Democratic Sen. Al Franken, Minnesota, fired off a letter to Apple CEO Steve Jobs late Wednesday demanding to know why the company's iPhones and iPads are reportedly compiling secret data tracking customers' whereabouts when they use or carry their devices.
A self-described hacker and a former Apple employee say they recently discovered secret lines of code in Apple's latest operating system known as IOS-4 and, in an article released Wednesday, say it contains data showing consumers' whereabouts every time they use or even just carry a web enabled iPhone or iPad.
The duo also just released an application that allows users to see what information has been collected on their devices.
In his letter, Franken says the, "existence of this information – stored in an unencrypted format – raises serious privacy concerns." He adds, "Anyone who gains access to this single file could likely determine the location of a user's home, the businesses he frequents, the doctors he visits, the schools his children attend, and the trips he has taken."
The Minnesota Democrat wants to know why Apple is collecting the data, how it is generated, why it's not encrypted, and why Apple customers, "were never affirmatively informed of the collection and retention of their location data."
Franken also asks Jobs to explain who this information has been disclosed to, including Apple.
I don't have an iPhone, having opted for the Droid, but I'm doubtful that Google is free of this kind of tracking either.
Discoverers Alasdair Allan and Pete Warden discuss how they uncovered the sneaky code.
I have high hopes for Sen. Al Franken, who never stops fighting for the things he believes in. How refreshing that a freshman Senator refuses to shut up and sit down, instead putting himself in the forefront of progressive fights:
Republican senators and conservative jurists found themselves on the defensive after Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) blasted "conservative activism" on federal courts.
Franken, in a major speech Thursday evening before the American Constitution Society, sought to set the stage for a summer confirmation battle in the Senate over President Barack Obama's pick, Elena Kagan, to join the Supreme Court.
The first-term senator launched a full-throated attack on originalism, the judicial philosophy often upheld by conservatives as an example for model nominees for the federal courts.
"Originalism isn’t a pillar of our constitutional history. It’s a talking point," Franken said, adding a jab at Chief Justice John Roberts for his famous comparison between judges and baseball umpires during Roberts's confirmation hearings.
"How ridiculous," Franken said. "Judges are nothing like umpires."
The Senate is set to take up the Kagan nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which Franken serves, later this month.
With the battle over Kagan and other judicial nominees having stalled in the Senate, Franken also took a moment to castigate GOP filibusters of Obama's court picks.
"The Republican obstruction that is standing between you and the work you’ve agreed to do for your country is unacceptable. And we will continue to fight it," Franken said, apologizing to Goodwin Liu and Dawn Johnsen, the president's picks for a circuit court spot and director of the Office of Legal Counsel, respectively, who were both in the audience.
I'm so glad that Sen. Al Franken is standing up against this merger. This is a bad move for democracy in so many ways, and he's pulling out all the stops to mobilize supporters. He sent out this email yesterday:
You might have seen in the news, on Twitter, or on Facebook recently that I'm opposing the NBC/Comcast merger in its current form. I wanted to write you today to explain why, and to ask for your help.
I have some experience in this industry, and I flat-out don't trust Comcast and NBC to operate in the best interest of consumers in Minnesota and around the country when it comes to this merger. Combining a company who provides programming and one who provides the pipes that carry said programming would almost certainly be a raw deal for consumers and independent content producers alike.
I came to Washington to stand up to the lopsided influence of special interests on behalf of middle class Minnesota families, and opposing this merger is an opportunity to do just that. And as much as I don't trust Comcast and NBC to be honest brokers on this deal, I am trusting you to help me build support for my positions on issues like this one. And as usual, by 'support' I mean 'money.'
I'm not afraid of standing up to these guys -- as I said it's why I ran for the Senate. But I also realize that given the recent Citizens United decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, corporations can now turn around and spend millions running ads telling voters I want to blow up their T.V. -- a patently untrue claim that they've got no research to support, by the way. But I don't need them on my side. I want you on my side.
Fights like this one are more than worth having, they're essential to keeping our democracy representative of people instead of corporate entities. I realize that with a lot of my positions, I'm inviting special interest groups to spend a lot of money to defeat me down the road. As long as I have you standing with me, that's ok by me -- because corporations getting their way isn't some bad medicine consumers need to swallow -- we can stand, fight, and win.
Thanks for your time today, for all you've done, and all you'll do.
In the past week, I've heard of other Senate and House versions of a bill forbidding campaign contributions from foreign-owned companies (and in one case, companies that have even one foreign stockholder).
This one's from Sen. Al Franken, announced today:
"Since 1974, federal law has banned foreign companies from giving or spending in American elections. Nothing in our current laws, however, explicitly prohibits foreign companies from creating American subsidiaries or getting control of American companies and using them to flood the airwaves in support of their preferred candidates. Citizens United gives companies unlimited power to do that - and does not distinguish between American companies and companies that are owned or controlled by foreign interests.
"I was pleased to hear the President recognize the need for this bill in his address last night," said Sen. Franken. "I think we can all agree that foreign interests have no place in American elections."
The "American Elections Act of 2010" was developed in coordination with Professor David Schultz of Hamline University School of Business in Minnesota.
"The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United was an attack on democracy and fair elections," said Professor Schultz. "It undid laws seeking to regulate corporations across the country and in Minnesota that go back over 60 years. As a result of it corporate money will flood into Minnesota, threatening the basic integrity of our elections and the power of citizens to control their own government. Senator Franken's bill is an important first step in addressing Citizens United and preventing money from further destroying our elections in Minnesota."
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Wednesday ripped the Senate's "newest members" for the lack of comity in the upper chamber.
In a floor speech Wednesday night, Dodd said there is "nothing wrong" with partisanship, but added he has "been deeply disturbed by some of the [healthcare] debate I have heard, usually from newer members, usually those who have been here one, two, three years, who do not have an appreciation of what this chamber means and how we work together."
Dodd did not name names, and spokesmen for the Connecticut senator did not respond to requests for comment.
[...] During his speech on Wednesday, Dodd repeatedly revisited his disappointment with the newest members of the Senate: "It is always the newest members who fail to understand how the Senate has worked for more than two centuries. We need to get back to that sense of civility once again ... Even though we have had very strong disagreements, I never once in my life in this chamber ever questioned the patriotic intentions of any member ... the idea you challenge another's patriotism, honesty, their integrity, does a great disservice to this institution, in my view."
He later added, "Again, I regret sometimes the newer members who fail to understand the importance of maintaining that which our Founders envisioned when they created this institution."
Yes, Sen. Dodd, the same Founders who were so angry over their treatment by the crown that they started a violent revolution were certainly much more concerned about manners. Tarring and feathering was simply an elaborate social ritual!
Sen. Dodd is upset about this, and rightfully so. It seems that Sen. Al Franken has this upsetting habit of demanding information from Republicans, and even mocking them when they evade him. One of them apparently went whining to Sen. Dodd and asked him to chastise the horrid Franken.
In case you didn't know, rudeness about political ideology that destroyed this country is on a par - nay, far exceeds the misdeeds of those questioned.
Despite the current constitutional crisis, despite the abandonment of every principle that truly made us the land of the free, the Beltway contingent still believes the problem is merely one of etiquette.
But really, who am I to argue? Maybe they have something here. I’m partial to something I once read in a Regency novel (Jane Austen, I believe). When a societal outcast whose behavior was quite beyond the pale was presumptuous enough to present his hand to you in public, the proper response was to extend to him or her only your pinky.
Get it? You’re such a lowlife, you’re not even deserving of a handshake! I spit on your vileness – in the most polite possible way! I fling my pinky at the likes of you!
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that this just might work. Think about it: You’re at a Georgetown cocktail party, and Alberto Gonzales is making small talk by the shrimp bowl. “Your name?” he says, extending his hand.
This is the man who’s decimated the Bill of Rights, mind you. What to do? Do you rip off your shirt, revealing a Code Pink T-shirt and embarrassing the rest of the guests with your sheer crassness – or do you extend your pinky? (Oh, I think you already know the answer.)
Say you’re at a speakers panel somewhere and someone invited Donald Rumsfeld. You’re in the receiving line afterward and you’re getting a little weirded out, yes? Well, you have a few options here. Think it through: If you get into a loud shouting match over the seemingly pointless deaths of soldiers and civilians in Iraq, or threw a vial of pig’s blood on his French handmade shirt, what real impact will you have? (Not to mention, it’s terribly déclassé.) Rummy will just tune you out and everyone else will pretend they didn’t hear you.
Ah, but if you extend your pinky, you’ve said it all – in the most genteel way possible.
Yes, while we may eventually live in a nation of radically reduced liberties, a broken economy and a state of perpetual war, we will have the satisfaction of knowing when the going got rough, we didn’t descend to their level.
We did the right thing. We extended our pinkies, thus earning the thanks of a grateful Village.
Or if that doesn't appeal to you, Sen. Dodd, you could always tell your lobbyist friends to go screw them themselves and vote on behalf of the taxpayers... just kidding!
This is infuriating. If there was any doubt in your mind as to whose side the political establishment is on, this should settle it:
An amendment that would prevent the government from working with contractors who denied victims of assault the right to bring their case to court is in danger of being watered down or stripped entirely from a larger defense appropriations bill.
Multiple sources have told the Huffington Post that Sen. Dan Inouye, a longtime Democrat from Hawaii, is considering removing or altering the provision, which was offered by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and passed by the Senate several weeks ago.
Inouye's office, sources say, has been lobbied by defense contractors adamant that the language of the Franken amendment would leave them overly exposed to lawsuits and at constant risk of having contracts dry up. The Senate is considering taking out a provision known as the Title VII claim, which (if removed) would allow victims of assault or rape to bring suit against the individual perpetrator but not the contractor who employed him or her.
"The defense contractors have been storming his office," said a source with knowledge of the situation. "Inouye either will get the amendment taken out altogether, or water it down significantly. If they water it down, they will take out the Title VII claims. This means that in discrimination cases, they will still force you into a secret forced arbitration on KBR's (or other contractors') own terms -- with your chances of prevailing practically zero. The House seems to be very supportive of the original Franken amendment and all in line, but their hands are tied since it originated in the Senate. And since Inouye runs the show on this bill, he can easily take it out to get Republicans and the defense contractors off his back, which looks increasingly likely."
A Democratic aide on the Hill, also with knowledge of the situation, confirmed the account, as did a source who works on defense contracting matters outside of Congress. "The contractors are putting on a full-court press on this amendment... they are all doing it," said the latter source.
Rookie Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) passed an amendment to a defense bill this week that would withhold government contracts from organizations like KBR if they restrict employees from taking rape and sexual assault cases to court.
Thirty Republican senators voted against Al Franken's amendment, thus showing their support for gang rape by government contractors. And may I say, I'm not surprised:
In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Franken said:
The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law … And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. … The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen.
On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken responded, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment would defund any contractor that refuses to give a victim of rape their day in court.”
In the end, Franken won the debate. His amendment passed by a 68-30 vote, earning the support of 10 Republican senators including that of newly-minted Florida Sen. George LeMieux. “He did what a senator should do, which was he was working it,” LeMieux said in praise of Franken. “He was working for his amendment.”
Appearing with Franken after the vote, an elated Jones expressed her deep appreciation. “It means the world to me,” she said of the amendment’s passage. “It means that every tear shed to go public and repeat my story over and over again to make a difference for other women was worth it.”
