|
The Other James Gandolfini |
 |
|
Saturday, 22 June 2013 12:57 |
|
Excerpt: "While coverage of his death has focused mainly on his acting career, little has been mentioned about the more political side of his work."
The 'Sopranos' star James Gandolfini was also an advocate for wounded vets. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)
The Other James Gandolfini
By Democracy Now!
22 June 13
 ames Gandolfini, the celebrated actor best known for his role as mob boss Tony Soprano on the hit TV series, "The Sopranos," died Wednesday at the age of 51. While coverage of his death has focused mainly on his acting career, little has been mentioned about the more political side of his work. In New York City, he was a beloved figure not only because of his acting on the stage and screen, but also because of his major support for community media and producing documentaries critical of war. In 2010, he produced the HBO film "Wartorn: 1861-2010" about post-traumatic stress disorder from the Civil War to Iraq and Afghanistan. He also conducted a series of in-depth interviews with U.S. soldiers wounded in the Iraq War for a 2007 HBO film, "Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq." We speak to the films’ co-directors, Jon Alpert and Matthew O’Neill.
JUAN GONZALEZ: We end today's show with a look at a lesser-known side of a well-known actor James Gandolfini. Celebrated for his role as mob boss Tony Soprano on the hit TV series, "The Sopranos," he died Wednesday the age of 51. He was vacationing with his family in Italy when he died of a possible heart attack. The coverage of his death has focused mainly on his portrayal as Tony Soprano, a role that earned him three Emmys. He's also been recognized for his roles in films including, Get Shorty, Killing them Softly, and Zero Dark Thirty, about the hunt for Osama bin Laden. In a statement, Sopranos creator, David Chase, called James Gandolfini "One of the greatest actors of this or any time."
AMY GOODMAN: But, the news coverage has mentioned little about the more political side of James Gandolfini's work. In New York City he was a beloved figure not only because of his acting on the stage and screen, but also because of his major support for community media. And while his fictional roles have received wide acclaim, he has received less attention for his leading roles in two documentaries about the ravages of war on U.S. soldiers. In 2010 he produced the HBO film, "Wartorn: 1861-2010" about post-traumatic stress disorder from the Civil War to Iraq and Afghanistan. He also conducted a series of in-depth interviews with U.S. soldiers wounded in the Iraq war for 2007 HBO film called, "Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq." the film centers on the idea that the soldiers remember two key dates in their lives - their birthday and they're alive day, the day when they narrowly escaped a violent death. This is the trailer for the film.
JAMES GANDOLFINI: Mike, I'm right in front of you, it's Jim Gandolfini.
SOLDIER: Hi, how you doing, Sir?
JAMES GANDOLFINI: How are you? It's good to see you again.
SOLDIER: Great. How you doing?
JAMES GANDOLFINI: Why did you join the Army?
SOLDIER: I wanted to go and protect the nation and defend it protect it and punish those who seek to destroy it.
JAMES GANDOLFINI: Everyone I've talked to know the exact date when they've been hit.
SOLDIER: It was one of those nights in the desert. I will never forget it.
SOLDIER: I had my left hand on the steering wheel. I was smoking and then the bomb went off.
SOLDIER: All I heard was screaming and everything went black.
AMY GOODMAN: That was the trailer for the HBO film, "Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq." produced by James Gandolfini. For more we're joined here in New York by the film's co-directors, Jon Alpert and Matt O'Neill. They also co-directed, "Wartorn: 1861-2010." They work together at New York's Downtown Community Television, a community media center based in Chinatown where we also worked until we moved to our new studios. It's where James Gandolfini was a board member. Jon Alpert is the founder and Executive Director of DCTV. This year Jon and Matt were nominated for an Oscar for their short film "Redemption," about bottle and can collectors in New York City. Their other honors over the years include four Emmys for the 2006 film "Baghdad ER." We welcome you both back to Democracy Now! Jon, talk about James Gandolfini. He was a friend of yours, and was a board member of DCTV and he did your films.
JON ALPERT: He was a friend to many people. I think if you could just sort of crystallize him, he sort of believed in nobody left behind. He did not leave his high school friends behind or his college friends behind he didn't leave the soldiers behind. He did not leave people with learning disabilities - didn't leave them behind, didn't leave me behind. Any time he came to town, the phone would ring. Democracy Now! and DCTV used to be neighbors. We're, what 20 blocks away, and we consider each other friends, but we don't call each other up. We work, we're in our own little world. Jim's world was really big. He made sure that he never forgot anybody. When you were his friend, you were always his friend.
JUAN GONZALEZ: How did he get involved with DCTV to begin with? Because, obviously, it's a - the commercial acting world is somewhat removed from documentaries and community media.
JON ALPERT: Through working on the documentaries, we all showed a respect for the soldiers, horror at the cost of the wars. He worked really hard on those documentaries. The interesting thing about documentaries, in their essence, they show war in all its terror. They are antiwar films. The army has embraced these films and shows him to every single soldier that comes into the army. It was a really constructive series of documentaries. He came to DCTV - he especially liked our high school kids. He bought them all cameras this Christmas so they could tell their stories. We didn't have money for cameras. Jim bought the cameras.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to one of Jim Gandolfini's interviews with "Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq." He's speaking with First Lieutenant Dawn Halfaker, who lost an arm in Iraq.
FIRST LT. DAWN HALFAKER: When I came back, a lot of people would ask me, well, what do - how do you feel about this? Do you ever think you'll get married? Do you ever think you'll have a boyfriend? Do you ever think you'll have kids? I did not know the answers to all those questions, but as I go through life, I am learning that it has nothing to do with whether or not I'm amputee. Do I wonder if I ever my kid, if I ever have a kid, do I wonder if they'll love me for who I am? I hope so.
JAMES GANDOLFINI: What were you just thinking about?
FIRST LT. DAWN HALFAKER: The reality of, will I be able to raise a kid? I won't be able to pick up my son or daughter with two arms. I won't. But, I just, I hope they still love me, and I hope I will still be a good parent. What can you do?
JAMES GANDOLFINI: Well, if it matters, I think you're going to be a wonderful parent.
AMY GOODMAN: That's Jim Gandolfini speaking with First Lt. Dawn Halfaker. Matt O'Neill.
MATTHEW O'NEILL: I think when you see that when he asks Dawn, Dawn, what are you thinking, after that long pause, I think is an example of why he connected to people. He listened so carefully to what the soldiers were saying. He paid attention to what we were talking about, about documentaries or about friendship. And he treated everyone with respect and warmth. I think, when you said the political side of Jim, I was thinking about these interviews, and it was not political in the traditional sense of the word, but he wanted people to hear the stories that he heard. He was inspired by what they said. He was inspired by the fact that he had never heard the stories before. He did USO tours and came back saying, why is nobody talking about these soldiers lives? How can I help tell these stories. You see in that film, in that clip there, about all you ever see of him in the film is the back of his head, because he wanted the cameras focused and the spotlight focused on other people.
JUAN GONZALEZ: That's one of the things I wanted to raise; how little he felt the need to be seen in the films or even to raise long questions of the film.
MATTHEW O'NEILL: It was always about them. I remember when we were doing press for the film out in Los Angeles and the press would be saying, JIm, Jim, or, James, James, Mr. Gandolfini! And he would always grab one of the soldiers and say, don't talk to me, talk to them, it's about them, it's not about me. I got nothing to say. He lent his energy and his warmth and his compassion to these stories that were not being heard. It was a real gift everyone.
AMY GOODMAN: Let's go to a clip from the HBO documentary, "Wartorn: 1861-2010" of James Gandolfini interviewing two members of the Louisiana National Guard at Camps Slayer in Iraq. The soldiers are Sergeant John Wesley Mathews and Sergeant First Class Jonathan Deshotels.
SGT. JOHN WESLEY MATHEWS: It's hard to be taught to do what we do. It's combat arms, and then they expect you to just turn it off. That is a hard thing about being in the guard, is that you go back and they expect you to just to just get back in society.
JAMES GANDOLFINI: Who is they?
SGT FIRST CLASS JONATHAN DESHOTELS: Family, friends, whoever else.
SGT. JOHN WESLEY MATHEWS: ...and the Army. In early April of 2006 is really when I hit rock bottom. I actually contemplated suicide for a while. It had really got to the point where I did not know what it was. Mentally I did not know where I was. I was lost. I really felt like I was feeling my way with my hands in the dark.
SGT FIRST CLASS JONATHAN DESHOTELS: It's like you just can't get straight. You just can't get yourself right. And no matter what you do -
JAMES GANDOLFINI: You mean, talking to other people, talking to each other, there's nothing that helps?
SGT FIRST CLASS JONATHAN DESHOTELS: You just can't figure yourself out.
SGT. JOHN WESLEY MATHEWS: It will tear you apart. It will tear your life apart. And many a soldier has met an end at his own hand or at a bottle because they didn't know to do.
AMY GOODMAN: The documentary "Wartorn." The voice in the distance was Jim Gandolfini.
JON ALPERT: But, it wasn't distant from people because everybody thought that they knew him. He was sitting in your living room every Sunday night, and he was part of your family. He spent more time with you than your cousins. It was instant recognition. So, people were ready to talk and share intimate things with him and that was an extraordinary gift that he brought to these documentaries.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his involvement with Downtown Community Television? As a board member, was he frequently in The Firehouse?
MATTHEW O'NEILL: He came by The Firehouse whenever he was in town. He continued to work in documentary's. He stayed involved in our lives the same way he stayed involved in the soldiers' lives. We've had so many of the people from "Wartorn" and from "Alive Day Memories" reach out to us as they mourn. He gave these men and women his cellphone number. He was a super big movie star and they stayed in touch with him for years because he lent that intimate connection and kept up with it.
AMY GOODMAN: Last comment, Jon Alpert?
JON ALPERT: We're in the middle of a documentary that he was producing about people with learning disabilities. It's another cause that he felt very strongly about, again, nobody left behind. The kids who were pushed into the back of the classroom, he felt that wasn't right. He knew that if they had the right educational opportunity they could blossom, and he wanted everybody in the country to think about that. I would also like the Democracy Now! community not only to think about Jim, but also another documentary filmmaker, Saul Landau. He's a friend of ours, and we need to send him our best wishes. He is a really good guy.
AMY GOODMAN: That's right, all the best to Saul. You can go to our website, democracynow.org, to see our interviews with Saul Landau who is battling cancer right now. I want to thank you both for being with us and all of the work that you do. Jon Alpert and Matt O'Neill who co directed, "Wartorn: 1861-2010" and "Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq." They were were both produced by James Gandolfini. That does it for our show. A very fond farewell to our video production fellow Nemo Allen. We thank you, Nemo, for your persistence, for your dedication and wish you the very best in your journey to Colombia and beyond. You will always be with us.
 |
|
FOCUS | Make Big Brother Our Friend |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5494"><span class="small">Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 22 June 2013 11:37 |
|
Weissman writes: "What if we're wrong? What if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Constitution permits massive surveillance and unlimited data mining, as revealed by former National Security Agency technician Edward Snowden?"
(illustration: unknown)
Make Big Brother Our Friend
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
22 June 13
 hat if we're wrong? What if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Constitution permits massive surveillance and unlimited data mining, as revealed by former National Security Agency technician Edward Snowden?
In a less absurd world, those who communicate electronically might expect a right to privacy, as the Supreme Court established in 1967 in Katz v. United States, which required state and federal governments to go to court, show probable cause of criminal activity, and obtain a specific warrant to execute a wiretap, well within the letter and spirit of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Inevitably, it seems, such freedom was short-lived. In 1979, the Court gave law enforcement the power to collect without warrant the numbers we called and those that called us, and passage of the Patriot Act in 2001 and subsequent amendments now lets NSA scoop up as many as 3 billion individual telephone and email communications a day, store the "meta-data," possibly forever, and continue to mine them to uncover patterns and connections far beyond anything possible only a few years ago. Welcome to the worst dystopian nightmares of Franz Kafka, Aldous Huxley, and George Orwell.
Snowden tells us that individual analysts can use the meta-data to call up, listen to, or read the full content of the communications. President Barack Obama, Senator Diane Feinstein, and NSA director General Keith Alexander all tell us that Snowden is wrong, but offer no hard evidence to back up their claims. Whom should we believe?
Clearly, our rapidly expanding technology requires new legal thinking and systemic protections hard-wired into the computer code to leave an audit trail of who has accessed the information and for what purpose, as Professor Lawrence Lessig has suggested.
As far as we know, NSA has no safeguards like that, and the current cases filed by the ACLU and Electronic Freedom Foundation may never force anything similar. Even scarier, a Constitutional judgment could turn out to be worse than nothing. As former chief justice Charles Evans Hughes put it in the bluntest possible terms, "the Constitution is what the judges say it is." Chief Justice John G. Roberts and his eight unaccountable associates get to decide, and a majority of them could easily call the current "ca ca" Constitutional.
What, then, do we do?
At the risk of going satirical, let me suggest a way forward. If President Barack Obama can embrace Big Brother as his enduring legacy, if he can describe the super-secret workings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as "transparent," and if he can call himself "Bush-Cheney Lite," why not grow up, get real, and follow in his soiled footsteps? Why not put Big Brother to better use?
1. Let Big Brother end Washington's gridlock. Former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, who knew something of these matters, used to keep dossiers on everyone from yours truly to Martin Luther King Jr. to President Lyndon B. Johnson. This was why LBJ kept Hoover in office, saying that it was better to have him on the inside of the tent pissing out than on the outside of the tent pissing in. NSA records make Hoover's collection seem quaint. I wonder how many Tea-Party Republicans in Congress have long trails of telephone calls and emails to their lovers, male or female, or credit card purchases for expensive gifts. Just a mention of this information would go a long way to getting difficult legislation passed.
2. Use Big Brother against Big Money. Much of Wall Street's wealth and power comes from their access to inside information that the rest of us do not have, cannot get, and cannot act upon in a timely way. Prosecutors do not find most of this inside information illegal and rarely bring cases to court. They say they find it too hard to secure evidence that would convince a jury. Well, not anymore. With all those NSA records, the odds are overwhelming that prosecutors could find discussions between major Wall Street players and corporate leaders, along with the time-coded computerized buying and selling based on those communications.
3. Have Big Brother eat Monsanto. One of the more delicious secrets to emerge from Wikileaks was the enormous effort of U.S. diplomats to help Monsanto sell its genetically modified seeds against the vocal opposition of European consumers and several European governments. How do we explain it? Easy. Just write a simple algorithm to trace every one of NSA's saved phone call and email from people at Monsanto to influential people in government. Big Brother will completely eliminate any need for conspiracy theories.
4. Let Big Brother solve climate change. For several years prior to November 2009, climate scientists agreed in overwhelming numbers that our planet was warming and that humans added to the problem by burning fossil fuels. The debate then took a dramatic turn when the ubiquitous Wikileaks published thousands of files and emails that one or more computer hackers had surreptitiously copied from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain. According to polling data and other evidence, this Climate Gate data dump and the right-wing spin put on it significantly reduced U.S. and international support for efforts to restrict the emission of greenhouse gases. NSA records might well help us discover who stole that data, how major players like Exxon Mobil and Charles and David Koch were able to make such good use of it, and how the climate deniers continue to operate.
5. Use the massive surveillance and data mining to weaken the American Empire. If the United States has a major advantage in dealing with our European allies, it is our dominance of the new digital economy. If we have a major disadvantage, it is how our digital dominance threatens personal privacy, which Europeans value far more than we do. Snowden's revelations make this conflict all the more pressing, and are already complicating incipient negotiations for a trans-Atlantic free trade pact.
These five suggestions are 100% satire, which I offer to dramatize how loosely-wired and out-of-control our surveillance and data mining system continue to be. I can't wait to see your suggestions for how we could put Big Brother to use.
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How To Break Their Hold."
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
|
US Promises Smooth Transfer of Quagmire From Afghanistan to Syria |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 21 June 2013 14:40 |
|
Borowitz writes: "Supporters of the United States' twelve-year quagmire in Afghanistan cheered the news today that the U.S. would strive to achieve a seamless transfer of that quagmire to Syria, effective immediately."
U.S. servicemen inside a plane. (photo: Vyacheslav Oseledko/AFP/Getty Images)
US Promises Smooth Transfer of Quagmire From Afghanistan to Syria
By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
21 June 13
The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."
 upporters of the United States' twelve-year quagmire in Afghanistan cheered the news today that the U.S. would strive to achieve a seamless transfer of that quagmire to Syria, effective immediately.
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sought to reassure those who were concerned that the U.S. withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan signalled a wavering of the nation's commitment to being mired in open-ended military muddles.
"I can tell you, right here and right now, that the U.S. is every bit as determined to engage in an ill-defined, ill-advised and seemingly interminable mission in Syria as we were in Afghanistan," Gen. Dempsey said. "All that's changing is the Zip Code."
General Dempsey said that the same tribal hatreds, sectarian violence, and untrustworthy alliances that made Afghanistan a quicksand-like morass are very much in evidence in Syria: "I am confident that we could be involved in Syria for many, many years before figuring out why we are there."
Harland Dorrinson, executive director of the National Quagmire Institute, a think tank dedicated to promoting the United States' involvement in intractable conflicts around the globe, said he found General Dempsey's words about Syria reassuring: "I felt a lot better after hearing what he had to say, and I know a lot of defense contractors felt the same way."
|
|
Aaron's Law: Desperately Needed Reform of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act |
|
|
Friday, 21 June 2013 14:37 |
|
Lofgren and Wyden report: "The CFAA is a sweeping Internet regulation that criminalizes many forms of common Internet use. It allows breathtaking levels of prosecutorial discretion that invites serious abuse."
Aaron Swartz was a computer programmer, writer, archivist, political organizer and Internet activist. (photo: Jacob Appelbaum)
Aaron's Law: Desperately Needed Reform of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
By Zoe Lofgren and Ron Wyden, Wired
21 June 13
 he Internet is up for grabs.
Foreign countries want to control it. Military regimes use it to spy, to oppress, and to attack public and private institutions. 'Big Content' sought to censor it and dismantle its architecture. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies want to mine and monitor it. Powerful incumbent business interests seek to shape it in ways that benefit their bottom line but undermine the national interest and the interests of individuals worldwide.
In each of these areas, there is debate in Congress about how to respond. We need an informed public debate to ensure lawmakers make the right choices that fully preserve the vital openness of the Internet and the privacy and civil liberties of its users. Reforming the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) should be a part of that debate.
The CFAA is a sweeping Internet regulation that criminalizes many forms of common Internet use. It allows breathtaking levels of prosecutorial discretion that invites serious abuse. As Congress considers policies to preserve an open Internet as a platform for ideas and commerce, reforming the CFAA must be included.
The Law Is Flawed and Prone to Prosecutorial Abuse
Vagueness is the core flaw of the CFAA. As written, the CFAA makes it a federal crime to access a computer without authorization or in a way that exceeds authorization. Confused by that? You're not alone. Congress never clearly described what this really means. As a result, prosecutors can take the view that a person who violates a website's terms of service or employer agreement should face jail time.
So lying about one's age on Facebook, or checking personal email on a work computer, could violate this felony statute. This flaw in the CFAA allows the government to imprison Americans for a violation of a non-negotiable, private agreement that is dictated by a corporation. Millions of Americans - whether they are of a digitally native or dial-up generation - routinely submit to legal terms and agreements every day when they use the Internet. Few have the time or the ability to read and completely understand lengthy legal agreements.
Another flaw in the CFAA is redundant provisions that enable a person to be punished multiple times … for the same crime. These charges can be stacked one on top of another, resulting in the threat of higher cumulative fines and jail time for the exact same violation.
This allows prosecutors to bully defendants into accepting a deal in order to avoid facing a multitude of charges from a single, solitary act. It also plays a significant role in sentencing. The ambiguity of a provision meant to toughen sentencing for repeat offenders of the CFAA may in fact make it possible for defendants to be sentenced based on what should be prior convictions - but were nothing more than multiple convictions for the same crime.
These problems are not hypothetical. But it took the unfortunate death of Aaron Swartz to spotlight them.
Aaron's Law
In January, Aaron Swartz, an Internet innovator and activist, decided to end his brief but brilliant life. At the time, Swartz faced the possibility of severe punishment under the CFAA - multiple felony charges and up to 35 years in prison by the government's own declaration – for what amounted to an act of civil disobedience. Aaron attempted to make documents, many created with public funding, freely available to the public.
But Aaron Swartz was not the first or the last victim of overzealous prosecution under the CFAA.
That's why we're authoring bipartisan legislation - which, with the permission of Aaron Swartz's family, we call "Aaron's Law" - in the House and Senate to begin the process of updating the CFAA.
Aaron's Law is not just about Aaron Swartz, but rather about refocusing the law away from common computer and Internet activity and toward damaging hacks. It establishes a clear line that's needed for the law to distinguish the difference between common online activities and harmful attacks.
In drafting Aaron's Law - the text of which is available here, along with a detailed summary here – we did not opt for a quick fix of the CFAA that could bring with it unintended consequences.
Instead, we undertook a deliberative process for crafting this legislation. We posted drafts of the bill on Reddit to solicit public feedback. And that feedback informed revisions and solicitation of further feedback. We reviewed extensive input from a broad swath of technical experts, businesses, advocacy groups, current and former government officials, and the public. The result is a proposal that we believe, if enacted into law, safeguards commonplace online activity from overbroad prosecution and overly harsh penalties, while ensuring that real harmful activity is discouraged and fully prosecuted.
The law must separate its treatment of everyday Internet activity from criminals intent on causing serious damage to financial, social, civic, or security institutions. Our proposal attempts to accomplish this and address the fundamental problems of CFAA by doing the following:
Establish that mere breach of terms of service, employment agreements, or contracts are not automatic violations of the CFAA. By using legislative language based closely on recent important 9th and 4th Circuit Court opinions, Aaron's Law would instead define 'access without authorization' under the CFAA as gaining unauthorized access to information by circumventing technological or physical controls - such as password requirements, encryption, or locked office doors. Notwithstanding this change, hack attacks such as phishing, injection of malware or keystroke loggers, denial-of-service attacks, and viruses would continue to be fully prosecutable under strong CFAA provisions that Aaron's Law does not modify.
Bring balance back to the CFAA by eliminating a redundant provision of the law that can subject an individual to duplicate charges for the same CFAA violation. This is, in fact, what happened to Aaron Swartz - more than a third of the charges in the superseding indictment against him were under this redundant CFAA provision. Eliminating the redundant provision streamlines the law, reduces duplicative charges, but would not create a gap in protection against hackers.
Bring greater proportionality to CFAA penalties. Currently, the CFAA's penalties are tiered, and prosecutors have wide discretion to ratchet up the severity of the penalties in several circumstances - leaving little room for non-felony charges under CFAA (i.e., charges with penalties carrying less than a year in prison). For example, under current law a prosecutor can seek to inflate potential sentences by stacking new charges atop violations of state laws. Aaron's Law would reform the penalty for certain violations to ensure prosecutors cannot seek to inflate sentences by stacking multiple charges under CFAA, including state law equivalents of CFAA, and torts (non-criminal violations of law).
Will It Work?
Some say that while the CFAA may be a broad statute, prosecutorial discretion will ensure that it is not abused. We disagree. Whether it is with respect to privacy, civil liberties, or Internet use, the government has shown itself unable to restrain its use of power. So far, government discretion has repeatedly failed to curb abuse and, in fact, has resulted in abuse itself.
Other critics may argue that Aaron's Law reforms remove one specific scenario from CFAA: an authorized individual using their own authorization (such as password credentials) to access and use information in unauthorized ways. Although we do not wish to create any new vulnerabilities, the overbroad approach currently taken by the CFAA potentially criminalizes millions of Americans for common Internet activity. Moreover, numerous laws like Theft of Trade Secrets, the Privacy Act, copyright law, the Stored Communications Act, wire fraud, and HIPAA already criminalize misuse of information.
The CFAA permits private parties to sue violators, but this private cause of action is not always present in other federal laws. We've heard some concern from companies that Aaron's Law would hinder their ability to take matters into their own hands to protect their proprietary information from insider theft. We look forward to robust discussions on this issue and to addressing any warranted concerns.
Laws Can Spur Innovation … Or Halt It
The introduction of this legislation is just the beginning of a process needed to bring balance back to the CFAA. Still, achieving even the specific, important reforms in Aaron's Law will not be an easy lift.
Congress rarely moves with haste. Correcting this complex law - enacted more than a quarter century ago - to work in the Digital Age will take a significant amount of time. To successfully build meaningful CFAA reforms into law will require sustained public engagement and support.
But the events of the last couple of years have demonstrated that the public can speak loudly thanks to the Internet. And when it does, lawmakers will listen.
The consequences of inaction are all too clear. We live in an age where people connect globally by simply touching a device in the palm of their hand, empowered by online advances that have enriched the world scientifically, culturally, and economically.
But ill-conceived computer crime laws can undermine this progress if they entrap more and more people - simply for creative uses of the technology that increasingly mediates our everyday activities and our interactions with the world. This not only fails us today, it can also become an obstacle to the innovations of tomorrow.
The Internet faces broad challenges to the fundamental characteristics that have enabled it to be the transformational technology that we know. An update to the CFAA must be part of the discussion that seeks to resolve these challenges. Today, there's an entire generation of digitally-native young people that have never known a world without an open Internet and their ability to use it as a platform to develop and share ideas. It's up to all of us to keep it that way.
|
|
dward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who provided documents to The Guardian and blew the whistle on secret surveillance programs collecting the personal data and information of innocent Americans and others from around the world, has been officially charged.
