Earlier today I noticed something funny. My Google profile picture — the picture associated with my Gmail account, my GChat account, my Google+ account, etc — had vanished. A bug? Nope.

It turns out, Google — without telling me — went into my account and deleted my profile picture.

See “Dear Google+” for the details of why MG Siegler’s picture looks like this:

Yet another reason that we, retro-style, run our own blogs.

Imagine if the US government, with no notice or warning, raided a small but popular magazine’s offices over a Thanksgiving weekend, seized the company’s printing presses, and told the world that the magazine was a criminal enterprise with a giant banner on their building. Then imagine that it never arrested anyone, never let a trial happen, and filed everything about the case under seal, not even letting the magazine’s lawyers talk to the judge presiding over the case. And it continued to deny any due process at all for over a year, before finally just handing everything back to the magazine and pretending nothing happened. I expect most people would be outraged. I expect that nearly all of you would say that’s a classic case of prior restraint, a massive First Amendment violation, and exactly the kind of thing that does not, or should not, happen in the United States.

But, in a story that’s been in the making for over a year, and which we’re exposing to the public for the first time now, this is exactly the scenario that has played out over the past year — with the only difference being that, rather than “a printing press” and a “magazine,” the story involved “a domain” and a “blog.”

Read the whole thing at “Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details…“

They are described in one July 2011 paper by sociologist Patrick Gillham called, “Securitizing America.” During the 1960s, police used what was called “escalated force” to stop protesters.

“Police sought to maintain law and order often trampling on protesters’ First Amendment rights, and frequently resorted to mass and unprovoked arrests and the overwhelming and indiscriminate use of force,” Gillham writes and TV footage from the time attests. This was the water cannon stage of police response to protest.

But by the 1970s, that version of crowd control had given rise to all sorts of problems and various departments went in “search for an alternative approach.” What they landed on was a paradigm called “negotiated management.” Police forces, by and large, cooperated with protesters who were willing to give major concessions on when and where they’d march or demonstrate. “Police used as little force as necessary to protect people and property and used arrests only symbolically at the request of activists or as a last resort and only against those breaking the law,” Gillham writes.

That relatively cozy relationship between police and protesters was an uneasy compromise that was often tested by small groups of “transgressive” protesters who refused to cooperate with authorities. They often used decentralized leadership structures that were difficult to infiltrate, co-opt, or even talk with. Still, they seemed like small potatoes.

Then came the massive and much-disputed 1999 WTO protests. Negotiated management was seen to have totally failed and it cost the police chief his job and helped knock the mayor from office. “It can be reasonably argued that these protests, and the experiences of the Seattle Police Department in trying to manage them, have had a more profound effect on modern policing than any other single event prior to 9/11,” former Chicago police officer and Western Illinois professor Todd Lough argued.

Former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper gives his perspective in “Paramilitary Policing From Seattle to Occupy Wall Street“:

“We have to clear the intersection,” said the field commander. “We have to clear the intersection,” the operations commander agreed, from his bunker in the Public Safety Building. Standing alone on the edge of the crowd, I, the chief of police, said to myself, “We have to clear the intersection.”

Why?

Because of all the what-ifs. What if a fire breaks out in the Sheraton across the street? What if a woman goes into labor on the seventeenth floor of the hotel? What if a heart patient goes into cardiac arrest in the high-rise on the corner? What if there’s a stabbing, a shooting, a serious-injury traffic accident? How would an aid car, fire engine or police cruiser get through that sea of people? The cop in me supported the decision to clear the intersection. But the chief in me should have vetoed it. And he certainly should have forbidden the indiscriminate use of tear gas to accomplish it, no matter how many warnings we barked through the bullhorn.

My support for a militaristic solution caused all hell to break loose. Rocks, bottles and newspaper racks went flying. Windows were smashed, stores were looted, fires lighted; and more gas filled the streets, with some cops clearly overreacting, escalating and prolonging the conflict. The “Battle in Seattle,” as the WTO protests and their aftermath came to be known, was a huge setback—for the protesters, my cops, the community.

Product reviews on Amazon for the Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream pepper spray are funny, as is the Pepper Spraying Cop Tumblr feed.

But we have a real problem here. It’s not the pepper spray that makes me want to cry, it’s how mutually-reinforcing up a set of interlocking systems have become. It’s the police thinking they can arrest peaceful people for protesting, or for taking video of them It’s a court system that’s turned “deference” into a spineless art, even when it’s Supreme Court justices getting shoved aside in their role as legal observers. It’s a political system where we can’t even agree to ban the TSA, or work out a non-arbitrary deal on cutting spending. It’s a set of corporatist best practices that allow the system to keep on churning along despite widespread revulsion.

So what do we do about it? Civil comments welcome. Venting welcome. Just keep it civil with respect to other commenters.

Image: Pike Floyd, by Kosso K

And so today I’d like to talk a little about the extraordinary events in the Arab world over the last six months. When Muhammad Al Bouazizi set himself on fire, it was unlikely that he knew that his actions would set in motion events including the downfall of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments, a civil war in Lybia, and a revolt against King Assad in Syria. (Yes, I know that’s not his official title, but Presidents don’t inherit the title from their fathers.)

It’s easy to assert that these are American values rising up in the Arab world, or that Twitter or Facebook are somehow central. I don’t want to be so facile.

What is happening is that the Egyptians are struggling to force a new reality of law onto their current military government, with a release of protestors, and end to torture of prisoners and especially the sexual abuse of women prisoners. They are working to ensure that they have free and fair elections as soon as possible.

The Libyans are engaged in an all-out civil war. Colonel Khadafi, accused kleptocrat and now wanted war criminal, has lots of money, and repeated NATO attempts to kill him have failed. (I think these are legitimate attempts-he’s a military officer, and killing him as part of a military operation would be a legitimate act of war. If he had a reasonable separation and a military commander, then it would be assassination.)

The Syrians are engaged in an all-out revolt against their King, with little notice or support from the wider world. The same situation applied in Yemen, except their King claimed that title, and he’s now on life support in Saudi Arabia. As an aside, when the only place that will take you in doesn’t let women drive, you’re on the wrong side of history.

So for all this chaos, I’m optimistic for the Arab peoples. Their struggles to build socieities will be hard. They will have detours. Their first attempts to build societies after throwing off their Kings will be troublesome. Much like after we threw out the British, we had our Articles of Confederation, we had our whiskey and Shay’s rebellions, and we even had a civil war over issues that our founding fathers couldn’t hammer out themselves.

So I don’t expect what the Arab states are going through will be simple or easy. But I do know that tens of millions of people now have more say in their future than they did, and that’s a fine thing to celebrate this Independence Day.

One element of this is the “VRM” or “vendor relationship management” space, where we let people proxy for ads to us.

As I was listening, I realized, I’m in the market for another nice camera. And rather than doing more research, I would like to sell the right to advertise to me. There’s a huge ($59B?) advertising market. I am ready to buy, and if Fuji had shipped their #$^&%^ X100, I was about ready to buy it. But even before the earthquake, they were behind in production, and I’m ready to buy. So I could go do research, or the advertisers could advertise to me. But before they do, I want a piece of that $59B action.

I don’t want to start a blog. (Sorry, Nick!). I don’t want to sell personal information about me. I want another nice camera. How do I go about accepting ads into this market?

I’m willing, by the way, to share additional information about my criteria, but I figure that those have value to advertisers. Please send in your bids for the answers to specific questions. Please specify if your bids are for exclusive, private, or public answers. (Public answers prevent others from gathering exclusive market intelligence, and are thus a great strategic investment.)

So, dear readers, how do I get a piece of the action? How do I cash in on this micro-market?

If I get a highly actionable answer, I’ll share 25% of the proceeds of the advertising with whomever points me the right way.

The Maine town of Sedgwick took an interesting step that brings a new dynamic to the movement to maintain sovereignty: Town-level nullification. Last Friday, the town passed a proposed ordinance that would empower the local level to grow and sell food amongst themselves without interference from unconstitutional State or Federal regulations. Beyond that, the passed ordinance would make it unlawful for agents of either the State or Federal government to execute laws that interfere with the ordinance.

Under the new ordinance, producers and processors are protected from licensure or inspection in sales that are sold for home consumption between them and a patron, at farmer’s market, or at a roadside stand. The ordinance specifically notes the right of the people to food freedom, as well as citing the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Maine Constitution in defending the rights of the people.

Andy Ellis pointed out on Twitter that Wickard v. Filburn disagrees, but it’s fascinating to watch the frustration with the political system. Think of it as a Tea Party for foodies, with hand-harvested Darjeeling milk.

But after 50 years of meddling in the market, reducing the support for housing is going to be exceptionally complex and chaotic. And the chaos isn’t going to be evenly distributed. It’s going to be a matter of long, complex laws whose outcomes are carefully and secretly influenced. Groups who aren’t photogenic or sympathetic will lose out. (I’m thinking “DINKs” in gentrified urban areas.) Groups who aren’t already well-organized with good lobbyists will lose out. (See previous parenthetical.) Those who believed that the government housing subsidy would go on forever will lose. (“Unmeddling Housing,” January )

Now, the New York Times reports on the administration’s plan, calling it “audacious:”

The Obama administration’s much-anticipated report on redesigning the government’s role in housing finance, published Friday, is not solely a proposal to dissolve the unpopular finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is also a more audacious call for the federal government to cut back its broadly popular, long-running campaign to help Americans own homes. The three ideas that the report outlines for replacing Fannie and Freddie all would raise the cost of mortgage loans and push homeownership beyond the reach of some families. (“Administration Calls for Cutting Aid to Home Buyers,” New York Times)

Audacious would be to put the mortgage interest deductions on the table. This is a move in the right direction, but it’s not going to let people express their real preferences in a market. It will continue to distort the market, reducing people’s flexibility to move, and encouraging them to make their major asset a non-liquid one which is likely to decrease in value as the US population ages.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition prides itself on the willingness of our members to stand up and take action against drug prohibition. Last fall, LEAP member Joe Miller did exactly that. A California police officer for eight years before taking a position as a deputy probation officer in Arizona, Joe signed a letter in support of Proposition 19, California’s marijuana legalization initiative. He was fired for it. Now he needs your help, and so does LEAP.

Former deputy probation officer 
Joe Miller

As a retired police officer of 33 years who myself spoke out against drug prohibition as a private citizen while employed as a police officer, I am extremely disheartened by Joe’s termination and the bigger issue it represents. Firing law enforcement professionals for speaking out against policies they know are wrong is not only an unfair intimidation tactic but also a violation of First Amendment rights. I urge you to support their right to speak out by signing this petition now. Joe is not the first officer to face unfair termination for expressing his personal opinion. Former US border patrol agent Bryan Gonzalez’s case recently made headlines when he was fired after expressing his views on drug legalization to a fellow officer.

LEAP is always there to provide support to those ethical and courageous law enforcers who come forward and say that drug prohibition is a failed policy. Our speakers are law enforcement professionals who are as dedicated as they are distinguished. In the past month, our speakers have made 101 presentations and appeared in such prestigious publications as the Wall Street Journal, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Hartford Courant, the Village Voice and the Miami Herald. We even got President Obama’s attention. Our speakers have become the go-to source for the law enforcement perspective on drug policy reform, and in the past week alone, we have provided expert testimony for drug policy related bills in four states. [You should give LEAP some money to help - Adam]

The ability of law enforcers to criticize the policies they are responsible for upholding serves a vital public interest. It lays the groundwork for much-needed reform, supports harm reduction efforts and provides tangible evidence that these laws simply are not working.

Law enforcement officers have a unique position to comment on the efficacy of our laws. We need them to be able to speak freely as individuals about their experiences. Even if they’re being foolish and telling me to “Just Shut Up and Be a Good Little Socialist,” I support their right to speak their minds, and not be fired for it. (Even if, as in Officer Pomper’s case, I believe he would have been well advised to shut up.)

But civil liberties aren’t just for folks we agree with. I think Joe Miller deserves his job back, and I urge you to sign the petition and consider supporting LEAP.

The advantage, of course, is that it generates pressure on his agency to do better. I hope that he’ll be forced to answer to John Mica, who encouraged airports to do this, and is the chairman of the committee on transportation and infrastructure.

I believe Hosni Mubarak made similar comments about not needing regime change.