Not long ago, I posted a question here about what rights photographers have to take shots under certain circumstances — specifically, if on private property such as a mall. I got some good responses, but set out to get what I hoped to be the definitive answers to my questions.

The result was two things: my column this week in USA Today, and a short document called simply, “Legal Rights of Photographers.” It’s a five-page PDF you can download and print (see below). It is — I hope — a clear and accurate synopsis of where you’re allowed to shoot and when you’re allowed to publish what you take.

The answers I got from various resources surprised me in some cases (e.g., even if you’re trespassing and arrested for it, you can in most cases still publish the photos you’ve taken). What was encouraging was that every resource I tapped to get these answers agreed.

Important caveats: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. I am a writer and in this case a reporter and researcher who has found what I believe to be up-to-date and accurate information about your legal rights. I may be wrong, and your jurisdiction’s laws may differ from those outlined here. If you are concerned about the legal or civil implications of your actions you should consult an attorney.

I also encourage you to do your own research; the last page of the document lists the resources I used.

That said, if you find errors, omissions, or unclear information, please let me know. I expect to update this to keep it timely and accurate.

Download “Legal Rights of Photographers” (151K PDF).

More (added 1/3): Dan Heller has an extensive explanation of model releases — when you should get them and why. I don’t agree entirely with his argument from a legal point of view (based on my research), but he is a pro and has dealt with this stuff firsthand. In other words, the legal argument is trumped, perhaps, by the practical one. Check it out.

Note (added 1/4): I reposted the PDF with a couple of minor formatting changes (italics, a pair of parens). I also moved it to a slightly shorter URL: http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf

I wrote a story for The Roanoke Times about the NSA cookie thing. I talked to the folks at the NSA about it as well.

One quote:

“People are panicking over something that’s low-tech and low-yield in terms of what it can actually find out,” she said. “The public thinks cookies are a problem and, because it’s the NSA, inflates the problem into a crisis. It’s not.”

After talking about the cookie incident, I had the following exchange with the NSA spokesman, Don Weber.

Me: One more question I’ve gotta ask.
NSA: Sure.
Me: Can you guys crack PGP? [Referring to Pretty Good Privacy, one of the most popular pieces of encryption software.]
NSA: You know I can’t comment on operational capabilities.
Me: It was worth a shot.
NSA: [laughs] Oh, sure.

Link to Roanoke Times story.

Mercy me! The National Security Agency (NSA), which has — rightfully, IMO — come under fire lately for doing a variety of things that violate US citizens’ privacy, is now under the gun again.

Now I’m no fan of what the NSA has been doing. But this latest story is much ado about nothing. The NSA, you see, like 20-bazillion other sites (including this one) put cookies on visitors’ computers.

Read the lede of the AP story:

The National Security Agency’s internet site has been placing files on visitors’ computers that can track their web-surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most of them.

This is pretty much false. Certainly the implication — that these cookies allow the NSA to track where you go on the Web — is wrong.

Cookies cannot let a site track where you go on other sites. If the NSA (or Kantor.com) puts a cookie on your machine, all it can do is identify you to that site. I wrote about this in my column some time ago. Here are the relevant excerpts:

A cookie is a small piece of information a Web site puts on your computer. It’s just a string of characters that identifies you to the site, something like an account number. There’s no personal information in it; it’s just an identifier.

Next time you go to the site, it can read the cookie it left there last time — and no site can read a cookie left by another site. (Although there’s an important exception to this.)

That’s all cookies do. Sites leave bits of information about you on your own computer, then retrieve the information they left when you return.

Cookies don’t track you and they don’t send information about you anywhere.

For example, Amazon.com left a cookie on my machine with the whopping content “102-0467935-2649722.” All that does is keep track of me as I browse the store — it lets me add books to my shopping cart. Without it, I couldn’t have a cart because the site would “lose” me as I went from page to page.

Note: The cookie the NSA left on my machine today was “8030ad0e9041$3F$C9$0.”

Sites use cookies to remember who you are so you don’t have to keep logging in. They use them to make sure you don’t see the same ads over and over. They use them to remember what you like to see. They use them to keep track of the number of unique visitors.

[...]

I said before that no site can read a cookie from another site. But many sites use separate companies to deliver ads — companies such as DoubleClick. So even though you’re at xyz.com, the ad you see is coming from doubleclick.net.

If you then go to another site that serves DoubleClick ads, the DoubleClick folks know that because, in a sense, you’ve gone to two DoubleClick sites.

In the NSA’s case, it’s possible that it shares its cookies with other government agencies, so if you surfed from the NSA’s site to, say, the FBI’s, it would recognize that you had been to the other place. But if you leave the NSA and go to, say, Amazon or CNN or Kantor.com, the NSA doesn’t know that. Even if you go back to the NSA site it doesn’t know where you’ve been.

I’m a huge advocate of privacy, and I’m disgusted that our government has allowed its agencies to spy on American citizens. I hope there’s a serious reckoning. But this NSA cookie business is absolutely meaningless.

Yippee — it’s about time. The company that makes what are arguably the world’s best flashlights has been behind the curve when it comes to LEDs. Unlike traditional bulbs, LEDs are tougher, use a lot less energy, and can last for years. There are a lot of LED flashlights out there now, but Maglites still used bulbs.

Now that’s changing. Maglite announced a new line of LED-based flashlights. And you can be darned sure I’m getting mine.

(For details on why LEDs are so cool, see my USA Today column on the subject.)

So the Washington Post publishes an article, “Bloggers, Money Now Weapons in Information War,” in which it talks about how the military, unhappy about the way the Iraq war is being portrayed in the press, has invited people friendlier to its point of view.

The article mentions in particular one Bill Roggio, a conservative blogger, who was embedded there.

Roggio, pro-war and anti-media, wasn’t happy. He posted a response to the Post’s article on his blog.

In that response, he seems to point out a good number of errors in the Post’s story; he’s full, it seems, of rightous indignation.

Except, that is, when you actually read the article to see what he’s talking about. If there’s misinformation, I’m inclined to think it comes from Roggio.

I am not a “retired soldier”, as that would have required me to serve in the military for twenty plus years. I spent four years on active duty and two years in the National Guard.

Perhaps the Post is in error, but it’s certainly a nitpicky one, relying on the military’s official definition of “retired.”

The article also indicates that I am currently in Iraq and embedded with the Marines in Western Anbar. I am not. I returned home on December 20th.

He returned home a week ago. The article was published the day before yesterday. Unless you believe that the reporters put this story together in a day or two, it’s pretty obvious that, when they wrote it, Roggio was still in Iraq. Should the Post have checked to see if he had returned? Possibly. But to call that an “error” is a stretch.

I was not credentialed by the American Enterprise Institute. This would be impossible as the needed press credentials must be provided by a media organization.

The Post story makes it pretty clear where it got that information:

After military officials in Baghdad said Roggio could not be issued media credentials unless he was affiliated with an organization, the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning research organization in Washington, offered him an affiliation according to an entry on Roggio’s blog.

The Post is right. On Oct. 31, Roggio wrote, “I have received media credentials, thanks to Dr. Michael Ledeen and the American Enterprise Institute.”

Seems clear to me. But Roggio now says that he was “unable to work out an agreement” with the American Enterprise Magazine, and ended up getting his credentials from The Weekly Standard. So the Post gets information from his own blog, and he complains that the information isn’t accurate. Neat trick, that.

Then Roggio attacks the Post’s description of the embed process.

Finally, The Washington Post astonishingly misrepresents the entire embed process. Captain Jeffery Pool, the Public Affairs Officer for the 2nd Marine Division is quoted as saying “A thorough review of his work was taken into account before authorizing the embed.” Perhaps my work was reviewed before extending the invite to embed, of this I have no knowledge. However, the military has absolutely no authority to “authorize the embed” that I am aware of.

Assuming Roggio is accurate, the Post was wrong. He wasn’t “authorized,” he was “invited.” Is that an “astonishing” error? Not even close. Should the Post have gotten it right? Yep, but it’s hardly worth the handwringing Roggio gives it.

Then he suddenly jumps off track — he had been attacking the Post, but then decides to complain about “left-of-center” bloggers:

Any suggestion the trip was funded by a single entity, such as those being hurled by the left-of-center bloggers, is both laughable and easily disproved as I kept meticulous records of those who kindly donated to assist in defraying the costs. This could have been easily confirmed by the reactionary pundits by a mere inquiry. Instead, it is easier to hurls insults, innuendo and rumor about my means and motivations to go to Iraq than to get to the truth.

Who are all these “left-of-center” bloggers, attacking Mr. Roggio? There’s, um, one. A blogger named “feleg” wrote this: “Who is donating? We don’t and won’t know. Any right wing person or corporation could dump money there to support the president and Republican members of Congress.”

Hardly a “suggestion the trip was funded by a single entity.”

Oh, and why did Roggio jump off topic and shift from attacking the Post? Perhaps because in the third paragraph of the story, the Post was pretty clear and accurate: “He raised more than $30,000 from his online readers to pay for airfare, technical equipment and body armor.” (Feleg was questioning who those donors were.)

So far, Roggio strikes me as a guy more interested in twisting words, inflating claims, and exaggerating information than in reporting the truth.

For example, there’s this attack on the evil mainstream media:

In the past, the established media has paid Iraqi stringers that have turned out to be insurgent or al-Qaeda operatives.

Roggio links to a single instance (count that: one) in which a CBS cameraman was arrested as a suspected insurgent. Amazing how one instance of a suspected criminal working for one network becomes an implication that it happens all the time.

There are lots of people linking to Roggio’s story, all repeating the same thing: That he was clearly, obviously, and horribly wronged. It’s just too bad these fans let their admiration of the guy’s politics prevent them from checking to see whether what he said was true.

It wasn’t. Real journalists would see that.

Update/addition: It’s amusing to me to see so many bloggers jumping in to comment on Roggio’s post, taking what he says as gospel without bothering to check it. Even Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit, a smart guy and thoughtful blogger, buys in, writing, “I hope the Post will run a response and correct the errors.”

It’s a perfect example. Reynolds and others are simply assuming Roggio is correct — that there are errors in the Post piece significant enough to require correction. But to be a journalist you need to verify that; you can’t call shenanigans without first verifying that there really are mistakes. You don’t take a guy’s word for it simply because you support his point of view.

Other bloggers, perhaps realizing that there are not, in fact, a host of factual errors in the Post piece, are instead focusing on what they claim to be a hidden agenda of the Post’s.

L’Ombre de l’Olivier, to whom others are linking, calls the Post article a “hit piece” and then proceeds to ascribe all sorts of evil intentions on the writers. In l’Olivier’s case, he claims the Post is spreading FUD — fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

It’s funny to see people share what they “know” about someone’s intentions as if it was fact. For example, in the Post article was this about Roggio’s fundraising: “He raised more than $30,000 from his online readers to pay for airfare, technical equipment and body armor.”

Seems pretty straightforward to me. But l’Olivier sees evil intent:

Makes it look like the shoestring budget doesn’t it? like it’s a one off? you see the unspoken subtext? “$30,000″ was a bit of a struggle to raise so isn’t it good that us “real journalists” have secure budgets to ensure we always have the feet on the street.

Huh? I didn’t read that at all. Hey, if you’re trying to find malice you can — “That guy looked at me funny!” But the best these folks can do is spin. You need to be wearing the right colored glasses to see “unspoken subtext” in that sentence.

This stuff goes on and on. If you like Roggio, you accept what he says as fact, or at least find all sorts of “unspoken subtext” in the piece — kind of like The Bible Code, I guess. Hey, that’s an idea: Has anyone tried to anagram the Post story? Maybe you can find hidden meaning that way.

Walgreens has an unexpected policy for using its self-serve photo kiosks: You must provide your name, address, and phone number in order to get your prints.

My wife went to the local story here in Roanoke with her (visiting) mother to make prints we took of our son with his grandparents on our front porch. After making her prints, she brought them to the counter where the register guy, who had in fact helped them make the prints, asked for her phone number. She declined.

He then asked her name, which she gave. But she refused to give her address. “I need your address to print the label,” he said, cryptically, and told her that no address, no pictures.

My wife pointed out that he had seen the photos and there was nothing even vaguely ‘questionable’ about them. (Sample over there on the left.) But he repeated that he couldn’t — not “wouldn’t” — sell them without her name and address because it was Walgreens policy.

“You don’t need my personal information to sell me my own photos,” said my wife. The Walgreens guy still refused, so they went to CVS — which doesn’t have such a policy.

What’s Walgreens’ logic? They give you your prints, so it’s not like they can match them to your address later — in other words, unless they keep copies of every print made, there’s no “safety” reason for asking for your personal information. It’s just a way they can force you to get on their marketing list, I guess.

There are right-wing and left-wing bloggers who show sense — who write their blogs from a perspective of a principle. They can hate Bush, but also say, “He’s putting NASA in the right direction,” and they can love him but say, “Ordering the NSA wiretaps was wrong.”

They defend principles, not people. Principles are good, they show grounding and maturity. But people can be good and bad, right and wrong. Treating them as one-dimensional cardboard cutouts is the mark of a bad journalist.

And that’s what we have in loudmouths like Michelle Malkin — the Morton Downey Jrs. of our time. Rather than argue sense, they opt for sensationalism and they claw for their 15 minutes of fame. Rather than defend any principles — they apparently have none — they defend the President in lockstep.

Left-wing blogs and commentators who do the opposite — attack the President no matter what he does — are just as bad. But right now the right-wingers are yammering the loudest and least logically.

In this case, when Bush is under attack for ordering what are likely illegal surveillance operations, and then gets caught breaking the law, do loudmouths like Malkin say, “Yikes! I support the President but he’s wrong?”

Nope. After all, it’s noise that propels them, not principle. They don’t have the latter. Instead they blame the messenger, calling The New York Times unpatriotic for — gasp! — daring to point out the President’s misbehavior.

The fact is, the Times and other journalists are the patriotic ones, and Malkin et al are far from it. Unlike less-democratic countries, we’re allowed to question our leaders, and certainly allowed to shout from the rooftops when they break the law.

These yahoos are upset because, they claim, newspapers (evildoers all) have exposed a secret government operation — this time around it’s the surveillance of Muslim homes, businesses, and mosques. The journalists have damaged our security, they crow.

They completely ignore the fact that these programs are likely illegal and certainly wrong, and that the President may have broken the law by implementing them. Malkin and her kind are upset not about Abu Gharib, but that newspapers revealed it. Not about the CIA’s secret interrogation facilities, but that the story was on the evening news. Not about the NSA’s illegal wiretaps, but that the public discovered them. Not about the FBI’s spying on Planned Parenthood and Greenpeace, but that someone dared to use the Freedom of Information Act to learn about it. And on and on.

They are as unprincipled as you can get. They stand for nothing other than defending the administration’s actions no matter what they are. A principled person can like an administration but hate some of its policies. But when all you can do is, like Malkin, echo the party line — well, why are they worth listening to? They’re not.

If you’re a firefighter near a nuclear power plant, “anomalous behaviour” has to be near the top of the list.

I called a local Coca-Cola Bottling Company office to speak to one of the vice presidents.

“Merry Christmas, Coca-Cola,” the receptionist answered. (I did not think quickly enough to wish her a Happy Hanukkah in return.)

The VP wasn’t in, so I got his voice mail. In it, he reminded people that Christmas was approaching, to buy presents (including Coke products, of course), and this:

This Christmas, let’s remember why we’re celebrating: the birth of Jesus. Also make sure we keep our troops in our prayers — they’re fighting for our freedom. Thank you and Merry Christmas.

Addition: I called the local Pepsi office and got, “Good afternoon and thank you for calling Pepsi/Dr Pepper…”

My friend Eric Berlin on the “Back to the Future” films:

The third movie was better than the second one, but only in the same way that being punched in the stomach is better than being set on fire.

I finally made it through Judge John E. Jones’s ruling in the Dover intelligent design (ID) case (large PDF). It’s an incredibly detailed ruling, hitting the creationism proponents on multiple fronts; it seems clearly designed not only as a ruling in this case, but as a precedent-setting decision on the entire creationism/creation science/ID movement.

In the 139 pages, Judge Jones — a conservative, G.W. Bush appointee, by the way — rules on whether the argument was about religion in the first place; if so, whether the school board was endorsing a religious viewpoint; whether ID is science; and what the motives of the school board were.

As you probably know from reading news reports, Jones concluded that yes, it was about religion; yes, a reasonable observer would take the disclaimer teachers were supposed to read as an endorsement of a religious view; that ID isn’t science; and that the members of the school board lied to and otherwise attempted to deceive the court about their motives.

Many news sources are quoting the same passages from the decision — ones that tend to come from the beginning and the end — but I wanted to point out some of the more interesting ones in the middle.

(Style note: I use [...] to indicate that the paragraphs aren’t contiguous, but are part of the same section. If you see a capital letter in brackets — [L]ike this — it means that what I’m presenting as a sentence is part of a longer one.)

On whether ID is religious:

[W]e conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

[...]

Although proponents of the IDM [intelligent design movement] occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, [Lehigh University biologist and ID proponent] Professor [Michael] Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (emphasis added).

As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

[...]

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

[...]

This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled.

Judge Jones made several comments about problems he found with the disclaimer teachers were supposed to give students.

Paragraph three of the disclaimer proceeds to present this alternative and reads as follows:

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

Students are therefore provided information that contrasts ID with “Darwin’s view” and are directed to consult Pandas as though it were a scientific text that provided a scientific account of, and empirical scientific evidence for, ID. The theory or “view” of evolution, which has been discredited by the District in the student’s eyes, is contrasted with an alternative “explanation,” as opposed to a “theory,” that can be offered without qualification or cautionary note. The alternative “explanation” thus receives markedly different treatment from evolutionary “theory.”

What I think is the most interesting section of the ruling is where Jones tackles the question of whether intelligent design is science. Lots of people testified, and Jones found a clear conclusion.

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

[...]

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.

We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

[...]

Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such.

[...]

Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science.

[...]

[W]e believe that arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow.

One of the foundations of ID is the idea that some organisms, or parts of them, are “irreducibly complex,” meaning that the individual parts cannot function alone, but only as part of the whole. Some examples often cited (incorrectly, as it turns out) are the human eye and the immune system.

Prof. Behe made this argument for the court, and Jones found it, well, wanting. In a big way. (He had plenty of biting criticism for Behe and his flawed arguments, as well as for the book Of Pandas and People, which Dover students were directed to read.)

Drs. Miller and Padian testified that Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present.

For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system.

[...]

In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.”

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.

[...]

Accordingly, the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students [Of Pandas and People] contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case.

Jones goes on to show how ID is simply, clearly, and provably not science.

A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory… The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.

[...]

On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”

[...]

Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.

[...]

Jones has plenty more to say; he’s particularly critical of the lies (his word) told by members of the school board who were promoting creationism. But I’ll end with this quote:

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

Regarding the President’s authorizing spying on Americans by the NSA, the Washington Post reports that…

The NSA activities were justified by a classified Justice Department legal opinion authored by John C. Yoo, a former deputy in the Office of Legal Counsel who argued that congressional approval of the war on al Qaeda gave broad authority to the president, according to the Times.

Mr. Yoo is one of the people who, while working as a deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, argued, essentially, that torture was legal.

In a commentary in the San Jose Mercury News earlier this year, Yoo explained why the U.S. needn’t abide by the Geneva Conventions:

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — where I worked at the time — determined that the Geneva Conventions legally do not apply to the war on terrorism because Al-Qaida is not a nation-state and has not signed the treaties. Al-Qaida members also do not qualify as legal combatants because they hide among peaceful populations and launch surprise attacks on civilians — violating the fundamental principle that war is waged only against combatants.

Hmm. Well, aside from the fact that torturing prisoners isn’t something any government claiming the moral high ground should condone, let alone take part in, this almost seems a reasonable argument. But note how, in the same commentary, Yoo bends over backwards to keep the Geneva Conventions from applying to the Taliban:

The Taliban raised different questions because Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Conventions, and the Taliban arguably operated as its de facto government. But the Justice Department found that the president had reasonable grounds to deny Taliban members POW status because they did not meet the conventions’ requirements that lawful combatants operate under responsible command, wear distinctive insignia, and obey the laws of war. The Taliban flagrantly violated those rules, at times deliberately using civilians as human shields.

I see. So by Yoo’s logic, if you violate the Geneva Conventions, other governments no longer need to abide by them when dealing with your citizens.

Yoo also had a hand in coming up with a very narrow definition of torture written in in 2002 by the Justice Department for the White House:

Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture (under U.S. law), it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years. . . . We conclude that the statute, taken as a whole, makes plain that it prohibits only extreme acts.

When that definition was leaked to the press, it sparked an outrage. The Justice Department then changed it to say that even acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain might be torture. But that wasn’t Yoo’s opinion.

Jump to today, when we learn that the President ordered potentially unconstitutional spying on American citizens. Why did he think he had the legal authority to do that? John Yoo — the guy who argued that we needn’t always abide by the Geneva Conventions, and that something is only torture if it inflicts pain “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

Methinks the administration needs to pick its attorneys more carefully.

Since 2002, on orders from President Bush, the National Security Agency has been spying on Americans’ phone calls and e-mail conversations.

Per The New York Times:

Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

[...]

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

[...]

Mr. Bush’s executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States - including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation.

[...]

Traditionally, the F.B.I., not the N.S.A., seeks such warrants and conducts most domestic eavesdropping. Until the new program began, the N.S.A. typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions in Washington, New York and other cities, and obtained court orders to do so.

Evidently my definition of “less government intrusion” must differ from the administration’s. Mine actually means “less government intrusion.”

More: It’s amusing to me to read chucklehead bloggers calling for the Times (and, I assume, the Washington Post, which also picked up the story) to be prosecuted for revealing this secret — and likely unconstitutional — spying. Not a word on the government spying on its own citizens without a warrant, no siree. That’s fine. But a newspaper daring to report it? Horrors!

Had they been around during Watergate, I assume these same folks would have crusaded against the Post.

The soccer world championships in Germany.
Germany and England, who have, shall we say, a bit of shared history.

A few days ago, British fans — we can assume some alcohol was involved — began singing a once-popular song in celebration. The words:

There were ten German bombers in the air...
There were ten German bombers in the air...
There were ten German bombers,
Ten German bombers,
There were ten German bombers in the air...

But the RAF from England shot one down...
But the RAF from England shot one down...
But the RAF from England,
The RAF from England,
Oh the RAF from England shot one down...

There were nine German bombers in the air... (etc.)

The Germans, as you might expect, were not amused.

So yesterday, they rolled out new patrol robots for the stadium — shaped like tanks:

Now it’s the Brits’ turn not to be amused.

Tomorrow: France forfeits!

Yes, it’s a calendar — the “Swiss Vision 2006″ calendar, to be specific. Click the image to enlarge.

We got it free, but you can buy it.

Every cell phone these days has a headphone jack, and many use the same type of plug (2.5-mm). That’s why companies like Jabra can sell earphones or headsets that work with most cell phones.

But this is so much cooler. You can buy a 2.5-mm plug at Radio Shack and attach a standard telelphone headset to it so you can use that with your mobile:

For about $3.00 and some time soldering four simple connections, you can blow the minds of the people around you when you whip this puppy out.

Full, detailed instructions are over at iHacked.com, although to be honest if you’ve ever messed around with telephones this picture pretty much tells you all you need to know:

Feeling lazy? Just buy one from ThinkGeek.

From Yahoo India:

(Click to enlarge.)

The page also has a funny ad, if you want to see it.

From Capitol Hill Blue:

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law [the Patriot Act] undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

Here’s an interesting question (questions, actually) that’s come up for which I haven’t found an answer, which is surprising because you’d think it would be easy to come by.

If you have thoughts, please let me know.

The question is about photographs on private property, but it’s not the one that’s usually asked (i.e., “Can I take pictures in the mall without permission?”). It’s an important variation.

Let’s stipulate this up front:

• Malls are private property.

• You cannot take photographs on private property — including malls — if the owner tells you not to.

• You can take photos of private property if you’re standing on public property.

• Private-property owners cannot confiscate your camera, film, or digital media if you do. Only the police can, and only if you’re under arrest.

No problems there. If you’re in a mall, or a Starbucks, or a friend’s house and the owner of the property (e.g., the mall security guard) asks you to stop, you have to or risk being thrown out.

But here are my questions:

1. You take pictures on private property. You are asked to stop. You comply, but you already have some photos. What legal risks — if any — do you run by publishing those photos?

2. You are told not to take pictures on private property (e.g., the mall). You do so anyway and get kicked out. What legal risks — if any — do you run by publishing those photos?

3. You are told not to take pictures on private property (e.g., the mall). You agree, but someone else goes and takes photos and gives them to you — or publishes them on Flickr. What legal risks — if any — do you run by publishing those photos?

It seems a lot of discussion I’ve read centers around the permission issue. People don’t always think of a mall as private property, for example. But, other than being kicked out/off the property, I haven’t seen any explanation of the risks.

Can you be sued for invasion of privacy? (In a mall, what expectation of privacy is there?) Trespass? (But what if you weren’t asked to leave?) And what if someone else sends you the very photos you were asked not to take?

Opinions are easy to find, but informed opinions less so. What’s the risk in publishing photos you were told not to take?

A Kansas school principal suspends a student for daring to speak Spanish to a friend. But that’s not the funny part. The funny part is the principal’s rather tenuous grasp of geography:

“My son called me on Monday and said he had been suspended for speaking Spanish,” Rubio [the boy's father] said. “I could not believe it. I went to the school and spoke to Mrs. (Jennifer) Watts [the principal] and asked her if this was school policy. She told me, ‘no,’ but said ‘We are not in Mexico, we are not in Germany.’”

(Thanks, Eric!)

Update: Also picked up by the Washington Post.