Techdirt. Stories filed under "kansas" Easily digestible tech news... en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "kansas" Fri, 10 Apr 2015 13:22:51 PDT FBI Breaks Up Another Of Its Own 'ISIS' Plots, Where It Supplied Most Of The Planning Mike Masnick stopped a terror plot in Topeka, Kansas -- inspired by ISIS. Here's how the FBI describes its big arrest:
John T. Booker Jr., 20, of Topeka, Kansas, was charged in a criminal complaint unsealed today with one count of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction (explosives), one count of attempting to damage property by means of an explosive and one count of attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a designated foreign terrorist organization. Booker is expected to make an initial appearance this afternoon before U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree of the District of Kansas in federal court in Topeka.

Booker was arrested this morning near Manhattan, as he completed his final preparations to detonate a vehicle bomb targeting U.S. military personnel.
There have been a bunch of these arrests lately of random people supposedly planning to do something big to join ISIS. But, looking at the details in the actual complaint, it quickly becomes clear that this is yet another of the FBI's own plots. Yes, Booker appears to be an idiot who publicly proclaimed that he wanted to blow stuff up to join in the whole jihad thing, but his actual ability to do anything was basically non-existent until the FBI gave him two helpers who presented the details of the plan.

First, Booker did try to do something himself, but blabbed so much about it that the FBI came and spoke to him, ruining his original plan (though they didn't arrest him then):
John T. Booker, Jr., a/k/a “Mohammed Abdullah Hassan,” (“Booker”) is a 20-year-old United States citizen who is currently living in Topeka, Kansas. In or around February 2014, Booker had been recruited by the United States Army in Kansas City, Missouri, and he was scheduled to report for Basic Training on April 7, 2014.

On March 15, 2014, Booker publicly posted on Facebook: “I will soon be leaving you forever so goodbye! I’m going to wage jihad and hopes that i die.” On March 19, 2014, Booker publically posted on Facebook: “Getting ready to be killed in jihad is a HUGE adrenaline rush!! I am so nervous. NOT because I’m scared to die but I am eager to meet my lord.” That same day, the FBI became aware of Booker’s postings based on a citizen’s complaint. The FBI was able to identify Booker based on the publically available content on his Facebook account. On March 20, 2014, Booker was interviewed by FBI agents related to his Facebook postings. After being advised of and waiving his Miranda rights, Booker admitted that he enlisted in the United States Army with the intent to commit an insider attack against American soldiers like Major Nidal Hassan had done at Fort Hood, Texas. Booker stated that if he went overseas and was told to kill a fellow Muslim, he would rather turn around and shoot the person giving orders. Booker stated that he formulated several plans for committing jihad once enlisted, including firing at other soldiers while at basic training at the firing range or while at his pre-deployment military base after completing his initial military training. Booker clarified that he did not intend to kill “privates,” but that he instead wanted to target someone with power. Booker also said that he did not intend to use large guns, but instead a small gun or a sword. Booker was subsequently denied entry into the military.
Okay, so we've established that Booker is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but at least was willing to state his idiotic plans publicly and then admit them to the FBI. But other than denying him entry into the military, they didn't do anything else... other than try to set him up for a big arrest later. That's because a few months later, they sent an FBI informant to befriend Booker and urge him to move forward with his "blow shit up" plans:
Since on or about October 8, 2014, Booker has engaged with an individual who is, unbeknownst to Booker, an FBI Confidential Human Source (CHS 1). Booker has repeatedly expressed to CHS 1 his desire to engage in violent jihad on behalf of ISIL. For example, during a face to face conversation on October 10, 2014, Booker told CHS 1 in relevant part, that he: “was in jihad before, okay. I got captured. Okay, a long story short the people at the Masjid don’t like me because I support al Qa’ida openly. I’m not afraid, I was captured before . . . I was captured by FBI before . . . because I was with al Qa’ida.” Booker stated that he “joined the United States Army” and he “hadn’t really completed, I hadn’t really started . . . I was going to go in there and kill the American soldier.” Booker told CHS 1 that he dreamt of being in the Middle East, and then he showed CHS 1 a video on his phone of Muslims fighting American forces in Iraq. Booker said he dreamt about going with the fighters and wished he was with them. Booker told CHS 1 that he had heard about Americans joining ISIL and that Booker wanted to join, but he didn't know anyone who could help him do so.
So, here we have Booker admitting that he doesn't actually have the capabilities to join ISIS or do anything really. But, have no fear, because the FBI informant is there to help:
That same day, CHS 1 told Booker that he had a “cousin” (who is also a FBI Confidential Human Source, hereinafter referred to as CHS 2) who could get people overseas and asked Booker what he wanted to do. Booker answered, “Anything. Anything you think is good. I will follow you.”
So, now we've got a plot in which two of the plotters are actual FBI informants, while the only other guy is a guy who clearly has no idea what he's doing:
On or about March 9, 2015, while under FBI surveillance, CHS 1 introduced Booker to CHS 2, who he explained was a high ranking sheik planning terrorist acts in the United States.
Then, the plan is set in motion, with the informants basically directing Booker in what he should do -- saying that they would give him the equipment needed to build explosives, and that he should rent a storage space to keep the stuff:
Previously, CHS 1 told Booker that he (CHS 1) may send him some items for Booker to hold until the next time CHS 1 visited – perhaps a package or something in the mail. Booker told both CHS 1 and CHS 2 that his house was not safe to store things because he shares it with his cousin. At that point, CHS 2 suggested that Booker may want to rent a storage locker.


On or about March 25, 2015, CHS 1 met with Booker. During this meeting, CHS 1 told Booker that he had been “selected” to accompany Booker on his suicide mission. CHS 1 provided Booker with a list of supplies that they needed to purchase in order to build the bomb.
Booker even relied on the two FBI informants to build the (totally fake) bomb he was going supposedly going to use, and to give him a map of where he was to set it off:
The second storage unit held a large amount of inert explosive material that Booker understood was to be used to build their Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (“VBIED”). Pursuant to Booker’s plan, Booker understood that CHS 1 and CHS 2 would build the VBIED, Booker and CHS 1 would eventually deliver it to Fort Riley, and Booker would detonate the VBIED in a suicide attack. CHS 1 and CHS 2 then provided Booker with a map of the area of Fort Riley at Booker’s request.
And then, just this morning, one of the FBI informants was needed to tell Booker how the device worked so he could "blow it up."
On or about April. 10, 2015, Booker and CHS 1 drove to a location near Junction City, Kansas where they met CHS 2. CHS 2 met Booker and CHS 1 in the van in which CHS 2 had purportedly constructed the VBIED. CHS 2 explained the function of the inert VBIED to Booker and demonstrated how to arm the device. CHS 1 and Booker then drove the VBIED to an area near Fort Riley that Booker believed to be a little used utility gate that would allow them to enter Fort Riley undetected so that they could find an area to detonate the VBIED that would kill as many soldiers as possible. While Booker was making final connections to arm the inert VBIED at the gate, he was taken into custody without incident by members of the FBI.
And thus, he's been arrested. It seems pretty clear that he's not a fan of the US, but this story matches many previous stories of the FBI stopping its own plots, in which the people they arrest tend to be hapless individuals with no ability to carry out any sort of terrorist attack on their own... until the FBI shows up and provides them with the fake tools to do so.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:58:35 PST AT&T's Regulatory Hypocrisy On Proud Display In Kansas, Where It's Fighting To Keep The State A Broadband Backwater Karl Bode wrote but failed to pass SB 304, which, like nearly two dozen similar laws around the country, would prohibit towns and cities from wiring themselves for broadband -- even in cases where nobody else will. From the bill:
"Sec. 4. Except with regard to unserved areas, a municipality may not, directly or indirectly offer or provide to one or more subscribers, video, telecommunications or broadband service; or purchase, lease, construct, maintain or operate any facility for the purpose of enabling a private business or entity to offer, provide, carry, or deliver video, telecommunications or broadband service to one or more subscribers."
Like many of these bills, if you then look closer at the bill's definition of "unserved," you'll find it includes very expensive and capped satellite and wireless broadband, making it incredibly hard to gain approval:
"Unserved area” means one or more contiguous census blocks within the legal boundaries of a municipality seeking to provide the unserved area with video, telecommunications or broadband service, where at least nine out of 10 households lack access to facilities-based, terrestrial broadband service, either fixed or mobile, or satellite broadband service, at the minimum broadband transmission speed as defined by the FCC."
Facing an immensely uncompetitive duopoly between AT&T and former Washington Post run CableOne, the city of Chanute, Kansas has been looking to build a citywide fiber network capable of offering 1 Gbps speeds at around $40 per month. After defeating AT&T's attempt to pass new regulations hamstringing the project, Chanute now finds themselves face to face with a 1947 ma-bell era law that requires companies get permission from the Kansas Corporation Commission to sell bonds to fund such telecom projects. With the KCC likely to approve the request, AT&T lawyers have jumped in to intervene, according to the Wichita Eagle:
"Any decision made by the KCC could impact AT&T’s business operations in the area, which is why we asked to intervene in the proceeding," the company said in a written response to questions from The Eagle. “AT&T remains interested in both broadband issues and the work of the KCC."
As I've noted previously, AT&T's also in the process of going state by state paying asking state lawmakers to gut any and all remaining consumer protections (like laws requiring they continue offering 911 to the elderly) so it can back away from aging DSL markets it doesn't want to upgrade. In Kansas specifically, AT&T has promised locals they'll be awash in all manner of miracle broadband improvements, if only they eliminate the Kansas Corporation Commission’s consumer protection regulations and minimum quality-of-service standards. Well, at least the ones that apply to AT&T.

Again, just so we're clear, this is the same company that insists that absolutely any regulatory effort to protect consumers from duopoly power is the very worst sort of government over-reach, but has absolutely no qualms about using government over-reach and regulation to make sure broadband prices remain high and service quality continues to suck.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:39:00 PDT Kansas Legislative Committee Pushes Bill That Would Make It A Felony To File False Complaints Against A Police Officer Tim Cushing How can you tell if an introduced bill is a bad piece of legislation? Well, there are several indicators to look for -- overly broad language, written as a reaction to a recent tragedy -- but when a bill is referred to as the "retaliation bill" by a large majority of the press, the problems are right there on the surface. (h/t to Techdirt reader Rekrul)

The Kansas legislature's Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice recently introduced a bill with some very chilling implications for citizens.

This bill, currently stalled, would make it a felony to file a false complaint against a police officer, something that used to be handled via civil litigation. And there would be no option for filing anonymous complaints, which would further discourage the reporting of alleged police misconduct.

In addition, officers would be allowed to view the complaint and any related evidence before making a statement, giving accused officers a chance to craft narratives before issuing statements that might be contradicted by the evidence submitted. The complaint's lack of anonymity would give accused officers the name, address, phone number, etc. of their accuser, something that could easily lead to harassment. (Of course, law enforcement agencies could strip this information before presenting it to the accused officer [the bill contains no stipulation to do so], but how many here believe that would actually happen -- or that the information couldn't be accessed otherwise?)

Also problematic is the fact that the bill stipulates that "no other law enforcement agency" can open an investigation on a complaint if another agency has performed an investigation and found no evidence of wrongdoing. This would keep all investigations "in-house," which greatly contributes to the likelihood that complaints will be found false (and subsequently, result in felony charges against the filer). This would prevent agencies like the FBI and DOJ from investigating closed complaints to see if anything was missed or covered up. This stipulation would further insulate police from accountability.

The bill is so bad even the attorney for the local police union (the entity that usually works hard to restore bad cops to their former positions) found the wording somewhat problematic.


He also added that it was a bad idea to limit complaint investigations to one department, noting that previous investigations by outside agencies had led to the rooting out of bad cops who otherwise would have gone unpunished.

As it stands now, the bill is effectively dead. The coverage of the bill has been universally negative, and after its nearly one-sided showing during its floor appearance, no further discussions on the bill have been scheduled. The question remains as to why such a bill, loaded with negative side effects for the public, was ever introduced, as well as who exactly is behind it. The committee page lists several names, but the bill's sponsor is the committee itself, rather than a certain legislator. Safety in numbers applies to bad legislation, it seems. The bill seeks to out anonymous complainants, but has been shepherded into the public forum by no one in particular.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:16:00 PST Man Bravely Saves His Xbox From Burning House Timothy Geigner Look, for all you critics out there, I admit it: I love video games. They're my primary source of entertainment, since I long ago discarded regular television viewing, most music, and most movies. My entertainment quota is filled by literature and video games. But even my love for video games pales in comparison to this smitten hero from Kansas, who bravely walked out of his burning home with his most prized possession in tow: his Xbox.


Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:51:07 PDT Time Warner Cable Suddenly Forced To Compete In Kansas City; Complains Google Has 'Unfair Advantage' Tim Cushing complaining that the incentives provided to Google are "unfair."
In order to create the infrastructure for the cable and gigabit internet service, Google was given everything from free fiber, government employees, buildings, and discounted services; an agreement that a Time Warner Cable spokesman feels puts them "at a competitive advantage compared with not just us but also the other competitors in the field."
Time Warner's spokesman seems to misunderstand what the word "incentive" means. When cities attempt to lure businesses they want, they offer concessions, grants, tax breaks, etc. It's assumed that the incumbent businesses have grabbed substantial marketshare and, therefore, don't need to be given incentives to do anything more than stay. If Time Warner is upset that its new competition was given this in exchange for selecting Kansas City, it can't blame anyone else for its failure to offer better services. It certainly was in the position to do so, but it never occurred to the incumbent(s) to make any great leaps in service and speed until it was "unfairly" forced to do so.

This complaining about being forced to offer a competitive service is nauseating enough. But this sentence tops it:
He continued by stating, "We're happy to compete with Google, but we'd just like an even playing field."
No, TWC. That is absolutely the last thing you want. TWC has never been interested in "level playing fields" or "competition." In fact, it loathes competition (and innovation) so much that it's currently the target of an anti-trust investigation for its attempts to neutralize Netflix and Hulu by obtaining programming at lower prices than online providers are charged (among other things).

Hell, TWC has a long and storied history of doing whatever possible to block a level playing field even to the point of writing legislation to keep out competitors.

Time Warner is only interested in a "level playing field" if it means that everyone else has to come down to its level, rather than improving or innovating. In fact, TWC is so worried about Google's offerings actually leveling the playing field and providing real competition that it's offering rewards to city employees for information on Google's fiber rollout.
Time Warner has set up a phone hotline and an email address that will award three gift cards a week for employees that "[share] tips, rumors, and rumblings about Google Construction or launch activity..."
Still, TWC wants its undeserved place on the "gravy train," and has reached a "parity agreement" with Kansas City, MO.
In exchange for the incentives, the cities are requesting that the companies improve their community services to be on par with Google's efforts, which have resulted in free internet connections in hundreds of locations chosen by the government... The WSJ cites an unnamed source that claims Time Warner Cable has improved its service's speed and performance in the area in return for discounts that mirror Google's, as well as a partial refund of city fees that the company paid earlier this year.
"Improved speed and performance," eh? One wonders (loudly and angrily) what the hell was keeping TWC from improving speed and performance over the last several years? Perhaps it was the lack of a serious competitor and one of those famous "level" playing fields that tilts at a 45-degree tilt toward the incumbent provider. As it stands now, Google's fastest offering (up to 1 Gbps) is 950 Mbps faster than TWC's fastest offering.

Google's entrance into the broadband market should be a wake-up call for providers all over the US. Once this service is available, they'll no longer be able to get away with minimal, incremental improvements and never ending price increases. As soon as consumers have a chance to switch, they will, especially when the old school clings to things like binding arbitration agreements (a bad company's best friend) and metered broadband, rather than meeting customer expectations or improving infrastructure. 

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:22:31 PDT Wilt Chamberlain's Family Tries To Block Film About His College Years, Claiming 'Publicity Rights' Mike Masnick threatening the filmmaker if he goes ahead, claiming such things as publicity rights over Chamberlain's image (thanks to Nancy for sending this over).
“Please be advised that on December 21, 2001, the court approved that the Chamberlain Family are entitled to ‘all of the rights, titles and interests into the intellectual property and rights of publicity associated with the international sports celebrity in the name and likeness of Wilton Norman Chamberlain.’

“Kevin, therefore, I request on behalf of my family, and as outlined in our above-mentioned letters, that you do not violate these rights by pursuing the name and likeness of Wilt since you do not have permission from our family.”
We've discussed many times just how frequently publicity rights are being abused to stop basic speech, and this appears like another such case. While publicity rights depend on the specifics of state laws, it is generally not considered a violation in any way to make a film about a public figure. That's why something like The Social Network was allowed, despite Mark Zuckerberg's obviously distaste for a movie highlighting the various legal claims against him and Facebook.

Publicity rights are supposed to be about preventing someone's image from being used to endorse a product -- such as putting their image on a cereal box. According to this document (pdf), Kansas doesn't have a publicity rights law (or didn't back in 2010). So, perhaps they're claiming that some other state's laws might apply. The family appears to live in Las Vegas, and Nevada does have a publicity rights law, which extends 50 years after death -- so perhaps that's what they're relying on. Many other states don't recognize such rights after death.

Either way, this seems silly and not at all a publicity rights issue. No one is going to assume that this movie is necessarily endorsed by Chamberlain or his family, just as they don't naturally assume any sort of biopic was obviously endorsed by those the film is about (or their families). Instead, this just seems like a clear case of someone trying to use the law to censor a filmmaker. Shameful.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Thu, 3 May 2012 06:08:00 PDT Google's Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy? Leigh Beadon One of the points we're always trying to make about piracy is that it has less to do with people just wanting everything for free and more to do with people rushing to embrace the possibilities of new technology. The industry has been slow to offer products that take advantage of these possibilities, and when they do they usually cripple them and charge too much for them, because they refuse to acknowledge the impact of better distribution systems on the market. Instead of recognizing that technological capabilities dictate how they should distribute their content, they think they get to dictate how far people should utilize technology. So piracy moves in to fill the gap, offering people the sort of comprehensive, on-demand service which they know is possible but which can't be bought at any price.

An anonymous reader points us to a perfect example of the technophobic attitude that has become so ingrained in Hollywood. It starts with a story in Bloomberg Businessweek about Google's pilot project in Kansas City, where they are laying fiber to bring super-high-speed internet to the community. With 922 Mbps download speeds already available in nearly a thousand homes, the topic of piracy was inevitably raised:

[Google spokeswoman Jenna] Wandres stresses that Google Fiber isn’t meant to empower pirates: “We hope higher speeds will actually make it easier to deliver and download more authorized content,” she says. Nonetheless, Howard Gantman, spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, notes that piracy is always a concern of the entertainment industry. Google Fiber “could be a great opportunity for consumers whose access to creative content is often hampered by slow speeds,” he says. But in South Korea, “the home entertainment marketplace was decimated by digital piracy” enabled by the widespread availability of high-speed Internet.

For one thing, the statement about South Korea is incredibly flimsy. The Korean music industry thrives on high-speed internet—it grew into an economic powerhouse while the country had some of the highest and earliest broadband penetration rates (and digital piracy rates) in the world. Smart Korean entrepreneurs have figured out how to succeed in the new market. Moreover, claiming that "home entertainment" as a whole was damaged by broadband is just hubris from an industry that thinks only its own products count as "entertainment".

It seems like every Hollywood statement about new technology follows the same format. "This new thing is great, but... piracy!" The problem is that they refuse to act on the first part until someone gives them a bulletproof solution to the second part—and since such a solution does not and never will exist, they ruin every attempt at a new service with ineffective restrictions and DRM schemes. Ars Technica picked up the story and spoke further to the MPAA spokesman, getting yet another "great, but..." response:


Someone should tell Gantman that it's not "the bottom line" if you go on to add caveats and addendums. It's also interesting that he thinks blazing fast internet only "could be" good for consumers—maybe because he knows Hollywood "could" (but won't) offer them a service that fully leverages the technology. Really what's amazing about this is that the MPAA thinks anyone cares about its opinion of fiber broadband, as if the public is going to stop and think, "Gee, I guess I'll just have to wait for faster internet access while Hollywood develops better piracy controls".

The fact that the MPAA can't get through a single statement about something as clearly positive as faster internet without bringing up reservations about piracy doesn't bode well for Hollywood's future. The studios should be getting ahead of the new technology, and making sure that everyone who gets hooked up to a new fiber network is immediately greeted with a well-made, well-priced movie service that gives them a chance to test out their speedy new connection. Instead they're probably going to watch the technology develop with caution, wait for pirates to beat them to the punch, then arrive in the market with an inferior product and complaints about how they "can't compete".

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:52:00 PST Kansas Governor Apologizes After Staff Gets High School Student In Trouble For Tweet About The Governor Mike Masnick had to write an apology letter to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback for a "disparaging" tweet she sent out while on a field trip to the state capitol. Apparently, while Brownback was talking to the group of students, she sent out from her mobile phone:
She didn't actually make any comments to the Governor, and says it was just a part of a running joke she had with some friends. However, someone on Brownback's staff found the tweet and alerted school officials, who called her into the principal's office and told her that she should write an apology letter to the Governor -- due today. Sullivan thought about it and decided that she wouldn't do it, because she didn't think she should:
"I don't think I should write the letter, and I don't think it would be the best move for me," Emma Sullivan, 18, said late Sunday night. "At this time, I do not think an apology would be a sincere thing for me to do."
In response, it appears the whole story shifted in the other direction, and the one apologizing is Governor Brownback, who has said, "My staff overreacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize." Everyone involved now seems to be playing off the whole misadventure as "a lesson in social media and free speech." The school district also said that it would not send an apology of its own, and that "The issue has resulted in many teachable moments concerning the use of social media. The district does not intend to take any further action on this matter."

In the end, it seems like everyone's right that this is something of a "teachable moment," but it's still pretty crazy that it reached that level in the first place.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:44:00 PST Topeka (Sorta) Changes Its Name To Google, In Blatant Suck Up For Fiber Mike Masnick announcement that it plans to roll out super fast fiber to the home services in a few small locations, there are plenty of cities and towns hoping to be among the lucky few. But who knew it was a contest? Apparently the folks in Topeka, Kansas think that sucking up to the big G is the path to fiber optic nirvana. They've proclaimed that, for the month of March, Topeka shall be referred to as Google, Kansas. It's not a legal name change -- which (not surprisingly) would be a lot more complex, and likely wouldn't pass -- but just a proclamation that the city should be called Google for the month.

Of course, cities renaming themselves after tech companies isn't all that new. Over a decade ago, some town in Oregon renamed itself in a PR stunt by the startup (which was later bought by eBay). And, a few years ago, a small town in Texas renamed itself Dish, Texas after EchoStar's Dish Network, in exchange for every house in the town getting a free DVR and free satellite TV for 10 years. But this is the first time I've heard of a city pre-emptively (sorta) renaming itself to curry favor with a company.

But, if it works... I'm more than willing to rename my house Chez Google, if it means 1 gigabit per second fiber. Hell, I'm pretty sure I could convince all of the neighbors on my street to rename our street Google Ave. Just let us know...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story