Posted by Jim Hightower
Listen to this Commentary
Excellent news, consumers: Biotech giants that've been secretly
inserting genetically engineered organisms into thousands of food
products you buy, have just announced that they're coming clean!
Wow, you mean no more GMO Frankenfood ingredients will be
slipped into our diets? Oh, come on – these are food profiteers, so
they're not about to come that clean. So maybe they're agreeing at last
(and at least) to label any products that contain ingredients with
tampered DNA. No, no – right-to-know labeling is what food tamperers
fear most, for they know we won't buy those items if we know what's in
them. Okay then, what do they actually intend to do?
They're giving us a website.
Say what? Yes, the entirety of their grand gesture of "corporate
transparency" is to put a mess of PR and useless gobbledygook on a
slick site called GMOAnswers.com.
They say we can ask "virtually any question," and their "experts" will
be happy to tell us why GMO's are good for us. In other words, "come
clean" is an industry euphemism for "whitewash."
The website will be controlled by – and its "answers" written by
– agents of Monsanto and a handful of other corporations that control
the dangerous and deceitful genetic manipulation industry. "We want to
get into the conversation" with those opposed to GMO's, stated a biotech
exec – ignoring the fact that these same industry schemers did not allow
any opponents into "the conversation" they had in back rooms with our
government officials when they conspired to foist these nasties on our
families without our knowledge.
Monsanto and Gang are notorious liars, political manipulators,
and thugs. They can put all the propaganda they want on their
Wizard-of-Oz website, but – like putting earrings on a hog – it can't
hide their ugliness.
"In Bid for Support, Biotech Companies Vow More Transparency," The New York Times, July 29, 2013.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Ring of Fire 8/11/13
Published on Aug 12, 2013
Author and journalist Paul Waldman joins to discuss why the Tea Party Republicans are still obsessed with destroying healthcare.
Wall Street is raking in billions by manipulating the commodities market, and attorney Mike Burg shares the details about that scam.
The U.S. Supreme Court could soon hear arguments on a case that will make Citizens United look like The Bill of Rights, and attorney Howard Nations tells about the case that will hand our elections over to corporations.
Progressives are getting mad and starting to fight back, and Farron Cousins from The Trial Lawyer Magazine talks about the grassroots movement taking shape that will ask Republicans the tough questions that the media refuses to ask.
And conservative media is circling the drain -- progressive radio and TV host David Pakman talks about the destruction of the right's most powerful talkers...
Wall Street is raking in billions by manipulating the commodities market, and attorney Mike Burg shares the details about that scam.
The U.S. Supreme Court could soon hear arguments on a case that will make Citizens United look like The Bill of Rights, and attorney Howard Nations tells about the case that will hand our elections over to corporations.
Progressives are getting mad and starting to fight back, and Farron Cousins from The Trial Lawyer Magazine talks about the grassroots movement taking shape that will ask Republicans the tough questions that the media refuses to ask.
And conservative media is circling the drain -- progressive radio and TV host David Pakman talks about the destruction of the right's most powerful talkers...
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Bill Press and Cenk Uygur review the legacy of Current TV
By Viewpoint Staff
Bill Press (host, “The Bill Press Show”) and Cenk Uygur (host, “The Young
Turks,” and co-creator, TYTNetwork.com) sit down with “Viewpoint” host John
Fugelsang to weigh in on the impact of Current TV.
Press says, “I had very high hopes for Current TV. I consider it now a failed experiment. One more example of liberals not having either the commitment to progressive media, or having the staying power to stick with it.” Uygur feels “perfectly fine” with the legacy of Current TV. He says, “One day we’ll look back at the alumni of Current and go, ‘Oh my God! Look at that All-Star cast — and what an amazing moment they had in history.’”
Press says, “I had very high hopes for Current TV. I consider it now a failed experiment. One more example of liberals not having either the commitment to progressive media, or having the staying power to stick with it.” Uygur feels “perfectly fine” with the legacy of Current TV. He says, “One day we’ll look back at the alumni of Current and go, ‘Oh my God! Look at that All-Star cast — and what an amazing moment they had in history.’”
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Does the GOP need an image reboot?
Joan Walsh and Patrick Murphy join Karen Finney to discuss the likelihood of the
Republican Party winning the next national election.
Insurance Company Almost Lets Dad Die Over 26 Cents
By Abby Miller
A New Jersey garbage truck driver almost saw his life slip away from him over 26 cents.
You’ve been laid off, pay for COBRA coverage, and suddenly you need a
$500K bone marrow transplant. Thank goodness for health insurance … or
maybe not. Photo by Alex Remnick for the (NJ) Star Ledger via NJ.com.
Thirty-three-year-old Sergio Branco took a three month leave of absence (thanks to the Family and Medical Leave Act) from his job with Russell Reid, a waste management company, after finding out that he had fast-spreading type of leukemia. Soon, his doctors informed him that he would need a bone marrow transplant to save his life. Luckily, they were able to find him a donor with a perfect match and scheduled the transplant for August 16th.
A $500,000 transplant. Thank goodness for health insurance.
Or maybe not.
After Sergio’s three month leave of absence was up, his company fired him. Unsurprised, his family at least took heart in the knowledge that they could continue their health insurance coverage through COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act). They’d have to pay the whole premium, but it was better than paying the full $500,000 for the transplant.
Soon after Sergio was fired, a letter arrived letting them know they had until June 30 to decide whether or not they wanted the coverage. Of course they did, so on May 24, Sergio’s wife Mara sent in her check for $518 to pay for the first month of coverage for Sergio.
But she forgot the 26 cents.
Whatever the reason–she was preoccupied with the kids, her sick husband, supporting the family, etc–the bill for $518.26 wasn’t paid in full. So, despite the fact that they were still within the time allowed to pay before the option for coverage was gone, and despite the fact that the check Mara sent in was cashed, Sergio’s coverage was terminated, leaving him unable to pay for the transplant. It wasn’t until the hospital notified them that the Branco family found out about the cancellation.
When Mara contacted the company handling the insurance coverage, Paychex, to find out what happened, they told her about the 26 cents. When she tried to pay it, Paychex wouldn’t accept payment, saying that Russell Reid, Sergio’s old company, told them to accept no more payments from them. Mara called Russell Reid, and they denied the accusation. She was soon left with no choice but to get the Department of Labor involved, who also got the run-around from both companies involved–all while a man’s life hung in the balance. Finally, at the beginning of July, they received written notification that Sergio’s insurance was cancelled. Their payment of $518 was sent back to them.
Finally, the Branco’s had no choice but to get a lawyer.
The lawyer changed everything. The law says insurance coverage cannot be cancelled over a “de minimis amount,” not to mention that Paychex never sent the appropriate notices under the law. Soon, Paychex and Russell Reid had no choice but to reinstate Sergio Branco’s insurance coverage.
His transplant is still on track for August 16.
What’s worrisome about Sergio’s case, while there are a few things that aren’t right here, is that even after the Department of Labor was involved, they were still unable to really get anything fixed until they employed an attorney. Considering their situation, attorney’s fees are likely a hardship on the family that they should never have had to incur.
Further, with everything else in their lives, with all of the stress involved in raising children while dealing with a terminal illness, the ultimate insult is to pull their coverage over an amount that can be found at the bottom of the dryer.
The lesson here seems to be: ‘Don’t get sick, and don’t stress out if you do.’
A New Jersey garbage truck driver almost saw his life slip away from him over 26 cents.
Thirty-three-year-old Sergio Branco took a three month leave of absence (thanks to the Family and Medical Leave Act) from his job with Russell Reid, a waste management company, after finding out that he had fast-spreading type of leukemia. Soon, his doctors informed him that he would need a bone marrow transplant to save his life. Luckily, they were able to find him a donor with a perfect match and scheduled the transplant for August 16th.
Or maybe not.
After Sergio’s three month leave of absence was up, his company fired him. Unsurprised, his family at least took heart in the knowledge that they could continue their health insurance coverage through COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act). They’d have to pay the whole premium, but it was better than paying the full $500,000 for the transplant.
Soon after Sergio was fired, a letter arrived letting them know they had until June 30 to decide whether or not they wanted the coverage. Of course they did, so on May 24, Sergio’s wife Mara sent in her check for $518 to pay for the first month of coverage for Sergio.
But she forgot the 26 cents.
Whatever the reason–she was preoccupied with the kids, her sick husband, supporting the family, etc–the bill for $518.26 wasn’t paid in full. So, despite the fact that they were still within the time allowed to pay before the option for coverage was gone, and despite the fact that the check Mara sent in was cashed, Sergio’s coverage was terminated, leaving him unable to pay for the transplant. It wasn’t until the hospital notified them that the Branco family found out about the cancellation.
When Mara contacted the company handling the insurance coverage, Paychex, to find out what happened, they told her about the 26 cents. When she tried to pay it, Paychex wouldn’t accept payment, saying that Russell Reid, Sergio’s old company, told them to accept no more payments from them. Mara called Russell Reid, and they denied the accusation. She was soon left with no choice but to get the Department of Labor involved, who also got the run-around from both companies involved–all while a man’s life hung in the balance. Finally, at the beginning of July, they received written notification that Sergio’s insurance was cancelled. Their payment of $518 was sent back to them.
Finally, the Branco’s had no choice but to get a lawyer.
The lawyer changed everything. The law says insurance coverage cannot be cancelled over a “de minimis amount,” not to mention that Paychex never sent the appropriate notices under the law. Soon, Paychex and Russell Reid had no choice but to reinstate Sergio Branco’s insurance coverage.
His transplant is still on track for August 16.
What’s worrisome about Sergio’s case, while there are a few things that aren’t right here, is that even after the Department of Labor was involved, they were still unable to really get anything fixed until they employed an attorney. Considering their situation, attorney’s fees are likely a hardship on the family that they should never have had to incur.
Further, with everything else in their lives, with all of the stress involved in raising children while dealing with a terminal illness, the ultimate insult is to pull their coverage over an amount that can be found at the bottom of the dryer.
The lesson here seems to be: ‘Don’t get sick, and don’t stress out if you do.’
Monday, August 12, 2013
Walmart's worst nightmare
By Jason Kottke
WinCo is an Idaho-based grocery chain that frequently beats Walmart on price while providing health care benefits for any employee working over 24 hours a week as well as an annual pension.
WinCo is an Idaho-based grocery chain that frequently beats Walmart on price while providing health care benefits for any employee working over 24 hours a week as well as an annual pension.
While all of these factors help WinCo compete with Walmart on price, what really might scare the world's largest retailer is how WinCo treats its employees.
In sharp contrast to Walmart, which regularly comes under fire for practices like understaffing stores to keep costs down and hiring tons of temporary workers as a means to avoid paying full-time worker benefits, WinCo has a reputation for doing right by employees.
It provides health benefits to all staffers who work at least 24 hours per week. The company also has a pension, with employees getting an amount equal to 20% of their annual salary put in a plan that's paid for by WinCo; a company spokesperson told the Idaho Statesman that more than 400 nonexecutive workers (cashiers, produce clerks, and such) currently have pensions worth over $1 million apiece.
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Michelle Obama credits ‘Let’s Move’ campaign as kid obesity rates drop
By Clare Kim
Michelle Obama credited her signature “Let’s Move” campaign–which encourages healthy eating and exercise–for helping to decrease childhood obesity rates in the U.S. The first lady spoke on Tuesday after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 19 states and territories saw obesity rates among low-income preschoolers decline.
“Take her anti-obesity thing that she’s on,” Palin said on The Laura Ingraham Show.
Rush Limbaugh jumped on the right-wing bandwagon, attacking Michelle Obama for eating ribs at a meal when “she is demanding that everybody basically eat cardboard and tofu.”
“Michelle My Belle, minus the husband, took the kids out to Vail on a ski vacation, and they were spotted eating and they were feasting on ribs,” Limbaugh said. “Ribs that were 1,575 calories per serving with 141 grams of fat per serving. Now I’m sure some of you members of the new castrati:
‘This is typical of what you do Mr. Limbaugh, you take an isolated, once in a lifetime experience, and try to say that she’s a hypocrite.’ She is a hypocrite. Leaders are supposed to be leaders. If we’re supposed to go out and eat nothing–if we’re supposed to eat roots, and berries and tree bark and so show us how. And if it’s supposed to make us fit, if it’s supposed to make us healthier, show us how.”
While the right continued their attacks, the first lady campaigned for an active lifestyle and healthier eating habits, and the message seemed to resonate. She visited Sesame Street and exercised with Elmo. She showed off her exercise routine by doing push-ups with Ellen DeGeneres (and mom-dancing with Late Night host Jimmy Fallon). She invited schoolchildren from across the country to help her garden and cook meals at the White House, and even enlisted Beyonce’s help with the “Move Your Body” music video for the initiative.
Michelle Obama credited her signature “Let’s Move” campaign–which encourages healthy eating and exercise–for helping to decrease childhood obesity rates in the U.S. The first lady spoke on Tuesday after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 19 states and territories saw obesity rates among low-income preschoolers decline.
“Today’s announcement reaffirms my belief that together, we are making a real difference in helping kids across the country get a healthier start to life,” the first lady said in a statement. “We know how essential it is to set our youngest children on a path towards a lifetime of healthy eating and physical activity, and more than 10,000 childcare programs participating in the Let’s Move! Child Care initiative are doing vitally important work on this front. Yet, while this announcement reflects important progress, we also know that there is tremendous work still to be done to support healthy futures for all our children.”When Obama launched her initiative more than two and a half years ago, conservatives mocked the first lady’s commitment to ending childhood obesity. Sarah Palin accused Michelle Obama of using big government to take control of parenting decisions.
“Take her anti-obesity thing that she’s on,” Palin said on The Laura Ingraham Show.
“She’s on this kick, right? What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families and what we should eat. And I know I’m going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of government thinking that they need to take over [and] make decisions for us according to some politician or politician’s wife’s priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track.”The former vice presidential candidate even took a shot at the first lady on her short-lived reality TV show. ”Where’s the s’mores ingredients,” Palin jokingly asked. “This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day we should not have dessert.”
Rush Limbaugh jumped on the right-wing bandwagon, attacking Michelle Obama for eating ribs at a meal when “she is demanding that everybody basically eat cardboard and tofu.”
“Michelle My Belle, minus the husband, took the kids out to Vail on a ski vacation, and they were spotted eating and they were feasting on ribs,” Limbaugh said. “Ribs that were 1,575 calories per serving with 141 grams of fat per serving. Now I’m sure some of you members of the new castrati:
‘This is typical of what you do Mr. Limbaugh, you take an isolated, once in a lifetime experience, and try to say that she’s a hypocrite.’ She is a hypocrite. Leaders are supposed to be leaders. If we’re supposed to go out and eat nothing–if we’re supposed to eat roots, and berries and tree bark and so show us how. And if it’s supposed to make us fit, if it’s supposed to make us healthier, show us how.”
While the right continued their attacks, the first lady campaigned for an active lifestyle and healthier eating habits, and the message seemed to resonate. She visited Sesame Street and exercised with Elmo. She showed off her exercise routine by doing push-ups with Ellen DeGeneres (and mom-dancing with Late Night host Jimmy Fallon). She invited schoolchildren from across the country to help her garden and cook meals at the White House, and even enlisted Beyonce’s help with the “Move Your Body” music video for the initiative.
“Together, we’re making a real difference in helping kids across the country get a healthier start to life.” -FLOTUS http://t.co/L27uGm0yuFCDC research shows that about one in eight preschoolers is obese and that such children are five times more likely to be overweight later in childhood and adolescence. Obesity rates among preschoolers are improving, but the research states that there is still more work to be done. Among low-income children ages 2-4 years, between 2008 – 2011, obesity rates decreased slightly in 19 of the 43 states and territories studied, and obesity rates increased slightly in 3 of the 43 states and territories.
— FLOTUS (@FLOTUS) August 6, 2013
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Herring Filets Recalled over Listeria Concerns
Gold Star Smoked Fish Corp.
of Brooklyn, N.Y., is recalling Baltic Treasures, Norwegian Style
Matjes, Marinella “Delicatessnaya,” Jewish Style Matjes, Traditional
Russian Matjes, and Rybacka Wies Matjes Brands of Herring Fillets in Oil
due to contamination or possible contamination with Listeria
monocytogenes.In addition, Zip International Group LLC of Edison, N.J., is recalling Baltic Sprats in Spicy Brine Net Wt. 15.8 Oz (450g) in plastic packaging, also because of the potential Listeria contamination.
The recalled Gold Star products are packaged in 10.5 oz/300 gram, 17.64oz/500 gram, and 35.5oz/1 kg vacuum packed plastic packages and have sell by dates 103113, 113013, 123113, or 13114 stamped on the back of the container.
The UPC Numbers are 0 21143 24118 1, 0 21143 24119 8, 0 21143 24117 4, 0 21143 24116 7, 0 21143 24101 3, 0 21143 24105 1, 0 21143 24111 2, 0 21143 24103 7, 0 21143 24106 8, 0 21143 24110 5, 0 21143 24102 0, 0 21143 24104 4, 0 21143 24121 1, 0 21143 24122 8, and 0 21143 24123 5.
The products were sold nationwide. They are products of the USA.
Zip International’s recalled sprats were packaged with a best by date of October 12, 2013 (UPC: 4750217602547). The best by date is located on the top of the packaging and was sold to distributors and retail grocery stores in New York State beginning on May 31, 2013 and ending on June 6, 2013.
It is a product of Latvia..
All recalls were initiated after routine testing by the New York State Department of Agriculture found the Listeria contamination.
No illnesses have been connected to the products. However, given the time involved in tracing an illness back to a food item, it is impossible to say whether or not anyone has fallen ill.
Computer Program That Writes Jokes Makes Them Very Un-PC
By Alan Colmes
“I like my women like I like my gas–natural” is just one example.
A computer designed to tell witty one-liners has been criticised for being sexist and un-PC.
Scientists at the University of Edinburgh created the software to tell one-line jokes using a simple set of rules in which a statement is followed up with an amusing punchline, such as ‘I like my coffee like I like my war…cold’.
However, some of the lines the computer has produced have been criticised for being sexist or in bad taste including ‘I like my men like I like my acorns…buried’ and ‘I like my women like I like my gas…natural.’
…the computer most commonly creates jokes that compare men or women to objects.
“I like my women like I like my gas–natural” is just one example.
A computer designed to tell witty one-liners has been criticised for being sexist and un-PC.
Scientists at the University of Edinburgh created the software to tell one-line jokes using a simple set of rules in which a statement is followed up with an amusing punchline, such as ‘I like my coffee like I like my war…cold’.
However, some of the lines the computer has produced have been criticised for being sexist or in bad taste including ‘I like my men like I like my acorns…buried’ and ‘I like my women like I like my gas…natural.’
…the computer most commonly creates jokes that compare men or women to objects.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Republican threat of shutdown looms
As Congress heads out on a five-week vacation, the Republican threat of a
shutdown over President Barack Obama’s health care law looms. Karen Finney,
Michael Eric Dyson and Bob Shrum join Ed Schultz to discuss.
By Erin Ganley
By Erin Ganley
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Al Sharpton’s ‘open letter’ to Bill O’Reilly
By Morgan Whitaker
After being attacked as everything from a “race hustler” to “dishonest,” Rev. Al Sharpton responded Tuesday to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly recent insults.
Representing what O’Reilly called “the grievance industry” on his Monday program, Sharpton laid out other “grievances” in the history of America, noting that the First Amendment literally gives Americans the right to assemble and petition for the “redress of grievances.”
He pointed to Seneca Falls and to the famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” in which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote that he hoped white clergy would “serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure.”
“Sharpton and others are attacking me because I am a threat to them,” O’Reilly said on Monday’s program, accusing the civil rights leaders of profiting by “promoting racial division.”
“The grievances we face in America have changed over time–just as the country has changed,” Sharpton said in his response. “But today, there are still deep injustices that we must address. Our criminal justice system too often treats millions of Americans differently because of the color of their skin.”
“We’re always striving to form a more perfect union. We’ve long moved past unfair tariffs and three-fifths of a person, beyond denying women the right to vote and beyond the control of Jim Crow,” he said. “Now we fight against criminal injustice and economic equality. We fight for equal rights for all Americans, for gays, for new immigrants, for women to earn equal pay for equal work.”
“Sure, it makes some people uncomfortable, but this country has always evolved because people stood up, addressed the problems of their time and fought to change them.”
After being attacked as everything from a “race hustler” to “dishonest,” Rev. Al Sharpton responded Tuesday to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly recent insults.
Representing what O’Reilly called “the grievance industry” on his Monday program, Sharpton laid out other “grievances” in the history of America, noting that the First Amendment literally gives Americans the right to assemble and petition for the “redress of grievances.”
He pointed to Seneca Falls and to the famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” in which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote that he hoped white clergy would “serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure.”
“Sharpton and others are attacking me because I am a threat to them,” O’Reilly said on Monday’s program, accusing the civil rights leaders of profiting by “promoting racial division.”
“The grievances we face in America have changed over time–just as the country has changed,” Sharpton said in his response. “But today, there are still deep injustices that we must address. Our criminal justice system too often treats millions of Americans differently because of the color of their skin.”
“We’re always striving to form a more perfect union. We’ve long moved past unfair tariffs and three-fifths of a person, beyond denying women the right to vote and beyond the control of Jim Crow,” he said. “Now we fight against criminal injustice and economic equality. We fight for equal rights for all Americans, for gays, for new immigrants, for women to earn equal pay for equal work.”
“Sure, it makes some people uncomfortable, but this country has always evolved because people stood up, addressed the problems of their time and fought to change them.”
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Monday, July 29, 2013
WAKE THE FUCK UP
By Phillyindy
"Why don't you respect their different perspective on life and try to come to some common ground?"
This was a reply I received on another thread regarding morons who vote against their interests over and over again.
I'm a liberal, and this shit drives me nuts!!!!
You want to know why "liberals lose so God damn always" (to quote Will McAvoy)?
THIS IS WHY.
Liberals constantly make the fatal error of assuming the other side is intelligent and reasonable. That if we are nice and present the data, people will come around.
WHERE THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN THE LAST 30 YEARS???????
President Obama, easily one of the most intelligent, reasoned, articulate, honest, well intentioned presidential candidates in our history took this approach...and Sarah FUCKING PALIN's ticket still got 47% of the vote...and that was AFTER Republicans launched an illegal war on lies, sanctioned torture, and created the biggest financial disaster since the GREAT DEPRESSION!
47% people!!! Know what that means? It means that just about half the country, now devastated by 8 years of republican rule, would take Sarah FUCKING Palin rather then a Democrat...even one as amazing as Obama.
It means in 2008, after 8 years of Bush, half the country thought the problem was that our leader wasn't MORE of a right wing ideological nut.
Many of my liberal friends were patting themselves on their back that day. I was naturally thrilled Obama won, but I was also well aware of the fact that instead of what should have been a landslide...he could have easily lost.
And for me, that brought a horrifying realization that our country was even more insanely misinformed and fucked then I thought.
Obama also took this typical liberal "kill them with kindness" and "compromise" approach with governing...how's that worked out for progressive legislation, for the progressive movement as a whole?
Let's see, Obama's only signature piece of legislation is a right wing Heritage Foundation healthcare plan that is a giant handout to big pharma and insurance agencies.
Meanwhile, we've had draconian cuts to everything from education to life saving social programs for the poor and elderly.
We've bailed out Wall Street and the banks, but told homeowners, the unemployed, students, the needy, and even entire cities like Detroit to go fuck themselves sideways.
We've had a continuation (even an expansion) of Bush national security policies and right wing economic policies.
More free trade policies, more corporate welfare, and the continued assault on the middle class, the poor, and our social contract.
Yet do you see mass protests in the streets? Rioting? Are the Republicans facing backlash? Do most people even know what's causing all of this or who's responsible?
Nope.
In fact, Nate Silver is now saying there is a 50% chance Republicans will take the Senate in 2016...and no chance they will lose the house.
Deny it all you want, but it's perfectly theoretical that Republicans could own the entire government come January 2017.
The fact that this is even plausible right now, let alone a real possibility, should serve as a splash of ice water in the face of liberals.
What you are doing ISN'T working!
It's time to wake the fuck up and realize that this noble, above it all approach of messaging HAS BEEN FAILING MISERABLY FOR 30 FUCKING YEARS...to the point where the oligarchy now has so much power that it may now be irreversible.
By now everyone should know that Americans are largely simple, ignorant, fearful folk. They trust the confident assuredness of a leader above things like facts. Like Bush, "Wrong but strong".
You want to make Americans understand and come around to your side? Then quit acting like fucking pussies sitting in a circle on the grass at your college quad!
Stand up and denounce the other side for the sick twisted fascist pukes that they are.
STOP acting like there are 2 sides to common decency, to moral truths, to policies that serve only the purpose of enslaving the citizens while empowering the ruling elite.
CALL PEOPLE THE FUCK OUT in every setting, in every situation. Minimize them, make them a mockery, paint them as immoral parasites.
I don't care if it's you kids teacher, your priest, or your fucking dying Aunt.
When possible, do so politely, if that's not possible, then FUCK THEM.
Think this is harsh? Well you ever wonder why social issues like gay marriage and discrimination are the ONE area where liberals win CONSISTENTLY?
Because they use this tactic!!!! Because they shame people into doing the right thing. They make it socially UNACCEPTABLE to not agree.
This is why those issues drive conservatives nuts more then anything - because that's THEIR tactic!
To question capitalism means you are a commie pinko. To question a war means you don't support the troops. To question torture means you are a terrorist lover. Conservatives have mastered the tactic of forced conformity.
So sorry for the rant, but I've fucking had it. This isn't 1970, where the other side is made up of at least some intelligent, well meaning people with legitimate alternative views and we all agree on the basic principles of America.
THIS IS A FUCKING WAR against a soulless, immoral, ruthless oligarchy hell bent on permanently enslaving the people of this country...and they are winning, they are kicking our asses into oblivion.
Liberals are the only reason America became the great shining beacon of hope and justice and equality and prosperity for all that it once was.
Well it's time for liberals to get dirty again, or you can kiss this country goodbye.
America isn't the last great hope for the world...liberals are.
"Why don't you respect their different perspective on life and try to come to some common ground?"
This was a reply I received on another thread regarding morons who vote against their interests over and over again.
I'm a liberal, and this shit drives me nuts!!!!
You want to know why "liberals lose so God damn always" (to quote Will McAvoy)?
THIS IS WHY.
Liberals constantly make the fatal error of assuming the other side is intelligent and reasonable. That if we are nice and present the data, people will come around.
WHERE THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN THE LAST 30 YEARS???????
President Obama, easily one of the most intelligent, reasoned, articulate, honest, well intentioned presidential candidates in our history took this approach...and Sarah FUCKING PALIN's ticket still got 47% of the vote...and that was AFTER Republicans launched an illegal war on lies, sanctioned torture, and created the biggest financial disaster since the GREAT DEPRESSION!
47% people!!! Know what that means? It means that just about half the country, now devastated by 8 years of republican rule, would take Sarah FUCKING Palin rather then a Democrat...even one as amazing as Obama.
It means in 2008, after 8 years of Bush, half the country thought the problem was that our leader wasn't MORE of a right wing ideological nut.
Many of my liberal friends were patting themselves on their back that day. I was naturally thrilled Obama won, but I was also well aware of the fact that instead of what should have been a landslide...he could have easily lost.
And for me, that brought a horrifying realization that our country was even more insanely misinformed and fucked then I thought.
Obama also took this typical liberal "kill them with kindness" and "compromise" approach with governing...how's that worked out for progressive legislation, for the progressive movement as a whole?
Let's see, Obama's only signature piece of legislation is a right wing Heritage Foundation healthcare plan that is a giant handout to big pharma and insurance agencies.
Meanwhile, we've had draconian cuts to everything from education to life saving social programs for the poor and elderly.
We've bailed out Wall Street and the banks, but told homeowners, the unemployed, students, the needy, and even entire cities like Detroit to go fuck themselves sideways.
We've had a continuation (even an expansion) of Bush national security policies and right wing economic policies.
More free trade policies, more corporate welfare, and the continued assault on the middle class, the poor, and our social contract.
Yet do you see mass protests in the streets? Rioting? Are the Republicans facing backlash? Do most people even know what's causing all of this or who's responsible?
Nope.
In fact, Nate Silver is now saying there is a 50% chance Republicans will take the Senate in 2016...and no chance they will lose the house.
Deny it all you want, but it's perfectly theoretical that Republicans could own the entire government come January 2017.
The fact that this is even plausible right now, let alone a real possibility, should serve as a splash of ice water in the face of liberals.
What you are doing ISN'T working!
It's time to wake the fuck up and realize that this noble, above it all approach of messaging HAS BEEN FAILING MISERABLY FOR 30 FUCKING YEARS...to the point where the oligarchy now has so much power that it may now be irreversible.
By now everyone should know that Americans are largely simple, ignorant, fearful folk. They trust the confident assuredness of a leader above things like facts. Like Bush, "Wrong but strong".
You want to make Americans understand and come around to your side? Then quit acting like fucking pussies sitting in a circle on the grass at your college quad!
Stand up and denounce the other side for the sick twisted fascist pukes that they are.
STOP acting like there are 2 sides to common decency, to moral truths, to policies that serve only the purpose of enslaving the citizens while empowering the ruling elite.
CALL PEOPLE THE FUCK OUT in every setting, in every situation. Minimize them, make them a mockery, paint them as immoral parasites.
I don't care if it's you kids teacher, your priest, or your fucking dying Aunt.
When possible, do so politely, if that's not possible, then FUCK THEM.
Think this is harsh? Well you ever wonder why social issues like gay marriage and discrimination are the ONE area where liberals win CONSISTENTLY?
Because they use this tactic!!!! Because they shame people into doing the right thing. They make it socially UNACCEPTABLE to not agree.
This is why those issues drive conservatives nuts more then anything - because that's THEIR tactic!
To question capitalism means you are a commie pinko. To question a war means you don't support the troops. To question torture means you are a terrorist lover. Conservatives have mastered the tactic of forced conformity.
So sorry for the rant, but I've fucking had it. This isn't 1970, where the other side is made up of at least some intelligent, well meaning people with legitimate alternative views and we all agree on the basic principles of America.
THIS IS A FUCKING WAR against a soulless, immoral, ruthless oligarchy hell bent on permanently enslaving the people of this country...and they are winning, they are kicking our asses into oblivion.
Liberals are the only reason America became the great shining beacon of hope and justice and equality and prosperity for all that it once was.
Well it's time for liberals to get dirty again, or you can kiss this country goodbye.
America isn't the last great hope for the world...liberals are.
Cumulus Media Will Dump Limbaugh and Hannity
In a major shakeup for the radio industry, Cumulus Media, the
second-biggest broadcaster in the country, is planning to drop both Rush
Limbaugh and Sean Hannity from its stations at the end of the year, an
industry source told POLITICO on Sunday.
Cumulus has decided that it will not renew its contracts with either host, the source said, a move that would remove the two most highly rated conservative talk personalities from more than 40 Cumulus channels in major markets.
The decision comes after negotiations between Cumulus and Premiere Networks, the division of Clear Channel that distributes Limbaugh and Hannity's shows, broke down due to disagreements over the cost of the distribution rights, the source said. Cumulus is known to drive a hard bargain on costs, and Clear Channel is known to seek top dollar for big names.
As industry insiders caution, Cumulus and Clear Channel have come to the brink before during contract negotiations only to resume talks. But the source told POLITICO that Clear Channel was unlikely to reduce the cost for distribution rights to a level that would satisfy Cumulus.
Cumulus declined to comment for this story: "Cumulus is not in a position to comment about negotiations with talent under contract, no matter what the rumor of the day might be," a spokesperson told POLITICO.
But in recent weeks, Cumulus has been quietly reaching out to radio talent agents and political insiders about new local and regional station hosts to fill some of the airtime that will be left vacant by Limbaugh and Hannity, industry sources said. Cumulus is also expected to move some of its existing talent -- which includes Mike Huckabee, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage - into one of the slots.
Premiere, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday night, is expected to carry Limbaugh and Hannity on stations in many of the markets where they are currently signed with Cumulus, should the negotiations not go through. A spokesperson for Limbaugh was not immediately available for comment; Hannity did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Back in May, a source close to Limbaugh told POLITICO that the host was considering ending his affiliation agreement with Cumulus because CEO Lew Dickey was blaming the company's advertising losses on Limbaugh's controversial remarks about Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student. On an earnings call two days later, Dickey reported a $2.4 million first-quarter decline in revenue related to talk programming, which he attributed, indirectly, to Limbaugh's remarks about Fluke.
Dickey is expected to hold another earnings call this week, though it is unclear if he will address the contract negotiations.
Follow @politico
Cumulus has decided that it will not renew its contracts with either host, the source said, a move that would remove the two most highly rated conservative talk personalities from more than 40 Cumulus channels in major markets.
The decision comes after negotiations between Cumulus and Premiere Networks, the division of Clear Channel that distributes Limbaugh and Hannity's shows, broke down due to disagreements over the cost of the distribution rights, the source said. Cumulus is known to drive a hard bargain on costs, and Clear Channel is known to seek top dollar for big names.
As industry insiders caution, Cumulus and Clear Channel have come to the brink before during contract negotiations only to resume talks. But the source told POLITICO that Clear Channel was unlikely to reduce the cost for distribution rights to a level that would satisfy Cumulus.
Cumulus declined to comment for this story: "Cumulus is not in a position to comment about negotiations with talent under contract, no matter what the rumor of the day might be," a spokesperson told POLITICO.
But in recent weeks, Cumulus has been quietly reaching out to radio talent agents and political insiders about new local and regional station hosts to fill some of the airtime that will be left vacant by Limbaugh and Hannity, industry sources said. Cumulus is also expected to move some of its existing talent -- which includes Mike Huckabee, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage - into one of the slots.
Premiere, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday night, is expected to carry Limbaugh and Hannity on stations in many of the markets where they are currently signed with Cumulus, should the negotiations not go through. A spokesperson for Limbaugh was not immediately available for comment; Hannity did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Back in May, a source close to Limbaugh told POLITICO that the host was considering ending his affiliation agreement with Cumulus because CEO Lew Dickey was blaming the company's advertising losses on Limbaugh's controversial remarks about Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student. On an earnings call two days later, Dickey reported a $2.4 million first-quarter decline in revenue related to talk programming, which he attributed, indirectly, to Limbaugh's remarks about Fluke.
Dickey is expected to hold another earnings call this week, though it is unclear if he will address the contract negotiations.
Follow @politico
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Trayvon Martin’s parents: Juror B29′s revelations ‘devastating’
The mother of Trayvon Martin reacted Thursday to an interview a juror in the George Zimmerman trial gave to ABC News, in which she admitted that she ultimately, she didn’t hold out for a conviction.
The Juror, known only as B29, or “Maddy,” since she revealed herself — including showing her face — to ABC’s Robin Roberts, said Zimmerman “got away with murder” in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, but that Florida law, as understood by the jury, made it impossible to convict.
“I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end,” she said during the interview, for which ABC News aired clips on Thursday. “That’s where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it. But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can’t say he’s guilty.”
Zimmerman was acquitted on second degree murder and manslaughter charges July 14th.
Maddy, a nurse’s aide and the lone non-white juror on the panel, said she is having trouble sleeping after the verdict.
“It’s hard for me to sleep,” she told ABC. “It’s hard for me to eat because I feel I was forcefully included in Trayvon Martin’s death. And as I carry him on my back, I’m hurting as much Trayvon’s Martin’s mother because there’s no way that any mother should feel that pain,” she said.
Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton issued the following statement Thursday night on behalf of herself and Tracy Martin:
It is devastating for my family to hear the comments from juror B29, comments which we already knew in our hearts to be true. That George Zimmerman literally got away with murder.Read the rest of this story at theGrio.com.
Friday, July 26, 2013
Feds tell Web firms to turn over user account passwords
By Declan McCullagh
Secret demands mark escalation in Internet surveillance by the federal government through gaining access to user passwords, which are typically stored in encrypted form.
The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users' stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with these orders, which represent an escalation in surveillance techniques that has not previously been disclosed.
If the government is able to determine a person's password, which is typically stored in encrypted form, the credential could be used to log in to an account to peruse confidential correspondence or even impersonate the user. Obtaining it also would aid in deciphering encrypted devices in situations where passwords are reused.
"I've certainly seen them ask for passwords," said one Internet industry source who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We push back."
A second person who has worked at a large Silicon Valley company confirmed that it received legal requests from the federal government for stored passwords. Companies "really heavily scrutinize" these requests, the person said. "There's a lot of 'over my dead body.'"
Some of the government orders demand not only a user's password but also the encryption algorithm and the so-called salt, according to a person familiar with the requests. A salt is a random string of letters or numbers used to make it more difficult to reverse the encryption process and determine the original password. Other orders demand the secret question codes often associated with user accounts.
A Microsoft spokesperson would not say whether the company has received such requests from the government. But when asked whether Microsoft would divulge passwords, salts, or algorithms, the spokesperson replied: "No, we don't, and we can't see a circumstance in which we would provide it."
Google also declined to disclose whether it had received requests for those types of data. But a spokesperson said the company has "never" turned over a user's encrypted password, and that it has a legal team that frequently pushes back against requests that are fishing expeditions or are otherwise problematic. "We take the privacy and security of our users very seriously," the spokesperson said.
A Yahoo spokeswoman would not say whether the company had received such requests. The spokeswoman said: "If we receive a request from law enforcement for a user's password, we deny such requests on the grounds that they would allow overly broad access to our users' private information. If we are required to provide information, we do so only in the strictest interpretation of what is required by law."
Apple, Facebook, AOL, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast did not respond to queries about whether they have received requests for users' passwords and how they would respond to them.
Richard Lovejoy, a director of the Opera Software subsidiary that operates FastMail, said he doesn't recall receiving any such requests but that the company still has a relatively small number of users compared with its larger rivals. Because of that, he said, "we don't get a high volume" of U.S. government demands.
The FBI declined to comment.
Some details remain unclear, including when the requests began and whether the government demands are always targeted at individuals or seek entire password database dumps. The Patriot Act has been used to demand entire database dumps of phone call logs, and critics have suggested its use is broader. "The authority of the government is essentially limitless" under that law, Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who serves on the Senate Intelligence committee, said at a Washington event this week.
Large Internet companies have resisted the government's requests by arguing that "you don't have the right to operate the account as a person," according to a person familiar with the issue. "I don't know what happens when the government goes to smaller providers and demands user passwords," the person said.
An attorney who represents Internet companies said he has not fielded government password requests, but "we've certainly had reset requests -- if you have the device in your possession, than a password reset is the easier way."
Cracking the codes
Even if the National Security Agency or the FBI successfully obtains an encrypted password, salt, and details about the algorithm used, unearthing a user's original password is hardly guaranteed. The odds of success depend in large part on two factors: the type of algorithm and the complexity of the password.
Algorithms, known as hash functions, that are viewed as suitable for scrambling stored passwords are designed to be difficult to reverse. One popular hash function called MD5, for instance, transforms the phrase "National Security Agency" into this string of seemingly random characters: 84bd1c27b26f7be85b2742817bb8d43b. Computer scientists believe that, if a hash function is well-designed, the original phrase cannot be derived from the output.
But modern computers, especially ones equipped with high-performance video cards, can test passwords scrambled with MD5 and other well-known hash algorithms at the rate of billions a second. One system using 25 Radeon-powered GPUs that was demonstrated at a conference last December tested 348 billion hashes per second, meaning it would crack a 14-character Windows XP password in six minutes.
The best practice among Silicon Valley companies is to adopt far slower hash algorithms -- designed to take a large fraction of a second to scramble a password -- that have been intentionally crafted to make it more difficult and expensive for the NSA and other attackers to test every possible combination.
One popular algorithm, used by Twitter and LinkedIn, is called bcrypt. A 2009 paper (PDF) by computer scientist Colin Percival estimated that it would cost a mere $4 to crack, in an average of one year, an 8-character bcrypt password composed only of letters. To do it in an average of one day, the hardware cost would jump to approximately $1,500.
But if a password of the same length included numbers, asterisks, punctuation marks, and other special characters, the cost-per-year leaps to $130,000. Increasing the length to any 10 characters, Percival estimated in 2009, brings the estimated cracking cost to a staggering $1.2 billion.
As computers have become more powerful, the cost of cracking bcrypt passwords has decreased. "I'd say as a rough ballpark, the current cost would be around 1/20th of the numbers I have in my paper," said Percival, who founded a company called Tarsnap Backup, which offers "online backups for the truly paranoid." Percival added that a government agency would likely use ASICs -- application-specific integrated circuits -- for password cracking because it's "the most cost-efficient -- at large scale -- approach."
While developing Tarsnap, Percival devised an algorithm called scrypt, which he estimates can make the "cost of a hardware brute-force attack" against a hashed password as much as 4,000 times greater than bcrypt.
Bcrypt was introduced (PDF) at a 1999 Usenix conference by Niels Provos, currently a distinguished engineer in Google's infrastructure group, and David Mazières, an associate professor of computer science at Stanford University.
With the computers available today, "bcrypt won't pipeline very well in hardware," Mazières said, so it would "still be very expensive to do widespread cracking."
Even if "the NSA is asking for access to hashed bcrypt passwords," Mazières said, "that doesn't necessarily mean they are cracking them." Easier approaches, he said, include an order to extract them from the server or network when the user logs in -- which has been done before -- or installing a keylogger at the client.
Questions of law
Whether the National Security Agency or FBI has the legal authority to demand that an Internet company divulge a hashed password, salt, and algorithm remains murky.
"This is one of those unanswered legal questions: Is there any circumstance under which they could get password information?" said Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society. "I don't know."
Granick said she's not aware of any precedent for an Internet company "to provide passwords, encrypted or otherwise, or password algorithms to the government -- for the government to crack passwords and use them unsupervised." If the password will be used to log in to the account, she said, that's "prospective surveillance," which would require a wiretap order or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act order.
If the government can subsequently determine the password, "there's a concern that the provider is enabling unauthorized access to the user's account if they do that," Granick said. That could, she said, raise legal issues under the Stored Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
The Justice Department has argued in court proceedings before that it has broad legal authority to obtain passwords. In 2011, for instance, federal prosecutors sent a grand jury subpoena demanding the password that would unlock files encrypted with the TrueCrypt utility.
The Florida man who received the subpoena claimed the Fifth Amendment, which protects his right to avoid self-incrimination, allowed him to refuse the prosecutors' demand. In February 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed, saying that because prosecutors could bring a criminal prosecution against him based on the contents of the decrypted files, the man "could not be compelled to decrypt the drives."
In January 2012, a federal district judge in Colorado reached the opposite conclusion, ruling that a criminal defendant could be compelled under the All Writs Act to type in the password that would unlock a Toshiba Satellite laptop.
Both of those cases, however, deal with criminal proceedings when the password holder is the target of an investigation -- and don't address when a hashed password is stored on the servers of a company that's an innocent third party.
"If you can figure out someone's password, you have the ability to reuse the account," which raises significant privacy concerns, said Seth Schoen, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Last updated at 8:00 p.m. PT with comment from Yahoo, which responded after this article was published.
Disclosure: McCullagh is married to a Google employee not involved with this issue.
Secret demands mark escalation in Internet surveillance by the federal government through gaining access to user passwords, which are typically stored in encrypted form.
The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users' stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with these orders, which represent an escalation in surveillance techniques that has not previously been disclosed.
If the government is able to determine a person's password, which is typically stored in encrypted form, the credential could be used to log in to an account to peruse confidential correspondence or even impersonate the user. Obtaining it also would aid in deciphering encrypted devices in situations where passwords are reused.
"I've certainly seen them ask for passwords," said one Internet industry source who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We push back."
A second person who has worked at a large Silicon Valley company confirmed that it received legal requests from the federal government for stored passwords. Companies "really heavily scrutinize" these requests, the person said. "There's a lot of 'over my dead body.'"
Some of the government orders demand not only a user's password but also the encryption algorithm and the so-called salt, according to a person familiar with the requests. A salt is a random string of letters or numbers used to make it more difficult to reverse the encryption process and determine the original password. Other orders demand the secret question codes often associated with user accounts.
"This is one of those unanswered legal questions: Is there any circumstance under which they could get password information?"
--Jennifer Granick, Stanford University
--Jennifer Granick, Stanford University
A Microsoft spokesperson would not say whether the company has received such requests from the government. But when asked whether Microsoft would divulge passwords, salts, or algorithms, the spokesperson replied: "No, we don't, and we can't see a circumstance in which we would provide it."
Google also declined to disclose whether it had received requests for those types of data. But a spokesperson said the company has "never" turned over a user's encrypted password, and that it has a legal team that frequently pushes back against requests that are fishing expeditions or are otherwise problematic. "We take the privacy and security of our users very seriously," the spokesperson said.
A Yahoo spokeswoman would not say whether the company had received such requests. The spokeswoman said: "If we receive a request from law enforcement for a user's password, we deny such requests on the grounds that they would allow overly broad access to our users' private information. If we are required to provide information, we do so only in the strictest interpretation of what is required by law."
Apple, Facebook, AOL, Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Comcast did not respond to queries about whether they have received requests for users' passwords and how they would respond to them.
Richard Lovejoy, a director of the Opera Software subsidiary that operates FastMail, said he doesn't recall receiving any such requests but that the company still has a relatively small number of users compared with its larger rivals. Because of that, he said, "we don't get a high volume" of U.S. government demands.
The FBI declined to comment.
Some details remain unclear, including when the requests began and whether the government demands are always targeted at individuals or seek entire password database dumps. The Patriot Act has been used to demand entire database dumps of phone call logs, and critics have suggested its use is broader. "The authority of the government is essentially limitless" under that law, Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who serves on the Senate Intelligence committee, said at a Washington event this week.
Large Internet companies have resisted the government's requests by arguing that "you don't have the right to operate the account as a person," according to a person familiar with the issue. "I don't know what happens when the government goes to smaller providers and demands user passwords," the person said.
An attorney who represents Internet companies said he has not fielded government password requests, but "we've certainly had reset requests -- if you have the device in your possession, than a password reset is the easier way."
Source code to a C implementation of bcrypt, a popular algorithm used for password hashing.
(Credit:
Photo by Declan McCullagh)
Cracking the codes
Even if the National Security Agency or the FBI successfully obtains an encrypted password, salt, and details about the algorithm used, unearthing a user's original password is hardly guaranteed. The odds of success depend in large part on two factors: the type of algorithm and the complexity of the password.
Algorithms, known as hash functions, that are viewed as suitable for scrambling stored passwords are designed to be difficult to reverse. One popular hash function called MD5, for instance, transforms the phrase "National Security Agency" into this string of seemingly random characters: 84bd1c27b26f7be85b2742817bb8d43b. Computer scientists believe that, if a hash function is well-designed, the original phrase cannot be derived from the output.
But modern computers, especially ones equipped with high-performance video cards, can test passwords scrambled with MD5 and other well-known hash algorithms at the rate of billions a second. One system using 25 Radeon-powered GPUs that was demonstrated at a conference last December tested 348 billion hashes per second, meaning it would crack a 14-character Windows XP password in six minutes.
The best practice among Silicon Valley companies is to adopt far slower hash algorithms -- designed to take a large fraction of a second to scramble a password -- that have been intentionally crafted to make it more difficult and expensive for the NSA and other attackers to test every possible combination.
One popular algorithm, used by Twitter and LinkedIn, is called bcrypt. A 2009 paper (PDF) by computer scientist Colin Percival estimated that it would cost a mere $4 to crack, in an average of one year, an 8-character bcrypt password composed only of letters. To do it in an average of one day, the hardware cost would jump to approximately $1,500.
But if a password of the same length included numbers, asterisks, punctuation marks, and other special characters, the cost-per-year leaps to $130,000. Increasing the length to any 10 characters, Percival estimated in 2009, brings the estimated cracking cost to a staggering $1.2 billion.
As computers have become more powerful, the cost of cracking bcrypt passwords has decreased. "I'd say as a rough ballpark, the current cost would be around 1/20th of the numbers I have in my paper," said Percival, who founded a company called Tarsnap Backup, which offers "online backups for the truly paranoid." Percival added that a government agency would likely use ASICs -- application-specific integrated circuits -- for password cracking because it's "the most cost-efficient -- at large scale -- approach."
While developing Tarsnap, Percival devised an algorithm called scrypt, which he estimates can make the "cost of a hardware brute-force attack" against a hashed password as much as 4,000 times greater than bcrypt.
Bcrypt was introduced (PDF) at a 1999 Usenix conference by Niels Provos, currently a distinguished engineer in Google's infrastructure group, and David Mazières, an associate professor of computer science at Stanford University.
With the computers available today, "bcrypt won't pipeline very well in hardware," Mazières said, so it would "still be very expensive to do widespread cracking."
Even if "the NSA is asking for access to hashed bcrypt passwords," Mazières said, "that doesn't necessarily mean they are cracking them." Easier approaches, he said, include an order to extract them from the server or network when the user logs in -- which has been done before -- or installing a keylogger at the client.
Sen. Ron Wyden, who warned this week that "the
authority of the government is essentially limitless" under the Patriot
Act's business records provision.
(Credit:
Getty Images)
Questions of law
Whether the National Security Agency or FBI has the legal authority to demand that an Internet company divulge a hashed password, salt, and algorithm remains murky.
"This is one of those unanswered legal questions: Is there any circumstance under which they could get password information?" said Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society. "I don't know."
Granick said she's not aware of any precedent for an Internet company "to provide passwords, encrypted or otherwise, or password algorithms to the government -- for the government to crack passwords and use them unsupervised." If the password will be used to log in to the account, she said, that's "prospective surveillance," which would require a wiretap order or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act order.
If the government can subsequently determine the password, "there's a concern that the provider is enabling unauthorized access to the user's account if they do that," Granick said. That could, she said, raise legal issues under the Stored Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
The Justice Department has argued in court proceedings before that it has broad legal authority to obtain passwords. In 2011, for instance, federal prosecutors sent a grand jury subpoena demanding the password that would unlock files encrypted with the TrueCrypt utility.
The Florida man who received the subpoena claimed the Fifth Amendment, which protects his right to avoid self-incrimination, allowed him to refuse the prosecutors' demand. In February 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed, saying that because prosecutors could bring a criminal prosecution against him based on the contents of the decrypted files, the man "could not be compelled to decrypt the drives."
In January 2012, a federal district judge in Colorado reached the opposite conclusion, ruling that a criminal defendant could be compelled under the All Writs Act to type in the password that would unlock a Toshiba Satellite laptop.
Both of those cases, however, deal with criminal proceedings when the password holder is the target of an investigation -- and don't address when a hashed password is stored on the servers of a company that's an innocent third party.
"If you can figure out someone's password, you have the ability to reuse the account," which raises significant privacy concerns, said Seth Schoen, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Last updated at 8:00 p.m. PT with comment from Yahoo, which responded after this article was published.
Disclosure: McCullagh is married to a Google employee not involved with this issue.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Juror B-29 proves that the George Zimmerman jury needed diversity of all kinds
Cenk Uygur talks to Ana Kasparian, Jayar Jackson, and TYT producer and legal analyst
Robin Sax about the latest aftermath from the George Zimmerman trial.
On Thursday, Juror B-29, the jury’s sole minority member, gave an interview with ABC News in which she said that Zimmerman “got away with murder” and that she “fought to the end” for a second-degree murder conviction, nearly causing a hung jury.
“Think about it, if you are a white person living in this area in Florida, you have a very different experience than a black person living in this area in Florida,” Kasparian says.
The panel agrees that lack of racial diversity on the jury was one of many problems. “This woman is a mom to eight children,” Sax points out. “Juror B-37 has no children. Maybe it’s not about race, maybe it’s being a parent.”
On Thursday, Juror B-29, the jury’s sole minority member, gave an interview with ABC News in which she said that Zimmerman “got away with murder” and that she “fought to the end” for a second-degree murder conviction, nearly causing a hung jury.
“Think about it, if you are a white person living in this area in Florida, you have a very different experience than a black person living in this area in Florida,” Kasparian says.
The panel agrees that lack of racial diversity on the jury was one of many problems. “This woman is a mom to eight children,” Sax points out. “Juror B-37 has no children. Maybe it’s not about race, maybe it’s being a parent.”
Chris Hayes blasts Rep. Steve King for incendiary comments
By
Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa recently said of Latino immigrants to the conservative site Newsmax: “They aren’t all valedictorians. They weren’t all brought in by their parents. For everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”
MSNBC's Chris Hayes called King’s statement “hideous” on Wednesday’s All In. “The GOP can try to spin this. They can condemn these remarks and claim Steve King doesn’t speak for the party. But, really, until proven otherwise by actions, he does. He’s the GOP immigration id, without the filter. And the id continues to run the party,” said Hayes.
Watch Telemundo’s Jose Diaz-Balart discuss King’s comments on Wednesday’s All In with Chris Hayes.
Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa recently said of Latino immigrants to the conservative site Newsmax: “They aren’t all valedictorians. They weren’t all brought in by their parents. For everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”
MSNBC's Chris Hayes called King’s statement “hideous” on Wednesday’s All In. “The GOP can try to spin this. They can condemn these remarks and claim Steve King doesn’t speak for the party. But, really, until proven otherwise by actions, he does. He’s the GOP immigration id, without the filter. And the id continues to run the party,” said Hayes.
Watch Telemundo’s Jose Diaz-Balart discuss King’s comments on Wednesday’s All In with Chris Hayes.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Mr. Weiner and the Elusive Truth
Published: July 23, 2013
At some point, the full story of Anthony Weiner and his sexual relationships and texting habits will finally be told. In the meantime, the serially evasive Mr. Weiner should take his marital troubles and personal compulsions out of the public eye, away from cameras, off the Web and out of the race for mayor of New York City.
Mr. Weiner, who resigned from Congress two years ago after sending lewd messages and photos of his crotch to women he had not met, was forced to revisit the issue
on Tuesday, and so were we all. A Web site called The Dirty had another
woman’s story, another round of sex texts, and another picture of Mr.
Weiner’s penis. The startling news was that this new episode apparently
took place last summer, only a few months before Mr. Weiner was to begin
another run at public office. The marital trauma that Mr. Weiner and
his wife, Huma Abedin, had said was behind them was not as far behind as
we thought.
When the first texts were revealed two years ago, Mr. Weiner lied about
it, saying he had been the victim of hackers. Then he owned up,
tearfully abandoned his office and retreated into private life.
Then he
was back, telling the world that therapy and his wife’s forgiveness had
turned him around and that he was ready to begin a new chapter. That
turned out to be the mayor’s race, which he entered in May. What he did
not say then, and what voters did not realize until Tuesday, was that
his resignation had not been the end of his sexual misconduct.
The timing here matters, as it would for any politician who violates the
public’s trust and then asks to have it back. Things are different now,
he insists. “This behavior is behind me,” he said again on Tuesday. He
suggested that people should have known that his sexting was an
unresolved problem well into 2012.
That’s ridiculous and speaks to a familiar but repellent pattern of
misleading and evasion. It’s up to Mr. Weiner if he wants to keep
running, to count on voters to forgive and forget and hand him the keys
to City Hall. But he has already disqualified himself.
It’s difficult not to feel for Ms. Abedin. The couple deserved privacy
as they worked through their problems — and they had it, until they
re-emerged in public life and Mr. Weiner decided he was a good fit to
run New York City. Mr. Weiner and Ms. Abedin have been saying that his
sexual behavior is not the public’s business. Well, it isn’t, until they
make it our business by plunging into a political campaign.
Mr. Weiner says he is staying in the mayoral race. To those who know his
arrogance and have grown tired of the tawdry saga he has dragged the
city into, this is not surprising.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)