(Image is in the Public Domain)

Finally, some federal guidelines for e-voting have been released. Of course, they're voluntary so we'll see if they actually do any good.

(Image is used under the Pixabay license)

There's noise about the government trying to secure the right to read anyone's e-mails any time without any kind of warrant. Since this is still in the works and nothing concrete has happened yet, I'll wait before saying much about it. You're free to read up on the issue using that link though.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 4.0 [SRC][Mod])

Schneier has a great summary article of how citizen informants combined with officials who won't take responsibility for over-reacting over the last few years is making America look dumber and dumber every day.

Here's an excerpt:

Causing a city-wide panic over blinking signs, a guy with a pellet gun, or stray backpacks, is not evidence of doing a good job: it's evidence of squandering police resources. Even worse, it causes its own form of terror, and encourages people to be even more alarmist in the future. We need to spend our resources on things that actually make us safer, not on chasing down and trumpeting every paranoid threat anyone can come up with.

(Image is in the Public Domain)

I don't know what authority or notoriety this group has, but if you want to have a say in what their recommendations for e-voting guidelines are, now's your chance.

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

Blackwater, a private security firm (read: mercenaries) is in trouble for having shot some people (I apologize for the huge over-simplification).

Anyway, the State Department is offering them immunity. Here's the problem: immunity means that it doesn't matter if they're guilty or innoncent, there will be no consequences for their actions. Even if you were to assume that the Blackwater guards were put there with little actual training and couldn't be held to the same standards as our military, there should be consequences for the people who made the decision to send them there in the first place.

Finally! Some guts!

Senator Chris Dodd will block the FISA renewal bill as long as it grants retroactive immunity for their involvement in the illegal spying. Of course, the FISA bill should have been blocked anyway. I didn't read through it, but Bush signed it.

George W. Bush

(Image used under: Fair Use doctrine)

Bush is threatening to veto any wire-tapping bill that comes to him without language that retroactively provides immunity to the telecommunication companies (like AT&T) for their part in the illegal spying fiasco.

Has anyone else noticed or is refusing to sign a law because of a provision that technically has nothing to do with said law considered blackmail? If it's not, it's certainly a tantrum at the least.

George W. Bush

(Image used under: Fair Use doctrine)

No I'm not talking about the illegal spying, but the case of the Al-Queda video that was discovered before it was publicly released. The problem is that the disclosure of the video alerted Al-Queda that their networks had been compromised. While I read about this news yesterday, what I didn't know was that it was the Bush administration who is responsible for the leak.

"Often controversial, seldom liked. The FCC."

(Image is in the Public Domain)

Sometimes it seems that the Government Accountability Office is the only one trying to do it's job. In their report on the Federal Communications Commission, they state that the agency favors lobbyists over citizens in that lobbyists are kept up to date on FCC actions while citizen groups were not.

Granted, they need to do more stuff like this on their own instead of waiting to be asked, but at least they aren't towing the same line that all the other corrupt and inept agencies are.

AT&T

(Image used under: Creative Commons 2.0 [SRC])

Now that Congress has officially started to investigate the role of major telcom companies in illegal spying, the question is, "will anything finally come of it?"

At this stage, they've only sent letters asking about their involvement and whether they knowingly broke the law under the promise of protection from litigation from the executive branch. If they actually answer truthfully, things should get interesting.