Anti-Spam Lawfare

It sounds like some Computer Scientists…

A team of computer scientists at two University of California campuses has been looking deeply into the nature of spam, and they think found a ‘choke point’ [PDF] that could greatly reduce the flow of spam…If a handful of companies like these refused to authorize online credit card payments to the merchants, ‘you’d cut off the money that supports the entire spam enterprise,’ said one of the scientists. [Link]

…has caught up to my thinking…

Often much of the cost of an information security incident falls not onto the party that is responsible for providing the Security but onto third parties. While the enterprise/individual that has the incident may incur costs, much of the cost of this InfoSec externality is put onto others (organizations/individuals/taxpayers).

What is lacking is proper incentives. By incentives I do not mean government regulations or criminal statutes.

I mean money. Getting money is a good incentive. Avoiding loosing money is a good incentive. Not having your Balance Sheet, Income Statement, and Cash Flow Statement be effected by information security loss is a good incentive.

What is needed is Information Security Lawfare.

If an organization or individual deploys information technology in such a way that normal best practices are not followed (read: Duty of Care) and is subsequently used as part of an information security incident, those effected by that information Security incident should sue for a Tort Remedy.[link]

Why leave Lawfare just to the bad guys?


I Watch this and think…send in the National Guard…

…and clear out all of the grounds of the Leftists and throw in jail any who resist or do not comply.



Fucking Leftists. I am embarrassed for my home state of Wisconsin.

We shouldn’t pretend the Left and their activist vanguard and their willing public union dupes are just practicing democracy. They are at their very core anti-democratic. They are the problem.

Enough is enough.

Crush them.

Bust their Unions.

Sue their orgs and individuals for damages. Lawfare, fuck yeah. Bankrupt them.

Impeach the WI Dem Senators who have fled the state.

Recall any republican legislator who caves.

Fuck them.

Video Link HT

Interesting new-ish Lawfare/Security Blog:

Thanks to Eddie for the the link to

“What is Lawfare?”

Here is a site on a topic that is of much interest to me – The Lawfare Project:

What is Lawfare?

Lawfare: The Use of the Law as a Weapon of War

Lawfare denotes the use of the law as a weapon of war, or more specifically, the abuse of the law and legal systems for strategic political or military ends.

The Lawfare Project’s concentration is on the negative manipulation of laws to achieve a purpose other than, or contrary to that for which those laws were originally enacted.

The scope of the Lawfare Project’s focus is on lawfare as it is used (via the Western legal system, nationally and internationally) to:

   1. Thwart free speech about issues of national security and public concern,
   2. De-legitimize the sovereignty of democratic states, and
   3. Frustrate the ability of democracies to defend themselves against terrorism.

The primary goals of the Lawfare Project are: (i) To raise awareness about the phenomenon (and specific instances) of lawfare assuring the subject matter receive the credibility and immediacy that it warrants, (ii) facilitate (legal and non-legal) responses to the perversion and misapplication of international & national human rights law, (iii) identify and mobilize human and institutional resources, and (iv) bring diverse and interested parties together in a common forum to discuss the threat.

Lawfare’s central issues:

    * What legal limits should be placed on those who fight the war against terrorism and what rights should be granted to the terrorists we are fighting?
    *What role, if any, does international law play in the determination of a sovereign state’s ability to act within and without its territory?
    *Where does the power of a state end and the power of an international court or tribunal begin?
    *What consists of incitement to immediate violence and what is legitimate criticism of religion? Should hate speech be outlawed?
    *When an international tribunal displays political or other bias in its deliberations, is the state’s sovereign control abrogated?
    *Does the Universal Jurisdiction trend go against our national security interests? If Universal Jurisdiction is a concept that should be retained, what limits should be applied?
    *From where do courts in Spain and the Netherlands derive the authority to unilaterally grant themselves universal jurisdiction and the power to adjudicate over other nation-states?
    *To what extent must classified material be released to protect the rights of terrorists that allege torture? Where should terrorists and unlawful combatants be tried and imprisoned and under what law? Must the “underwear bomber” be read his Miranda rights?
    *Should a United Nations voting bloc comprised largely of undemocratic member states dictate international human rights norms?
    *What is the source of the bias evident in many human rights reports and in certain tribunals?

Case examples of Lawfare:

    *Al Qaeda manuals that instruct captured militants to file claims of torture in order to reposition themselves as victims in the eyes of the law and media.
    *Attempts by terrorist entities such as Hamas to impede the free movement of democratic state officials and achieve legitimacy by hiring lawyers and instituting “human rights” litigation abroad.
    *Efforts at the United Nations to exclude attacks on civilians from any international definition of the crime of terrorism, so long as the civilians are citizens of what is termed an “occupying power.”
    *Predatory defamation and “hate speech” lawsuits filed against anyone who speaks publicly about radical Islam, terrorism and its sources of financing.
    *Unilateral determinations of local/national courts to exert universal jurisdiction over heads of states, charging war crimes, including efforts to charge Israeli and US government officials with war crimes in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Spain.
    *The International Court of Justice’s ruling on the legality of Israel’s security barrier, which pointedly ignored the fact that the barrier contributed to a sharp decline in terrorism attacks, and when it was unclear whether the court had jurisdiction to consider the issue in the first place.
    *The lack of legal accountability demanded of theocratic states that recruit their own children as suicide bombers and child soldiers.
    * The resurgence of international and national blasphemy laws (at the United Nations and in Europe.)

Check it out.

About the DOJ hiring former terrorist lawyers to be DOJ Lawyers

I have read with disgust the last few days about President Obama’s Justice Department  having hired quite a few attorneys that had represented Gitmo detainees directly or had submitted friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the detainees.

The justification of this seems to be well that is what defense attorneys do, they defend bad guys, so this is no big deal….move along…nothing to see here.

That’s crap though.

How many former attorney who had clients involved with organized crime have been hired by the DOJ or appointed as US Attorneys over the years? I would assume 0.

This is because once an attorney becomes an attorney for Organized Crime practitioners they become fundamentally corrupted and can no longer be trusted to represent the interest of the US public. These OC Lawyers can still practice law, they just can not be prosecutors EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIMES THEMSELVES.

It is the same thing with lawyers for terrorists.

By having volunteered to become advocates for the interest of terrorists – the interests of enemies of the American Nation – those attorneys can no longer be trusted to represent the interest of the US public.

It is pretty simple. Those lawyers are tainted. I am not saying their law licenses should be pulled, but they should not be DOJ lawyers.

Interesting Policing Idea (with COIN implications): “The interesting twist is that the authorities are asking the courts to seize the IP of the biker club — specifically, their trademarked name “Mongols”

Found on SlashDot:

…a Federal raid on a California-based motorcycle club, the Mongols, on charges “ranging from murder and robbery to extortion, money laundering, gun trafficking and drug dealing.” The interesting twist is that the authorities are asking the courts to seize the IP of the biker club — specifically, their trademarked name “Mongols.” “Federal agents and police in seven states arrested more than 60 members of the Mongols motorcycle gang on Tuesday in a sweep that also targeted for the first time an outlaw group’s ‘intellectual property,’ prosecutors said. The arrests cap a three-year undercover investigation in which US agents posed as gang members and their girlfriends to infiltrate the group, even submitting to polygraph tests administered by the bikers … [T]he name ‘Mongols,’ which appears on the gang’s arm patch insignia, was trademarked by the group. The indictment seeks a court order outlawing further use of the name, which would allow any police officer ‘who sees a Mongol wearing this patch … to stop that gang member and literally take the jacket right off his back‘ …”

This is an interesting twist on getting Lawfare-y for Domestic COIN/4GW.

Attention Congress: Impeach Judge Ricardo Urbina Now and finally Declare War on Al-Quada

From Hot Air:

A federal judge has ordered the release of 17 Chinese Uighers detained at Guantanamo Bay, and specifically into the US. Judge Ricardo Urbina demanded that the federal government produce them in his courtroom by Friday, and refused to stay his order for an appeal.
He said he would then release them into the custody of 17 Uighur families living in the Washington area.
The seventeen men were captured in Pakistan after fleeing Afghanistan during the 2001-2 campaign to topple the Taliban and fight al-Qaeda. The judge said that the government had unreliable evidence to show them as a threat to the United States. If living in terrorist camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan doesn’t provide prima facie evidence of just that kind of threat, it’s difficult to know what Urbina needs.
This is what we can expect when the judiciary decides to usurp the role of the executive branch in waging war. Urbina ruled that the detention of the Uighers violates the Constitution with their indefinite detention, but that doesn’t apply to unlawful combatants of any war, and never has. We would be within our rights to hold prisoners of war until an end to hostilities, and Urbina has now given these terrorists a better deal than POWs get.

There are US Citizens who are completely okay with the destruction of the US. Judge Urbina is one of them.

Congress needs to do three things right now:

1) Begin impeachment hearings on Urbina. Boot his ass from the bench.

2) Pass a resolution removing or moving jurisdiction away from Urbina on this case (I am pretty sure this can be done)

3) Pass a resolution declaring that a state of war has existed between the United States and Al-Quada (and its affiliates) since 9/11/2001. This needs to be done to help combat the Lawfare being practiced against the US.

With a real Declaration of War against Al-Quada and its affiliates, the Executive branch can extend POW status to those unlawful combatants captured on the battlefield since it now appears that domestic anti-American elements have been successful in granting the unlawful combatants rights and privileges above and beyond that of POWs.

Update: HotAir now reports the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an injunction blocking the release.