users and we will continue to fight for laws that are based on how the Internet is built, used, and developing.

Take Action

Tell the Senate to protect Net Neutrality

 

 

House Democrats, Dodging Party Policy, Are Privately Supporting Marie Newman

Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, one of the few remaining anti-abortion Democrats in Congress, barely survived a challenge by Newman in 2018.

The post House Democrats, Dodging Party Policy, Are Privately Supporting Marie Newman appeared first on The Intercept.

So finally it has been confirmed that consent has to be explicitly provided to place cookies in a browser.

#Privacy

High-fructose and high-fat diet damages liver mitochondria

High levels of fructose in the diet inhibit the liver's ability to properly metabolize fat. This effect is specific to fructose. Indeed, equally high levels of glucose in the diet actually improve the fat-burning function of the liver.

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and the Working-Class Iowa Test

DES MOINES—A large “People Before Profit" banner hung over the double doors leading into the Iowa Event Center’s ballroom—the state’s largest—September 21 for the People’s Presidential Forum. The event was hosted by the national grassroots group People’s Action and two of its local member organizations, Iowa Student Action and the Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement Action Fund (CCIAF).

More than 2,300 people, most of them working-class—including groups of fast-food workers and tenant organizers—attended the discussion with four Democratic candidates: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Julián Castro. The candidates shared the stage with workers from Iowa and nearby Midwestern states, but also as far away as Honduras. The workers told stories of how they’d been adversely impacted by corporate greed and anti-union government policies, as refrains of “That ain’t right!” rang out from the audience.

The forum’s theme of “movement politics" presented a striking contrast to the day’s bigger-ticket event, the Polk County Steak Fry, where an estimated 12,000 people turned out to hear 17 Democratic presidential hopefuls give briefer, more conventional stump speeches. The all-important Iowa caucuses—the first voting contest of the primary—stands as a test of candidates’ strength in 2020.  

Brian McLain, 42, a member of the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) from the Des Moines suburb of Ankeny, appreciated the forum’s focus on universal healthcare, but was unimpressed by Castro and Buttigieg, as both declined to embrace Medicare for All. 

“Medicare for All is a big one for me,” said McLain, who supports Sanders. “It is one of my dealbreakers when it comes to presidential candidates.”

McLain described how he spent a decade of his adulthood in poverty, lacking access to healthcare coverage. That changed, he said, when the union he joined—the APWU—secured benefits for him and his family through collective bargaining.

But with three children now reaching adulthood themselves, McLain worries whether they will be able to access care as Republicans continue their efforts to dismantle what’s left of Obamacare. In Iowa, state Republicans also privatized Medicaid, which has reduced or eliminated coverage for many vulnerable residents, and undermined collective bargaining rights for public-sector unions.

Sanders has made his Medicare for All Act, a single-payer bill that would replace private insurance with a single federal health insurance program, a centerpiece of his campaign. Warren also supports the plan; in response to a questionnaire sent out by CCIAF ahead of the forum, Warren said the country ought to “start treating healthcare like the basic human right that it is.”

During the forum, Sanders said, “I have believed for my entire adult life that healthcare is a human right, not a privilege.” Citing the millions of un- and underinsured Americans across the country, he added, “We have a system today which is not only dysfunctional, it is incredibly cruel.” As of July 2018, more than 176,000 Iowa residents lacked healthcare coverage.

A poll conducted by the Des Moines Register and CNN and released shortly after the forum showed that 41% of likely Iowa caucusgoers support Medicare for All and want candidates to run on the program, while another 28% are “personally comfortable" with the plan but worry it could have adverse electoral consequences. The forum also featured discussion of other hot-button issues defining the Democratic primary, from the Green New Deal to affordable housing and student debt.

”The Green New Deal, if that’s a fad, it’s the last damn fad we’ll have the chance to join,” said Danielle Wirth, 65, a resident of Woodward, Iowa, who teaches courses on ecology at Iowa State University in Ames. “The planet is at risk.”

Wearing a shirt promoting the Green New Deal, a comprehensive plan to combat climate change and transform the economy, Wirth said she and her husband planned to caucus for two of the candidates at the forum—Warren and Sanders, respectively.

“My husband and I would like to see both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren get through the caucuses, because they both represent such fundamental, systemic change,” she explained. “We believe in intergenerational equity.”

Both candidates expressed support for the Green New Deal in the CCIAF questionnaire and were cosponsors of the initial Senate resolution endorsing the plan. Sanders called for moving “away from fossil fuels to 100% energy efficiency and sustainable energy.” Farmers across the state are already feeling the economic impact of climate change as rainier springs and hotter summers threaten crop yields.

The Register-CNN poll showed that nearly half of all likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa support the Green New Deal and want candidates to campaign on it.

“I think Bernie probably set the agenda for all of them,” said Gina Folsom, 69, a retired educator from Ames, referring to the senator’s rivals. “Four years ago, I don’t think any of them were saying these things. She plans to caucus for Sanders for her second time in February 2020.

The Register-CNN poll showed Warren as the top choice of 22% of likely Iowa caucusgoers, overtaking centrist rival Joe Biden for the first time by a 2-point margin. Sanders dropped to third place in the poll at 11%.

Sanders, though, appeared to be the favored candidate among the majority of the forum’s attendees, drawing the biggest audience in the ballroom and receiving the loudest applause. Forum speakers and other attendees recounted helping organize support for him in 2016 ahead of that year’s caucuses, which resulted in a virtual tie with eventual nominee Hillary Clinton.

While Warren’s positions tended to mirror those expressed by Sanders, there was a notable moment that set the two apart. Sanders supports a national rent-control policy, but in a discussion about housing reform, Warren suggested this approach wouldn’t work for all communities. “Writing a rent-control plan in Washington may work for Chicago,” she argued, “but it’s not going to work for Iowa City, or it may not work for Dallas.”

“Warren could be better on this, and we plan to continue engaging her and the rest of the candidates on a national homes guarantee that includes universal rent control,” said Hugh Espey, executive director of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, after the forum. He added that a national standard on rent control “would help states like Iowa and cities like Des Moines protect people against skyrocketing rents.”

In 2016, CCIAF endorsed Sanders for president. The group plans to back a candidate for 2020 in early November, organizer Shawn Sebastian said—but he cautioned against reading too much into a single poll because of the past tendency among Democrats in the state not to settle on a candidate until shortly before they caucus.

CCIAF’s focus will remain on policy issues regardless of its endorsement, Sebastian added.

“What the People’s Forum is trying to show is the enemy is not each other,” he said. “The [enemies are] the big-money corporations and the corrupt politicians who take orders from them, that try to divide us against each other.”