The Cost of Online Anonymity

Dan Simmons:

After 10 years in the business, Anonymizer has two million active users. The US government pays it to promote the service in China and Iran in order to help promote free speech.
But these programs are becoming popular in the West too.
The software encrypts all your requests for webpages. Anonymizer’s servers then automatically gather the content on your behalf and send it back to you.
No humans are involved and the company does not keep records of who requests what.
However, there is some censorship. Anonymizer does not support anonymous uploading to the web, and it blocks access to material that would be illegal under US law.

A Bit of Cold War Reading from the CIA: Tolkachev

Barry G. Royden:

On 20 September 1985, international wire service reports carried a statement distributed by the official Soviet news agency TASS that one A. G. Tolkachev, whom it described as a staff member at one of Moscow’s research institutes, had been arrested the previous June trying to pass secret materials of a defensive nature to the United States. Subsequent news stories said Tolkachev was an electronics expert at a military aviation institute in Moscow who was compromised by former CIA officer Edward Lee Howard.

In October 1985, The Washington Post ran a story that described Tolkachev as “one of CIA’s most valuable human assets in the Soviet Union.” According to FBI affidavits related to the Howard espionage case that were made public, Tolkachev had provided information on Soviet avionics, cruise missiles, and other technologies. The Soviets subsequently publicly confirmed that they had executed Tolkachev in 1986 for “high treason.”

Fascinating and well worth reading.

“Some Rights Have to Erode…”

BBC:

“MI5 has recently let it be known that it is in favour of making telephone intercept evidence admissible in court. Previously the intelligence and security services had expressed concern such that evidence might reveal operational details. Meanwhile, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has been calling for EU states to keep mobile phone and e-mail records for longer, to help fight terrorism and crime.”

Bud Selig Interview

Tim Gutowski:

What were the disappointments? Some controversies that I found disappointing in terms of human behavior. They tried to put a jail next to the ballpark … putting a jail next to a ballpark isn’t exactly an entertainment complex. And then the whole stadium controversy. And, look, I understand taxation. But here we are trying to keep baseball in Milwaukee … and it happens in a lot of places, this is not the only place it happens, but the Machiavellian behavior was just sad. And someday when I write a book I’ll describe it as it’s never been described. The personal abuse that the ownership took, I took, my daughter took, the organization took, baseball took — was inexcusable. And today, well how bad is it? Milwaukee has a Major League team for the next two generations. … It’s a great tribute to a lot of people. … Will Milwaukee in the future be a better place for your children and grandchildren? You bet it will.

I appreciate Bud’s gumption in making baseball happen. BUT, I think the location (should have been downtown – see Denver and San Francisco) and process that lead to Miller Park was a big mistake.

Philadelphia WiFi Update

Andy Kessler:

But it turns out cities get to sort of cheat, cite eminent domain, and place a lot of gear on their own light poles and radio towers. No startup gets that deal. And new mesh technologies mean Philly can plug into the Internet just once, paying wholesale rates, unlike the folks that run Starbucks or hotel hotspots, who overpay (probably to Verizon) for the Internet connection their Wi-Fi users share.
But the real whopper is that – as Ms. Neff claims – by the third year, Philly will be saving $2 million a year on their $150 million IT budget by not having to pay Verizon for Internet access at their 24,000-employee city offices. Hmmm. That whole disadvantaged thing is just icing. Sounds like some sort of arbitrage.

The Squeezing of Lawyer/Client Privilege

Jonathan D. Glater:

Prosecutors say that they usually do not seek to learn what advice a lawyer provides to a client, but are trying only to learn the facts. In an interview in 2003, James B. Comey, a former United States attorney, said, “They are just seeking the facts, including factual attorney work product.” Lawyers for former KPMG partners have already excoriated the firm’s cooperation and, in particular, its acknowledgment of wrongdoing, contending that the firm did not undertake a thorough internal investigation to justify such a statement. (The statement is unlikely to be admitted in evidence in the criminal case against the former partners, though, lawyers said, and, in any event, it does not identify specific wrongdoers.)