ndmckinney|net

Ezra Klein has an opinion piece in today’s Washington Post discussing the possibility of real tax code reform. In short: everything would be easier yet more taxes would be collected.

And while every interest group that benefits from an unwieldy tax code will protest, the loudest voice will probably come from CPAs and tax prep software publishers. They’re really losing their golden goose if this initiative passes.

[From Congress is long overdue for serious effort at tax reform - washingtonpost.com]

Going on record now with my predictions for 2012:

1. Sarah Palin does not get the Republican nomination for President.
2. “Tea Party” forms its own political party, nominates Palin as their candidate.
3. Newly formed “Tea Party” splits Republican vote; Obama re-elected.
4. Palin realizes there’s more money, influence in the media, quits politics.
5. “Tea Party” spends years infighting and disintegrates.

Just my thoughts here. This group seems to share a lot of the same disorganizing traits as the democrats.

Earlier this morning, while listening to a story about the use of social media in Iran, a thought occurred to me: would governments have a need for their own botnets?

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that governments have any such networks nor are actively creating them.  I am not suggesting, either, some massive international conspiracy.  Rather, I am curious if this technique would be useful for states.

Cyberspace will be, by all accounts, the next major battlefront in international warfare.  Given that there are few, if any, casualties on the battlefield, cyber-attacks will likely be more commonplace.  States who are merely hostile towards one another and not engaged in active combat may utilize cyber-attacks against one another, such as the recent war between Georgia and Russia.

In their current incarnation, botnets provide malicious individuals or organizations the means to tap into a supermassive computer network.  Malware infects the personal computers of unsuspecting individuals, allowing for   The most common use of a botnet is to conduct distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, but other uses are possible.

Governments of sufficient size, such as the United States, would likely not need a botnet.  These governments have more that sufficient resources and talent to conduct more sophisticated forms of attack. Furthermore, the political and social risks of being caught operating such a network would be too great.

On the other hand, smaller governments, especially governments that are much more restrictive or even totalitarian, would have every incentive to create such networks.  These governments have limited resources at their disposal, insufficient resources to dedicate to cyber-warfare, and a growing need to counteract the internet as a tool of political and social change.

In the end, botnets may not prove to be an effective tool.  States wishing to stifle true dissent may simply choose to disable access to the internet entirely.  A botnet may only prove useful as a tool of war between states, or between states and non-state actors (e.g., terrorist groups).  Still, it is worth considering the possibility of the botnet as a tool of warfare, if only to protect against it.

While I was in Georgetown today, I saw this on the window of an office suite. I think this qualifies as the emptiest gesture of all time.

The Federal Trade Commission today entered a consent order today finding that Sears Holdings Management Corporation (Sears and Kmart) by which Sears settled FTC charges of failing to disclose the scope of collection and usage of customer data and web activity.  This, according to a statement by the FTC, constituted a deceptive practice.

Affected customers were members of the “My SHC Community”, who would pay $10 to participate.  These customers would then be asked to download research software.  A description of the nature of the software was buried in a “lengthy user license agreement.”

Under the settlement, Sears will not only destroy the information collected by the “research software” but also make a separate disclosure as to the nature and purpose of any future web tracking software, including any possible sale of the data to third parties.

The proposed settlement is open for public comment until July 6, 2009.  Those interested can visit the FTC website for further information.

The European Commission (EC) today imposed a €1.06 billion fine on the Intel Corporation for “abuse of a dominant market position . . . by engaging in illegal anticompetitive practices to exclue competitors from the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units.” The Commission futher ordered Intel “to cease the anticompetitive practices to the extent that they are still ongoing.”

According to the Commission, Intel engaged in a practice of providing substantial rebates to PC manufacturers who either used exclusively or predominantly Intel processors. The rebates themselves were not the basis for the fine, but “the conditions Intel attached to those rebates.”

The Commission also found that Intel made direct payments to manufacturers to delay the launch of products containing processors from rival AMD. This “pay-for-delay” scheme, the Commission finds, was directly aimed at preventing AMD from selling its product on the open market and thus violative of EU Law.

Read the rest of this entry »

Wired.com today published an article calling into question the legality of Facebook’s new policy of filtering links to the Pirate Bay. Citing EFF lawyers, the article claims that Facebook is violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.) by filtering these links. While there is little wisdom in doing so, nothing about Facebook’s new policy violates the law.

Read the rest of this entry »

A French appellate court has upheld a decision prohibiting Apple and telco provider Orange from entering into a five-year exclusive deal.

[From iPhone : la justice confirme la suspension d'exclusivité d'Orange - Economie - Le Monde.fr]