Previously, I have pointed out how the Associated Press misrepresents their stories (see my blog post here).  Well, not surprisingly, they continue to do so.  Observe the following headline: Officer wrecks squad car 29 minutes into job

So, what are we to expect from this story?  On whom does the fault for the accident fall?  The police officer?  Well, let's read the story, then, and see if we can't find the truth (inasmuch as AP cares to report such):

Jul 16, 2:06 AM (ET) HOBART, Ind. (AP) - Police officer Tim Pochron's first day on the job went poorly: Less than a half-hour into it, his squad car was wrecked in a crash.

Pochron was inside his house at 12:29 a.m. Monday when someone hit his new squad car parked outside, as well as a tree, police said.

Oh, so it wasn't the police officer's fault?  How were we to know that based on the headline?  But wait, there's more:

The driver tested positive for drugs, was arrested and taken to a hospital, police said.

Not only was the police officer not at fault (heck, he wasn't even in the car!), but the one who caused all of the ruckus tested positive for drugs.  Imagine that.

I have a better headline for you AP: Driver under influence of narcotics crashes into parked police cruiser.

Honesty is usually the best policy.  Somehow, I'm not so sure that the Associated Press even has a policy.

Headline from the Associated Press today (July 10, 2008): "Bush readies pen; Relishes signing wiretap bill"

Relishes?  What newsworthy purpose does that adjective serve in that lead?  It's as if the AP envisions the President sitting at his desk, drooling with rabid anticipation while waiting for the bill to arrive from Congress.  The article starts:

President Bush is poised to sign a bill that overhauls the bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and grants immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the U.S. spy on Americans in suspected terrorism cases.

How incredibly misleading.  Allow me to do some simple research; something that the AP appears reluctant to do.  A simple Google search on FISA can easily take one to the US Code in question.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

Emphasis mine.  Taking a look at section 1801 for the definitions:

§ 1801. Definitions
As used in this subchapter:
(a) “Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;

Nowhere does this Title mention anything about American nationals.  The administration's "spying", by way of FISA, in no way targets citizens of the United States.  Not that the reporter took any time to research this fact-- that would not mesh with the obligatory anti-Bush bias that the mainstream media has been promoting over the last eight years.

It is no wonder that the MSM has lost much of its credibility.

It is absolutely astonishing to me to see what some people will produce on the Internet.  YouTube, Google Video and Facebook are but a few examples.  People are posting stuff to their sites without a care in the world for their privacy.  It is now more the "Me" Generation than it has ever been.  Fifteen minutes of fame forever captured on the back-end by some ISP's server.  And fame does have its price.

Recently, Viacom has sued Google over copyright infringements for videos that have been posted on YouTube.  The latest results are that Google must turn over to Viacom the usernames and IP addresses of users who have viewed these videos (see story here).  Google, in response, has updated their services to include a privacy statement of sorts.  The reason?  According to Brian Kraemer's blog at crn.com:

...it does appear that Google realizes that holding as much private information as they do -- often to the chagrin of users -- does pose a risk to people using the search engine and the other services they offer.

And it took a $1 billion (USD) lawsuit to figure this out? 

Nevermind about the average home-user of Google and YouTube.  What about these other services that Google is offering?  Gmail is one of the most popular on-line email applications around.  Many small companies use Gmail as their business email system.  What privacy are they ensured?  Furthermore, would you trust Google with your personal health information (which includes private information about you-- things like address, social security number and so on)?  Well, thanks to Google Health, you can place all of your medical history in one easily accessible place!  And, since Google is not a health provider per se, they are not constrained by certain health industry regulations like HIPAA for example.

The penchant for storing vast amounts of personally identifiable information without regulation is incredible.  According to the USDOJ: National Criminal Justice Reference Service, in 2004*:

• In 2004, 3.6 million households, representing 3% of the households in the United States, discovered that at least one member of the household had been the victim of identity theft during the previous six months. 
• Households headed by persons age 18-24, those in urban or suburban areas, and those in the highest income bracket ($75,000 or more) were the most likely to experience identity theft.  Victimization did not differ by race or ethnicity.
• 3 in 10 households experiencing any type of identity theft discovered it by missing money or noticing unfamiliar charges on an account; almost 1 in 4 were contacted about late or unpaid bills.
• About two-thirds of households experiencing identity theft reported some type of a monetary loss as a result of theft.  The average loss was $1,290. Some households for which misuse was still ongoing at the time of the interview may have continued to suffer losses.
• About 1 in 6 victimized households had to pay higher interest rates as the result of identity theft, and 1 in 9 households were denied phone or utility service. Households were equally likely to be turned down for insurance or pay higher rates, be the subject of a civil suit or judgment, or be the subject of a criminal investigation (7%, 5%, and 4%, respectively).

Email, phishing and other scams notwithstanding, do we really need to make things easier for nefarious people to steal everything we own and destroy our lives?  YouTube was created in 2005, a year after the DOJ statistics cited above-- how much higher must these incidents be by now?

Protect and educate yourself in your online browsing habits.  The DOJ has a website dedicated to protecting yourself from identity theft, which you can find here.  Think before you post or send that email.  Decide whether or not the entire Internet really needs to see those videos of your birthday party.  Fifteen minutes of fame for the potential lifetime of regret?  Is the price really worth it?

After this Viacom/Google battle, where does it end?  The RIAA is subpoenaing ISPs for their customers and IP addresses so that they can take legal action against copyright violators.  When it comes down to it, are you ready for the Internet police to come knocking at your door?


*Findings, as published in the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) publication, Identity Theft, 2004 (2006), represent 6-month prevalence estimates and are drawn from interviews conducted from July to December 2004.

Ok, so North Korea imploded their nuclear cooling tower.  Big deal.  According to the accolades from the press:

The gray cooling tower crumbled behind billowing dust clouds in seconds Friday, reducing the structure at North Korea's nuclear reactor into a pile of rubble. It was a choreographed show by the communist regime meant to affirm an intention to stop making atomic bombs.

From a distance, smiling diplomats from the United States and other nations snapped photos of the blast that destroyed part of the heart of the North's nuclear weapons program.

Had North Korea continued along their path of making more nuclear material, the US military would have willingly "imploded" the reactor with a surgical strike.  Heck, they'd probably have done it for free.  None of this amounts to a hill of beans, really, since the North Korean government hasn't really come completely clean with their program.

North Korea's declaration does not address its alleged uranium enrichment program or suspicions of its nuclear proliferation to other countries, such as Syria.

The declaration, which was delivered six months later than the country promised and has not yet been released publicly, is said to only give the overall figure for how much plutonium was produced at Yongbyon - but no details of bombs that may have been made.

Experts believe North Korea has produced up to 110 pounds of weapons-grade plutonium, enough for as many as 10 nuclear bombs.

So, what have we really gained?  Why has the US decided to lift sanctions?  Has this extended action really been a deterrent?

Big deal.