"...a perfect storm of institutional contortions..."

So says Lileks. About this:

The University of North Dakota's affirmative action officer says campus departments and programs that oppose the school's Fighting Sioux nickname and logo might create an "unwelcome" environment for nickname-supporting students.

Sally Page says in a Sept. 24 memo that such an environment might expose the university to a lawsuit...

Page's memo references a newspaper advertisement that lists 27 UND programs, departments and governing bodies that have stated their opposition to the nickname and logo...
 -- AP Story posted at WCCO.com [highlighting mine - o.g.]

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 15:45:22 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Fearless Leader! Our plan has ALMOST succeeded!

Playback Problems Reported on 'Silver Surfer,' 'Day After Tomorrow' Blu-ray Discs

Only the RIAA could match this stupidity • (Score:5, Funny)
by nrich239 (790194) on Thursday October 04, @03:48PM (#20856791)

From the head of the MPAA: "I KNOW! Lets put so much protection on the new discs that people can't even watch the movie! That'll stop those pesky pirates..."

Re: Only the RIAA could match this stupidity • (Score:5, Insightful)
by Starteck81 (917280) on Thursday October 04, @03:58PM (#20857019)

MPAA Underling: Sir, unfortunately the pirates cracked the 'no play protection' within 24 hrs and are now the only ones that can watch the movies.

Re: Re: Only the RIAA could match this stupidity • (Score:4, Funny)
by cstdenis (1118589) on Thursday October 04, @04:11PM (#20857229)

Excellent. Now we know anyone watching one of our movies is a pirate and can sue them more easily.

Re: Re: Only the RIAA could match this stupidity • (Score:2)
by Minwee (522556) on Thursday October 04, @06:49PM (#20859739)

Excellent. Now only we are protected from the horror that is Catwoman. Unleash the sequels!

Re: Only the RIAA could match this stupidity • (Score:2)
by moderatorrater (1095745) on Thursday October 04, @04:38PM (#20857763)

At that point they don't even have to put the movie on the disc.

Sometimes the gang at Slashdot says it all...

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 23:41:51 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 3 kb.

Federal government accidentally deletes California (.gov)

Who needs terrorists?

A hacker's diversion of traffic from a California county government Web site to a porn purveyor spiraled into IT chaos yesterday after a countermeasure applied from Washington essentially "deleted the ca.gov domain."

"...we opened our emergency operations center. Unfortunately that was about 3 in the afternoon and folks back East were already going home, so it took us some time to get hold of the right people in the General Services Administration to get this address reinstated." -- Network World Buzzblog

Later:  Not a good day for federal IT:  DHS Gets Spammed With Its Own Reports

Via: Slashdot

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 15:39:16 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

The censorship's in the policy

Via C.G. Hill: Doc Searls dug through AT&T's 10,000+ word "legal policy," and found something interesting:

AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy; (b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws) or a violation of these TOS, or any applicable policies or guidelines, or (c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries... [Bolding is Doc's - O.G.]

In a comment to Doc's post, Seth Finkelstein says, "It's common boilerplate." In his own post, Seth continues:

[A Google search on "damage the name or reputation"-AT&T] ...shows that a TOS clause about "damage the name or reputation" is a common boilerplate, and has nothing to with AT&T trying to supposedly CENSOR CRITICISM. It took me around a minute to find that.

I used to think this sort wolf-crying needed to be affirmatively opposed because it reflected badly on net activism. Now I've come to believe I'm just not cut out for politics.

I can't buy Seth's "common boilerplate"=="nothing to see here" argument. If the clause is meaningless, it wouldn't be there. If it's not designed to punish critics, then what is its intent? And if AT&T doesn't want to be able to exercise it, then including it in the policy is stupid, because it risks just this kind of a flap as soon as somebody notices it.

Unenforcable? Perhaps, but for the customer that translates to, "Sue us if you don't like it." Providers have been known to shut down service, claiming TOS reasons.

As to whether AT&T would pull the plug on someone who posted something that AT&T didn't like, well, I guess we'll just have to trust them.

UPDATE 071002 18:21: Richard Bennett adds to the discussion:

The way I read this is that you can’t damage a man’s or a company’s reputation simply by criticizing them; if you’re truthful, the issue is the deeds you’re describing, not the description. If you’re not truthful you still have to cause some damage to the target’s reputation to be afoul of the law. So I can talk smack about AT&T all day long so long as I don’t invent facts about them, and I can even make up facts about them as long as nobody pays any attention to me. And so can you.

AT&T is simply invoking slander and defamation law to its benefit and short-cutting the legal process. If this provision were removed from their AUP, they would still be protected by the law, but they would have to sue to assert the right. Is that what we want? [Highlighting mine -O.G.]

Umm... yes?

UPDATE 071002 19:34: from Ars Technica:

...an AT&T spokesperson tells Ars Technica that the company has no interest in engaging in censorship but stopped short of saying that AT&T could not in fact exercise its ability to do so.

UPDATE 071011 16:33: Fixed.

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 15:41:29 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 6 kb.